D&D 5E Why play a low-level Fighter when the Barbarian is so much better?

[Pickles JG]

I find, as both a player and a DM, that a mix of easy, medium, and hard encounters (in common parlance, not rules definition of those terms) is better than a more fixed hard level encounters. It's better for believably of the setting, exploration and interaction, adventure pace, and resource management. I do not find easy encounters that last one or two rounds to be boring, provided they are mixed in with medium and hard encounters as well. Eliminating easy (and medium) encounters would in my opinion just extend how long average battles take to fight, which would shift the focus to combat a lot more since there would be less time for exploration and interaction in any given 4 hour game we play.

I find them boring I agree with [MENTION=6774887]Ashkelon[/MENTION] on this. If you dropped the easy encounters or merged them into the medium encounters I don't see how it would make the game more combat orientated -the average length might go up but the number would go down.

It reminds me of 3.0 where I complained so much to the DM about some dungeon were were crawling through about how tedious it was that he just dumped all the remaining monsters into one room.

Fights to knock over sentries or that otherwise have major implications are somewhat exempt (ones that would be terrible in 4e & best skill challenged there).

Anyway on topic Barbarians do not make such good archers or sword & board fighters, do not get better AC until much higher level, if ever or a some cost to offensive power & do not have a very varied playstyle that you might get from Battle masters or Eldritch knights.

I think they are more tanky but less flexible & probably offensive than fighters.

 

[Evenglare]

See my topic " I don't want to play a cleric/druid I want to play a fighter". Basically I want to play a fighter because I want to play a fighter. If I wanted to play a barbarian then I would play a barbarian. Fighters are not barbarians, if they were they would be called barbarians. Not everyone plays a game for math and numbers.

 

[MerricB]

The barbarian has more HP

True.

better AC out of armour

Although true, I don't think it comes up that much.

the same AC in armour (low level PCs can't afford heavy armour)

This seems wrong to me: Fighters start with Chain Mail + Shield. AC 18. Barbarians can't wear chain-mail. If they're buying armour, Barbarians have the least starting money except for monks - their starting package doesn't even have armour! Hide+shield would give them AC 16 - the same as unarmoured. (Assuming Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14).

At higher levels, fighters will probably keep 1-2 points above the barbarian in armour.

does +2 damage when raging, takes half damage when raging.

A dueling fighter gets the extra damage all the time. The half damage (from weapons only, btw) is really nice, though. It sort of makes up for the poor AC - which is made even worse by Reckless Attack. Of course, the fighter might just go for extra AC instead of damage, or go for that +2 to hit with archery.

At low-mid levels the barbarian moves faster,

Only at low-mid levels? (Yes, it's likely to be all the time!)

hits harder on a crit.

This feature kicks in at 9th level. It adds one extra die of damage. Meanwhile, the "basic" fighter has been gaining 19-20 criticals from 3rd level.

You've now twice said that they apply at the same levels: they don't. Have a look again - the Champion gains improved critical at 3rd level.

At low-mid levels, the fighter has heavy armour but clanks everywhere, gains 1 feat over the barbarian, and, if a battlemaster, four manoeuvres.

Also Second Wind 1/rest and Action Surge 1/rest. Which can be pretty significant.

Meanwhile the barbarian gets advantage on initiative, hits harder when he crits, doesn't die when dropped, can frenzy for a third attack, gets limited spell immunity, and still takes only half damage from weapons. It's only at 11th level when the fighter starts to draw back with a third attack. But the barbarian is still taking half damage and doing more damage per hit. But, per another thread, many campaigns don't get that far.

What am I missing?

Part of the trick is that there isn't one fighter - or even three - there are a lot of them, depending on which fighting style you follow and which martial archetype you select. Being skilled in archery - which is +2 to attack - is a fair way from what the Barbarian does. A human fighter at first level can take the Two-Weapon Fighting style and the Dual Wielder feat and be attacking twice a turn at +5 (1d8+3) with both attacks and a AC of 17 in chainmail - with no Dex bonus to speak of!

Your first level human barbarian is +5 (1d12+5) when raging, and a AC of 14. I'm not sure which feat they'd take.

Cheers!

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Easy and medium difficulty encounters are both so trivially easy that any party with half a brain will completely steamroll them.

The point isn't always for them to pose an immediate survival threat; sometimes they exist to create a tense atmosphere by letting the party know they're never safe. And perhaps making the barbarian question whether he should use rage every single encounter.

Anyway, maybe those encounter are so laughably easy because the party has been trained to nova everything because the DM gives them a long rest every 3 encounters?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The point isn't always for them to pose an immediate survival threat; sometimes they exist to create a tense atmosphere by letting the party know they're never safe. And perhaps making the barbarian question whether he should use rage every single encounter.

I agree. It's also nice (IMO) to be able to use your class features repeatedly before you level up and move on to new ones. That way it feels like you get the feel of your character at each level. I always hate leveling so fast I haven't tried out half of my spells (if a caster) or barely used my class features more than once or twice (as a non-caster).

I'm just not a fan of every battle being designed to test the the skills of the players and characters. I enjoy battles that let me just use those skills.

 

[KarinsDad]

The half damage (from weapons only, btw) is really nice, though. It sort of makes up for the poor AC - which is made even worse by Reckless Attack.

Most monster attacks like claws and bites and such are weapon attacks (i.e. natural weapons). Source: Basic DMG.

As for Reckless Attack, isn't that the attack that a Barbarian does when there is only one foe standing?

 

[Stalker0]

Forget the barb, how about the paladin?


1) He gets the fighting styles
2) Gets the HP, Armor, and Proficiencies
3) Gets the social skills
4) Has much more versatile healing, and likely stronger healing.
5) Can convert his spells into raw damage...or use them for utility.
6) Gains charisma bonus to all saves....and provides it to his buddies.
7) Gains extra attack AND improved divine smite
8) Can just negate some of the nastier conditions a melee character faces.
9) Can take the Vow of Vengeance and doesn't have to worry about the goody goody stuff. Oh and can get advantage on all melee attacks against the big bad for the whole fight.


In term of the archetypal badass fighter that is also the defacto leader of the party archetype (which is to me is the true classic Dnd Fighter)...this new paladin seems to take the cake to me.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Forget the barb, how about the paladin?


1) He gets the fighting styles
2) Gets the HP, Armor, and Proficiencies
3) Gets the social skills
4) Has much more versatile healing, and likely stronger healing.
5) Can convert his spells into raw damage...or use them for utility.
6) Gains charisma bonus to all saves....and provides it to his buddies.
7) Gains extra attack AND improved divine smite
8) Can just negate some of the nastier conditions a melee character faces.
9) Can take the Vow of Vengeance and doesn't have to worry about the goody goody stuff. Oh and can get advantage on all melee attacks against the big bad for the whole fight.


In term of the archetypal badass fighter that is also the defacto leader of the party archetype (which is to me is the true classic Dnd Fighter)...this new paladin seems to take the cake to me.

I think 5e paladins are the best in dnd so far. They still have to follow their "code" as best they can, which might force some interesting decisions, but you get 3 distinct codes to choose from. I personally really like the green knight style.

I think paladin, barbarian and fighter are all very strong. As for barb > fighter at low level, I dont agree, fighters and maneuvers rock, and with a few short rests fighters completely heal themselves - think about that, in wilderness and city adventures, the fighter can literally fight all day long at no drain on hp resources. That's endurance. As for the AC thing, thats very temporary and in no time the fighter's AC greatly outclasses the barb's. I would personally fight barb a bit simple to play, but would likely take the martial adept feat for a bit of spice, along with tavern brawler so I could hammer opponents with occasional awesome headbutts, brutal kicks and throw foes at other foes. Ahhh good times.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Forget the barb, how about the paladin?


1) He gets the fighting styles
2) Gets the HP, Armor, and Proficiencies
3) Gets the social skills
4) Has much more versatile healing, and likely stronger healing.
5) Can convert his spells into raw damage...or use them for utility.
6) Gains charisma bonus to all saves....and provides it to his buddies.
7) Gains extra attack AND improved divine smite
8) Can just negate some of the nastier conditions a melee character faces.
9) Can take the Vow of Vengeance and doesn't have to worry about the goody goody stuff. Oh and can get advantage on all melee attacks against the big bad for the whole fight.


In term of the archetypal badass fighter that is also the defacto leader of the party archetype (which is to me is the true classic Dnd Fighter)...this new paladin seems to take the cake to me.

I think 5e paladins are the best in dnd so far. They still have to follow their "code" as best they can, which might force some interesting decisions, but you get 3 distinct codes to choose from. I personally really like the green knight style.

I think paladin, barbarian and fighter are all very strong. As for barb > fighter at low level, I dont agree, fighters and maneuvers rock, and with a few short rests fighters completely heal themselves - think about that, in wilderness and city adventures, the fighter can literally fight all day long at no drain on hp resources. That's endurance. As for the AC thing, thats very temporary and in no time the fighter's AC greatly outclasses the barb's. I would personally find barb a bit simple to play, but would likely take the martial adept feat for a bit of spice, along with tavern brawler so I could hammer opponents with occasional awesome headbutts, brutal kicks and throw foes at other foes. Ahhh good times.

 

[MerricB]

Most monster attacks like claws and bites and such are weapon attacks

Sorry, I was using weapons for both character weapons and natural weapons as opposed to spells.