Barbarians VS Fighters

[Bront]

Also, keep in mind, your tactical thought process takes a hit with a Barbarian once you rage. And if you aren't raging, you're missing out on a cool class power, and at that point, might as well be a fighter.

However, it all comes down to flavor. The barbarian need not be a complete savage, but is definately for a different world than most people. A fighter can be from any of these backgrounds as well (Not all 'Barbarian' warriors are Barbarians), but can be from just about anywhere.

I know that I constantly run out of feats I want to take. Never a problem with a fighter, where instead you need to be aware of what's out there and what you can take. Weapon Specialization and the Greater Weapon feats are cool, but a fighter is not required to take them either, and a fighter with his eye on flexibility can easily skip over those feats and carry a few different weapons for different situations (One reach, one normal of 1-2 different damage types, one ranged, and some spare backup or two) as well as pickup just about any magic weapon and use it.

Is the fighter Bland? perhaps, but don't confuse Bland for weak.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Deleted. We all make mistakes. I make twice as many as other people.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

One way of considering the issue is to consider what else is being played in the group, and what kinds of adventures are being attempted.

I agree.

You need to look at the group dynamic to see which is 'better', sometimes a heavy tank is going to have a better synergy than a fleetfooted heavy hitter. A bland fighter with s&b + archery mastery is nothing to sniff at, and at the mid levels onward it is quite possible to see a fighter with more than 1 mastery developed.

Personally I consider both to be well balanced but I prefer the customized war machine that is the fighter.

 

[Timeron Malachi]

Ultimately, what it comes down to for me is this:

Every barbarian is going to have almost all of the same feats and abilities, because from 1-20th level, everything they get is set.

With a fighter, they are whatever you want them to be: Keen archer, whirlwind of rapiers, traditional tank, over-sized weapon wielder.

I think barbarian can be a fun distraction, or an interesting first few levels, but I much prefer fighters for their customization and flexability.

I just think about the sort of weapon they would use, and the sort of character they would be to use it: Brev'nor, my dwarven fighter, used an oversized Dire Pick...he was an expert sunderer, power attack/cleave type. Sort of your typical dwarven tank.

Feargus, on the other hand, started off as a two-weapon fighter, until I got a sweet crit with his longbow at level 2, and he started taking archery feats afterwards. Then, he became the official point-man and trapspringer, since our rogue had no ranks in search, spot, listen, or disable device.

Either way...fighers the way to go...you can always play the "barbarian type" and still have your classes be fighter.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

with karmic strike and the barbs hp + DR he can be a mad powerhouse of doom

Well, the DR and HP aren´t that impressive, I think...
The DR is so low that it doesn´t matter much at higher levels (which is when you get it), and the HP are just 1 point more (on average) then a fighter, unless you add in raging. The problem with rage is - it doesn´t last infitely, and there are spells that can end your rage...

 

[Scion]

Well, the DR and HP aren´t that impressive, I think...

They allow for more uses with less drawback of karmic strike. Throw in something to grant healing (there are a few items here and there) and you are set.

After all, with the barbs eventual 5/- DR and pile of d12s (along with the pretty hefty bonus from rage) he is sitting pretty nice.

Sure, there are things that can stop his rage or any other tactic, but then there are things which can stop 'any' tactic. ::shrugs:: that doesnt make it any less nice

 

[interwyrm]

Sure, there are things that can stop his rage or any other tactic, but then there are things which can stop 'any' tactic. ::shrugs:: that doesnt make it any less nice

That's kind of the point... when the fighter's tactic #1 is stopped, he has tactic #2 to fall back on. The barbarian does what... cry?

 

[Scion]

That's kind of the point... when the fighter's tactic #1 is stopped, he has tactic #2 to fall back on. The barbarian does what... cry?

The barb still has all of his other things going for him. If he cannot rage he isnt exactly helpless, he just doesnt hit as hard. Which is basically the same thing that happens when you take away any classes primary attack, they fall back to something else that isnt necissarily as effective, same thing happens to the fighter.

 

[Thundering_Dragon]

Well after reading the comments here, I would agree the straight Fighter has his uses. I still doubt he would ever be as useful to a party as a Barbarian, though. Outside of combat, the Fighter is useless, and inside combat he's no better a tank and certainly no better a damage dealer than a Barbarian.

The archery point is well taken, but I think the best archers need tactical skills like Spot, Hide/Move Silently and so forth to really shine, which the Fighter lacks. The problem I have with defensive builds is every intelligent foe that fights a party will target the weak, fragile targets first, not the shining bastion of steel bulging with muscle.

The only way for tanks to reasonably divert the attention of enemy combatants is to deal enough damage to be as much or more of a threat as the supporting artillery and specialty characters behind the tank, and Barbarians are much better at this than Fighters from what I have seen. The superior mobility and higher hitpoints they have also plays a large role in limiting enemy threats.

The Fighter may be better in certain specific scenarios due to specialty feat chains, but can that really outweigh the overall superior contribution a Barbarian will make to a party over the course of a campaign? And in certain situations, the Barbarian is flat out better than a Fighter, noticably against casters or creatures requiring Will saves (like Illithids) to survive against, or anything with Sneak Attack damage.


PS

I will grant two specifications on this debate, though. One being that the higher the point buy or rolls for a character, the better the Barbarian is, and the worse the Fighter becomes. And second, multiclassing is by far the best option available. I always prefer a Fighter/Barbarian to a straight class of either. But the question is, in a campaign where you can be only one, is a Fighter that much better than a Barbarian in combat to justify his uselessness outside of combat? If the Fighter even is better than a Barbarian in combat, as well.

 

[PrinceZane]

I'm a fighter at heart first off...

But I'm arguing both with Eld-Bas and Rid Cohort's both first posts...

Both display good aruments....

Zane's conclusion: It's all about the quest and party size. If you have a large group, you can take the fighter and not be worried with the lack of skills because someone else can pick up the slack and point to you the big 16' giant 10 feet in front of you. If your in a small party, you might want to think about the barb for the skills and be able to help the other party members out. Remember, even though both are good hack and slash tank machines, you still need your others to back you up. If the party is taken out in a surprise round, you might not get that crucial clerical healing or w/e...