Barbarians VS Fighters

[Li Shenron]

Power-wise I really think a barbarian and a fighter aren't noticeably different. They are both very useful in any party, and I could never suggest one over the other for the group's benefit.

But if I have to choose which to play _myself_, I'd be the fighter, even if I had played it before and I have not played a barbarian yet. The fighter is a much more interesting class because it gives you both more combat options (unless you play the damage-focused melee cliche') and you can always make a new fighter which is very different from the ones you have played so far.

A barbarian is usually too much focused on rage and dealing raw melee damage for my tastes, and the class is not customizable enough to make two barbarians very different from each others.

And about non-combat situations... both classes suck. I don't get why the barbarian is so superior, the only thing he has more than the fighter is Survival. And 2 skill points more sure, but where do they usually go? (and does it really get them? fighters are more likely to have decent Int for feats prerequisites, the barbarian usually use Int as a dump stat)

 

[Thanee]

Low-Int barbarians are so clichè.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Felon]

The bottom line is, a fighter with a plan is powerful, and one without a plan makes all other fighters look weak. Oh, and the DM kinda needs to allow feats from outside the PHB.

I do want to say that every time this thread comes up, I am amazed at how many folks scoff about power and go on about how flexible and customizable the fighter is. The people who start these threads aren't talking dressing up barbie dolls, they're talking about raw smackdown ability. Is the barbarian better from that point of view? Flavor, originality, and aesthetics are important elements to some folks, but that's really not what's at the heart of these threads.

 

[ARandomGod]

I agree that the answer to your question is situational. However, I'm going to answer fighter based on the assumption that you want the one who'll be most useful in the most situations. While a potential barbarian will be better in some situations, a potential fighter will be better in a great deal more situations. And actuallized fighter might be a different story. But when you're sitting at level one, the fighter can become a LOT of things, and the barbarians options will lead to a character much more similiar to any other barbarian than the multitude of fighter options will lead the fighter to be (hrmm... seems unclearly worded. Hope you get the idea anyhow.)

Well, assuming no multiclassing is a rather dangerous assumption. The most common multiclass I see around where I live is Barbarian/Fighter.

This I also agree with. No multiclassing? A non-caster class? That's crazy! The only think better than a fighter/barbarian is a fighter/ranger/barbarian.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

This I also agree with. No multiclassing? A non-caster class? That's crazy! The only think better than a fighter/barbarian is a fighter/ranger/barbarian.

I like an ex-monk 2/swashbuckler 3/barbarian 1/fighter x, using the Dragon feat that lets you add Int to monk class features and the Eberron feat that lets you flurry with a sword.

Int (plus Str) to damage, Int (plus Dex) to AC, Int to Stunning Fist, Int for more skill points, Flurry of Blows with a greatsword...

Ranger isn't a terribly useful multiclass for fighters anymore, and questionable for barbarians. Aside from starting with ranger at 1st level to get extra skills, there's nothing you can't get with two more levels of fighter.

 

[ARandomGod]

Ranger isn't a terribly useful multiclass for fighters anymore, and questionable for barbarians. Aside from starting with ranger at 1st level to get extra skills, there's nothing you can't get with two more levels of fighter.

Only partially true. Two levels of fighter isn't going to give you the bonus saves (+3 to reflex is pretty good). And I'm assuming that you've already gotten the basic two levels of fighter out of the way, so two more levels nets you only one feat and at most +3 points in saves, whereas two level of ranger get you that feat (assuming, of course, you want one of those feats. I normally either want it or at least won't sneer at it) and +6 points in saves, as well as favored enemy (occasionally useful) and (very important) the ability to use Cure X wands. Wands of cure light wounds are very very useful for after battles when your access to the party cleric is limited. ... And the heavier cure wounds spells can be occasionally useful too. There are a few other misc spells that it's worth having on a wand. But those are huge. Sometimes I don't know what I'd do without my "happy stick".

But if for some reason you really don't want the two weapon fighting feat or the rapid shot feat, I'd still advize at least one level of ranger for the saves and the access to wands.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Only partially true. Two levels of fighter isn't going to give you the bonus saves (+3 to reflex is pretty good). And I'm assuming that you've already gotten the basic two levels of fighter out of the way, so two more levels nets you only one feat and at most +3 points in saves, whereas two level of ranger get you that feat (assuming, of course, you want one of those feats. I normally either want it or at least won't sneer at it) and +6 points in saves, as well as favored enemy (occasionally useful) and (very important) the ability to use Cure X wands. Wands of cure light wounds are very very useful for after battles when your access to the party cleric is limited. ... And the heavier cure wounds spells can be occasionally useful too. There are a few other misc spells that it's worth having on a wand. But those are huge. Sometimes I don't know what I'd do without my "happy stick".

But if for some reason you really don't want the two weapon fighting feat or the rapid shot feat, I'd still advize at least one level of ranger for the saves and the access to wands.

But you need 4 or 5 levels of Rangers before you can actually use the Wands (in 3.5, you gain no caster level before you gain spells).
And the Ranger reduces your hps per level again, and still does nothing to improve your armor class (on contrary, you definitely limit yourself to light armor now, unless you don´t care for the combat style)
A Barbarian/Fighter is probably still the best multiclassing choice (for both classes) - you can´t use Fast Movement, but raging in heavy armor is very useful. The biggest problem for a Barbarian is that he takes too much damage per round. Without a Cleric, a Barbarian is unconcious faster then you´d think. With a Cleric, you force him to waste most of his spells (and possibly enjoyment) on healing you, instead of engaging the enemy. (And the Barbarian will probably be the primary target of all enemies, since he deals a lot of damage but is easy hittable...)

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But you need 4 or 5 levels of Rangers before you can actually use the Wands (in 3.5, you gain no caster level before you gain spells).

A 1st-level Paladin or Ranger can use wands of the appropriate spells. All that is required to use a wand (or any spell trigger item, in fact) is that the spell is on your class spell list.

Your ability to actually cast is immaterial.

 

[ARandomGod]

A 1st-level Paladin or Ranger can use wands of the appropriate spells. All that is required to use a wand (or any spell trigger item, in fact) is that the spell is on your class spell list.

Your ability to actually cast is immaterial.

Yup. And mithril medium armor counts as light armor.

Edit: Plus, at higher levels, you can get better AC with light or no armor than you can in armor.

 

[Mark Chance]

1. Barbarians deal out a lot of damage, but they also take a lot of damage. A typical barbarian IME takes at least twice as much healing as a more defensively oriented character.

And note, please: That's deals "out a lot of damage" for a limited period of time. Then, Str and Dex drop, and he loses the ability to run and charge. In an extended brawl, especially against multiple opponents, a barbarian lags behind. Pound for pound, all things being equal, the fighter consistently outperforms the barbarian in combat.