Barbarians VS Fighters

[Elder-Basilisk]

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.

The limited amount of time is usually more than enough. I've been playing D&D 3.x pretty much since it came out and I can count the number of combats that went long enough to wear out a barbarian's rage on one hand. IME, multiple opponents favor cleave and great cleave which both favor the barbarian with a two-handed weapon) since dishing out as much damage as possible in one hit is the way to make those feats effective. At least that's true offensively. (I leave combat reflexes+reach weapon out of the comparison since fighters and barbarians do that pretty much equally well--it's not a feat intensive tactic). A stereotypical barbarian has more defensive trouble against multiple opponents since he is unable to withstand as many attacks as a fighter.

 

[Dark Jezter]

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.

You and I must have pretty different campaigns, because since 3e came out, I can probably count all the times a barbarian's rage ended before combat was over on a single hand. IME, most 3e combat encounters are over in 4-7 rounds, although you'll occasionally get one that lasts longer than that.

In any case, I pick the barbarian (at least the 3.5e barbarian, who is much better than his 3.0e predecessor), mainly because after a lot of time spent playing as both the fighter and barbarian classes, I've observed that the barbarian is a much more powerful melee combatant than the fighter.

(Oh, and despite the implications of some of the posts in this thread, nowhere in the rules does it say that a barbarian has to charge into a pack of balors like a suicidal madman. You can use cover, choke-points, and formations just as much as the fighter can. )

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

A perfectly reasonable personal opinion. So I am not suggesting you are wrong, but I would observe your POV seems to have put approximately zero value on skill points.

The typical Barbarian differentiates himself from another Barbarian with his skill choices more than his feats. Vice versa for the Fighter.

 

[Legildur]

We've been playing in two table top campaigns constantly since the release of 3.0. We also upgraded to 3.5 when it was released.

We ALWAYS have a barbarian character in the party - predominantly half-orc, but once or twice it has been a dwarf.

As a very much roll-play oriented group that focuses on hack-and-slash, the barbarian is seen as integral to our melee power. However, we ALWAYS have other sword and board characters (usually paladin and fighter) as we recognise the fragility of barbarians - namely that AC is insufficient to protect him from attacks and that monsters in 3.0, and more so in 3.5, deal lots of damage when they hit or the special attacks can incapacitate him quickly.

Also, the typical Will save achilles heal has seen our barbarians often out of the fight with confusion being the main culprit.

Personally, I favour fighters. But I want a raging half-orc barbarian standing beside me to deal out the pain and draw the crabs and a cleric standing behind him to administer healing

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

But only if you spend a lot of money on it, which you consequently do not spend on increasing your strength or constitution or on improving your weapon, meaning that any benefit you had being a Barbarian (higher Strength and Attack Bonus and more HP then Fighter, at least during Rage) are probably negated.

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.

Interesting, you´re right. I thought that was specifically changed in D&D 3.5 (due to the explicit mention in the PHB that Ranger and Paladins don´t have a caster level before class level 4). What´s the point of this change then, except that they can´t use Scrolls before level 4? (Rethorical Question )

 

[Timeron Malachi]

A perfectly reasonable personal opinion. So I am not suggesting you are wrong, but I would observe your POV seems to have put approximately zero value on skill points.

The typical Barbarian differentiates himself from another Barbarian with his skill choices more than his feats. Vice versa for the Fighter.

I guess I think of the rogue as being the opposite of the fighter, in that sense: Most people have a pretty good idea of what they want out of a fighter, or a barbarian, or a rogue. Fighters are supposed to tank up and deal some decent damage. Barbarians are supposed to deal tremendous amounts of damage without through for their own safety. Rogues are supposed to see traps and disarm them, along with lock picking.

I tend to compare them based on their ability to fight directly...skill points are important, but I've played so many fighters that having no skills is just something I'm used to.

 

[ARandomGod]

A perfectly reasonable personal opinion. So I am not suggesting you are wrong, but I would observe your POV seems to have put approximately zero value on skill points.

The typical Barbarian differentiates himself from another Barbarian with his skill choices more than his feats. Vice versa for the Fighter.

You're right. I did take a zero for the value of skill points there. Which is *a* reasonable assumption in a pure fighter class, but certainly not the only one.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Interesting, you´re right. I thought that was specifically changed in D&D 3.5 (due to the explicit mention in the PHB that Ranger and Paladins don´t have a caster level before class level 4). What´s the point of this change then, except that they can´t use Scrolls before level 4? (Rethorical Question )

There was no functional change in the rules, as far as I'm aware. It was probably to clear up what happens when a 3rd-level Ranger gets his hands on a +1 Caster Level item.

 

[Endur]

Skill Points 4 vs 2 important

One of the reasons why the skill point difference impacts combat effectiveness is that having a greater number of skill points in the class means that the Barbarian player can treat intelligence as more of a dump stat compared to the fighter who may need to put some points into intelligence to get a sufficient number of skill points.

Barbarians also tend to avoid the expertise feat chain, again allowing them to treat intelligence as a dump stat.

Personally, I think the Barbarians are more powerful, especially in a core rules only campaign where there is a limited number of feats available.

 

[ARandomGod]

One of the reasons why the skill point difference impacts combat effectiveness is that having a greater number of skill points in the class means that the Barbarian player can treat intelligence as more of a dump stat compared to the fighter who may need to put some points into intelligence to get a sufficient number of skill points.

Barbarians also tend to avoid the expertise feat chain, again allowing them to treat intelligence as a dump stat.

Personally, I think the Barbarians are more powerful, especially in a core rules only campaign where there is a limited number of feats available.

Interestingly enough, along the skill point route I was thinking just the opposite, that there are likely barbarians who do NOT treat intel as a dump stat because they actually get a respectable amount of skill points in the first place. Whereas a fighter... meh. When you're already not getting (pretty much) any skills, trying to USE them is futile, so just ignore 'em.