Fighter or Barbarian?

[Quasqueton]

Setting is a "standard" D&D campaign. The party already has a cleric, wizard, and rogue. Which would be the better 4th member of the team: a fighter or a barbarian?

Quasqueton

 

[Crothian]

I need a third option!!

Whatever you want to play. I never liked the idea of taking a class that fits any need of the party. Take the class you can create a great concept for.

 

[milotha]

I picked fighter. With so many feats, you can always role play a fighter that is a barbarian.

 

[d4]

either one would work equally well, so i can't choose one over the other.

 

[Dark Jezter]

I picked barbarian. 3.5e barbarians are more powerful melee combatants than 3.5e fighters, although the gap is narrowed somewhat if you use feats from Complete Warrior.

 

[Milkman Dan]

Multiclassed Fighter/Barbarian!

 

[Altalazar]

I voted fighter, because that is just the way to go. Boris all the way!

But a barb kicks ass.

 

[Tessarael]

I picked barbarian. 3.5e barbarians are more powerful melee combatants than 3.5e fighters, although the gap is narrowed somewhat if you use feats from Complete Warrior.

Hmmm. Which feats from Complete Warrior improve Fighter vs. Barbarian?

For a pure combat tank (melee + missile + some tricks), I'd pick Fighter. If you want skills and to be a melee tank, I'd pick Barbarian. A Barbarian/Fighter multiclass is also not bad, but I'd want to eventually get Fighter up to 12th level for the Greater Weapon Specialization.

Just my thoughts ...

 

[Darklone]

Fighter all the way. Barbarians kill the opponents quicker, but tend to use up more resources of the party... for healing.

 

[MonsterMash]

In a dungeon bash/city based setting Fighter, in a wilderness setting Barbarian, but I did pick fighter on the poll.