Fighter vs. Barbarian

[StreamOfTheSky]

Obviously you haven't seen Kullan Longbeard. Dwarf Barbarian, started with a 20 CON thanks to lucky rolls, never rolls below a 10 for HP each level...He's not optimised, just lucky at the HP rolls.

Barbarian seem more like an intentional theme choice now, instead of a power-builder's choice. To which, I'm fine with.

I haven't seen Kullan, but I have seen Sucky McCrappypants (not his real name, at least I don't think so). He was a Barbarian in a game I was in a few years back that rolled poorly on all his HD rolls. Turns out, without a reroll-generous DM to make sure your high HD actually means something, whether it makes a difference or not is completely arbitrary. Who'da thunk? Anyways...the party sorcerer went into elemental savant and eventually became an elemental, which included a slight con boost. Enough of one to put her over the barbarian for hit points. So she ended up being a better tank than the poor Barb, AND had almost full spellcasting.

 

[Glade Riven]

some characters are blessed, some characters are cursed...

 

[ruemere]

The above is all great for the barbarian, and makes it fun to play. I like the class a lot. But doing two things well isn't versatile. Though it is grat if those two things come into play a lot.

For that you'd need to be a spellcaster. However, the said Barbarian is 13th level now, so he brings a lot more goodies to the table now.
It's just that these two made him shine spectacularly several times already.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[Tovec]

Just my two cents...
(Sorry if it offends anyone, I won't be checking back.)

In 3.5 (using the 3.x books) our barbarians never ceased to outshow and outgun fighters. With the wealth of prestige classes (bear warrior/frenzied berserker/rage mage) that helped the barbarian, the fighter was quickly outstripped in power and damage by nearly any level counted. Fighters could get some nifty feats but that was about it. Also our games had a trend of HATING the tome of battle and feats that resembled them.

Now in Pathfinder the fighter can finally stack up and we are having threads that they are outpacing the good ol' barb. What a reversal. When it comes down to it I rarely, if ever, pick a class based on their damage compared to another class at 20 (or any other level) unless the classes were similar. I hate to break it to you barbarians and fighters while very similar in build are completely different in background. It depends on style of play. If we were all going for stats no one would play anything but a caster in the first place.
Meaning, if you are interested in playing a barbarian, play a barbarian. If you are only worried about doing more damage at X then by all means take the class that gives you more damage. I'm tired of these kinds of threads that re-open old wounds in new ways.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I hate to break it to you barbarians and fighters while very similar in build are completely different in background. It depends on style of play. If we were all going for stats no one would play anything but a caster in the first place.
Meaning, if you are interested in playing a barbarian, play a barbarian. If you are only worried about doing more damage at X then by all means take the class that gives you more damage. I'm tired of these kinds of threads that re-open old wounds in new ways.

I didn't realize I was "opening old wounds" or whatever. You seem a little too worked up over this...

And what does "If you're interested in playing a Barbarian, play a Barbarian" really even mean? I don't play a class to play a class. I play a class to do a certain role well, or have a cool schtick. I'd play a PF Barbarian to make an Intimidate build (or a Bard or other classes that can do more with the skill than normal), I'd play a PF Fighter to deal high damage (apparantly...), etc...

 

[concerro]

Just my two cents...
(Sorry if it offends anyone, I won't be checking back.)

With nonsense like the rest of your post you won't be missed. I won't be checking back either.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I didn't realize I was "opening old wounds" or whatever. You seem a little too worked up over this...

And what does "If you're interested in playing a Barbarian, play a Barbarian" really even mean? I don't play a class to play a class. I play a class to do a certain role well, or have a cool schtick. I'd play a PF Barbarian to make an Intimidate build (or a Bard or other classes that can do more with the skill than normal), I'd play a PF Fighter to deal high damage (apparantly...), etc...

I think that he means that if you want to play Conan, not Lancelot, play a barbarian - don't do it just to fill the damage dealing role, do it because being an intimidating berserker is fun.

If you want to be a tank (tankity tankity tank) then play a fighter because that is what you want to play, ditto for wanting to deal lots of damage - play what you want, not just fill the task.

The Auld Grump

 

[Wiseblood]

Just wanted to start a discussion on how the two compare. Notably, in 3E I was accustomed to Barbarian being the class for doing the most damage, albeit being fragile and reckless (yes, even with the d12). In Pathfinder, it seems that it starts out that way, but around mid levels Fighter overtakes Barb for damage dealing and dwarfs it by 20.

Just compare mirror copies, each with a two-handed weapon (the best possible set up for the Barb; Fighter gets the same static bonuses to damage regardless of the weapon, Barbarian misses out on the extra kick from rage's str boost being multiplied). A level 20 Barb rages and gets +4 to hit and +6 damage. A level 20 Fighter all day every day gets +6 to hit and +8 damage (Greater Weapon Focus, WF, Greater Weapon Specialization, WS, and Weapon Training +4). The Fighter likewise has a better CMB for any maneuver he can use his weapon with.

I don't mind, my current Barb is a Intimidate-focused build that wouldn't be nearly as effective with Fighter, for instance. It's just a little jarring to see Barbs dethroned. I consider the lower AC and higher hp to be a wash mechanically, so Barbs have a few skills and some unique rage powers as the only real advantage now, it seems.

Can a fighter be a barbarian(uncivilised culture)and adopting the Barbarian(class) restrictions for armor and such and still outfight the Barbarian(class)?

Does that make sense to anyone other than me?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Can a fighter be a barbarian(uncivilised culture)and adopting the Barbarian(class) restrictions for armor and such and still outfight the Barbarian(class)?

Does that make sense to anyone other than me?

The only thing adopting the armor restrictions of the Barbarian class does is hurt your AC a little in the end; you'll be wearing mithral breastplate instead of mithral fullplate. If you have the dex for it, Fighter's increases in max dex allowed by the armor would mean you're still at a higher AC than the Barbarian, even when he's out of rage. All the other aspects of the Fighter's superior combat performance (better to hit, damage, some combat maneuvers...) are unaffected.

 

[Kaisoku]

If all you are looking at is damage, attack, and AC, then yeah... the Fighter will be an obvious choice here.

The Barbarian gives access to rage abilities. Things like DR, or immunities, or animalistic traits like scent or night vision. Better skills (amount and selection), as well as things like uncanny dodge and trap sense.
These are things that point the Barbarian towards a specific feel and theme, that is different from the Fighter class.

The Fighter class feels far more clinical in their approach to combat. They learn about weapons and armor and how to best use them. It's not so much "Hulk Smash", but rather practice upon practice with a wide assortment of tools of war, learning exactly how to swing a blade or thrust a spear to be the most effective... or how to move in armor without hindrance, or how to make that blow more crippling.

This is just like how the Paladin feels different from the Ranger... one is clearly bent on aiding others and driving out evil, while the other is about learning how to use the weaknesses of his targets, and the environment around him, to his advantage.

They made the classes around themes, not around numbers. This is why you play a Barbarian vs a Fighter. Not because the numbers are higher.


Note that I'm not arguing that the Barbarian should or shouldn't do more or less damage than the Fighter while raging or not, etc.
I'm only addressing the "play a Barbarian if you want to play a Barbarian" comments.
As it is.. the Barbarian could stand to have a slightly more powerful base rage effect... I'm not sure if it needs more Strength, but perhaps some additional morale bonuses by default (automatic, not from rage powers). Something like a crit range or multiplier increase, or further increases to CMB/CMD (above the benefits of higher strength), etc. These would put the Barbarian in a position to compete against the Fighter's numbers, without having to "beat the numbers".