High Level Fighter Vs. High Level Barbarian

[Endur]

I tend to agree with the statement that the Barbarian is overall better than the fighter.

Part of that is IMAGE. i.e. Conan vs. the Professional Mercenary.

Part is rules based.

What you really need to do, though, is compare the two at each level. Because certain levels are much better for one than the other.

For instance, the 1st level fighter vs. the 1st level Barbarian. Barbarian wins. Extra movement, Rage, +2 hit points, +6 extra skill points vs. 1 feat.

The 20th level fighter has 11 fighter feats and heavy armor profiency versus Mighty Rage 6/day, Indomitable Will, DR 5/-, Trap Sense +6, Improved Uncanny Dodge, +21 extra hit points, and 44 extra skill points. This is closer, but I still think Barbarian wins.

Even if Barbarian is better at 1st and 20th, it doesn't mean the barbarian is best at every level inbetween.

 

[James McMurray]

Did they stand toe-to-toe and trade hits until someone dropped? Was one particular tactic a dominating factor, or were the barb's dice just really hot?

In other words: can you tell us why you got those results?

 

[Dark Jezter]

Did they stand toe-to-toe and trade hits until someone dropped? Was one particular tactic a dominating factor, or were the barb's dice just really hot?

In other words: can you tell us why you got those results?

Yep; it was pretty much just standing toe-to-toe and hitting each other until one guy dropped. The barbarian raged and fought with a greatsword, the fighter fought sword & shield and had all the weapon focus and specialization feats for his bastard sword, etc. I only used content from the core rulebooks; no Complete Warrior or other suppliments.

The fighter did have a higher AC than the barb, but at 20th level, attack bonuses were so high that AC was pretty much irrelevent.

I was a little surprised at the results myself. When I ran this test in 3.0, the fighter won most of the time, but with mighty rage and the 3.5e version of Power Attack, I found that the barbarian really had an edge in melee power. Of course, the fighter was fighting one-handed, so he was kind of at a disadvantage when it came to Power Attacking.

 

[Thanee]

So maybe it was just bad weapon choice by the fighter?

But I also think, that the barbarian is better in this context, altho it should be close enough, that the difference is not much of an issue, anyways.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Trainz]

So maybe it was just bad weapon choice by the fighter?

Oh absolutely. With CW, board and sword, is less than optimal for a fighter. Read my previous posts about the matter.

But I have to concurr with some here. I still think the fighter is the better combatant, but by a much smaller margin than I first thought.

 

[Crothian]

But adding the CW favors the fighter as there are many more options in there for him then the barbarian

 

[two]

worse case

Yep; it was pretty much just standing toe-to-toe and hitting each other until one guy dropped. The barbarian raged and fought with a greatsword, the fighter fought sword & shield and had all the weapon focus and specialization feats for his bastard sword, etc. I only used content from the core rulebooks; no Complete Warrior or other suppliments.

The fighter did have a higher AC than the barb, but at 20th level, attack bonuses were so high that AC was pretty much irrelevent.

I was a little surprised at the results myself. When I ran this test in 3.0, the fighter won most of the time, but with mighty rage and the 3.5e version of Power Attack, I found that the barbarian really had an edge in melee power. Of course, the fighter was fighting one-handed, so he was kind of at a disadvantage when it came to Power Attacking.

That's a little silly; it's the worst case scenario. The ONLY time a barbarian will win is "trade full attacks."

That's because the fighter doesn't get to use any of the cool feat trees he's got over the barbarian to, for example, have a reach weapon (in one hand or two) and trip, disarm, sunder, grapple, or move away and trade ranged attacks, or whatever. All the fighter has is weapon specialization. That's pretty ho-hum.

A barbarian is only scary when doing full attacks. Think about it. Any of the numerous ways to stop "trade full attacks" will benefit greatly the fighter and probably swing the battle to his favor.
\

 

[Crothian]

I don't know. I've seen a springa attacking barbarian and it was pretty darn scaery. One attack, but with a good amount of power attack in it, and it does a bunch of damage. Plus with their increased speed they can move a little better using spring attack.

 

[two]

I don't know. I've seen a springa attacking barbarian and it was pretty darn scaery. One attack, but with a good amount of power attack in it, and it does a bunch of damage. Plus with their increased speed they can move a little better using spring attack.

The fighter pulls out his bow and shoots 5 times.

A fighter20 will have rapid shot at least, specialization in 1 or maybe 2 weapons (reach and another option), a tower shield, a normal shield, etc. etc. Many options. Many options the low-feat barb won't have. That's the fighter's schtick. Take away options, and it's over. (i.e. trade full attacks).

 

[Dark Jezter]

That's a little silly; it's the worst case scenario. The ONLY time a barbarian will win is "trade full attacks."

Not really. I've seen combats where barbarians killed fighters with spring attacks.

Keep in mind that I wasn't testing "who is the most versitile", I was testing "who will win in a down & dirty melee brawl" between a 20th level barbarian and a 20th level fighter from the Dungeon Master's Guide.

That's because the fighter doesn't get to use any of the cool feat trees he's got over the barbarian to, for example, have a reach weapon (in one hand or two)

Reach weapons aren't all that they are cracked up to be. If the fighter attacked with a reach weapon, the barbarian would just be able to step 5 feet forward the next tround and attempt to sunder the fighter's reach weapon, and the fighter couldn't make an AoO because the barbarian is inside the weapon's minimum range.

and trip, disarm, sunder, grapple, or move away and trade ranged attacks, or whatever.

The fighter didn't trip because he didn't have high enough intelligence for the improved trip feat, and neither was he using a tripping weapon.

Both combatants had the improved Sunder feat as I built them, since it only requires 13 strength and the Power Attack feat.

Grappling would benefit the barbarian more than the fighter, due to his rage-enhanced strength.

Ranged attacks were not allowed, because this was a melee combat test.

All the fighter has is weapon specialization. That's pretty ho-hum.

...and improved weapon focus, and improved weapon specialization. Part of the test was to see if these fighter-only feats could compete with the Barbarian's rage.

A barbarian is only scary when doing full attacks. Think about it. Any of the numerous ways to stop "trade full attacks" will benefit greatly the fighter and probably swing the battle to his favor.

The fighter pulls out his bow and shoots 5 times.

A fighter20 will have rapid shot at least, specialization in 1 or maybe 2 weapons (reach and another option), a tower shield, a normal shield, etc. etc. Many options. Many options the low-feat barb won't have. That's the fighter's schtick. Take away options, and it's over. (i.e. trade full attacks).

I didn't throw the test together to decide which of the two was the better ranged combat. I did it as a test of melee combat power.