Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5533838" data-attributes="member: 87792">I've demonstrated the skills. Our Barbarian does better. I've said which feats the fighter gets that the barbarian doesn't.  Other than this the barbarian has everything he does.  OK. Although I'd say that that's a little on the high side. Edit: Looking at the D20 Modern SRD, 2d6 is the damage done by a Colt Python, a Glock 20, or a .45.  I'd expect age of sail guns to be somewhat less effective.  But thanks <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  1: Perform does not have to be singing. Oratory works really well.2: Inspire Courage and Inspire Greatness both last for as long as the bard sings and for five rounds after they stop. One battlecry at the start is normally enough for the fight.  And then demonstrated that you needed to give up three feats to do it - you only had five to start with.  And I'm demonstrating that it's a really bad fit.  Because a fighter doesn't have the skill unless you make him a really weak fighter. He might be what you think a fighter ought to be. But the 3.X design of the fighter screwed up badly and left a lot of ground for the barbarian to take over. Like any sort of burly generalist warrior with a range of skills.  Although when push comes to shove, barbarians are marginally better sailors.  To me tough guy who scares the crud out of people and fights like a demon in 3.X says Barbarian. Fighters either need highly complex tricks, weapon mastery, heavy armour, or ice water in their veins and an absurd amount of stamina to justify not being barbarians.  Who said anything about "animalistic"? You yourself said he fought like a demon - and he certainly took a lot of hits before he went down. Fighting like a demon and bringing an extra level over the training salle is what rage actually does mechanically. (What's scary about 3.X fighters is that they are as unruffled and unflustered as if it was a training salle and can go on like the energiser bunny).  CHAAAARRRGGGEEEEE!!!! All the singing a bard needs to do in battle. And the one war cry will last for five rounds. Although I do agree it is unlikely Blackbeard was a bard.  Where a few = 8 - or twice as long as most fights.  It doesn't by much. But it doesn't have to by much. It just has to do it.  Which is why I said DPR, not damage. Weapon Focus/Specialisation is +1 to hit/+2 to damage. Barbarian Rage gives +4 strength - or +2to hit/+2 to damage. The Barbarian does more DPR not because each hit is harder (it isn't) but because he hits more often.  Further than what? Pirates didn't normally use shields. Or did you mean the 2 points of AC lost to raging?  Which is largely irrelevant - I have no penalties in ranged combat either compared to you so I don't use rage until melee. If we use a shoot-then-melee strategy, the barbarian shoots while not raging and then draws his cutlass and rages. While not raging the barbarian matches the fighter BAB for BAB and feat for feat. Making the difference between them 10hp, DR1, and improved uncanny dodge. Oh, and fast movement. The Barbarian wins (although not by much, granted - but it's a strict win because if you took away those things it would be a perfect mirror-match).   You mean it's exactly like Weapon Focus (Cutlass), Weapon Specialisation (Cutlass), Skill Focus (Profession (Sailor)), Alertness, or Negotiator. The five feats your fighter gets that my barbarian doesn't. I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.  I'd use Knowledge (local) for the local waterways and trade routes and knowledge (geography) for the international ones. But even if we use knowledge (geography), the rogue has many many more skill points to use than the fighter. So he can better afford to cross-class something.  Once more you are wrong. The Barbarian has the same weapon proficiencies you do, the same ranged feats you do, and is better at taking fire - he has more hit points and a point of DR. In short at range the Barbarian modelled on your fighter is strictly better than your fighter. He is exactly equal to the fighter at dishing out damage with guns and has both more hp and DR (and exactly the same AC unless you want to put your fighter into heavy armour?).  That a rogue pirate (or a ranger pirate or a bard pirate) does things differently from a barbarian or fighter pirate.  Giving up the five feats I listed, the only time your fighter does anything better than my barbarian with the same stats is if the barbarian is for some reason not raging. Which either means a lot of fights in the day (something pirates seldom had) or a fight that's gone on for eight rounds after the barbarian started raging.  For a value of quickly that is a lot longer than most fights. The Con 16 Barbarian can rage for eight rounds before he gets tired. 42 seconds plus another 6 to discharge both pistols at someone is a lot of concentrated mayhem and longer than most fights will last.  It's not that the fighters don't suck at some things. It's that as this demonstrates, the barbarian is better than the fighter at being a fighter.  We disagree here.</blockquote>

Verification