Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="frankthedm" data-source="post: 3615617" data-attributes="member: 1164">That is the thing, the fighter are more versatile. The barbarian should be out-damaging the fighter. The barbarian pays with his own life for that extra damage output. The fighter will usually have a lot of different options. Sadly in D&D one usually wins by killing the foe. Sometime a fancy trick can help, but most of the time damage output is what is going to determine who wins. Also a fighter will seem weak if the DM fails to use lots of weak foes. The barbarian should be overkilling his foes more often than not. I have seen many times where mooks tend to have roughly enough HP to be one-shotable by a barbarian’s swing, but not other characters. This makes the fighter suffer since his damage output won't be enough to accomplish much and eventually causes a “why bother?” attitude. Even worse are mooks who are built to take 2 swings from a barb. The fighter is practically guaranteed to spend two rounds hacking through a single foe and has virtually no hope of ever using greatcleave.But what can really make the fighter seem weak is when the DM won't kill PCs. The barbarian trades his AC for damage output. If the DM holds back and tries to avoid killing PCs, the barbarian is now getting extra damage output at no cost since his life is not at greater risk. Where as the fighter is now punished for wearing heavy armor since the extra AC was protecting him from a danger that did not exist, death.</blockquote>

Verification