Valiantheart
First Post
nute said:
The Duke of Damage? Is that anything like the Duck of Death?
Duck I says.
D&D 3E/3.5 Why be a Fighter? (3.5)
- Thread starter DarkJester
- Start date
The Duke of Damage? Is that anything like the Duck of Death?
Duck I says.
buzzard
First Post
Re: Um, there are things you can do....
I have a 9th level fighter in LG. I have contemplated a prestige class, but have not yet convinced myself to take one. I have fighter levels planned to at least 12th or so. Now I certainly admit LG is full of twinked out people, but I would have to say that by playing in an intelligent fashion I always contribute and do not consider myself overshadowed even when surrounded by the twinks.
buzzard
atra2 said:
I have a 9th level fighter in LG. I have contemplated a prestige class, but have not yet convinced myself to take one. I have fighter levels planned to at least 12th or so. Now I certainly admit LG is full of twinked out people, but I would have to say that by playing in an intelligent fashion I always contribute and do not consider myself overshadowed even when surrounded by the twinks.
buzzard
Last edited:
Okay, tried politeness and got ignored, so, in true ENWorld fashion, I am attempting to tick people off.
If your party contains a single-classed fighter and a single-classed barbarian, and the barbarian is outshining the fighter in all or almost all combats, then I see several possibilities:
1) The fighter's player is an idiot who chose his feats poorly, such that they either pigeonhole him or don't complement each other. If you choose Weapon Focus in one weapon, Improved Critical in another, and Exotic Proficiency in a third, then don't complain when you're outclassed by the guy who spent all his feats on the same weapon. And if you spend all your feats on one weapon, don't complain when that weapon gets sundered, disarmed and kicked into a bottomless chasm, or rendered useless by a foe's specific DR. It is rarely worthwhile for a character to have Two-Weapon Fighting AND Spring Attack, since one feat relies on full-round attacks and the other feat forces single attacks only.
2) The fighter's player is an idiot who does not utilize his feats properly through solid tactics (ie, not using Power Attack often enough on single-attack rounds, getting into full-round attack contests when he has Spring Attacks). Mobility can be a hugely great feat, causing bad guys without Combat Reflexes to blow their AoOs on attacks that are far more likely to miss, but if all you see it as is a prelude to Spring Attack, then you've just wasted a feat slot. Two-weapon fighting works really well in certain circumstances, but should be replaced by big-weapon use and sword & board use in many cases.
3) The party's DM is an idiot who makes every encounter tactically similar, such that the party always ends up standing toe-to-toe with the bad guys unloading full-round melee attacks -- in which case the barbarian always wins. A good DM makes encounters that are best won using battlefield mobility, ranged weapons, and special maneuvers (such as sundering, disarming, and tripping), and also includes a range of enemies in all important fights (squibs, tanks, mobile attackers, ranged attackers, magic-users).
4) The barbarian's player is a genius who has mastered the art of mobility and is able to turn every fight into a toe-to-toe smackdown, regardless of the DM's intent -- or the barbarian's player has spent his feats well (getting enough ranged fu to shine at distances as well as up close, using Spring Attack and Power Attack together with glorious results, etc.).
5) The barbarian's player rolled a lot better than the fighter's player -- which is why I lean towards point buy. No idiocy there, but I hope to see rolling for attributes gradually phased out.
If the issue is not so much "doesn't do as well" as it is "doesn't look as cool", then as I said, it's a flavor issue. Getting missed because you were fighting with Expertise and then hitting with three of five attacks when you were Power Attacking IS pretty cool, but only if you and your DM describe it well.
If your party contains a single-classed fighter and a single-classed barbarian, and the barbarian is outshining the fighter in all or almost all combats, then I see several possibilities:
1) The fighter's player is an idiot who chose his feats poorly, such that they either pigeonhole him or don't complement each other. If you choose Weapon Focus in one weapon, Improved Critical in another, and Exotic Proficiency in a third, then don't complain when you're outclassed by the guy who spent all his feats on the same weapon. And if you spend all your feats on one weapon, don't complain when that weapon gets sundered, disarmed and kicked into a bottomless chasm, or rendered useless by a foe's specific DR. It is rarely worthwhile for a character to have Two-Weapon Fighting AND Spring Attack, since one feat relies on full-round attacks and the other feat forces single attacks only.
2) The fighter's player is an idiot who does not utilize his feats properly through solid tactics (ie, not using Power Attack often enough on single-attack rounds, getting into full-round attack contests when he has Spring Attacks). Mobility can be a hugely great feat, causing bad guys without Combat Reflexes to blow their AoOs on attacks that are far more likely to miss, but if all you see it as is a prelude to Spring Attack, then you've just wasted a feat slot. Two-weapon fighting works really well in certain circumstances, but should be replaced by big-weapon use and sword & board use in many cases.
3) The party's DM is an idiot who makes every encounter tactically similar, such that the party always ends up standing toe-to-toe with the bad guys unloading full-round melee attacks -- in which case the barbarian always wins. A good DM makes encounters that are best won using battlefield mobility, ranged weapons, and special maneuvers (such as sundering, disarming, and tripping), and also includes a range of enemies in all important fights (squibs, tanks, mobile attackers, ranged attackers, magic-users).
4) The barbarian's player is a genius who has mastered the art of mobility and is able to turn every fight into a toe-to-toe smackdown, regardless of the DM's intent -- or the barbarian's player has spent his feats well (getting enough ranged fu to shine at distances as well as up close, using Spring Attack and Power Attack together with glorious results, etc.).
5) The barbarian's player rolled a lot better than the fighter's player -- which is why I lean towards point buy. No idiocy there, but I hope to see rolling for attributes gradually phased out.
If the issue is not so much "doesn't do as well" as it is "doesn't look as cool", then as I said, it's a flavor issue. Getting missed because you were fighting with Expertise and then hitting with three of five attacks when you were Power Attacking IS pretty cool, but only if you and your DM describe it well.
Thus the problem. The fighter could spend money on potions, but that's 300-1,000 gp per potion. If you want to use them regularly, be prepared to dish out massive amounts of gold. A wizard gets the massive tactical benefits at the cost of a temporary strategic disadvantage, which is instantly replenishable tomorrow morning.
Is S&F legit in 3.5? I forget. I just assumed that S&F was 3.0 only, and The Complete Warrior was S&F 3.5.
In any case, yeah, CQC will at least give the fighter a decent chance, but if he fails one check, he's still a goner.
How many antimagic zones have you encounter? For me (and everyone I know) it's 0. I've never even heard of an instance involving antimagic zones on other forums.
As to the Barb vs. Fighter debate, the barbarian has some uses outside of combat, mainly wilderness stuff. The fighter does nothing outside of combat.
Barbarians are also much faster than Fighters, which means they can outrun monsters that Fighters can't.
KnowTheToe
First Post
Hejdun said:
Fighter is usually using heavy armor and his speed is reduced anyway. Retreating in heavy armor = tasty treat for monster.
Valiantheart
First Post
takyris said:
Well if you want to just throw politeness to the wind im the guy to argue with. I spent a lot of time arguing on the WOTC boards with people much less considerate than you sir!
Maybe....just maybe other people have had different experiences with fighters vs. barbarian effectiveness than you. Maybe the fighter's player, the DM, and the barbarian's player are none of those things you described.
It is entirely possible that your opinion might actually differ from others without them being idiots who dont see the oh so obvious greatness of lots of mediocre feats.
KnowTheToe
First Post
Valiantheart said:
Nope, I am sure they are idiots. I have yet to meet someone who is not, the questions is to what degree. I have a higher degree of idiocy than many people here, but lower than some.
Barbarian/Fighter
This thread is the first that I've seen that actually points out (one) of the disadvantages of the Barbarian's Rage. Most seem to overlook them. Let's not forget, also, that when a Barbarian choses to Rage, they get a bonus for a few rounds (hopefully long enough to kill their enemies), but also that, if it goes on longer, they get PENALTIES for fatigue (or whatever it's called), too!
This is a severe drawback.
Let me repeat that: This is a severe drawback!
Now the fights between the Barbarians and ighters... Yes, if the Fighters are alone, the Barbarians can probably sneak up close enough to charge into combat without suffering missile fire (where the Fighter's archery Feats might hold sway). Due to their higher speed, the Fighters will be unable to disengage from the Barbarians. This is as the Barbarians like it.
If the Fighter Improved Disarms or Improved Sunders the Barbarian, though, things will be different. If they can hold the Barbarians for long enough for Rage to wear off (Combat Expertise, for instance), then the fight shifts to the Fighters favor... And, of course, if the Fighter is with a party containing a Druid, Ranger, or Rogue, then they will probably be forewarned of the Barbarian attack, and be able to use missile fire, again.
Does Rage work with a bow?
Does a set weapon work against charge?
Are Fighters really the weak sister?
This thread is the first that I've seen that actually points out (one) of the disadvantages of the Barbarian's Rage. Most seem to overlook them. Let's not forget, also, that when a Barbarian choses to Rage, they get a bonus for a few rounds (hopefully long enough to kill their enemies), but also that, if it goes on longer, they get PENALTIES for fatigue (or whatever it's called), too!
This is a severe drawback.
Let me repeat that: This is a severe drawback!
Now the fights between the Barbarians and ighters... Yes, if the Fighters are alone, the Barbarians can probably sneak up close enough to charge into combat without suffering missile fire (where the Fighter's archery Feats might hold sway). Due to their higher speed, the Fighters will be unable to disengage from the Barbarians. This is as the Barbarians like it.
If the Fighter Improved Disarms or Improved Sunders the Barbarian, though, things will be different. If they can hold the Barbarians for long enough for Rage to wear off (Combat Expertise, for instance), then the fight shifts to the Fighters favor... And, of course, if the Fighter is with a party containing a Druid, Ranger, or Rogue, then they will probably be forewarned of the Barbarian attack, and be able to use missile fire, again.
Does Rage work with a bow?
Does a set weapon work against charge?
Are Fighters really the weak sister?
Last edited:
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
I'd be curious to see how these were set up and what equipment and tactics the barbarian and the fighter used.
For instance, I'd take a fighter with spring attack, power attack, expertise, combat reflexes, weapon specialization and a glaive over a barbarian any day. That combination is just set up for one on one confrontations. (It's not bad at crowd control either).
Also, starting at mid levels, the warrior with the sunder feat has a large advantage unless the opponent is using a metal-hafted weapon. Disarm is less advantageous since the opponent can pick the weapon up afterward but still might be a good tactic.
On the other hand, take a mounted combat specialized fighter and place him against the barbarian on foot and he should expect to lose.
For reference however:
Ftr 5: Str 16, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 13:
HP: 44; AC 25 (+2 fullplate, +1 tower shield); Atk +8 (1d8+5 +1 warhammer); BAB +5; Grapple +8
Feats: Weapon Focus: warhammer, weapon specialization: warhammer, expertise, power attack, cleave, sunder.
Bbn 5: Str 17, Dex 14, Con 14, int 10
HP: 50 (60 raging); AC 19 (+1 chain shirt, +1 ring protection, +1 amulet natural armor); Atk +9 (2d6+5 +1 greatsword) or +11 (2d6+8 +1 greatsword while raging)
Feats: Weapon Focus: Greatsword, Power Attack, Cleave
The barbarian rages on round 1
Now, let's speculate that the fighter uses expertise to push his AC to 30 while dropping his attack bonus to +3
The fighter still hits the barbarian on a roll of 14 ; the barbarian needs a 19 to hit the fighter.
The fighter deals an average of 10.5 damage per blow and hits 35% of the time for 3.675 damage per round. He has a 5% chance of threatening a crit and a .0175% chance of a critical which would deal an additional 21 points of damage; with that added in, he'll deal an average of 4.04 points of damage per round.
The barbarian, on the other hand, deals an average of 15 points of damage per blow and hits 10% of the time for an average of 1.5 points of damage per round. He has a 10% chance of threatening a crit and a .01% chance of actually scoring a crit which would deal an additional 15 points of damage; with that added in, he'll deal an average of 1.65 points of damage per round.
After 7 rounds, the barbarian's rage will expire. The fighter will have 32 hp left. The barbarian will have 21 hp left. This round, the barbarian's AC will go back up to 18 but his attack will drop to +8 for 2d6+4 damage. The fighter can afford to bring his expertise down to 3 points leaving his AC at 28 and his attack bonus at +5. I don't think there's any doubt how the rest of the battle would go.
Now, technically the point value of the two characters' statistics is equivalent but it's more than likely that the barbarian would have more of a strength advantage than that shows--perhaps by taking half-orc as a race or perhaps by simply dumping int and/or charisma.
If the barbarian is given an 18 or 19 strength, his raging attack will be at +12 for 2d6+10 or 17 points of damage. In that case, he'll deal 2.55 damage/round--2.805/round with crits included. In this case the fighter will only have 22 hit points left when the barbarian's rage expires but after that, it's still lights out for the barbarian.
If the barbarian is of the "darn the torpedoes" sort, he might have a +1 flaming greatsword and +1 chain shirt for AC 17 and an attack of +12 for an average of 20.5 points of damage per hit. This scenario will undoubtedly be quicker and bloodier.
The fighter deals 5.25 damage/round--5.775/round after crits. The barbarian deals 3.075/round--3.33/round after crits.
By the end of the barbarian's rage, the barbarian will have 9 hp left and the fighter will have 20-21 hp. Turning up the offense while negelecting the barbarian's defense turns out to make the battle quicker, bloodier, and more decisive. . . for the fighter.
Now, every barbarian and every fighter will be different so this comparison doesn't conclusively prove that fighters will always beat barbarians in battle. (Also the granularity of hit points and criticals denies the average analysis used here--two criticals on either side could easily end the battle). Expertise was also clearly the key to the fighter's victory in the battle. However, I think this shows a fairly reasonable defensively focussed fighter against a fairly typical offensively focussed (is there any other kind?) barbarian. The fighters' decisive victories seem to demonstrate that there's a place for fighters among the Ducks of Death. (If that isn't an unforgivable movie reference).
EDIT: I realized that I'd miscalculated the fighter's armor class (I didn't count the dodge feat). So for a really defensively oriented fighter (and a more decisive victory on his part) trade Sunder for Dodge. Note that both characters are around the recommended wealth level for 5th level characters (approx 9kgp).
For instance, I'd take a fighter with spring attack, power attack, expertise, combat reflexes, weapon specialization and a glaive over a barbarian any day. That combination is just set up for one on one confrontations. (It's not bad at crowd control either).
Also, starting at mid levels, the warrior with the sunder feat has a large advantage unless the opponent is using a metal-hafted weapon. Disarm is less advantageous since the opponent can pick the weapon up afterward but still might be a good tactic.
On the other hand, take a mounted combat specialized fighter and place him against the barbarian on foot and he should expect to lose.
For reference however:
Ftr 5: Str 16, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 13:
HP: 44; AC 25 (+2 fullplate, +1 tower shield); Atk +8 (1d8+5 +1 warhammer); BAB +5; Grapple +8
Feats: Weapon Focus: warhammer, weapon specialization: warhammer, expertise, power attack, cleave, sunder.
Bbn 5: Str 17, Dex 14, Con 14, int 10
HP: 50 (60 raging); AC 19 (+1 chain shirt, +1 ring protection, +1 amulet natural armor); Atk +9 (2d6+5 +1 greatsword) or +11 (2d6+8 +1 greatsword while raging)
Feats: Weapon Focus: Greatsword, Power Attack, Cleave
The barbarian rages on round 1
Now, let's speculate that the fighter uses expertise to push his AC to 30 while dropping his attack bonus to +3
The fighter still hits the barbarian on a roll of 14 ; the barbarian needs a 19 to hit the fighter.
The fighter deals an average of 10.5 damage per blow and hits 35% of the time for 3.675 damage per round. He has a 5% chance of threatening a crit and a .0175% chance of a critical which would deal an additional 21 points of damage; with that added in, he'll deal an average of 4.04 points of damage per round.
The barbarian, on the other hand, deals an average of 15 points of damage per blow and hits 10% of the time for an average of 1.5 points of damage per round. He has a 10% chance of threatening a crit and a .01% chance of actually scoring a crit which would deal an additional 15 points of damage; with that added in, he'll deal an average of 1.65 points of damage per round.
After 7 rounds, the barbarian's rage will expire. The fighter will have 32 hp left. The barbarian will have 21 hp left. This round, the barbarian's AC will go back up to 18 but his attack will drop to +8 for 2d6+4 damage. The fighter can afford to bring his expertise down to 3 points leaving his AC at 28 and his attack bonus at +5. I don't think there's any doubt how the rest of the battle would go.
Now, technically the point value of the two characters' statistics is equivalent but it's more than likely that the barbarian would have more of a strength advantage than that shows--perhaps by taking half-orc as a race or perhaps by simply dumping int and/or charisma.
If the barbarian is given an 18 or 19 strength, his raging attack will be at +12 for 2d6+10 or 17 points of damage. In that case, he'll deal 2.55 damage/round--2.805/round with crits included. In this case the fighter will only have 22 hit points left when the barbarian's rage expires but after that, it's still lights out for the barbarian.
If the barbarian is of the "darn the torpedoes" sort, he might have a +1 flaming greatsword and +1 chain shirt for AC 17 and an attack of +12 for an average of 20.5 points of damage per hit. This scenario will undoubtedly be quicker and bloodier.
The fighter deals 5.25 damage/round--5.775/round after crits. The barbarian deals 3.075/round--3.33/round after crits.
By the end of the barbarian's rage, the barbarian will have 9 hp left and the fighter will have 20-21 hp. Turning up the offense while negelecting the barbarian's defense turns out to make the battle quicker, bloodier, and more decisive. . . for the fighter.
Now, every barbarian and every fighter will be different so this comparison doesn't conclusively prove that fighters will always beat barbarians in battle. (Also the granularity of hit points and criticals denies the average analysis used here--two criticals on either side could easily end the battle). Expertise was also clearly the key to the fighter's victory in the battle. However, I think this shows a fairly reasonable defensively focussed fighter against a fairly typical offensively focussed (is there any other kind?) barbarian. The fighters' decisive victories seem to demonstrate that there's a place for fighters among the Ducks of Death. (If that isn't an unforgivable movie reference).
EDIT: I realized that I'd miscalculated the fighter's armor class (I didn't count the dodge feat). So for a really defensively oriented fighter (and a more decisive victory on his part) trade Sunder for Dodge. Note that both characters are around the recommended wealth level for 5th level characters (approx 9kgp).
KnowTheToe said:
Last edited:
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
My previous post notwithstanding, I would like to propose a reason why barbarians often seem to outshine fighters in game play:
They're shinier. Not better in combat but often better at dealing out damage quickly (especially multiclass barbarian/templars etc). And what tends to make characters shine in combat is killing the bad guys. So in a party with the defensive fighter and the barbarian I detailed above, the barbarian will usually account for a lot more dead bad guys than the fighter. He'll account for a lot more of the cleric's healing capacity too but that doesn't generally dull his shine.
Also, there are a lot of creatures that are relatively weak in melee but have lots of special abilities. If they survive long enough to get going, they're very tough but if they only last a couple rounds, they can seem easy. (Mind flayers, 3.0e Ossyluths, and wizards fall into this category). The barbarian is a lot better at keeping them from getting going than the fighter. So, if the campaign features many more battles against critters like Ossyluths than against trolls (who will shred the barbarians listed above but whom the fighter listed above will handily defeat or at least hold off for dozens of rounds) the barbarian will seem more effective because the battles are tailored more to offense (his strength) than to defense (the fighter's strength).
Plus it's shinier to kill a troll in 3 rounds and be at 2 hp (-8 when the rage winds down) than to hold off a troll for 20 rounds, slowly whittling down his hit points.
That's why barbarians often seem to outshine fighters.
They're shinier. Not better in combat but often better at dealing out damage quickly (especially multiclass barbarian/templars etc). And what tends to make characters shine in combat is killing the bad guys. So in a party with the defensive fighter and the barbarian I detailed above, the barbarian will usually account for a lot more dead bad guys than the fighter. He'll account for a lot more of the cleric's healing capacity too but that doesn't generally dull his shine.
Also, there are a lot of creatures that are relatively weak in melee but have lots of special abilities. If they survive long enough to get going, they're very tough but if they only last a couple rounds, they can seem easy. (Mind flayers, 3.0e Ossyluths, and wizards fall into this category). The barbarian is a lot better at keeping them from getting going than the fighter. So, if the campaign features many more battles against critters like Ossyluths than against trolls (who will shred the barbarians listed above but whom the fighter listed above will handily defeat or at least hold off for dozens of rounds) the barbarian will seem more effective because the battles are tailored more to offense (his strength) than to defense (the fighter's strength).
Plus it's shinier to kill a troll in 3 rounds and be at 2 hp (-8 when the rage winds down) than to hold off a troll for 20 rounds, slowly whittling down his hit points.
That's why barbarians often seem to outshine fighters.
Similar Threads
D&D 3E/3.5
Homebrew Content
