Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sloth 09-16-07, 06:58 PM	whats the difference between the two? Which is better?
Wight_Chocolate 09-16-07, 07:24 PM	What's the difference? It'd probably be quicker to describe what's similar. They both get a fully developed base attack bonus. That's about it. While they're both frontline combatants, the classes are really too dissimilar to be compared effectively. The barbarian is something of a one-trick pony; use a big weapon, rage and then kill everything as quickly as possible before you get winded. The fighter, on the other hand, is more or less a blank slate; you're given lots and lots of bonus feats and it's left up to you to decide what to do with them. Seriously, read the rules for the classes; the differences between them should be more than apparent. As for which is better, that's one grenade I'm not going to remove the pin from. I'd just say "pick whichever you prefer" and leave it at that.
happy_fuzzy 09-16-07, 07:24 PM	fighters can specialize or broaden their fighting style (either doing several feat trees or focusing on 1 or 2 along with some improvement feats (e.G. improved toughness). Barbarians can probably get a higher damage output and have some utlity (trapfinding, improved uncanny dodge) but are more severly limited in feat choice. Normally I would say a proper fighter is better but barb/frenzy berserker is gg ^_^
TheGreatSanguini 09-16-07, 09:10 PM	Fighters have the ability to fit any role that doesn't require spellcasting. They can easily be support, front line, damage dealing, blocking, ranged, melee, sneaky, bold... Of all of the classes, fighter is the second most adaptable (or arguable the most). Fighters also have the ability to qualify for many prestige classes easier, by picking up the required feats and reaching the BAB at an earlier stage. TYPICAL fighters have a higher damage output than barbarians, over time. This is including the barbarian's rage. This is because of the special "fighter only" feats like weapon specialization. TYPICAL fighters also have a much higher AC than barbarians. This is because fighters have access to heavy armors, without the loss of class abilities. However, on the other end of the spectrum: Barbarians have the ability to perform in ways that other characters would find impossible (or downright dangerous). They have more skills and skill points than fighters, making them much better at certain things. There are those who think that barbarians are only greataxe-flailing huscarls, but barbarians can specialize (and excel) in many different combat styles. Grappling, anyone? Barbarians have more HP than fighters, and Damage Reduction at higher levels. This makes them more robust against attackers that would bypass the higher AC of fighters. Barbarians move faster than fighters (especially the heavily armored ones), allowing them to quickly and efficiently close the gap with dangerous enemies, and chase down ones that you can't afford to lose. Barbarians can rage, which brings them pretty-much up to the same outright combat efficiency of the fighter for a period of time. Additionally, it's just fun to be able to have your anger DO something in game :P Barbarians have many special class features, such as Uncanny Dodge, that just makes life SO MUCH EASIER. In conclusion, When matching fighters vs. barbarians on the playing field of raw combat efficiency, the fighter will always win by the numbers. However, as any experienced D&D player will tell you, the numbers aren't how the games actually occur. Barbarians have many different quirks that can make certain combat situations favour them over fighters. Fighters can fill many different roles and be roleplayed in infinate ways. Barbarians can be unique and colourful characters in their own rights too. But, regardless of all of the above, Wizards can have funny hats, and therefore we're the best choice of three. -Sanguini
We_all_follow 09-19-07, 11:54 AM	Fighters better. JUst look at history
queenfange 09-19-07, 12:51 PM	I'd say barbarians are better- more skill points, more skills, higher hitdice, uncanny dodge, and rage (which owns). Their comparative disadvantages (no heavy armor if you want your abilities to work, no bonus feats, and illiteracy) make them roughly equal, slightly better in my opinion. The extra 2 hp/level may not make a difference every day, but may save your party's tails at least every once in a while. Rage is pretty awesome, and heavy armor slows you down too much anyway for my tastes. If you like crazy optimized feat combinations and don't care about skills, go for a fighter. If you want to go crazy and beat the crap out of stuff, as well as be able to climb and jump and do other skills pretty damn well, get a barbarian.
Puggins 09-19-07, 01:48 PM	Fighters have the ability to fit any role that doesn't require spellcasting. They can easily be support, front line, damage dealing, blocking, ranged, melee, sneaky, bold... Of all of the classes, fighter is the second most adaptable (or arguable the most). Fighters also have the ability to qualify for many prestige classes easier, by picking up the required feats and reaching the BAB at an earlier stage. This is only partly true. Yes, fighters have an easier time with feat prerequisites. But fighters generally have an awful time with skill prerequisites because they only get two skill points per level and their class skill list is horrendous. TYPICAL fighters have a higher damage output than barbarians, over time. This is including the barbarian's rage. This is because of the special "fighter only" feats like weapon specialization. This is very wrong. Before 4th level, fighters have a hard (impossible, really) time matching the damage output of the barbarian during his rage, and have few options to increase their damage outside his rage. Weapon Focus/Power Attack comes to mind, and Cleave. Then again, the Barbarian probably had cleave too. At 4th level, the fighter gets weapon specialization... and the barbarian gets another rage. Now the fighter hits at +2 damage always, but the barbarian can hit for +3 damage at +2 to hit (two handed weapon assumed), +5 damage at +1 to hit, or +7 damage at a standard to-hit during his rage, which will usually last an entire combat (7 rounds, the typical minimum for a barbarian rage, will usually cover an entire battle). At 8th level, the fighter might get improved weapon focus... and the barbarian gets yet another rage. At this point the barbarian might be able to rage during every fight of the day, and will almost certainly be able to rage during every MAJOR fight in a day. It only gets worse from there, as the barbarian gets more rages and greater rage. TYPICAL fighters also have a much higher AC than barbarians. This is because fighters have access to heavy armors, without the loss of class abilities. While I sympathize and wish this were the case, it simply isn't. The barbarian can pick up mithril full plate and equal the fighter. And oh yeah- at some point not only will his armor be mithril, he'll also have that DR that adamantine plate gives you too. Of course, most Barbs stick with Mithril Breastplates to maintain mobility, but that's niether here nor there. I will agree that the fighter tends to have slightly high AC, but that's because the barbarian loses AC during his rage, unless he's using the whirling frenzy variant, in which case his AC will very often be GREATER than the fighter's during rage.
Bob Loblaw 09-19-07, 03:38 PM	whats the difference between the two? Which is better? What do you want out of the character? Neither one is better than the other overall. One will be better once you start to figure out what you want out of the class. The biggest differences between the two is that the barbarian's class abilities are set from the beginning. The fighter has the option of building to whatever concept he desires. The barbarian also has 1 more hit point, 2 more skill points, and a few extra class skills. The fighter has the option of taking more feats to improve his strengths or fix (or at least lessen) his weaknesses. Personally, I prefer fighter over barbarian because I like to make my character work my way. The barbarian doesn't have that option. However, when I want pure damage, the barbarian has some nice options available to really do well.
Drag0nUL 09-19-07, 05:10 PM	IMHO, barbarians and fighters excel at 2 different things: Barbarians are best at dealing damage. Even with the weapon specialization feat tree, it is hard for a fighter to match the barbarian's damage output. Fighters excel at combat tricks: trip, disarm, sunder etc. A barbarian can do that too, but due to much more fats, a fighter can pick many more of these options at once. I rarely play any non-spellcasting class, but when I do I rather go for a Barbarian 1/Fighter 4/whatever classes I feel like for the rest.
TheGreatSanguini 09-19-07, 05:19 PM	Fighters better. JUst look at history Historty has nothing to do with D&D. Never has, and never will. You've opened a whole new can of worms. Purple worms... This is only partly true. Yes, fighters have an easier time with feat prerequisites. But fighters generally have an awful time with skill prerequisites because they only get two skill points per level and their class skill list is horrendous. And that's why I said most. :P Even as far as skills are concerned, there are very, very few PrCs that require more than two different skills anyways. It's just a matter of choosing which PrC you want to open up into at an earlier stage. This is very wrong. Before 4th level, fighters have a hard (impossible, really) time matching the damage output of the barbarian during his rage, and have few options to increase their damage outside his rage. Weapon Focus/Power Attack comes to mind, and Cleave. Then again, the Barbarian probably had cleave too. At 4th level, the fighter gets weapon specialization... and the barbarian gets another rage. Now the fighter hits at +2 damage always, but the barbarian can hit for +3 damage at +2 to hit (two handed weapon assumed), +5 damage at +1 to hit, or +7 damage at a standard to-hit during his rage, which will usually last an entire combat (7 rounds, the typical minimum for a barbarian rage, will usually cover an entire battle). At 8th level, the fighter might get improved weapon focus... and the barbarian gets yet another rage. At this point the barbarian might be able to rage during every fight of the day, and will almost certainly be able to rage during every MAJOR fight in a day. It only gets worse from there, as the barbarian gets more rages and greater rage. Half-Orc Fighter, with Greatsword. +4 str. Bonus, level four. Melee +9 (2D6+8) Weapon focus and specialization, power attack, cleave, great cleave. Half-Orc Barbarian, with Greatsword. +4 str. Bonus, level four. Melee +10 (2D6+9) Power attack, Cleave. So, while the barbarian has +1 to each value, for a small amount of time, the fighter is able to great cleave (causing MUCH more damage over time than the barbarian to weak enemies), and won't get tired out during combat. If your combats are lasting only about 7 rounds, either you're ambushing, being ambushed, or something is terribly, terribly wrong. While I sympathize and wish this were the case, it simply isn't. The barbarian can pick up mithril full plate and equal the fighter. And oh yeah- at some point not only will his armor be mithril, he'll also have that DR that adamantine plate gives you too. Of course, most Barbs stick with Mithril Breastplates to maintain mobility, but that's niether here nor there. I will agree that the fighter tends to have slightly high AC, but that's because the barbarian loses AC during his rage, unless he's using the whirling frenzy variant, in which case his AC will very often be GREATER than the fighter's during rage. For the cost of the Mithral plate, the fighter's getting a +2 bonus and 1000gp left over. I made sure that the statements I said were true - When I build a fighter, I build him so he can outperform barbarians in the few things he's good at. Overall? Barbarians are way "better". Fighters are some of the least powerful and most scoffed at characters (Bards are simply forgotten about). However, they can specialize very well. And when crunching numbers? The fighter will win, even though that's not how the game tends to play out.
Kakerate 09-19-07, 06:13 PM	whats the difference between the two? Which is better? Oh gah! Their both so much fun to play!! Gack! :fight!:
Hack and Smasher 09-19-07, 06:15 PM	My dear boy this is why, they invented multiclassing:plotting: normaly its 1st level barbarian (more skills more hp) followed by two levels in fighter (for feats usally to qualify for a prestige class) more levels in barnarian or a prestige class.
Puggins 09-19-07, 06:42 PM	Half-Orc Fighter, with Greatsword. +4 str. Bonus, level four. Melee +9 (2D6+8) Weapon focus and specialization, power attack, cleave, great cleave. Half-Orc Barbarian, with Greatsword. +4 str. Bonus, level four. Melee +10 (2D6+9) Power attack, Cleave. So, while the barbarian has +1 to each value, for a small amount of time, the fighter is able to great cleave (causing MUCH more damage over time than the barbarian to weak enemies), and won't get tired out during combat. If your combats are lasting only about 7 rounds, either you're ambushing, being ambushed, or something is terribly, terribly wrong. Well, two things... First, if the barbarian is using Power Attack, then he can switch between melee +10 (2d6 + 9) and melee +9 (2d6 +11). An average damage increase of 20% over the fighter. In non-rage situations, the barbarian is at +8 (2d6 + 6). The fighter has a nice advantage of 30% when the barbarian is not raging, but the barb already has two rages a day. And nothing is terribly, terribly wrong about 7 round combats. Seven rounds doesn't sound very long, but your average combat simply doesn't take seven rounds once melee begins. Sure, a couple of rounds to close and such might extend things out, but an average monster of comparable CR, as quote by WIzards, lasts 3 rounds in melee (or was that 4?) Seven round combats are pretty average in our campaign- some will last longer, quite a few are done much faster. Second, you're comparing them at 4th level, the level where the barbarian and fighter are most equal. As the levels pile on, the barbarian starts separating himself. At 8th level a barbarian will be raging in most combats. By 12th level there is no comparison. For the cost of the Mithral plate, the fighter's getting a +2 bonus and 1000gp left over. I made sure that the statements I said were true - When I build a fighter, I build him so he can outperform barbarians in the few things he's good at. Err, actually, it's worse than that. The fighter would get a +3 armor with no gp left over- armor bonus is just squared, not squaredx2. but the mithral makes up for it almost immediately, especially if the barbarian has the dex bonus to actually use the mithral. Mithral Full Plate: 10,500gp Full Plate +3 : 10,650gp Mithral Full Plate +3: 19,500gp Full Plate +4: 17,650gp Mithral Full Plate +4: 26,500gp Full Plate +5: 26,650gp Once you get to upgrading your full plate to +4, mithral is actually better overall, though it does cost an extra 2k. The next step and every step thereafter will be cheaper for mithral. So the Mithral Full-Plate-clad barbarian will have a slightly higher armor class AND he'll have DR, AND he'll have more hit points. Like I said, though, the point is probably moot- lots of barbarians go with a mithral breastplate if they can take advantage of the dex bonus (base 14 and gloves of dex being the classic combo), so they can retain their 40' move. A mithral breastplate is tons cheaper than full plate. Overall? Barbarians are way "better". Fighters are some of the least powerful and most scoffed at characters (Bards are simply forgotten about). However, they can specialize very well. And when crunching numbers? The fighter will win, even though that's not how the game tends to play out. Well, I agree that barbarians are better. I don't see the fighters winning at number crunching except at very low levels, where those extra feats actually matter for something. There ARE fighter variants that unload tons of damage (dungeon basher) or absolutely own battlefield control (The Controller), but the typical fighter just doesn't measure up even via raw numbers.
TheGreatSanguini 09-19-07, 06:44 PM	Why would you split fighter/barbarian, and then go into a prestige class? Doesn't doing so simply impede your progress in said prestige class? You have to make sure that your lowest levels balance out constantly, and that's assuming that you have fighter or barbarian as a favoured class. I can honestly say though, that I've never tried it. 'Course, I never tried it because it simply seemed illogical to me.
TheGreatSanguini 09-19-07, 07:03 PM	First, if the barbarian is using Power Attack, then he can switch between melee +10 (2d6 + 9) and melee +9 (2d6 +11). An average damage increase of 20% over the fighter. In non-rage situations, the barbarian is at +8 (2d6 + 6). The fighter has a nice advantage of 30% when the barbarian is not raging, but the barb already has two rages a day. First, the fighter has power attack and could just as easily use it as well. Since they both have the same ability, trying to say that one has an advantage from it that the other doesn't is a completely moot point. And nothing is terribly, terribly wrong about 7 round combats. Seven rounds doesn't sound very long, but your average combat simply doesn't take seven rounds once melee begins. Sure, a couple of rounds to close and such might extend things out, but an average monster of comparable CR, as quote by WIzards, lasts 3 rounds in melee (or was that 4?) Seven round combats are pretty average in our campaign- some will last longer, quite a few are done much faster. And that's entirely true, if you're facing one monster as opposed to a group. As soon as you face a group of monsters of comparable CR, you'll find that combat lasts a pretty long time. If you have a CHANCE of pushing past 7 rounds, that's dangerous to the Barbarian because as soon as they come out of their rage, they get hit with fatigue. Second, you're comparing them at 4th level, the level where the barbarian and fighter are most equal. As the levels pile on, the barbarian starts separating himself. At 8th level a barbarian will be raging in most combats. By 12th level there is no comparison. If I'm not mistaken, (and since this is a logged forum where I can immediately refer to your previous post, I'm not) you just said to compare them at fourth level, and so I did. If you want me to compare at 12th, I could again - the problem being of course that at a higher level magic items get thrown in and if my build is even slightly different from yours, there will be another complaint. Err, actually, it's worse than that. The fighter would get a +3 armor with no gp left over- armor bonus is just squared, not squaredx2. but the mithral makes up for it almost immediately, especially if the barbarian has the dex bonus to actually use the mithral. Mithral Full Plate: 10,500gp Full Plate +3 : 10,650gp Mithral Full Plate +3: 19,500gp Full Plate +4: 17,650gp Mithral Full Plate +4: 26,500gp Full Plate +5: 26,650gp Once you get to upgrading your full plate to +4, mithral is actually better overall, though it does cost an extra 2k. The next step and every step thereafter will be cheaper for mithral. So the Mithral Full-Plate-clad barbarian will have a slightly higher armor class AND he'll have DR, AND he'll have more hit points. Like I said, though, the point is probably moot- lots of barbarians go with a mithral breastplate if they can take advantage of the dex bonus (base 14 and gloves of dex being the classic combo), so they can retain their 40' move. A mithral breastplate is tons cheaper than full plate. Point, I must agree. Well, I agree that barbarians are better. I don't see the fighters winning at number crunching except at very low levels, where those extra feats actually matter for something. There ARE fighter variants that unload tons of damage (dungeon basher) or absolutely own battlefield control (The Controller), but the typical fighter just doesn't measure up even via raw numbers. Again, I suppose you are correct with this one. In all honesty, I've never played a pure fighter beyond 8th level, by which time I've already expanded into one of the many prestige classes.
Hack and Smasher 09-20-07, 06:45 AM	Why would you split fighter/barbarian, and then go into a prestige class? Doesn't doing so simply impede your progress in said prestige class? You have to make sure that your lowest levels balance out constantly, and that's assuming that you have fighter or barbarian as a favoured class. I can honestly say though, that I've never tried it. 'Course, I never tried it because it simply seemed illogical to me. Barbarian3/fighter2/prestige class no exp penalty unless your an elf or shorty