Well mate, the fighter could get his weapon training and specialization and such in Unarmed strike... so, I think you can do the math yourself.
Assuming Both a Fighter and Barbarian each have the same standard feats: Unarmed strike, Improved Grapple, etc., the two are on level playing field. AND assuming that the fighter CAN take weapon focus on grapple...
Fighter would have:
Weapon Training (Grappling) +4
Greater Weapon Focus (Grappling) +1Total of +5 to hit on a grapple
Barbarian would have:
Rage +8 Str (+4 to CMD and CMB)
Animal Fury (+2 to grapples on successful hit)
Strength Surge (+20 on one CMB/CMD check)
Suprise Accuracy (+6 on one CMB check)For a total of +32 to hit on a grapple.
+6 when not using Strength Surge or Suprise Accuracy.
Keep in mind his rage also buffs his CMD, something Weapon Training and Weapon Focus do not do for the fighter. So the Barbarian's CMD is also always minimum +4 higher than the Fighters when raging. Not even counting rage powers.Strength Surge can also be used to make sure the Fighter's grapple doesn't succeed against himself.
So yes. Doing the math, a Barbarian IS indeed better. Throw in the barbarian's other options not available to a fighter for tactical superiority before the grapple attempt is made, and the Barbarian is hands down better.
Surprise accuracy and strength surge are the only difference there in my math. Weapon training and W. Focus and G Weapon focus is a +6 total. And I'm even considering the +2 from bite is in effect. So on 20th level, when the Barbarian gets his Mighty rage it's equal, before it's not. And the Damage the fighter delivers is greater, so, I still think that he is going to win there, cause the REAL difference are once per rage powers.
The point is, the barbarian may be SLIGHTLY better than the fighter, but it's not auto win as instated. And it's a really crappy build for the barbarian if you think about it. Believe me, been there.
You do know that a fighter specialized in grappling (as your barbarian is) is gonna own the Barbarian, right?You do realize that fighters can't get their weapon training on grapple, so no, they will not be better than the barbarian, who gets a str bonus that applies and a +2 from biting.Why not? I still believe any bonuses to unarmed strike would aply.
"When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll."
Bolded the relevant part. So, yeah, I think it does apply.
Alright, lets assume he can, which it is unclear if he can and there have been multiple threads where this has been brought up without a clear conclusion. It then follows that he must take his weapon training in unarmed strikes, and is not using it on a more damaging weapon. The Barbarian then catches up in the DPR race, and as Ravenot just posted, he still beats him out in grappling.
Alright, lets assume he can, which it is unclear if he can and there have been multiple threads where this has been brought up without a clear conclusion. It then follows that he must taken his weapon training in unarmed strikes, and is not using it on a more damaging weapon. The Barbarian then catches up in the DPR race, and as Ravenot just posted, he still beats him out in grappling.You do know that a fighter specialized in grappling (as your barbarian is) is gonna own the Barbarian, right?You do realize that fighters can't get their weapon training on grapple, so no, they will not be better than the barbarian, who gets a str bonus that applies and a +2 from biting.Why not? I still believe any bonuses to unarmed strike would aply.
"When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll."
Bolded the relevant part. So, yeah, I think it does apply.
Did my post get eaten?
Not sure. So,the barbarian, only beats him when using once per rage powers and when he gets mighty rage.
I might add though, that it's unclear to me who wins in the end, cause I do believe the extra damage delivered by the fighter will be a great factor, not counting that it MAY come to an stalemate when the rage ends (which it can, considering the grappling low damage).
Alright, lets assume he can, which it is unclear if he can and there have been multiple threads where this has been brought up without a clear conclusion. It then follows that he must taken his weapon training in unarmed strikes, and is not using it on a more damaging weapon. The Barbarian then catches up in the DPR race, and as Ravenot just posted, he still beats him out in grappling.You do know that a fighter specialized in grappling (as your barbarian is) is gonna own the Barbarian, right?You do realize that fighters can't get their weapon training on grapple, so no, they will not be better than the barbarian, who gets a str bonus that applies and a +2 from biting.Why not? I still believe any bonuses to unarmed strike would aply.
"When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll."
Bolded the relevant part. So, yeah, I think it does apply.
Did my post get eaten?
Not sure. So,the barbarian, only beats him when using once per rage powers and when he gets mighty rage.
I might add though, that it's unclear to me who wins in the end, cause I do believe the extra damage delivered by the fighter will be a great factor, not counting that it MAY come to an stalemate when the rage ends (which it can, considering the grappling low damage).
Even without the special 1 time use abilities, the barbarian has a better bonus... The low damage is still a problem in a straight 1 on 1, but you don't use grapple when you don't have friends arround who can deal the damage.
Even without the special 1 time use abilities, the barbarian has a better bonus... The low damage is still a problem in a straight 1 on 1, but you don't use grapple when...Alright, lets assume he can, which it is unclear if he can and there have been multiple threads where this has been brought up without a clear conclusion. It then follows that he must taken his weapon training in unarmed strikes, and is not using it on a more damaging weapon. The Barbarian then catches up in the DPR race, and as Ravenot just posted, he still beats him out in grappling.You do know that a fighter specialized in grappling (as your barbarian is) is gonna own the Barbarian, right?You do realize that fighters can't get their weapon training on grapple, so no, they will not be better than the barbarian, who gets a str bonus that applies and a +2 from biting.Why not? I still believe any bonuses to unarmed strike would aply.
"When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll."
Bolded the relevant part. So, yeah, I think it does apply.
Did my post get eaten?
Not sure. So,the barbarian, only beats him when using once per rage powers and when he gets mighty rage.
I might add though, that it's unclear to me who wins in the end, cause I do believe the extra damage delivered by the fighter will be a great factor, not counting that it MAY come to an stalemate when the rage ends (which it can, considering the grappling low damage).
True, and why would the fighter be alone? It's a specific one on one situation, and if the barbarian isn't going o on grapple than he is REALLY dead.
Anyway, that's not the issue, it's been proved time and again, that a barbarian don't stand a chance against the fighter. And that's my main beef with it really.
PS: Where is the bonus from the barbarian better at mid levels? I fail to see it.
Even so, the Barbarian has more HP than the Fighter, AND he's doing more damage than the fighter during a grapple as well. +4 damage from Strength per attack, and a bite attack per grapple. Assuming both have Greater Grapple, that's two bite attacks and two unarmed attacks, with strength being added twice for the harm grapples, and once total (two halves) for the bite attacks.
That's 2d4 +12 damage per round.
Fighters would get +4 from the weapon training, +2 from Weapon specialization, and another +2 from Greater Weapon Specialization, for a total of +8 damage.
Take the difference between the two and the Barbarian is doing 2d4 +4 more damage per round than the fighter.
This is also assuming the fighter has ALSO taken the feats required to bypass the Barbarians natural DR.
PS: Where is the bonus from the barbarian better at mid levels? I fail to see it.
Barbarian
lvl 1 rage +2lvl 2 bite +2 (+4)
lvl 11 rage +3 (+5)
lvl 20 rage +4 (+6)
Fighter
lvl 5 Weapon Training +1
lvl 8 GWF +1 (+2)
lvl 9 WT +2 (+3)
lvl 13 WT+3 (+4)
lvl 17 WT +4 (+5)
The Fighter may get WF 1 level earlier, but other than that they can have identical feats that would affect this. The Barbarian has higher every level since his is front loaded the first 2 lvls with a bonus the fighter wont get until lvl 13
The only difference between a similar outfitted barb and fighter is the -2AC for raging (which can be made up with guarded stance) and armor training.... And weapon training. And Bravery. And bonus feats. And fighter-only feats.
I was speaking in respect to AC
This is slightly off-topic, but I think the design of giving barbarians more hp to compensate for lower AC has been misguided all along. As everyone knows, the damage you take w/ lower hp quickly outpaces the (temporary) higher hp.
I wonder if complaints about the barbarian in general would diminish if that mechanic was changed. Maybe give them the best HD (D12?) for overall "most hp class", but the real way you make them "tougher" in combat, even when getting hit all the time, is redo the DR/- mechanic.
One possibility is simply to raise it quicker than it is. Let's face it, DR 5/- doesn't mean anything at 20th level.
A related possibility is to keep the current progression, but increase it temporarily while--you guessed it--raging.
Just a thought.
I'd agree that kickstarting the DR earlier, or making it a rage power would work a lot better, along with scaling it up over the 20 levels to a higher target. Eidolon's are getting DR 10/alignment at level 12.
If you average out damage output based on CR then around level 20 a creature will output 23.06 damage on a hit (this value is based on 3.5 standards, but it shouldn't be that different for Pathfinder) and so DR 10/- ought to be appropriate. In fact if you scaled it to be DR +1 for every two levels of Barbarian then the effect would be that the DR never goes above absorbing 50% of the average damage at a CR appropriate to the level, in most cases hovering around 30% damage absorption.
Having the DR +1 per two levels would then allow the Barbarian to have its "investment shtick" that so many other classes get. A simple mechanic that just keeps going up the more you invest in the class, and thematically keeping with the concept of this raging berserker that shrugs off horrible blows and keeps going.
I'm right there w/ you. I'm still playing 3.5, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to forget about the extra Con/extra hp recalculations, and simplify the character (and math) by either giving a Barbarian a straight DR +1 per 2 levels; or, keep the DR +1 per 4 levels, but temporarily double it while raging. I'll test it out, and see how it translates over when I ultimately switch over to PF.
I was speaking in respect to AC
The only difference between a similar outfitted barb and fighter is the -2AC for raging (which can be made up with guarded stance) and armor training.... And weapon training. And Bravery. And bonus feats. And fighter-only feats.
Then you're still missing things. Barbarians wearing full plate and carrying a shield have lower skill bonuses (due to armor check penalty), lower maximum AC (due to lower allowed Dex bonus), and lower absolute AC (due to rage). They also have to spend a feat on it, even using mithral full plate. They also sacrifice massive amounts of damage output.
Claiming that sword-and-board barbarians are on par with fighters is just plain false. The two aren't even in the same ballpark. SnB fighters out-everything SnB barbarians. This is intentional. Barbarians are designed to be lightly armored and heavily armed (two-handed weapon). All of their class features reinforce that.
Then you're still missing things. Barbarians wearing full plate and carrying a shield have lower skill bonuses (due to armor check penalty), lower maximum AC (due to lower allowed Dex bonus), and lower absolute AC (due to rage). They also have to spend a feat on it, even using mithral full plate. They also sacrifice massive amounts of damage output.Claiming that sword-and-board barbarians are on par with fighters is just plain false. The two aren't even in the same ballpark. SnB fighters out-everything SnB barbarians. This is intentional. Barbarians are designed to be lightly armored and heavily armed (two-handed weapon). All of their class features reinforce that.
Dude, where did I say Sword'n Board barbarians were on par with sword and board fighters? I was simply addressing the bogus AC argument.
throughout this argument I have never claimed barbarians were better than fighters or vice versa, I think you got the wrong guy.
I think you got the wrong guy.No, he doesn't. He's responding to your post about me being wrong. He's trying to show you why I'm not wrong.
WEll then you are both wrong or at least were misunderstanding my argument. I was referring to AC. Build me too identically armored characters, one a barbarian and one a fighter and show me how the Fighter has 10 more points of AC. that has been my argument the whole time. The only way you could do that would be to focus on DEX which would gimp both builds.
WEll then you are both wrong or at least were misunderstanding my argument. I was referring to AC. Build me too identically armored characters, one a barbarian and one a fighter and show me how the Fighter has 10 more points of AC. that has been my argument the whole time. The only way you could do that would be to focus on DEX which would gimp both builds.I think you got the wrong guy.No, he doesn't. He's responding to your post about me being wrong. He's trying to show you why I'm not wrong.
And the point, which you either will not see or will not acknowledge, is that no one would build a barbarian that is identically armored to a sword and board fighter because they're strictly worse than sword and board fighters at both offense and defense. You're arguing something that no one, including yourself, thinks is any kind of viable. The actual argument is that fighters have a higher AC because they can support sword and board and heavy armor while barbarians cannot.
And the point, which you either will not see or will not acknowledge, is that no one would build a barbarian that is identically armored to a sword and board fighter because they're strictly worse than sword and board fighters at both offense and defense. You're arguing something that no one, including yourself, thinks is any kind of viable. The actual argument is that fighters have a higher AC because they can support sword and board and heavy armor while barbarians cannot.
Fair enough, but in that case you can't even compare a sword/board fighter with a sword/board barbarian. If you are limiting the Barb to two handed weapons then you should limit the fighter to the same in order to establish a better comparison.
SO the question lies in how much better/worse a two-handed heavily armored barbarian is in comparison to a two-handed heavily armored fighter?
With one feat (heavy armor proficiency) and one rage power (guarded stance) the barb and fighter will be equal in AC except for whatever extra bonus the fighter will be getting from armor training (which in 95% of cases will be no more than 3-4 points). It then comes down to exactly what I said (barb's skills and rage powers vs. fighter's feats and weapon training. The fighter may indeed win with his chosen weapon, but not exactly by any game breaking margin.
WEll then you are both wrong or at least were misunderstanding my argument. I was referring to AC. Build me too identically armored characters, one a barbarian and one a fighter and show me how the Fighter has 10 more points of AC. that has been my argument the whole time. The only way you could do that would be to focus on DEX which would gimp both builds.
There's the problem - apparently should accept your point based on the fact that everyone same access to infinite nifty magical stuff... (And dropping a feat for Heavy armour for the Barb).
So, yes, two people in the same gear will have the same AC (-2 raging). However, if suits of mithral full plate are common in your gaming experience (before ultra-high levels) then continuing this discussion is pretty pointless. I mean, heck, why not just calculate AC as if everyone's also got a +5 heavy dancing shield helping out?
But, yes, assuming we all have a suit of mithral full plate in the backyard, you're right -- all it did was cost the barbarian one of his feats, which lets the fighter take yet another feat along the way.
Oh, and, the barbarian loses his fleetness, since medium armour slows the barbarian to 30 (20 + 10), while the fighter can move all full speed in heavy armour at 7th, but since it's mithral and thus medium for movement purposes, he was able to do it since 1st.
Fair enough, but in that case you can't even compare a sword/board fighter with a sword/board barbarian. If you are limiting the Barb to two handed weapons then you should limit the fighter to the same in order to establish a better comparison.
No, you shouldn't, because S&B Fighters can equal or exceed the offense of raging 2H Barbarians. Thus, it is perfectly valid to say that Fighters have significantly higher AC than Barbarians.
Even if we do go 2H for both, you're still giving up a lot more on the Barbarian than you're giving on the Fighter. You're spending a feat just to be proficient with the armor, you have to wear mithral armor because otherwise you lose fast movement (while the Fighter could wear adamantine armor and get DR 3/-, or just whatever magic armor he found), and you're spending one of your rage powers on Guarded Stance, which does not necessarily cancel out the rage penalty (for example, versus an invisible attacker) and requires a move action every few rounds to activate, meaning you can't charge or full attack on that round.
Plus, you're basically forced to heavily invest in Constitution, whereas a Fighter can actually afford to invest in Dexterity and only have moderate Con. That means he's going to have a much higher AC than you will naturally. And, again, his skill checks will be much better, and get this: he can use Acrobatics to tumble in full plate. You can't even use Acrobatics to tumble in medium armor.
stuff....
So, yes, two people in the same gear will have the same AC (-2 raging)....stuff
Yep that about sums it up.
Fair enough, but in that case you can't even compare a sword/board fighter with a sword/board barbarian. If you are limiting the Barb to two handed weapons then you should limit the fighter to the same in order to establish a better comparison.
And the point, which you either will not see or will not acknowledge, is that no one would build a barbarian that is identically armored to a sword and board fighter because they're strictly worse than sword and board fighters at both offense and defense. You're arguing something that no one, including yourself, thinks is any kind of viable. The actual argument is that fighters have a higher AC because they can support sword and board and heavy armor while barbarians cannot.
Ok, well, assuming the fighter wants to 2-hand, he still gets his full plate, which gives him 3 ac better than the barbarian's breastplate.
He also gets armour mastery, reducing the penalties from his armour more than a mithral suit would anyway, so instead, he takes adamantite, and gains DR3/- on top of his DR 5/- from armour mastery.
So, the barbarian's at a -5 penalty to AC (probably -6, 'cause the fighter's got enough feats to drop one into dodge along the way), and the fighter has higher DR. On a d20, this equates to a 30% miss chance.
....and to get back to the original point of the post, other than a few rage powers, I'd certainly rather have bonus feats, too.
Yep that about sums it up.stuff....
So, yes, two people in the same gear will have the same AC (-2 raging)....stuff
This also applies to Clerics, Rogues, Sorcerers, etc.... All it takes is wasting feats! Yay!
No, you shouldn't, because S&B Fighters can equal or exceed the offense of raging 2H Barbarians. Thus, it is perfectly valid to say that Fighters have significantly higher AC than Barbarians.Even if we do go 2H for both, you're still giving up a lot more on the Barbarian than you're giving on the Fighter. You're spending a feat just to be proficient with the armor, you have to wear mithral armor because otherwise you lose fast movement (while the Fighter could wear adamantine armor and get DR 3/-, or just whatever magic armor he found), and you're spending one of your rage powers on Guarded Stance, which does not necessarily cancel out the rage penalty (for example, versus an invisible attacker) and requires a move action every few rounds to activate, meaning you can't charge or full attack on that round.
Plus, you're basically forced to heavily invest in Constitution, whereas a Fighter can actually afford to invest in Dexterity and only have moderate Con. That means he's going to have a much higher AC than you will naturally. And, again, his skill checks will be much better, and get this: he can use Acrobatics to tumble in full plate. You can't even use Acrobatics to tumble in medium armor.
I don't know why the barb can't tumble considering he has Acrobatics as a class skill and fighter's don't but yeah the rest of your statement seems pretty sound.
I still don't think all those things you mentioned equal out to such a significant margin over the barbarian (again recognize I never said the barbarian was better than the fighter). ESPECIALLY if the fighter ends up without his chosen weapon. I don't know about your DM, but there's no guarantee you will have access to any specific weapon all the time. Armor is more easily attained in my campaigns.
The only way to resolve this would be to build two characters roll for initiative and fight it out. Which ain't going to happen so we'll just have to agree to disagree, although truthfully I really don't understand where we disagree.
|
Ok, well, assuming the fighter wants to 2-hand, he still gets his full plate, which gives him 3 ac better than the barbarian's breastplate.
1 feat + mithril armor = no AC difference between the two.
He also gets armour mastery, reducing the penalties from his armour more than a mithral suit would anyway, so instead, he takes adamantite, and gains DR3/- on top of his DR 5/- from armour mastery.
The Fighter just spent 15,000 for the adamantine part of the full plate to get what the barbarian gets for free. No rage power, no feats, just free DR. Oh, and his tops out at DR 8/- if he invests rage powers in it. The barbarian is taking a hit on some of his skills, yes, but with twice the skill points of a fighter, he's more likely to have enough room to come out even anyway.
So, the barbarian's at a -5 penalty to AC (probably -6, 'cause the fighter's got enough feats to drop one into dodge along the way), and the fighter has higher DR. On a d20, this equates to a 30% miss chance.
Barbarian gets Guarded Stance for +1-4 more Dodge (stacks with everything) bonus to AC. Barbarians worried about AC can get dodge too. In fact, I'd say they are more likely to have dodge, because that opens up Mobility and Spring Attack.
By the way, I see nothing in the rage description that says raging barbarians can't make use of Combat Expertise, so that arguement for another +5 to the fighter's AC is bogus as well.
DR doesn't stack!! Why do people always overlook this simple fact, but I"m with you the rest T
And I also think people completely disregard the huge HP bonuses Barb will have over the fighter. All that AC crap doesn't mean a thing when you are dead and most monsters are going to hit almost everytime past lvl 12.
LVL 12 Fighter: Dodge, Plate +3, Shield +3, DEX 16 = AC 29
LVL 12 Barb: Weapon Focus, Rage, Weapon +3, STR 20 = +24 to hit (LOL lot of good that AC did)
48 extra hps for the barb, so yeah after he kills the fighter he will probably die too
I don't know why the barb can't tumble considering he has Acrobatics as a class skill and fighter's don't but yeah the rest of your statement seems pretty sound.
Because you cannot tumble in armor or a load that reduces your speed. Barbarians have their speed decreased in medium armor, even though they end up moving at the same speed a Fighter does in heavy armor. Fighters explicitly do not have their speed decreased in medium armor or heavy armor after 7th level.
ESPECIALLY if the fighter ends up without his chosen weapon. I don't know about your DM, but there's no guarantee you will have access to any specific weapon all the time. Armor is more easily attained in my campaigns.
You do realize Fighters A) get weapon training with multiple weapons, B) get enough feats to specialize in two or three weapons, and C) can retrain their combat feats?
|
|
Even if we do go 2H for both, you're still giving up a lot more on the Barbarian than you're giving on the Fighter. You're spending a feat just to be proficient with the armor, you have to wear mithral armor because otherwise you lose fast movement (while the Fighter could wear adamantine armor and get DR 3/-, or just whatever magic armor he found), and you're spending one of your rage powers on Guarded Stance, which does not necessarily cancel out the rage penalty (for example, versus an invisible attacker) and requires a move action every few rounds to activate, meaning you can't charge or full attack on that round.
Ahem...
Uncanny Dodge (Ex): At 2nd level, a barbarian gains the
ability to react to danger before her senses would normally
allow her to do so. She cannot be caught flat-footed, even if
the attacker is invisible. She still loses her Dexterity bonus
to AC if immobilized.
...you were saying?
Personally, I think the fighter outclasses the barbarian in damage and AC. But, he doesn't do this by so much that the barbarian is unable to perform the same role as front line combatant. Most of the rage powers are significantly stronger than feats, just not in areas improving AC and damage enough to be comprable to a fighter. The barbarian also gets other good abilities, so I think there is a roughly even trade off between the 2. The Barbarian can excel at a couple tactical rolse and get peaks higher than a fighter, and gets some no one else does. The fighter can perform more tactical roles, but if the fighter tries to take on too many tactical roles, he starts to sacrifice damage.
Oddly engough, I think the Barbarian plays nicer with others. Sure he has less average damage, but I find those couple extra points rarely define the battle as much as something like demoralize, terrifying howl, no escape, or well timed combat manuever
|
|
I don't know why the barb can't tumble considering he has Acrobatics as a class skill and fighter's don't but yeah the rest of your statement seems pretty sound.Because you cannot tumble in armor or a load that reduces your speed. Barbarians have their speed decreased in medium armor, even though they end up moving at the same speed a Fighter does in heavy armor. Fighters explicitly do not have their speed decreased in medium armor or heavy armor after 7th level.
If an ability allows you to move at full
speed under such conditions, you can use Acrobatics to
move past foes.
Most mithral armors are one category lighter
than normal for purposes of movement and other
limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and
medium armors are treated as light, but light armors
are still treated as light.
A barbarian in mithril plate can still use fast movement, but not tumble. A barbarian in mithril breastplate can do both.
|
|
Personally, I think the fighter outclasses the barbarian in damage and AC. But, he doesn't do this by so much that the barbarian is unable to perform the same role as front line combatant. Most of the rage powers are significantly stronger than feats, just not in areas improving AC and damage enough to be comprable to a fighter. The barbarian also gets other good abilities, so I think there is a roughly even trade off between the 2. The Barbarian can excel at a couple tactical rolse and get peaks higher than a fighter, and gets some no one else does. The fighter can perform more tactical roles, but if the fighter tries to take on too many tactical roles, he starts to sacrifice damage.
This I can agree with.
You do realize Fighters A) get weapon training with multiple weapons, B) get enough feats to specialize in two or three weapons, and C) can retrain their combat feats?
I would really like to see a fighter try to respecialize the weapon focus/spec tree. Now, weapon training will affect multiple weapons, but that alone doesn't equal the barbarian's rage at most levels. And I have yet to see a decent fighter build that focuses on more than 1 weapon and can do anything else at all.
Personally, I think the fighter outclasses the barbarian in damage and AC. But, he doesn't do this by so much that the barbarian is unable to perform the same role as front line combatant. Most of the rage powers are significantly stronger than feats, just not in areas improving AC and damage enough to be comprable to a fighter. The barbarian also gets other good abilities, so I think there is a roughly even trade off between the 2. The Barbarian can excel at a couple tactical rolse and get peaks higher than a fighter, and gets some no one else does. The fighter can perform more tactical roles, but if the fighter tries to take on too many tactical roles, he starts to sacrifice damage.
Oddly engough, I think the Barbarian plays nicer with others. Sure he has less average damage, but I find those couple extra points rarely define the battle as much as something like demoralize, terrifying howl, no escape, or well timed combat manuever
Thank you for summing up this whole thread so nicely :)
Now that I think about it. My next character might be a half-orc barbarian built to specialize in intimidation. I am imagining some nasty nasty combos....
Ahem......you were saying?
Uncanny Dodge (Ex): At 2nd level, a barbarian gains the
ability to react to danger before her senses would normally
allow her to do so. She cannot be caught flat-footed, even if
the attacker is invisible. She still loses her Dexterity bonus
to AC if immobilized.
I re-bolded the actually relevant section for you. Invisible attackers ignore Dodge bonuses not because of flat-footedness but because of invisibility. UD does nothing against them.
A barbarian in mithril plate can still use fast movement, but not tumble. A barbarian in mithril breastplate can do both.
And if you'd bothered to read the post I was quoting, you'd see I was talking about medium armor, which a mithral breastplate is not. Furthermore, the argument I've been having with Deyvantius was about mithral full plate. Please do try to stay relevant and on-topic. Blathering on about random unrelated topics is poor form.
I re-bolded the actually relevant section for you. Invisible attackers ignore Dodge bonuses not because of flat-footedness but because of invisibility. UD does nothing against them.
I've always operated under the assumption that Uncanny Dodge works against invisible attackers but I could be wrong
And if you'd bothered to read the post I was quoting, you'd see I was talking about medium armor, which a mithral breastplate is not. Furthermore, the argument I've been having with Deyvantius was about mithral full plate. Please do try to stay relevant and on-topic. Blathering on about random unrelated topics is poor form.
LOL, you are correct but let us be civil my friends and understand we are engaging in an intelligent discussion in which theoretically we are all correct.
|
LVL 12 Fighter: Dodge, Plate +3, Shield +3, DEX 16 = AC 29
LVL 12 Barb: Weapon Focus, Rage, Weapon +3, STR 20 = +24 to hit (LOL lot of good that AC did)48 extra hps for the barb, so yeah after he kills the fighter he will probably die too
First, you forgot ring of protection +2 and amulet of natural armor +2, and the armor training class ability (let's say 1 point, even though he could have up to 3) so the barbarian will hit 50% of the time. Keep in mind that this is obviously without power attack, meaning that you're giving up the only bonus allowing you to keep up with the fighter's damage, so the fighter will deal more damage per hit with a longsword than you will with a greatsword.
Now for the reverse scenario:
LVL 12 Barb: mithril breastplate +3, dex 16, rage, ring of protection +2, amulet of natural armor +2 (not that a barbarian would spend money on those last two, but it's for fair comparison) = AC 24
LVL 12 Fighter: weapon focus, greater weapon focus, weapon training 2, 20 strength = +21 to hit (LOLWUT BARB AC?)
Now since you gave up power attack and I have my fighter damage feats we deal right about the same damage per hit (that's provided that I'm not TWF with shield bash, which I normally would be). Now I'm hitting you on 85% of my attacks and you're hitting me on 50% of yours. Who do you think will win this fight again?
LVL 12 Fighter: Dodge, Plate +3, Shield +3, DEX 16 = AC 29
LVL 12 Barb: Weapon Focus, Rage, Weapon +3, STR 20 = +24 to hit (LOL lot of good that AC did)48 extra hps for the barb, so yeah after he kills the fighter he will probably die too
First, you forgot ring of protection +2 and amulet of natural armor +2, and the armor training class ability (let's say 1 point, even though he could have up to 3) so the barbarian will hit 50% of the time. Keep in mind that this is obviously without power attack, meaning that you're giving up the only bonus allowing you to keep up with the fighter's damage, so the fighter will deal more damage per hit with a longsword than you will with a greatsword.
Now for the reverse scenario:
LVL 12 Barb: mithril breastplate +3, dex 16, rage, ring of protection +2, amulet of natural armor +2 (not that a barbarian would spend money on those last two, but it's for fair comparison) = AC 24
LVL 12 Fighter: weapon focus, greater weapon focus, weapon training 2, 20 strength = +21 to hit (LOLWUT BARB AC?)
Now since you gave up power attack and I have my fighter damage feats we deal right about the same damage per hit (that's provided that I'm not TWF with shield bash, which I normally would be). Now I'm hitting you on 85% of my attacks and you're hitting me on 50% of yours. Who do you think will win this fight again?
As a barb I could easily forego the rings and add a simple +4 or +6 belt. Not to mention, Intimidating Glare and Terrifying Howl which will have your fighter boy $#itting bricks, lol so it's still a toss-up. Why wouldn't I have wasted a feat on heavy armor too? I don't give a damn about tumbling + I get guarded stance which brings my AC back. So looks like we right back at it homey.
|
|
I've always operated under the assumption that Uncanny Dodge works against invisible attackers but I could be wrong
Invisibility specifically states that creatures who are invisible ignore their opponents dexterity. It doesn't say that they treat their targets as flat-footed. This means that in this specific case a barbarian would still lose his dex (and rage power) against an invisible creature. On the other hand, if an invisible creature had something that affected flat footed creatures and used it on a surprise round he wouldn't affect the barbarian.
|
Wow this is exactly why I got rid of Fighters for my games. They just make all other melee classes look uderpowered without bringuing much more to the table beyond dealing damage. Now more flavorfull and focused classes like Barbarians, Rangers, full BAB Monks, Paladins, Cavaliers, Warmasters, etc can get along better without any of them feeling left behind.
Sorry for the mild threadjack.
|
|
As a barb I could easily forego the rings and add a simple +4 or +6 belt.
Ok, so you trade your rings in for a +4 belt (same cost). Now you're hitting 60% of the time and dealing 3 more damage. On the other hand, I can now hit you on 90% of my attacks WHILE power attacking (another 6 damage per hit). Or better yet, I could not power attack and hit you on my secondary and tertiary attacks almost every time as well.
Not to mention, Intimidating Glare and Terrifying Howl which will have your fighter boy $#itting bricks, lol so it's still a toss-up. Why wouldn't I have wasted a feat on heavy armor too? I don't give a damn about tumbling
Great. Let's even assume you win initiative and I fail all of my will saves (I'd have a 45% chance to succeed and I'd have to fail both - depending on feats I may even get a chance to reroll failures). This means that neither of us have been damaged and I run away for a few rounds. Since I'm moving at full speed away from you, there's no way that you can both catch me AND deal damage. Once I roll a save (whether pass or fail) I'm immune to the ability for 24 hours.
What this means is that all you've done is prolong the fight. You're still either going to have to run away or fight after the duration is over, so you're STILL going to lose.
I think it would be best for you to just understand that you jumped into this conversation without actually knowing the ins and outs of the topic. Knowing this you should graciously admit defeat and be grateful for your new understanding of the finer points of the game.
I'd also like to throw in this tidbit, even though it's not applicable to your post:
PFCR pg. 179 - Dodge bonuses: Dodge bonuses represent actively avoiding blows. Any situation that denies you your Dexterity bonus also denies you dodge bonuses.
|
|
The Rage power gives a dodge bonus. Dexterity gives a dodge bonus. You lose one, not the other, to invisible foes.
See the last paragraph in my post above. I'll leave the apologies and groveling for forgiveness to your discretion.
EDIT: Dexterity is not a dodge bonus, either. It's an ability (dexterity) bonus.
|
|
The Rage power gives a dodge bonus. Dexterity gives a dodge bonus. You lose one, not the other, to invisible foes.See the last paragraph in my post above. I'll leave the apologies and groveling for forgiveness to your discretion.
EDIT: Dexterity is not a dodge bonus, either. It's an ability (dexterity) bonus.
I discovered my error and deleted my posts on my own. You get no credit, apology nor groveling from me.
I see, let's try this again:
Invisible: Invisible creatures are visually undetectable.
An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls
against sighted opponents,and ignores its opponents’
Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any).You don't lose your Dodge bonus, you lose your Dex bonus.
Nope, not even there do you lose Dodge bonuses to AC. Which is moot, since the Barb ain't losing that either.
Flat-Footed: A character who has not yet acted during
a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the
situation.A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus
to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.
Any situation or effect (except wearing armor) that negates a character's Dexterity bonus also negates any dodge bonuses the character may have.
"Random unrelated topics"? Indeed not. The post I was quoting from you specifically said that barbarians can't tumble in medium armor, and I proved you wrong.
No, you didn't. Mithral breastplates are light armor. My statement is true. Yours is false. Perhaps you should actually learn the rules before you start trying to debunk them?
Great. Let's even assume you win initiative and I fail all of my will saves (I'd have a 45% chance to succeed and I'd have to fail both - depending on feats I may even get a chance to reroll failures). This means that neither of us have been damaged and I run away for a few rounds. Since I'm moving at full speed away from you, there's no way that you can both catch me AND deal damage. Once I roll a save (whether pass or fail) I'm immune to the ability for 24 hours.
What this means is that all you've done is prolong the fight. You're still either going to have to run away or fight after the duration is over, so you're STILL going to lose.
I think it would be best for you to just understand that you jumped into this conversation without actually knowing the ins and outs of the topic. Knowing this you should graciously admit defeat and be grateful for your new understanding of the finer points of the game....
But you are wrong. I understand the finer points of the game you are the one talking nonsense and %s and trying to pass it off as fact. If you start out in the same square as me and flee at full speed, what's to say i can't follow you and instead pluck you with a Composite Longbow or thrown weapon. A terrifying howl for a barb with 26 str (30 with the +4) is Will Save 26 so how again were you getting 45% chance of success assuming you spent all your stat points in Con, DEX, and STR with the numbers you've been touting.
Now if you want to argue or debate that's fine but all that little slick smart alec talking is for the birds. I have just shown you how the barb can get 3-4 rounds of just popping you with distance weapons, has more hps than you, and this is all in the first two rounds of the fight. i haven't even bothered to pin you with my str surge yet, which is almost sure to work through my rage. now the only way you can trump me is to build a specific character with ALL those feats you get, which in reality we know you wouldn't build. My build is a standard optimized barb.
Plus if you turn tail and run like a coward, DROPPING EVERYTHING YOU ARE HOLDING you lose!!! I don't know where you come from where cowardice is a virtue but it's not my neck of the woods.
Now how about them apples
|
|
Flat-Footed: A character who has not yet acted during
a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the
situation. A f at-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus
to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.
Invisible: Invisible creatures are visually undetectable.
An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls
against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents’
Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See Invisibility, under
Special Abilities.
Uncanny Dodge (Ex): At 2nd level, a barbarian gains the
ability to react to danger before her senses would normally
allow her to do so. She cannot be caught flat-footed, even if
the attacker is invisible. She still loses her Dexterity bonus
to AC if immobilized. A barbarian with this ability can still
lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully
uses the feint action against her.
Since Invisibility doesn't let you treat targets as being flat footed anyway, I fail to see the point of the bolded sentence above. I concede the RAW means an invisible attacker would deny a barbarian his dodge bonus, but I most certainly do NOT concede that the RAI do. I feel the bolded quote fully intends to grant barbarians their dodge bonuses to AC vs invisible attackers.
Since Invisibility doesn't let you treat targets as being flat footed anyway, I fail to see the point of the bolded sentence above. I concede the RAW means an invisible attacker would deny a barbarian his dodge bonus, but I most certainly do NOT concede that the RAI do. I feel the bolded quote fully intends to grant barbarians their dodge bonuses to AC vs invisible attackers.
i'm pretty sure RAI is meant to allow dex bonus for AC due to Uncanny Dodge
|
|
Mithral breastplates are light armor. My statement is true. Yours is false. Perhaps you should actually learn the rules before you start trying to debunk them?
Mithral breastplates are NOT light armor. They are medium armor that are "treated" as light.
Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are [/b]treated as light[/b], but light armors are still treated as light.
I realized my earlier error and deleted my previous posts regarding dodge bonuses. That does not make me wrong on this point, nor give you the right to speak to me in the manner you have chosen. Maybe you should learn some manners before you post again?
Mithral breastplates are light armor. My statement is true. Yours is false. Perhaps you should actually learn the rules before you start trying to debunk them?Mithral breastplates are NOT light armor. They are medium armor that are "treated" as light.
Sheer sophistry.
|
|
A terrifying howl for a barb with 26 str (30 with the +4) is Will Save 26 so how again were you getting 45% chance of success assuming you spent all your stat points in Con, DEX, and STR with the numbers you've been touting.
I was counting a 10 wisdom, iron will, and a +3 cloak of resistance. I wasn't, however, counting rage and the belt of strength so I had a DC of 21. Regardless, you either falsely declare victory because of fleeing (then get beaten to death for your "honor"), or you deal somewhere around 20 damage with your pathetic bow skills and I still come back and take it out of your hide.
Now how about them apples
Yeah, that's kind of the problem. During this whole thread everyone else has been comparing oranges and you keep throwing in your apples. Come back when you have better fruit, please. I suggest peaches or pears, preferably stewed in some sugar water. If you wanted something more exotic like kiwi, though, I'd be up for that too.
|
|
Sheer sophistry.Mithral breastplates are light armor. My statement is true. Yours is false. Perhaps you should actually learn the rules before you start trying to debunk them?Mithral breastplates are NOT light armor. They are medium armor that are "treated" as light.
Spohistry- when Zurai is wrong and can't admit it
I guess you are right! It is!