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.
Not sure if this went into your calculations or not, but don't forget Fighter's get that Bravery thing - with the level 12 guys, it'd be a +3 bonus to saves - just saying.
Mithral breastplates are treated as light armor for every single purpose except proficiency feat required. They are light armor. It is sophistry, in other words, "a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning", to claim that a mithral breastplate is medium armor. Yes, it's superficially plausible, because it does require the medium armor proficiency feat. However, it is ultimately fallacious because in every other respect it is identical to light armor.
PS. Kettle called. He wants his black paint back.
|
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?
Lighten up, Francis. If you are to the point where you're offended by a lighthearted joke you should probably step back from the computer for a few days.
|
|
Not sure if this went into your calculations or not, but don't forget Fighter's get that Bravery thing - with the level 12 guys, it'd be a +3 bonus to saves - just saying.
I did forget about that. The end result, then, would be a 35% chance to succeed against the panic. In the end it really doesn't matter, though. At the very worst he'll deal around 20 damage and I'll have to pull out a silver or cold iron sword for one less damage per hit since I would have possibly dropped my main weapon (since I gave him initiative my sword may never have been out in the first place, but alas...)
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.
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 didn't "falsely" declare victory because you ran. You LOST because you ran and dropped your shiny shield and weapon when you fled. Then I picked up your weapons and with my fast movement ran around popping you with arrows/hand axes until you got some courage to face me. Now you are either weaponless or fighting with subpar weapons and I proceeded to PWN you.
I love the fruit i'm eating, but I'm betting yours is really tasting bitter. You going to feel even worse when you go to the rules forum and find out Uncanny dodge is meant to protect against invisible attackers too. ...that part I"m not so sure about but it's worth a shot.
BTW thrown weapons add STR to damage so if I hit you with thrown axes for 2-4 rounds we are looking at quite a bit more than 20 points of damage, you lose 3 from your AC because of the shield you dropped, and you lose 3 to hit from the +3 sword you dropped.
Also why on earth would you have a second sword of cold iron when you are a sword and board fighter and your first sword would already be counted as cold iron (the +3 bonus).
I believe the phrase you used was...
"I'll leave the apologies and groveling for forgiveness to your discretion."
|
|
I didn't "falsely" declare victory because you ran. You LOST because you ran and dropped your shiny shield and weapon when you fled. Then I picked up your weapons and with my fast movement ran around popping you with arrows/hand axes until you got some courage to face me. Now you are either weaponless or fighting with subpar weapons and I proceeded to PWN you.
First, I can't drop my shild since it's not a free action to drop a strapped shield. Second, IF I had already pulled out my weapon then you could pick it up, but that would be an EXTREMELY minor advantage since every fighter worth his salt has at least three of his favored weapon on his person by level 12 (magic - possibly adamantine magic, cold iron, and silver).
I love the fruit i'm easting, but I'm betting yours is really tasting bitter. You going to feel even worse when you go to the rules forum and find out Uncanny dodge is meant to protect against invisible attackers too. ...that part I"m not so sure about but it's worth a shot.
Uncanny dodge is meant to protect against being flat footed. Regardless of intent, the rules are specific in their application.
|
|
Considering the number of times I see YOU pull this same argument with others, I would think you would just accept it and move on...
I agree with you (about moving on - I have no clue what his posting habits are), but the fact is that it makes not even the most minor of differences in this debate. It's like Japan calling to brag that they shot down our bomber after he dropped the atomic bomb.
Considering the number of times I see YOU pull this same argument with others, I would think you would just accept it and move on...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.
Considering the number of times I've pulled this same argument is zero, I have no clue where you're coming from. Or perhaps you'd care to cite an example?
|
Lighten up, Francis. If you are to the point where you're offended by a lighthearted joke you should probably step back from the computer for a few days.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?
Well, first off, you are quoting my response to someone else. But if your responses to my posts were meant as light-hearted, then I apologize for taking offense... at YOUR posts. I don't think anything Zurai has posted is meant as a "light-hearted joke".
I don't think anything Zurai has posted is meant as a "light-hearted joke".
Then your joke-o-meter is broken.
Yeah, for some reason, I don't think anyone at all is going to back you up on that. Every single person, you included, knew exactly what I meant, and agrees that what I said means what I meant it to say. You're arguing a point so arbitrarily pedantic that even I am rolling my eyes at it. That should tell you something.
|
|
I don't think anything Zurai has posted is meant as a "light-hearted joke".Then your joke-o-meter is broken.
Perhaps you should actually learn the rules before you start trying to debunk them?
Please do try to stay relevant and on-topic. Blathering on about random unrelated topics is poor form.
Oh now I get it. Ha ha. Wait,what?
|
|
Yeah, for some reason, I don't think anyone at all is going to back you up on that. Every single person, you included, knew exactly what I meant, and agrees that what I said means what I meant it to say. You're arguing a point so arbitrarily pedantic that even I am rolling my eyes at it. That should tell you something.
That you know pedantic points because you are so proficient with them?
(see now, that's a joke son)
That you know pedantic points because you are so proficient with them?
Precisely. And that your point is beyond even the level of pedantry that I am willing to partake of.
PS. "Please do try to stay relevant and on-topic. Blathering on about random unrelated topics is poor form." was a joke. Maybe not a very good one, but I have no ranks in Perform: Comedy.
Why don't you two dudes just let it go..
|
|
In the interests of maybe, miraculously, getting the thread back on topic, I will:
A) re-concede that I was wrong about Uncanny Dodge preserving dodge bonuses to AC vs. Invisible attackers (but maintain that they should as RAI);
B) try not to assume everything Zurai posts is intended to be insulting;
C) state that while mithril breastplates are medium armor, that fact is rather tangential to the arguement of "barbarians are 10 point AC underdogs to fighters";
D) say that Rage Powers are pretty cool, but aren't to the level of combat feats, but they shouldn't necessarily be equal either;
E) go back to work and ignore this thread for awhile....
Sorry for the derailment and unproductive bickering, one and all.
Happy Friday, everyone??
I have not removed any posts, but people still need to calm down, think before posting, and be polite.
|
Back to the topic.....
Yes, some rage powers do so little that I could not see choosing them. I have made a couple barbarians, and they are quite fun to play (Got a gnome barbarian in PFS). They have a different role than fighters, who have class abilities that let you customize them to any combat roles. A barbarian has quite a bit more of skill utility and have a more specific niche in combat (mobility and damage).
There is never, and should never be 100% core role balance or you end up with a horribly bland system. I would say keep them within a reasonable amount of each other in arch-type ability, with their additional roles compensating the difference. A Barbarian can't fight as well as a fighter, as a fighter is a 100% of the warrior arch-type. That's the same as complaining about how well the druid heals compared to a cleric.
Overall a barbarian is a fun class to play. I would like to see some additional rage abilities, maybe ones that scale up with level a little better. (powerful blow comes to mind, +5 damage at 20 once a rage or moment of clarity, one round, once a day)
This feat I designed (and used in several home games) would make a good rage power.
ENLARGED RAGE
You get bigger when you rage.
Prerequisite: Rage class ability.
Benefit: When you rage, you go up a size category. This is treated as a supernatural power,
not a spellike ability.
I'll save the argument and read it later.
...
... since every fighter worth his salt has at least three of his favored weapon on his person by level 12 (magic - possibly adamantine magic, cold iron, and silver)....
*Cough* *wheeze* *pant*
As a game concept it probably works, but I really don't want to be the guy walking around with three longswords... or even guisarmes for that matter.
It just sounds silly :)
...
... since every fighter worth his salt has at least three of his favored weapon on his person by level 12 (magic - possibly adamantine magic, cold iron, and silver)....
*Cough* *wheeze* *pant*
As a game concept it probably works, but I really don't want to be the guy walking around with three longswords... or even guisarmes for that matter.
It just sounds silly :)
One extra weapon is enough. Besides, on the point in discussion, the Fighter wouldn't have lost his weapon anyway, cause he lost initiative, so, no biggie.
He means that the fighter lost initiative and then his courage due to Barbarian's intimidation, running like hell an dropping the weapon on the way... What fighter doesn't use locking gauntlets when fighting is about to happen (well, most of them)?
|
|
He means that the fighter lost initiative and then his courage due to Barbarian's intimidation, running like hell an dropping the weapon on the way... What fighter doesn't use locking gauntlets when fighting is about to happen (well, most of them)?
Lock those gauntlets! The barbarian can then move and shoot with impunity (at least until he runs out of ammo).
|
|
He means that the fighter lost initiative and then his courage due to Barbarian's intimidation, running like hell an dropping the weapon on the way... What fighter doesn't use locking gauntlets when fighting is about to happen (well, most of them)?Lock those gauntlets! The barbarian can then move and shoot with impunity (at least until he runs out of ammo).
Or until I sunder his bow... or until he gets tired of only hitting on a 20, or until he decides he's tired of getting AoO'd for 40 every time he moves away and then hit again for 40 (all while dealing 10) every time I charge, or....
|
|
Or until I sunder his bow... or until he gets tired of only hitting on a 20, or until he decides he's tired of getting AoO'd for 40 every time he moves away and then hit again for 40 (all while dealing 10) every time I charge, or....He means that the fighter lost initiative and then his courage due to Barbarian's intimidation, running like hell an dropping the weapon on the way... What fighter doesn't use locking gauntlets when fighting is about to happen (well, most of them)?Lock those gauntlets! The barbarian can then move and shoot with impunity (at least until he runs out of ammo).
A barbarian with a speed of 40 can stay out of charge range of a fighter indefinately. Withdraw actions don't provoke AoOs. The fighter will never make a melee attack on a barbarian at range until the barbarian decides HE wants to melee. The barb may not be able to attack every round and run/double move every 2nd or 3rd round, but like you say, 20's always hit, and I'll take a 5% chance of doing minor damage to you in exchange for a 0% chance of taking damage in return.
It became a senseless discussion now, facts and numbers are not convinving you guys, so, better let go.
Shall I found a "Neither is more powerful, they are just different!" group on Facebook? :D
Who wants to be a fan?
No need mate, it's pretty clear that the fighter is more powerful, everybody knows that.
DR from barbarian and adamantine armor doesn't stack RAW, though I usually let it. Thing is, barbarians at level 10 have DR 2/-. Dr/- can be bypassed by any magical damage, so its just against physical damage.
Okay, I agree with most of the argument thus far but I call bullhockey on that part I bolded. DR only overcombes Cold Iron/Silvered at +3, Adamantine at +4 and Alignment-Based at +5. DR2/- is basically 2 points off any physical-based attack, even if it is magically enhanced. Whack a 10th level Barbarian with a +3 Flail and all you'll do is piss him off. Hit him with a spell, yes he's in pretty much the same boat as everyone but the Spell Resistance crowd is in.
Let's face it, DR has to increase dramatically. I'd prefer to have seen Barbarians get DR/2 at level 7 and then increase it by 2 at levels 10, 13, 16 and 19 to make the Barbarian able to shrug off a great deal of physical damage just on his own account, not including magical enhancements via armor, bracers, rings or amulets. It would add a serious level of toughness to the Barbarian and allow those additional +2 hitpoints per level to count towards something.
|
|
The fighter will never make a melee attack on a barbarian at range until the barbarian decides HE wants to melee.
I think I'm going to have to agree with Xum here. Sure, I could point out that even unspecialized fighter archers are going to be better than barbarian archers, so you'd have no chance at a ranged fight (especially since you're going to have to keep moving the first few rounds and I won't, if that's your choice of combat), but I'm to the point where I no longer believe something as simple as obvious and undisputable facts will convince you.
No need mate, it's pretty clear that the fighter is more powerful, everybody knows that.
+1 and paladins
The other thing that irks me with people saying 'The Barbarian is out-classed in Damage and AC' is that they are supposed to be g&#$&#n outclassed by the Fighter. Look at 3.5 D&D. The Fighter was a sub-par Class for the most part, being little more than a Feat-Machine for most builds.
In Pathfinder, the Fighter takes more than a few pages out of the Barbarian's book and gains the ability to move at normal speed in medium and then heavy armor, which pretty much negates a great deal of the Barbarian's appeal.
3.5 Barbarians got Rages per Day, Pathfinder Barbarians get Rage per Constitution +4 +2 rounds for every level. This isn't exactly a good exchange but let's face it, we needed something. And by breaking it down into Rounds rather than Daily Uses, it allows the Barbarian to get a sudden surge of strenght to deal with doors that get stuck, needing to get that bit of 'oomph' for dealing with the git tied to you as your party climbing up the cliff falling off and you needing to make a strength check, and so on and so forth. (admittedly, you need to use and old 3.5 feat for that, from the Complete Warrior if I remember correctly, but so much too-ing and fro-ing and bullhockery going on I have little doubt Xum or some other rabid forumite will bite my toes off for this blasphemy)
Some of the Rage Powers are quite simply magnificent. Increased Damage Reduction for a Barbarian is a god-send, especially if the GM allows you to add Greater Resilience from the Complete Warrior. That's DR/7 at 12th level if you go only for Increased Damage Reduction. And the best thing with DR is, regardless of how you get it, the more foes hitting you, the more it pays off. The Barbarian lives or dies on the choices of Rage Powers, which makes the class exciting and vibrant compared to the walking wall of adamantite that most Fighters end up becoming. Yes you'll have AC out the Wazoo, but there are always ways for the DM to mess with that.
Armor training is great, but again a 12th level Fighter in Full Plate (+9+Armor Training+3) and a Tower Shield has a Armor Check Penalty of 13. That means all the Fighter has to do is take a wrong step on a slippery surface and he's prone and about to get raped. For the sake of argument we'll use a Heavy Steel Shield instead of ye-olde-Tower Shield (much as I love/hate/love/hate it....), that's -5 to the ACP. This is much, much better than what a Barbarian could achieve wearing a Breastplate and a Heavy Steel shield, at -6, although we could argue that having Acrobatics as a Class Skill means that the Barbarian will keep their feet against most things, although a sufficiently intelligent Fighter or one that had multi-classed into a Rogue for the sole purpose of avoiding such a humiliating fate could achieve similar, if somewhat lacking in other skills, results.
Fighters get, over the course of their careers, a great will-save against Fear Effects. Barbarians get a +2 will save (and later on a +4 against enchantments that stacks with the +2 save) whenever they are raging, and a good Barbarian will always have a positive Wisdom score as it provides a nice bonus to some of the Barbarian's iconic skills. So the Fighter gets a bonus to one of the worst possible things low-Will Save classes can face, while the Barbarian gets a broader protection for less potency, but then at higher levels can potentially save against some of the most feared enchantment-based spells that can turn the raving lunatic back on his friends or snuff out his Rage completely.
I tend to get annoyed when people complain about the Barbarian not being geared for Sword and Board fighting. Spend one feat on Bastard Sword or Dwarven War-axe, Spend four feats on TwF, Imp Twf, Shield Bash and Shield Slam and the Rage Power Knockback and you have a lean, mean punting machine. Note that both the Rage Power and the Shield Slam both treat this as a Bull Rush that you don't have to move with the target. This can be fantastic for knocking enemies around and clearing them away from the more fragile members of the party. The Fighter cannot do this, and while it might seem cliche and be a 'waste', a Barbarian can conceiveably be able to do this by 9th level. At 9th Level a Barbarian can be running around smacking the living crap out of enemy casters or other 'melee-weak' classes.
Remember that your CMB, or Combat Maneuver Bonus as a Barian will be quite high, and even more so while raging. It's your Base Attack Bonus, plus your Strenght and plus size bonus/penalites too. Against a 'melee weak' character such as a Sorcerer or Wizard, that's their CMD DC of 10+BAB+strength+dexterity+size modifiers. As an example, let's just a 12th level Barbarian in the middle of a rage against a Sorcerer of the same level. We'll argue that the Barbarian has Strength 16 for the sake of this argument, the Sorcerer has Strength 10 and Dexterity 14. So that's CMB 12+9= DC of 21 for the Bull Rush attempts. the CMD is 10+6+0+2 = 18. The Barbarian is going to smack the Sorcer around like a Pinata and the Sorcerer could very well have lost a spell if the Barbarian was smart enough to delay his action in case the Sorcer started to cast something.
Against a Rogue with Strength 12 and Dexterity 18, it would be a different story, with a CMB of 21 against a CMD of 10+9+1+4=24. The Barbarian might very well hit with both Axe and Shield, but the Rogue would be able to twist out of the way just enough to avoid the Bull Rush effect.
And while Raging Leaper and Scent might seem scorn-worthy, just remember that a Barbarian that knows the damn Assassin is up over the wall somewhere (thanks to Scent) can, in the middle of a Rage, add her Class Level to her jump check, and is considered to have made a running start in addition to her high Strength Check. Unless the Assassin is atop a 30 foot wall, he's going to be in for a world of pain as the Barbarian makes a single leap and catches onto the top of the wall, hauling herself up one-handed while the other hand draws out her axe....
No need mate, it's pretty clear that the fighter is more powerful, everybody knows that.
DPR? Sure. Lifting things? Athletics?
I think that the problem here right now is that some of us assume that one full BAB character needs to be a match for another full BAB character. I think that while still strong in combat, the Barbarian is given more utility abilities and skills, putting him somewher in the same box as the ranger.
The only weak sauce I see is the moment of clairity.
A barbarian might use it to stay sort of in rage while someone rushes some healing to him. Otherwise, it's something Conan would never use.
If Pathfinder allows all previous rage related feats to be rage feats, fighters and barbarians come out equal.
but so much too-ing and fro-ing and bullhockery going on I have little doubt Xum or some other rabid forumite will bite my toes off for this blasphemy)
Mate, your name has "Orc" and "Heavy Metal" in it, I can't really be that pissed at you. Just that name alone earns and "auto-friend" with me. :)
But it was instated that in fact the Barbarians are sub-par. So far the only available build is a two-handed wielder with a knack for scaring people. And although that's cool, there should be other options as well. And even with the most optimal choice, the barbarian still doesn't stand a chance against the fighter. And "not a chance" irks the hell out of me.
But it was instated that in fact the Barbarians are sub-par. So far the only available build is a two-handed wielder with a knack for scaring people. And although that's cool, there should be other options as well. And even with the most optimal choice, the barbarian still doesn't stand a chance against the fighter. And "not a chance" irks the hell out of me.
I still don't get that people are still convinced that Barbarians are sub par, especially after all of the numbers and examples posted in this thread.
Yes, in straight toe to toe damage versus a fighter, they will ALWAYS be sub par because they're never meant to out damage fighters. And yes, there are quite a few more builds than two hander builds that scare. My build, in fact, is completely different than that build and easily drops equal level fighters left and right without breaking a sweat. It's only one build of several that I decided upon when building my Barbarian, and he does it without having to stand toe to toe and trying to outdamage the fighter. I admit, if forced into a situation where he had to just roll damage back and forth against a fighter, he'd lose. But he'll never have to do that because Barbarians are so much MORE. Viable builds for Barbarians are plentiful, and if players still insist that they are a weak class, they should avoid playing them and stick with fighters and leave what they don't understand alone.
Yes, in straight toe to toe damage versus a fighter, they will ALWAYS be sub par because they're never meant to out damage fighters.
Okay, I am sorry, but this line alone.. I can't read any more posts on this subject from you. Barbarains ALWAYS were the number 1 damage dealers till pathfinder came out. They were supposed to deal the most damage but not the best at hitting. Now they have nether.
Okay, I am sorry, but this line alone.. I can't read any more posts on this subject from you. Barbarains ALWAYS were the number 1 damage dealers till pathfinder came out. They were supposed to deal the most damage but not the best at hitting. Now they have nether.
I speak only of Pathfinder Barbarians. It's how Pathfinder has done their balance of the classes. To discredit any meaningful posts discussing the matter because you believe this to not always have been the case- (I couldn't say either way, i've never played Barbarians in previous editions. I'm only familiar with the Pathfinder Barbarian.) -seems a little short sighted.
I speak only of Pathfinder Barbarians. It's how Pathfinder has done their balance of the classes. To discredit any meaningful posts discussing the matter because you believe this to not always have been the case- (I couldn't say either way, i've never played Barbarians in previous editions. I'm only familiar with the Pathfinder Barbarian.) -seems a little short sighted.
Okay, I am sorry, but this line alone.. I can't read any more posts on this subject from you. Barbarains ALWAYS were the number 1 damage dealers till pathfinder came out. They were supposed to deal the most damage but not the best at hitting. Now they have nether.
I can guarantee that the Bubbas of previous editions could not out damage a fighter - there was no such animal as a "rage" or "rage powers". Bubbas were skill monkeys before there really were skill monkeys - and the bubbas' skills set was wilderness stuff instead of "sneaking/backstabby/traps" stuff that fell under the various umbrellas - at various times - of bards, monks, assassins, thieves/rogues and any one that got a rather odd "kit". Most likely, they'd have been sleeped by a bad guy Wizard at 1st - 4th level, then had their throat slit while enjoying a nappy-nap.
I can guarantee that the Bubbas of previous editions could not out damage a fighter - there was no such animal as a "rage" or "rage powers". Bubbas were skill monkeys before there really were skill monkeys - and the bubbas' skills set was wilderness stuff instead of "sneaking/backstabby/traps" stuff that fell under the various umbrellas - at various times - of bards, monks, assassins, thieves/rogues and any one that got a rather odd "kit". Most likely, they'd have been sleeped by a bad guy Wizard at 1st - 4th level, then had their throat slit while enjoying a nappy-nap.
Straight barbarian yes, 3.5 they were fighter with less feats and a different flavor, but if they prestige into the double edged sword that was the frenzied berserker you could pour out some absolutely ridiculous damage. If I remember right one of them could charge in and take down the tarrasque in one round (shock trooper, leap attack, bear totem, etc).
I have noticed a definite downplay in power for barbarians, however something that the barbarian in our RotRl party did was take a couple of DR increases for rage powers and now with a DR of 5 while raging he uses his giant bane vicious great sword. Does something like 6d6+46 to giants without power attack if I remember it right. The DR reduces the vicious damage to nothing 83% of the time and the rest of the time he takes 1 damage.
On another note, In the campaign I finished just before I started CoT I threw the party at a CR 17 dragon (one of the variants from draconomicon.)The 14th level barbarian charged in first round and attacked, rolls a 20 and drew a crit card that knocked the dragon prone. Dragon stood up on it's turn and our barbarian took his attack, another crit means he cleanly finished off the dragon in two swings.
It is easy to see the barbarian out damaging the fighter in my mind really it is all in how you play it, in the end being a focused and disciplined fighter who spends his time learning the intimacies of a small group of weapons should be better at fighting than someone who relies on chaos and anger to fuel their fighting style.
I can guarantee that the Bubbas of previous editions could not out damage a fighter - there was no such animal as a "rage" or "rage powers". Bubbas were skill monkeys before there really were skill monkeys - and the bubbas' skills set was wilderness stuff instead of "sneaking/backstabby/traps" stuff that fell under the various umbrellas - at various times - of bards, monks, assassins, thieves/rogues and any one that got a rather odd "kit". Most likely, they'd have been sleeped by a bad guy Wizard at 1st - 4th level, then had their throat slit while enjoying a nappy-nap.I speak only of Pathfinder Barbarians. It's how Pathfinder has done their balance of the classes. To discredit any meaningful posts discussing the matter because you believe this to not always have been the case- (I couldn't say either way, i've never played Barbarians in previous editions. I'm only familiar with the Pathfinder Barbarian.) -seems a little short sighted.
Okay, I am sorry, but this line alone.. I can't read any more posts on this subject from you. Barbarains ALWAYS were the number 1 damage dealers till pathfinder came out. They were supposed to deal the most damage but not the best at hitting. Now they have nether.
Bubba no; by my recollection bubba had an Int of 11. However savage tide barbarian Fuz did way too much damage and had to be house ruled to be reasonably balanced. Straight RAW barbarian using pounce, all the charge/power attack feats, whirling frenzy, and the full city dweller variants, and then go into frenzy berserker no melee class could out-damage a barbarian, as they would get some rediculace 1:5, 1:6, or higher ratio on power attack charges, and be able to make some serous turns while charging, which they could get not only all their attacks, but an additional one at full base attack. Yeah he would have been even more overpowered if we had all of this and the skills.
I speak only of Pathfinder Barbarians. It's how Pathfinder has done their balance of the classes. To discredit any meaningful posts discussing the matter because you believe this to not always have been the case- (I couldn't say either way, i've never played Barbarians in previous editions. I'm only familiar with the Pathfinder Barbarian.) -seems a little short sighted.
If you've never played barbarians in previous editions, then how *can* you reasonably understand the power balance shift that's being discussed?
I can guarantee that the Bubbas of previous editions could not out damage a fighter - there was no such animal as a "rage" or "rage powers". Bubbas were skill monkeys before there really were skill monkeys - and the bubbas' skills set was wilderness stuff instead of "sneaking/backstabby/traps" stuff that fell under the various umbrellas - at various times - of bards, monks, assassins, thieves/rogues and any one that got a rather odd "kit". Most likely, they'd have been sleeped by a bad guy Wizard at 1st - 4th level, then had their throat slit while enjoying a nappy-nap.
This is true of 2e and earlier. In 2e "barbarian" was little more than the "berserker" kit from Complete Fighter's Handbook. In 1e it had that very same description you give above of the odd abilities kicked together. In addition, the 1e guy had some weird "magic inability" or something that let them hit things as if they were magic weapons/creatures themselves and prohibited magic item use.
In 2e was where that first mention of the "rage-like" thing comes in and not keeping track of HP's, etc when in the rage. Loss of control, possibly attacking your friends as well, the stat boosts,etc. It was all just a fighter kit, so in 2e the "barbarian" could do everything a fighter could do ... because it was a fighter.
Just to add onto the Captain's 3.x breakdown, the barbarians and fighters, if straight classed would have had the following combat mods assuming similar str scores by level 20 (not getting into equipment as (a) - it's too variable, so easy to cherry pick either way, and (b) - time consuming):
Fighter has, using any specialized weapon - a +2 to hit, and +4 to damage he's used at least 4 of his 11 bonus feats (not considering character feats as everyone has these) to get here. If we include PHBII's feats, Melee Weapon Mastery for his specialized wpn type adds another +2 on both fronts, so he hits +4/+6 on hit/damage. If you take another feat for Weapon Supremacy (only 1 weapon) he can add a +5 to any of his "to hits" for 1 attack each round. If he puts it on his lowest, he's +20/+15/+10/+10 - greatly upping damage for a full attack, IMO (this is before stats, weapon mods, feats, etc). So if you expand out to PHBII (late comer to 3.x's development and finally giving some "only fighter" types of feats beyond specializations) final is a +4/+6 and a possible increase in damage output in terms of % to hit actually landing a hit on the weakest attack that typically just misses.
Barbarian has the rage that caps out at +8/+8 to Str/Con. So, he's picking up a +80 hp boost over wherever he is normally, and gets a +4 to hit and +4 to damage. But his is str-based bonus, meaning if 2-handing, he'll always out-damage the fighter (+6 from str), and if he invests in Weapon Focus, he's at +5/+6. A fighter can do the 2-handing as well, but he won't have that innate strength boost. If the fighter gets a bull strength potion, so does the barb (point being, Str boosting always gives the edge to the barbarian, which necessarily increases his damage and to hit changes to at least equal if not surpass the fighter).
The analysis uses NO specific stats, but just goes off of the mechanical benefit of each classes features. In other words, if you add say stats common to the top tier level 20's, the numbers just skew even more favorably towards the barbarian.
Add in the feats like Combat Brute, and it's just all gravy for the barbarian.
What the fighter *did* do in 3.x was "fight" better than everyone else given the amount of feats and combos/options they could pin down where others needed (even the barbarian) to work on particular tricks to be marginally competitive. Fighters could do it all (almost literally). With the PHB II's additions, they finally could *mechanically* get into the damage-dealing game and hang w/barbarian's a bit better, but they were still behind on the damage and to hit curves with a few well chosen feats on the barbarian's side (only mentioning his as the fighter can get just about any feat, really and barbar's need to be precise on their builds and where they're going).
So, really, PrC's aside, berzerkers of the 2e and barbarians of the 3.x era *were* the damage dealing kings of the game - for a bit, really. It's ONLY Pathfinders recent revisions of the classes that have put barbarians into a second class position to the fighter in these regards. Both versions have always sacrificed AC for this advantage, though - and that's a perfectly reasonable trade for them.
As it stands PF has maintained the AC penalty, tossed in a LOT of laughable combat tricks, a few worthwhile tricks, and made the worthwhile ones catastrophically limited in such a meta-gamey style that it's impossible to ignore ("per rage" I'm lookin' at you! Don't think YOU'RE off the hook either, there, "Tireless Rage!" Loophole that I can drive a truck through that YOU are!!), that you can't help but look at the nice things Fighters got and then cry foul about the poor barbarian's treatment. Totally, totally boned by comparison.