Which do you prefer, the fighter or the barbarian?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

With the following criteria's:

-Roleplaying wise/flavor wise
-Combat wise
-diversity/flexibility
-Personal preference

Which do you prefer?


Barbarian.
Fighters often feel the same, although Archetypes have gone a long way to remedy that.


Personal Preference: I like them both. I'd like more skill points for the fighter. Hard to simulate the professional mercenary with just weapon skills.

Combat Wise: Both can be good. Fighter builds can do more single hit damage. Barbarian is a machine of destruction with more mobility.

Diversity/Flexibility: Barbarian by miles. Rage powers are more diverse.
Barbarian has more skill points and better class skills.

Role-playing/Flavor: Both can be fun.

It is far more challenging to play a highly effective fighter. I like a challenge. Not to mention some of the archetypes are fun. I enjoyed playing a two-weapon fighter. Once you reached about level 7 to 9, you started to do some pretty amazing damage even though the feat cost was too high IMO. Two-hander can do some pretty amazing damage and his ability to sunder is second to almost none. Archery is cool. I like being able to do archery tricks.

I always rate classes by fun. I think both classes are fun to play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Barbarian.

I will say that they do an equally good job of in your face melee, though the Fighter might be a little better at doing damage than the Barbarian.

Certainly the Fighter is going to be a better ranged combatant.

The armor really isn't an issue. The Fighter can wear full plate and if he is going the Two Weapon Style route he can actually go sword and board since he has enough feats to do it right.

But it's a wash, because 99% of barbarians seem like they are invulnerable ragers. Actually I'd have to give barbarians a slight edge here. If the Fighter is dumb enough to go two weapon slicer instead of sword and board if he goes two weapon style that is. Without the shield Barbarians are better defensively at both two weapon and two handed style.

So really it is a wash. The Fighter is certainly a better ranged combatant. And if he goes the archery route he can be a bang up archer, and still be a good melee combatant.

Both are equally viable this way. Plus a Fighter could be a charger, though you always have the mount problems (durability, can you use it in certain places).

Hmmm just as physical combatants... I'll call it even, maybe a slight edge to the Fighter if he has a coherent idea of what he is about.

But then we get to what makes the Barbarian better.

Superstition - Saves the Fighter can't imagine, plus the Fort and Will save bonuses rage gives.

Strength Surge - Barbarians actually can pull off combat maneuvers on occasion against Godzilla sized opponents.

Eater of Magic - Barbarians get a second chance at a save, even if it got through the saves the first time.

Spell Sunder - This is awesome. You can actually dispel effects and obstacles like Forcecage and the like.

So I think as a total package Barbarians are the gold standard of martial combatants. They are challenged only by Paladins, who you didn't ask about.

Barbarians are just a lot better at being heroes in the magic oriented system we have in Pathfinder.


I like both in every respect. They are very different classes but I find both fun and the choice between them depends heavily on the flavor of character I want to play.

sunbeam wrote:
Superstition - Saves the Fighter can't imagine, plus the Fort and Will save bonuses rage gives.

I love superstition. In my game the party orc barbarian recently rushed ahead to take on a devourer alone. He won the fight but his hit-points were reduced to below 0 while he was raging, orc ferocity kept him conscious but in order to stay stable and alive, he had to stand still and maintain his rage waiting for the rest of the party to catch up, and then came the fun part. Them trying to heal him up to a point where he could safely end his rage but thanks to superstition they wasted several spells and wand charges because he kept saving against it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Roleplay/flavor-wise, it's always a wash. This is entirely up to the player and has very little to do with the class.

Combat-wise, it depends. Core only? They're pretty similar. Extended Core allowed? Barbs skyrocket so far above it's ridiculous.

Diversity/Flexibility goes to Barbs, but not by much. Rage powers are more powerful than bonus feats, but I think the overall diversity goes to the bonus feats. However, Barbs also get more skills per level with a better selection of class skills.

Personal preference? I used to say Fighter, simply because Bonus Feats allow you to build concepts much easier than anything else, and who gets more Bonus Feats than a Fighter?
But once you've actually *got* your build, the fun dies off really really fast. It turns into a game of, "roll the dice - see if I did anything - repeat as needed" when you don't have other abilities to use outside of combat.
So I'm gonna have to go with Barbarian.


Threeshades wrote:

I like both in every respect. They are very different classes but I find both fun and the choice between them depends heavily on the flavor of character I want to play.

sunbeam wrote:
Superstition - Saves the Fighter can't imagine, plus the Fort and Will save bonuses rage gives.
I love superstition. In my game the party orc barbarian recently rushed ahead to take on a devourer alone. He won the fight but his hit-points were reduced to below 0 while he was raging, orc ferocity kept him conscious but in order to stay stable and alive, he had to stand still and maintain his rage waiting for the rest of the party to catch up, and then came the fun part. Them trying to heal him up to a point where he could safely end his rage but thanks to superstition they wasted several spells and wand charges because he kept saving against it.

That's a nasty story of superstition ^^ yes it is a double-edged sword.


That certainly happens, but I'm quite positive that the save bonuses outweigh the negatives of this particular situation (and buffing spells too).


Thematically I love the Fighter but it is just easier to stay effective as a Barbarian both in and out of combat. I cant be bothered to scout out metagaming tips online to maximize DPR through elaborate feat trees.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

As a player, I prefer fighters vastly. I like heavy armor, I don't like the death sentence that is raging unless you pay a feat tax, and honestly I just have trouble coming up with good barbarian concepts. Fighter is really my go-to option for a non-wildernessy warrior.

Fighter lets you have both a good AC and a good damage output. Yes they have weak saves but that can be worked around.


I love fighters. Eve without archetypes the feats are frequent enough to free up regular feats for rp stuff.

I am also more thematically interested in the 'trained warrior' rather than the 'savage or natural' warrior.

To each their own. I don't like fighting barbs ha


Personally I like the fighter better but as from all other aspects: Barbarian. Fighter is just too weak.


Threeshades wrote:

I like both in every respect. They are very different classes but I find both fun and the choice between them depends heavily on the flavor of character I want to play.

sunbeam wrote:
Superstition - Saves the Fighter can't imagine, plus the Fort and Will save bonuses rage gives.
I love superstition. In my game the party orc barbarian recently rushed ahead to take on a devourer alone. He won the fight but his hit-points were reduced to below 0 while he was raging, orc ferocity kept him conscious but in order to stay stable and alive, he had to stand still and maintain his rage waiting for the rest of the party to catch up, and then came the fun part. Them trying to heal him up to a point where he could safely end his rage but thanks to superstition they wasted several spells and wand charges because he kept saving against it.

Yes, but even if he saved, he would still be healed for half (much like you save for half with inflict spells). Also superstition only works on spells and spell like abilities, so channeling positive energy will work.

I'm pretty familiar with this owing to a paranoia disease from the AP I'm running where most of the party keeps saving against friendly spells.


Both are good and can be fun to play. Both can be powerful frontline warriors.

Diversity/flexibility is where they differ.

Barbarians can do more different things than a basic Fighter: Rage powers, fast mouvement, Trap Sense.

Fighters on the other hand shine on flexibility with their generous access to Feats. They can specialize in whatever the player wants, even in the earliest levels. They are like a box of legos to a kid, you build what you feel like playing.

I prefer the Fighter for this reason. The Fighter is the perfect dip-class because it can be whatever you need it to be.


I must admit I forgot to comment on the topic.

Well I should do that.

-Roleplaying wise/flavor wise: Personally I don't really see classes as more than packages of abilities, role playing is something I view to be fairly distinct. Though I do admit, I tend to make my barbarians from barbaric places, though sometimes I do that with fighters as well. I guess I probably would play a barbarian as less civilized owing to rage and all.

-Combat wise : Rage powers are simply better than feats, so the barbarian has the edge here. The fighter can have combat maneuvers owing to the plethora of feats, but those really aren't of comparable worth to what the barbarian can get. The fighter can, though, keep up or exceed in damage per hit. The barbarian with superstition, DR, and other abilities can easily be the superior tank. The fighter has the advantage of not requiring resource management. A barbarian has to track both rage rounds per day as well as having plenty of rage powers which can only be used once per rage.

-diversity/flexibility : Barbarian is the clear winner here IMO. They have more skill points, a better skill selection, and rage powers allow all manner of handy abilities, some even out of combat. A fighter has a lousy skill list, minimal skill points, and the closest class ability they have to an out of combat ability is armor training, but honestly given the skill selection, it really only helps with riding, swimming, and climbing. Meh. So you do have the feats to have diverse combat styles, but honestly some of the combat chains are so feat intensive that this really isn't a great option (archery can eat practically all your feats by itself).

-Personal preference: Oddly enough, even though I've been clear that barbarians are better, I prefer to play fighters. I just don't like resource management, and I suppose I like the challenge of working with one of the weakest classes to try to make something good.


Barbarian

-Roleplaying, equal, you can act your Barbarian or Fighter however you like, a Fighter can be a raging brute and a Barbarian can have a hyper focused combat mode.

-Combat Wise, the Barbarian hits more accurately and Invulnerable Rager does exactly what it sounds like.

-Barbarians can get a level of flexibility through Spell Sunder that no Fighter can match.

-Personal Preference, Barbarian. See, Barbarians get this crazy ability to bring all fights to just HP, AC, DR, and Damage. Superstitious handily negates all that nasty stuff monsters bring to fights, especially if you're human. Y'know that saying, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail?" Well Barbarians are a huge hammer, and eventually they become a swiss army knife through Spell Sunder. They've got the most HP in the game, the best DR besides monsters, and do ridiculous damage so they win that fight more times than naught.


Actually with some cheese builds barbarians can have DR which exceeds most monsters (DR 20/- is possible if you build right).

This does bring up the fact that barbarians really do have better archetypes. Fighters really only have a couple which are passable (weapon master, lore warden, two handed fighter). This is because the fighters have too few decent class abilities to trade out.


Barbarian comes out ahead for me every time. Multiple posters have already covered the varied reasons why, but the biggest one that has yet to be mentioned is Beast Totem and pounce. With this alone the barbarian wins out over the fighter in every combat.

Charge, pounce, kill. Charge, pounce, kill. Charge, pounce, kill.

The fighter gets left in the dust making his move and single attack.


Claxon wrote:
Barbarian comes out ahead for me every time. Multiple posters have already covered the varied reasons why.

That is true but the main point for this thread was to get the opinion of people which they prefer to play with and the reasons why.

I personally see them both as great classes to play with. Not necessarily great classes in terms of power compared to others but in my opinion greatness stems from the value of the class to the player and not from the power of the class in game terms.

Also I think I put this thread up because of the barbarian level 19 and fighter level 20 from NPC codex since they looked so cool ^^ especially the fighter with a falchion and heavy pick or something like that.


I tend to prefer fighters to barbarians, although I haven't really had much experience with barbarians. I find that the whole "rage" concept breaks immersion for me and isn't the kind of fighter I want to play. To the questions:

-Roleplaying wise/flavor wise: it's not your class, it's how you use it.
-Combat wise: depends on the combat, probably. I could see this going either way, although I might concede that, generally speaking, barbarians have mechanically stronger options.
-diversity/flexibility: barbarian probably wins here, mechanically speaking.
-Personal preference: fighter, definitely.

I think fighters sometimes get a bum rap. Are they mechanically weaker than a lot of other classes? I think so. But that doesn't make them any less fun to play, provided that you have an imagination and enjoy a challenge.

That said, I typically tend to play classes that mix strong martial abilities with a small amount of spellcasting. This usually results in something that looks like a combat-oriented cleric, sometimes multiclassed (esp. in older systems).


For clarification just to make sure everyone understands, this is not supposed to be a fighter vs barbarian thread but a thread where people explain/discuss why they prefer either of the classes or both.

Also I'm curious on the more reasons than just simply power mechanics wise.

Thank you for all who have already responded, hopefully this thread will help people see these martial classes from perhaps new perspectives.
Your responds at least have helped me understand the classes better.

Thank you :)


aegrisomnia wrote:

I tend to prefer fighters to barbarians, although I haven't really had much experience with barbarians. I find that the whole "rage" concept breaks immersion for me and isn't the kind of fighter I want to play. To the questions:

-Roleplaying wise/flavor wise: it's not your class, it's how you use it.
-Combat wise: depends on the combat, probably. I could see this going either way, although I might concede that, generally speaking, barbarians have mechanically stronger options.
-diversity/flexibility: barbarian probably wins here, mechanically speaking.
-Personal preference: fighter, definitely.

I think fighters sometimes get a bum rap. Are they mechanically weaker than a lot of other classes? I think so. But that doesn't make them any less fun to play, provided that you have an imagination and enjoy a challenge.

That said, I typically tend to play classes that mix strong martial abilities with a small amount of spellcasting. This usually results in something that looks like a combat-oriented cleric, sometimes multiclassed (esp. in older systems).

Excellent point --> ''doesn't make them any less fun to play''.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not the creepy ones from dd 3.5 but ya know the... saying?


Sir Dante wrote:
aegrisomnia wrote:

I tend to prefer fighters to barbarians, although I haven't really had much experience with barbarians. I find that the whole "rage" concept breaks immersion for me and isn't the kind of fighter I want to play. To the questions:

-Roleplaying wise/flavor wise: it's not your class, it's how you use it.
-Combat wise: depends on the combat, probably. I could see this going either way, although I might concede that, generally speaking, barbarians have mechanically stronger options.
-diversity/flexibility: barbarian probably wins here, mechanically speaking.
-Personal preference: fighter, definitely.

I think fighters sometimes get a bum rap. Are they mechanically weaker than a lot of other classes? I think so. But that doesn't make them any less fun to play, provided that you have an imagination and enjoy a challenge.

That said, I typically tend to play classes that mix strong martial abilities with a small amount of spellcasting. This usually results in something that looks like a combat-oriented cleric, sometimes multiclassed (esp. in older systems).

Excellent point --> ''doesn't make them any less fun to play''.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not the creepy ones from dd 3.5 but ya know the... saying?

Actually, being less useful then a similar class usually does make something unfun to play. Especially if someone wants to play said similar class.

I think this is the problem with the way many people see the game. I can and have had fun playing as an Adept. That I can have fun playing an Adept or Expert does not mean the classes are not mechanically weak to play when there are classes that overshadow you. There's nothing wrong with wanting to play a worse class, but why should you have to?


While I agree with Anzyr that classes should be balanced better, this thread isn't the place for that debate. It's been and is being discussed enough other places.


Well, I certainly don't want to derail the thread; I'll just respond by pointing out that: what's fun is entirely a matter of opinion; the concept of handicapping strong players for everyone's increased enjoyment isn't something unique to RPGs; and I think there are real and pressing mechanical imbalances that could be meaningfully addressed in the system.

Of course, the main reason I prefer fighters to barbarians is that I think the "rage" concept is lame. Carry on :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Then this thread doesn't make sense.

I can roleplay Conan, Kull, a viking, or a nomad horsearcher just fine with a fighter.

I can do it with a barbarian as well.

And while he is typecast, I can take a barbarian and play Pious the Crusader who is filled with holy ardor to fight evil, or Foolhardy the Bold, luckiest, rowdiest Cavalier the kingdom has ever seen (and no one was ever able to teach either one to read).

All it takes is reflavoring some of the trappings.

To me this thread is about mechanics or nothing. Barbarians as opposed to fighters seem to be more about impulsiveness and chaos more so than fighters who are neutral.

But you can make Khan the Cunning, leader of the great horde, or Grimgor the Cold, leader of the Northern Vikings (both men who are famed for looking three steps ahead and never letting emotions rule them) just fine with a fighter.

So if it isn't about mechanics, what is this thread about?


sunbeam wrote:

Then this thread doesn't make sense.

I can roleplay Conan, Kull, a viking, or a nomad horsearcher just fine with a fighter.

I can do it with a barbarian as well.

And while he is typecast, I can take a barbarian and play Pious the Crusader who is filled with holy ardor to fight evil, or Foolhardy the Bold, luckiest, rowdiest Cavalier the kingdom has ever seen (and no one was ever able to teach either one to read).

All it takes is reflavoring some of the trappings.

To me this thread is about mechanics or nothing. Barbarians as opposed to fighters seem to be more about impulsiveness and chaos more so than fighters who are neutral.

But you can make Khan the Cunning, leader of the great horde, or Grimgor the Cold, leader of the Northern Vikings (both men who are famed for looking three steps ahead and never letting emotions rule them) just fine with a fighter.

So if it isn't about mechanics, what is this thread about?

What words people like to write at the top of their sheet I guess?


Sir Dante wrote:

With the following criteria's:

-Roleplaying wise/flavor wise
-Combat wise
-diversity/flexibility
-Personal preference

Which do you prefer?

Fighter

Fighter (barbar is mechanically better though)
Fighter
Fighter

Fighter Build:
Human Fighter || 18 14 14 10 10 10 || Intimidate, Ride, Climb, Survival, Swim; Perception, Knowledge(dungeoneering, engineering)|| Reincarnated(+2 vs fear and death effects), Deathtouch(+2 vs mind affecting)
1 |Toughness, Intimidating Prowess, Combat Reflexes
2 |Bravery, Power Attack
3 |Armor training, Cleave
4 |Great Cleave
5 |Weapon training(Blades, Heavy), Blind-Fight
6 |Bravery, Lunge
7 |Armor training, Iron Will
8 |Quick Draw
9 |Weapon training(Bows), Point-Blank Shot
10|Bravery, Rapid Shot
11|Armor training, Deadly Aim
12|Farshot
13|Weapon training(Spears), Leadership
14|Bravery, Mounted Combat
15|Armor training, Mounted Archery
16|Ride-By Attack
17|Weapon training(Close), Spirited Charge
18|Bravery, Trample
19|Armor mastery, Improved Iron Will
20|weapon mastery(GS), Improved Critical(GS)
Mythic Feats: Power Attack, Rapid Shot, Mounted Combat, Toughness, Deadly Aim
Mythic Path Abilities: Longevity, Impossible Speed, Fleet Warrior, Precision, Precision, Precision, Limitless Range, Crusader, Shatter Spells, Farwalker


Not doubt a BBn can outdo a Fighter in DPR with raging. But otherwise, I prefer a fighter.

I have done up a Invulnerable Bbn type, however.

Mind you i prefer a ranger to both. I like skills.


For those of you agree Barbarian is mechanically superior but like Fighter... have you considered just writing Fighter at the top of your sheets but playing a Barbarian. I mean let the GM know that your Fighter X is really a Barbarian X, but then you'll have the best of both worlds.

When I played a Crusader/Cleric/Ruby Knight Vindicator, I didn't write all that on my sheet. I wrote Hero X. Sure the GM had a sheet with my level breakdown, but that didn't change that the characters class was properly Hero.

Dark Archive

Fighters; because I am a feat whore who loves combat manuevers, and Barbarians don't have enough feats. I do think Barbarians are very good as well though.

On breakdown:

Roleplaying wise/flavor wise - Doesn't matter; both have good flavor, and many characters can go in either.

-Combat wise - I prefer combat manuevers to direct damage, and having range options; so again Fighter. But if I were to make a two-handed straight-damage dealer I feel barbarian would be mechanically superior.

-diversity/flexibility - Both. Fighters are flexible on feats and have more options here, rage powers work for Barbarians and there are lots of them (especially given the ease of rage cycling these days).

-Personal preference - Fighter, as stated above. I think "just" being able to do melee damage is not enough, and I like bags of tricks more... so fighters and monks tend to work better for me.


Anzyr wrote:

For those of you agree Barbarian is mechanically superior but like Fighter... have you considered just writing Fighter at the top of your sheets but playing a Barbarian. I mean let the GM know that your Fighter X is really a Barbarian X, but then you'll have the best of both worlds.

You must not have read why people prefer fighters. If you think I'm so shallow that I care what the class name is, that's actually kind of insulting.

I like fighters because I don't like resource management. Barbarians require that (particularly at low level). I also prefer to play a character which has a flat performance curve. I just accept that given the principles of game design in PF, that means I give up some power. Mind you, I think it is too much power as the game is currently written, but I can understand it does become a balance point (even if it is rarely of importance).


Thalin wrote:

Fighters; because I am a feat whore who loves combat manuevers, and Barbarians don't have enough feats. I do think Barbarians are very good as well though.

On breakdown:

Roleplaying wise/flavor wise - Doesn't matter; both have good flavor, and many characters can go in either.

-Combat wise - I prefer combat manuevers to direct damage, and having range options; so again Fighter. But if I were to make a two-handed straight-damage dealer I feel barbarian would be mechanically superior.

-diversity/flexibility - Both. Fighters are flexible on feats and have more options here, rage powers work for Barbarians and there are lots of them (especially given the ease of rage cycling these days).

-Personal preference - Fighter, as stated above. I think "just" being able to do melee damage is not enough, and I like bags of tricks more... so fighters and monks tend to work better for me.

Actually... barbarians are actually REALLY GOOD at certain combat manuevers... Things like Bull Rush, Grapple, Sunder, and a couple of others due to them having rage powers that make those Combat maneouvers really strong xD


drbuzzard wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

For those of you agree Barbarian is mechanically superior but like Fighter... have you considered just writing Fighter at the top of your sheets but playing a Barbarian. I mean let the GM know that your Fighter X is really a Barbarian X, but then you'll have the best of both worlds.

You must not have read why people prefer fighters. If you think I'm so shallow that I care what the class name is, that's actually kind of insulting.

I like fighters because I don't like resource management. Barbarians require that (particularly at low level). I also prefer to play a character which has a flat performance curve. I just accept that given the principles of game design in PF, that means I give up some power. Mind you, I think it is too much power as the game is currently written, but I can understand it does become a balance point (even if it is rarely of importance).

Obviously you are not that shallow, since you dislike resource management, which Fighters have an edge on Barbarian for. However, I have not seen similar reasons from other posters and thus do in fact believe that people care very much about whats written at the top of their sheet. Either that or I'm underestimating the number of people who hate to track resources, one or the other.


My Oshnark is barbarian 7 / fighter 5. When he was a lvl 5 barbarian I started trying to kill him, by charging everything. I survived accidently, added some fighter levels and by now I'm very fond of him. He is a good mixture of fun and efficiency.

Choosing a class is always a matter of character concept. A good idea makes a good game.


I think the comment about having to track resources with a barbarian's rage is a good point, and probably at least part of the reason I dislike it. Another part is that it breaks immersion for me. It feels too much like Goku going Super Saiyan and charging his Spirit Bomb. Some of the rage powers are just too much, and the idea that a fighter could gain all those abilities for a few seconds/minutes per day just by getting really angry... it's hard for me to suspend disbelief and enjoy a game with that going on. Now, if you re-skinned barbarians as some sort of tribal witch doctor or something and made rage some sort of magical ability, that might be different. Alternatively, I feel like the barbarian could be made to feel more natural if the benefits of rage were severely toned down and made mostly always-on, with most of the powers at will. That could be a lot of fun, but you'd basically have a fighter with alternate class features and a different list from which to select bonus feats.


Ya, in the real world people never have any kind of Flight or Fight response to situations like combat. And there have probably never been any real world stories about Berserkers. Definitely no soldiers who continued to fight with grievous injuries, or sudden bursts of strength. That all sounds to magical to have ever happened in our world.

(Above is sarcasm.)


No, of course you're right; it's completely normal for fighters to...

- Sprout dozens of wicked barbs from their bodies;
- Drain the life force of adjacent enemies;
- See clearly in the dark with no light available;

(Above is sarcasm)

Even if we limit the rage powers to the ones that make sense for a mortal human being (accounting for fight or flight), the whole mechanic of activating and deactivating rage breaks realism. In real life, people don't get to decide when fight or flight kicks in. Make the activation subject to GM discretion, and suddenly this becomes more realistic, even if I'm not sure I'd be in line to play a barbarian even then.

EDIT: for instance, you may only use rage if you're below X% of total HP and you're either fleeing or unable to flee from an imminent threat. By its very nature, rage should not be used tactically.

EDIT2: Also, if "fight or flight" is your justification for the "rage" ability, why don't all classes get it? This is a basic human reaction to danger.


Sir Dante wrote:

With the following criteria's:

-Roleplaying wise/flavor wise
-Combat wise
-diversity/flexibility
-Personal preference

Which do you prefer?

The first is a non-issue, since classes do not come with baked in personalities.

Both are about equal combat-wise.

Rage powers trump feats, Barb gets more skill points and a better skill list.

If forced to one over the other, probably barbarian.


aegrisomnia wrote:

No, of course you're right; it's completely normal for fighters to...

- Sprout dozens of wicked barbs from their bodies;
- Drain the life force of adjacent enemies;
- See clearly in the dark with no light available;

(Above is sarcasm)

Even if we limit the rage powers to the ones that make sense for a mortal human being (accounting for fight or flight), the whole mechanic of activating and deactivating rage breaks realism. In real life, people don't get to decide when fight or flight kicks in. Make the activation subject to GM discretion, and suddenly this becomes more realistic, even if I'm not sure I'd be in line to play a barbarian even then.

EDIT: for instance, you may only use rage if you're below X% of total HP and you're either fleeing or unable to flee from an imminent threat. By its very nature, rage should not be used tactically.

EDIT2: Also, if "fight or flight" is your justification for the "rage" ability, why don't all classes get it? This is a basic human reaction to danger.

The barbarian is the one who can actually focus Fight or Flight to accomplish astonishing feats of Strength. That isn't something everyone can do. And while yes some of the Barbarians abilities are Supernatural, they are clearly marked as so and in a world of magic (quite unlike our own) sprouting wicked barbs seems perfectly normal.


Quote:
The barbarian is the one who can actually focus Fight or Flight to accomplish astonishing feats of Strength.

And that's where the realism breaks down, my hindbrain starts seizing up, and I decide that it's better to simply avoid playing a class the mechanics of which occupy the uncanny valley between the peaks of believable heroism and abject fantasy.


You can, of course, re-flavor the ability in whatever manner you wish to suit your preferences.


I prefer the samurai. But that's completely out of context. I'm pretty indifferent to the fighter & barbie.


Thalin wrote:


-Combat wise - I prefer combat manuevers to direct damage, and having range options; so again Fighter. But if I were to make a two-handed straight-damage dealer I feel barbarian would be mechanically superior.

Barbarians actually are the best for scaling their Combat Maneuvers through Strength Surge.

Also to the folks who don't like resource management, by 5th level, you don't run out of rage unless you fight 7-infinity encounters a day.

Its as easy as raging on round 2 of the fights or round 1 if you are already in position.


aegrisomnia wrote:
Quote:
The barbarian is the one who can actually focus Fight or Flight to accomplish astonishing feats of Strength.
And that's where the realism breaks down, my hindbrain starts seizing up, and I decide that it's better to simply avoid playing a class the mechanics of which occupy the uncanny valley between the peaks of believable heroism and abject fantasy.

I can only imagine what your brain would do when you realize that a level 15 fighter could grapple a Wholly Rhino with one hand tied behind his back and buck naked...

Or that he can fall from low orbit and survive...

Or break down a wall with almost no effort at all...

I'm sorry but when you start looking and just WHAT THOSE NUMBERS REALLY MEAN then you will quickly see that a level 7 Fighter is rediculously epic and inhuman...


sunbeam wrote:

Then this thread doesn't make sense.

I can roleplay Conan, Kull, a viking, or a nomad horsearcher just fine with a fighter.

I can do it with a barbarian as well.

And while he is typecast, I can take a barbarian and play Pious the Crusader who is filled with holy ardor to fight evil, or Foolhardy the Bold, luckiest, rowdiest Cavalier the kingdom has ever seen (and no one was ever able to teach either one to read).

All it takes is reflavoring some of the trappings.

To me this thread is about mechanics or nothing. Barbarians as opposed to fighters seem to be more about impulsiveness and chaos more so than fighters who are neutral.

But you can make Khan the Cunning, leader of the great horde, or Grimgor the Cold, leader of the Northern Vikings (both men who are famed for looking three steps ahead and never letting emotions rule them) just fine with a fighter.

So if it isn't about mechanics, what is this thread about?

Could not agree more. Classes are just mechanical collections of abilities. They are not concepts. They are not identities.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Sir Dante wrote:

With the following criteria's:

-Roleplaying wise/flavor wise
-Combat wise
-diversity/flexibility
-Personal preference

Which do you prefer?

Generally the Fighter, on all points except for diversity/flexibility, which I think the Barbarian can really exemplify better. I like the fighter as the dude who's just the experienced combat expert and I like putting together and completing feat trees for combat styles way faster than anyone else can do it.

The Barbarian does end up winning in the adaptability department, as he just ends up with more options for resolution. They both use the "hit things to win" style, but the Barbarian just ends up with more unique ways to hit things, more ways to adapt defensively, and more rider effects he can slap on his hits to allow him to deal with a wider variety of issues.


I prefer casters by a long shot, but for martial type, I'd pick a barbarian, ranger or paladin over a warrior.

Warrior's biggest advantage is getting tons and tons of feats, so playing one can only work by carefully picking feats powerful enough to be about equal to the abilities of other marital classes.


Maklak wrote:

... about equal to the abilities of other marital classes.

I believe we must now add "marital/martial" alongside other typography sillines like "rouge/rogue". I've been seeing it a lot lately.


williamoak wrote:


I believe we must now add "marital/martial" alongside other typography sillines like "rouge/rogue". I've been seeing it a lot lately.

But what if you have a marital rouge?

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Which do you prefer, the fighter or the barbarian? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.