[D&D, several editions] Barbarian vs. Fighter: the poll

[TJS]

I also think it should be a subclass of Fighter.

In 5e, it would be an archetype. But not just stuck on "light armored noble Savage". Rather as a fighter who focuses on frenzied, reckless attacks and flipping out once in a while. A Berzerker, to be exact.

The whole "lightly armored, swift melee fighter" would just be a style.

I think my favourite approach to D&D class design is in Shadow a Demon Lord.
You take a basic Class which you pick from Warrior, Cleric, Rogue, and Mage(or maybe mystic - I can't remember what this class is called).
You stay with that until level 3 when you get to pick up a second class - at which point warriors get to pick from Fighter, Berserker, Ranger, Paladin to add to their base class. Later they get to pick a third even more specialised class which is a bit more like 3Es prestige classes.

 

[AsenRG]

I think Logen Ninefingers from Joe Abercrombie's First Law novels - is the closest decent literary fantasy equivalent to the latter day D&D Barbarian.

But the D&D Barbarian is just too safe - there needs to be at least some chance that a berserk rage will end in tears. (For the Barbarian)

For everyone, you mean?

Haven't read them. Heard they're good, though.

Read them. They're decent.

 

[S'mon]

What it says on the tin.

I’m in the Fighter camp, probably owing to strong old school sensibilities (I don’t really think the Barbarian as presented in just about every edition of D&D since AD&D1 UA really merits being a distinct class, but it I suspect I’m in the minority.

And before anyone else says anything — multiclassing is bullshit.

I definitely prefer playing a Barbarian in 5e D&D - it's a much better class than Fighter there (played both).
In 4e D&D the Fighter is a lot better. It even does Conan a lot better; the 4e Barbarian is more like Slaine (played both).
In 3e D&D they're both terrible (played both I think, certainly seen the Barb played).
In 1e AD&D with UA, the Fighter is a lot better, assuming you use Weapon Spec, and the Barbarian is just a mess of a class (not played it but it looks awful).
In OD&D the White Dwarf Barbarian class is rather fiddly compared to the Fighter, but looks good fun - never played it. It's cloned in "Crypts & Things".

So, whether I prefer Fighter or Barbarian depends on the ruleset I'm using. If 1e or 2e AD&D (or OSRIC, which I'm running), no Barbarians, just use Fighter. 3e & Pathfinder, both are dreary after 5th level when Caster Supremacy dominates. 4e D&D, the PHB Fighter makes an excellent REH-Conan, but Barbarian is useable for a primal-power-channeling Guardian of the Earth type. In 5e D&D the Barbarian is awesome and by far my favourite class; it does Frazetta-Conan (or comic-book & movie Conan) excellently. Other people who play one when I GM love it too; to the extent that I have to give 5e Fighters enhanced Fighting Styles to stay competitive.

 

[The Butcher]

In 4e D&D the Fighter is a lot better. It even does Conan a lot better; the 4e Barbarian is more like Slaine (played both).

The D&D4 Fighter is a thing of beauty. And the Battlerager Fighter is everything I’d ever want from a berserker class, within the D&D4 framework — to the point I didn’t even look at the Barbarian.

In OD&D the White Dwarf Barbarian class is rather fiddly compared to the Fighter, but looks good fun - never played it. It's cloned in "Crypts & Things".

Oh, I’ve got to check this one out.

In 5e D&D the Barbarian is awesome and by far my favourite class; it does Frazetta-Conan (or comic-book & movie Conan) excellently.

This is more or less why I posted this poll. The Barbarian seems to be distinctly more popular than the Fighter, at my D&D5 game tables.

I do think D&D5’s design team was somewhat lost with the Fighter subclasses. The Battle Master is the “look, D&D4 doesn’t really have to end” subclass and the Champion is the “Battle Master too fiddly, here, have some random stuff” subclass.

The Brute is a slightly improved Champion and the others — Eldricht Knight, Cavalier, Samurai, Arcane Archer — are all about their specific gimmicks.

Again, I’d rather berserker types be a subclass of Fighter — the premise of the Barbarian class as a whole is rather limited and it shows in Xanathar’s Guide to Everything as WotC scrapes the bottom of the barrel (elemental barbarians! holy barbarians!) — but I’m also the guy who prefers spell-less Rangers (hello, Scout Rogue) and Bards.

To be honest, if I was doing a more old school, low-magic game, I’d do away with all three classes — a Barbarian is an Outlander Fighter, a Bard is an Entertainer Rogue and a Ranger is a Scout Rogue — but I feel D&D5 in general works better with a high-magic setting, and would rather default to TSR D&D or Mythras for a proper low-magic fantasy game.

 

[S'mon]

To be honest, if I was doing a more old school, low-magic game, I’d do away with all three classes — a Barbarian is an Outlander Fighter, a Bard is an Entertainer Rogue and a Ranger is a Scout Rogue — but I feel D&D5 in general works better with a high-magic setting, and would rather default to TSR D&D or Mythras for a proper low-magic fantasy game.

When I first started 5e Wilderlands in Jan 2015 I wanted a 'high power, low magic' feel, and the pregen options were Fighter, Barbarian & Rogue. That worked excellently for swords & sorcery; one could add Monk too I now think. I would not use Barbarian for a historical campaign, only the no-magic Fighter & Rogue options really fit there. But if I were running eg 5e Primeval Thule, I'd be strongly tempted by Ftr/Rog/Bbbn/Mnk, no PC full spellcasters. I was really annoyed how 5e made Paladin & Ranger such cast-heavy classes, much to their detriment IMO.

 

[The Butcher]

When I first started 5e Wilderlands in Jan 2015 I wanted a 'high power, low magic' feel, and the pregen options were Fighter, Barbarian & Rogue. That worked excellently for swords & sorcery; one could add Monk too I now think. I would not use Barbarian for a historical campaign, only the no-magic Fighter & Rogue options really fit there. But if I were running eg 5e Primeval Thule, I'd be strongly tempted by Ftr/Rog/Bbbn/Mnk, no PC full spellcasters. I was really annoyed how 5e made Paladin & Ranger such cast-heavy classes, much to their detriment IMO.

The Open Hand Monk is a serviceable no-magic class.

Regarding Paladins and Rangers, I am okay with Paladins having some casting ability, but not crazy about the long-standing D&Dism of magic-using Rangers. (Another class that had its best version in D&D4.) And I feel D&D5 Paladins still have better toys, outside their spell list, than the Ranger.

That being said — spell-less Paladins, Rangers and Bards always make me happy. It’s one of the reasons I (still) dig Castles & Crusades.

 

[Necrozius]

For spell-less variants of popular D&D classes in 5e, check out Adventures in Middle Earth. It assumes fewer magic items and magic, but they're still pretty nifty.

Also the Barbarian stand-in (the 'Slayer') doesn't require that the character be in a loincloth with blue tattoos. Boromir was written up as one (they're fighters who can go apeshit and last forever, dropping dead at dramatic moments).

 

[The Butcher]

For spell-less variants of popular D&D classes in 5e, check out Adventures in Middle Earth. It assumes fewer magic items and magic, but they're still pretty nifty.

Also the Barbarian stand-in (the 'Slayer') doesn't require that the character be in a loincloth with blue tattoos. Boromir was written up as one (they're fighters who can go apeshit and last forever, dropping dead at dramatic moments).

Oh, I also gotta look into this one. The world needs more radical D&D5 hacks.

 

[Séadna]

Or those shifty druids, which are also totally historically accurate I once read that bards are quite present in irish folklore, but I don't even know where the druid shapeshifting thing has came from...

It's quite common in folklore for them to shape shift, typically by skinning an animal and wearing its skin they become that animal. There's an absolutely bizarre D&D style story where Saint Patrick and the ArchDruid of Leinster fight it out with Patrick using prayers to summon stuff (like tree branches to crush the druid) and the druid cancelling the prayers with his spells. Finally the druid uses a spell to fly and Patrick counters with a prayer that flings him into ground and he dies.

Bards were a specific group of the aristocracy and often loathed by the population at large, as they charged exorbitant prices from local lords for their services (story telling and praise poetry) which the lord payed out of peasant labour.

 

[Ronin]

I prefer cute hippy girls. Dated a few in high school. I regret nothing.

View attachment 4403

Been there, done that. Would do it again.

 

[3rik]

I don't know if "fantasy" is the word I would use..."nightmare," maybe...

Edit: Tom Bombadil?

Could be a good Gamma World setting with roving bands of dirty hippie mutants scouring the countryside to scavenge what their irradiated communes can't provide.

View attachment 4402​

I prefer cute hippy girls. Dated a few in high school. I regret nothing.

View attachment 4403

Those people look more like crusties.

 

[Dumarest]

Those people look more like crusties.

​

 

[Trippy]

I think the Fighter remains the most popular, but frequently under-discussed online, Class.

One thing I do like with the Fighter, having played mostly magic-using types in D&D games over the years, is just the sheer ease of managing the character. You can still walk, talk, investigate and contribute to the game in all sorts of ways - but you have just a few wrinkles to deal with on your sheet. That's neat. I could say the same about Rogues too.

 

[Bunch]

I think the Fighter remains the most popular, but frequently under-discussed online, Class.

One thing I do like with the Fighter, having played mostly magic-using types in D&D games over the years, is just the sheer ease of managing the character. You can still walk, talk, investigate and contribute to the game in all sorts of ways - but you have just a few wrinkles to deal with on your sheet. That's neat. I could say the same about Rogues too.

Right? It's great because it let's the person who just wants to hang with friends be a full participant with no added work.

Except in 4e where suddenly everyone got the same level of complication as a mage. I saw what they were going for but I don't think they realized who they were leaving behind.

 

[Voros]

Those people look more like crusties.

Crusties do not hang out in nature like my hippie girls.

 

[Baeraad]

I'd rather play a barbarian. It gives you an archetype to work with. Fighter? That's about as descriptive and flavourful as "guy with sword"...

 

[Trippy]

I'd rather play a barbarian. It gives you an archetype to work with. Fighter? That's about as descriptive and flavourful as "guy with sword"...

You could use an axe?

 

[Ladybird]

You could use an axe?

Be a radical.

Sword and axe.

 

[Baeraad]

You could use an axe?

Be a radical.

Sword and axe.

Those options notwithstanding... Mind you, if I actually had a really cool idea for a character background, I'd probably go wtih fighter precisely because it doesn't come with any preconceived notions. But I rarely have any cool ideas for character backgrounds, so the more I get for free in that regard, the better.

 

[Trippy]

Those options notwithstanding... Mind you, if I actually had a really cool idea for a character background, I'd probably go wtih fighter precisely because it doesn't come with any preconceived notions. But I rarely have any cool ideas for character backgrounds, so the more I get for free in that regard, the better.

I must admit that if I did play a Fighter, which I may yet, it would still probably be as a Battle Master archetype - because I still want some things to fiddle with on my sheet as I play. And there are some options to customise a Fighter, with Feats and so on, that can add interest.

However, I just think that there are plenty of players out there, unlike me, that just like the simplicity of the role.

 

[TJS]

Be a radical.

Sword and axe.

Like one of these?

 

[Bunch]

This brings up something I've always disliked about fighters and D&D. There are optimal weapons and armor so almost all fighters converge to plate, shield and longsword. Booooring!
I say fighters weapons do d10 damage per round and let them pick from the whole damn list of weapons. Give them +1 ac so it doesn't matter if you use a shield or not and you still do d10 combined for both weapons if you dual wield. Pull the specifics out so players can pick fun over functional.

Let's see more glaive wielders with morning stars.

 

[The Butcher]

Be a radical.

Sword and axe.

My favorite combo for dual-wielding rangers back in the day — long sword and hand axe, to be specific.

I could say the same about Rogues too.

I’ve always been a huge fan of the rogue/thief archetype. And I like just about every one of the Rogue subclasses I’ve seen implemented for D&D5. It’s probably my favorite class in this edition.

This brings up something I've always disliked about fighters and D&D. There are optimal weapons and armor so almost all fighters converge to plate, shield and longsword. Booooring!
I say fighters weapons do d10 damage per round and let them pick from the whole damn list of weapons. Give them +1 ac so it doesn't matter if you use a shield or not and you still do d10 combined for both weapons if you dual wield. Pull the specifics out so players can pick fun over functional.

Let's see more glaive wielders with morning stars.

That’s exactly how white box OD&D works — you deal your Hit Dice in damage regardless of weapon.

As for there being an optimal weapon, I’m no expert on arms and armor, but isn’t this more or less how it worked historically?

 

[AsenRG]

As for there being an optimal weapon, I’m no expert on arms and armor, but isn’t this more or less how it worked historically?

Yes and no, as in, there are combinations that are considered more or less optimal for a given time period. But there have been "reversals" against said optimal combo using "lesser" weapons.
Also, plate and shield have seldom been part of this combo together.

 

[Bunch]

My favorite combo for dual-wielding rangers back in the day — long sword and hand axe, to be specific.



I’ve always been a huge fan of the rogue/thief archetype. And I like just about every one of the Rogue subclasses I’ve seen implemented for D&D5. It’s probably my favorite class in this edition.



That’s exactly how white box OD&D works — you deal your Hit Dice in damage regardless of weapon.

As for there being an optimal weapon, I’m no expert on arms and armor, but isn’t this more or less how it worked historically?

I think it's constantly in flux where there are optimal weapons, armor and tactics for a given situation but modeling that mechanically is probably more involved than people want.

 

[Ladybird]

As for there being an optimal weapon, I’m no expert on arms and armor, but isn’t this more or less how it worked historically?

Sort of, depending on where armour vs weapon technology was at the time, but it depended on what you were going up against and how you were trained. And then The Gun comes along and changes everything...

Ideally, you’d combine weapon vs armour and style vs style modifiers so that fighters become far more interesting, but that’s probably going to slow things down too much to really fit neatly into the D&D paradigm; there’s a reason all those tables got dropped many editions ago.

 

[TJS]

This brings up something I've always disliked about fighters and D&D. There are optimal weapons and armor so almost all fighters converge to plate, shield and longsword. Booooring!
I say fighters weapons do d10 damage per round and let them pick from the whole damn list of weapons. Give them +1 ac so it doesn't matter if you use a shield or not and you still do d10 combined for both weapons if you dual wield. Pull the specifics out so players can pick fun over functional.

Let's see more glaive wielders with morning stars.

I don't really get this. What's the point of being free to choose anything if the choice is utterly meaningless?

 

[Johnny Blade]

This brings up something I've always disliked about fighters and D&D. There are optimal weapons and armor so almost all fighters converge to plate, shield and longsword. Booooring!
I say fighters weapons do d10 damage per round and let them pick from the whole damn list of weapons. Give them +1 ac so it doesn't matter if you use a shield or not and you still do d10 combined for both weapons if you dual wield. Pull the specifics out so players can pick fun over functional.

Let's see more glaive wielders with morning stars.

I'll one up You: when I played 3.5 I gave the fighters the possibility to "modify" the stats of their weapons, while still considering them as the same Weapon type for feats like Weapon Focus. It was conceptualized as a veteran warrior using a variety of fighting styles to fit the situation. So for instance you had a greataxe wich did 1d12 slashing but you could clobber people in the head with the flat side to do 1d10 blunt instead.
It's something so obvious I allways asked myself why nobody else that I know did that.

 

[Ladybird]

I don't really get this. What's the point of being free to choose anything if the choice is utterly meaningless?

Characterisation and style; by decoupling weapon and stats, you can be a flashy duelist, you can be a generic swordsman, you can have bizarre weapons from distant lands, and you're not paying a cost in game effectiveness to do so. It's the mechanically-simplest way of doing this.

 

[Bunch]

I don't really get this. What's the point of being free to choose anything if the choice is utterly meaningless?

Well I'd argue in both cases that statement is true. In the traditional methods almost everyone ends up with a longsword. Ok I had a billion choices but really only one makes sense mechanically.
In my proposal you can make any choice it's mechanically the same.
It let's players wield what they want vs what the system wants.

 

[TJS]

Characterisation and style; by decoupling weapon and stats, you can be a flashy duelist, you can be a generic swordsman, you can have bizarre weapons from distant lands, and you're not paying a cost in game effectiveness to do so. It's the mechanically-simplest way of doing this.

No. I'm just telling a story about how my character is that thing because the game is a complete void in this area.

Well I'd argue in both cases that statement is true. In the traditional methods almost everyone ends up with a longsword. Ok I had a billion choices but really only one makes sense mechanically.
In my proposal you can make any choice it's mechanically the same.
It let's players wield what they want vs what the system wants.

Really I don't think it's that hard. Make weapons distinct and then playtest it. 4E had a good stab at it, but made the mistake of giving heavy blades a bonus to hit which broke the math.

"Longsword must defeat all" or "weapon choice as irrelevant colour" aren't exactly the only two options on the table.

 

[S'mon]

I don't really get this. What's the point of being free to choose anything if the choice is utterly meaningless?

This is more my feeling. I really enjoyed playing my 4e Thief Larsenio Roguespierre, who used only a magic dagger which he threw, being 4e it came back each time. It wasn't mechanically optimal (shortbow would average an extra 1 point of damage & longer range) but with the massive bonuses I had stacked on even at low level I pretty well never missed and still did ridiculous damage.

Using a dagger was making a statement - "I'm just that good".

 

[S'mon]

This is more or less why I posted this poll. The Barbarian seems to be distinctly more popular than the Fighter, at my D&D5 game tables.

I don't think anything the Fighter has compares to Barbarian damage resistance while raging. And they have some other great stuff too later, like advantage on init; not to mention Reckless Attack & advantage on DEX saves. With Reckless + Great Weapon Fighter I can reliably do more damage as a Barb than as a Fighter, and while I may get hit a lot that's a good thing - being by far the toughest PC I *want* the enemy attacking me.

IME a well played barbarian tends to be the lynchpin of the party. Fighters by comparison tend to be too squishy, and relying on a high AC is not a sound strategy in 5e, too many ways to bypass it.

My solution was to create additional Fighting Styles resembling 1e weapon specialisation that give Fighters more damage and help them compete, though they remain relatively squishy. Stuff like +1d6 with maul or greatsword, or +4 with great axe; Duelist's +2 with 1hw is already decent. Also there's an Amazon fighting style available only to Amazon Fighters which basically recreates the Necromancer Games 3e Wilderlands amazon warrior in 5e - lose heavy armour prof; add CHA to unarmoured AC and +1 damage die with amazon weapons, including a rapier-like d8 finesse sword.

 

[AsenRG]

Characterisation and style; by decoupling weapon and stats, you can be a flashy duelist, you can be a generic swordsman, you can have bizarre weapons from distant lands, and you're not paying a cost in game effectiveness to do so. It's the mechanically-simplest way of doing this.

You mean...narrative reasons?

This is more my feeling. I really enjoyed playing my 4e Thief Larsenio Roguespierre, who used only a magic dagger which he threw, being 4e it came back each time. It wasn't mechanically optimal (shortbow would average an extra 1 point of damage & longer range) but with the massive bonuses I had stacked on even at low level I pretty well never missed and still did ridiculous damage.

Using a dagger was making a statement - "I'm just that good".

But if all weapons were the same, then it wouldn't be a statement that matters. Because the putdown would be easy.

"No, you're not that good, because there's no difference between the dagger and the bow. And you know it, so shut up and roll the dice!"
It's only when you're actually giving up something in order to do what you want that such statements matter.

 

[Ladybird]

Really I don't think it's that hard. Make weapons distinct and then playtest it. 4E had a good stab at it, but made the mistake of giving heavy blades a bonus to hit which broke the math.

"Longsword must defeat all" or "weapon choice as irrelevant colour" aren't exactly the only two options on the table.

Yeah, but the problem with that approach is that the options would get mathed out by the community and the optimal solutions would be found. You might end up with a few more optimal choices, but effectively all you have done is added more (sub)subclasses rather than make the fighter more versatile in play; players being players, and the game being how it is, they’ll find one solution and stick with it rather than switch things up.

 

[Bunch]

No. I'm just telling a story about how my character is that thing because the game is a complete void in this area.


Really I don't think it's that hard. Make weapons distinct and then playtest it. 4E had a good stab at it, but made the mistake of giving heavy blades a bonus to hit which broke the math.

"Longsword must defeat all" or "weapon choice as irrelevant colour" aren't exactly the only two options on the table.

No not at all. They're easy though and easy has advantages. Let's say you want the choices to be meaningful. You will probably end up with a limited number of weapons because its hard to make a ton of different weapons meaningful.
You'll end up with trap weapons. They look like they might be meaningful but really some other weapon does the job better. D&D 3.x tried to do this and did an ok job but there were still a ton of weapons that had stats but no one would really ever use. Part of my annoyance at this is I happen to think the Spetum looks pretty cool but in no game I ever have played would I use it because two reasons. The mechanics said it's not as damaging as something else with reach or lacked some cool bonus feature of an essentially identical weapon or I knew I'd never find a magic version of it.
Now a consistent DM can houserule around it or pretend someone's going to make magic spetums but that's working around the system.

Similar reason behind armor and ac. I'd like to but in this case barbarian turns out to be my light armor class and fighter my heavy armor. Barbarian trys to solve the problem with some AC and damage reduction boosts as you level. Fighter just gives you the heavy armor option.

 

[AsenRG]

Yeah, but the problem with that approach is that the options would get mathed out by the community and the optimal solutions would be found. You might end up with a few more optimal choices, but effectively all you have done is added more (sub)subclasses rather than make the fighter more versatile in play; players being players, and the game being how it is, they’ll find one solution and stick with it rather than switch things up.

Or, you know, the designer can math the options out beforehand and ensure that there's more than one roughly equal variants (assuming that's the goal).

 

[Bunch]

Or, you know, the designer can math the options out beforehand and ensure that there's more than one roughly equal variants (assuming that's the goal).

Sure they can try but I think it's safe to say the more options you provide the harder it is to test and make sure it's all in balance. The more options you add the more likely you are to miss something and fail. If you stick to a limited number of options you get back to something just a little away from longsword rulz!

 

[Ladybird]

Or, you know, the designer can math the options out beforehand and ensure that there's more than one roughly equal variants (assuming that's the goal).

That's something they already do, though; it's just a very hard problem. I'll admit that "every weapon is the same" might not suit everyone, but it is the simplest possible solution that does the job.

 

[TJS]

Yeah, but the problem with that approach is that the options would get mathed out by the community and the optimal solutions would be found. You might end up with a few more optimal choices, but effectively all you have done is added more (sub)subclasses rather than make the fighter more versatile in play; players being players, and the game being how it is, they’ll find one solution and stick with it rather than switch things up.

Make sure your combat system involves more than one problem. If you do that there's not a single best solution, but multiple solutions to different problems. Make the prevalence of different problems somewhat situational and you make the balance of solutions difficult to quantify.

To me suggesting that all weapons should just be the same is like saying all magic-users should just have 1 spell per level because one spell is always going to be the best one. Fighters really ought to get at least one meaningful choice they can make - even a game as basic as Advanced Fighting Fantasy differentiated between weapons.

I've run games without weapon distinctions - in particular modern games where "guns" all work the same and have no mechanical distinction. But this was more to make the point that the game was not meant to involve copious amounts of shooting and to discourage players from pouring through equipment lists. In other words I didn't do that to allow players to choose any particular firearm they happened to prefer - I did it to discourage this. To my mind this is why it works in WFRP as well - your ratcatcher is not a highly trained warrior, he's a peasant fighting desperately for his life, and any weapon that happens to be lying around will do the job. I guess that mean's your peasant's hand weapon can be a nunchuku if you really want it to but well....what's the point?