EFUPW Forums

I've heard this combo is disliked by some / all dms for both mechanical and rp reasons, and I would like to have a discussion about it.
 
So, first of all, what is the reason for this?

It's sort of like the same reason there aren't any paladin bards, except without the built-in alignment restrictions.

"Disliked" does not mean forbidden, nor does it mean you will be punished.

It just means "disliked."

It is not a combination I care for. And I am honest about it.

There are some multiclass combinations that make excellent sense in terms of reflecting a character's development - for example, a ranger that wanders the wild but then during the course of RP is taught how to become a druid and takes the oaths, and thus becomes a ranger/druid.

There are some multiclass combinations that make sense in terms of the combination most accurately reflecting what the character is - for example, a Northern Skald type might be best reflected as a barbarian/bard.

The barbarian/fighter combination does not reflect this symmetry well to me. I understand it can be rationalized in various ways - the savage wild-man who joins the army, or whatever - but it doesn't work. There's a certain symmetry to the two classes, a balance between the two that I appreciate. Fighters get concentration, barbarians get taunt. Fighters get weapon-spec, barbarians get different perks.

Each class has its own feel, its own style - and each respective style can further be enhanced by multiclassing of their own, but I do not think the barb-fighter should be mixed. It is like cooking, and mixing two ingredients that while great on their own or when combined when other flavors turn bland and flavorless when combined.

A fighter/rogue is a popular and powerful combination, but there is a trade-off between it and pure fighter. Sure fighter/rogues get evasion and sneaks and UMD, but they will have less HPs and less BAB than pure fighter.

What is the trade-off with barbarian/fighter? The way multiclassing works you can keep concentration AND taunt AND discipline maxed, with perfect BAB, better fortitude saves, all armor proficiencies if you want, barbarian speed, rage, weapon spec... everything.

It is a bland, tasteless mess. The fun little style of the barbarian and fighter are both equally lost, and what is left remaining is something that is simply... boring. A forgettable character.

Obviously, in EFU:A the roleplay involved with a particular character eclipses its build. But there's no denying that a character is best when its build artfully matches what the character IS. Sometimes that is through a pure class, sometimes (rarely) it is through some zany combination that maybe no one has even done before.

For me, the barbarian/fighter multi-class combination has no style, no flavor, no nothing - I look at one, and I don't even see the respective classes, I just see "tank."

I think the philosophy is that if you're going to be a fighter for fighting, then you're dedicated to combat and martial skill, hence the frequent bonus feats for things like Disarm, Knockdown, Called Shot, etc. A barbarian is more of a savage warrior; they aren't about technique or focus, but simply tearing the shit out of anything they don't like. While non-lawful fighters probably get along with barbarians of similar good/evil alignment, they should possess different motivations and approach combat differently, as well.

Mechanically, it's because it's all about the mechanics. Woo, extra feats AND extra STR/CON! I don't think I've ever seen someone become a barbarian (they always take barb after fighter, always) as a result of "going native" or anything like that. It's usually, "so like, my guy is really angry all the time now. Barbarian rage (+STR lolol)!"

As much as I like crazy multiclasses, I like them when they make sense for the character, and they often have a rather gimped build because of it. Most of my fighters, though, end up being pure fighters, with one fighter/rogue exception, and that was so I could have Weapon Spec: Whip on my rogue. (lol, dominatrix)

Quote from: Howland;112130A fighter/rogue is a popular and powerful combination, but there is a trade-off between it and pure fighter. Sure fighter/rogues get evasion and sneaks and UMD, but they will have less HPs and less BAB than pure fighter.
 
What is the trade-off with barbarian/fighter? The way multiclassing works you can keep concentration AND taunt AND discipline maxed, with perfect BAB, better fortitude saves, all armor proficiencies if you want, barbarian speed, rage, weapon spec... everything.
 

The way multi-classing works also means a fighter / rogue can keep discipline, concentration, and UMD maxed, even with one lvl of rogue, the resulting character simply being an overpowered fighter that can use wands with the ridiculous trade-off of 1 point of ab and 4 hp. Far, far stronger than any barb/fighter build, especially in pvp. Why did all, or almost all the characters who succeeded at pvp in the server have levels in classes that allow the use of wands? The truth is, that no matter how much bab, hp, or whatever you are , UMD characters always win pvp, especially when they have a lot of gold. Yet they are not frowned upon.
 
As for the rp aspect, I don't see why a fighter/barb is any less interesting than full fighter or full bard, or than a fighter/bard, or fighter/rogue.

While I do agree that from a mechanical perspective a well-built fighter/rogue is stronger than a fighter/barb on EFU:A, I think Howland and Scotty amply demonstrated why the fighter/barbarian multiclass rarely if ever makes sense from an IC/RP perspective.

I'd also disagree that simply having use of wands means you will win PvP more than classes without it. Whether or not someone wins PvP depends on a whole range of other factors, each one of them more important than access to wands. Regardless, the dislike of fighter/barbarians doesn't stem from perceived mechanical overpower, but rather thematic/style concerns.

Now that I have weapon specialisation, I just get so mad!

I'm of the firm opinion that if you can justify it with back story and RP your character well, then that's all that matters. DM's shouldn't take preference in multiclassing, unless you are failing horribly in your RP of said multiclasses (like a fighter/druid that never spends any time in the woods, but always casts a key barkskin before battle).

Let people play whatever the heck they want to play without any sort of judgment. If its allowed in the mechanics then that's all that should matter. Just back it up with RP. If the WotC didn't want fighter/barbs, they would have built in a method of preventing them.

BTW, Tarzan is a fighter/barb as far as I can tell (in some versions of the tale, where he's tamed by visits to civilization).

remember the april fools day joke on them banning the ftr/barbarian class

haha

That wasn't an April Fool's joke.

The issue of wands is separate, it is indeed not an issue of what is and what isn't more powerful but rather than in my opinion that particular combination has no style. It is admittedly a subjective opinion, but you did ask.

Kilaya, the thing is, it can be interesting but most times it just is not. Fighter/Barbarian is putting two completely different styles and miraculously making them work. Trained, calculated warrior and raging, freedom loving barbarian being this powerful crusher makes little sense when they should probably deduct from the power of each other, but alas the game doesn't have a way of representing that.

Additionally, to your UMD = win, that is way off. Caddies said it when he stated that there are multiple things that come into play. Truth being told, that fighter/barbarian with a huge stack of potions is probably more dangerous then a fighter/rogue with wands.

There is no point in discussing this, proponents can always rationalize the build and opponents can always offer counter-arguments. Either you like it or you don't, and there's probably not a single reasoning out there that will make you think otherwise. As it happens, the vast majority, if not the entirety, of the EfU DM staff dislike this combination, and Howland and Scotty have explained well why that is.

One of the other reasons I don't fancy the particular combination is because for every one, single ftr/barb that is well played and characterized, there are 20 that are taken by clueless players who purely want the mechanical benefits.  That tarnishes the combination and I am human.  It makes me prone to quickly looking past any ftr/barb character rather than spending the time to see if the combination really "works" for the particular concept.

Bored and powergaming after playing squishy elves on CoA I tried this build. It's lethal and able to deal 100 + HP scythe crits at mid levels...yeah, that was RP baby. I agree, this build can be explained, but too often it is just abused.

Remember the warehouse? Me and Hookswords would two man it, either he'd hand over the 1K or die...sometimes in one hit. I can see the DM's grief here ;)

I frankly don't think a reasonably well played UMD character with wands will ever lose in pvp. Once you get improved invis, dispel, and hold person, you are next to invulnerable. And if dislike for fighter/barbs do not come from perceived mechanical superiority, then I find unfair that classes combo that ARE mechanically superior (and thus would more likely be used for powergaming) are given more attention by the dms than a “boring” combo.
 
If you only see a tank when you look at a fighter/barb build, what do you see when you look at a UMD build? I bet you think "Well, this char looks like a powerbuild, but I guess good rp could come out of it".
 
Ignoring a char concept as a whole without looking at each concept individually is unfair.
 
Especially when, as it is, the antagonism between barbs and fighters makes no sense. Class descriptions say fighters have discipline and training while barbarians scorn it, but then why do barbarians, just like fighters, have access to all martial weapons, why do they have the same BAB or why can they take weapon focus, all of which obviously requires training and discipline? I guess barbarians didn't know how to fight all of a sudden, they had to learn and train first. Frankly, all the fighting classes (rangers, barbarians, paladins) are fighters to an extent, with the difference that they are less focused on combat training.
 
So, for example, a wild barbarian who chooses to focus more on martial training than he already does could take fighter levels, and retain much of what made him a barbarian in the first place. Frankly, I don't think this and other explanations make a concept any more illogical than a fighter/bard, or fighter/rogue.
 
As Panama said, looking at the char rp and not at the char sheet is the best thing to do. And I'm not saying my char is the best out there.

Nobody is saying it is wrong. People are saying they don't like it, personally, and it is often not RPed to justice. That does not mean a well-played one cannot exist, or that you are not welcome to try one. I'm sure the DMs would be stunned if one could be played well!

They just generally aren't.

SFP has it.

anyone can say a certain class combination makes sense or is 'illogical' (however you would associate a personality specifically with logic in entirety)

and with the wands listed in the first paragraph, or even a much large arsenal of wands, you are nowhere near untouchable.

a barb/fighter with an equivalent of potions can match that sort of thing with relative ease and i have seen it proven before multiple times

True. Furthermore, this is veering off-topic, and the question that was on topic has been answered by a majority of the DM crew, thusly this thread really has no more of a point to it. If you want talk about how terrible multi-classing is then make a new thread about it.

Quote from: ExileStrife;112175One of the other reasons I don't fancy the particular combination is because for every one, single ftr/barb that is well played and characterized, there are 20 that are taken by clueless players who purely want the mechanical benefits.  That tarnishes the combination and I am human.  It makes me prone to quickly looking past any ftr/barb character rather than spending the time to see if the combination really "works" for the particular concept.

I just hope you don't let it be a grudge. I can think of a lot of cool ways to play a barb/fighter.

Characters I would consider Barb/Fighter varients:
Wolverine
Lancelot (pre and post Arthur's court)
Genghis Khan
Crazy Horse
Andrew Jackson
Jake LaMotta
Rambo
Clint Eastwood
Chewbacca

Yes, people will do it for the build, but since when has making a strong build been a bad thing? Usually I see it encouraged by the DM team. You guys know I have nothing invested in this either, as my characters almost always have terrible builds. I just wouldn't mind seeing some cool barb/fighters if they were played well.

If they aren't played well, I don't see what makes them any different from any other build that's not played well.

[makes a chewbacca noise]

Just a wierd line of thought but I don't think that any build should be justified by the way that you role play the character. But the way that you role play your character should always be supported by the build.
 

Well, looking at it, a Ftr/Barb could of been a solider who learned the more ancient ways of combat (IE, rages), and uses them when he needs them, but does so tactically. On the flip side, a Barb/ftr, a wildsman at heart, had a more formal training with a fighter.

Here's an example story.

Dave the Barbarian was a wild man and fought with battle rages (True Nuteral), and had more 'city-understood' honor than other wildsmen. Ted the Sharborneth Sergeant-At-Arms was a skilled soldier who used discipline and a variety of technquies he had learned as he trained, but wasn't the most lawful Sharborneth, in reality, he was a (True Nuteral) Tempuran. They meet in battle as House Sharborneth expands. The two are tied well, Dave dishes out a beating to Ted and Ted makes it hard on Dave to actually hit, evenly matched, their battle comes to a draw, and, intrestingly enough, form a friendship, and as it goes, they learn more of each other, and start to incorporate eachother's technquies (thus Ted becomes a Fighter/Barb, and Dave becomes a Barb/Fighter, note the class order).


Now I don't expect -every- Barb/Ftr or Ftr/Barb to be the same, but it -is- an explainable backstory.

To be honest, the rift between Wizards and Sorcerors, or City and Druids, is much the same. Why would a wizard see a sorceror as uncontrollable if they aren't letting their whim dictate their actions and spells? Why would a sorceror think wizards too 'bookish'? It's a question that has fooled me, I would figure Wizards having respect for the natural talent of a Sorceror, while the other would have respect for the immense ammount of spells the Wizards can learn.

To be honest, it's how you -play- it that matters to me, if you have something beleivable and workable that backs your mechanics up, I'm all for it, but if you just take it but can't justify it, then seriously, don't. A Ftr/Rogue with UMD can easily be portray as a fighter who has been practicing with wands, but not quite as skilled as a wizard/cleric (depending on the wand), that certainly is how I would play it in many cases.

Regardless of the build, interesting characters generate interest.

I'm not fond of the build myself, but I've been guilty of utilising it in the past. Now, though, I find it difficult to reasonably justify - Especially when people are using the abilities of both in tandem (as one would expect from a multiclass).

My interpretation has the two as mutually exclusive. The unrestrained fury of the Barbarian, and the finely drilled martial skill of the Fighter. Different paths to one goal (CRUSHINGS). The shift from one to the other is doable, and cool. The learning of discipline, or the loss of one's restraint. But this seems like it would be a lengthy process, with its own causes and motivations, and not just because you hit level 5.

Snot's post hits the proverbial nail on the etcetera. Read it.

QuoteThere is no point in discussing this, proponents can always rationalize the build and opponents can always offer counter-arguments. Either you like it or you don't, and there's probably not a single reasoning out there that will make you think otherwise. As it happens, the vast majority, if not the entirety, of the EfU DM staff dislike this combination, and Howland and Scotty have explained well why that is.

QuoteThere is no point in discussing this, proponents can always rationalize the build and opponents can always offer counter-arguments. Either you like it or you don't, and there's probably not a single reasoning out there that will make you think otherwise. As it happens, the vast majority, if not the entirety, of the EfU DM staff dislike this combination, and Howland and Scotty have explained well why that is.

QuoteThere is no point in discussing this, proponents can always rationalize the build and opponents can always offer counter-arguments. Either you like it or you don't, and there's probably not a single reasoning out there that will make you think otherwise. As it happens, the vast majority, if not the entirety, of the EfU DM staff dislike this combination, and Howland and Scotty have explained well why that is.

QuoteThere is no point in discussing this, proponents can always rationalize the build and opponents can always offer counter-arguments. Either you like it or you don't, and there's probably not a single reasoning out there that will make you think otherwise. As it happens, the vast majority, if not the entirety, of the EfU DM staff dislike this combination, and Howland and Scotty have explained well why that is.

I've made my opinion clear, although I'm not sure most of the people reading this thread have read or understood it.

My argument simply is that in NWN, this particular mechanical combination lacks style to me. Nothing to do with "power" and exhausted, tired out arguments about the effectiveness of wands is completely besides the point.

I don't really see the need to repeat myself much here, just re-read my post below if you really must.

Feel free to agree or disagree, and play what you want, it's not like it really matters what I think.

As with the "Batman's alignment" argument, I disagree with many of the supposed Fighter/Barbs identified by PanamaLane.

Rambo is a ranger with FE: Human, for example.
The Man With No Name is more of a rogue, multiclassed with pure badass.
Wolverine is pure barb.
Andrew Jackson gets his own special PrC (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurPresidentsAreDifferent).

And with that, this thread is successfully derailed.

Quote from: ScottyB;112199Andrew Jackson gets his own special PrC (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurPresidentsAreDifferent).

lol.

But Rambo is def barb/fighter. He's a trained weapon that goes off the deep end.

He's a fighter/barb, then.

no skill points : - (

His mental state has little to do with his abilities (being unstable shouldn't qualify you for Rage!) He has an incredible cunning, resourcefulness, and motivation that fits more with the Ranger class than either Fighter or Barbarian.

how about a fighting barbaric warrior PRC???

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0064.html

Barbarian/Fighter is a Cliché since the dawn of multiclass in D&D. It's just easy to do, easy to use and doesn't require a lot of thinking/strategy to play.

Just go forward, soak damage due to your high hp, good ac and hit things hard.

It's usually made and used for that very purpose and it's a purpose that most DM (and players) dont find that appealing to watch, I suppose.

I would not be opposed to some kind of tribalistic, wisdom-based Noble Savage (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NobleSavage) PrC, actually; it could be quite interesting.

BTW, did Roy just take a level of Barbarian, there?

For what it's worth, Kilaya76, I also do not like ftr/rogues and barb/rogues.  Perhaps the worst is the triple threat, ftr/barb/rogue.  Again though, this is just me who does not like them.  It doesn't make it wrong to play it and I have conceded that there have been a few of these characters whom I thought were interesting.

Isn't this like the fifth time we've dragged out this debate?

I want to have the debate on monk / cleric.

I'm waiting for an opportunity to invoke Godwin's Law.

Nazis.

Apparently you can't be calculating with rage, train with vigorous anger, and like to be your own man, or so I hear.

Perhaps we could into a purely character of the EfU's view of a warrior? Characters that rage their heart out, train, and wield a weapon that can seriously mess some one up if hitting in the right spot are the strongest hitting men alive out of the typical adventurer.  Why not copy them since you are in a pretty dangerous place, and you need to survive?  Humans tend to copy what works best, and a warrior would probably cross-train if the humans in Faerun acted like the real humans of today.

The "martial artist purist" fighter has a good form, the "strength favoring and body building" barbarian bangs his shit against something hard to make his body harder and works out all the time to build his strength.

While in the sport of things mechanical powerbuilds are not really encouraged, but in reality the build within reason is quite justified and simply the class build is just not RPed, or RPed properly just like any other class, sort of like how we have dumb wizards.  Not that people should be obligated to RP their class because they multiclassed, it just is good form?

Considering new players are usually encouraged to make a fighter since it is much easier to survive than being a more squishy class, they most likely would multiclass barbarian as well to get by, and despite the "ideals" perceived of the class it really just makes sense for fighter/barbarian.  The lack of RP for the multiclass is probably due to the person being new, considering it is the most likely choice for a newbie to stand a chance anyway.  And I see you are whining because of the lack of RP!  Hell it makes perfect sense compared to wizard/rogue/paladins anyway.

I'm very glad that I we can't see the character list with class and level anymore, because builds that seemed generated for mechanics rather than RP always seemed cheap to me.  

Clerics that never say a prayer, bards that never chant/sing/juggle/act/play the bongo drums (salute to Helkesst) or barbarians wearing full plate armor always should warrant DM slappage IMO.  But now that I can't see these things, it's not as obvious and I'm content the DMs can deal with it or not as they see fit.

I think a good example of a fighter is Russel Crowe's character in Gladiator.  Trained to fight using many weapons, using cagy moves, calm cool and collected.  Brad Pitt's Achilles comes to mind as well in Troy.  (BTW, if you ever wondered what spring attack really is, watch that cat leap and bring it with a spear)  

Barbarians are like Mel Gibson's character and allies in Braveheart, or the token giant dude swinging a huge weapon that every movie with a melee scene seems obligated to employ.  Shrugging off wicked injuries, covered in blood, wearing light or no armor, with little regard for their own safety for themselves.

I will say that playing a 10 STR, RP built character with absolutely no combat feats or skills has been the most satisfying, rewarding, and fun experience I have ever had on EFU.

that is william wallace. show some respect.

What was cool about William Wallace as portrayed by Mel Gibson was that he had a high CHA and INT.  A fairly high WIS also.  He didn't use fancy moves IIRC.  Just enough to get the job done.

Clearly not min/maxxed.  But had to be at least level 10, the way he rocked it out.  His rage bonus seemed to be +6 or greater.  Who was shooting him the Eagle's potions to max his rage?   I'm guessing the Irishman.

Props to WW!

Dwarven Battle Rager = Fighter/Barb.  It actually became a class in later DnD versions if I remember.   A fullplate clad dwarven fighter who rushes into battle and thrashes about wildly til everything around him is dead. Only way to play one in EFUA would be a fightr/barb combo, well you could play it strt fighter, but it really makes no sense when the rage is in the barb class..or yes, you could take the heavy armor feat at 6 as a strt barb. But even better, there could be a Dwarven Battle Rager PRC!!!!!

I think the restrictions on barb now, if you wear heavy armor, you loose your dmg soak, and your fast movement, do a good job at making the combo less appealing.  Still, a fightr/barb is damn near unbeatable in a steel on steel matchup.  IF your pvp devolves into a drinking contest, or a wand quick draw, all bets are off. Which brings me to another point..Make all duels Steel On Steel!!! Any fool can drink a potion! Of course, ambush, assassination and the like are still win at all costs, but duels should be skill vs skill. Not " I can drink faster then you" that should be with ale, or rum, in a tavern, not in a dueling arena. Now that I have rambled completely off topic, I shall cease rambling.

Quote from: efuincarnate;112284I think the restrictions on barb now, if you wear heavy armor, you loose your dmg soak

This makes no sense for all that is holy and logically sensible.

Neither does magic, this is implemented because the DMs felt a Barbarian running around in full plate does not fit in with the balance of the server.

It makes perfect sense that if your barbarian is constantly hiding behind sheets of metallic plates, that his skin wouldn't be as hard and durable as the ones who do not hide behind it, Mr.Pain|Coy.

The mechanical re-balancing was just an incentive to play it more, tribalistic, nature-oriented, Uthgar-style (if you wish) style barbarians.

What the barbarian class is about, really!

I think pure barbarians > Barb/fighters, and pure fighters > barb/fighters very nicely.

The reason for the dislike isn't a mechanical one, it's more of a style one as you sacrifice what makes each class unique and different to (most often) simply stack up attributes or perks.

And since this horse has been beaten enough and I have the last word, I'll lock the dead horse!

+ 1

+ lol