PDA

View Full Version : ... merging fighter and barbarian?!



Zen Master
2009-08-21, 02:56 AM
Ok, I got an idea.

In actual play, I feel melee classes perform well within reasonable parameters. I know that in theory and with access to various cheese and level 20, casters are hard - but in practical play that has never been a problem.

Something else has though.

The way I see the melee classes, they have no active options other than to hit things with other things - and no reactive options, period.

In other words: Offensively, they can attack with melee weapons. Defensively, their saves had better succeed, or they are toast.

Which makes them boring to play.

So I thought: What if I merge the barbarian class with the fighter class. Getting the full benefits of both. Fast movement in light armor, rage, high hitpoints, lots of feats - all of it.

Also, a buff to rage, such as: If you fail a save that causes paralysis, mindcontrol, or the like, you may activate rage as an immediate action to reroll the save with a +4 bonus.

Now ... surely that would be more fun to play. You get more options, a reactive defence, and so on.

Would this be good? Or bad?! I'd put my money on bad, because most of my class design ideas fail horribly - but I'd like to hear what you think.

Kurald Galain
2009-08-21, 03:09 AM
So I thought: What if I merge the barbarian class with the fighter class. Getting the full benefits of both. Fast movement in light armor, rage, high hitpoints, lots of feats - all of it.
Well, the thing is that many of their abilities overlap. Essentially, you're gestalting them - but fighter//barbarian is not exactly a popular or effective gestalt.

For more options? I'd start with giving them more skill points. It also helps if you have the kind of DM that lets you jump over people, throw foes into other foes, and hang from chandeliers.

erikun
2009-08-21, 03:16 AM
I put my money on "same".

The problem with the Fighter is that it doesn't have any class abilities. The only thing it has is what every other class has: feats. It just has more of them.

The problem with just giving a Barbarian one extra feat every two levels is that it doesn't resolve anything. A good Barbarian build can deal 1000+ damage in a round; damage isn't a problem. It's getting to enemies that can't be damaged, or doing stuff when there isn't a fight, which are the Barbarian's weak points. They are also the Fighter's weak points, and putting the two of them together won't solve anything.

The best thing you can do for the Fighter is to give them some class abilities; give them some reason to be a Fighter. Several other classes do that - I prefer the Psychic Warrior (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/psychicWarrior.htm), myself.

Myrmex
2009-08-21, 03:22 AM
I like it.


Well, the thing is that many of their abilities overlap. Essentially, you're gestalting them - but fighter//barbarian is not exactly a popular or effective gestalt.

That's gestalt, though, where the rules are explicitly set up for you to combine the best of complementary classes for the finest of cheese whizzes.

He is instead suggesting combining two very similar classes to get a more well rounded and powerful class that isn't outside of its niche (as opposed to psion//warblade or factotum//wizard which pretty much break everything into little pieces).

Zen Master
2009-08-21, 03:46 AM
I like it.

That's gestalt, though, where the rules are explicitly set up for you to combine the best of complementary classes for the finest of cheese whizzes.

He is instead suggesting combining two very similar classes to get a more well rounded and powerful class that isn't outside of its niche (as opposed to psion//warblade or factotum//wizard which pretty much break everything into little pieces).

Indeed. I'm very much not looking to travel down the long road to where the cheese grows. I'm trying to make something that's a little more powerful than either of it's constituent parts - the Barrior, if you will - with the option of going low armor, high speed, or high armor, normal speed, with rage for extra damage, lots of feats, and so on. A well-rounded and fun melee class is what I'm after - but still, just a melee class.

More skill points would be nice, tho, and an expanded skill list. To my thinking, physical guys should have access to all physical skills - tumble and balance, for instance.

erikun
2009-08-21, 03:54 AM
The Barbarian is already pretty Barriorish already, I have to say. They seem to fight just fine. I think the problem you're seeing isn't that the Barbarian is too narrow - rather, than the Fighter is pretty bad by itself and really needs something else.

More/better Barbarian skills is a possibility. Balance, Heal, Knowledge (Local), and Search sound like they'd make sense for the Barbarian. More than that would push the Ranger out of its speciality, though. I don't see the Barbarian as a tumbler.

What don't you like about the Barbarian that you'd like to fix? Too narrowly defined? Being stuck with the "Rage-n-Smash" gimmick?

Kurald Galain
2009-08-21, 03:55 AM
That's gestalt, though, where the rules are explicitly set up for you to combine the best of complementary classes for the finest of cheese whizzes.

Of course, but what the OP is suggesting is letting fighters and barbs play a fighter//barb gestalt.

Zen Master
2009-08-21, 03:59 AM
The Barbarian is already pretty Barriorish already, I have to say. They seem to fight just fine. I think the problem you're seeing isn't that the Barbarian is too narrow - rather, than the Fighter is pretty bad by itself and really needs something else.

More/better Barbarian skills is a possibility. Balance, Heal, Knowledge (Local), and Search sound like they'd make sense for the Barbarian. More than that would push the Ranger out of its speciality, though. I don't see the Barbarian as a tumbler.

What don't you like about the Barbarian that you'd like to fix? Too narrowly defined? Being stuck with the "Rage-n-Smash" gimmick?

I confess this is all more for the benefit of the fighter than the barbarian. But really, the barbarian has a line of limitations that I see little real call for. Also, few feats. So my point is - why the limitations? Why not one class with a long line of interesting options open?

To be more precise - why should there be different classes for a sword guy in heavy armor, a sword guy in light armor, and a sword guy with two swords (or a bow) ... to include the ranger in the discussion.

The point here is mainly to make melee classes less limited, more fun and appealing.

Also, a melee guy could tumble. I honestly don't see why not. Again, it's a limitation the class doesn't need - there's no reason it should be rogue-exclusive.

Zen Master
2009-08-21, 04:00 AM
Of course, but what the OP is suggesting is letting fighters and barbs play a fighter//barb gestalt.

Nah - what I'm suggesting is doing away with both classes, and replacing them with something else. Not gestalt - a core (though houserule) baseclass with the benefits of both.

Of course, you are free to call that gestalt if you like :)

Teron
2009-08-21, 04:02 AM
Perhaps something more drastic is in order. You could try giving fighters a variety of discrete combat options, "maneuvers" if you will, and some of them could be reactive "counters". Maybe you could even do the same for the paladin and monk while you're at it! :smallwink:

Seriously, you want the Tome of Battle. It was written to address the very issues you mentioned, and it succeeds beautifully.

erikun
2009-08-21, 04:07 AM
Generic Classes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm), including a generic "Warrior" class which can use feats for various class abilities. You'd probably want more skill points (2+INT is always horrible) and add Rage to the abilities you can pick up each level.

It sounds like this is what you're trying to work towards - a generic warrior class that can be build into whatever you want it to do. While the default on the SRD is pretty limited, you could probably make one which gives you one feat/ability each level, and then choose from a list of which abilities your class will have.

Thespianus
2009-08-21, 04:10 AM
I like it.

It would make the Fighter a lot better, it would make the Barbarian a bit better, and it would give the Barbarian a few more options to spend the non-Fighter feats on Feats that aren't Fighter Feats.

I've been trying to make my girlfriend's Barbarian a bit more fun, but trying to get the "essential" feats (Power Attack, Cleave, Improved Bull Rush, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack) to keep her damage numbers good, the feats that grant any other kind of ability or flavorful abilities (such as Intimidating Rage, Combat Reflexes, etc) are hard to squeeze into the build until later stages.

With a FighBarian, this problem would go away and she would be a lot more flexible.

So, I like it. Meleers should have some nice things.

Thespianus
2009-08-21, 04:17 AM
Perhaps something more drastic is in order. You could try giving fighters a variety of discrete combat options, "maneuvers" if you will, and some of them could be reactive "counters". Maybe you could even do the same for the paladin and monk while you're at it! :smallwink:

Seriously, you want the Tome of Battle. It was written to address the very issues you mentioned, and it succeeds beautifully.

It does, but it's a bit more complicated and ..well, the Fighter class has tradition to us old DnDers. :)

Speaking from my own experience here, which isn't great, but still:

We currently don't play with Tome of Battle. The descision was made before we all were very up to speed on the 3.5 system. Now that we've realized how much casters rule, we would probably change that houserule if we started the campaign over, but changeing it all now would make it weird for the less experienced players in the group. Feats are usually fairly easy to understand, Manouvers and Stances are a bit more complex and require abit more involvement from the player when it comes to the rules to make it good. I like learning the rules, my girlfriend does not. The FighBarian would be good for her, that's all I'm saying. :)

Tempest Fennac
2009-08-21, 04:32 AM
I wouldn't say ToB classes are really anymore complicated then Sorcerers or Favoured Souls as far as their Maneuvers go (they need slightly more planning due to more powerful Maneuvers and Stances having prequisites, though).

Zen Master
2009-08-21, 04:38 AM
Perhaps something more drastic is in order. You could try giving fighters a variety of discrete combat options, "maneuvers" if you will, and some of them could be reactive "counters". Maybe you could even do the same for the paladin and monk while you're at it! :smallwink:

Seriously, you want the Tome of Battle. It was written to address the very issues you mentioned, and it succeeds beautifully.

I've not read this particular book. I have however read a whole bunch of the others, and in my personal view, they all suck in the profoundest of ways.

It's not that there isn't good stuff in Complete Psionics, to take the most recent one - it's just that most of it is completely and totally retarded.

I cannot leave the development of my DnD game beyond core in the hands of such people as these.

So ... you may be right so far as that I want things that are included in ToB, it's likely that I specifically do NOT want 90% or more of it - which means I'm just importing scraps and have to houserule everything else out. No good.

Thespianus
2009-08-21, 06:12 AM
I wouldn't say ToB classes are really anymore complicated then Sorcerers or Favoured Souls as far as their Maneuvers go (they need slightly more planning due to more powerful Maneuvers and Stances having prequisites, though).

True, but Fighbarians are easier. "See enemy, get angry, run and hack with axe". ;)

arkol
2009-08-21, 07:00 AM
The problem with the Fighter is that it doesn't have any class abilities. The only thing it has is what every other class has: feats. It just has more of them.


I think here is where both the problem and the solution lies.

So a fighter gets a ton of feats. Check.
Anyone can pick feats. Check.
And he doesn't get any unique class features. Check.
There are some feats that are fighter only. Check.

So in truth you CAN get unique class features. The fighter only feats. The problem is that: THEY. SUCK.

Pathfinder lightly touched this, including a couple of very good, fighter only feats (those anti-spellcasters).

I think this is the way to go with fighters. They get a ton of feats but their selection is basically the same as everyone else. So create a few fighter only feats, which essencially work as unique class features. Give them minimum fighter levels to keep he power level in line and that's it.

Teron
2009-08-21, 08:13 AM
I've not read this particular book. I have however read a whole bunch of the others, and in my personal view, they all suck in the profoundest of ways.

It's not that there isn't good stuff in Complete Psionics, to take the most recent one - it's just that most of it is completely and totally retarded.

I cannot leave the development of my DnD game beyond core in the hands of such people as these.

So ... you may be right so far as that I want things that are included in ToB, it's likely that I specifically do NOT want 90% or more of it - which means I'm just importing scraps and have to houserule everything else out. No good.
The Tome of Battle isn't a pile of random scraps, unconnected feats and PrC's and what have you; and it's absolutely nothing like the piece of crap that is Complete Psionic. It's a cohesive new melee system that makes the game better by its wholesale inclusion. Core on its own is as unbalanced as it gets, and the Tome of Battle is one of the few things that improves that balance, as well as making melee characters a lot more fun and varied, both in terms of builds and individual characters' actions. The only downside is that archers don't get to partake of the vastly improved mechanics, and are still stuck making full attacks every turn (weapon throwers can get in on the action with a particular prestige class, though).

Please don't let the general quality of WotC's books prejudice you against the Tome of Battle; it stands with the Expanded Psionics Handbook and a couple of others like shining beacons over a sea of gull ****. The PHB is pretty much a solid mountain of it rising above the churning white tides, for that matter; you're making two dire mistakes at once if you discount the ToB to protect the "sanctity" of the core environment.

... And that bizarre poetic turn means it's long past time I got to bed. But my point stands.

Thespianus
2009-08-21, 08:41 AM
While discussing this FighBarian idea, it dawned on me: What about giving all melee base classes (outside of ToB) Fighter Feats on every even level (2, 4, 6, etc)?

It would boost the Barbarian and the Monk, it would make the Ranger interesting, it might make the Samurai a bit less retarded, and so on.

It would make the Duskblade crazy good and might make the Paladin too good, so some kind of limit on spellcasters should probably be included. But, anyway, I'm tossing this idea out there.

I know, I know... "Use ToB" you will say, but.. well, apart from that? ;)

Mr. Mud
2009-08-21, 09:20 AM
I too like it, but doesn't it put another class in the same caliber as Wizard (Cheddar caliber) instead of saving Martial heroes as a whole?

But I like it :smallsmile:.

Dacia Brabant
2009-08-21, 10:04 AM
I've not read this particular book. I have however read a whole bunch of the others, and in my personal view, they all suck in the profoundest of ways.

It's not that there isn't good stuff in Complete Psionics, to take the most recent one - it's just that most of it is completely and totally retarded.

I cannot leave the development of my DnD game beyond core in the hands of such people as these.

So ... you may be right so far as that I want things that are included in ToB, it's likely that I specifically do NOT want 90% or more of it - which means I'm just importing scraps and have to houserule everything else out. No good.

You really should check it out before passing judgment on Tome of Battle/Book of Nine Swords. Here's just some of what ToB does for melee:


Makes sword-and-board a viable option (replacing weapon damage with Concentration checks, adding multiple sources of bonus damage, ability damage, etc.);
Has ways of inflicting status effects with melee attacks;
Expands the action economy with a slew of swift/immediate actions, extra movement, extra actions, extra AoOs and extra turns even;
Likewise, the X/day stuff is mostly a thing of the past as maneuvers (the "powers" of the ToB classes) are used on a per-encounter basis, and have built-in recharge methods;
Provides additional methods/mechanics besides saving throws/SR to avoid or overcome status effects/save-or-lose (skill checks to replace weak saves, ways to ignore terrain penalties, short-term concealment/invisibility/incorporality, and you have to see Iron Heart Surge for yourself);
Has ways to heal yourself/your party (including an effect that duplicates Heal) with successful melee attacks, effectively ending the conundrum of whether to cast that Cure Serious Wounds spell or do something to help end the encounter;
And gives us a Monk (Swordsage) that doesn't suck.

Person_Man
2009-08-21, 10:06 AM
I think this belongs in Homebrew.

Also, an easy fix is to just give Barbarians bonus Fighter feats instead of Trapsense. Barbs and Fighters also have some useful alternate class features on the books as well, which make them playable up to ECL 11ish without house rules.

Zen Master
2009-08-21, 10:06 AM
I too like it, but doesn't it put another class in the same caliber as Wizard (Cheddar caliber) instead of saving Martial heroes as a whole?

But I like it :smallsmile:.

Hm ... you think?

The way I see it, I create a martial class that:

Has active abilities in combat (rage and various feats)
Has a number of options open, so you can build for dex, armor, mobility ....
Has an active defence in the case he fails a save

It's not like equipped him with gatling lasers or anything.

RTGoodman
2009-08-21, 10:24 AM
In other words: Offensively, they can attack with melee weapons. Defensively, their saves had better succeed, or they are toast.

To fix the offensive part, you need to fix melee in general. ToB does that, whether or not you want to admit it. Otherwise, you're going to have to rewrite or buff rage (maybe take a look at Pathfinder's version, which, though I've not looked at it, is supposedly good), rewrite a VAST number of feats for the Fighter to make them actually effective, and in general find some ways to make melee effective (remove the need for full attack actions or give easier access to free movement, etc.).

To fix the defensive problem, just give the Fighter a good Fort save AND a good Ref save. Will saves he SHOULDN'T be good at, in general - nothing about a Fighter suggests he's trained his mind against magical attacks and such. HOWEVER, you should allow the Steadfast Determination feat, which lets a character use his Fort save instead of his Will save. Ta-da! Fighters are no longer terrible at saves! And while we're at it, why not chuck a d12 HD at them.



So I thought: What if I merge the barbarian class with the fighter class. Getting the full benefits of both. Fast movement in light armor, rage, high hitpoints, lots of feats - all of it.

As a "fix," it's inelegant. Two bad things together do not always a good thing make.



Also, a buff to rage, such as: If you fail a save that causes paralysis, mindcontrol, or the like, you may activate rage as an immediate action to reroll the save with a +4 bonus.

There's already a feat for that, and it's the kind of thing I think should remain a feat. It's called Instantaneous Rage and is in Complete Warrior.



Now ... surely that would be more fun to play. You get more options, a reactive defence, and so on.

Not necessarily. You've barely changed anything, especially in a non-Core situation. Basically, you killed the Fighter and gave the Barbarian his stuff, but his stuff isn't that great considering the lack of good Fighter Bonus Feats in Core.



Would this be good? Or bad?! I'd put my money on bad, because most of my class design ideas fail horribly - but I'd like to hear what you think.

It's not necessarily "bad," but it's not really "good" either. It's solidly, well, boring, to me. I think there are more interesting WotC-published and homebrew fixes for the Fighter and Barbarian out there. That's not to say it can't work - try it out, playtest it in your group, and see how it works for you guys personally, and go from there.



The way I see it, I create a martial class that:

Has active abilities in combat (rage and various feats)
Has a number of options open, so you can build for dex, armor, mobility ....
Has an active defence in the case he fails a save

It's not like equipped him with gatling lasers or anything.

You, uh, just kinda described the ToB classes again, there. :smallwink: (Well, except Swordsage does kinda have gatling lasers in the form of Desert Wind fiery death from the sky, but whatever...)

bosssmiley
2009-08-21, 10:47 AM
Races of War Fighter and Barbarian (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=33294).

Mechanically stronger, tactically more interesting, thematically more distinct than their Core counterparts.

Killer Angel
2009-08-21, 11:15 AM
The way I see it, I create a martial class that:

Has active abilities in combat (rage and various feats)
Has a number of options open, so you can build for dex, armor, mobility ....
Has an active defence in the case he fails a save


The way I see it, you create a barbarian with a bunch of bonus feats and an improvement of the rage ability.
Which is fine, maybe your barbarian can became a two-trick pony, instead of a one-trick... maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see a so great variety.

Mr. Mud
2009-08-21, 12:49 PM
Hm ... you think?

The way I see it, I create a martial class that:

Has active abilities in combat (rage and various feats)
Has a number of options open, so you can build for dex, armor, mobility ....
Has an active defense in the case he fails a save

It's not like equipped him with Gatling lasers or anything.

Eh, well he's not over but he's a lot stronger. Which is good.

I martial classes sort of resembled Jedi Guardian/Sentinel in the Star Wars d20... (which was a prototype for 4E IIRC?). It seems like they are as powerful as their pro-force companions.

PId6
2009-08-21, 01:00 PM
I'm going to agree that bonus feats, while nice, don't really fix the real problem with core melee types. You need to provide more in-combat options that are viable when compared to full-attacks. Tactical feats have the potential to do this, but most of them have too high requirements for casual use and only a few of them are actually useful, meaning you end up spamming the same thing over and over anyway.

A way to fix melee characters is to add more tactical feats with less requirements and more options that are actually good. Make them useful for lots of situations so that you end up with a large array of options in combat. Maybe make it so that you can have bonus feats every level specifically to take these tactical feats.

One such tactic would, perhaps, reroll an attack roll as an immediate action, while another one lets you end negative effects on you like slow or enfeeblement, so you're less likely to be caster-fodder. You could maybe separate them into categories like "upgrades", "assaults", and "reactions", where upgrades grant you certain bonuses via swift action, assaults let you attack with certain effects, and reactions let you do things in response to your opponents via immediate actions. You could even have a fourth category called "position" which grants you certain flat abilities but you can only use one position at a time.

To prevent spamming, you would make it so that using a tactic would "use up" that tactic for the encounter, so you'd have to regain the tactic with an action to use it again. All of this would allow you to have a wide variety of battlefield options so that combat never gets boring. They'd pretty much become class features of the martial classes, since it'd be so much easier when you're learning new tactics and positions every level rather than having to spend feats on them. You could even make these tactical feats require a certain "combatant level", sorta like BAB, where classes like fighter/paladin/monk advance per level while other non-martial classes only advance every two levels. So a rogue could still take these tactics and positions, but he'd have to spend feat slots and be a higher level to take them.

To make even more variety, you could have a number of "colleges" of tactics, each with its own theme. Maybe have one college that specializes in movement and swiftness, and another one that specializes in teamwork and group dynamic. Each class can have its own colleges, so maybe the movement one would be under the domain of the monk while the teamwork one would be given to the paladin. There would be some overlap, so maybe the fighter could also study under the college of teamwork even as he studies under the college of two-weapon fighting. For variety, you could have maybe 9 or 10 different colleges, with 4 or 5 in each class. The monk could probably use more though, since he normally suck so much, so maybe 6 or 7 there.

Overall, I think these changes would make melee characters more fun. So? Too radical?

ericgrau
2009-08-21, 01:10 PM
He who only damages has not heard of tripping builds. Or sundering / disarming holy symbols and spell component pouches like O'Chul. Or reach. Or grapple. Or proper sniping optimization. Or many more things. Or counters to such, backup options in case of counters, weapons with both decent damage and special-attack uses. It's really quite complicated. The caster has special options that are their own rules outside of "reality". For the non-caster's options, you need only look at the many, many rules for reality. I had cheatsheets for them in my sig to make those rules easy to find and use without a lot of effort learning them, but geocities is gone. So I'll have to rehost them elsewhere. Anyone interested can PM me and get them as a .zip e-mail attachment.

As for the merge, IMO it's not that much more interesting. It's a big power boost to be sure, but it's not overwhelming. I could see someone doing it just to mix things up a little and/or for a high power campaign, like giving out high stats.

Mr. Mud
2009-08-21, 01:15 PM
<snipped for space>

Not too radical; I like it actually... albeit it, it's sort of like 4E. (at least the Encounter Power bit is...)

Then again, that could make the spam build a bit longer. Example:

Rufus the Barbarian has 4 in-combat abilities: A, B, C, D for the sake of convenience.

If A recharges B, B recharges C, C recharges D, D recharges A, and A was the ability Rufus would likely want to spam, wouldn't he just use A > B > C > D > Repeat?

EDIT: Rereading that, it might be a fairly unclear as to what I'm getting at. Basically, this method might only give Martial heroes a longer string of - although admittedly a bit different - string of spam.

quick_comment
2009-08-21, 01:20 PM
You could hexatgestalt fighter//barbarian//rogue//monk//ranger//paladin and it would still only be T2 at most.

Olo Demonsbane
2009-08-21, 01:30 PM
PId6: You win a cookie.

quick_comment: It would at the very least be a fun character to play though, you have to admit. I think Im going to go make one right now...:smallbiggrin:

Frosty
2009-08-21, 02:55 PM
What about combining the Knight and Fighter? Gives the Fighter a reason to invest in CHA. The class now has good Fort AND Will saves. Replace the stupid Knight bonus featd with the Fighter bonus feats and just give it to the character as a Fighter. Bump the class up to 4 + Int, make Diplomacy a class skill, and you've got a decent cass! You can hold Aggro, and you've got enough feats to be a combat monster.

Deepblue706
2009-08-21, 08:25 PM
Madness!

I'd only play this if I got Combat Form stuff with my Fighter feats. With DR 5/- and Fast Healing 4, now not only can I flex my muscles to deflect weapons, but also close my own wounds!