Barbarian: Good or Bad? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Sartharina

2014-10-01, 12:17 PM

The Barbarian is a damn useful class, especially in Pathfinder where it gets Perception as a class skill. Short of ToB, it's the best melee class in the game.

It's also the most straightforward Adventurer.

It has an excellent chassis, with good HD, BAB, and a useful amount of skill points and strong skill list. I really don't get the "It's just good for smashing" thing - it's also a good scout, survivalist, and, with the right ACF, trap-monkey. I wish it hadn't lost "Heal" from its skill list in the transition between 3.0 and 3.5.
I could call them the base line, the lowest of competency you can expect.

In core they have nothing but rage which due to the limit of uses per day contributes almost next nothing in the scope of things without extra rage or waiting until high levels. I my self have often compared barbarians using rage against fighters who take the weapon focus line. The fighter obtains better numbers and with his left over bonus feats obtains and finishes feat chains (such as shock trooper) better than the barbarian, and people would follow up complaining the fighter would never realistically take greater weapon focus if that tells you what people really think.

Most of the barbarian's acfs are combat related. His single best is pounce which is a creative way of saying the only way wotc expects a barbarian to be useful is charging, even a warrior can do that proficiently. Several options open to him at traps, like trapkiller sounds amazing but it only works on mechanical traps with a search dc of less than 20 and penalizes your "disable" roll, it's often better to take 20 in search and simply sunder the trap's mechanisms. Dragon's unarmed variant comes up a lot but it only deals 1d3 damage even at the 20th level and whirling frenzy prevents you from stacking your anger which is kind of the entire point to the class.

They just are not very good. For optimization purposes, the class is a single level long for self-only bonuses making it even less useful than the marshal.

... I'm sorry that you don't have any idea on how to play the class.

Vhaidara

2014-10-01, 06:21 PM

They just are not very good. For optimization purposes, the class is a single level long for self-only bonuses making it even less useful than the marshal.

In addition to everything else wrong (though you also seem to be assuming core only), Barbarian is the single most powerful one level dip because Pounce.

Gavinfoxx

2014-10-01, 06:57 PM

I like the Spirit Lion Totem, Wolf Totem, Whirling Frenzy, City Brawler, Street Fighter, Skilled City Dweller, barbarian.

Very strong kung fu!

Mato

2014-10-01, 07:58 PM

... I'm sorry that you don't have any idea on how to play the class.And I am deeply sorry you think understand enough about D&D to believe you should feel sorry for me.

atemu1234

2014-10-01, 07:59 PM

And I am deeply sorry you think understand enough about D&D to believe you should feel sorry for me.

I think he was implying you don't know about the good ACFs, which everyone else seems to agree upon being good.

Deox

2014-10-02, 04:14 AM

Although it is not gained until 19th level, I'm partial to the Cleaving Charge.

Gwendol

2014-10-02, 06:40 AM

They just are not very good. For optimization purposes, the class is a single level long for self-only bonuses making it even less useful than the marshal.

And I think you are being overly harsh. It is a class that opens a lot of possibilities for customization, with lots of flavor even if the scope is on the narrow side. Among the martial classes the barbarian is sure to stand out, even when compared to ToB (typically more power but less versatility).

eggynack

2014-10-02, 12:00 PM

They just are not very good. For optimization purposes, the class is a single level long for self-only bonuses making it even less useful than the marshal.
Barbarians are at least two levels long, for access to improved trip lacking in prerequisites, and possibly longer if you take into account longer ACF's. I also don't really think that you should measure class quality on the basis of the length of dips, and that you should rather measure it on the basis of the quality of those dips. The two level barbarian dip is one of the stronger options out there, with its massive pile of bonuses making it reasonably competitive even with classics like the cloistered cleric dip. Pounce on its own would be sufficient to make the class rather awesome, and you get a lot more than that. It seems somewhat odd to criticize the barbarian for being a dip class when that's just the default state of standard melee construction.

Extra Anchovies

2014-10-02, 12:20 PM

Barbarians are at least two levels long, for access to improved trip lacking in prerequisites, and possibly longer if you take into account longer ACF's. I also don't really think that you should measure class quality on the basis of the length of dips, and that you should rather measure it on the basis of the quality of those dips. The two level barbarian dip is one of the stronger options out there, with its massive pile of bonuses making it reasonably competitive even with classics like the cloistered cleric dip. Pounce on its own would be sufficient to make the class rather awesome, and you get a lot more than that. It seems somewhat odd to criticize the barbarian for being a dip class when that's just the default state of standard melee construction.

Exactly. A Totemist dip can be as few as two levels long, but nobody goes around calling them a bad class (or at least not many people do).

aleucard

2014-10-02, 12:23 PM

If you want to put your foot through things, I can't think of a better base class for it than Barbarian. They're also good for emulating Hulk right out of the box. Frenzied Berserker has issues in parties, but it is both iconic in flavor and one of the best ways to boost damage you could possibly find in the official books, at least that doesn't need caster assistance to do so. Depending on how you build yours, it's also pretty much a shoe-in for getting circumstance bonuses and other things to Intimidate. Other than that, though, you're not going to be all that useful. Fist of the Forest is both thematic and gives your truly absurd Constitution bonus as AC, and being a bear is always fun (Bear Warrior, I think it was). Don't expect to be all that great without dipping, but it's still enough to make you distinct from a caster's minions on its own. Something like Hank's Bow in case you end up not being able to enter melee range is probably mandatory, though (or even better, Brutal Throw plus a thrown weapon with a nice and large increment).

Red Fel

2014-10-02, 01:00 PM

And I am deeply sorry you think understand enough about D&D to believe you should feel sorry for me.

I think that what Sartharina was trying to say (or perhaps should have said) is that your opinions don't seem to be based in more common experience running the class. I'd like to examine your statements specifically.

In core they have nothing but rage which due to the limit of uses per day contributes almost next nothing in the scope of things without extra rage or waiting until high levels.

Partially accurate, but it misses the mark. The core Barbarian, assuming nothing more than what's written in the PHB, gets multiple class features, but most aren't worth writing home about. DR isn't altogether overwhelming, trap sense seems rather silly, and uncanny dodge is nice, but not awe-inspiringly good. Rage is his only real class feature.

But let's be honest. It's a pretty darn good class feature. We're starting with a class designed around purely physical stats. There is little or no need to take mental stats for a Barbarian. (As opposed to a Fighter, who might need Int for some feats, or what-have-you.) So your Barbarian will already be a beefcake. And at the outset, he has a 1/day Rage that will probably last for the duration of one encounter. At level 4, he can do this in two separate encounters. At level 8, three. Your average adventuring day probably won't have more than 4 encounters, so this isn't terrible. And when he's not raging, he's still a powerful melee class. But when he is? He drops things. A Barbarian with rage on is generally going to out-damage most other melee classes with a minimum of effort. So don't dismiss it.

I my self have often compared barbarians using rage against fighters who take the weapon focus line.

No comparison. Let's look at the feats first. Let's look at the four of them: Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, GWF, and GWS. WF gives you a +1 to hit with one specific weapon. WS gives you +2 to damage with the same weapon. GWF and GWS add another +1 to hit and +2 damage, respectively. For four feats, you get a total of +2 to hit, +4 damage. And while WF can be taken at level 1, WS requiers Fighter 4, GWF level 8, and GWS level 12.

At Barbarian 1, you get rage. When you turn rage on, you get +4 Str. That +4 is added to your melee attack rolls - it's now better than WF and GWF combined. You also add that +4 to your damage rolls. You add it 1.5x (+6) if using a two-handed weapon. So it's already, at level 1, equal to the benefit from a 12th-level Fighter feat.

"But wait," I hear you protest, "That's only while raging." And you're right. When not raging, the 12th-level Barbarian does not have these bonuses. (Aside: At 11th level, that +4 becomes a +6.) At that point, the Fighter who took these four feats has +2 more to hit and +4 more damage. For four feats invested. Frankly, that's nothing to write home about.

The fighter obtains better numbers and with his left over bonus feats obtains and finishes feat chains (such as shock trooper) better than the barbarian, and people would follow up complaining the fighter would never realistically take greater weapon focus if that tells you what people really think.

Missing the mark again. Yes, the Fighter gets more feats. But let's face it, many of them are traps. Shock Trooper is a great feat, however; I agree. But if you're willing to use a feat from Complete Warrior, are you willing to use other Completes? Because one of those Completes gives us the Spirit Lion Totem ACF, which gives our Barbarian Pounce. Pounce is something the Fighter does not get. He simply doesn't. When the Fighter makes a charge, he gets one attack at the end of it. When he makes a charge with Shock Trooper, he gets that boost to one attack. A Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian makes his full attack at the end of a charge. He makes better use of Shock Trooper than the Fighter does.

You say the Fighter gets better numbers, but that is demonstrably untrue. Despite the fact that the Barbarian gets great numbers while raging, his non-raging numbers are still solid. The rage simply brings up the average. Even without it, as others have mentioned, the ACFs give him more ways to cause pain.

Most of the barbarian's acfs are combat related.

And a Fighter's ACFs are good for basketweaving? He's a melee class. His class features are designed around combat. His alternate class features are designed around combat. His feats are designed around combat. So are the Fighter's. I don't see how that's relevant.

His single best is pounce which is a creative way of saying the only way wotc expects a barbarian to be useful is charging, even a warrior can do that proficiently.

But, without Pounce, a Warrior can't do it as well as a Barbarian. And a Barbarian doesn't just rely on Pounce. Do you know what happens if you combine Barbarian rage, the Instantaneous Rage feat, the Intimidating Rage feat, and the Never Outnumbered skill trick? Combat interrupt. Roar and the world freezes. That's a level of versatility that you can't generally find in other melee classes.

Several options open to him at traps, like trapkiller sounds amazing but it only works on mechanical traps with a search dc of less than 20 and penalizes your "disable" roll, it's often better to take 20 in search and simply sunder the trap's mechanisms.

It actually doesn't sound amazing. Like I said, Barbarians have one major class feature, and it involves anger issues.

Dragon's unarmed variant comes up a lot but it only deals 1d3 damage even at the 20th level and whirling frenzy prevents you from stacking your anger which is kind of the entire point to the class.

First, there are ways to improve your unarmed damage. Second, "stacking your anger"? This isn't the point of the class. What Whirling Frenzy does is give you an extra attack. When your class is designed to deliver brutal punishment with every hit, you really want to be able to hit more. That's a good thing. It also changes your Con and Will bonus to an AC and Ref bonus, which is very beneficial in certain builds.

In sum, I think that what Sartharina was trying to say is that your experience with the class comes across as the anomaly, not the rule. And that's unfortunate, because Barbarian is really a fun class to play.

Gwendol

2014-10-02, 01:21 PM

Red Fel

2014-10-02, 01:43 PM

Red Fel, you are hitting the mark, but let me correct you on one point: +4 STR leads to +2 attack and +2 damage (+3 if 2-handing, which many barbarians do). However, the increased strength is more useful than a the bonus from feats, since strength makes them better at breaking things, tripping things, bull rushing things, grappling things, and so on. Couple that with races that boost strength and you have a winning combo!

Thanks for catching that; you're right, a +4 Str adds a +2 modifier, which is what gets added. You're also correct that a bonus to the ability score is more valuable than a bonus to a specific use thereof.

Bottom line, Atemu, is that Barbarian is a fantastic melee class. It's simpler and less melee-is-magic than the ToB classes, but still extremely potent even when compared with them. There are plenty of great PrCs to advance it, plenty of feats and ACFs to augment it. If your goal is to kick butt and be unable to write down the names you take, Barbarian is a very simple, easy to learn, fun to use melee choice.

Vogonjeltz

2014-10-02, 04:13 PM

Is Barbarian a good class, or no? For simplicity's sake, let's say compared to other melee classes, since nothing really holds a candle to an optimized wizard.

It focuses on offense at the cost of defense. Whether that is good or not really depends on how each is valued. Offense is useful in that it sometimes reduces the duration of an encounter, whereas defense is good in that it extends the longevity of the characters, allowing them to win fights based on attrition.

So, contextually, the Barbarian is good anytime increased offense shortens encounters more than the cost in attrition power from lost defense.

infomatic

2014-10-02, 08:33 PM

So, contextually, the Barbarian is good anytime increased offense shortens encounters more than the cost in attrition power from lost defense.

Which, in D&D, is most of the time.

Barbarian's very solid out of the box, is hard to screw up for a new player and, with some optimizing, can be an excellent damage dealer/poor man's battlefield controller (via tripping/intimidate) who is also not completely helpless when skills are required. The ToB classes and Psychic Warrior have it beat for flexibility, but all those require more micro-management, too.

Mato

2014-10-02, 08:45 PM

I think that what Sartharina was trying to say (or perhaps should have said) is that your opinions don't seem to be based in more common experience running the class. I'd like to examine your statements specifically.Which is better than her remarks.

Partially accurate, but it misses the mark. The core Barbarian, assuming nothing more than what's written in the PHB, gets multiple class features, but most aren't worth writing home about. DR isn't altogether overwhelming, trap sense seems rather silly, and uncanny dodge is nice, but not awe-inspiringly good. Rage is his only real class feature.You're not off to a good start by already agreeing he has nothing but rage.

As I mentioned, when you acknowledge rage's limitations it isn't worth much.
If you take an 18th strength barbarian, give him a greatsword, and tell him to attack his damage is only worth 17.75 as a daily average. That's +4 melee (2d6+6, avg 13) for three of the four encounters you already agreed to and +6 melee (2d6+9, avg 16) raged for 13.75... Oh wait, I'm sorry I'm used to optimized values. I meant whirling frenzy and lion totem for +6/+6 melee (2d6+9 avg 32). ((13*3)+(32))/4=17.75.

In my crunch I try to use as much of the class based options as I can while trending for sameness in other areas. So the builds have the same weapon, same strength, same goals, race is directly ignored for possible deviations. The goal I will discuss in this particular post will be charging which means the builds will want to take shock trooper for all it's amazing damage glory. By default this means the barbarian must take power attack at the 1st level, improved bullrush at the 3rd, and shock trooper at the 6th.
Level 1: +6 melee (2d6+6, 13 avg) & 1/day +6/+6 melee (2d6+9, 32 avg) for 17.25.
Level 2: no significant changes.
Level 3: no significant changes, the fighter will have a better attack bonus.
Level 4: you can now use frenzy twice times per day, 22.5 for a daily average. +1 str offers no bonuses.
Level 5: no significant changes.
Level 6: Shock trooper! +12/+6 melee (2d6+18, avg 50) & +12/+12/+6 melee (2d6+21, avg 84) for 67/daily.

To put my money where my mouth is, the parallel fighter will take weapon focus & weapon specialization.
Level 1: weapon focus & battle jump, +7 melee (4d6+12, avg 26) is better than 4/day rage & 1/day frenzy with lion totem.
Level 2: power attack as a bonus, ignored like the barb.
Level 3: improved bullrush (B).
Level 4: weapon specialization for 4d6+16 (avg 30). If only frenzy were a continuous effect right?
Level 5: no significant changes.
Level 6: shock trooper... and leap attack. +13 melee (4d6+60, avg 74).

And when he's not raging, he's still a powerful melee class. But when he is? He drops things. A Barbarian with rage on is generally going to out-damage most other melee classes with a minimum of effort. So don't dismiss it.My points were several but the overall point was the barbarian is the lowest on the totem pole, and it is.

People, including you, focus on the rage-only values and ignore the concept that even moderate feat selection can bring the same, or better, totals. I mean go back up and look at the examples again, weapon specialization isn't a good choice. The fighter does not make usage of any alternative class features like drow fighter for dexterity to damage and it doesn't pick up martial study as a bonus feat to use strikes either. For all practical purposes, the fighter build is purposely gimped and it delivers values above normal rage. The barbarian has to use whirling frenzy & lion totem to double his damage in order to keep up. A barbarian needs flaws on top of several alternative class features in order to surpass the pathetic fighter model I used. And if you read the tier thread you'd realize that such a heavily optimized barbarian is an extreme case that doesn't even count.

No comparison. Let's look at the feats first.
Mighty rage: +8 str is worth +4 to attack & +6 to damage while two-handed.
WF, WS, GWF, GWS, and melee weapon mastery: +4 to attack & +6 to damage. <- Better values for twf.
And you still have weapon supremacy.

You also complained that is too many feats, like rage's daily limitations is a huge oversight on your end. All of those fighter feats, including supremacy, consume 33% of the fighter's available feat slots. For just power attack, improved bullrush, and shock trooper the barbarian used 42% of his. You're selling point "that's a lot" completely overlooks that to a fighter it's a small investment.

Pounce is something the Fighter does not get. He simply doesn't.As a class feature you are entirely right but he picks up charge related feats twice as fast as the barbarian which pays off until mid-to-late game. But by then it's easy to achieve one hit kills and further focus is redundant. So while the barbarian plays catch up to obtaining the rest of teh charge-related feats the fighter finishes them off and moves onto stuff like boomerang daze to control the battlefield if he cannot attack and martial study(white raven tactics) to give better classes extra turns after charge cleaving through everyone he can reach anyway.

You say the Fighter gets better numbers, but that is demonstrably untrue.Actuality the only thing you demonstrated was missing some of the weapon focus line which ties their individual attack & damage bonuses up (if you continue to exclude supremacy) and how dependent the barbarian is on lion totem. I however was willing to post gimp a fighter against your lion totem whirling frenzy points where generally the fighter is better. All so you can complain the barbarian isn't optimized enough or the fighter is too optimized (sigh) I'm sure.

Second, "stacking your anger"?That is directed at more of a trap than class based weakness. Using an alchemical tooth you can drink battle wine as a swift action for a +4 alchemical bonus to strength, since it costs only 100 gold per use a 3rd level character can afford a couple dozen. The magic item compendium offers a 3/day item for about the price of a +1 weapon that as a swift action it induces you and all nearby allies into a special blood rage for five rounds granting a +5 moral bonus to strength. So you limit your ability to pick up rage-like effects but everyone else can.

Perhaps the worst part is a whirling frenzy barbarian also gives up the ability to use a frenzy berseker's frenzy ability and even a wolverine's unlimited usage of rage. If items or races were on the table, the fighter can fight like a barbarian with his faster feat advancement.

In sum, I think that what Sartharina was trying to say is that your experience with the class comes across as the anomaly, not the rule. And that's unfortunate, because Barbarian is really a fun class to play.I think this last part here is a snipe as if to say I think you cannot have fun as a barbarian. Interesting assertion, entirely wrong, but interesting enough.

Jacob.Tyr

2014-10-02, 08:59 PM

So the barbarian is limited by his rages/day but your theoretical fighter is ALWAYS 15 feet off the ground when he attacks his enemies?

eggynack

2014-10-02, 09:09 PM

Mighty rage: +8 str is worth +4 to attack & +6 to damage while two-handed.
WF, WS, GWF, GWS, and melee weapon mastery: +4 to attack & +6 to damage. <- Better values for twf.
It seems somewhat relevant, then, that two handed fighting is the clear best choice for fighters and barbarians alike.

Sartharina

2014-10-02, 09:46 PM

The barbarian also has great Out-of-combat utility, with a strong skill list and enough skill points to put it to use out of the box. Not all its ACFs are combat-related, either - you can replace Trap Sense with Trap Killer, which makes you replace the Rogue in a dungeon. A barbarian also has more HP over a fighter. Uncanny dodge means you have superior defenses than a Fighter as well if you have a positive dex modifier, and Improved Uncanny dodge improves your ability to get in touch with your inner cuisinart. They also both say "No" to Rogues and Ninjas.

A Core fighter who wastes all his feats on the Weapon Focus/specialization line may be able to keep up with a Core Raging Barbarian's damage, but he suffers in defense and utility. An out-of-core Barbarian effectively does double-duty as the party meatshield AND party trapkilller AND is also a functional scout.

(Oh yeah - and a Raging Barbarian is less likely to decide to kill the party because the nice skeleton in the pretty robes tells him to)

The barbarian does NOT only have Rage.

Amphetryon

2014-10-02, 10:05 PM

bekeleven

2014-10-02, 10:14 PM

I'm not 100% on this, but I think it's impossible to have Battle Jump at ECL1.

Blackhawk748

2014-10-02, 10:15 PM

The Barbarian is also at least reasonably capable as a guard, if desired, due to a better skill array for the job than the Fighter.

Yup, Listen is wonderful. Also screaming at the top of your lungs and beating things to death with a huge stick is just a ton of fun, which is the reason most of my Fighters take a Barbar dip, and no i usually dont take Pounce actually.

Gwendol

2014-10-03, 01:51 AM

Which is better than her remarks.

You're not off to a good start by already agreeing he has nothing but rage.

As I mentioned, when you acknowledge rage's limitations it isn't worth much.
If you take an 18th strength barbarian, give him a greatsword, and tell him to attack his damage is only worth 17.75 as a daily average. That's +4 melee (2d6+6, avg 13) for three of the four encounters you already agreed to and +6 melee (2d6+9, avg 16) raged for 13.75... Oh wait, I'm sorry I'm used to optimized values. I meant whirling frenzy and lion totem for +6/+6 melee (2d6+9 avg 32). ((13*3)+(32))/4=17.75.

In my crunch I try to use as much of the class based options as I can while trending for sameness in other areas. So the builds have the same weapon, same strength, same goals, race is directly ignored for possible deviations. The goal I will discuss in this particular post will be charging which means the builds will want to take shock trooper for all it's amazing damage glory. By default this means the barbarian must take power attack at the 1st level, improved bullrush at the 3rd, and shock trooper at the 6th.
Level 1: +6 melee (2d6+6, 13 avg) & 1/day +6/+6 melee (2d6+9, 32 avg) for 17.25.
Level 2: no significant changes.
Level 3: no significant changes, the fighter will have a better attack bonus.
Level 4: you can now use frenzy twice times per day, 22.5 for a daily average. +1 str offers no bonuses.
Level 5: no significant changes.
Level 6: Shock trooper! +12/+6 melee (2d6+18, avg 50) & +12/+12/+6 melee (2d6+21, avg 84) for 67/daily.

To put my money where my mouth is, the parallel fighter will take weapon focus & weapon specialization.
Level 1: weapon focus & battle jump, +7 melee (4d6+12, avg 26) is better than 4/day rage & 1/day frenzy with lion totem.
Level 2: power attack as a bonus, ignored like the barb.
Level 3: improved bullrush (B).
Level 4: weapon specialization for 4d6+16 (avg 30). If only frenzy were a continuous effect right?
Level 5: no significant changes.
Level 6: shock trooper... and leap attack. +13 melee (4d6+60, avg 74).

Let's stop the nonsense right there. Battle jump? The Taer feat from Unapproachable East? So the fighter is always managing to drop from a height 5' above his opponent? Your premise is fantastical and thus the conclusion is flawed.

However, to put the two classes on a more equal footing, we can consider the Dungeon Crasher fighter.

Level 1: weapon focus & power attack, +7 melee (2d6+6, avg 13) is not better than 4/day rage & 1/day frenzy with lion totem.
Level 2: Dungeon crasher +4d6+8 (not significant due to lack of Imp Bull Rush).
Level 3: improved bullrush (B).
Level 4: weapon specialization for 2d6+8 (avg 15) or 4d6+8 when bull rushing.
Level 5: no significant changes.
Level 6: shock trooper and Dungeon Crasher . +13 melee (2d6+20, avg 27). Or 8d6+12 when bull rushing (I'm assuming the fighter is charging and PA's for full which means +12 to the damage, but then again neither the barb nor the fighter are expected to be able to charge on every attack)

If the fighter would leave the weapon focus line nonsense of feats behind he could be able to keep up.

Troacctid

2014-10-03, 02:03 AM

Gwendol

2014-10-03, 02:15 AM

Obviously whichever of the Fighter or Barbarian is more optimized will be better in combat. Whatever. When it comes to combat, the difference in power between the two is miniscule, so whoever has the better player as the pilot wins, and the best players will multiclass anyway.

Barbarians aren't better than Fighters because they're better at fighting, they're better than Fighters because they have 4 + Int skills and a better class skill list so that they can also do things other than fighting.

Nah, not really. The barbarian gets class features, of which rage is the most interesting one, and ways to get good combat feats (trip, grapple) without having to meet pre-reqs. Rage is a boost in combat, for sure, but also a way to qualify for a range of interesting PrC's. If the barbarian has pounce, he will start pulling away in the damage dealing department the moment he gets his iterative (or earlier using Whirling Frenzy) and never look back.
It's not to say that you can't build a fighter or knight or swashbuckler or paladin or ranger good, it's just that on its own the barbarian does well and is rather hard to mess up (which can't be said for the other martial classes listed).

Troacctid

2014-10-03, 02:34 AM

Nah, not really. The barbarian gets class features, of which rage is the most interesting one, and ways to get good combat feats (trip, grapple) without having to meet pre-reqs. Rage is a boost in combat, for sure, but also a way to qualify for a range of interesting PrC's. If the barbarian has pounce, he will start pulling away in the damage dealing department the moment he gets his iterative (or earlier using Whirling Frenzy) and never look back.
It's not to say that you can't build a fighter or knight or swashbuckler or paladin or ranger good, it's just that on its own the barbarian does well and is rather hard to mess up (which can't be said for the other martial classes listed).

Barbarians get feats without prerequisites. Fighters get feats with prerequisites. Whatever. There are good options and trap options for both of them and ultimately the best builds end up looking pretty similar, mostly because both classes are so frontloaded that you can steal all of the other class's best features with a two-level dip and lose almost nothing.

Gwendol

2014-10-03, 02:49 AM

I can see that for the barbarian, yes, but how do you figure the fighter is frontloaded: two bonus feats (one if Dungeoncrasher)? Lot's of classes grant bonus feats, and usually give something else as well.
Yeah, the reason for most martial damage dealing classes looking similar is that the good feats are so few they nearly become mandatory if you are to stay relevant.

None of this has any bearing on the OP's question though, which is to say if the class is any good. For a martial character it is: decent amount of skill points, relevant class features, and a straight forward character development. The Barbarian also has the advantage of being rather SAD, compared to most other comparable classes.

eggynack

2014-10-03, 03:01 AM

I can see that for the barbarian, yes, but how do you figure the fighter is frontloaded: two bonus feats (one if Dungeoncrasher)?
Mostly because the third level is dead, and while spending one level for a feat is reasonable, spending two is a significantly worse exchange. Sure, if you're heading towards something other than feats, that other thing might be worth the cost, but feats usually aren't.

Lans

2014-10-03, 03:25 AM

I can see that for the barbarian, yes, but how do you figure the fighter is frontloaded: two bonus feats (one if Dungeoncrasher)? Lot's of classes grant bonus feats, and usually give something else as well.
Yeah, the reason for most martial damage dealing classes looking similar is that the good feats are so few they nea/rly become mandatory if you are to stay relevant.

None of this has any bearing on the OP's question though, which is to say if the class is any good. For a martial character it is: decent amount of skill points, relevant class features, and a straight forward character development. The Barbarian also has the advantage of being rather SAD, compared to most other comparable classes.

Technically its 3 feats due to tower/exotic shield proficiency

Gwendol

2014-10-03, 03:29 AM

True, which can be regarded as a class feature other than bonus feats I guess. Good, I like points in favor or the much maligned fighter!

bekeleven

2014-10-03, 03:51 AM

Technically its 3 feats due to tower/exotic shield proficiency

That's a feat-equivalent class feature, but technically it's not a feat.

Blackhawk748

2014-10-03, 07:10 AM

That's a feat-equivalent class feature, but technically it's not a feat.

I think the major point here is that you get something you didnt have before, doesnt matter if you will never use it. (which i do, but my group threw out the -2 to attack because we thought it was just plain dumb)

eggynack

2014-10-03, 09:09 AM

That's a feat-equivalent class feature, but technically it's not a feat.
It's actually the opposite. Tower shield is barely a feat-equivalent class feature, because it's not particularly good, but it technically is a feat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#towerShieldProficiency). Not usually relevant, but with dark chaos shuffle and similar effects running around, it occasionally comes up.

Oddman80

2014-10-03, 09:50 AM

I just want to mention one thing that hasn't come up. Damage Reduction.
Whatever single weapon the fighter picks for his weapon specialization line can be easily marginalized by damage reduction of that type, or if his gets unarmed, or if his weapon is sundered. How often do you carry around multiple of the same weapon (other than daggers)?

The barbarian just grabs the heavy flail, the great sword, the ranseur - whatever he gets his hands on - he gets his rage bonuses to.

bekeleven

2014-10-03, 01:54 PM

It's actually the opposite. Tower shield is barely a feat-equivalent class feature, because it's not particularly good, but it technically is a feat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#towerShieldProficiency). Not usually relevant, but with dark chaos shuffle and similar effects running around, it occasionally comes up.

What? Come on, Eggy, no it's not. This is why elves matter!

Elf: "Weapon Proficiency: Elves receive the Martial Weapon Proficiency feats for the longsword, rapier, longbow (including composite longbow), and shortbow (including composite shortbow) as bonus feats."

Fighter: "Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A fighter is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with all armor (heavy, medium, and light) and shields (including tower shields)."

One's feats, the other's a class feature. Or, since the MWP feat applies only to one weapon at a time, are you claiming that MWP granted by fighter can be DCFS away for 61 different feats, one for each martial weapon?

Extra Anchovies

2014-10-03, 01:56 PM

One's feats, the other's a class feature. Or, since the MWP feat applies only to one weapon at a time, are you claiming that MWP granted by fighter can be DCFS away for each of the 61 martial weapons?

If it can, then the Fighter just climbed three tiers.

Play a sorcerer, dip one level of Fighter, DCS for Practical Metamagic and Easy Metamagic on every metamagic feat.

Now I'm sad (but also really happy) that this doesn't work.

Amphetryon

2014-10-03, 02:19 PM

If it can, then the Fighter just climbed three tiers.

Play a sorcerer, dip one level of Fighter, DCS for Practical Metamagic and Easy Metamagic on every metamagic feat.

Now I'm sad (but also really happy) that this doesn't work.

Whether it works or not is probably HIGHLY dependent upon your DM. I suspect there are several on this very forum who - when allowing the DCFS - would blink nary an eye at the above proposal. They may well be a minority, but still.

georgie_leech

2014-10-03, 02:34 PM

What? Come on, Eggy, no it's not. This is why elves matter!

Elf: "Weapon Proficiency: Elves receive the Martial Weapon Proficiency feats for the longsword, rapier, longbow (including composite longbow), and shortbow (including composite shortbow) as bonus feats."

Fighter: "Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A fighter is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with all armor (heavy, medium, and light) and shields (including tower shields)."

One's feats, the other's a class feature. Or, since the MWP feat applies only to one weapon at a time, are you claiming that MWP granted by fighter can be DCFS away for 61 different feats, one for each martial weapon?

Fighters automatically have Tower Shield Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#towerShieldProficiency)

The text of Tower Shield Proficiency certainly suggests that Fighters have it, regardless of the usual Proficiency language.

Gwendol

2014-10-03, 03:43 PM

The text of Tower Shield Proficiency certainly suggests that Fighters have it, regardless of the usual Proficiency language.

Ha! This thread just jumped a few tiers, too!

ranagrande

2014-10-03, 03:57 PM

After a closer look, the text seems to discriminate between armor and weapons here. For weapons, characters of certain classes "are automatically proficient" with them. For armors, on the other hand, characters "automatically have ... Proficiency as a bonus feat."

So by RAW, fighters do have five extra feats that could be shuffled: Armor Proficiency (Light), Armor Proficiency (Medium), Armor Proficiency (Heavy), Shield Proficiency, and Tower Shield Proficiency.

Now I want to play a multiclass character that repeatedly gains armor and shield proficiencies and then shuffles them out. It should be possible to get ~100 bonus feats that way.

bekeleven

2014-10-03, 04:03 PM

The text of Tower Shield Proficiency certainly suggests that Fighters have it, regardless of the usual Proficiency language.

With RAW debates like this it may come down to primary source: Is the fighter the source of fighter abilities, or is the feat the source of who has it?

After a closer look, the text seems to discriminate between armor and weapons here. For weapons, characters of certain classes "are automatically proficient" with them. For armors, on the other hand, characters "automatically have ... Proficiency as a bonus feat."The words "Proficiency as a bonus feat" appears in the SRD only twice, under Shield Proficiency and Tower Shield Proficiency. It appears in no class blocks, under no proficiency headers, and never refers to armor. 2/5, would not RAW again.

eggynack

2014-10-03, 04:09 PM

With RAW debates like this it may come down to primary source: Is the fighter the source of fighter abilities, or is the feat the source of who has it?

It's not a matter of source but of form. The fighter says you get tower shield proficiency. The feat tower shield proficiency says that fighters get the feat tower shield proficiency. Thus, the fighter's tower shield proficiency comes in the form of a fancy bonus feat. There's no real contradiction between the two sections of text, in other words. Class features don't come in feat form unless stated otherwise, but the game says otherwise in this case.

ranagrande

2014-10-03, 04:18 PM

bekeleven, the armors don't come up in that search because it's "Armor Proficiency (light) as a bonus feat", and then the same for medium and heavy.

Vogonjeltz

2014-10-03, 04:19 PM

Which, in D&D, is most of the time.

Barbarian's very solid out of the box, is hard to screw up for a new player and, with some optimizing, can be an excellent damage dealer/poor man's battlefield controller (via tripping/intimidate) who is also not completely helpless when skills are required. The ToB classes and Psychic Warrior have it beat for flexibility, but all those require more micro-management, too.

See, I was actually trying to avoid making the judgment call for the reader, although it is commonly believed that two-handed weapons are the best option:

It seems somewhat relevant, then, that two handed fighting is the clear best choice for fighters and barbarians alike.

However, there is actually a sliding scale of utility at work here. Two-handed weapons are better for short fights, sword and board is superior for longer fights. The loss of damage from using a 1h weapon is mitigated by the ability to live more rounds from extra armor, allowing for a net gain in total damage done.

That's true regardless of the class, however this is exacerbated for the Barbarian because of Rage. The limited duration (3+conmod rounds) means that their damage output tanks after 5+ rounds. So they're fairly pigeonholed into trying to kill things as fast as possible.

Tower shield is barely a feat-equivalent class feature, because it's not particularly good, but it technically is a feat.

Erm, I don't know about that. The Tower Shield is a trump card vs Barbarian Rage. It provides Total Cover (can't be attacked). This means the only way for the Barbarian to even do damage to the Fighter is to sunder through the shield. However, with hardness 5 and hp 20 (and the requirement for the Barbarian to win an opposed attack roll), this is unlikely to happen before Barbarian rage timer runs out, leaving the Barbarian fatigued and suffering penalties to hit, damage, and AC for the remainder of the Fight.

Anlashok

2014-10-03, 04:24 PM

Two-handed weapons are better for short fights, sword and board is superior for longer fights. The loss of damage from using a 1h weapon is mitigated by the ability to live more rounds from extra armor, allowing for a net gain in total damage done.

I'd say you have this one backwards: The loss of defense from a 2h weapon is mitigated by the vastly superior damage ending combats much quicker, allowing for a net gain in survivability.

eggynack

2014-10-03, 04:31 PM

However, there is actually a sliding scale of utility at work here. Two-handed weapons are better for short fights, sword and board is superior for longer fights. The loss of damage from using a 1h weapon is mitigated by the ability to live more rounds from extra armor, allowing for a net gain in total damage done.

That's true regardless of the class, however this is exacerbated for the Barbarian because of Rage. The limited duration (3+conmod rounds) means that their damage output tanks after 5+ rounds. So they're fairly pigeonholed into trying to kill things as fast as possible.
As Anshalok said, so say I also. The extra damage you deal with THF seems to more than exceed the damage you prevent with a shield, and your defense doesn't even work against all forms of damage. Sword and board just isn't particularly good, especially when you consider the fact that this game trends towards shorter fights.

Erm, I don't know about that. The Tower Shield is a trump card vs Barbarian Rage. It provides Total Cover (can't be attacked). This means the only way for the Barbarian to even do damage to the Fighter is to sunder through the shield. However, with hardness 5 and hp 20 (and the requirement for the Barbarian to win an opposed attack roll), this is unlikely to happen before Barbarian rage timer runs out, leaving the Barbarian fatigued and suffering penalties to hit, damage, and AC for the remainder of the Fight.
If you're just using the tower shield for total cover, does proficiency even help? It looks like proficiency just stops you from taking a penalty to attack rolls, along with skill checks while moving, and neither of those is relevant if you're hiding yourself behind a giant shield. Proficiency is really only relevant if you're using the thing as an actual shield, I think, and using it as an actual shield isn't particularly good.

georgie_leech

2014-10-03, 04:32 PM

Erm, I don't know about that. The Tower Shield is a trump card vs Barbarian Rage. It provides Total Cover (can't be attacked). This means the only way for the Barbarian to even do damage to the Fighter is to sunder through the shield. However, with hardness 5 and hp 20 (and the requirement for the Barbarian to win an opposed attack roll), this is unlikely to happen before Barbarian rage timer runs out, leaving the Barbarian fatigued and suffering penalties to hit, damage, and AC for the remainder of the Fight.

Or the Barbarian could, you know, walk past the Fighter, since the Total Cover option necessitates that the wielder give up their attacks. Yes, a Tower Shield provides immunity to someone too dumb to attack someone that they can't hurt and who can't fight back, but it's hardly a high-demand ability.

eggynack

2014-10-03, 04:41 PM

Or the Barbarian could, you know, walk past the Fighter, since the Total Cover option necessitates that the wielder give up their attacks. Yes, a Tower Shield provides immunity to someone too dumb to attack someone that they can't hurt and who can't fight back, but it's hardly a high-demand ability.
I think that his assertion is particular to a duel between the fighter and barbarian, or perhaps to a fighter versus group situation. However, that's a bit of a silly situation to look at anyway. The essential purpose of a melee class is to make people not be where your other party members are, whether by locking down enemies or by killing them. You're not really doing that if you're hiding behind a shield.

emeraldstreak

2014-10-03, 06:47 PM

the difference in power between the two is miniscule

If so they should belong to the same tier.

eggynack

2014-10-03, 06:56 PM

If so they should belong to the same tier.
They basically do. Fighters are right at the top of tier five, after all, and push into four with certain ACF's. Barbarians are advantaged though, with absolutely critical melee abilities (charging and tripping are two of the best paths out there, and barbarians are great at them), superior skills, and similar intimidation ability.

atemu1234

2014-10-03, 06:58 PM

How can a Barbarian get pounce? I now want a Barbarian 1 / Totemist X Human with VoP and a ton of natural attacks.

Troacctid

2014-10-03, 07:04 PM

How can a Barbarian get pounce? I now want a Barbarian 1 / Totemist X Human with VoP and a ton of natural attacks.
Spirit Lion Totem alternate class feature from Complete Champion. If I were you, I'd go Azurin and take some levels in Totem Rager.

the difference in power between the two is minisculeIf so they should belong to the same tier.

I think you may have removed some crucial context from your quote there. :roy:

When it comes to combat, the difference in power between the two is miniscule, so whoever has the better player as the pilot wins, and the best players will multiclass anyway.

Barbarians aren't better than Fighters because they're better at fighting, they're better than Fighters because they have 4 + Int skills and a better class skill list so that they can also do things other than fighting.

emeraldstreak

2014-10-03, 07:08 PM

They basically do. Fighters are right at the top of tier five, after all, and push into four with certain ACF's. Barbarians are advantaged though, with absolutely critical melee abilities (charging and tripping are two of the best paths out there, and barbarians are great at them), superior skills, and similar intimidation ability.

You might be right for Fighters, but Barbarians aren't in the bottom of their tier.

emeraldstreak

2014-10-03, 07:09 PM

I think you may have removed some crucial context from your quote there. :roy:

Uh, no. Two skill points per level don't move you up a tier.

eggynack

2014-10-03, 07:15 PM

You might be right for Fighters, but Barbarians aren't in the bottom of their tier.
Point is that they're not very far apart. You don't really have to go that far to justify the difference cited.

Uh, no. Two skill points per level don't move you up a tier.
They also have a superior list to support it, mostly in the form of the ever-nifty listen.

emeraldstreak

2014-10-03, 07:31 PM

They also have a superior list to support it, mostly in the form of the ever-nifty listen.

I'm not questioning the superiority of the Barbarian's skills. But it's not even remotely what it takes to move up a tier.

Anlashok

2014-10-03, 07:33 PM

The big gist of T4-T5 separation is competency. The Fighter suffers if you take him out of whatever comfort zone he's built for himself, the barbarian generally doesn't. The latter has tools at his disposal such as pounce that make him much less liable to bump into an enemy that just shuts him down. The Barbarian hitting harder helps too.

The fact that the barbarian is significantly more competent out of combat is just icing.

eggynack

2014-10-03, 07:35 PM

I'm not questioning the superiority of the Barbarian's skills. But it's not even remotely what it takes to move up a tier.
It's not enough on its own, but it's a factor, just like the increase in combat ability is a factor, and just like the fact that they don't need to boost intelligence to pick up improved trip is a factor.

Lans

2014-10-04, 01:33 PM

If you're just using the tower shield for total cover, does proficiency even help? It looks like proficiency just stops you from taking a penalty to attack rolls, along with skill checks while moving, and neither of those is relevant if you're hiding yourself behind a giant shield. Proficiency is really only relevant if you're using the thing as an actual shield, I think, and using it as an actual shield isn't particularly good.

You take a penalty to your initiative as well, IIRC

To be specific: they can be made to deal ridiculous amounts of damage, and should regularly out-damage the ToB classes.

I'm not sure if the barbarian will out damage a TOB class with out ACFs, punishing stance gives +1d6 to damage, and manuevers like steely wind, and steely strike.

As for Fighter vs Barb in the damage department, I think the fighter can make use of knowledge devotion and the barb can't while raging

eggynack

2014-10-04, 01:39 PM

You take a penalty to your initiative as well, IIRC

Yeah, it looks like it, as that would count as a dexterity ability check. Still, probably not an important factor in this situation, as you're just not acting at all.

Gwendol

2014-10-04, 02:04 PM

Oddman80

2014-10-04, 03:02 PM

...As for Fighter vs Barb in the damage department, I think the fighter can make use of knowledge devotion and the barb can't while raging

But there is nothing keeping the Barbarian from using Knowledge Devotion before raging, and reaping its benefits through the rest of the encounter. I suppose this puts him at a disadvantage for encounters where a new type of creature enters combat midway through... but how often does that happen? Sure, more goblins or even hobgoblins might come in from another room to aid in battle with a first group of goblins... but you would still have a bonus against all humanoids, so it wouldn't matter...

it would be pretty artificial if every time you were fighting undead, a few rounds into combat a monstrous humanoid showed up. Or if every time you were fighting aberrations, a few rounds into combat a swarm of vermin showed up....

Vogonjeltz

2014-10-04, 04:41 PM

I'd say you have this one backwards: The loss of defense from a 2h weapon is mitigated by the vastly superior damage ending combats much quicker, allowing for a net gain in survivability.

No, I did the math on this. Against the same target the 2h kills faster, but will live fewer rounds. Net result is more damage gets done by the sword and board wielder, and for the barbarian the tipping point is the round their rage runs out.

Now, if the 2h user isn't actually being engaged, and is just trying to maximize damage output, great. But if they are at risk of dying themselves they should be using sword and board.

As Anshalok said, so say I also. The extra damage you deal with THF seems to more than exceed the damage you prevent with a shield, and your defense doesn't even work against all forms of damage. Sword and board just isn't particularly good, especially when you consider the fact that this game trends towards shorter fights.

It may seem that way, but that's exactly why it's important to actually do the math to confirm our preconceptions. In this case, no THF is ultimately inferior in a one on one matchup. The margins aren't massive, which is likely what perpetuates this misconception.

I think the duration of fights is in the your mileage may vary category of things. I've had fights that last many rounds and fights that were over in a single round (regardless of what the participants were wielding).

If you're just using the tower shield for total cover, does proficiency even help? It looks like proficiency just stops you from taking a penalty to attack rolls, along with skill checks while moving, and neither of those is relevant if you're hiding yourself behind a giant shield. Proficiency is really only relevant if you're using the thing as an actual shield, I think, and using it as an actual shield isn't particularly good.

The added AC provides a net gain for damage reduction that is higher than the damage loss from the -2 penalty. So in the strictest possible sense (mathematically) it is better than using another type of shield.

Or the Barbarian could, you know, walk past the Fighter, since the Total Cover option necessitates that the wielder give up their attacks. Yes, a Tower Shield provides immunity to someone too dumb to attack someone that they can't hurt and who can't fight back, but it's hardly a high-demand ability.

Your attack. That doesn't include AoO, if they try to walk by, trip them or sunder, ironically the shield prevents them from hitting you back.

This would also be a use case for things like Goad and Demoralize.

georgie_leech

2014-10-04, 05:01 PM

snip

If you done the math, show the numbers.

Also, in terms of AoO, the Withdraw option says hi. Double move plus Fast Movement says the Barbarian has more than enough movement to go around.

eggynack

2014-10-04, 05:02 PM

It may seem that way, but that's exactly why it's important to actually do the math to confirm our preconceptions. In this case, no THF is ultimately inferior in a one on one matchup. The margins aren't massive, which is likely what perpetuates this misconception.
The math seems pretty THF favorable. For the sake of argument, let's assume a pair of water orcs (because that's what the big fellow is doing, and I figure the 1HF guy would want to keep up), one with a tower shield and longsword, the other with a greatsword. Off of a strength of 22, the THF fellow is thus doing 2d6+9 damage, for an average of 16, while the 1HF fellow is doing 1d8+6, for an average of 10.5. Thus, the THF fighter is doing a bit over 50% more damage than the 1HF fighter, and I think that a tower shield, the obvious best situation, represents a basic 20% reduction most of the time, maybe less.

That seems to put the THF fellow in a better position, and that's not even accounting for things like power attack, or rage increasing strength totals. Moreover, it's also not accounting for 1V1 fights against anything but a melee fellow, which make THF vastly superior (you're not even reducing the damage of a fireball at all, for example), or anything outside of that narrow situation, for that matter. THF also has other advantages, like the possibility of swapping out that greatsword for a guisarme, granting reach and tripping. I think you're even still ahead on damage in that scenario, and doubly so when the sword and board fellow isn't even getting close to you. If you have different math that shows the opposite, go right ahead, but THF seems like a much better option, even in this narrow scenario.

The added AC provides a net gain for damage reduction that is higher than the damage loss from the -2 penalty. So in the strictest possible sense (mathematically) it is better than using another type of shield.

But worse than using no shield, I would assert. The total cover benefit doesn't really require a feat, and the standard shield use benefit isn't really worth a feat. Hell, even if the shield somehow does come out ahead in this one tiny set of circumstances, that's still not anywhere close to worth a feat.

Lans

2014-10-04, 05:16 PM

I too am not sure the barbarian will outdamage a ToB class without ACF's, but I never claimed that to be the case either. The strength of ToB is adaptability over raw power, and just like Barbarian, they are rather dip friendly. Synergies between barbarian and say, crusader, are many.

Looking at it, I think the Warblade will out damage an ACF barbarian till level 6. Whirling Frenzy gives +3 on damage, and an extra hit, punishing stance gives 3.5 on damage, and there are 2 maneuvers that can give a second hit, and one that gives a +4 to the attack roll. Then there's the whole 1/dayness of the rage.

At 5th WRT comes on line, and lets the Warblade get 3 turns every 2 rounds.

Plus the warblade can do the other things that make a berserk wildman- scent, DR, and mobility. I'm not sure if he can do it all at once though

Lans

2014-10-04, 05:27 PM

The math seems pretty THF favorable. For the sake of argument, let's assume a pair of water orcs (because that's what the big fellow is doing, and I figure the 1HF guy would want to keep up), one with a tower shield and longsword, the other with a greatsword. Off of a strength of 22, the THF fellow is thus doing 2d6+9 damage, for an average of 16, while the 1HF fellow is doing 1d8+6, for an average of 10.5. Thus, the THF fighter is doing a bit over 50% more damage than the 1HF fighter, and I think that a tower shield, the obvious best situation, represents a basic 20% reduction most of the time, maybe less.
.
The difference will narrow with things like knowledge devotion, weapon spec, magic weapons. Power attack and various multipliers increase it, but power attack can be negated

Dungeon crasher should negate the damage difference

eggynack

2014-10-04, 05:32 PM

The difference will narrow with things like knowledge devotion, weapon spec, magic weapons. Power attack and various multipliers increase it, but power attack can be negated.
Knowledge devotion and weapon specialization seem somewhat bad, the former in the context of fighters and barbarians, and the latter in all contexts. Magic weapons are a factor, though I don't think they're a sufficiently meaningful factor to overshadow the damage discrepancy I cited. Power attack can be negated, I suppose, but such a negation is rare enough that I don't think it's worth strong consideration.

Dungeon crasher should negate the damage difference
Maybe some, but it's a bit situational, and it doesn't negate that difference completely, especially as we're moving into shock trooper territory at that level.

Svata

2014-10-04, 05:59 PM

The difference will narrow with things like knowledge devotion, weapon spec, magic weapons. Power attack and various multipliers increase it, but power attack can be negated

Dungeon crasher should negate the damage difference

Ley me address each of those.

How reliably are you gonna be able to trigger K. Devotion when you have 2+Int skills and all knowledges are cross-class skills?
How are you "negating" Power attack, especially when Shock Trooper is a thing for someone not particularly invested in AC?
If one side has magic weapons, both probably will, and the Barb. might have a better one, or some other item, as he isn't dropping money on a shield.
Dungeon Crasher will even things out somewhat, but only situationally, and not completely.

eggynack

2014-10-04, 06:03 PM

How are you "negating" Power attack, especially when Shock Trooper is a thing for someone not particularly invested in AC?
Pretty sure elusive target from complete warrior is the main way. I don't think it's really worth it though.

If one side has magic weapons, both probably will, and the Barb. might have a better one, or some other item, as he isn't dropping money on a shield.
I think the idea is that both sides are getting magic weapons of the same approximate power level, which means that they'll both gain the same amount of damage, which in turn means that the THF user's percent damage over the sword and board user will drop.

Svata

2014-10-04, 06:10 PM

Fair enough, I suppose. Though straight damage is not particularly good as far as magic weapon properties go...

Sartharina

2014-10-04, 06:15 PM

I'm not questioning the superiority of the Barbarian's skills. But it's not even remotely what it takes to move up a tier.
It's not the Barbarian moving up a tier - Tier 4 is baseline competency for the game, where the developers assumed the classes would be operating. The Barbarian's good skill list and decent skill points didn't move it up a tier - the fighter's bad skill list and terrible points per level moved it down a tier.

georgie_leech

2014-10-04, 06:19 PM

Fair enough, I suppose. Though straight damage is not particularly good as far as magic weapon properties go...

The point being that, to my knowledge, there aren't properties that one side really really wants that the other doesn't also want. If both sides have comparable weapon upgrades, it bumps up the over all power level without increasing the absolute gap between them, thus reducing the percentage difference. For an extreme example, 1 compared to 2 is a 100% difference; 100 to 101 is only 1%

eggynack

2014-10-04, 06:26 PM

The point being that, to my knowledge, there aren't properties that one side really really wants that the other doesn't also want. If both sides have comparable weapon upgrades, it bumps up the over all power level without increasing the absolute gap between them, thus reducing the percentage difference. For an extreme example, 1 compared to 2 is a 100% difference; 100 to 101 is only 1%
I think collision weapons could feasibly be wanted more by the THF fighter, owing to that sort of build's tendency towards damage multipliers. The point stands though. Still, my suspicion is that the overall effect on melee effectiveness comparisons are vanishingly small, as are most of the things that would help bridge the gap.

emeraldstreak

2014-10-04, 06:51 PM

It's not the Barbarian moving up a tier - Tier 4 is baseline competency for the game, where the developers assumed the classes would be operating. The Barbarian's good skill list and decent skill points didn't move it up a tier - the fighter's bad skill list and terrible points per level moved it down a tier.

yaaaaaaaaaaaawnnnnn

the Barbarian hp advantage is worth a feat; the Barbarian skill advantage is worth 1-2 feats;

Now tell me how many feats does a Fighter get over a Barbarian and rethink your argument.

Extra Anchovies

2014-10-04, 06:55 PM

...the Barbarian skill advantage is worth 1-2 feats.

Actually, by RAW, it's equivalent to five or six feats. Nymph's Kiss at 1st level gets you one of those skills. To make up for the other one you have to take Open Minded four or five times. If you want to be non-good (or good and non-exalted), you need to take Open Minded nine times.

[/quibble]

emeraldstreak

2014-10-04, 07:02 PM

Actually, by RAW, it's equivalent to five or six feats. Nymph's Kiss at 1st level gets you one of those skills. To make up for the other one you have to take Open Minded four or five times. If you want to be non-good (or good and non-exalted), you need to take Open Minded nine times.

[/quibble]

If you go that way you may be discounting feats for tower shield and heavy armor as well. Then you may continue to do so for all armor and nearly all weapons and conclude a Fighter is a zillion times better than a Wizard.

But the actual value of the Barbarian skill advantage is 1-2 feats.

eggynack

2014-10-04, 07:03 PM

Now tell me how many feats does a Fighter get over a Barbarian and rethink your argument.
Is the answer very few, especially at low levels when these things are actually relevant? I'm thinking that's the answer. A second level wolf totem barbarian is basically running just as many bonus feats as a second level fighter, maybe even more effectively because not having to boost intelligence is better than combat expertise. Add that on to pounce, which is probably worth a few feats, and whirling frenzy, which is probably also worth a feat or two, and barbarians end up in a pretty ridiculously solid position where this is concerned.

Edit: It looks like I can reasonably conclude that barbarians exceed fighters in actual feat value early on, and that it takes a decent chunk of time for fighters to catch up on that count.

Anlashok

2014-10-04, 07:05 PM

you may continue to do so for all armor and nearly all weapons and conclude a Fighter is a zillion times better than a Wizard.

Nope. You're looking at about 60 feats for armor, weapons, bonuses and health. The fighter in turn needs ~300 feats to get the spellslots and spells he needs.

emeraldstreak

2014-10-04, 07:06 PM

Is the answer very few, especially at low levels when these things are actually relevant? I'm thinking that's the answer. A second level wolf totem barbarian is basically running just as many bonus feats as a second level fighter, maybe even more effectively because not having to boost intelligence is better than combat expertise. Add that on to pounce, which is probably worth a few feats, and whirling frenzy, which is probably also worth a feat or two, and barbarians end up in a pretty ridiculously solid position where this is concerned.

Ah, that's more like some of the actual reasons the Barbarian is a tier up.

Troacctid

2014-10-04, 07:17 PM

Nymph's Kiss at 1st level gets you one of those skills. To make up for the other one you have to take Open Minded four or five times.

Six times, actually, since Nymph's Kiss doesn't give x4 skill points at 1st level. And you still end up slightly short even then.

Sartharina

2014-10-04, 09:11 PM

Now tell me how many feats does a Fighter get over a Barbarian and rethink your argument.The fighter is Short several feats over the Barbarian, because all his Fighter Bonus Feats and then some are spent on trying to keep up with the Barbarian's basic class features.

Also - a feat is worth about 4 skill points: 2 skill points = 1 skill trick, 2 skill tricks ~ 1 feat. So, a barbarian gets 1 feat worth of skill points more than the fighter every 2 levels. So... the Fighter's bonus feats are barely keeping up with the Barbarian's skill points alone.

emeraldstreak

2014-10-05, 03:54 AM

Amphetryon

2014-10-05, 07:29 AM

yeah yeah

and people play Humans because of the skill point, not the feat

Quite often, people play Humans for both. It's not as if they need to pick one or the other.

PolymeraseJones

2014-10-05, 07:37 AM

aleucard

2014-10-05, 09:58 AM

I have a barbarian-related question - I've been planning on playing one in my group's next pathfinder campaign, and since it's going to take place almost entirely inside a city I was considering the Urban Barbarian archetype. I love it flavour-wise, but I've never played a Barb before, though, so I'm not sure if the tradeoffs there are worth it.

There's several Barbarian things available, so I'll go over them from the enhancement here. (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a)

Ferocity changes the Constitution bonus into a Dexterity one, and adds a few more things for mobility. Depending on how much the added AC matters, it could be a vaguely even trade.

Roofdweller trades fast movement for a free feat in Roofwalker and the option to take Roofjumper later without needing the prerequisites, both which have minor to moderate utility (including a poor man's Leap Attack in the latter). Probably not worth it, but if you're either not going to stick to Barbarian that long or would prefer using other enhancement bonus givers to speed, sure.

Skilled City Dweller may be useful, depends on where you want to put your skill points. Tumble's objectively better than Ride, Sense Motive is more useful than Survival for non-Trackers (and the more standard uses are easily within an untrained skillcheck's grasp), and neither Handle Animal nor Gather Information are going to see much use (and you're nearly guaranteed to be in a party with someone who can do either better), so it doesn't much matter which you pick; Handle Animal's more flavorful for Barbarian, though.

Streetfighter is a flat-out direct upgrade for a Barbarian, even if Charging isn't your primary method of attack. If it's available and you do not take it, then I feel sorry for you.

atemu1234

2014-10-05, 10:07 AM

yeah yeah

and people play Humans because of the skill point, not the feat

Some people do. Some people see the extra feat and say, "Great!", but some see the extra skill points and say, "Awesome!"

Red Fel

2014-10-05, 01:31 PM

There's several Barbarian things available, so I'll go over them from the enhancement here. (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a)

I think he was talking about this Barbarian (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian) (and this archetype (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/archetypes/paizo---barbarian-archetypes/urban-barbarian)).

Poly, this thread has been focused on 3.5, for the most part. (Or possibly for the entire part.) I'd suggest starting a new thread about your PF-related question.

aleucard

2014-10-05, 01:43 PM

I think he was talking about this Barbarian (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian) (and this archetype (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/archetypes/paizo---barbarian-archetypes/urban-barbarian)).

Poly, this thread has been focused on 3.5, for the most part. (Or possibly for the entire part.) I'd suggest starting a new thread about your PF-related question.

In that case, I'd have to say that it is situational, but more solidly an upgrade. Since Fast Movement is only +10, it matters much less. Controlled Rage makes your bonuses more granular and adds Dexterity and some more versatility, but has a smaller total bonus and doesn't boost Will saves, which is a nasty thing to deal with as the main party beatstick. All in all, take it if you think it fits, it doesn't matter THAT much.

Lans

2014-10-05, 03:38 PM

The fighter is Short several feats over the Barbarian, because all his Fighter Bonus Feats and then some are spent on trying to keep up with the Barbarian's basic class features.

Also - a feat is worth about 4 skill points: 2 skill points = 1 skill trick, 2 skill tricks ~ 1 feat. So, a barbarian gets 1 feat worth of skill points more than the fighter every 2 levels. So... the Fighter's bonus feats are barely keeping up with the Barbarian's skill points alone.

Or a skill point per level is equal to less than a feat, 1 point of essentia=1 sp< 1 Feat

Ley me address each of those.

How reliably are you gonna be able to trigger K. Devotion when you have 2+Int skills and all knowledges are cross-class skills?
How are you "negating" Power attack, especially when Shock Trooper is a thing for someone not particularly invested in AC?
If one side has magic weapons, both probably will, and the Barb. might have a better one, or some other item, as he isn't dropping money on a shield.
Dungeon Crasher will even things out somewhat, but only situationally, and not completely.
You only need have ranks to get +1 to hit and damage, and I thought we were comparing the combat styles more than specifically fighters that are using the style.
I figure Elusive Target is at least as available as Shocktrooper

Using a shield in combat, if your doing it right is behind the greatsword wielder by 1 feat, 4000 gp and a worse crit. Using a weapon with your shield is just silly

eggynack

2014-10-05, 03:46 PM

You only need have ranks to get +1 to hit and damage, and I thought we were comparing the combat styles more than specifically fighters that are using the style.
It's better than weapon focus, but it's not really all that good. Yeah, if both characters take knowledge devotion, then minor advantage sword and board guy, but I don't think they would take it, so it's not all that important.

I figure Elusive Target is at least as available as Shocktrooper.
I don't know what you mean by "available". Yes, many characters can take it, if they want, but that doesn't mean that all that many will. It's a feat with two awful prerequisites that provides a decent benefit against a small section of the population, where that small section might be the easiest to defend against otherwise. The availability of shock trooper isn't really important, by contrast, because my character is the one taking it, and I don't care what other characters have it. This seems like a negligible factor, to be honest.

Extra Anchovies

2014-10-05, 03:49 PM

I don't know what you mean by "available". Yes, many characters can take it, if they want, but that doesn't mean that all that many will. It's a feat with two awful prerequisites that provides a decent benefit against a small section of the population, where that small section might be the easiest to defend against otherwise. The availability of shock trooper isn't really important, by contrast, because my character is the one taking it, and I don't care what other characters have it. This seems like a negligible factor, to be honest.

Also, what DMs actually give their NPCs tactical feats? They add more bookwork to a character for it to be worth it for one-encounter baddies.

Lans

2014-10-06, 02:00 PM

It's better than weapon focus, but it's not really all that good. Yeah, if both characters take knowledge devotion, then minor advantage sword and board guy, but I don't think they would take it, so it's not all that important.

They might depending on skill lists, and ability scores. +5 to hit and damage is nothing to sneeze at, and it gives your character out of combat utility.

Again are we talking about the fighter class using these styles or the styles them selves? THF vs 1 handed matters a lot less for a warblade backed up by an inspire courage optimized bard than it does for a barbarian.

I don't know what you mean by "available". Yes, many characters can take it, if they want, but that doesn't mean that all that many will. It's a feat with two awful prerequisites that provides a decent benefit against a small section of the population, where that small section might be the easiest to defend against otherwise. The availability of shock trooper isn't really important, by contrast, because my character is the one taking it, and I don't care what other characters have it. This seems like a negligible factor, to be honest.

It severely mitigates damage from charges and gishes, I can see it being picked up and mattering, by monsters and boss type encounters

Mato

2014-10-06, 11:19 PM

An out-of-core Barbarian effectively does double-duty as the party meatshield AND party trapkilller AND is also a functional scout.The barbarian doesn't obtain hide or move silently so he's not a scout. Trapkiller doesn't function on none-mechanical traps making it worthless against spell traps, and it has an imposed penalty to your "search" check. Reasonably, you can just sunder mechanical traps to begin with too.

Meat shield also suggests the barbarian has a better chance to survive. The fighter has higher ac, heavy adamantine armor (dr 3/-), and can use a tower shield to block several kinds of traps such as targeted spells & attack roll based. His additional feat slots means he has open room to invest in what is normally considered subpar feats that add nothing to damage like improved toughness (+3+hd hp per), roll with it (stacking dr 2/-), or actual spell-trap disabling trapfinding and an apprentice feat.

Let's stop the nonsense right there. Battle jump? The Taer feat from Unapproachable East? So the fighter is always managing to drop from a height 5' above his opponent? Your premise is fantastical and thus the conclusion is flawed.Not really, dire bats cost 100gp so it's 100% successful at the 2nd level. At the 1st, you have 4 ranks & +4 strength so you can make a "hop up" on a roll of 2 (95%) allowing you to run up rocks and tables for additional starting height significantly lowering the high jump DC (even 5ft is dc 20 for 50%, so every other round you're successful with a single hop up). Your premise is based on an open and flat plain and fantastical empty parking lots didn't exactly exist nine hundred years ago.

And when you get to races (like eggy instead of me) you can easily obtain more bonuses if you dislike flying mounts.

How often do you carry around multiple of the same weapon (other than daggers)?All the time. Only one of them is enhanced of course, but having a spare just in case is basic adventuring knowledge.

The big gist of T4-T5 separation is competency. The Fighter suffers if you take him out of whatever comfort zone he's built for himself, the barbarian generally doesn't.The under-optimized example I used is specifically focused in ubercharging but would have ranged daze and martial study by the 9th level. That's ko-damage, crowd control, and utility roles respectively and it still has eight feat slots left.

the Barbarian hp advantage is worth a feat; the Barbarian skill advantage is worth 1-2 feats;No it's not. Half-elf fighter gets 4 skill points per level (with x4 at the 1st level) and he gets a special version of weapon focus that applies to two different weapons instead of one. The fighter gains a feat by increasing his skill points. Only 3 levels of course and racially specific, but once you obtain enough use magic device ranks a wand of guidance of the avatar teaches you how little skill ranks matter outside of requirements anyway.

The barbarian hp is also a new player trap, if you lose more than your normal hp you must have a reliable source of healing or you are bleeding out or outright slain when rage ends. The options available if someone else isn't playing a cleric are limited until your wealth limitations allow you to afford none-wands in bulk.

Also - a feat is worth about 4 skill points: 2 skill points = 1 skill trick, 2 skill tricks ~ 1 feat.A skill trick granting feat also increases your limitation on known skill tricks which you ignored. Also using feats to obtain skill tricks is an example of poorly using your resources.

I wish skill points could be converted to feats. Even the best skill trick ever printed, collector of stories, is only worth +1 to attack and damage because of a Feat.

The math seems pretty THF favorable. For the sake of argument, let's assume a pair of water orcs (because that's what the big fellow is doing, and I figure the 1HF guy would want to keep up), one with a tower shield and longsword, the other with a greatsword. Off of a strength of 22, the THF fellow is thus doing 2d6+9 damage, for an average of 16, while the 1HF fellow is doing 1d8+6, for an average of 10.5. Thus, the THF fighter is doing a bit over 50% more damage than the 1HF fighter, and I think that a tower shield, the obvious best situation, represents a basic 20% reduction most of the time, maybe less.Sword and board is the least offensive method you can choose, it forwards a bit of focus in defense which in your model is entirely ignored. Like calculating rage, you need to expand on your model in order to fully understand it.

To accurately measure thf, twf, and s&b, your need to compare against the mean of an opposing creature's attack bonus and damage output. This is a so called round 2 of charger builds, what do you do if the creature doesn't die in one hit? You get hit back of course. A thf charger with shock trooper has no ac to speak of and suffers the greatest hp loss potentially disabling or killing them (total loss of damage per round) while twf or s&b users would continue to attack.

There is also a special 4th category that can be called shield specialists. By using your shield as your weapon to reap the defensive benefits of s&b, the offense of thf, and the utility of feats like shield slam to stun opponents. It is heavily feat extensive to set up making it an option best used by the fighter class.

eggynack

2014-10-06, 11:46 PM

Sword and board is the least offensive method you can choose, it forwards a bit of focus in defense which in your model is entirely ignored. Like calculating rage, you need to expand on your model in order to fully understand it.
My model didn't ignore defense at all, or rather, defense was factored in in a speedy and rudimentary fashion. I'm not going for a hyper-accurate scientific model to start with. In any case, the basic idea of the model is that each of the characters will hit each other the same number of times, and then I measure who deals more damage on average. A +4 to AC means approximately a 20% drop in the opponent's accuracy, which means about a 20% drop in damage/round. Based on the numbers I presented, even with that drop in damage, the THF fellow is still out damaging sword and board.

To accurately measure thf, twf, and s&b, your need to compare against the mean of an opposing creature's attack bonus and damage output. This is a so called round 2 of charger builds, what do you do if the creature doesn't die in one hit? You get hit back of course. A thf charger with shock trooper has no ac to speak of and suffers the greatest hp loss potentially disabling or killing them (total loss of damage per round) while twf or s&b users would continue to attack.

Shock trooper would indeed change the numbers some, but I didn't even include it on the THF fellow's side. Nor did I include power attack at all. I've gotta figure, however, that using these tools would make things even more THF favorable, due to their sheer raw power. I didn't even include the possibility that the THF fellow's damage could just drop the opponent, which does indeed seem like a relevant factor. Point is, the numbers as they stand seem to support my conclusion, and it looks like even more fleshed out numbers would support my conclusion even more.

In any case, I don't really have perfect data here. I just ran some off the cuff calculations to see if some of the basics match my calculations. They seemed to do so, and to be perfectly honest, it feels like the onus is rather on Vogonjeltz to prove the superiority of S&B even in his chosen encounter type, given the general assumption that the other path is superior. If you have some actual evidence for S&B's superiority in a given situation, that'd be a pretty interesting thing, I think. Pretty sure there's some data on creature power out there somewhere.

bekeleven

2014-10-07, 03:44 AM

Also, you still can't take battle jump level 1.

Gwendol

2014-10-07, 04:49 AM

Dire bats and jumping up on furniture? On every single attack in every fight? Your premise still doesn't hold under any kind of scrutiny.

Furthermore, the feat explicitly states the character needs to begin the charge at a height above the enemy, so that jumping really high (which includes an upward and downward movement) doesn't count. Charging means direct, straight line movement.

Regardless, the barbarian fares well in a match-up vs the fighter, despite getting access to fewer feats.

Gwendol

2014-10-07, 04:50 AM

Also, you still can't take battle jump level 1.

Battle jump has no pre-requisites that I know of.

Karnith

2014-10-07, 04:52 AM

Battle jump has no pre-requisites that I know of.
And it's a regional feat, which (in 3.5) means that if you want to take it, you must select it at level 1.

Gwendol

2014-10-07, 04:54 AM

Yeah, Taer region no less.

Marlowe

2014-10-07, 05:03 AM

I now have a mental image of the fighter jumping up and down in an ineffective fashion screaming; "I'm better than you! See! See! I'm better than you! I'm from Taer, Toril, honest and for true. And I'm better than you!!!", while the Barbarian munches on a Dire Bat drumstick and wonders who the armoured clown is.

Karnith

2014-10-07, 05:33 AM

Battle Jump was updated in 3.5 to be an Icerim Mountains regional feat, as part of the 3.5 region revision.

ace rooster

2014-10-07, 06:51 AM

My model didn't ignore defense at all, or rather, defense was factored in in a speedy and rudimentary fashion. I'm not going for a hyper-accurate scientific model to start with. In any case, the basic idea of the model is that each of the characters will hit each other the same number of times, and then I measure who deals more damage on average. A +4 to AC means approximately a 20% drop in the opponent's accuracy, which means about a 20% drop in damage/round. Based on the numbers I presented, even with that drop in damage, the THF fellow is still out damaging sword and board.

Speedy, rudimentary, and fundamentally wrong. In worst case that AC matters at all, a +4 to AC will reduce damage by about 18% (changes a 2 to hit to a 6 to hit), but in the best case it reduces damage by 80% (changes a 16 to hit to a 20, ie 4 out of 5 attacks that hit you before do not with the +4). You are misunderstanding the effect of extra AC. Extra AC is more valuable if you already have a 'high' AC (enemies must roll high to hit you already), which is why fighters get more benefit from a shield that a barbarian.

I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong, as I have not done the numbers, but you are consistently underestimating the effect of extra AC.

eggynack

2014-10-07, 08:31 AM

Speedy, rudimentary, and fundamentally wrong. In worst case that AC matters at all, a +4 to AC will reduce damage by about 18% (changes a 2 to hit to a 6 to hit), but in the best case it reduces damage by 80% (changes a 16 to hit to a 20, ie 4 out of 5 attacks that hit you before do not with the +4). You are misunderstanding the effect of extra AC. Extra AC is more valuable if you already have a 'high' AC (enemies must roll high to hit you already), which is why fighters get more benefit from a shield that a barbarian.

I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong, as I have not done the numbers, but you are consistently underestimating the effect of extra AC.
In that case, basic instantiation time. I'll keep the same basics as before, and do things initially at level three, after the effects of starting gold have smoothed out some, and before score changes or wealth by level have started to impact things. We are talking now about a +9 to hit, again with 16 and 10.5 average damage, though now with the additional factor of AC. Let's set it at, say, 19 versus 23, for full plate with and without a shield, and assuming some dexterity modifier. According to the power attack calculator, this would leave us with 5.77 damage for the S&B character, and 6.15 damage for the THF character.

That's a good distance from the initial check, admittedly, but it's still THF favorable. Moreover, and here's the critical thing, I'm pretty sure that adding complexity favors the THF character. Increasing level tends to boost attack bonus faster than AC, especially if you're pushing that factor, which means that a higher level assessment would likely be even more THF favorable. Similarly, granting more realistic armor which doesn't eat up half of our character's WBL would boost the THF character's advantage even more. Thus, even in what currently looks like the best circumstances for sword and board, THF is still the best option.

Edit: Looks like level two would also be an even more favorable comparison, as you have to drop the AC by at least two by ditching the full plate. How much you'd need to drop for the switch from 2nd to 1st depends on dexterity, but as long as you're holding parity the numbers still hold up.

Lans

2014-10-07, 10:22 AM

Edit: Looks like level two would also be an even more favorable comparison, as you have to drop the AC by at least two by ditching the full plate. How much you'd need to drop for the switch from 2nd to 1st depends on dexterity, but as long as you're holding parity the numbers still hold up.

If a character has ranks in craft armor, he could atempt to get the full plate for 1/3 cost

eggynack

2014-10-07, 10:27 AM

If a character has ranks in craft armor, he could atempt to get the full plate for 1/3 cost
I guess, but that's running pretty expensive compared to WBL, and the chance of failure seems reasonably high. You're running maybe a +5 or +6, if you're unusually good at crafting, and that's against a DC of 18. So, it's vaguely plausible, but it's also probably unrealistic.

geekintheground

2014-10-07, 10:40 AM

eggynack

2014-10-07, 10:52 AM

this argument reminds me of in-combat healing. the reason its sub-par is because killing the opponent faster increases survivability more than preventing/healing damage. sure, AC is more constant and doesnt cost actions, but isnt AC all or nothing needing something like level+23 to be competitive with monsters to-hit?
Sure on all counts, but those issues only apply when you start complicating things. If you stop needing to protect a party, and instead just need to win a duel against a melee foe, then things get a lot simpler. In that context, it's theoretically possible that sword and board would lead to a higher average damage against THF than THF would have against sword and board, which would likely make it a superior style in that circumstance. It looks like THF is victorious, however, even with reasonable force acting against the style.

Better, I think, to prove the point in the worst possible situation. I've gotta say though, even if things somehow turn out in favor of sword and board over THF, there's no way in hell this is worth a feat. We're still talking about a minuscule margin against what ranges from a tiny sliver of potential encounters, to no potential encounters at all. Tower shield proficiency could very easily be a thing worth having, as so many things are, but it's not more worth having than any number of actually good fighter feats.

bekeleven

2014-10-07, 10:54 AM

Battle Jump was updated in 3.5 to be an Icerim Mountains regional feat, as part of the 3.5 region revision.

Which is still only inhabited by Taer unless you get DM permission.

The Icerim Mountains: Bands of ferocious taer haunt the freezing slopes and mists of the Icerims of the East.

And it's a regional feat, which (in 3.5) means that if you want to take it, you must select it at level 1.

Yep. You could select regional feats of other regions by taking ranks in knowledge in 3.0. But even that had to be done after level 1. In 3.5, if you want battle jump, you're asking the DM for an exception or taking it at ECL 3.

Mato

2014-10-07, 11:54 AM

{{scrubbed}}

this argument reminds me of in-combat healing. the reason its sub-par is because killing the opponent faster increases survivability more than preventing/healing damage. sure, AC is more constant and doesnt cost actions, but isnt AC all or nothing needing something like level+23 to be competitive with monsters to-hit?Healing, unfortunately, requires standard actions which means your opponent has another chance to strike again, often for a value higher than the amount healed. Benefiting from your shield's bonus to AC does not.

Optimize by numbers doesn't have an attack bonus entry. But 23+ suggests you are aiming for a 95% rate of failure. Compared to someone who has dumped their ac, the survivability is almost ten times higher which could equal to an additional nine rounds of effort. The potential there is high, but subjective of the fact that many attacks target saves instead of ac which would drop it. It would be interesting to see all the data compiled and presented one day.

Lans

2014-10-07, 12:54 PM

I guess, but that's running pretty expensive compared to WBL, and the chance of failure seems reasonably high. You're running maybe a +5 or +6, if you're unusually good at crafting, and that's against a DC of 18. So, it's vaguely plausible, but it's also probably unrealistic.

At level 2, you got 5 ranks, +2 masterwork item, and if you get somebody else to use aid other, and you take 10 to hit a DC 19

eggynack

2014-10-07, 01:11 PM

At level 2, you got 5 ranks, +2 masterwork item, and if you get somebody else to use aid other, and you take 10 to hit a DC 19
I guess, but you're really putting in a lot of resources to acquire this outcome by this point. You have 900 GP, 500 completely bound up in the armor if perfectly produced, 15 in a longsword, 50 in a tower shield, and 50 in the masterwork item, leaving you with 215 GP. Then you add that on the time factor, and particularly the fact that you seem to need a trained hireling for that period, running you a minimum of 3 SP each day.

It takes about 5 weeks to produce the armor, adding another 10.5 GP to the price, and that's assuming the aid another check always works. Looks like it's probable to fail on at least one week, thus extending crafting time to 6 weeks. Seems like a lot of effort to put in, especially when this crafting time is presumably occurring after you start playing the character, rather than before. That's also, of course, in addition to the cost of investing in this skill, which doesn't stay useful long, as well as the cost of not dumping intelligence completely.

In any case, the point is moot. I just ran the numbers, and even with -1 to hit and consistent numbers everywhere else, S&B is still dealing 5.19 to THF's 5.27. Not as big of an advantage, obviously, but as long as there's at least parity, things are fine in the world of THF.

Lans

2014-10-07, 01:31 PM

I guess, but you're really putting in a lot of resources to acquire this outcome by this point. You have 900 GP, 500 completely bound up in the armor if perfectly produced, 15 in a longsword, 50 in a tower shield, and 50 in the masterwork item, leaving you with 215 GP. Then you add that on the time factor, and particularly the fact that you seem to need a trained hireling for that period, running you a minimum of 3 SP each day.

It takes about 5 weeks to produce the armor, adding another 10.5 GP to the price, and that's assuming the aid another check always works. Looks like it's probable to fail on at least one week, thus extending crafting time to 6 weeks. Seems like a lot of effort to put in, especially when this crafting time is presumably occurring after you start playing the character, rather than before. That's also, of course, in addition to the cost of investing in this skill, which doesn't stay useful long, as well as the cost of not dumping intelligence completely.

In any case, the point is moot. I just ran the numbers, and even with -1 to hit and consistent numbers everywhere else, S&B is still dealing 5.19 to THF's 5.27. Not as big of an advantage, obviously, but as long as there's at least parity, things are fine in the world of THF.

It has the advantage in the case of water orcs who put 16 pts of there pb into strength, what about dwarves who only put in 10 points?

THF 2d6+4(11) vs 1d10+3(8.5). ACs of 19 vs 21, so requiring a roll of 15 and 13 respectively. 11*.3=3.3 and 8.5*.4=3.4.

Then we can add in feats, stances, rages, inspirations and the like from there

Edit- I believe you can take 10 on the aid action, it doesn't have to be an npc who does the helping, and it doesn't have to be this npc that does the crafting. Sometimes there is weeks of downtime in a campaign

Svata

2014-10-07, 01:50 PM

ace rooster

2014-10-07, 01:55 PM

Sure on all counts, but those issues only apply when you start complicating things. If you stop needing to protect a party, and instead just need to win a duel against a melee foe, then things get a lot simpler. In that context, it's theoretically possible that sword and board would lead to a higher average damage against THF than THF would have against sword and board, which would likely make it a superior style in that circumstance. It looks like THF is victorious, however, even with reasonable force acting against the style.

Better, I think, to prove the point in the worst possible situation. I've gotta say though, even if things somehow turn out in favor of sword and board over THF, there's no way in hell this is worth a feat. We're still talking about a minuscule margin against what ranges from a tiny sliver of potential encounters, to no potential encounters at all. Tower shield proficiency could very easily be a thing worth having, as so many things are, but it's not more worth having than any number of actually good fighter feats.

Against an single equal level character is the worst possible situation for a sword and board, and as you point out sword and board is not much behind. Against many enemies with lower attack and AC sword and board works better. A +6 attack is par for a mook at level 3 (an owlbear skeleton for example), and changing them from hitting on a 13 to a 17 will reduce the damage you take by half. You will likely be hitting them on a six ordinarily, so the tower shield will only reduce your damage output by 13%. Coupled with the lower damage from 1 handed fighting you net a damage output of about 60% of the THF.

The big problem that sword and board has is that taking too long will just mean that the party wizard will nuke the thing you are trying to kill. :smallfrown: Barbarian does not suffer this problem.

Personally I find sword and board works best when you have an alternative damage source, such as skirmish or sneak attack. Fighter rogues or swift hunters don't lose much from using a weapon one handed, and with 5 ranks in tumble fighting defensively can be enough to push enemies to hitting you on a 15 or 16, at which point +3 to AC from a magic shield is very significant.

sonofzeal

2014-10-07, 01:57 PM

And why would anyone who ostensibly wants to be a mêlée character put a ten, a score with no bonus, in the ability which dictates your to-hit and your damage? It's like a wizard putting a ten in his INT. Sure, you can, but its not a good idea in any way, shape, or form.

That's 10 pb, which works out to a 16 score for most characters. That's entirely reasonable, since most characters have other uses for their ability scores and getting that 18 is too costly for many.

Svata

2014-10-07, 02:04 PM

That's 10 pb, which works out to a 16 score for most characters. That's entirely reasonable, since most characters have other uses for their ability scores and getting that 18 is too costly for many.

Ah, my mistake. Carry on.

eggynack

2014-10-07, 04:05 PM

It has the advantage in the case of water orcs who put 16 pts of there pb into strength, what about dwarves who only put in 10 points?

THF 2d6+4(11) vs 1d10+3(8.5). ACs of 19 vs 21, so requiring a roll of 15 and 13 respectively. 11*.3=3.3 and 8.5*.4=3.4.

Then we can add in feats, stances, rages, inspirations and the like from there.
I believe your damage totals are off a bit, as they don't account for crits, and also . THF fellow would deal 3.63, and S&B would deal 3.74, which actually makes for a greater difference. In any case, my argument is indeed predicated some on the idea that these characters are somewhat optimal in composition. The water orc is likely the way I would design such a character, and the way I figured it, the other fighter would need the same in order to keep up. The issue with complicating things is that it, y'know, complicates things. I suppose I could design a standard tripping barbarian, perhaps with a dwarf base, however.

I believe you can take 10 on the aid action,
You cannot, as in the words of the SRD, "You can’t take 10 on a skill check to aid another."

It doesn't have to be an npc who does the helping, and it doesn't have to be this npc that does the crafting.
It doesn't have to be, but at that point we're assuming that another party member also put points into this usually useless skill, which is a lot to expect.

Sometimes there is weeks of downtime in a campaign.
Sometimes, but that time can often be used for other pursuits, which adds an opportunity cost to things, and such a break isn't something you can necessarily assume, especially perfectly timed as it presumably is here.

Against an single equal level character is the worst possible situation for a sword and board, and as you point out sword and board is not much behind. Against many enemies with lower attack and AC sword and board works better. A +6 attack is par for a mook at level 3 (an owlbear skeleton for example), and changing them from hitting on a 13 to a 17 will reduce the damage you take by half. You will likely be hitting them on a six ordinarily, so the tower shield will only reduce your damage output by 13%. Coupled with the lower damage from 1 handed fighting you net a damage output of about 60% of the THF.
It seems probable that it would indeed be the worst situation possible. However, such was the situation that I was asked to assess.

Karnith

2014-10-07, 05:19 PM

Which is still only inhabited by Taer unless you get DM permission.
It requires DM prermission in much the same manner that you need DM permission to take levels in PrCs, sure. It's not a big deal provided you work it into your character's backstory. Per PGtF:

If your character's homeland is Narfell, she's quite likely a Nar. The recommended subrace or ethnicity entry on the region table indicates the specific subrace or ethnic group usually found in that region. You should check with your Dungeon Master before you assign your character a region that doesn't fit his subrace. Doing so is not against the rules; indeed, despite the prevalence of certain races in certain areas, Faerun is a diverse land with many well-integrated cities and kingdoms. It would not be unreasonable, for example, for a gold dwarf character to have the human region of Cormyr as his native region. However, such an unusual origin probably deserves some explanation in your character's backstory. Perhaps the character is descended from a family of Great Rift merchants or armorers who set up shop in Suzail a generation or two ago so that they could sell their wares or handiwork to the humans of the kingdom. Don't ignore the race recommendations entirely, though - if none of the characters in the campaign come from the traditional homelands of their races, then there isn't much point in choosing character regions to begin with.
(Emphasis mine)

And Unapproachable East confirms that tribes of humans, dwarves, and orcs live in the Icerim Mountains (in addition to more exotic creatures like the taer and frost giants), setting you up just fine to be a Battle Jumper of one of those races if you so desire.

awa

2014-10-07, 09:19 PM

eggynack

2014-10-07, 09:33 PM

just skimming this but are people taking into account the fact that tower shields give you a -2 penalty to hit?
I did in fact fail to do that. That is a thing very much not worth a feat. I don't think there exists a plausible argument otherwise, given that being the case.

aleucard

2014-10-07, 09:45 PM

just skimming this but are people taking into account the fact that tower shields give you a -2 penalty to hit?

edit also in regards to the idea that realistic battle fields would not be flat thus jumping is easy yes sometimes you fight in hills and mountains but occasionally you also fight in caves, or dungeons or muddy bogs or many other places where jumping is impossible or at least highly impractical.

Really, all you need to be able to do Battle Jump (and Leap Attack doesn't even need this much) is 5 feet extra on the height of your average opponent. For targeting medium characters, this means a 15' ceiling. For targeting Large, this means a 20' ceiling in most cases. Most things larger come pre-packaged with either a large lair perfectly suited both for the creature's comfort and for these tactics or them being in areas without ceilings. And in a world where people have died horriffic deaths by being breathed on, realism should not apply once past somewhere around level 3; the designers thinking otherwise is a large part of why game balance is so completely, utterly, nigh-hopelessly bork't in 3.5.

awa

2014-10-07, 10:16 PM

i don't know about you but i don't see many buildings with 15 foot ceilings
10 feet higher then the height of the occupant seems to be the exception rather then the rule.

also isn't a 10 foot high jump dc 40? that seems unlikely for a fighter to make reliably at level 1 considering they often have a speed of 20 from armor:smallsmile:

KingSmitty

2014-10-07, 11:53 PM

Barbarian good. Sticking with it for 20 levels bad. The fun of just being balls to the wall hardcore is what makes them fun for me.

The whole "i dont care if i die im gonna smack this thing with that thing" mentality is what wins most battlea.

If you die in combat sure it sucks but make it memorable, because that's the barbarian way.

Gwendol

2014-10-08, 01:53 AM

Really, all you need to be able to do Battle Jump (and Leap Attack doesn't even need this much) is 5 feet extra on the height of your average opponent. For targeting medium characters, this means a 15' ceiling. For targeting Large, this means a 20' ceiling in most cases. Most things larger come pre-packaged with either a large lair perfectly suited both for the creature's comfort and for these tactics or them being in areas without ceilings. And in a world where people have died horriffic deaths by being breathed on, realism should not apply once past somewhere around level 3; the designers thinking otherwise is a large part of why game balance is so completely, utterly, nigh-hopelessly bork't in 3.5.

No, for Battle Jump to work as written you need to drop down on your foe from that height. That's what's making Mato's Fighter vs Barbarian comparison relatively useless. The fighter needs to drop down on foes from the back of his Dire Bat, or from some kind of perch, in every round of every fight.

Marlowe

2014-10-08, 02:45 AM

It's like some kind of perpetual motion machine. It depends on constantly falling while never reaching bottom.

I'm wondering if Mato's game universe consists of an endless descending staircase.

Gwendol

2014-10-08, 02:46 AM

A world designed by Escher perhaps?

Svata

2014-10-08, 03:20 AM

Nah, just Cave Johnson.

Ruut

2014-10-08, 04:37 AM

Good.

An Orc Barbarian With Lion Spirit Totem Barbarian (Pounce), combined with Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Shocktrooper, Leap Attack, and Headlong Rush will have 100+ on a bad roll.

Take Track for some utility since no one plays a Ranger. Use the Dungeonscape/Cityscape Skill Swaps for more versatility.

Take your Racial Paragon for an extra +2 to strength.

Barbarian, besides Wizard, is hands down my favorite class. You can literally be a Conan or you can be a Genghis Khan. Pick one and roll initiative.

ace rooster

2014-10-08, 06:48 AM

just skimming this but are people taking into account the fact that tower shields give you a -2 penalty to hit?

edit also in regards to the idea that realistic battle fields would not be flat thus jumping is easy yes sometimes you fight in hills and mountains but occasionally you also fight in caves, or dungeons or muddy bogs or many other places where jumping is impossible or at least highly impractical.

I had, and it often still works out favorably. The point is that if the enemy requires a higher roll to hit you than you to hit them, then any effect that increases both of your ACs will benefit you more. If you are using a shield at all then you are generally in this situation. If you are not in this situation then you are better off using a THW, or simply dropping your shield and using your ordinary weapon two handed (or using a bow). It is a bit like combat expertise, with an option of total cover thrown in and no int requirement. Probably not worth burning a feat on, but can be nice gravy.

The flaw in the above argument is casters. Any effect which increases everyones AC (or equivilently reduces attack) will benefit them most, as they generally don't attack AC anyway. The only real answer to that though is to play a caster.

Gwendol

2014-10-08, 07:17 AM

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I have read the feat and find your tone insulting.

The feat explicitly says you need to jump from a height above your opponent. If you want to houserule that this includes the movement of jumping up to that height before dropping down, that's fine. The FAQ is not RAW.

See what the feat says under Normal:

Normal

Anybody can try to jump down on an enemy, but it is not considered a charge, and they do not gain double damage or the size bonus for the ensuing attack.

And

Jumping Down

If you intentionally jump from a height, you take less damage than you would if you just fell. The DC to jump down from a height is 15. You do not have to get a running start to jump down, so the DC is not doubled if you do not get a running start.

If you succeed on the check, you take falling damage as if you had dropped 10 fewer feet than you actually did.

In other words, Battle Jump allows someone who tries to jump down (an actual game term) on an enemy to treat this as a charge that deals extra damage or benefits to trip an opponent. Leap attack is the feat that allows for jumping towards an opponent during a charge.

EDIT: As for the rest of the comparison between a fighter and a barbarian: the OP question was if the class is any good. If the barbarian can keep up with a well-built fighter, and assuming the fighter is the lowest level of martial competency (we're not considering NPC classes) then we can conclude that the barbarian is an ok martial class. I have yet to see anything that assumes otherwise.

Vogonjeltz

2014-10-08, 04:29 PM

you done the math, show the numbers.

Also, in terms of AoO, the Withdraw option says hi. Double move plus Fast Movement says the Barbarian has more than enough movement to go around.

How does withdrawing helping the Barbarian in this situation? The entire ploy here is that the Tower Shield renders the Barbarian's rage feature useless. He continues to deal no damage and the timer on rage is ticking down.

As to your question about the math. Sure. Basic formula is here:
Tdd = Ddpr*(Hp/Dtpr)

TLDR version is here:
tdd = (((((21-cCritrange)-(eAC - cAB))*(((cMinDam+(cEncumbrance*cStrmod))+(cMaxDam+ (cEncumbrance*cStrmod)))/2))+(((((eAC - cAB)-1)*(((cMinDam+(cEncumbrance*cStrmod))+(cMaxDam+(cE ncumbrance*cStrmod)))/2) + (((cCritMult*(cMinDam+(cEncumbrance*cStrmod)))+(cC ritMult*(cMaxDam+(cEncumbrance*cStrmod))))/2)*(21-(eAC - cAB)))/20)*cCritrange))/20) * (HP/ (((((21-eCritrange)-(cAC - eAB))*(((eMinDam+(eEncumbrance*eStrmod))+(eMaxDam+ (eEncumbrance*eStrmod)))/2))+(((((cAC - eAB)-1)*(((eMinDam+(eEncumbrance*eStrmod))+(eMaxDam+(eE ncumbrance*eStrmod)))/2) + (((eCritMult*(eMinDam+(eEncumbrance*eStrmod)))+(eC ritMult*(eMaxDam+(eEncumbrance*eStrmod))))/2)*(21-(cAC - eAB)))/20)*eCritrange))/20))

variables:
Ddpr = ((((21-cCritrange)-eaAC)*cDamAve)+(cCritThreatAveDam*cCritrange))/20
Dtpr = ((((21-eCritrange)-caAC)*eDamAve)+(eCritThreatAveDam*eCritrange))/20
HP = character's hit points

ddpr variables:
cCritrange = 21 - lowest number of the character's crit range
eaAC = eAC - cAB
eAC = enemy Armor Class
cAB = character attack bonus
cDamAve = ((cMinDam+(cEncumbrance*cStrmod))+(cMaxDam+(cEncum brance*cStrmod)))/2
cMinDam = minimum damage dealt by character weapon
cMaxDam = maximum damage dealt by character weapon
cEncumbrance = character's weapon encumbrance (light = 1; one-handed = 1; two-handed = 1.5)
cStrMod = character's strength modifier
cCritThreatAveDam = ((eaAC-1)*cDamAve + cAveCritDam*(21-eaAC))/20
cAveCritDam = (cMinCritDam+cMaxCritDam)/2
cMinCritDam = cCritMult*(cMinDam+(cEncumbrance*cStrmod))
cMaxCritDam = cCritMult*(cMaxDam+(cEncumbrance*cStrmod))
cCritMult = Critical Multiplier of character weapon

dtpr variables:
eCritrange = 21 - lowest number of the enemy's crit range
caAC = cAC - eAB
cAC = character Armor Class
eAB = enemy attack bonus
eDamAve = ((eMinDam+(eEncumbrance*eStrmod))+(eMaxDam+(eEncum brance*eStrmod)))/2
eMinDam = minimum damage dealt by enemy weapon
eMaxDam = maximum damage dealt by enemy weapon
eEncumbrance = encumbrance of enemy weapon (light = 1; one-handed = 1; two-handed = 1.5)
eStrmod = enemy strength modifier
eCritThreatAveDam = ((caAC-1)*eDamAve + eAveCritDam*(21-caAC))/20
eAveCritDam = (eMinCritDam+eMaxCritDam)/2
eMinCritDam = eCritMult*(eMinDam+(eEncumbrance*eStrmod))
eMaxCritDam = eCritMult*(eMaxDam+(eEncumbrance*eStrmod))
eCritMult = Critical Multiplier of enemy weapon

For both solve for dagger wielding commoner enemies: AC 10; AB +0; Crit 19-20/x2; light; 1d4 damage
shared character attributes: strmod = 2; dexmod = 1; Hp = 10 (12 for bar); AB = 3 (strmod+BAB)

THF (2d6, crit x2/19-20; AC 15 - greatsword, scalemail+dexmod
1HF (1d10, crit x3; AC 17 - dwarven waraxe, scalemail+heavy shield+dexmod
1HF w/Tower shield (self explanatory shield substitution)
Bar norage (2d6, crit x2/19-20; AC 14 - Greatsword, studded leather+dexmod
Bar w/rage (same as above but for 3+conmod rounds: str+4, con+4, AC-2; after 3+conmod rounds: str-2, dex-2)

Bar w/rage TDD: 86.7533333
THF TDD: 93.33333
Bar norage TDD: 96
1HF TDD: 135.84375
1HF w/Tower Shield TDD: 167.7966

The clear winner in this instance is the tower shield. This narrows somewhat when the opponent is a twin THF, but the Tower Shield user is still ahead.

Why does the Barbarian with rage perform so poorly? Because although it frontloads alot of damage, any fight that lasts beyond the duration of rage is a losing proposition.

The math seems pretty THF favorable.

My point exactly, it seemed that way on its face to me as well. Once I actually did the math however, the reality that THF was inferior in longer fights, because of a lack of durability, became apparent. That doesn't mean THF is always going to be worse, only that it necessarily is if the fight lasts a certain duration. For anything lasting only 1-3 rounds, the THF is probably the best pick. Given that there are at least 4 encounters per day however, the Tower Shield is going to represent a net gain in efficiency.

But worse than using no shield, I would assert. The total cover benefit doesn't really require a feat, and the standard shield use benefit isn't really worth a feat. Hell, even if the shield somehow does come out ahead in this one tiny set of circumstances, that's still not anywhere close to worth a feat.

You would be wrong in that assertion. The Tower Shield has almost twice the efficiency of THF. The total cover benefit doesn't require a feat, however the armor check penalty would impose a staggering -10 to attack rolls. It's simply not a viable option without the feat.

I'm not going for a hyper-accurate scientific model to start with.

I don't understand. You're aiming to miss the mark? That doesn't seem useful in trying to discern the truth.

georgie_leech

2014-10-08, 04:51 PM

How does withdrawing helping the Barbarian in this situation? The entire ploy here is that the Tower Shield renders the Barbarian's rage feature useless. He continues to deal no damage and the timer on rage is ticking down.

Presumably the Fighter and Barbarian are fighting because they are at cross purposes of some sort. Perhaps one desires to accomplish something the other wants to prevent. Using the Total Cover option means that the Barbarian can just Withdraw to avoid any AoO's and walk past the Fighter, then use the fast movement they get natively to stay out of reach. In other words, doing so completely negates any ability the fighter has to impact the Barbarian in any meaningful way. I'll grant that if you decide that the Total Cover means that you cannot do anything to the Fighter, including trying to Sunder the shield, then yes, a 1-on-1 fight is a bit of a wash. I find that situation artificial, unlikely to ever come up, and thus not terribly useful to judging utility. I mean, during a fight while falling down a Cliffside a Monk 20 is king, but that doesn't make their Slow Fall capstone a useful ability.

Troacctid

2014-10-08, 04:56 PM

I don't understand. You're aiming to miss the mark? That doesn't seem useful in trying to discern the truth.

The whole last page is an argument about pitting two specific, individual characters against one another in a 1v1 fight, and you're saying it's not useful because of insufficient math? :smallsigh:

eggynack

2014-10-08, 04:58 PM

Numbers
I'm not really sure what... most of that stuff is supposed to mean. You might do well with some explanation, particularly of why stuff is setup in that fashion. For example, why are we testing against commoners? When is this bizarre situation, a battle against an apparently infinite HP commoner, supposed to take place? Why is strength modifier set so ridiculously low? This situation you've presented seems completely unlike any real gaming situation, so it similarly seems rather useless. You might have doubled power against an infinite HP commoner, but that doesn't seem particularly relevant, as things go.

You would be wrong in that assertion. The Tower Shield has almost twice the efficiency of THF. The total cover benefit doesn't require a feat, however the armor check penalty would impose a staggering -10 to attack rolls. It's simply not a viable option without the feat.
It's a viable option without the feat if you're just using the thing for the total cover benefit. As for the tower shield being twice as efficient, that seems quite unlikely, even with your odd wall of numbers.

I don't understand. You're aiming to miss the mark? That doesn't seem useful in trying to discern the truth.
I'm not trying to miss anything. Just constructing a bare bones model to see how things look. It's a method liable to miss things, but it's easier to point out what's being missed when you have something to work off of.

Marlowe

2014-10-08, 05:08 PM

The whole last page is an argument about pitting two specific, individual characters against one another in a 1v1 fight, and you're saying it's not useful because of insufficient math? :smallsigh:

"Gronk feel hiding behind shield unmanly; but Gronk accept many things in world Gronk not understand.

"Gronk do understand though, that Funny Shield Fighter hiding behind shield leaves Gronk free to slaughter the others of Funny Shield Fighter's party who might actually pose an active threat to Gronk and Gronk's friends. So Gronk say, so Gronk do".

georgie_leech

2014-10-08, 05:39 PM

"Gronk feel hiding behind shield unmanly; but Gronk accept many things in world Gronk not understand.

"Gronk do understand though, that Funny Shield Fighter hiding behind shield leaves Gronk free to slaughter the others of Funny Shield Fighter's party who might actually pose an active threat to Gronk and Gronk's friends. So Gronk say, so Gronk do".

What he said :smallbiggrin:

Vogonjeltz

2014-10-08, 06:11 PM

Presumably the Fighter and Barbarian are fighting because they are at cross purposes of some sort. Perhaps one desires to accomplish something the other wants to prevent. Using the Total Cover option means that the Barbarian can just Withdraw to avoid any AoO's and walk past the Fighter, then use the fast movement they get natively to stay out of reach. In other words, doing so completely negates any ability the fighter has to impact the Barbarian in any meaningful way. I'll grant that if you decide that the Total Cover means that you cannot do anything to the Fighter, including trying to Sunder the shield, then yes, a 1-on-1 fight is a bit of a wash. I find that situation artificial, unlikely to ever come up, and thus not terribly useful to judging utility. I mean, during a fight while falling down a Cliffside a Monk 20 is king, but that doesn't make their Slow Fall capstone a useful ability.

Withdraw only avoids an attack of opportunity on leaving the square you start out in. Subsequent squares still draw one, moving past someone implies that will happen. Knowing that the Fighter can be untouchable by the Barbarian leads to the ability by the players to engineer situations which take advantage of that fact, especially in enclosed spaces.

I didn't say the Barbarian couldn't sunder the shield, I was saying it would take long enough that rage would run out, making the Barbarian easy pickings for the Fighter. This exercise was about addressing the original question of our opinions on the Barbarian class. I think it's fun and interesting, but because of the rage mechanics it is committed to only short fights, losing longer ones by design.

The whole last page is an argument about pitting two specific, individual characters against one another in a 1v1 fight, and you're saying it's not useful because of insufficient math? :smallsigh:

No. I'm saying insufficient math is about as useless as no math at all because it's just conjecture. We shouldn't be treating guesses as proof.

I'm not really sure what... most of that stuff is supposed to mean.

It's the formula for how long a character can fight against a melee combatant. If you're asking how algebra works, I'd recommend taking a look at the khan academy videos unless you have access to appropriate text books and an actual math teacher.

You might do well with some explanation, particularly of why stuff is setup in that fashion. For example, why are we testing against commoners? When is this bizarre situation, a battle against an apparently infinite HP commoner, supposed to take place? Why is strength modifier set so ridiculously low?

Strictly speaking the formula can be applied to anything, the commoner was just to represent a weak attack (dagger) with no bonus attached and no armor. It provides a baseline on which to judge improvements. If you were so inclined you could take that basic comparison to see how effective increases in to hit, AC, and damage are. The purpose is simply to measure how much damage a character could output before being disabled (0 hp). The str mod is set to what a 14 or 15 would grant from the elite array at level 1.

This situation you've presented seems completely unlike any real gaming situation, so it similarly seems rather useless. You might have doubled power against an infinite HP commoner, but that doesn't seem particularly relevant, as things go.

You've never fought against several large groups of kobolds? Because that seems like a very similar situation. The relevance is that the Tower shield user can survive more rounds than the 2h weapon user. As I said earlier, this means the tower shield user is in a better position to win battles of attrition.

It's a viable option without the feat if you're just using the thing for the total cover benefit. As for the tower shield being twice as efficient, that seems quite unlikely, even with your odd wall of numbers.

I already agreed with the first sentence. The not viable statement referred to if the non proficient user wants to actually fight.

I'm not trying to miss anything. Just constructing a bare bones model to see how things look. It's a method liable to miss things, but it's easier to point out what's being missed when you have something to work off of.

Bare bones misses critical information. We don't even need a model to know that a greatsword deals more damage per round than a 1h weapon. The question was, how do they perform, and using some slipshod guesswork isn't cutting it.

Sir Chuckles

2014-10-08, 06:54 PM

Using dubious math and then condescending people when they can't understand your 6 line long equation that is not indicative of a real situation is no better than conjecture.

In a long, drawn out fight, the AC boost from a shield could cause the Fighter to have more damage over the course of the battle due to a higher AC. However, your math assumes a single enemy with low to-hit and infinite HP, which is a situation that may very well only exist in this simulation. It also assumes that the enemy is always striking against your HP via AC, rather than the myriad of tactics that could be used. Unfortunately, these are often disarm checks and grapples, which would not change much in this particular formula, as it assumes a single enemy.

Ultimately, in D&D 3.5e, you seldom find yourself in a battle of attrition against purely melee minions. Should such a thing happen, yes, a Fighter wielding a tower shield may come out with a higher body count in the earlier level, but the distance between the two changes with every thousands gold pieces you add into the equation, as well as with every level gained.

I don't see what you're trying to prove, though. That a Fighter is more suited to very specific tasks than a Barbarian? We could've told you that. I don't think the gap is as large as you believe it to, considering that you rate the Fighter as the penultimate class, but if you were to state that "A Fighter using a tower shield is often better than a Barbarian in a battle of attrition.", we wouldn't completely disagree.

Edit:
Either way, it wouldn't change the fact of "Barbarian good".

emeraldstreak

2014-10-08, 07:02 PM

How I feel about the PvP discussion so far (http://i.imgur.com/35B5O.gif)

eggynack

2014-10-08, 07:11 PM

It's the formula for how long a character can fight against a melee combatant. If you're asking how algebra works, I'd recommend taking a look at the khan academy videos unless you have access to appropriate text books and an actual math teacher.

I know how math works, but you decided to present your math as a crazy block of numbers. If you know your math, then you know that a crazy block of numbers and letters is the worst way to present anything.

Strictly speaking the formula can be applied to anything, the commoner was just to represent a weak attack (dagger) with no bonus attached and no armor. It provides a baseline on which to judge improvements. If you were so inclined you could take that basic comparison to see how effective increases in to hit, AC, and damage are. The purpose is simply to measure how much damage a character could output before being disabled (0 hp). The str mod is set to what a 14 or 15 would grant from the elite array at level 1.
In that case, you should probably retest things except using an actually optimal THF fellow, at least from a statistical perspective. Or, y'know, I suppose I will. Let's assume again our noble water orc barbarian, with a point buy of, say, 28. That's enough for 18 strength, increased to 22, 14 constitution, increased to 16, and 14 dexterity, as the three relevant stats. I'll hold on to the scale mail+greatsword combo, which seems reasonable, leaving us with an attack bonus of +7, damage of 2d6+9, 18 HP, and 16 AC.

Testing out the average number of attacks that the barbarian will get seems trivial enough. With the numbers you've presented, the commoner will deal an average of .68 damage each round. That'll drop the barbarian to 0 in 27 rounds, on average. The barbarian, meanwhile, is doling out about 15.83 damage each round (16.83 if we use power attack, but that's probably not relevant here), which means that the barbarian will deal 427.21 damage before dying. That's actually underselling damage a bit, because there is some point in that damage series where it becomes optimal to activate rage, but it's a good starting point.

So, there ya go. Lots and lots of damage, over double what your tower shield build produced. It's a number that shrinks a bit under different specifications, but it's still pretty massive. Now I suppose it's up to you to match that number, which I dunno, might be completely possible. A basic and cursory examination on my part, however, using what I think are reasonable numbers (still a dwarf, same stat-block, using a fighter this time for the proficiency), gave the tower shield guy a total of about 358.19 damage, so take that for what it's worth. Ran those numbers fast though, so I might have missed something. It's also worth note that this is just about the best point of comparison for captain tower shield, or so I would think.

Also, seriously, words. Words are awesome. The best math is done in complete sentences. Doing otherwise is like handing someone a pile of code without any commenting.

You've never fought against several large groups of kobolds? Because that seems like a very similar situation. The relevance is that the Tower shield user can survive more rounds than the 2h weapon user. As I said earlier, this means the tower shield user is in a better position to win battles of attrition.

Those two situations are similar, but fundamentally different in that the damage itself will eventually reduce the opponent's damage output, depending on how large the groups are. That reduction is where THF derives a reasonable amount of its effectiveness. It doesn't help that your presented situation is very different from the one you initially presented. It also doesn't help that you used the least beneficial possible numbers for the THF fellow.

I already agreed with the first sentence. The not viable statement referred to if the non proficient user wants to actually fight.
Yeah, but when you want to actually fight, that's when you drop your shield. Simple enough, really.

Bare bones misses critical information. We don't even need a model to know that a greatsword deals more damage per round than a 1h weapon. The question was, how do they perform, and using some slipshod guesswork isn't cutting it.
That's not even close to what I was doing. Really, my model was just a simpler version of the one you used, applied particularly to a THF vs. S&B fight. There were flaws I hadn't considered, so I adapted to those flaws, and it looks like the current model I have for such a fight is an accurate one.

georgie_leech

2014-10-08, 07:38 PM

Withdraw only avoids an attack of opportunity on leaving the square you start out in. Subsequent squares still draw one, moving past someone implies that will happen. Knowing that the Fighter can be untouchable by the Barbarian leads to the ability by the players to engineer situations which take advantage of that fact, especially in enclosed spaces.

Not necessarily. Outside of a corridor, the Barbarian can just move around the Fighter's reach without losing too much distance, since TS locks the Fighter into one-handed weapons, which largely either lack reach or don't threaten. Inside of a corridor, it might help, but a Fighter can't exactly guarantee such an environment.

I didn't say the Barbarian couldn't sunder the shield, I was saying it would take long enough that rage would run out, making the Barbarian easy pickings for the Fighter. This exercise was about addressing the original question of our opinions on the Barbarian class. I think it's fun and interesting, but because of the rage mechanics it is committed to only short fights, losing longer ones by design.

A Raging Barbarian with an 18 starting Strength Does 2d6+9 for an average of 15 damage per swing, compared to a TS's Hardness of 5 and hp of 20. A Sunder attempt requires an opposed attack roll, which the Fighter has a much smaller chance of beating, due to being unlikely to have WF for the TS, the native -2 attack, the greater Strength of the Barbarian, and the +4 from wielding a two-handed weapon. It looks as though the TS gives the fighter 2-3 rounds on average; being generous and assuming minimum damage for each swing (1/1296 odds) and a successful block by the Fighter, you get 5 rounds. Assuming a 12 CON (on the low side but not unreasonable), the Rage will last 6 rounds, outlasting the shield.

Nihilarian

2014-10-08, 08:13 PM

As long as the Animated Tower Shield exists, the only reason to actually specialize in sword and board is flavor. You don't have to choose between damage or defense, just grab both.

awa

2014-10-08, 08:22 PM

tower shields don't say they give up your actions they say you give up your attacks, an attack of opportunity is still an attack so the fighter is just helpless while the barbarian pounds on him
edit
also in regards to rage being bad for short fights while technically true most fights are decided after 7 rnds anyways just by the nature of D&d rocket tag. take that level one fighter if we give the fighter 16 con and the barb 16 str base odds are the fight will last one rnd becuase the barbs average dam 14 is greater then his hp of 13.
a quick glance at the srd monster filter and on average any cr 1 monster will be dead in two hits and that's with out feats

eggynack

2014-10-08, 08:28 PM

tower shields don't say they give up your actions they say you give up your attacks, an attack of opportunity is still an attack so the fighter is just helpless while the barbarian pounds on him
True enough, though I'm not sure how hard it is to hit the shield. It seems possible that it would just qualify as static object with an AC of around 10, which would make it ridiculously easy to sunder. It'd probably take a single round of whirling frenzy to break it at that damage rate, maybe two with a higher quantity of AC. Long story short, the tower shield doesn't look like much of a trump card in most cited engagements, though it could plausibly be useful in some other engagements.

awa

2014-10-08, 08:34 PM

it feels like one of those things where the rules are vague but logic does not favor the shield user personally if your using the shield as a wall it should be about as hard to miss as one but i don't know if raw supports that

Karnith

2014-10-08, 08:37 PM

True enough, though I'm not sure how hard it is to hit the shield. It seems possible that it would just qualify as static object with an AC of around 10, which would make it ridiculously easy to sunder.
Were you to treat it a static object, its AC would be even lower than that - inanimate objects get treated as having Dex 0, and take an additional -2 AC penalty (i.e. AC 3 + size modifier), and I doubt that an item as large as a tower shield would get much in the way of a size bonus to AC when wielded by most melee types. Per the SRD: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#smashinganObject)

Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they usually don’t move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow. An object’s Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier + its Dexterity modifier. An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (-5 penalty to AC), but also an additional -2 penalty to its AC. Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon.
Since a tower shield is a shield, however, you'd just use the regular sundering rules. Either way, bog-standard tower shields only have 5 hardness and 20 hp (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#tableCommonArmorWeaponAndShieldHar dnessAndHitPoints), so I wouldn't expect one to last long once someone starts swinging.

eggynack

2014-10-08, 08:56 PM

Since a tower shield is a shield, however, you'd just use the regular sundering rules, which means opposed attack rolls.
I'm not sure that you're correct on that one. You obviously wouldn't have opposed attack rolls if you were to attack an unattended tower shield lying on the ground, so it being a shield isn't a sufficient condition for something being treated as a shield for the purposes of sundering. The question, then, is whether a tower shield is treated more as its shield version, or more as its object version, and I think it's the latter. The thing doesn't seem to be moving, after all, and I can't see much in the way of a method for the fighter to attack. Backing that up is that it's not clear that a fighter can even make an opposed attack roll when he's incapable of attacking.

georgie_leech

2014-10-09, 01:21 AM

I'm not sure that you're correct on that one. You obviously wouldn't have opposed attack rolls if you were to attack an unattended tower shield lying on the ground, so it being a shield isn't a sufficient condition for something being treated as a shield for the purposes of sundering. The question, then, is whether a tower shield is treated more as its shield version, or more as its object version, and I think it's the latter. The thing doesn't seem to be moving, after all, and I can't see much in the way of a method for the fighter to attack. Backing that up is that it's not clear that a fighter can even make an opposed attack roll when he's incapable of attacking.

Note that the opposed attack roll doesn't mean it's an attack. The Fighter may (or may not depending on DM interpretation of "giving up attacks") get an AoO at the start, but the opposed attack roll isn't in any sense an attack by the Fighter. That interpretation is a bit of a reach.

eggynack

2014-10-09, 01:35 AM

Note that the opposed attack roll doesn't mean it's an attack. The Fighter may (or may not depending on DM interpretation of "giving up attacks") get an AoO at the start, but the opposed attack roll isn't in any sense an attack by the Fighter. That interpretation is a bit of a reach.
Maybe that aspect in particular, but the implication of the opposed attack roll is still that the fighter is, y'know, manipulating the position of the shield in any way. I don't think that's happening when the fighter is used as what is effectively a static wall. Moreover, while the opposed attack roll might not necessarily be an attack, it is directly stated in-text that the opposed attack roll is performed with the weapons of the characters in question, and the fighter doesn't seem capable of bringing his weapon to bear. I don't think there's much in the way of valid argument that a tower shield you're hiding behind qualifies as a weapon, especially when you can't even bash with the thing.

Gwendol

2014-10-09, 01:40 AM

The tower shield, if wielded, can't be regarded an unattended object. Even when used for cover it is still attended (the fighter is supposed to position the shield between himself and the enemy, after all).

The way I see it you end up with two situations:

1. The shield is used as a shield: the enemy can attack the fighter, as normal, or try and sunder the shield which may trigger an AoO (with -2 to the attack roll)
2. The shield is used for cover: the enemy can't attack the fighter, but can sunder the shield. While they may still trigger an AoO (unless Imp Sunder) the fighter can't attack, so sundering is essentially risk-free.

Gwendol

2014-10-09, 01:43 AM

Maybe that aspect in particular, but the implication of the opposed attack roll is still that the fighter is, y'know, manipulating the position of the shield in any way. I don't think that's happening when the fighter is used as what is effectively a static wall. Moreover, while the opposed attack roll might not necessarily be an attack, it is directly stated in-text that the opposed attack roll is performed with the weapons of the characters in question, and the fighter doesn't seem capable of bringing his weapon to bear. I don't think there's much in the way of valid argument that a tower shield you're hiding behind qualifies as a weapon, especially when you can't even bash with the thing.

Well, the rules for sundering don't single out tower shields as being different. However in case your DM agrees with you, he/she will likely follow the rules for sundering carried objects:

Sundering a Carried or Worn Object

You don’t use an opposed attack roll to damage a carried or worn object. Instead, just make an attack roll against the object’s AC. A carried or worn object’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier + the Dexterity modifier of the carrying or wearing character. Attacking a carried or worn object provokes an attack of opportunity just as attacking a held object does. To attempt to snatch away an item worn by a defender rather than damage it, see Disarm. You can’t sunder armor worn by another character.

eggynack

2014-10-09, 03:46 AM

Well, the rules for sundering don't single out tower shields as being different. However in case your DM agrees with you, he/she will likely follow the rules for sundering carried objects:
It seems plausible, yeah. Honestly, a lot of my trouble with this issue probably comes from the fact that I'm doing that silly thing where I try to apply common sense to a rules issue. In particular, why should a tower shield used in this fashion be particularly harder to sunder than one just lying there? There might even be an answer to that one involving shield positioning, but there's just so much unclear in the actual way this thing is used, or how you'd slot it into one of these three categories. It might just be irrelevant though. Looks my barbarian build would take out this thing in one to two rounds, depending on interpretation, and a less optimal build might take two or three. Doesn't seem like enough for a trump card of any kind, especially when the barbarian just ate a good chunk of the fighter's starting gold.

Lans

2014-10-09, 03:54 AM

A Raging Barbarian with an 18 starting Strength Does 2d6+9 for an average of 15 damage per swing, compared to a TS's Hardness of 5 and hp of 20. A Sunder attempt requires an opposed attack roll, which the Fighter has a much smaller chance of beating, due to being unlikely to have WF for the TS, the native -2 attack, the greater Strength of the Barbarian, and the +4 from wielding a two-handed weapon. It looks as though the TS gives the fighter 2-3 rounds on average; being generous and assuming minimum damage for each swing (1/1296 odds) and a successful block by the Fighter, you get 5 rounds. Assuming a 12 CON (on the low side but not unreasonable), the Rage will last 6 rounds, outlasting the shield.

The Tower Shield could be made out of crystal for no extra cost for 8 hardness and 50 hp.

In regards to the infinite commoner/low hp mook scenario- The shield is obviously better choice. The difference between 2d6+9 and 1d8+6 is 0 the enemy has less than 6 hp

As long as the Animated Tower Shield exists, the only reason to actually specialize in sword and board is flavor. You don't have to choose between damage or defense, just grab both.

You don't even need an animated shield, a large shield is almost as dangerous as a greatsword. Just give the character the improved shield bash feat

aleucard

2014-10-09, 06:36 AM

In regards to the infinite commoner/low hp mook scenario- The shield is obviously better choice. The difference between 2d6+9 and 1d8+6 is 0 the enemy has less than 6 hp

Past the uber-low levels, the only time such mobs will be thrown at a party as more than flavor is in a Zerg Swarm. In which case, the guy with Ex speed boost and easy-access to Pounce is going to have a much easier time of punching through, because if you don't eventually you WILL be overrun. If they can't get past that shield, they'll either try to Sunder it themselves (which probably won't work) or just wrench it out of your hands (Disarm probably), and against that many people it will be leaving your hands eventually. Better to get the Hell out of there as fast as possible, and the Barbarian is better equipped for digging a tunnel through the horde than mister turtle up there.

EDIT: And just in case you think the Ex speed boost doesn't matter, two things. First, there's a certain benefit that comes with being able to do things even while bare-ass naked, and doubly so if you're in an AMF also. Second, while such things are usually cheap, there's a certain benefit that comes with not having to waste cash and/or equipment slots on something, and being able to outrun most non-mob NPCs is a sizable benefit in several situations.

awa

2014-10-09, 07:17 AM

aleucard

2014-10-09, 08:22 AM

I would point out that if you are fighting a vast horde of low hp mooks past level 5 or so the shield provides no benefit because they need 20 either way in which case the barbarians extra hp and eventually dr matter more

He's advocating not so much using the TS as an outright shield, but making use of its cover functions to turtle up. Personally, there are few situations where abandoning offense does not mean you're on a timer until you lose, but it's somewhat effective if you can force people to target your portable wall instead of something that's actually a threat. Good luck in 3.5/PF, though.

Lans

2014-10-09, 10:20 AM

Past the uber-low levels, the only time such mobs will be thrown at a party as more than flavor is in a Zerg Swarm. In which case, the guy with Ex speed boost and easy-access to Pounce is going to have a much easier time of punching through, because if you don't eventually you WILL be overrun. If they can't get past that shield, they'll either try to Sunder it themselves (which probably won't work) or just wrench it out of your hands (Disarm probably), and against that many people it will be leaving your hands eventually. Better to get the Hell out of there as fast as possible, and the Barbarian is better equipped for digging a tunnel through the horde than mister turtle up there.

That scenario was about S&B vs THF, not fighter vs barbarian. I think at least

I would point out that if you are fighting a vast horde of low hp mooks past level 5 or so the shield provides no benefit because they need 20 either way in which case the barbarians extra hp and eventually dr matter more

PCs AC tends to be about 22 till past level 8, a mook can have +4 or more to hit

aleucard

2014-10-09, 01:16 PM

That scenario was about S&B vs THF, not fighter vs barbarian. I think at least

I thought that we were assuming the optimal base classes for each, which is Fighter (mainly due to free TS Proficiency and how you need several feats to make a shield useful beyond AC, but sure) and Barbarian (Pounce plus Rage equals Pain). As such, the whole package needs to be considered. In Zerg Swarms, your objective is not to outlast the Swarm, for such is impossible; your objective is to get to a place that the Swarm can't follow in its infinite number, which means being able to go through it fast enough to outpace the tide. Barbarian can do that with minimal prompting (all of which is generally useful as well), but Fighter needs to take feats not well-suited to his style to get anywhere close (Cleave comes to mind, which is better with Reach, and turtling with a TS prevents this entirely).

Lans

2014-10-09, 02:06 PM

I thought that we were assuming the optimal base classes for each, which is Fighter (mainly due to free TS Proficiency and how you need several feats to make a shield useful beyond AC, but sure) and Barbarian (Pounce plus Rage equals Pain). As such, the whole package needs to be considered. In Zerg Swarms, your objective is not to outlast the Swarm, for such is impossible; your objective is to get to a place that the Swarm can't follow in its infinite number, which means being able to go through it fast enough to outpace the tide. Barbarian can do that with minimal prompting (all of which is generally useful as well), but Fighter needs to take feats not well-suited to his style to get anywhere close (Cleave comes to mind, which is better with Reach, and turtling with a TS prevents this entirely).

Probably not, seeing as Warblade is probably the optimal choice in both scenarios, and past that the best choice is going to be something like Barb 2/Monk 2/ Fighter 2/Warblade X

But I think there are 2 or 3 things being debated
1 is fighter vs barbarian
2 is THF vs S&B
3 is the above using just a fighter or warrior or something

There is a one handed reach weapon. I think its in the DMG

I believe your damage totals are off a bit, as they don't account for crits, and also . THF fellow would deal 3.63, and S&B would deal 3.74, which actually makes for a greater difference. In any case, my argument is indeed predicated some on the idea that these characters are somewhat optimal in composition. The water orc is likely the way I would design such a character, and the way I figured it, the other fighter would need the same in order to keep up. The issue with complicating things is that it, y'know, complicates things. I suppose I could design a standard tripping barbarian, perhaps with a dwarf base, however.

Dwarf is one of the more optimal of the non monstrous races for fighter types, the others are human and halfing. Halfling only for thrown weapons really.

You cannot, as in the words of the SRD, "You can’t take 10 on a skill check to aid another."

It doesn't have to be, but at that point we're assuming that another party member also put points into this usually useless skill, which is a lot to expect.

Sometimes, but that time can often be used for other pursuits, which adds an opportunity cost to things, and such a break isn't something you can necessarily assume, especially perfectly timed as it presumably is here.
It depends on the campaign, but getting armor cheaper can be worth it for the first 10 levels or so of the game. Getting adamantine full plate or clockwork armor at a 1/3 of its cost is a good deal.

emeraldstreak

2014-10-09, 02:10 PM

PCs AC tends to be about 22 till past level 8,

in noob world

Twilightwyrm

2014-10-09, 02:15 PM

As mundane classes go, they are quite good. They are one of the few non-TOB classes that can compete with said classes in terms of damage, they have decent skill points and class skills for a fighting class, if the proper ACFs are taken, they can double as trapfinders/"disablers" (smashers would be a more accurate word), they (if they have Track) can be decently good trackers, they have a notable source of non-damage offense (Instantanious Rage+Intimidating Rage+Imperious Command), and they are dependent on very few attributes (Str & Con). Hell, they can even (theoretically) help in social situations where intimidation is called for.

Lans

2014-10-09, 02:24 PM

in noob world

I wasn't counting spell casters, but care to demonstrate?

I was figuring +2 full plate, +1 deflection, +1 natural so about 23. I also wasn't counting a shield add in a shield that goes to 26 or more

eggynack

2014-10-09, 02:25 PM

Probably not, seeing as Warblade is probably the optimal choice in both scenarios, and past that the best choice is going to be something like Barb 2/Monk 2/ Fighter 2/Warblade X.
Well, there are certainly better choices than the ones being discussed, but these two are reasonably comparable, and the fighter is a better choice for one with the barbarian the better choice for the other. Overall, I think that, given a relatively core setup, the sword and board fellow is likely to fall into fighter, and THF into barbarian.

There is a one handed reach weapon. I think its in the DMG.
Looks like just the whip, checking the SRD. Obviously has a lot of problems.

Dwarf is one of the more optimal of the non monstrous races for fighter types, the others are human and halfing. Halfling only for thrown weapons really.
It's certainly a good race, but water orc is just about strictly superior in this situation, and I think it's a better option overall.

It depends on the campaign, but getting armor cheaper can be worth it for the first 10 levels or so of the game. Getting adamantine full plate or clockwork armor at a 1/3 of its cost is a good deal.
Really depends on what the "it" in "worth it" is, and in this case, "it" is a whole hell of a lot. Pushing your own skill points is perfectly reasonable, but once you're pulling in the skill points of others, or allocating extra points to intelligence, that just seems like a bit too much. It does seem a bit better than I've given it credit for, but the circumstance cited just seems somewhat unlikely.

in noob world
Or, y'know, regular world where you're not particularly optimizing for AC. Given the often all or nothing nature of AC, it falling within that general region is entirely feasible.

emeraldstreak

2014-10-09, 02:41 PM

I wasn't counting spell casters, but care to demonstrate?

Ive had lvl 1 arena champions, for whom AC was secondary to countering magic, with higher AC than that. You're so far below the reasonable benchmark for lvl 8s there's no point to continue this line of discussion.

Instead, as eggynack tries, let's define what's the argument here. PvP? Theoretical entity? Actual monsters?

eggynack

2014-10-09, 02:58 PM

Ive had lvl 1 arena champions, for whom AC was secondary to countering magic, with higher AC than that. You're so far below the reasonable benchmark for lvl 8s there's no point to continue this line of discussion.
I don't see why it wouldn't be worth continuing. If you have different numbers, then it should be reasonably trivial to source those numbers, and then the feasibility of those numbers can be assessed. Could end the entire discussion in a single post.

Instead, as eggynack tries, let's define what's the argument here. PvP? Theoretical entity? Actual monsters?
I'm currently mostly just running numbers against whatever's put forth, and it looks like THF fellow is coming out ahead in most arenas, except perhaps for the pile of low HP enemy battle. That being said, I'm pretty bored, so I might as well run the numbers on the barbarian's whirling frenzy against the hyper-commoner. Frenzy lasts for six rounds, and the barbarian holds its +7 to hit, increases damage to 2d6+12, and doubles attacks per round. Against a 10 AC opponent, that deals 18.81 damage per attack, which over twelve attacks adds up to 225.72 damage.

That's instead of the regular six rounds though, rather than in addition to them, so that subtracts 15.83 per round, or 94.48 overall, meaning that you add 130.74 damage to the total, making the new total damage dealt 557.95. The actual total is actually probably a bit more than that, because my numbers assume that the barbarian activates rage on the round six from the end, while in reality it might be optimal, on the basis of increased AC, to activate rage later on, based on increased survival chance. That level of choice optimization probably can't be assumed though. That being said, the addition of basic class feature use to the equation means that the fighter on the other side probably needs a bonus feat, though it'd be unlikely to make up that much ground.

ace rooster

2014-10-09, 04:20 PM

That scenario was about S&B vs THF, not fighter vs barbarian. I think at least

PCs AC tends to be about 22 till past level 8, a mook can have +4 or more to hit

An AC of 22 at level 8 is a fast way to get maimed for a melee character. A dire bear is CR 7, and will hit you on a 3. If you are rocking an AC less than 30 at that point then it is not a real defence. A cr4 ogre warrior in mechanus gear with a tower shield is up at 28 before you even start putting on magic and feats (good NPC heavy infantry).

Incidently this illustrates an important point about fighters and barbarians. Monster levels are generally a better base than either in terms of numbers. Races without level adjustment will end up with more hit points and more skills, but that is about the only advantage. Compare a human barbarian 8 to a centaur barbarian 2. The centaur only nets a +1 to hit, but large weapons and much more str will mean much more damage (especially with a lance). Having two hoof attacks makes good use of pounce, and makes up for the loss of BAB. 3 natural armour and extra dex will give the centaur better AC by 4, and all saves work out better for the centaur (reflex 4 better, will 3). Assuming a con roll of 14 and a +4 item you get 71HP compared to 89HP, but the extra Ac and reflexes will reduce damage by more than 20% against all but the highest attack modifiers (as in higher than your AC before even rolled).

Barbarian is good, but there is very little benefit after the first level two levels. 8 levels for an extra +2 to str and con is not worth it.

eggynack

2014-10-09, 04:26 PM

If you are rocking an AC less than 30 at that point then it is not a real defence.
It is indeed not much in the way of a real defense. Helps against power attack, but other than that, rather meaningless. However, that doesn't mean that the cited AC isn't a reasonable approximation of actual AC. It just means that, if the cited AC is accurate, then AC tends to not be used as a real defense, which seems about accurate.

Barbarian is good, but there is very little benefit after the first level two levels. 8 levels for an extra +2 to str and con is not worth it.
Generally true, though streetfighter (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a) is at least a halfway interesting incentive for that advancement.

Snails

2014-10-09, 04:44 PM

To the OP: The Barbarian is a simple and solid class. It does its main role very competently (but not spectacularly in the eyes of an optimizer). Its most notable feature is it is probably the easiest class to play.

You do not have to think hard about how to build a Barbarian. Raging is easy for a newbie to have fun with. Lots of HP, Uncanny Dodge, and Improved Uncanny Dodge means you are likely to survive minor tactical errors in melee. Listen and Survival are useful skills, and you have enough skills point to play around with.

bekeleven

2014-10-09, 04:48 PM

An AC of 22 at level 8 is a fast way to get maimed for a melee character. A dire bear is CR 7, and will hit you on a 3. If you are rocking an AC less than 30 at that point then it is not a real defence. A cr4 ogre warrior in mechanus gear with a tower shield is up at 28 before you even start putting on magic and feats (good NPC heavy infantry).

Incidently this illustrates an important point about fighters and barbarians. Monster levels are generally a better base than either in terms of numbers. Races without level adjustment will end up with more hit points and more skills, but that is about the only advantage. Compare a human barbarian 8 to a centaur barbarian 2. The centaur only nets a +1 to hit, but large weapons and much more str will mean much more damage (especially with a lance). Having two hoof attacks makes good use of pounce, and makes up for the loss of BAB. 3 natural armour and extra dex will give the centaur better AC by 4, and all saves work out better for the centaur (reflex 4 better, will 3). Assuming a con roll of 14 and a +4 item you get 71HP compared to 89HP, but the extra Ac and reflexes will reduce damage by more than 20% against all but the highest attack modifiers (as in higher than your AC before even rolled).

Barbarian is good, but there is very little benefit after the first level two levels. 8 levels for an extra +2 to str and con is not worth it.

I build a water orc barbarian 6/Fighter 2 with (1) Power Attack, (3) Imp. Bull Rush, (6) Leap Attack, (F1) Shock Trooper, (F2) Reckless Offensive.

AC? 10, +2 or so for dex, +~5 for armor, -4 reckless offensive, -8 shock trooper, -2 Charge, +2 Whirling Frenzy. Call it 5.

Still kills a dire bear.

Assume starting strength of 18 + 4 (Race) + 2 (Levels) + 4 (Whirling Frenzy) + 2 (Enhancement), you have +10 STR. That means +10 STR, +8 BAB, +2 Reckless, +2 Charge -2 Whirling Frenzy = +20 to hit before the weapon, so it hits the bear any time it doesn't auto-miss. Assume you're fighting with a +1 Guisarme for this example, so +21 to hit. Your damage, assuming you can hit a DC10 Jump check with your ~+20 to the skill, is 5 (2D4 Base) + 15 (Str) + 24 (Power Attack) + 1 (+1 Weapon) = 45 on a hit, and you attack with +21/+21/+16 on a charge.

That's enough to kill a dire bear round 1 if your crits cancel your misses (which they would, since both are 5%). If the bear full attacks you, it will deal a total of 44 damage from your pool of (12+6.5*5+5.5*2+8*3) =79 HP, at which point you kill it next round. Its improved grab would be tricky, since your grapple is only +18 without enlargement and it has +23, but it's easy enough to boost that. Worse case scenario, you rolled a 1 on an attack, rolled no crits, and it has a whopping 15 HP left.

Imagine this: You charge a dire bear and attack it 3 times, but somehow miss one, leaving it at 15 HP. The bear swipes you with a claw, dealing 15 damage, and starts a grapple. You are now at 64 HP. On your turn, you punch it with your gauntlet, with your (+10 STR, +8 BAB, +2 Reckless, -4 attack in grapple, -2 Whirling frenzy) +14/+14/+9 to hit, and deal it (1D3+10) 11 damage per hit. If the bear grapples you when it can, it deals less damage before you kill it, even assuming you have no party.

This isn't a particularly high-op build, but it does have pretty good numbers. Better, I think, than most centaurs.

eggynack

2014-10-09, 04:58 PM

That's enough to kill a dire bear round 1 if your crits cancel your misses (which they would, since both are 5%).
They would more than cancel, actually, because a guisarme does *3 on a critical hit.

Nihilarian

2014-10-09, 07:02 PM

bekeleven

2014-10-09, 07:36 PM

Vogonjeltz

2014-10-09, 08:21 PM

snip

If you edit to remove the insulting tone and the overt personal attacks, I'd be happy to discuss this topic with you further.

I know how math works, but you decided to present your math as a crazy block of numbers. If you know your math, then you know that a crazy block of numbers and letters is the worst way to present anything.

I don't consider "t = x*(a/y)", which is what TDD = DDPR*(HP/DTPR) is, to be a "crazy block of numbers", a phrase that somehow manages to describe all kinds of math: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associative_algebra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_algebra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynomial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometric_identity#Product-to-sum_and_sum-to-product_identities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_calculus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_analysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_geometry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_theory#Dawn_of_arithmetic

But I mostly find your complaint confusing given that the most basic equation was presented.

I put the extended version in the spoiler labled Too Long Didn't Read (TLDR) because all the variables involved would be harder for a reader to scan.

In that case, you should probably retest things except using an actually optimal THF fellow, at least from a statistical perspective.

I said I already did that. In a mirror matchup the THF does exactly 10 damage to himself, and the Tower shield user outputs 10.5

Let's assume again our noble water orc barbarian, with a point buy of, say, 28. That's enough for 18 strength, increased to 22, 14 constitution, increased to 16, and 14 dexterity, as the three relevant stats. I'll hold on to the scale mail+greatsword combo, which seems reasonable, leaving us with an attack bonus of +7, damage of 2d6+9, 18 HP, and 16 AC.

Actually that's not reasonable. Scale Mail + Greatsword maxes out the Barbarians starting wealth. They couldn't afford to do that and have any supplies at all. (No torches, no ranged option, no food, no backpack, no sleeping bag, no waterskin, no belt pouch.) This guy would literally die to the elements. Reasonable would be gear the Barbarian can reasonably afford, like the example starting character in the PHB, a Greataxe (20gp), Shortbow (30gp), dagger (2gp), and Studded Leather (25 gp) which represents a little over 3/4 of his starting wealth.

Oh and a Barbarian only has 12 hp + conmod, his conmod from 16 is 3. So that's 15hp, not 18. Even in rage that would only go up to 17hp, albeit for 8 rounds. To be fair I also tested this without any con mod at all and no class features or the 1st level bonus or racial feats in play. If we add those in, that's going to make a difference as I said in the post you were responding to.

Also the attack bonus is only +6 because of the daylight sensitivity.
By all means, run it, but do so knowing it isn't realistic within the context of the games rules.

If we want to do the same but for defense, by throwing in racial traits, etc.., Dwarf with 28 point buy results in 14 str, 14 dex, 20 con. Dodge and Toughness feats. Dwarf has +1 to hit, +2 damage, AC of 21, and HP of 18

4.95 damage dealt per round to the commoner type isn't terribly impressive alongside the Water Orc's 15.83...but what is impressive is that the dwarf only suffers 0.125 damage per round. With his 18 HP he can go 144 rounds (surviving 5 times as long as the orc) and deal 712.8 damage before being disabled.

Those two situations are similar, but fundamentally different in that the damage itself will eventually reduce the opponent's damage output, depending on how large the groups are. That reduction is where THF derives a reasonable amount of its effectiveness. It doesn't help that your presented situation is very different from the one you initially presented. It also doesn't help that you used the least beneficial possible numbers for the THF fellow.

Damage output isn't the problem per se. The THF can only suffer X number of attacks of a certain quality before he goes down for the count. For example as you mention above, the Orc Barbarian is done after ~27 attacks by someone who has no attack bonus, no damage bonus, and is using a dagger which does some of the worst damage in the game. The defensive character can survive 144 similar attacks. I'd say the best thing about the Barbarian as a class is actually that it has a higher HD, which makes for a great durability increase. Incidentally, for the tower shield fighter each additional point of AC represents a greater net gain than each additional point of attack bonus lost, so once Improved Combat Expertise comes online it makes sense to use that.

Yeah, but when you want to actually fight, that's when you drop your shield. Simple enough, really.

I suppose if your only goal is to have mobile cover, that's a niche scenario. It wouldn't be useful if an untrained user needed it while riding however (as the penalty applies to ride checks).

That's not even close to what I was doing. Really, my model was just a simpler version of the one you used, applied particularly to a THF vs. S&B fight. There were flaws I hadn't considered, so I adapted to those flaws, and it looks like the current model I have for such a fight is an accurate one.

The information you left out influenced the outcome to read as what you started out believing. That's certainly a flaw.

Not necessarily. Outside of a corridor, the Barbarian can just move around the Fighter's reach without losing too much distance, since TS locks the Fighter into one-handed weapons, which largely either lack reach or don't threaten. Inside of a corridor, it might help, but a Fighter can't exactly guarantee such an environment.

A Raging Barbarian with an 18 starting Strength Does 2d6+9 for an average of 15 damage per swing, compared to a TS's Hardness of 5 and hp of 20. A Sunder attempt requires an opposed attack roll, which the Fighter has a much smaller chance of beating, due to being unlikely to have WF for the TS, the native -2 attack, the greater Strength of the Barbarian, and the +4 from wielding a two-handed weapon. It looks as though the TS gives the fighter 2-3 rounds on average; being generous and assuming minimum damage for each swing (1/1296 odds) and a successful block by the Fighter, you get 5 rounds. Assuming a 12 CON (on the low side but not unreasonable), the Rage will last 6 rounds, outlasting the shield.

Most dungeons consist of small rooms with doors and hallways, that's fertile ground for choke points.

The Barbarian would have to be human to have power attack and improved sunder, otherwise he's provoking an attack of opportunity with each sunder attempt. The Barbarian would be mostly dead by the time it happens. Just a thought.

As long as the Animated Tower Shield exists, the only reason to actually specialize in sword and board is flavor. You don't have to choose between damage or defense, just grab both.

I suppose if you always play games where there's enough gold to have animated tower shields.

tower shields don't say they give up your actions they say you give up your attacks, an attack of opportunity is still an attack so the fighter is just helpless while the barbarian pounds on him
edit
also in regards to rage being bad for short fights while technically true most fights are decided after 7 rnds anyways just by the nature of D&d rocket tag. take that level one fighter if we give the fighter 16 con and the barb 16 str base odds are the fight will last one rnd becuase the barbs average dam 14 is greater then his hp of 13.
a quick glance at the srd monster filter and on average any cr 1 monster will be dead in two hits and that's with out feats

According to the 3.5 FAQ the give up your attacks line means it requires a standard action. So that doesn't mean squat about threat or losing attacks of opportunity.

The tower shield, if wielded, can't be regarded an unattended object. Even when used for cover it is still attended (the fighter is supposed to position the shield between himself and the enemy, after all).

The way I see it you end up with two situations:

1. The shield is used as a shield: the enemy can attack the fighter, as normal, or try and sunder the shield which may trigger an AoO (with -2 to the attack roll)
2. The shield is used for cover: the enemy can't attack the fighter, but can sunder the shield. While they may still trigger an AoO (unless Imp Sunder) the fighter can't attack, so sundering is essentially risk-free.

It's 3. The tower shield prevents the character being attacked, though the shield can be. Shields are attended and the same sunder rules apply to them as weapons per the PHB.

Marlowe

2014-10-09, 08:57 PM

I can't really be bothered here anymore, but.

(No torches, no ranged option, no food, no backpack, no sleeping bag, no waterskin, no belt pouch.) This guy would literally die to the elements.

Barbarians get Survival. Dying to the elements is for Fighters.

Frankly, be I warrior or whatever, I wouldn't put a character in Scale armour if you paid me.

Sir Chuckles

2014-10-09, 09:38 PM

If you edit to remove the insulting tone and the overt personal attacks, I'd be happy to discuss this topic with you further.

So you dismiss my post as an overt personal attack when only the last paragraph address you directly, and does so in fairly non-confrontational way, and respond to a different post...with a mildly condescending tone and flawed assumptions?

If you refuse to respond on the grounds of being insulted by misinterpretation, then I will offer an apology for sounding that way.
However, being that you respond to confusion over your formula with a recommendation to instructional videos on basic subjects, I'm going to fathom a guess and state that you're not interested in constructive conversation.

But I digress, and will ask a question:
What are you trying to prove? What is the statement that you are supporting?

Marlowe

2014-10-09, 09:50 PM

I must admit, I was kind of hoping that this thread would be about discussing Barbarians, not a lot of arguing over how a Fighter can make themselves look even more pathetic than usual.

Sir Chuckles

2014-10-09, 10:02 PM

bekeleven

2014-10-09, 10:56 PM

There are some subjects on this forum that are always destined to devolve.
Binary questions are a surefire way of making any subject fall to pieces, as are questions about the capabilities of any class.

Which has more abilities: Wizard or Truenamer?Truenamer, the wizard's only ability is "summon familiar."

Marlowe

2014-10-09, 11:11 PM

The Truenamer is a real rennaissance man, equally incapable of performing a wide range of activities.

Troacctid

2014-10-09, 11:18 PM

Which has more abilities: Wizard or Truenamer?Truenamer, the wizard's only ability is "summon familiar."

Trick question! They both have six.

eggynack

2014-10-09, 11:19 PM

I don't consider "t = x*(a/y)", which is what TDD = DDPR*(HP/DTPR) is, to be a "crazy block of numbers", a phrase that somehow manages to describe all kinds of math:
But I mostly find your complaint confusing given that the most basic equation was presented.
I was talking about the actual underlying numbers you used. They were presented in a particularly difficult to parse way.

Actually that's not reasonable. Scale Mail + Greatsword maxes out the Barbarians starting wealth. They couldn't afford to do that and have any supplies at all. (No torches, no ranged option, no food, no backpack, no sleeping bag, no waterskin, no belt pouch.) This guy would literally die to the elements. Reasonable would be gear the Barbarian can reasonably afford, like the example starting character in the PHB, a Greataxe (20gp), Shortbow (30gp), dagger (2gp), and Studded Leather (25 gp) which represents a little over 3/4 of his starting wealth.
I guess I could just drop the AC by one. That'd put the total at about 300.77 damage on the new HP total.

Oh and a Barbarian only has 12 hp + conmod, his conmod from 16 is 3. So that's 15hp, not 18. Even in rage that would only go up to 17hp, albeit for 8 rounds.
It has now been factored in abovewise.
To be fair I also tested this without any con mod at all and no class features or the 1st level bonus or racial feats in play. If we add those in, that's going to make a difference as I said in the post you were responding to.

Also the attack bonus is only +6 because of the daylight sensitivity.
The build in its current setup can afford sundark goggles for 10 GP without dropping below reasonable food purchasing cash.

By all means, run it, but do so knowing it isn't realistic within the context of the games rules.
And now it is. Huzzah.

If we want to do the same but for defense, by throwing in racial traits, etc.., Dwarf with 28 point buy results in 14 str, 14 dex, 20 con. Dodge and Toughness feats. Dwarf has +1 to hit, +2 damage, AC of 21, and HP of 18

4.95 damage dealt per round to the commoner type isn't terribly impressive alongside the Water Orc's 15.83...but what is impressive is that the dwarf only suffers 0.125 damage per round. With his 18 HP he can go 144 rounds (surviving 5 times as long as the orc) and deal 712.8 damage before being disabled.
Now that seems horrifically unrealistic. You've developed a character that's terrible in just about any other situation or level. It's particularly bad against the actual challenge you're trying to defeat, which is presumable against a pile of tiny enemies, as dodge is targeted against one enemy. My build, by contrast, makes no real concessions in order to metagame against this challenge. I also haven't used my feat if you're making use of the regular one, and the frenzy numbers are factored in at that point.

Damage output isn't the problem per se. The THF can only suffer X number of attacks of a certain quality before he goes down for the count. For example as you mention above, the Orc Barbarian is done after ~27 attacks by someone who has no attack bonus, no damage bonus, and is using a dagger which does some of the worst damage in the game. The defensive character can survive 144 similar attacks. I'd say the best thing about the Barbarian as a class is actually that it has a higher HD, which makes for a great durability increase. Incidentally, for the tower shield fighter each additional point of AC represents a greater net gain than each additional point of attack bonus lost, so once Improved Combat Expertise comes online it makes sense to use that.
The THF fellow can only take that number of attacks, but they're less likely to take them, because a single THF attack can often just drop a foe. Also, your AC is particularly good against this enemy. Increase to-hit by two, and the damage doubles.

The Barbarian would have to be human to have power attack and improved sunder, otherwise he's provoking an attack of opportunity with each sunder attempt. The Barbarian would be mostly dead by the time it happens. Just a thought.
You explicitly can't attack when hiding behind a tower shield. So, no attacks of opportunity.

According to the 3.5 FAQ the give up your attacks line means it requires a standard action. So that doesn't mean squat about threat or losing attacks of opportunity.
As always, the FAQ isn't RAW. Also, a citation would be nice, cause I can't really tell what the FAQ is saying that the line means. If attacking requires a standard action in any fashion, then that's obviously not compatible with taking AoO's.

Gwendol

2014-10-10, 01:32 AM

According to the 3.5 FAQ the give up your attacks line means it requires a standard action. So that doesn't mean squat about threat or losing attacks of opportunity.

It's 3. The tower shield prevents the character being attacked, though the shield can be. Shields are attended and the same sunder rules apply to them as weapons per the PHB.

Vogonjeltz, you really shouldn't misquote your sources. According to the FAQ:

You continue to threaten the area around you while you use
the shield for cover; however, it provides your opponents with
the same benefits you get. You cannot make attacks through the
side of your space that the shield blocks, and should you attack
through the corners of that space, your foe gets cover against
your attack. Since cover of any kind prevents attacks of
opportunity (see page 151 in the Player’s Handbook), the
shield keeps you from making attacks of opportunity in a pretty
wide swath.

Which essentially boils down to what I said: if the tower shield is used for cover, the enemy can simply sunder it with impunity since the fighter holding the shield is prevented from making the AoO.

Can we now at least put the tower shield discussion to rest?

Is there anyone left who thinks the barbarian is a bad (martial) class?

Marlowe

2014-10-10, 01:49 AM

NO! I DON'T!

That Blackadder thing needs to be a gif.

Gwendol

2014-10-10, 01:59 AM

Blackadder?

Marlowe

2014-10-10, 02:37 AM

British comedy series from the 80s. First season was set in the 15th century.

Main character and cronies are visiting the village wise woman. Discover she's been reduced to a pile of ashes around a burned stake (and her cat is a smaller pile of ashes around a smaller stake). Appalled, main character splutters "Does anyone know what happened here?"

Cue large peasant clear on the other side of the village square turning around, putting his hand up, and bellowing "NO!!! I DON'T!!!". And starting to walk over to them.

Gwendol

2014-10-10, 02:42 AM

Ah, got it. Don't think I missed a single episode.

Lans

2014-10-10, 02:49 AM

Note that instead of figuring damage statistics against hypothetical immortal commoners or what have you, I'd recommend just using the average monster stats from optimization by the numbers. At 1st level, enemies have an average of 12 HP, 1.5 Init, 15 AC, 12 Touch, 14 FF, and 1 BAB. The table doesn't, unfortunately, include enemy damage.

At CR8, your average enemy has 97 HP, +3 Init, 20 AC, 11 Touch, 18 FF, and 9 BAB. In other words, my hypothetical barbarian kills it in a charge, unless it rolls a one in one of its first two attacks or a 1-3 on its third attack, in which case it's left with 7 HP.
.

I don't like using average statistics, your grouping in big brutes with things that hide and lurk for an average. I suggest just take a few samples of +2 or 3 ECL down to maybe -4

Well, there are certainly better choices than the ones being discussed, but these two are reasonably comparable, and the fighter is a better choice for one with the barbarian the better choice for the other. Overall, I think that, given a relatively core setup, the sword and board fellow is likely to fall into fighter, and THF into barbarian. True, but when it comes to styles I think keeping class out of the equation is better for the discussion unless one class greatly favors one style or another.

Looks like just the whip, checking the SRD. Obviously has a lot of problems.
Found it, its the kusari gama from the DMG

It's certainly a good race, but water orc is just about strictly superior in this situation, and I think it's a better option overall.
If all you want is a melee character with no stats or anything else, but the dwarves higher intelligence and bonuses to skills and saves give it credibility at being up there for a character choice.

Really depends on what the "it" in "worth it" is, and in this case, "it" is a whole hell of a lot. Pushing your own skill points is perfectly reasonable, but once you're pulling in the skill points of others, or allocating extra points to intelligence, that just seems like a bit too much. It does seem a bit better than I've given it credit for, but the circumstance cited just seems somewhat unlikely.

Its a few points, but honestly getting a wizard to cast magecraft is easier than putting points into a skill.

Ive had lvl 1 arena champions, for whom AC was secondary to countering magic, with higher AC than that. You're so far below the reasonable benchmark for lvl 8s there's no point to continue this line of discussion.

Great, but if you look at what most characters have its going to be in line with what I posted

Instead, as eggynack tries, let's define what's the argument here. PvP? Theoretical entity? Actual monsters?

I like Hydra's, elementals, giants grell, first level orc barbarians, and 4th level hobgoblin archers shooting through arrow slits.

An AC of 22 at level 8 is a fast way to get maimed for a melee character. A dire bear is CR 7, and will hit you on a 3. If you are rocking an AC less than 30 at that point then it is not a real defence. A cr4 ogre warrior in mechanus gear with a tower shield is up at 28 before you even start putting on magic and feats (good NPC heavy infantry).

Yeah, I think 5-10 is an area where monsters to hits keep going while the pcs defenses stagnate.

Its easier for monsters who come with natural armor bonuses to get an AC that matters. Use a stone giant with the above and your looking at an AC in the mid 30's

eggynack

2014-10-10, 03:01 AM

I like Hydra's, elementals, giants grell, first level orc barbarians, and 4th level hobgoblin archers shooting through arrow slits.
Yeah, that seems workable as a starting place. Might be worth designing some characters against those. What are the specifics on the monsters? As I recall, back when we were running some basic barbarian numbers, the general goal was to see how low it was possible to drop the barbarian's level before he would win less than 50% of the time.

Gwendol

2014-10-10, 03:07 AM

What level of PC's then? I assume adding the low CR monsters up to acheive a reasonable challenge?

Lans

2014-10-10, 03:35 AM

Yeah, that seems workable as a starting place. Might be worth designing some characters against those. What are the specifics on the monsters? As I recall, back when we were running some basic barbarian numbers, the general goal was to see how low it was possible to drop the barbarian's level before he would win less than 50% of the time.

I think it was the other way around, and they had the lower level barbarian fighting the higher level monsters if your refering to the old gauntlet thread.

I still dislike that we are doing a THW barbarian vs a S&B fighter as opposed to fighter vs barbarian or a THW build vs a S&B build

If the barbarian trounces all those we look for where S&B would be superior

I suggest looking at the kensai variant for the fighter and considring the extreme shields instead of the tower. They give +3 to ac and no penalty on the attack rolls.

eggynack

2014-10-10, 03:41 AM

I think it was the other way around, and they had the lower level barbarian fighting the higher level monsters if your refering to the old gauntlet thread.

I still dislike that we are doing a THW barbarian vs a S&B fighter as opposed to fighter vs barbarian or a THW build vs a S&B build

If the barbarian trounces all those we look for where S&B would be superior

I suggest looking at the kensai variant for the fighter and considring the extreme shields instead of the tower. They give +3 to ac and no penalty on the attack rolls.
I was figuring that we'd drop the S&B aspect for this, unless Vogongeltz honestly thinks that a tower shield is good against a hydra, in which case I suppose it'd be an interesting thing to run on a lark.

Vogonjeltz

2014-10-10, 05:01 PM

I was talking about the actual underlying numbers you used. They were presented in a particularly difficult to parse way.

Sorry, I thought it was explained by the two spoilers listing the variables. Here's a quick re-explanation with notes for your convenience:

formula: TDD = DDPR*(HP/DTPR)

TDD = Total Damage Done.
DDPR = Damage Done Per Round
HP = Hit Points
DTPR = Damage Taken Per Round

To calculate DDPR we need to know what the average damage done is going to be for any given outcome on a d20 roll. This is come to by adding up the average damage for every outcome that results in a hit and the average damage for every outcome that results in a critical threat and then dividing those numbers by 20.

The formula for that is: DDPR = ((((21-cCritrange)-eaAC)*cDamAve)+(cCritThreatAveDam*cCritrange))/20

cCritrange = Character's Crit Range. This is 21 - the lowest number that is a critical threat with whatever thing is being used ot attack. So on a dagger this would be cCritrange = 21-19 because a dagger is crit x2/19-20
eaAC = Enemy's Adjusted Armor Class. This is the number that must be met or exceeded to hit the target.
cDamAve = Character Average Damage. This is the average damage done on a regular hit.
cCritThreatAveDam = Character's Critical Threat Average Damage. This is the average damage dealt on a critical threat (19-20 on a dagger)

These however also break down into other formulas:

eaAC = eAC - cAB (the enemy's adjusted AC is equal to their AC minus the combined attack bonus of the attacking character.)

cDamAve = ((cMinDam + (cEncumbrance*cStrmod))+(cMaxDam+(cEncumbrance*cSt rmod)))/2 The average damage is equal to the minimum damage of the weapon plus the encumbrance modifier (1 for a light weapon, 1 for a one-handed weapon, and 1.5 for a 2-handed weapon) times the character's strength modifier added to the maximum damage of the weapon plus the encumbrance modifier times the character's strength modifier, all divided by 2.

cCritThreatAveDam = cCritThreatAveDam = ((eaAC-1)*cDamAve + cAveCritDam*(21-eaAC))/20
Because a critical threat only deals the critical damage multiplier if the critical threat roll is also a hit we have to calculate the average damage of the critical threat which is a combination of the times where the threat roll isn't a hit, (eaAC-1)*cDamAve, (and thus deals only normal damage) and all the times it would represent a hit, dealing critical damage (cAveCritDam). All divided by 20 to get the average damage from a critical threat roll.

CAveCritDam = cAveCritDam = (cMinCritDam+cMaxCritDam)/2
This is much like calculating the average damage, except we add the minimum critical damage to the maximum critical damage, and divide the result by 2.

cMinCritDam = cCritMult*(cMinDam+(cEncumbrance*cStrmod))
cMaxCritDam = cCritMult*(cMaxDam+(cEncumbrance*cStrmod))
Should be fairly explanatory, the critical multiplier is used on minimum damage and maximum damage.

The THF fellow can only take that number of attacks, but they're less likely to take them, because a single THF attack can often just drop a foe.

I don't see evidence for that. It also has no bearing on fighting multiple foes, where the tower shield is able to survive substantially more attacks than the non-tower shield user. Fight a group of 4 and the character will suffer at least 3 attacks (assuming they won initiative AND dropped a foe in every round AND the other enemies did nothing to interfere with their offense). We can agree the quality of those attacks likely to be greater than a commoner. If the THF can only survive 2 rounds and the Tower shield user can survive 4 that means the THF is likely dead on round 1, but the shield fighter can survive to be healed by their cleric on round 2.

As always, the FAQ isn't RAW. Also, a citation would be nice, cause I can't really tell what the FAQ is saying that the line means. If attacking requires a standard action in any fashion, then that's obviously not compatible with taking AoO's.

Attacks of opportunity aren't an action. A standard action just means you can't make a melee attack.

Vogonjeltz, you really shouldn't misquote your sources. According to the FAQ:

As has been acknowledged before, the FAQ has errors. This is one of them. Cover isn't mutual, whomever is closer to cover ignores it against the other target. The Tower Shield wielder is always closer. /shrug.

I was figuring that we'd drop the S&B aspect for this, unless Vogongeltz honestly thinks that a tower shield is good against a hydra, in which case I suppose it'd be an interesting thing to run on a lark.

Welllll....the Barbarian has Shield Proficiency doesn't he? Actually, now that I look at it. What's the level we're talking about? a 5 headed hydra has heads with 11hp...So the tower shield user could in fact do that at 4th level using a flaming dwarven waraxe, having put another point into str for 16 (I'm working off elite array) and taking weapon specialization for +2 damage. (1d10+5, +1d6 flaming?...averages 13 damage on a regular hit). That's enough to sever 1 head a round. With fast healing 15 we're looking at either taking those heads off 1 at a time via readying a sunder attack OR some form of instant-gib action that allows for a kill in under 5 rounds (If it takes 5 rounds the hydra will have healed an additional 75 damage, giving it a net 130 hp).

I'm game to test either though.

Anlashok

2014-10-10, 05:14 PM

If the THF can only survive 2 rounds and the Tower shield user can survive 4 that means the THF is likely dead on round 1, but the shield fighter can survive to be healed by their cleric on round 2.

How do you figure +4 AC doubles your survivability?

As has been acknowledged before, the FAQ has errors. This is one of them. Cover isn't mutual, whomever is closer to cover ignores it against the other target. The Tower Shield wielder is always closer. /shrug.
You understand why that's hilarious, right?

georgie_leech

2014-10-10, 05:20 PM

How do you figure +4 AC doubles your survivability?

For a very specific AC such that the opponents need a 13 to hit, a +4 AC cuts the opponents hit chance in half. Though if we're picking Attack routines out of a hat it's equally valid to say the TS does reduces damage by 80% (16 needed gets bumped to 20), by about 20% (2 and up to 6 and up), to nothing at all (opponent hits on a 2 anyway or already needs a 20).

eggynack

2014-10-10, 05:51 PM

I don't see evidence for that. It also has no bearing on fighting multiple foes, where the tower shield is able to survive substantially more attacks than the non-tower shield user. Fight a group of 4 and the character will suffer at least 3 attacks (assuming they won initiative AND dropped a foe in every round AND the other enemies did nothing to interfere with their offense). We can agree the quality of those attacks likely to be greater than a commoner. If the THF can only survive 2 rounds and the Tower shield user can survive 4 that means the THF is likely dead on round 1, but the shield fighter can survive to be healed by their cleric on round 2.
Well, as basic starting numbers, let's consider a 6th level barbarian, still a water orc, running shock trooper off of spirit lion totem. Let's say the character's running a +2 strength item, and a +1 greatsword. After activating whirling frenzy, the main attack from the charge is at (+6 BAB +9 strength +2 charge +1 weapon -2 frenzy) +16, and deals 2d6+26 damage. Now to test that out against some folk, see how successfully the barbarian can just drop folks.

Seven headed hydra: Takes 96.19 damage, dying instantly.

Eight headed hydra too, actually: Takes 94.38 damage, also dying instantly.

Megaraptor: Also takes 96.19 damage, dying instantly.

Ettin: 94.38, as above.

Girallon: Ultra-dead.

Hill giant: A bit higher in CR, so it takes more than one hit. The first full attack knocks it down by 83.89 damage, then you probably take a full 38 or so, then the hill giant very much dies on the next round.

Pretty sure that's just going to keep being the general pattern against single foes.

Attacks of opportunity aren't an action. A standard action just means you can't make a melee attack.

As has been acknowledged before, the FAQ has errors. This is one of them. Cover isn't mutual, whomever is closer to cover ignores it against the other target. The Tower Shield wielder is always closer. /shrug.
Not even really sure what you're saying at this point. Let's start from the beginning. Tower shield explicitly stops you from making any sort of attack. An attack of opportunity is an attack. Thus, you can't make an attack of opportunity while using a tower shield. The FAQ, if it says that you can attack while using a tower shield, is in error. The rules directly contradict that idea.

Welllll....the Barbarian has Shield Proficiency doesn't he? Actually, now that I look at it. What's the level we're talking about? a 5 headed hydra has heads with 11hp...So the tower shield user could in fact do that at 4th level using a flaming dwarven waraxe, having put another point into str for 16 (I'm working off elite array) and taking weapon specialization for +2 damage. (1d10+5, +1d6 flaming?...averages 13 damage on a regular hit). That's enough to sever 1 head a round. With fast healing 15 we're looking at either taking those heads off 1 at a time via readying a sunder attack OR some form of instant-gib action that allows for a kill in under 5 rounds (If it takes 5 rounds the hydra will have healed an additional 75 damage, giving it a net 130 hp).

I'm game to test either though.
It really looks like the version I cited above would just down any hydra with reasonable ease, scaling up in level as the hydras scale up in heads. Does a bit worse against ol' fivey though. Looks like it'd take two rounds for murder, even with fast healing. Doesn't look like the hydra's one big attack would be sufficient for death either, especially with whirling frenzy upping AC.

Lans

2014-10-11, 11:39 PM

Seven headed hydra: Takes 96.19 damage, dying instantly.

Eight headed hydra too, actually: Takes 94.38 damage, also dying instantly.

Megaraptor: Also takes 96.19 damage, dying instantly.

Ettin: 94.38, as above.

Girallon: Ultra-dead.

Hill giant: A bit higher in CR, so it takes more than one hit. The first full attack knocks it down by 83.89 damage, then you probably take a full 38 or so, then the hill giant very much dies on the next round.

Pretty sure that's just going to keep being the general pattern against single foes.

A couple issues

The giants are intelligent and can negate or punish charging 3 or 4 ways

The hydra's have combat reflexes, reach and an attack action of attacking all its heads. Likely kills you before you hit it. This just needs you swapping your weapon out

Megaraptor is an ambush predator and probably requires a spot check to avoid it pouncing you

eggynack

2014-10-11, 11:46 PM

A couple issues

The giants are intelligent and can negate or punish charging 3 or 4 ways

The hydra's have combat reflexes, reach and an attack action of attacking all its heads. Likely kills you before you hit it

Megaraptor is an ambush predator and probably requires a spot check to avoid it pouncing you
Perhaps, though looking at things on that level would probably require actually running things. My main goal was to just test the accuracy of the claim that a THF barbarian can perform damage mitigation just by killing with sufficient speed. The hydra problem can probably be solved by just dropping from a greatsword to a guisarme though, dropping damage by at most six points (really a decent amount less), and granting the barbarian reach. Fits better with the likely plan of a full character too, which would involve tripping predicated on wolf totem.

Astralia123

2014-10-11, 11:59 PM

Let's say barbarian is a good class when you don't feel like role playing at all.

Like, "Thok likes to smite those goblins, ehehehe"

There are more than twenty ways to role play an interesting barbarian character, though, and it is very likely few or no people has played what you can come up with before.

For battling ability considerations, well, there was a 2nd level group who lived through about 10 encounters I threw at them, each has a EL well above their level, purely thanks to their barbarian.
They did not reach the level where enchantment spells become common, though.

Sartharina

2014-10-12, 12:18 AM

Lans

2014-10-12, 06:35 PM

Hit and run Kensai Kaorti resin Jovar as chosen weapon 2d6 18-20

Rain and storm of blows, weapon focus as fighter feats

Reckless offense, Martial study sudden leap, weapon specialization

Attack bonus +6 base attack bonus, +2 kensai, +7 strength, +1 magic weapon, +1 weapon focus, +2 reckless offense, -3 rain of blows, -6 storm of blows= +10

Attack routine 10/10/10/10/5

Damage 2d6+10 strength, +2 specialition, +2 kensai, +1 magic weapon= 2d6+15

Using http://donjon.bin.sh/d20/power/ to figure out damage

Against

Hydras eats AoO for less than 50 and deals 104 or 96. Should be able to survive the aoo
Ettin 96
Hill Giant 80 then he would takes about 38 vs the barbarians who would take 57
Megaraptor 104

Less range than the barbarian, more resistant to things that mitigate or punish charging. Has the option of selling his soul for 2 more feats.

Halfling Fighter on a riding dog
Attack bonus 6+4 strength, +1 size, +2 charging, +1 magic weapon, +1 high ground
Feats, Shocktrooper, mounted combat, ride by attack, spirited charge, martial study x2 for battle leaders charge
3d6+18 strength+3 weapon+36 power attack+30 battle leaders charge about 97

102 vs the 7 headed Hydra and girallion
96 vs the 8 headed and the ettin
85 vs the hill giant

ekarney

2014-10-12, 09:26 PM

Pick up Runescarred Berserker and tripping to become the ultimate mage-killer.

And a pretty damn good everything else-killer too. Also, extend/extra rage feats stack, and Frenzied barbarian is a good variant, PROVIDED you can get a really good will save. Pick up some charge bonuses and you can wipe out everything in your path.

A well optimized RSB can easily out match tier 3's who do the same job, and as I said before, can take out any magic user than isn't an initiate of mystra.

Amphetryon

2014-10-12, 09:52 PM

bekeleven

2014-10-12, 10:41 PM

Sir Chuckles

2014-10-12, 10:56 PM

OK, now I'm really lost.

How is a 3.5 character taking 4E Encounter powers as feats? How does level 1 of Kensai give +2 to attacks and damage? How are you affording a +6 strength item at level 6 when it costs more than double your WBL? How does a halfling on a riding dog have a high ground attack bonus attacking a hill giant? How are you planning on taking shock trooper without qualifying for it? What is this even supposed to prove?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

The only one of those I can definitely answer is that Rain of Blows and Storm of Blows is the Kensai Fighter Variant, from Dragon #310. They're taken in place of bonus feats. However, this variant loses it's 1st level bonus feat in exchange for a +1 to attack and damage rolls for it's chosen weapon (+2 at 5th, +3 at 10th, and so on), which can be martial or exotic.

I...can't answer anything else.

Nihilarian

2014-10-12, 11:00 PM

OK, now I'm really lost.

How is a 3.5 character taking 4E Encounter powers as feats? How does level 1 of Kensai give +2 to attacks and damage? How are you affording a +6 strength item at level 6 when it costs more than double your WBL? How does a halfling on a riding dog have a high ground attack bonus attacking a hill giant? How are you planning on taking shock trooper without qualifying for it? What is this even supposed to prove?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!Kensai is a dragon magazine variant fighter. IIRC, it gives up a bonus feat and nothing else important, gets an exotic weapon proficiency and a scaling bonus to attack and damage. It can also trade a bonus feat for an extra attack at full BAB -2 and then trade another feat for a second extra attack at -5. I have no idea about the rest.

Edit: beaten.

bekeleven

2014-10-12, 11:05 PM

And the strength could make sense if you assume it's a water orc with a +2 item I suppose?

Mentioning these things helps, people!

Gwendol

2014-10-13, 01:33 AM

As has been acknowledged before, the FAQ has errors. This is one of them. Cover isn't mutual, whomever is closer to cover ignores it against the other target. The Tower Shield wielder is always closer. /shrug.

I don't know what game you are used to playing, but that rule isn't found in D&D 3.5.

Cover

When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.

Low Obstacles and Cover

A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he’s closer to the obstacle than his target.

Cover and Attacks of Opportunity

You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.

Unless you claim the Tower Shield suddenly shrinks to half height I don't see how your house-rule can apply here. And even then, the rule doesn't seem to apply for melee attacks other than those with reach.

eggynack

2014-10-13, 01:39 AM

I don't know what game you are used to playing, but that rule isn't found in D&D 3.5.

Unless you claim the Tower Shield suddenly shrinks to half height I don't see how your house-rule can apply here. And even then, the rule doesn't seem to apply for melee attacks other than those with reach.
I was unaware that AoO's are actually held to a higher standard with regards to cover. That settles things pretty neatly, I think.

Lans

2014-10-13, 02:25 AM

OK, now I'm really lost.

How is a 3.5 character taking 4E Encounter powers as feats? How does level 1 of Kensai give +2 to attacks and damage? How are you affording a +6 strength item at level 6 when it costs more than double your WBL? How does a halfling on a riding dog have a high ground attack bonus attacking a hill giant? How are you planning on taking shock trooper without qualifying for it? What is this even supposed to prove?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

I think everythings except the shocktrooper and high ground has been addressed, It was late and I didn't include things I thought I did

I didn't list the prereqs feats for shocktrooper, I assumed people would realize he had them, especially if they looked and saw how many feats the character has. But I should of at least put the word line at the end of it

Halfling is on his mount which is higher ground than the giant is standing on

bekeleven

2014-10-13, 02:42 AM

I think everythings except the shocktrooper and high ground has been addressed, It was late and I didn't include things I thought I did

I didn't list the prereqs feats for shocktrooper, I assumed people would realize he had them, especially if they looked and saw how many feats the character has. But I should of at least put the word line at the end of it

Halfling is on his mount which is higher ground than the giant is standing on

Level 1, Fighter 1: Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush
Fighter 2: Mounted Combat
Level 3: Ride-by Attack
Fighter 4: Spirited Charge
Level 6, Fighter 6: Martial Study x2

A straight fighter with BAB+6 is level 6, so he still can't take shock trooper for 2 levels.

When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground.

Lans

2014-10-13, 03:02 AM

Level 1, Fighter 1: Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush
Fighter 2: Mounted Combat
Level 3: Ride-by Attack
Fighter 4: Spirited Charge
Level 6, Fighter 6: Martial Study x2

A straight fighter with BAB+6 is level 6, so he still can't take shock trooper for 2 levels.

Point about the mount.

I forgot the normal halfing doesn't get a bonus feat. I'm used to using stronghearts.

Vogonjeltz

2014-10-14, 04:17 PM

How do you figure +4 AC doubles your survivability?

By running the simulations of the two characters against given opponents and noting that the one user was projected to survive twice as many rounds as the other.

Well, as basic starting numbers, let's consider a 6th level barbarian, still a water orc, running shock trooper off of spirit lion totem. Let's say the character's running a +2 strength item, and a +1 greatsword. After activating whirling frenzy, the main attack from the charge is at (+6 BAB +9 strength +2 charge +1 weapon -2 frenzy) +16, and deals 2d6+26 damage. Now to test that out against some folk, see how successfully the barbarian can just drop folks.

Seven headed hydra: Takes 96.19 damage, dying instantly.

Eight headed hydra too, actually: Takes 94.38 damage, also dying instantly.

Megaraptor: Also takes 96.19 damage, dying instantly.

Ettin: 94.38, as above.

Girallon: Ultra-dead.

Hill giant: A bit higher in CR, so it takes more than one hit. The first full attack knocks it down by 83.89 damage, then you probably take a full 38 or so, then the hill giant very much dies on the next round.

Pretty sure that's just going to keep being the general pattern against single foes.

Flaws in your analysis:
As pointed out by Lans, Seven-headed hydra has 10' reach and combat reflexes. In order to reach the hydra the Barbarian with a greatsword has to move into and then out of a threatened square, which provokes 7 attacks from 1 AoO (they can attack with all heads anytime they attack). Also, his grapple check is what...+9? Hydra has a +19. So Chargebarian charges and...can't use his weapon. Now a different Barbarian who spent their wealth on a magical reach weapon might have a different time of it. But they'd also be lacking against different types of enemies.

The Barbarian suffers the same problems with other monsters that have reach. Hill Giant improved sunders (net bonus of +12!) against the barbarians greatsword. It snaps in half. (12 hardness, 20 hp) < 38 damage. Or it grapples him, rendering his entire offense moot.

These examples are also all entirely reliant on the conceit that the target CAN be charged. In other words: You're expecting a flat featureless space, enemies without reach, and to win the initiative roll. In practice, such spaces are few and far between. If we spice up the terrain to reflect what actually happens in games, this all falls apart. What does the same charge centric Barbarian do vs enemies on a wall. Enemies in a river. Enemies in the Air. Even tiny impediments such as these reveal the entire concept as weak.

By way of comparison a 6th lvl Fighter w/Tower shield can have +1 full plate, +1 tower shield, and a ring of protection for AC 10+1dex+8armor+1enhance+4shield+1enhance+1dodge+5 Combat expertise = 32 - 10 = AC 22. Basically the Megaraptor can't even hit that Fighter on a charge unless it rolls a natural 20. So its damage output is only going to be .06+.045+.0325=.1375 per round. At that rate the Fighter has an average of 272 rounds to kill the Raptor. This only requires the use of 3 feats (dodge, ce, imp ce), no race requirements, no variations either. The Fighter could also swap out dodge or imp. ce and buy an amulet of natural armor or a ring of protection. And it would STILL be cheaper than the gauntlets of ogre power and a +1 greatsword combo by half a grand. (5830gp vs. 6,350gp)

Not even really sure what you're saying at this point. Let's start from the beginning. Tower shield explicitly stops you from making any sort of attack. An attack of opportunity is an attack. Thus, you can't make an attack of opportunity while using a tower shield. The FAQ, if it says that you can attack while using a tower shield, is in error. The rules directly contradict that idea.

I recalled the FAQ saying that the giving up of attacks was code for: Requires a standard action. As for cover being mutual, we can of course agree that is in error.

I don't know what game you are used to playing, but that rule isn't found in D&D 3.5.

The point I was making is that the cover of the tower shield isn't in a square, and the wielder never has to go through cover, the FAQ just pulls that out of thin air. It's one-way cover because the shield only states that it grants the wielder cover.

Cover relative to a character does stop AoO, but again, the tower shield doesn't provide cover to anyone but the wielder.

Sartharina

2014-10-14, 04:24 PM

(they can attack with all heads anytime they attack)Where the heck are you getting this? All it says about Hydras in combat is that they can attack with all heads on their turn at no penalty - essentially they get a full attack on a charge or standard attack. It doesn't say anything about them being able to attack with all heads as an AoO.

Vogonjeltz

2014-10-14, 04:30 PM

Where the heck are you getting this? All it says about Hydras in combat is that they can attack with all heads on their turn at no penalty - essentially they get a full attack on a charge or standard attack. It doesn't say anything about them being able to attack with all heads as an AoO.

From their monster entry:

Feats
A hydra’s Combat Reflexes feat allows it to use all its heads for attacks of opportunity.

atemu1234

2014-10-14, 04:39 PM

From their monster entry:

Feats
A hydra’s Combat Reflexes feat allows it to use all its heads for attacks of opportunity.

That doesn't mean all at once, same as with normal.

eggynack

2014-10-14, 04:45 PM

By running the simulations of the two characters against given opponents and noting that the one user was projected to survive twice as many rounds as the other.
Definitely doesn't apply universally to all opponents, even before the point where AC starts offering nothing.

As pointed out by Lans, Seven-headed hydra has 10' reach and combat reflexes. In order to reach the hydra the Barbarian with a greatsword has to move into and then out of a threatened square, which provokes 7 attacks from 1 AoO (they can attack with all heads anytime they attack). Also, his grapple check is what...+9? Hydra has a +19. So Chargebarian charges and...can't use his weapon. Now a different Barbarian who spent their wealth on a magical reach weapon might have a different time of it. But they'd also be lacking against different types of enemies.
Already swapped out for a guisarme, thus bypassing this issue. Doesn't really drop damage much at all.
The Barbarian suffers the same problems with other monsters that have reach. Hill Giant improved sunders (net bonus of +12!) against the barbarians greatsword. It snaps in half. (12 hardness, 20 hp) < 38 damage. Or it grapples him, rendering his entire offense moot.

These examples are also all entirely reliant on the conceit that the target CAN be charged. In other words: You're expecting a flat featureless space, enemies without reach, and to win the initiative roll. In practice, such spaces are few and far between. If we spice up the terrain to reflect what actually happens in games, this all falls apart. What does the same charge centric Barbarian do vs enemies on a wall. Enemies in a river. Enemies in the Air. Even tiny impediments such as these reveal the entire concept as weak.
It does drop damage by quite a bit, but the barbarian still has a solid kill rate. In particular, it'd take two rounds to kill the hydra with full attacks, or three with not full attacks.

By way of comparison a 6th lvl Fighter w/Tower shield can have +1 full plate, +1 tower shield, and a ring of protection for AC 10+1dex+8armor+1enhance+4shield+1enhance+1dodge+5 Combat expertise = 32 - 10 = AC 22. Basically the Megaraptor can't even hit that Fighter on a charge unless it rolls a natural 20. So its damage output is only going to be .06+.045+.0325=.1375 per round. At that rate the Fighter has an average of 272 rounds to kill the Raptor. This only requires the use of 3 feats (dodge, ce, imp ce), no race requirements, no variations either. The Fighter could also swap out dodge or imp. ce and buy an amulet of natural armor or a ring of protection. And it would STILL be cheaper than the gauntlets of ogre power and a +1 greatsword combo by half a grand. (5830gp vs. 6,350gp)
That whole setup still sounds... just awful. You're spending three feats, for the ability to excel only at this exact type of combat, where this exact type of combat is defined as a fight where you're on your own against just mundane opponents. The barbarian, meanwhile, is doing well as long as he can charge an enemy, and is still doing really well when he can't. That's one of the biggest problems with this style of combat, I think. If you're not putting anything into it, that's fine, because it's at least situationally useful, but when you start making serious sacrifices at the altar of competence, that feels like it's going too far.

Cover relative to a character does stop AoO, but again, the tower shield doesn't provide cover to anyone but the wielder.
That's explicitly untrue. Cover exists if there exists a line, drawn from your square to the opponent's square, that crosses through the impediment. You can ignore cover in the manner you cited if the wall, or shield in this case, is half your height, but the shield is very much not half your height. We know this because the shield has any ability to provide total cover.

Brookshw

2014-10-14, 04:45 PM

From their monster entry:

Feats
A hydra’s Combat Reflexes feat allows it to use all its heads for attacks of opportunity.

Speaking of hydra's, this makes me wonder, is the pain of growing a new head something like teething? They don't actually have an advancement so I sort of assume that's how they grow, sorta. I'm not specifically talking about what happens if you take off a head, more about establishing the base creature. Or maybe it's better to assume they all start off as 5's and along the way somewhere they lost some heads and grew two replacements.

Edit:

That doesn't mean all at once, same as with normal.
Hmmm.....there's no reason to specify it can use all of it's heads, unless it that it can use, ya know, all of it's heads. It's a bit RAI maybe but I can see where Vogon is coming from.

Troacctid

2014-10-14, 05:45 PM

Hmmm.....there's no reason to specify it can use all of it's heads, unless it that it can use, ya know, all of it's heads. It's a bit RAI maybe but I can see where Vogon is coming from.

Without that clause it would get attacks of opportunity based on its Dex mod. With the clause it gets attacks of opportunity based on how many heads it has.

Brookshw

2014-10-14, 05:52 PM

Without that clause it would get attacks of opportunity based on its Dex mod. With the clause it gets attacks of opportunity based on how many heads it has.

I see where you're coming from but it doesn't seem, to me at least, to align with the specific language used, or at least, it doesn't include language that supports that interpretation. Using all of it's heads is pointless if we're talking about iterative OOP as you can still have iterative OOP without the need to specify the heads. And if the number of iterative OOP is based instead on the number of heads (a reasonable interpretation) then why not specify as much? It doesn't seem to me to do so at least.

Vogonjeltz

2014-10-14, 06:30 PM

Definitely doesn't apply universally to all opponents, even before the point where AC starts offering nothing.

Already swapped out for a guisarme, thus bypassing this issue. Doesn't really drop damage much at all.
The Barbarian suffers the same problems with other monsters that have reach. Hill Giant improved sunders (net bonus of +12!) against the barbarians greatsword. It snaps in half. (12 hardness, 20 hp) < 38 damage. Or it grapples him, rendering his entire offense moot.

It does drop damage by quite a bit, but the barbarian still has a solid kill rate. In particular, it'd take two rounds to kill the hydra with full attacks, or three with not full attacks.

That whole setup still sounds... just awful. You're spending three feats, for the ability to excel only at this exact type of combat, where this exact type of combat is defined as a fight where you're on your own against just mundane opponents. The barbarian, meanwhile, is doing well as long as he can charge an enemy, and is still doing really well when he can't. That's one of the biggest problems with this style of combat, I think. If you're not putting anything into it, that's fine, because it's at least situationally useful, but when you start making serious sacrifices at the altar of competence, that feels like it's going too far.

That's explicitly untrue. Cover exists if there exists a line, drawn from your square to the opponent's square, that crosses through the impediment. You can ignore cover in the manner you cited if the wall, or shield in this case, is half your height, but the shield is very much not half your height. We know this because the shield has any ability to provide total cover.

It applies to the situations being discussed, so really that's all that counts.

Putting all the Barbarians eggs into the reach weapon basket is not an improvement on its predicament.

Those three feats all apply against touch attacks (meaning, spells), so they are most certainly not feats spent in vain.

Lastly, that would require as it says for a line between the two to cross the cover. The shield does no such thing, that is what the FAQ gets wrong.

Speaking of hydra's, this makes me wonder, is the pain of growing a new head something like teething? They don't actually have an advancement so I sort of assume that's how they grow, sorta. I'm not specifically talking about what happens if you take off a head, more about establishing the base creature. Or maybe it's better to assume they all start off as 5's and along the way somewhere they lost some heads and grew two replacements.

Edit:

Hmmm.....there's no reason to specify it can use all of it's heads, unless it that it can use, ya know, all of it's heads. It's a bit RAI maybe but I can see where Vogon is coming from.

Hrm, I don't see why not.

I suppose the text could be read that way, but if the meaning is what I said it would be written the same way.

Without that clause it would get attacks of opportunity based on its Dex mod. With the clause it gets attacks of opportunity based on how many heads it has.

Well it also says the hydra can attack with all heads at no penalty, the implication is that all heads attack during the AoO.

Troacctid

2014-10-14, 06:31 PM

I see where you're coming from but it doesn't seem, to me at least, to align with the specific language used, or at least, it doesn't include language that supports that interpretation. Using all of it's heads is pointless if we're talking about iterative OOP as you can still have iterative OOP without the need to specify the heads. And if the number of iterative OOP is based instead on the number of heads (a reasonable interpretation) then why not specify as much? It doesn't seem to me to do so at least.

Iterative OOP? What?

The wording is unclear. AFAIK, there's no consensus on the RAW. One attack per opportunity is the better interpretation because it leads to better gameplay, and the hydra is hideously under-CR'd otherwise.

Brookshw

2014-10-14, 06:46 PM

Iterative OOP? What?

The wording is unclear. AFAIK, there's no consensus on the RAW. One attack per opportunity is the better interpretation because it leads to better gameplay, and the hydra is hideously under-CR'd otherwise.

Ah, sorry if that was unclear. Please read it as subsequent OOP if that helps. I think that might be clearer at least.

Regardless, a lack of consensus is not evidence, nor is "better gameplay", the latter of which is houserule territory, not sure what you want us to take from it.

Sartharina

2014-10-14, 06:50 PM

Well it also says the hydra can attack with all heads at no penalty, the implication is that all heads attack during the AoO.It attacks with all heads at no penalty because it doesn't suffer Multiweapon Fighting/Flurry of Blows/Rapid Shot/Multiattack/etc penalties.

The hydra entry is written in the awkward pre-action-economy language from 3.0 and early 3.5 before everything was codified and clarified in later supplements. The Hydra is too stupid to know what "Standard" "Swift" "immediate" and "Full Round" actions are.

eggynack

2014-10-14, 06:51 PM

It applies to the situations being discussed, so really that's all that counts.
Not really. The point is that you can nearly always construct a situation where one combat style is better than another, but if the situation is too narrow, and/or the cost of the style too high relative to the situation's width, then the style is a bad one.

Putting all the Barbarians eggs into the reach weapon basket is not an improvement on its predicament.
It's admittedly not the broadest set of circumstances that the barbarian is built against, but it's a character built to be viable against just about the broadest variety of monsters a character of that sort reasonably can be viable against. Moreover, and here's the critical thing, it's a character built to be viable in the traditional way this game is set up, which is in a party.

Those three feats all apply against touch attacks (meaning, spells), so they are most certainly not feats spent in vain.
They apply against a very small subset of spells, and only if you managed to pull off an attack on your turn before the spell in the case of combat expertise. Latter factor's more important than the first, I think.

Lastly, that would require as it says for a line between the two to cross the cover. The shield does no such thing, that is what the FAQ gets wrong.
What do you mean the shield does no such thing? Just about any line from the one melee fellow to the other is going to cross through the shield, in either direction. Thus, cover, and as the shield is about as tall as the fighter, at least when it's used in that fashion, it applies to the fighter as much as it does to the attacking foe. I don't see anything you've presented, even in the FAQ, that contradicts that stuff.

Sartharina

2014-10-14, 06:53 PM

What do you mean the shield does no such thing? Just about any line from the one melee fellow to the other is going to cross through the shield, in either direction. Thus, cover, and as the shield is about as tall as the fighter, at least when it's used in that fashion, it applies to the fighter as much as it does to the attacking foe. I don't see anything you've presented, even in the FAQ, that contradicts that stuff.

I don't think you're going to get through to him because he can't realize that the shield is an object in the gameworld, not merely a few numbers on a character sheet.

Troacctid

2014-10-14, 06:59 PM

Ah, sorry if that was unclear. Please read it as subsequent OOP if that helps. I think that might be clearer at least.

Regardless, a lack of consensus is not evidence, nor is "better gameplay", the latter of which is houserule territory, not sure what you want us to take from it.

Subsequent OOP? What?

The rule is one sentence long and ambiguously worded. It supports multiple interpretations.

Vogonjeltz

2014-10-14, 07:02 PM

I don't think you're going to get through to him because he can't realize that the shield is an object in the gameworld, not merely a few numbers on a character sheet.

See, now that's a perfect example of condescension.

I know it's an object, however it's also an attended object, so in the sense that cover operates as discrete terrain within the game world it is NOT located along a line between squares.

eggynack

2014-10-14, 07:08 PM

I know it's an object, however it's also an attended object, so in the sense that cover operates as discrete terrain within the game world it is NOT located along a line between squares.
Whether it's located along a line between squares is irrelevant. The rules say, "When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from your square to the target’s square goes through a wall." The tower shield in this situation is being treated as a wall, and it in fact is a wall, and it fulfills all other requirements of cover in this situation from both directions.

awa

2014-10-14, 07:24 PM

think about it logically if you are cowering behind your shield whimpering in fear of the barbarian so he doesn't hurt you moving so the shield is always completely blocking him how are you going to retaliate?

The shield is not a magic force field that only stops your foes attacks its a piece of wood and metal if it blocks all attack it blocks all attacks. If you make room to attack then it just gives you a +4 defense.

emeraldstreak

2014-10-14, 07:32 PM

high dmg = good
AC in 3.5 = good

it's pointless to compare these two, they both have their place and good characters will rate high in both

Sartharina

2014-10-14, 07:38 PM

high dmg = good
AC in 3.5 = good

it's pointless to compare these two, they both have their place and good characters will rate high in both
Actually - AC in 3.5 is usually worthless.

eggynack

2014-10-14, 07:51 PM

high dmg = good
AC in 3.5 = good

it's pointless to compare these two, they both have their place and good characters will rate high in both
Not really, no. We've been talking about some really specific situations, where AC has even a chance of competing. Most situations aren't like that. Most of the time, if you set yourself up such that an opponent needs to spend hundreds of rounds to kill you, that opponent is just going to send their damage at some other member of your party. Resilience is irrelevant unless you have some way to force your opponent to deal with that resilience, and it's very difficult to force enemies to deal with that resilience.

Moreover, as I noted, while damage applies against nearly every enemy in the game, one cannot say the same of AC. The really dangerous enemies, the ones that can crush you with magic, have the capacity to fully bypass the thing you put so much investment into, and do so trivially. You can put up other defenses, but it's a losing battle against an offense that can acquire versatility at a much lower cost than your defense can. You're far better off just making there be less spells, if that's at all possible, and if it's not possible, your doom is rather inevitable anyway.

Point is, AC is alright. You can boost it, if you like, and you'll likely gain some benefit from that, especially if your AC falls within certain lines. However, it's certainly not a thing that a good character, even a good melee character, is going to rate highly in. It's certainly not damage, which is a far more useful tool because it has actual impact on the tactical makeup of the game, or something like AoO tripping, which can have even greater tactical impact.

Brookshw

2014-10-14, 07:53 PM

Subsequent OOP? What? As much as we repeat "what" that doesn't change anything, so what do you want to say?

The rule is one sentence long and ambiguously worded. It supports multiple interpretations. Perhaps there are indeed multiple interpretations, but when most lead to tautologies it's a pretty safe bet, I should hope, that they aren't the most likely interpretation. If you think that sentence is just repeating rules you know, then what's the point? Chances are, it's something besides the normal rules, yes?

@Eggy, what is your point? That something may not be as optimal as other options? That's not exactly helpful nor actually proves anything.

emeraldstreak

2014-10-14, 07:58 PM

Actually - AC in 3.5 is usually worthless.

only for 3.P newbies

eggynack

2014-10-14, 08:02 PM

@Eggy, what is your point? That something may not be as optimal as other options? That's not exactly helpful nor actually proves anything.
I was proving the opposite of the stuff in the post I was quoting. In particular, that these two styles have some sort of equality, and that a good character is good at both things. Whether it's helpful, I suppose it's helpful to emeraldstreak, if he ultimately agrees with the things I've said after not doing so before, and I suppose it's helpful to folks I would be convincing out of that same apparently existing viewpoint. It's not pointless to compare the two, not at all, and AC is definitely not good from a larger perspective. Really, my post was just an extended and more supported version of Sartharina's post.

Edit: Also proving the opposite of this new thing, which is a far more extreme version of the old thing I was disproving. Point is, my whole argument is now on the table in big ol' paragraphs. If emeraldstreak wants to claim that not boosting AC is only for newbies, then he's going to have to go through my argument to prove it.

Troacctid

2014-10-14, 08:02 PM

Perhaps there are indeed multiple interpretations, but when most lead to tautologies it's a pretty safe bet, I should hope, that they aren't the most likely interpretation. If you think that sentence is just repeating rules you know, then what's the point? Chances are, it's something besides the normal rules, yes?

What's leading to a tautology? Why would it be repeating rules we know? Who said it used the normal rules? What's an OOP? I don't even understand what you're saying.

If hydras used the normal rules for Combat Reflexes, they would be able to make a grand total of two attacks of opportunity per round. Instead, they have a rule that lets them make more based on how many heads they have. It does not adequately explain how, exactly, their attacks of opportunity end up working as a result, and so it is unclear and requires interpretation by the DM.

Brookshw

2014-10-14, 08:03 PM

What's leading to a tautology? Why would it be repeating rules we know? Who said it used the normal rules? What's an OOP? I don't even understand what you're saying.

Yes, I can tell you don't. Rather than sitting here blindfolded throwing darts please explain to me what you expect to mean, and WHY, and I'll see if I can fill in the gaps (tomorrow that is, I'm done for tonight).

emeraldstreak

2014-10-14, 08:16 PM

Not really, no. We've been talking about some really specific situations, where AC has even a chance of competing. Most situations aren't like that. Most of the time, if you set yourself up such that an opponent needs to spend hundreds of rounds to kill you, that opponent is just going to send their damage at some other member of your party. Resilience is irrelevant unless you have some way to force your opponent to deal with that resilience, and it's very difficult to force enemies to deal with that resilience.

Moreover, as I noted, while damage applies against nearly every enemy in the game, one cannot say the same of AC. The really dangerous enemies, the ones that can crush you with magic, have the capacity to fully bypass the thing you put so much investment into, and do so trivially. You can put up other defenses, but it's a losing battle against an offense that can acquire versatility at a much lower cost than your defense can. You're far better off just making there be less spells, if that's at all possible, and if it's not possible, your doom is rather inevitable anyway.

Point is, AC is alright. You can boost it, if you like, and you'll likely gain some benefit from that, especially if your AC falls within certain lines. However, it's certainly not a thing that a good character, even a good melee character, is going to rate highly in. It's certainly not damage, which is a far more useful tool because it has actual impact on the tactical makeup of the game, or something like AoO tripping, which can have even greater tactical impact.

What good characters rate high in is:
1) counters to enemy
2) killing enemies

AC happens to be a good counter to attack venues incorporating a roll in 3.P, as it reduces them to 5% normal and 1/400 critical.

While your notes aren't exactly wrong, keep in mind two things. Firstly, very often in gauntlets/arenas there's one character. Otherwise, you are correct that in a party simply being tanky is not enough, you'll have to also exert some form of control to leave the enemy no choice but attacking you. Again tho, in most comparisons incl. this one we're discussing one character.

Secondly, I dont know where you observe what you consider "good" characters, but in my experience extremely high AC is commonly one of the many defenses of good characters I know. That includes all undefeated champions of notable PvP arenas back in the day, a great deal of gauntlet winners, etc. As for campaigns, it's a common trait of parties that dont TPK where everyone else does.

Amphetryon

2014-10-14, 08:25 PM

What good characters rate high in is:
1) counters to enemy
2) killing enemies

AC happens to be a good counter to attack venues incorporating a roll in 3.P, as it reduces them to 5% normal and 1/400 critical.

While your notes aren't exactly wrong, keep in mind two things. Firstly, very often in gauntlets/arenas there's one character. Otherwise, you are correct that in a party simply being tanky is not enough, you'll have to also exert some form of control to leave the enemy no choice but attacking you. Again tho, in most comparisons incl. this one we're discussing one character.

Secondly, I dont know where you observe what you consider "good" characters, but in my experience extremely high AC is commonly one of the many defenses of good characters I know. That includes all undefeated champions of notable PvP arenas back in the day, a great deal of gauntlet winners, etc. As for campaigns, it's a common trait of parties that dont TPK where everyone else does.

"Very often in gauntlets/arenas" references a very, very small percentage of what most real characters deal with in real D&D games, as indicated by most folks' reported play experiences online and hanging around the FLGS. In other words, "very often" is here used to indicate the same thing as "very seldom," which is an unusual way of expressing "rarely."

eggynack

2014-10-14, 08:27 PM

What good characters rate high in is:
1) counters to enemy
2) killing enemies
Perhaps, but owing to the way the game works, the killing enemies half is way more important. It's incredibly difficult to protect yourself from everything, so the character who focuses on ways to get around defenses is usually going to win against the character who focuses on ways to put those defenses up, assuming roughly equal general power levels between the characters (in other words, a high level wizard can defend against most things, and doesn't sacrifice offense much to do it

AC happens to be a good counter to attack venues incorporating a roll in 3.P, as it reduces them to 5% normal and 1/400 critical.
That's a pretty narrow swath of attack venues though, and it ultimately doesn't add up to what I'd call an effective counter to enemies. It's why people tend to advise miss chance, because miss chance works against most things and doesn't care too much about how much you've otherwise invested in the defense, or about what your opponent is doing to overcome it.

While your notes aren't exactly wrong, keep in mind two things. Firstly, very often in gauntlets/arenas there's one character. Otherwise, you are correct that in a party simply being tanky is not enough, you'll have to also exert some form of control to leave the enemy no choice but attacking you. Again tho, in most comparisons incl. this one we're discussing one character.

Secondly, I dont know where you observe what you consider "good" characters, but in my experience extremely high AC is commonly one of the many defenses of good characters I know. That includes all undefeated champions of notable PvP arenas back in the day, a great deal of gauntlet winners, etc. As for campaigns, it's a common trait of parties that dont TPK where everyone else does.
I'm not really sure why you're setting gauntlets as your standard of character supremacy. They're ridiculously far from how the game actually works, and they mostly see use in power comparisons only due to convenience. If you want to say something like, "Only newbies dump AC, specifically when we're talking about these specific gauntlet fights where competitors presumably aren't high powered caster, because a high powered wizard usually doesn't care about high AC." Test of spite might have some character sheets with contradictory evidence on that point, incidentally, though I don't know if those are broadly accessible.