Naked fighter vs barbarian fistfight

[Zyzzyva]

Slightly silly build question, but: assuming you're having a muddy brawl, no items (including weapons and armour). Is there any possible build for a Fighter that would let them beat a Barbarian in the fight? The Barbarian's rage and unarmoured defence are pretty tough to overcome at low levels, especially since most fighter options assume you're wearing some kind of armour and wielding some sort of weapon.

[supergoji18]

Slightly silly build question, but: assuming you're having a muddy brawl, no items (including weapons and armour). Is there any possible build for a Fighter that would let them beat a Barbarian in the fight? The Barbarian's rage and unarmoured defence are pretty tough to overcome at low levels, especially since most fighter options assume you're wearing some kind of armour and wielding some sort of weapon.

I really want to hear the story behind what made you ask this question. I have a feeling it will be epic.

What level do you intend for the two to be at? At level 1 the Barbarian wins no matter what, but at level 20 there could be some possible ways for a Barbarian to lose

[Zyzzyva]

I really want to hear the story behind what made you ask this question. I have a feeling it will be epic.

What level do you intend for the two to be at? At level 1 the Barbarian wins no matter what, but at level 20 there could be some possible ways for a Barbarian to lose

It's on this board, even (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?404442-5e-Realms-Of-Lore-OOC&p=18987077#post18987077)! :smallwink:

Basically, I'm a (young) half-orc fighter, he's a (young) human barbarian from the same small village, and we decided that we'd matched strength in the backstory. The problem is that "friendly village brawl" doesn't translate to "I'm in armour, you're not, and also I'm whaling on your naked torso with a longsword". So we brawled, and I did the absolutely ridiculous math a little too late to back out.

Level... I don't know, but presumably pretty low. I'm probably not going to take this build, because I don't actually want to devote my life to mud wrestling, and dumped DEX anyways ("I'll always fight things in heavy armour anyways, right?"), I just wondered if it was always a foregone conclusion. Also, I thought the optimizers on this board might find it fun. :smallsmile:

[Easy_Lee]

There are a lot of ways to improve the fighter's performance; the Dueling fighting style, Tavern brawler, acquiring mage armor, or taking a level in monk, for instance. But as far as a purist fighter goes, I don't think there's any way for the fighter to win in the fight you're talking about.

[themaque]

Raw mechanics, nothing comes to mind. Just try to fight smarter? Get advantage when/where you can and use Combat maneuvers. Remember Batman Vs. the Gang leader in Dark Knight Rises (Comic)? the idea of you being a fighter, and a little more tactical vs the barbarian SMASH is your best bet.

[hecetv]

Honestly there are very few fighter builds that will ever be able to 1v1 a barbarian, especially without magic items. Actually I'm not sure if there are any.

A totally optimized fighter might be able to beat a not at all optimized barbarian. Not sure though.

The classes aren't balanced with pvp in mine. And they definitely aren't balanced with weaponless pvp in mind.

[Zyzzyva]

All right. About what I figured. :smallfrown:

[hawklost]

Point out to your barbarian pall that Raging during a "friendly village brawl" is not exactly a version of friendly anymore.

Consider that when a barbarian rages they are effectively getting extremely angry and losing some control (mechanically, they ignore the pain or their blood buffs their muscles is the reasoning behind why they get Resistance to damage and get advantage on Str checks during it)

If he rages just because he gets mud on him or something then I am not sure that it is a friendly brawl and many people would logically have broken bones and major wounds.

[Easy_Lee]

You know, if your DM wants to simplify things, he could make it an opposed athletics contest just to resolve it that way. If it's supposed to be a friendly contest and not an actual fight, then that may be more reasonable.

[ChubbyRain]

You know, if your DM wants to simplify things, he could make it an opposed athletics contest just to resolve it that way. If it's supposed to be a friendly contest and not an actual fight, then that may be more reasonable.

I was going to mention this.

A series of skill contests versus one another. Athletics, Acrobatics, and even Sleight of Hand could all be used as wrestling abilities.

Actually, using those three skills you could probably come up with a neat class that uses skill challenges on all their attacks. Maybe a drunken master, luchadore, or boxer class.

Edit: as in they hardly ever target AC.

[Jeebs]

This is pretty metagame-y, but you could take advantage of the Rage mechanic's requirement that you deal or take damage.

If there's a way for you to avoid being hit/hitting the Barbarian long enough that they fall out of the Rage, then you could use your own class features (Second Wind, Action Surge, whatever else you might have at this point) to try and out 1 damage +STR modifier him to death.

EDIT: Re-reading Rage's description, it looks like he'll stay in a Rage as long as he attacks. You might have to do something more inventive... like running away :smallsmile: How big is this pit?

[ChubbyRain]

This is pretty metagame-y, but you could take advantage of the Rage mechanic's requirement that you deal or take damage.

If there's a way for you to avoid being hit/hitting the Barbarian long enough that they fall out of the Rage, then you could use your own class features (Second Wind, Action Surge, whatever else you might have at this point) to try and out 1 damage +STR modifier him to death.

EDIT: Re-reading Rage's description, it looks like he'll stay in a Rage as long as he attacks. You might have to do something more inventive... like running away :smallsmile: How big is this pit?

Fighter loses the fight since he is running away. Even if the fighter only defends for a minute I would call the fight for the barbarian since the fighter isn't fighting.

Of course I'm not sure rage would be within the rules of the fight.

[Ralanr]

Fighter loses the fight since he is running away. Even if the fighter only defends for a minute I would call the fight for the barbarian since the fighter isn't fighting.

Of course I'm not sure rage would be within the rules of the fight.

People can get pretty angry when having friendly brawls. It's kinda refreshing.

[SharkForce]

if you've got the attributes for it, a single monk level splash isn't completely awful, and could make you fairly effective even while unarmed.

of course, "not completely awful" is not exactly a strong recommendation... it would actually be better to splash several monk levels, if you can stand to do it. you could also fight fire with fire and splash a single barbarian level. or throw in a rogue level and possibly be able to add sneak attack damage.

there are also options depending on what sort of fighter you are... a battlemaster may be able to win half the time at lower levels with a simple nova build (especially if he hasn't had a chance to rage yet). get a quick 2 attacks (1 regular, 1 action surge), each of which hit for an extra d8 damage, and that'll give you a great head start. if, as noted, you can avoid letting him attack (or be attacked) for 1 round, he'll drop out of rage, as well; a shove to knock him over, costing half his movement, combined with him needing to deal with difficult terrain to close with you, could combine to force him out of rage.

or, if you had a best of X series of fights, if he has only one rage available, he wouldn't always have rage up for each one.

or, of course, there could be other contests :P

[Vogonjeltz]

Slightly silly build question, but: assuming you're having a muddy brawl, no items (including weapons and armour). Is there any possible build for a Fighter that would let them beat a Barbarian in the fight? The Barbarian's rage and unarmoured defence are pretty tough to overcome at low levels, especially since most fighter options assume you're wearing some kind of armour and wielding some sort of weapon.

If neither of you have paths yet AND you're not wearing any armor nor using weapons (so one of your class features, Fighting Style, isn't even coming into play)?

Fighter probably has more hp, but the Barbarian would probably have better AC and possibly Rage. Fighter's play is to exhaust the Barbarian's 2 rages, this happens if the Barbarian fails to attack or take damage between turns.

So every round until the Barbarian is not raging, this is the Fighter's action:
Attack to shove the Barbarian to the ground (prone). Run away such that the distance is more than the Barbarian can move.

If you succeed, the Barbarian's rage will automatically end. This still leaves you with the following imbalance: stats depending, his AC is probably better than yours, but your HP sum is probably higher than his (he has a d12 + con vs your d10 + con AND Second Wind).

If his dex is better than his str (and he was relying on rage for advantage on str checks and dex+con for a better AC) then you want to grapple him and shove him to the ground giving yourself advantage and putting disadvantage on him. This ought to be enough to overcome the AC discrepencies.

This all hinges on your exhausting his rages though.

[Jeebs]

Fighter loses the fight since he is running away. Even if the fighter only defends for a minute I would call the fight for the barbarian since the fighter isn't fighting.

Of course I'm not sure rage would be within the rules of the fight.

I'd prefer to think of it as an advanced version of the Rope-a-Dope. As long as you don't leave the pit, you should be golden. The Barbarian will probably have 2+ Rages though...

[Galen]

So every round until the Barbarian is not raging, this is the Fighter's action:
Attack to shove the Barbarian to the ground (prone). Run away such that the distance is more than the Barbarian can move.Note that he has an advantage on Str checks when raging, so he's extremely likely to resist the shove. And for every round you're wasting with ineffectual shoving, he'll punch your sorry AC of 10 for 1d3+Str+2 damage. Doesn't seems like a winning plan.

[ChubbyRain]

People can get pretty angry when having friendly brawls. It's kinda refreshing.

There is a huge difference between getting mad and going into Rage. Getting that serious is like pulling a knife during a basketball game.



I'd prefer to think of it as an advanced version of the Rope-a-Dope. As long as you don't leave the pit, you should be golden. The Barbarian will probably have 2+ Rages though...

Yeah, no. You are there to compete, if you don't want to compete you lose. Ali didn't run away all the time, the rope-a-dope needed the enemy to attack him in order to get them to become tired. The barbarian can attack all day without becoming tired. D&D 5e doesn't work in a way that R-a-D can be useful.

Also, depending on level the barbarian is faster than the fighter... So that won't help much.

[Ralanr]

There is a huge difference between getting mad and going into Rage. Getting that serious is like pulling a knife during a basketball game.



Maybe it's a natural occurrence to draw knives when that guy plays. Maybe some people like to be as serious as they can be when having fun.

But that's a stretch and I just wanted to see where I could go with that. I see your point through and through.

[Giant2005]

People can get pretty angry when having friendly brawls. It's kinda refreshing.

There is a difference between being pretty angry and surrendering your will to a berserker rage.
Getting angry during a brawl might just ruin the friendship but if one of them loses their mind, the other is going to need to reach for his blade if he has any hope of surviving.

[dev6500]

If the fight happens at 3rd level, you should be able to win by spamming the battle master menacing strike maneuver. 4 rounds of hitting him while frightened should net you a win.

If before 3rd level, perhaps you can pick up a rock and crit him... several times.

[ChubbyRain]

Maybe it's a natural occurrence to draw knives when that guy plays. Maybe some people like to be as serious as they can be when having fun.

But that's a stretch and I just wanted to see where I could go with that. I see your point through and through.

Wait, so if we play a pickup game of basketball and I'm used to pulling knives on people when I get pumped... That's fine and dandy? Like there will be no complaints? You see that as "eh, he is used to it, that's just how ChubbyRain rolls"?

Taking a friendly competition that far is way more than a stretch, that is like, straight messed up right there.

Huge difference between giving someone a strong hip block or a moderate elbow jab to the ribs and going all Mr. Stabbity on them. Like not even in the same ballpark.

@Dev6500

Picking up a rock is using a weapon and violating the friendly match. Just as much as pulling a knife or raging would be. You can straight up murder people with a rock, so once you pick up a rock this is no longer a friendly competition.

Also, menacing attack may or may not be allowed. Just like rage you are going out of your way to use big guns. This is like, during a match between friends, you try to make them actually fear you. This is beyond intimidation or psyching someone out. This is like if Batman and Superman are playing a game of chess and Superman every time he takes a piece makes his fingers into a gun and makes a shooting and sound of Bruce's parents dying... Menacing attack is about making the target fear you, to screw with their head in such a way a person that would normally never run from a fight, flees like a little child.

That's not a friendly competition.

I swear its like some people here has never been in a friendly competition outside of video or board games before in their life.

[dev6500]

@Dev6500

Picking up a rock is using a weapon and violating the friendly match. Just as much as pulling a knife or raging would be. You can straight up murder people with a rock, so once you pick up a rock this is no longer a friendly competition.

i know, the rock part is a joke because your are pretty outclassed before level 3 unarmored and unarmed. Also, in braveheart rocks were being wielded all over the place in seemingly friendly sparring matches ;p



Also, menacing attack may or may not be allowed. Just like rage you are going out of your way to use big guns. This is like, during a match between friends, you try to make them actually fear you. This is beyond intimidation or psyching someone out. This is like if Batman and Superman are playing a game of chess and Superman every time he takes a piece makes his fingers into a gun and makes a shooting and sound of Bruce's parents dying... Menacing attack is about making the target fear you, to screw with their head in such a way a person that would normally never run from a fight, flees like a little child.

That's not a friendly competition.

I swear its like some people here has never been in a friendly competition outside of video or board games before in their life.

I think an important distinction needs to be made. Friendly fight vs Fair fight. Even if the barbarian cannot use rage because this is a "friendly" fight, if you still let him use unarmored defense then the fighter automatically has a 15 to 20 % lower hit chance than the barbarian which is unfair. If the fighter isn't allowed to use any abilities to make up for that, then this thread is done. Barbarian wins or it should be a skill check game.

I don't think viable options should be removed on a technicality.

[TrexPushups]

Skill contest method,

SUMO MATCH!

No raging and AC doesn't matter as grappling can win you the fight.

[ChubbyRain]

I think an important distinction needs to be made. Friendly fight vs Fair fight. Even if the barbarian cannot use rage because this is a "friendly" fight, if you still let him use unarmored defense then the fighter automatically has a 15 to 20 % lower hit chance than the barbarian which is unfair. If the fighter isn't allowed to use any abilities to make up for that, then this thread is done. Barbarian wins or it should be a skill check game.

I don't think viable options should be removed on a technicality.

A friendly fight is a fair fight. Once you start cheating you are disrespecting your opponent and are not treating them friendly.

The barbarian has trained and really is made for this sort of fight. The fighter is not. In a friendly or unfriendly fight the barbarian wins at most levels. Using unarmored defense is not unfair, it is something they have learned to do that is not over the top or taking things to far. That is like saying if I fight someone I know is weaker than me in a sparing match I have to let them hit me in critical areas only.

Seriously, if you can't see the difference between using RAGE and unarmored defense then there is nothing I can say. Like, I have no appropriate response for that sort of logic, no one does.

All I can say is you are comparing being able to defend yourself better without armor or weapons to loosing your mind and trying to murder your friend. You are comparing apples to nazi oranges.

The barbarian is just more equipped to take on things naked. That's how the barbarian was made. That isn't a knock against the fighter at all, they just suck at not having weapons and armor while fighting in a friendly match. It isn't a fair fight to begin with because the fighter isn't at 100%, but the fighter knew that to begin with and kinda deserves to be humiliated a bit in front of the town for his slight overconfidence.



Random Note: I love the idea that Folk Heroes have to come together every couple years or so and duke it out in a tournament to prove which region has the best Folk Hero...

Might make that the plot to my next session that is just about teaching people the battle mechanics of the game. Make a folk hero background that gives Athletics or Acrobatics and choice of one other skill...

[Rush]

I'm going to assume level one, since this is pre-story stuff. Have a solid Dex score and spam the Dodge action o impose disadvantage on the Barbarian's attacks until he's run out of rages (only two rounds, ideally, probably more than that, but you can take it since you've got Second Wind on your side).

At this point it's a pretty straightforward fight, though you're still in a tough spot because of your opponent's Unarmored Defense. I'd try to work with your environment to impose disadvantage, anything from unfair tactics, like mud-in-the-eyes, to Deception checks (if your Charisma is high enough) to pull a "What's that!?" This strategy requires some lenient DMing, though, as is the common complaint with Skills. If you think you can grapple them down, that might be the best way to go about it. Wrestle the Barbarian to the ground, and see if you can pin them to gain advantage on your attack rolls?

On another note, though, take TWF as your Fighting Style? This is a little iffy , but:

If you can attack with two weapons in one turn, I see no logical reason you cannot attack with both the hands you would otherwise be holding those weapons in.
Though this technically gives both of you an extra attack per round, I see no reason why the standard rules for TWF shouldn't apply, depriving the second attack of the Ability Modifier it would otherwise benefit from.
Aside from the fact that it's called "two weapon fighting", I see no real mechanical reason why you couldn't benefit from the TWF Fighting Style in this situation, allowing you to add your ABIL modifier to both hits, significantly increasing your damage output relative to the Barbarian's, even if you hit less often.


Also you can use Acton Surge to get in a nice what-for once, either way. If the above suggestion is ruled as okay, then it could be a nasty flurry of blows.

I can see a DM not allowing that, though, as I feel like something in Monk might invalidate it (I haven't looked at Monk yet, really). I'd maybe rule with you, if you tried, because I think it's super cool and not really unbalanced (how often would THIS ever come up?) or unfair. Also, it was my idea, so I'm biased. But, as is always the case, in the end it's up to your DM!

[Held]

Challenge him to best 3 out of 5. He can only rage for two of them.

[dev6500]

A friendly fight is a fair fight. Once you start cheating you are disrespecting your opponent and are not treating them friendly.

The barbarian has trained and really is made for this sort of fight. The fighter is not. In a friendly or unfriendly fight the barbarian wins at most levels. Using unarmored defense is not unfair, it is something they have learned to do that is not over the top or taking things to far. That is like saying if I fight someone I know is weaker than me in a sparing match I have to let them hit me in critical areas only.

Seriously, if you can't see the difference between using RAGE and unarmored defense then there is nothing I can say. Like, I have no appropriate response for that sort of logic, no one does.

All I can say is you are comparing being able to defend yourself better without armor or weapons to loosing your mind and trying to murder your friend. You are comparing apples to nazi oranges.

The barbarian is just more equipped to take on things naked. That's how the barbarian was made. That isn't a knock against the fighter at all, they just suck at not having weapons and armor while fighting in a friendly match. It isn't a fair fight to begin with because the fighter isn't at 100%, but the fighter knew that to begin with and kinda deserves to be humiliated a bit in front of the town for his slight overconfidence.

A more apt comparison for the friendly fight is a mma sparring match. Neither side is a mortal enemy before or after the fight but each side is going to use their skills to their best ability . If 1 person is good at both punching and dodging punches and the other is good at wrestling and submission holds but you outlaw wrestling, then there is little or no purpose to the match. Both sides are already holding back by not using deadly weapons. Why would a barbarian and a fighter have an issue with using their strongest attacks unarmed? As melee combatants and adventurers they get stabbed all the time. Why would they suddenly have a gentle sparring match? Is this polite society or the same roleplaying game where just about every campaign hosts at least 1 drunken bar room brawl?

Raging or menacing strike too hardcore for a bare-fisted fighting competition... perhaps our mindset is just too far apart.

[WickerNipple]

Yeah I'd have to say 'friendly village brawl' should exclude rage.

You're giving up all your toys and he gets to keep some of his. That's the definition of an unfair fight.

Just duke it out with nothing. No fighting styles or rages or second wind action nonsense.

[unwise]

If I were a GM, it would be clear that that hero of the fight will be the guy that entertains the crowd. They are more interested in theatrics than bloodshed. So the fight starts with a charisma check, as they smack talk each other and set up their persona. Some combat for throwing some punches, some athletics checks, then eventually some acrobatics checks, as they get to use the top rope, or pull off some great grapple reversals.

I'd also make punches do d4 or d6 damage to speed things up. Your HP total in this instance is the total amount of punishment you can take without getting obviously hurt and having the ref call it.

I have been thinking about this for a while, as the town my PCs are in are looking to throw a festival with lots of games and events.

[ChubbyRain]

I'm going to assume level one, since this is pre-story stuff. Have a solid Dex score and spam the Dodge action o impose disadvantage on the Barbarian's attacks until he's run out of rages (only two rounds, ideally, probably more than that, but you can take it since you've got Second Wind on your side).

At this point it's a pretty straightforward fight, though you're still in a tough spot because of your opponent's Unarmored Defense. I'd try to work with your environment to impose disadvantage, anything from unfair tactics, like mud-in-the-eyes, to Deception checks (if your Charisma is high enough) to pull a "What's that!?" This strategy requires some lenient DMing, though, as is the common complaint with Skills. If you think you can grapple them down, that might be the best way to go about it. Wrestle the Barbarian to the ground, and see if you can pin them to gain advantage on your attack rolls?

On another note, though, take TWF as your Fighting Style? This is a little iffy , but:

If you can attack with two weapons in one turn, I see no logical reason you cannot attack with both the hands you would otherwise be holding those weapons in.
Though this technically gives both of you an extra attack per round, I see no reason why the standard rules for TWF shouldn't apply, depriving the second attack of the Ability Modifier it would otherwise benefit from.
Aside from the fact that it's called "two weapon fighting", I see no real mechanical reason why you couldn't benefit from the TWF Fighting Style in this situation, allowing you to add your ABIL modifier to both hits, significantly increasing your damage output relative to the Barbarian's, even if you hit less often.


Also you can use Acton Surge to get in a nice what-for once, either way. If the above suggestion is ruled as okay, then it could be a nasty flurry of blows.

I can see a DM not allowing that, though, as I feel like something in Monk might invalidate it (I haven't looked at Monk yet, really). I'd maybe rule with you, if you tried, because I think it's super cool and not really unbalanced (how often would THIS ever come up?) or unfair. Also, it was my idea, so I'm biased. But, as is always the case, in the end it's up to your DM!

I need to check again but I'm pretty sure you can't two weapon fight with unarmed attacks. Why? Because unarmed attacks are not light weapons.

This isn't a homebrew section so I'm not going to assume that the DM will alter any mechanics, just set limits on what constitutes a friendly fight.

They are also strength based only, so no Dex fighter for this one.

The fighter will be doing 1+Str damage 1/round as will the barbarian... The barbarian will be harder to hit so chances are the barbarian wins.

Of course as a DM I would have a band of hobgoblins appear while the two are fighting... Steal a few children and then someone will chastise them for not using their abilities for useful things and just playing games.

[Giant2005]

Whether or not the Fighter stands a chance depends on what level you guys are and what subclass the Fighter has. Rage is off the table - if the Barbarian Rages, the Fighter should be grabbing his weapon and shield and doing whatever he can to knock the Barbarian out before someone gets killed. With Rage off the table, the Barbarian class and subclass doesn't really offer much of anything other than unarmored AC - Brutal Criticals will be virtually meaningless (only increasing damage by a single point) and Reckless Attack would be... Reckless (It would narrow the to-hit advantage that the Barb holds over the Fighter).
The Fighter however has abilities that could very well be used without the friendly fight getting out of control. Second Wind will be more valuable than the Barb's superior hit die at low levels and the following Battlemaster Maneuvers could all be productively used without crossing the line: Feinting Attack, Goading Attack, Lunging Attack, Parry, Precision Attack, Pushing Attack, Riposte and Trip Attack. It is likely that a Battlemaster would have at least 1 or 2 of those.
Feats are also a bit of a game changer - Tavern Brawler would obviously be an advantage in a fist fight and even crappy feats like Charger would prove to be a huge advantage if you are level 4 or lower.

[Zyzzyva]

Challenge him to best 3 out of 5. He can only rage for two of them.

:smallyuk: Held is the Barb player.


If I were a GM, it would be clear that that hero of the fight will be the guy that entertains the crowd. They are more interested in theatrics than bloodshed. So the fight starts with a charisma check, as they smack talk each other and set up their persona. Some combat for throwing some punches, some athletics checks, then eventually some acrobatics checks, as they get to use the top rope, or pull off some great grapple reversals.

I'd also make punches do d4 or d6 damage to speed things up. Your HP total in this instance is the total amount of punishment you can take without getting obviously hurt and having the ref call it.

I have been thinking about this for a while, as the town my PCs are in are looking to throw a festival with lots of games and events.

That's actually an interesting idea... by which I mean he dumped CHA and I didn't.

And eh, at low levels we're both doing 4 damage a round anyways (both with 16-17 STR to start).


Of course as a DM I would have a band of hobgoblins appear while the two are fighting... Steal a few children and then someone will chastise them for not using their abilities for useful things and just playing games.

:smalleek: That seems a little harsh punishment for two players trying to RP.

[MustacheFart]

I'm of the opinion that rage does NOT equal losing your mind and killing your friends since...oh I don't know...IT DOES NOT SAY THAT! It's simply a lame-ass stereotype concocted by people that I despise. I remind people that there's a difference between RAGE and FRENZY.

Frenzy means loss of control to the degree that you may attack allies. Rage does not.

Also, if I was in an unarmored, bare-knuckled brawl with a fighter ally and the DM told me rages weren't allowed then I'd demand maneuvers be off the table for the fighter. Period.

"Fairness" dictates that if I can't use my tricks of the trade then the fighter shouldn't be able to use his.

Unarmored defense isn't a trick of the trade either. It's physical toughness developed through harsh training. That's why they add CON to their AC. Con, you know, the quintessential stat for how tough you are? Yep. It's not something you can just turn off.

However if it were truly me having the fight, I as the barbarian, would goad and chastise the fighter until he couldn't resist breaking "the rules." As soon as he did, I would rage and destroy him.

Every class does not have to be good at everything. The barbarian should be better in such circumstances. That doesn't mean the fighter is bad as he has things he can do better. He should know the barb has the advantage here.

Barbarian > fighter in brawls because that's how it should be.

[Easy_Lee]

I still think it should be one or a series of opposed checks. It's not a real fight, so many things which one might do in a real fight are off the table. There's a reason real life fighting competitions ban dangerous or potentially lethal strikes and holds, after all. Making it a straight competition makes the most sense to me.

[dev6500]

I feel like everyone is forgetting the setting Dnd takes place in. This is a fantasy world with what appears to be the social norms of several centuries ago. In such a setting, the friendly requirement of the fight is that no one is wielding a weapon and trying to kill each other. As long as someone has some bandages at the ready, the loser is at 0 risk.

If you are a barbarian from this game setting, why would you have a wimpy fight? Furthermore, a barbarian would be embarrassed to win a fight that was rigged by the rules he set up. He takes a fighters armor and weapons away, limits the fighters attack options and doesn't lose any of his armor... the barbarian would be ashamed. Even if armor and weapons are off the table, rage and menacing strike should still be in there. I think 4 rounds of menacing strike would win the fight for the fighter...

[ChubbyRain]

:smalleek: That seems a little harsh punishment for two players trying to RP.

Not at all, it does a few things.

Gives them an NPC to hate (very important, if you can get PCs to feel strong emotions for a NPC you did your job)

Gives them an NPC to prove wrong. Having something to prove is a great motivation and gets people into a story line. Not just the PCs but the Players will want to prove this NPC wrong.

Gives them their wrestling match but also a plot hook. A wrestling match doesn't really advance the story, in any way, however if something happens during said wrestling match that they learn of right when it's over... They will see that their actions have conciquences within the world.

The hobgoblins hear about this grand wrestling match against two of the strongest people in the region of course they are going to plan around it. Or some random hob goblin learned of this while spying, and does something a bit minor (stealing one important kid).

Heroes can goof off, but sometimes that has dire consequences for others. This wrestling match is the perfect segway into another plot.

And having a hated, but correct in his or her own way NPC is a good way to do it.

Little old man runs up during the conclusion of the wrestling match.

"You fools you fools! Wasting time here by showing off your muscles! The kids... They have been taken! *points at the PCs* This is your group's fault. Hell I bet you was in on it! Distracting everyone so they could come and snatch our granbabies away!"

Something like that. Even better if you choose a race that one of the PCs are. Like a tribe of dragonborn, a group of elves, or even a muder of halflings*. Then the PCs really look a bit guilty.

*Note: I'm acyually not sure what a group of halflings are called but I think it would be fantastic if it was like a group of crows...You just never would expect that. A murder of crows, a murder of halflings...


I still think it should be one or a series of opposed checks. It's not a real fight, so many things which one might do in a real fight are off the table. There's a reason real life fighting competitions ban dangerous or potentially lethal strikes and holds, after all. Making it a straight competition makes the most sense to me.

Totes agree, series of opposed checks does make the most sense.

[MustacheFart]

He takes a fighters armor and weapons away, limits the fighters attack options and doesn't lose any of his armor... the barbarian would be ashamed.

Why wouldn't the barbarian lose any of his armor? If he's making the fighter take off his armor then the barbarian would/should take off his leather armor or whatever he's wearing...

Oh unless of course you were referring to his unarmored defense. If you were, then I'd say that argument is stupid and without merit seeing as in the very name it states UNARMORED. You're basically stating the barbarian be ashamed because he can't remove his skin and muscle.

I could see the barbarian responding to a fighter taking off his armor by saying "Hah. You're pretty puny under your tin can. Maybe we shouldn't fight. It wouldn't be fair." Then at that point it's on the fighter if he wants to continue.

Also I'm AFB. What's that fighter maneuver menacing strike you mentioned do?

[Galen]

I feel like everyone is forgetting the setting Dnd takes place in. This is a fantasy world with what appears to be the social norms of several centuries ago. In such a setting, the friendly requirement of the fight is that no one is wielding a weapon and trying to kill each other. As long as someone has some bandages at the ready, the loser is at 0 risk.

If you are a barbarian from this game setting, why would you have a wimpy fight? Furthermore, a barbarian would be embarrassed to win a fight that was rigged by the rules he set up. He takes a fighters armor and weapons away, limits the fighters attack options and doesn't lose any of his armor... the barbarian would be ashamed. Even if armor and weapons are off the table, rage and menacing strike should still be in there. I think 4 rounds of menacing strike would win the fight for the fighter...Why would he be ashamed?

Fezzik: We face each other as God intended. Sportsmanlike. No tricks, no weapons, skill against skill alone.
Man in Black: You mean, you'll put down your rock and I'll put down my sword, and we'll try and kill each other like civilized people?
Fezzik: I could kill you now.
Man in Black: Frankly, I think the odds are slightly in your favor at hand fighting.
Fezzik: [B]It's not my fault being the biggest and the strongest. I don't even exercise.

Although in this particular case Fezzik didn't actually win, but I hope you get the general idea. It's not his fault that he's bigger and stronger and has chest muscles that are as tough as armor. There's nothing to be ashamed of.

Also, back to tactics, there's a very narrow window for Menacing Strike to be useful, specifically from level 3 to level 5, since from level 6 the barbarian is immune to fear while raging.

[Zyzzyva]

<SNIP>

Yeah, but with my player hat on I don't read that as "actions have consequences"; I read that as "trying to do things in-character, especially if they're fun and not forwarding the plot, will be punished". I know that's not what you're trying to do, but it's how it would come across to me.


a murder of halflings

:belkar: :belkar: :belkar: :belkar: :belkar:

And I'm with the "unarmoured defence is legit" camp here. The Fezzik comparison seems exactly right - what, the Fighter isn't allowed to outwrestle the party Wizard now just because she's got 6 points of STR on him? The fact that the Barb is, in fact, tougher and angrier is neither here nor there; that's the fight they agreed to.


I could see the barbarian responding to a fighter taking off his armor by saying "Hah. You're pretty puny under your tin can. Maybe we shouldn't fight. It wouldn't be fair." Then at that point it's on the fighter if he wants to continue.

Which is legit, but the fight was basically all my doing anyways. I'd totally go ahead with it and lose (after all, that's what I canonically did :smallwink:).

[Ralanr]

I kinda imagined that both combatants would want to fight to the best of their abilities to make the fight more fun with the given circumstances. Sure the barbarian has a better chance of winning in a no armor, no weapon fight, but it could be taken as a sign of disrespect from the other character that the barbarian was holding back like that.

Plus they both agreed to the fight (as far as I know) so neither of them can call BS on using such abilities. I guess I'm too used to the kinda of characters that like to not hold back when fighting friends and vice versa.

[MustacheFart]

I kinda imagined that both combatants would want to fight to the best of their abilities to make the fight more fun with the given circumstances. Sure the barbarian has a better chance of winning in a no armor, no weapon fight, but it could be taken as a sign of disrespect from the other character that the barbarian was holding back like that.

Plus they both agreed to the fight (as far as I know) so neither of them can call BS on using such abilities. I guess I'm too used to the kinda of characters that like to not hold back when fighting friends and vice versa.

Agreed. Also in such a fight I'd pit my barbarian against any of my friend's fighters with the utmost confidence of winning. Bear totem gives me enough time to take whatever they dish out and then destroy them.

[Vogonjeltz]

Note that he has an advantage on Str checks when raging, so he's extremely likely to resist the shove. And for every round you're wasting with ineffectual shoving, he'll punch your sorry AC of 10 for 1d3+Str+2 damage. Doesn't seems like a winning plan.

1) All things being equal the probability of a third die rolling higher than the first two dice is ~20%. If the Fighter plays his terrain right, let's say pushing the Barbarian on slippery mud, he could plausibly argue for advantage on his roll as well (or disadvantage for the Barbarian, cancelling that advantage out).

2) Unarmed damage is 1, not 1d3, so it's 3+str mod while raging and 1+str mod when not (identical to the Fighter's) the real problem is that the Barbarian has resistance when raging.

3) He can still miss even an AC of 10.

That's why this is not only a theoretically winning plan, it is the only winning plan currently being put out there. If you have a plausible alternative, I'd be happy to debate it.

Actually, another possibility would be to rely on the dodge action, this would likely exhaust the Barbarian's rage as well (he doesn't get advantage on attack rolls from rage).

[Ralanr]

Actually, another possibility would be to rely on the dodge action, this would likely exhaust the Barbarian's rage as well (he doesn't get advantage on attack rolls from rage).

So basically dodge for ten rounds? Cause barbarians don't need to hit to keep rage.

[Easy_Lee]

So basically dodge for ten rounds? Cause barbarians don't need to hit to keep rage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe barbarians lose rage if they fail to attack or take damage in a round. So, if the fighter can outrun the barbarian for one round, then he may be able to exhaust that rage. Kind of meta gamey, but I suspect I'd run too if a barbarian opened up a can of rage-ass on me.

[ChubbyRain]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe barbarians lose rage if they fail to attack or take damage in a round. So, if the fighter can outrun the barbarian for one round, then he may be able to exhaust that rage. Kind of meta gamey, but I suspect I'd run too if a barbarian opened up a can of rage-ass on me.

When does a fighter ever outrun a barbarian?

Even a wild elf is 5' slower than a barbarian, depending on level of course, and it doesn't seem likely even at level 1.

Besides, if you are running that far away, the barbarian wins. 1-2 minutes of running away in a fight is giving up. You can't rope a dope in D&D.

Besides if the barbarian is allowed to rage (which I'm not sure he should but whatever) all he has to do is spit at the fighter for running away and that is an unarmed attack. Strength of mouth muscles + prof (barbarians better be prof in spitting) versus AC.

[MustacheFart]

1) All things being equal the probability of a third die rolling higher than the first two dice is ~20%. If the Fighter plays his terrain right, let's say pushing the Barbarian on slippery mud, he could plausibly argue for advantage on his roll as well (or disadvantage for the Barbarian, cancelling that advantage out).

2) Unarmed damage is 1, not 1d3, so it's 3+str mod while raging and 1+str mod when not (identical to the Fighter's) the real problem is that the Barbarian has resistance when raging.

3) He can still miss even an AC of 10.

That's why this is not only a theoretically winning plan, it is the only winning plan currently being put out there. If you have a plausible alternative, I'd be happy to debate it.

Actually, another possibility would be to rely on the dodge action, this would likely exhaust the Barbarian's rage as well (he doesn't get advantage on attack rolls from rage).

Before I tear into your post, I just wanted to say: You're banking on slippery mud? Yeah, okay LOL! If you're already looking to such extreme shenanigans as slippery mud in your combat plan then that speaks for itself. This case is already rapped up and the barbarian is off to have a drink while the fighter sleeps it off in the slippery mud.

Even if the fighter sits back and Dodges all day long that still wouldn't assure any victory for the fighter, if the barbarian is at all worth his salt. Here's why:

You seem to talk about the fighter shoving the barbarian but what about the barbarian doing the same? Did you forget that he has advantage on said strength checks when raging? The barbarian need only shove down the dodging fighter to cancel out any disadvantage making his follow up attacks a straight roll. Since a 10 AC fighter was mentioned that would mean a standard barbarian with 16 str would need only a 6 or higher to hit the fighter. That's a 75% chance he'll hit. Seems pretty good to me.

You also seem to forget that the barbarian could simply grapple the fighter. This wouldn't be subjected to the disadvantage from Dodge (read dodge if you think differently). Assuming the Barbarian successfully grapples the fighter, which is a safe bet since he has advantage on such grapple attempt, the fighter's speed drops to 0. If you recall, the dodge action states that it cannot be taken when your speed drops to 0. The fighter can no longer dodge.

At that point, the barbarian need only maintain the grapple while using subsequent attacks with his other hand (grapple only requires a single free hand) to beat the fighter's brains in.

So, yeah... my counter to dodge is grapple. Good luck outlasting the barbarian then.

Really all of this is just wasted conjecture for something I've already seen actually play out.

Here's my story:

Many of us are familiar with Hoard of the Dragon Queen. Those that are are probably also aware of Cyanwrath, a half-dragon fighter that challenges a member of the party at level 1. It's basically an unwinnable fight for most accounts. Well, many of you probably also know that whoever fights him gets his chance for a rematch a little later in the game.

That person who fought Cyanwrath in my game...was me...on my Half Orc Barbarian. During our first encounter he beat the snot out of me, I got back up at 1 hp (thanks to half-orc fail), and got smacked right back down in an attack that should've killed me but didn't only because we were all new to 5th ed, including the dm, and didn't understand the rules for killing someone outright through damage.

Well a level or two later (I think it was only 2nd level), it was about time for my rematch. I knew the numbers still didn't add up in my favor. That even with new found strength it wouldn't be enough to best him. So, being that I am a 17 wis barbarian I came up with a better strategy to turn the odds into my favor. Banking on the fact that he would challenge me alone to a rematch, I would decree that I got to choose the weapons we would use. Rules of a fair duel should dictate that the challenged get to pick the form of battle. That was my argument.

Bit of context, it was actually pretty funny because as we snuck up on Cyanwrath, my party whom previously swore to me that they wouldn't stand in my way of a rematch [I had made a big speech prior to this point and got each of their words that they would let me have my rematch], suddenly got in my way... Wanting nothing to do with that lying nonsense, I had very little patience.

Our conversations went something like this:

Party: "Well, hold on. We just want to come up with a plan."
Me: "I have a plan already. Trust me."
Party: "Well, what is it?"
Me: "Don't worry about it. I got this! Move aside!"
Party: "No, we want to make a plan."
Me: "There's no time for that. I have a plan already. MOVE!"
Party: "Then tell us your plan."
Me: "Cyanwrath is just inside! This is not the place for that! Out of my way!"
*I tell the DM I am moving in*
*Someone in party (can't remember who) tells the DM they move to step in front of me and grab me. I think it was the cleric*
Me: "Listen and listen well! You promised me that you would not stand in my way! If you keep standing in my way, I will unleash my rage as I either toss you aside or step on your faces to get to my enemy. I'm going in!"
*Party doesn't back down*
*DM calls for rolls*
*Barbarian beats those trying to hold him back on the rolls and...you guessed it...barbarian throws & steps over/on party members to move into room*

Anyway, back on topic. I get into the room, Cyanwrath recognizes me and sure enough, challenges me to a rematch. Just as the DM is about to call for initiative, I dramatically interject! "Wait one moment! As the code of honor dictates for a duel, I, Ruminawi, as the challenged exercise my right to choose the weapons of our duel!" The dm looks slightly puzzled but allows me to continue. The party is pretty damn puzzled at this point too. "This rematch shall be settled through a sheer measure of strength! I challenge you, Cyanwrath...... TO FISTICUFFS!" (yes I said Fisticuffs lol). Most people, including the DM were shocked by that, and the DM rules that Cyanwrath agreed.

I now had a mathematical shot. So, we went round after round of us beating on each other back and forth. He burned some of his abilities (action surge, second wind, maybe a maneuver or two) trying to take the lead but he NEVER DID. In fact, as tedious as it was it became gradually clearer and clearer that I was pulling ahead. His base damage, though slightly higher, was cut down by my resistance thanks to rage to much less than the damage I was dealing him. His extra attacks often missed thanks to my Unarmored Defense. This went on and on as I pulled away.

As boring as it may have been to some, it was actually pretty great to me because one by one I could see members of my party start to realize that I was beating a tougher opponent, one that essentially out-leveled me. The same guy that had stomped the ground with me only so recently.

After I got Cyanwrath under half max HP, the DM did what I suspected he might do. He realized that he was going to lose, fired off a breath weapon, and then tried to continue the duel. Even though he cheated there, I allowed it, took it, and still kept serving up a can of whoop ass. Finally, after a few more rounds, the DM had Cyanwrath get sick of it and he pulled a weapon.

I knew it would happen. I immediately looked at my wife (party rogue) whom I told my plan prior and she threw me my halberd. Then it was on like donkey kong. Cyanwrath's buddies jumped in and so did the party.

Guess what still happened? Our party fighter (another half orc) got his ass kicked in by a half-health Cyanwrath and was dropped to 0. I barely went below half hp that entire fight.

My barbarian now wears Cyanwrath's skull on his right shoulder. I'm currently working on collecting Rezmir's skull for my left shoulder. After that, I'll add an ancient dragon skull as a shield and if I can shrink another one down further, I'll make a helmet.


My long ass point is, I've done the barbarian VS fighter in a fist fight---one where the fighter outleveled me, was still wearing armor, and had much better numbers overall. In all other forms of a 1 on 1 he would have won. In a fist fight, I kicked his ass.

Thread done. lol

[Ralanr]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe barbarians lose rage if they fail to attack or take damage in a round. So, if the fighter can outrun the barbarian for one round, then he may be able to exhaust that rage. Kind of meta gamey, but I suspect I'd run too if a barbarian opened up a can of rage-ass on me.

Pg48 "It ends early if you are knocked unconscious or if your turn ends and you haven't attacked a hostile creature since your last turn or taken damage since then"

Barbs can miss all they want, it'll probably make em madder.

[SharkForce]

When does a fighter ever outrun a barbarian?

Even a wild elf is 5' slower than a barbarian, depending on level of course, and it doesn't seem likely even at level 1.

Besides, if you are running that far away, the barbarian wins. 1-2 minutes of running away in a fight is giving up. You can't rope a dope in D&D.

Besides if the barbarian is allowed to rage (which I'm not sure he should but whatever) all he has to do is spit at the fighter for running away and that is an unarmed attack. Strength of mouth muscles + prof (barbarians better be prof in spitting) versus AC.

if you're a battlemaster, you could always knock them prone with a maneuver and run away. the barbarian will then need to spend half their movement getting up, and the remaining movement will likely be less than the figther's movement. the fighter then moves away. the barbarian's turn comes up, he can't reach the fighter (or can reach but not attack; spitting range is unlikely to be long enough to reach even if you consider it an attack, which is pretty sketchy) and the fighter simply readies to attack after the rage ends. the barbarian's turn starts again, and the barbarian has neither attacked nor been attacked, and so the rage ends. lather, rinse, and repeat as necessary.

[Ralanr]

Snip cause long but interesting story


I've had a similar experience with my dragonborn barbarian. Seems that if you can get into a fist fight against a fighter with a barbarian, the barbarian is gonna push out ahead. How's the dragonbreath cheating though? It's as natural to him as your fists are to you.

[MustacheFart]

if you're a battlemaster, you could always knock them prone with a maneuver and run away. the barbarian will then need to spend half their movement getting up, and the remaining movement will likely be less than the figther's movement. the fighter then moves away. the barbarian's turn comes up, he can't reach the fighter (or can reach but not attack; spitting range is unlikely to be long enough to reach even if you consider it an attack, which is pretty sketchy) and the fighter simply readies to attack after the rage ends. the barbarian's turn starts again, and the barbarian has neither attacked nor been attacked, and so the rage ends. lather, rinse, and repeat as necessary.

Easily countered by the barbarian. If the barbarian is going to put up with "running from a duel" cowardly tactics then he can pull out the shenanigans too!

Rogthar the Barbarian: "Get it together Rogthar! Look at him run from you! He mocks you!" *punches self to inflict some damage*.

Barbarian has now taken damage, can get up within his rage, and continue to chase down the fighter. The barbarian has several rounds to catch up the fighter though he won't need it with increased move speed.

[MustacheFart]

I've had a similar experience with my dragonborn barbarian. Seems that if you can get into a fist fight against a fighter with a barbarian, the barbarian is gonna push out ahead. How's the dragonbreath cheating though? It's as natural to him as your fists are to you.

It was cheating because I called for fisticuffs. I called for bareknuckles and he accepted. A breath weapon isn't a fist. He didn't lack fists so it was cheating. The DM and Cyanwrath, both knew it was. The DM thought that would provoke me to drawing my weapon but like a boss, I held my own. I wanted him to kneel before Zod....I mean Ruminawi.

[Zyzzyva]

<snip>

Well, in principle Cyanwrath isn't totally optimized to be Fighter McBarbPunch, The Barbarian-Puncher. But it certainly points down the same lines as the other math people have done.

Also, great story. :smallbiggrin:

[Galen]

My barbarian now wears Cyanwrath's skull on his right shoulder. I'm currently working on collecting Rezmir's skull for my left shoulder. After that, I'll add an ancient dragon skull as a shield and if I can shrink another one down further, I'll make a helmet.
A word of warning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigurd_Eysteinsson) for the wise

[Easy_Lee]

When does a fighter ever outrun a barbarian?

Even a wild elf is 5' slower than a barbarian, depending on level of course, and it doesn't seem likely even at level 1.

Besides, if you are running that far away, the barbarian wins. 1-2 minutes of running away in a fight is giving up. You can't rope a dope in D&D.

Besides if the barbarian is allowed to rage (which I'm not sure he should but whatever) all he has to do is spit at the fighter for running away and that is an unarmed attack. Strength of mouth muscles + prof (barbarians better be prof in spitting) versus AC.

Fighter moves then uses his action to dash. Even assuming the barbarian got his (relatively inconsequential) bonus attack, he isn't twice as fast as the fighter. So unless there's some kind of bonus action dashing going on, the barbarian will be outranged sooner than later. If he uses his action to dash and catch the fighter, he'll lose his rage at the end of the round.

That said, and as others have stated, nobody should rage in a friendly brawl. "Rage" is the exact moment when sports stop being fun. A brawl should be a series of opposed skill / stat checks, not an actual fight.

[MustacheFart]

That said, and as others have stated, nobody should rage in a friendly brawl. "Rage" is the exact moment when sports stop being fun. A brawl should be a series of opposed skill / stat checks, not an actual fight.

I would argue differently. I need only cite MMA as my source. I also don't define Rage as mindless bloodlust or any of the other close-minded ways of seeing it as it doesn't need to be. There's more than enough historical evidence both in D&D and real life that support rage being more than a mindless bloodlust.

[JNAProductions]

Rage is not mindless bloodlust. It is, however, combat rage. It is not designed for friendly duels.

At 1st level, you can only do it twice a day. Why? It's flat-out dangerous to push yourself further than that. No need to do that in non-lethal friendly fights.

[Rad Mage]

I would argue differently. I need only cite MMA as my source.

I would hesitate before calling MMA a "friendly" brawl. There's a big difference between a sparring match to prove your strength and trying to outright hurt or otherwise incapacitate your sparring partner.

[Easy_Lee]

I would hesitate before calling MMA a "friendly" brawl. There's a big difference between a sparring match to prove your strength and trying to outright hurt or otherwise incapacitate your sparring partner.

Exactly. In addition to that, there are a wide variety of strikes and holds which are banned in MMA: No punching your opponent in the back of the head, no groin shots, etc. If we assume that a "rage," as the name would imply, is the point where anger takes over, it may not be a good idea to do that in the MMA, let alone a friendly brawl. Barbarians cannot concentrate on spells, if they have them, while in a rage, leading me to believe that it's not a level-headed moment for the barbarian. He's more than likely to hurt someone, something I presume he does not want to do in a friendly fight.

And regardless of all that, nobody wants to roll initiative and 40 rounds of combat, hitting each other with 1 damage weapons. Just make it a series of checks, a skill contest, for the sake of player engagement if nothing else.

[MustacheFart]

If we assume that a "rage," as the name would imply, is the point where anger takes over, it may not be a good idea to do that in the MMA, let alone a friendly brawl. Barbarians cannot concentrate on spells, if they have them, while in a rage, leading me to believe that it's not a level-headed moment for the barbarian. He's more than likely to hurt someone, something I presume he does not want to do in a friendly fight.

You know what they say about assuming...

Also you do know that in absolutely no edition of D&D does it state such about rage being such a loss of control. In fact, the not being able to cast spells during a rage is a rule that did not exist prior to 3rd ed. Given that rage predates that, one could easily argue that such a rule was put in for balance reasons not to express that rage is uncontrollable. If you remove that rule then rage becomes an OP buff worth a 1 level into barbarian for pretty much any class.

Also as far as D&D is concerned, damage is damage. There's nothing that says a barbarian in rage would "break bones" or hurt someone in any way different than they're already hurting them. If they're not raging they're still doing that 1 + str damage per hit. There's absolutely nothing that states that the extra damage from rage is anything other than damage.

As far as 5th ed goes, the barbarian is more defensive when raging and simply tosses in a very small splash of extra damage. Mechanically speaking there's absolutely zero reason to keep it out of a "friendly" brawl.

The entire argument to remove it is based on fluff and misinterpretations of what the barbarian's rage really is. That's not enough for me personally.

[Zyzzyva]

For what little it's worth, the barbarian I actually fought fluffed it as "Zen martial trance thingy" and dealt only nonlethal in the fistfight.

[Galen]

D&D takes place in a world where a single night worth of rest completely heals all wounds, and an hour worth of rest can heal a pretty serious wound. I think the standards for what constitutes a friendly brawl should be very different from our world.

[MustacheFart]

For what little it's worth, the barbarian I actually fought fluffed it as "Zen martial trance thingy" and dealt only nonlethal in the fistfight.


D&D takes place in a world where a single night worth of rest completely heals all wounds, and an hour worth of rest can heal a pretty serious wound. I think the standards for what constitutes a friendly brawl should be very different from our world.

+1

Further reason rage shouldn't be out of line in a friendly brawl.

[Mara]

Of course the barbar could rage.

Mechanics work regardless of whether or not you feel like they work. That is why we are playing D&D not listening to someone shout at an adventure path book.

[Vogonjeltz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe barbarians lose rage if they fail to attack or take damage in a round. So, if the fighter can outrun the barbarian for one round, then he may be able to exhaust that rage. Kind of meta gamey, but I suspect I'd run too if a barbarian opened up a can of rage-ass on me.

Exactly correct. And I know it's meta-gamey, but the question was to ask if there was a way, not how reasonable it is for everyone to know it.


When does a fighter ever outrun a barbarian?

Even a wild elf is 5' slower than a barbarian, depending on level of course, and it doesn't seem likely even at level 1.

Besides, if you are running that far away, the barbarian wins. 1-2 minutes of running away in a fight is giving up. You can't rope a dope in D&D.

Besides if the barbarian is allowed to rage (which I'm not sure he should but whatever) all he has to do is spit at the fighter for running away and that is an unarmed attack. Strength of mouth muscles + prof (barbarians better be prof in spitting) versus AC.

Level 1 is when this is theoretically happening. If it was level 3+ the Fighter can win fairly easily courtesy of Superiority Dice (the Barbarian's Path abilities are next to useless in a 1 on 1 fight).

Spitting isn't an unarmed attack.


Before I tear into your post, I just wanted to say:

I find your tone needlessly condescending.

The OP asked how, if at all, the Fighter could beat the Barbarian unarmed at level 1. I gave an answer, which remains within the realm of possibility despite it being not particularly likely to occur. (There's no method that absolutely guarantees success for either side, you'd do well to remember that next time instead of launching into a self-congratulatory anecdote to try and refute the theoretical).


Pg48 "It ends early if you are knocked unconscious or if your turn ends and you haven't attacked a hostile creature since your last turn or taken damage since then"

Barbs can miss all they want, it'll probably make em madder.

Yes, and if you can shove the Barbarian to the ground it requires 1/2 his movement to stand up. That means he can't actually catch you if you move >1/2 his movement away, which in turn means his rage will end.

Easy_Lee's solution is also elegant though, I forgot about Dashing. Then they want to grapple/shove the Barbarian as soon as possible to enable advantage. which is the starting point assuming Rage is considered cheating in the ground rules of the match.


D&D takes place in a world where a single night worth of rest completely heals all wounds, and an hour worth of rest can heal a pretty serious wound. I think the standards for what constitutes a friendly brawl should be very different from our world.

Hit points lost don't mean wounds taken. Resting in an inn does nothing for the lingering wounds from the DMG.
So I don't think the standard should vary significantly at all.

[Galen]

The OP asked how, if at all, the Fighter could beat the Barbarian unarmed at level 1. I gave an answer, which remains within the realm of possibility despite it being not particularly likely to occur.It's not an answer to anything. It's just a very convoluted way to lose. Of all the possible plans, it may seem like it does something because it's simply too convoluted to realize it's losing just as decisively as anything else. Let's do some numbers.

Given that the barb has Advantage on Str checks, the fighter's chance to shove him successfully is only 1/3[see comment 1]. This means on average the Barbarian will get 4 attack while the fighter is busy shoving (the fourth one is the OA when the fighter runs away, albeit at a disadvantage). Each attack is at +5 vs. AC 10, ie. 80% chance to hit, or 64% with disadvantage. Statistically, 3[see comment 2] attacks of those 4 should hit, for 6 damage each (1+Str+2), or a total of 18 damage. It costs eating up ~18 damage to shove the barbarian and run away. But okay, the fighter has Second Wind, so 18 damage possibly doesn't kill him. So let's say he gets out of it alive. Well, all he achieved was to make the barbarian use up *one* instance of rage. He still needs to get back there and do it one more time. How much damage is that, statistically speaking? 36.

Oh, and even if he does make the barbarian use up the second rage and by some miracle lives, let's say the barb rolls poorly and the fighter rolls well on Second Wind, we still have a very badly battered fighter with no more Second Wind and AC 10 vs. the completely healthy Barbarian with AC 14 or 15. In summary, it's not a winning plan at all, it's in fact less likely to achieve anything than straight punchout. At least if he does straight punchout, the fighter gets to inflict a bit of damage before he loses.

1) Actually a bit less likely than 1/3, since in contests, a tie means status quo is maintained (ie. Barbarian remains on his feet)
2) 3.04, but who's counting



(There's no method that absolutely guarantees success for either side, you'd do well to remember that next time instead of launching into a self-congratulatory anecdote to try and refute the theoretical).The anecdote merely serves to strengthen that which is intuitively understood - that Barbarian is better than fighter in an unarmed brawl.


If it was level 3+ the Fighter can win fairly easily courtesy of Superiority Dice (the Barbarian's Path abilities are next to useless in a 1 on 1 fight).The sweet spot for the fighter is levels 3-5: when Menacing Strike is available, but Mindless Rage is not. In this case he actually has a good chance. Other than that, even superiority dice won't help.

[Ralanr]

Hit points lost don't mean wounds taken. Resting in an inn does nothing for the lingering wounds from the DMG.


Are hit points given a good detailed explanation in the PHB? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just curious since the PHB has (arguably I'm sure) more non-optional rules than the DMG.

Personally I don't know how to view hitpoints. Mechanically it's solid and makes sense. Outside of that...well there comes a time where I have to wonder how something like a harpy (I was going to use goblin, but they have low hitpoints) who doesn't wear any armor can keep moving after being hit with a maul. Blades? Sure you can dodge and take some smaller cuts (I'm not very knowledgeable on wounds in combat, so this is over or under estimation) but I'm not sure on blunt weapons.

[MeeposFire]

Are hit points given a good detailed explanation in the PHB? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just curious since the PHB has (arguably I'm sure) more non-optional rules than the DMG.

Personally I don't know how to view hitpoints. Mechanically it's solid and makes sense. Outside of that...well there comes a time where I have to wonder how something like a harpy (I was going to use goblin, but they have low hitpoints) who doesn't wear any armor can keep moving after being hit with a maul. Blades? Sure you can dodge and take some smaller cuts (I'm not very knowledgeable on wounds in combat, so this is over or under estimation) but I'm not sure on blunt weapons.

Best not to go too far down that rabbit hole since it leads to long arguments with many people. Essentially HP can represent whatever you when you want it. Sometimes it is just a cut. Other times it is a hit on your shield that makes your arm numb. In a different time your luck prevented a nasty wound. Of course this is the sort of explanation Gygax espoused.

[ChubbyRain]

Spitting isn't an unarmed attack.


That's funny, I'm pretty sure you aren't "armed" when you attack someone with your spit.

I guess dragons never attack anyone with their breath weapons either. The only difference is that yours doesn't hurt as much and targets AC.

Call it an improvised unarmed attack if you wish. I for one think a barbarian spitting at you (never mind raging) would do some damage. Like if Bullseye spit at you and killed you.

[Ralanr]

Best not to go too far down that rabbit hole since it leads to long arguments with many people. Essentially HP can represent whatever you when you want it. Sometimes it is just a cut. Other times it is a hit on your shield that makes your arm numb. In a different time your luck prevented a nasty wound. Of course this is the sort of explanation Gygax espoused.

Good call.

[Vogonjeltz]

Each attack is at +5 vs. AC 10

10 + dex mod (so at least a 12 given that the top 3 will probably be in str/con/dex) still a 40% miss chance, not as open and shut as you indicate.


In summary, it's not a winning plan at all

Like I didn't say exactly that? Here's me being quoted by you: "which remains within the realm of possibility despite it being not particularly likely to occur".

See that last phrase? Not likely, but still possible. He asked if it was possible way, not likely one.


Is there any possible build for a Fighter that would let them beat a Barbarian in the fight?

This is a possible build, just not a likely one. If you have some problem with the question direct it to him, not me.


Are hit points given a good detailed explanation in the PHB?

Yes. Page 12 and page 197 (text box "Describing the Effects of Damage") When someone deals damage it represents the character having their luck and ability worn down. They're getting tired, maybe some scraping or tiny cuts, bruising, or having the wind knocked out of them by dodging the actual attack. When the character is reduced to 0 it represents them taking a real hit. Per the optional DMG rules there are the possibility of lingering wounds (losing body parts, internal injury, broken bones, etc... that require either magical healing or extended days of rest).

Personally I prefer playing with the lingering wounds because I like my characters to have a real sense of their mortality.


That's funny, I'm pretty sure you aren't "armed" when you attack someone with your spit.

Absolutely true, however it's also "ranged", which is a property the unarmed strikes don't have. So that clearly doesn't work.


I guess dragons never attack anyone with their breath weapons either.

As a matter of fact, the rule of thumb on attacks is that they use attack rolls. If the dragon breath doesn't then, by that metric, it isn't really either. Grappling someone isn't an attack really either for the same reason. Now, I might not impose that in a game, but it's technically true by the rules.

[ChubbyRain]

Snip

Look at the rules for improvised weapon.

To use a improvised unarmed attack would mean that the barbarian may or may not have prof (feat determines this), have a range of 20/60, deal 1 bludgeoning damage. Spit is a held object in your mouth if nothing else.

"I'm making an improvised ranged unarmed strike to spit at my enemy. It will have a normal range of 20 and a long range of 60. Unarmed strikes are strength based. My attack roll will be 1d20 + Str as I don't have proficiency in improvised weapons. My damage roll will be 1 + Str modifier bludgeoning damage"

Within the rules of the game and is awesome. If the Fighter doesn't want to fight then you will shame him, shame him hard. Now not only do you need to gag a bound caster but also a bound raging barbarian, though i suspect with all the crazy rage induced talk one would gag them anyways.

I know want to see a barbarian subclass that revolves around rage spitting.

[Raimun]

5th edition is not about options for the player, so who ever is playing the fighter (he? you?) will be most likely screwed.

It's not like you could have one of those helpful Pathfinder-style archetypes. Or Feats that actually help you.

Still, because of the much vaunted "bounded accuracy" it will still be a toss up, because 5e hates static modifiers that actually matter*.

*Meaning it would be possible to play a melee warrior who hits with a natural attack roll of '2'.

[ChubbyRain]

5th edition is not about options for the player, so who ever is playing the fighter (he? you?) will be most likely screwed.

It's not like you could have one of those helpful Pathfinder-style archetypes. Or Feats that actually help you.

Still, because of the much vaunted "bounded accuracy" it will still be a toss up, because 5e hates static modifiers that actually matter*.

*Meaning it would be possible to play a melee warrior who hits with a natural attack roll of '2'.

Well since they are low level none of your anti-bounded accuracy stuff matters since even in 3e you don't typically hit on a natural roll of 2 at low levels.

Outside of cheese 3e/4e works on the bounded accuracy principal for the most part. It isn't till you can raise more and more ability scores and get those extra bonuses does it break away from it.

Macrofeats and tons better than micro feats. All those +2 skill bonus feats were never taken for a reason. People actually take actor now. Feats that give bonus actions are nice, the system is still stacked again the fighter who wants to control or defend but other classes these feata work greatly for them since they have class features that also help.

Blaming feats for the short comings of the class is silly. Besides, 3.P has no room to defend the fighter, 5e Fighter is the same horrible class as it was back then. Except now that one role they can do works well in the new system (striker/big stupid fighter). The 3.P fighter has tons of feats and archetypes and stuff and yet they are still tier 6/5. Within its own system at least the 5e fighter is tier 4.

I do agree that player option is at an all time low, but 5e only has a year under its belt. There is still time for them to bring out a decent version of the fighter. Hell, they were talking about ranger options already due to the negative feedback of the surveys.

[LordVonDerp]

There is a huge difference between getting mad and going into Rage. Getting that serious is like pulling a knife during a basketball game.





True enough. Luckily Barbarian Rage doesn't depend on anger.

On the other hand, Mike Tyson certainly got that angry, but then he could never last past one round anyway.

[ChubbyRain]

True enough. Luckily Barbarian Rage doesn't depend on anger.

On the other hand, Mike Tyson certainly got that angry, but then he could never last past one round anyway.

The words primal ferocity, rage, and raging disagree.

The word rage is in the description of the ability itself. Rage literally is a feeling of intense, violent, or growing anger.

Primal Ferocity: Ferocity is the act or state of being ferocious. Ferocious is defined as savagely fierce, cruel, or violent.

I'm sorry but rage has everything to do with anger and being savagely fierce.

Like bringing a knife to a basketball game and stabbing someone because they scored against you.

Mike Tyson would have probably been a better example but I didn't think many people would catch that reference anymore.

[Derenoc]

When you are at the point of anger where the adrenaline and relaxed safety restrictions on your muscles causes you to have advantage on all strength checks and +2 to damage, you are trying to kill a mother****er. You do not get to enjoy the benefits of completely ditching restraint whilst simultaneously exercising restraint.

[Mara]

When you are at the point of anger where the adrenaline and relaxed safety restrictions on your muscles causes you to have advantage on all strength checks and +2 to damage, you are trying to kill a mother****er. You do not get to enjoy the benefits of completely ditching restraint whilst simultaneously exercising restraint.
I would not write flavor such that it changes the rules.

[Easy_Lee]

Some of the people in this thread don't think a barbarian should enter a rage during a friendly brawl. There is merit to that thought.

Others want to see a barbarian rage out just to beat up another PC with his fists. This is in spite of arguments that the fighter might use his action to dash + move away, that the fighter would call foul play at a raging barbarian, or that he might take up his weapon in response to a suddenly deadly threat.

Then there are those of us who think it should be a skill contest, opposed athletics for example, and that the rest of you are approaching this problem from completely the wrong angle.

[Rad Mage]

My question is not can the barbarian rage but should the barbarian rage. There is nothing saying that he can't pop rage in a friendly brawl. But there is also nothing saying that the spectators don't gang up on him when he does, pull him of the fighter, and sit him down in the corner with a stern "Dude! Not cool!"

[Vogonjeltz]

Spit is a held object in your mouth if nothing else.

It's saliva and deals no damage because it resembles no weapon that is held in one or two hands (not mouth) which is itself a requirement of the improvised weapon. So no, I see not even a chance of this being a thing. If you want to suggest something remotely plausible, it might be worth discussing.


Some of the people in this thread don't think a barbarian should enter a rage during a friendly brawl. There is merit to that thought.

Others want to see a barbarian rage out just to beat up another PC with his fists. This is in spite of arguments that the fighter might use his action to dash + move away, that the fighter would call foul play at a raging barbarian, or that he might take up his weapon in response to a suddenly deadly threat.

Then there are those of us who think it should be a skill contest, opposed athletics for example, and that the rest of you are approaching this problem from completely the wrong angle.

A good summation. You could even make it a series of contests (athletics to determine who gets a hold on the other, acrobatics/athletics to try and break a hold, etc...).

[MustacheFart]

Then there are those of us who think it should be a skill contest, opposed athletics for example, and that the rest of you are approaching this problem from completely the wrong angle.

I've actually never stated what I think it should be. I merely disagreed with the people who stated that the fighter stands a chance vs the barbarian in a brawl resolved through actual unarmed fighting. The only potential strategy presented for the fighter was to run away which isn't fighting at all and therefore constitutes a forfeit of the match.

I also disagreed with everyone stating that a barbarian should not rage during a friendly brawl for the SOLE reason of that EVERY SINGLE ONE of their justifications were based on fluff/flavor that exists absolutely nowhere within the written rules for 5th ed rage (or even 3rd ed really). Hell, there is nothing that states how a barbarian rages.

In fact, I've added flavor to my current barbarian to counteract that stereotype of mindless rage. My barbarian uses hashish to enter his state of increased combat prowess. That's just as viable and supported as anyone else's opinion on barbarian rage.

Hell, you could play it off like Downy Jr. in Sherlock. You're calculating their every move and then act in a manner to completely disrupt their every move. When the movie sped back up to real time it sure appeared like he may have been raging for all intents and purposes.

The real issue is people's close-mindedness regarding rage. That's been an issue probably as long as the lawful stupid paladin.

Personally if I were to make the brawl resolved by skill checks then I would state "Okay make such and such skill checks. Feel free to use whatever valid abilities you have to benefit those checks." The barbarian would rage, get advantage on the checks, and more often then not, beat the fighter because THAT'S WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN!

Not every class has to be equal at everything.

[Ralanr]

I've actually never stated what I think it should be. I merely disagreed with the people who stated that the fighter stands a chance vs the barbarian in a brawl resolved through actual unarmed fighting. The only potential strategy presented for the fighter was to run away which isn't fighting at all and therefore constitutes a forfeit of the match.



That's pretty much my strategy when I realize I can't beat the fighter in a damage race. Remove the weapons and beat him/her into the ground.

[SharkForce]

the fighter isn't running away. he's backing off until the barbarian's rage ends. we may represent it as the fighter backing away after knocking the barbarian down, and then sometime later in the turn the barbarian moves towards the fighter, but practically speaking the fighter is more likely just maintaining distance and waiting for the barbarian to expend his strength, while the barbarian is trying to get close to the fighter to keep his rage going. both are moving at the same time, and if the barbarian is not moving towards the fighter, he's backing off just as much as the fighter is.

[Held]

I'm surprised no one mentioned that the barbarian can only sustain his rage when attacking a hostile creature. Clearly the fighter can just drop hostility (is he ever considered hostile in a friendly fight?) and take two punches, then resume the fight without rage.

Did that seem sarcastic? It was so slightly. The question, "how to fight a barbarian level 1 as fighter level 1 without weapons or armour?" isn't answered by questioning whether such a fight should even be considered fair, and whether or not rage is an appropriate option for such a fight. After all, the OP isn't asking whether fighting a barbarian at level 1 is fair. OP's simply asking a mechanical way to deal with it.

So, assuming that both parties do not quabble about whether it's fair or not for the barbarian to rage, and assuming a fighter counts as hostile for the duration of the fight (I certainly wouldn't want to bank on that technicality), I think the best option thus far presented is to avoid the barbarian or use the terrain to your advantage. If you're unfortunately a fighter who thinks such tactics cowardly or beneath him, or your Intelligence score doesn't let you plan, you'd best fall on your knees and pray to RNGesus.

Or, as I said, challenge him to best 3 out of 5 and pray the three rounds without Rage work to your advantage. Do remember you can only second wind for one of them, unless you have the opportunity of a short rest between each encounter. Probably should, HP regains and all.

[MustacheFart]

the fighter isn't running away. he's backing off until the barbarian's rage ends. we may represent it as the fighter backing away after knocking the barbarian down, and then sometime later in the turn the barbarian moves towards the fighter, but practically speaking the fighter is more likely just maintaining distance and waiting for the barbarian to expend his strength, while the barbarian is trying to get close to the fighter to keep his rage going. both are moving at the same time, and if the barbarian is not moving towards the fighter, he's backing off just as much as the fighter is.

Okay I've been called condescending in this thread but am I really supposed to take this post above seriously? So, you're really going to argue semantics? Stating "backing off" isn't the same as running away? We're not talking the bob and weave here. The fighter is not juking around. We're talking the fighter moving his max speed of 25'-30' away from the barbarian and possibly using a dash action to move double that. That's a huge distance! Any person who does that during a "friendly brawl" would be viewed as running away. I don't even need to argue that. It's that obvious. This isn't a ranged brawl or some competition of skills. It was quite clearly specified in the first post that this was a brawl. In other words, a melee combat between two individuals. The minute you run 25' feet away you're no longer in melee. You're running... call it what you want but it's running away. PERIOD.


I'm surprised no one mentioned that the barbarian can only sustain his rage when attacking a hostile creature. Clearly the fighter can just drop hostility (is he ever considered hostile in a friendly fight?) and take two punches, then resume the fight without rage.

That's a very good point but I also agree with you that you'd be taking a serious risk on banking that you, as the fighter in the brawl, could drop hostility. I would think the minute the bell dings for this brawl that you accepted you would be considered hostile for most dms.

Even if you could somehow drop hostility you're forgetting one other aspect of the barbarian's rage. I've mentioned in here before but I'll mention it again. The barbarian's rage states he must attack a hostile creature OR TAKE DAMAGE to continue the rage. That means the barbarian can damage himself to keep his rage going. He can merely punch himself once to keep it going til he can close the distance with the fighter (solves the scenario presented by the people arguing the fighter can, ridiculously and stupidly but somehow without forfeiting, back off from the barbarian).

So yeah... you knock me down. I spend half of my movement to get back up, run the rest of my movement, and then punch myself for (1 + str) / 2 [thanks to my own rage resistance]. With a 16 strength that means I take a measely 2 damage to continue my rage.

Also don't forget that the fighter still provokes an attack of opportunity from the prone barbarian when he goes to move away...

[SharkForce]

you're playing it as if the fight is turn-based. mechanically, it is, but practically, it is supposed to represent a real-time fight, and we simply don't have the ability to create convenient rules to more accurately reflect that.

this fight as described iirc was in difficult terrain (i seem to recall a phrase like "muddy pit" being thrown around).

so the fighter is actually moving about 15 feet, then the barbarian gets up and moves half his movement (5-10 feet, depending)... except that mechanically the fighter is backing off while the barbarian moves forward, and in actuality they're staying between 5 and 10 feet apart the entire time. unless the barbarian doesn't follow, in which case he is backing off just as much as the fighter is.

[MustacheFart]

you're playing it as if the fight is turn-based. mechanically, it is, but practically, it is supposed to represent a real-time fight, and we simply don't have the ability to create convenient rules to more accurately reflect that.

this fight as described iirc was in difficult terrain (i seem to recall a phrase like "muddy pit" being thrown around).

so the fighter is actually moving about 15 feet, then the barbarian gets up and moves half his movement (5-10 feet, depending)... except that mechanically the fighter is backing off while the barbarian moves forward, and in actuality they're staying between 5 and 10 feet apart the entire time. unless the barbarian doesn't follow, in which case he is backing off just as much as the fighter is.

Well that must be one big muddy pit then.

Thematics asside, if he keeps moving straight backward from the barbarian, and that's what it would take to kite him, that is running away both thematically and mechanically.

If he's moving around in a circle but otherwise staying in what could be considered "the ring" then the barbarian will catch him within 2 rounds. That's just geometry. The barbarian can keep that rage going using my posted method guaranteed.

Once the barbarian catches up to the fighter he need only grapple him (with advantage) to permanently end that rope a dope.

[Easy_Lee]

People keep setting more and more conditions to facilitate the fighter getting beaten unconscious.

No weapons, that's cheating

Rage is okay though, nothing in the text says that's unfriendly

Fighter wants to run? We're in a ring now, no running away

Also, running away for any length of time constitutes a loss, because I say so

No champion 18, no monk dips, no battle master maneuvers, no feat abuse, no using anything that would give the fighter an advantage. Again, because I say so.

No, I don't care that the fighter gets extra feats or that many fighters multiclass; those things aren't relevant because we're whatever level.



It's almost like some of the people in this thread want to see one player character pummel and humiliate another. Call me crazy, but this feels like a conversation with that guy.

[hawklost]

People keep setting more and more conditions to facilitate the fighter getting beaten unconscious.

No weapons, that's cheating

Rage is okay though, nothing in the text says that's unfriendly

Fighter wants to run? We're in a ring now, no running away

Also, running away for any length of time constitutes a loss, because I say so

No champion 18, no monk dips, no battle master maneuvers, no feat abuse, no using anything that would give the fighter an advantage. Again, because I say so.

No, I don't care that the fighter gets extra feats or that many fighters multiclass; those things aren't relevant because we're whatever level.



It's almost like some of the people in this thread want to see one player character pummel and humiliate another. Call me crazy, but this feels like a conversation with that guy.

They do!

How else are they going to prove that the fighter is completely worthless without taking everything away from him and then forbidding him from getting anything that would be worthwhile.

[hecetv]

Ok first off, the OP said something about low levels.

Let's say they don't use any abilities at all except passive ones.

I really doubt a fighter could out punch a barbarian even then. If they all had straight 16s on their physical stats say, which is unlikely especially for the fighter who probably prioritized strength or dexterity, but let's say they do.

The barbarian still has more HP, his AC will be 16 versus the fighter's 13. The fighter could heal himself, but I fee like that's cheating if raging is. The fighter could have double the chance to crit but that's just a chance to do 1 more damage because their unarmed strikes only do 1 damage for the "die". He could hit more though, that might be interesting to look at. But that's it. And I don't think it will make enough of a difference.

16 versus an unlikely 13 AC combined with the barbarian having higher HP makes it realy unlikely the fighter will win.

Yes it's possible a champion could maybe pull off a miracle and beat the fighter because of his passively better crit chance, but not likely. And if a battlemaster can use maneuvers then maybe he would have a chance of the barbarian wasn't using rage.

There's just no possible way aside from some seriously bad rolls on the barbarians part and some really good rolls on the fighters part.

If we're talking only passives and it was a level 20 champion versus a level 20 totem barbarian then the champions healing and four attacks makes it likely he would win. But if it's not that specific circumstance then idk. And I think a frenzy barb with retaliation would have a shot. And even if the barbarian didn't use any of his ASI's on his stats he's still rocking an 18 AC versus the fighter's capping out if he maxed his dex at 15.

[Rush]

I need to check again but I'm pretty sure you can't two weapon fight with unarmed attacks. Why? Because unarmed attacks are not light weapons.

This isn't a homebrew section so I'm not going to assume that the DM will alter any mechanics, just set limits on what constitutes a friendly fight.

They are also strength based only, so no Dex fighter for this one.

The fighter will be doing 1+Str damage 1/round as will the barbarian... The barbarian will be harder to hit so chances are the barbarian wins.

Of course as a DM I would have a band of hobgoblins appear while the two are fighting... Steal a few children and then someone will chastise them for not using their abilities for useful things and just playing games.


You're right, of course, by RAW, but I do find it a little unintuitive that the hand I use to swing my light weapon is somehow more cumbersome or heavy than the weapon itself. BY that reasoning I wonder fruitlessly at how I get any off-hand attacks off. You're still right, though: by RAW it's not allowed, which is why I suggested it'd be heavily dependent upon DM approval and interpretation. I assume they're not classified as light weapons to avoid some sort of exploit or abuse I haven't accounted for, however.

(The Sage Advice is along the same line of thought as me on this one, too, for what it's worth*. It's Mike Mearls, though, and I've seen it suggested the forum prefers Crawford. It's up to the DM at your table in the end, anyway.)

But if that really is your only objection to the possibility of the build, take Variant Human and the Dual Wielder feat. It allows both weapons to be not-light, so that eliminates that concern.

Don't be Dex-based for damage, no, but a high Dex is essential for a higher unarmored AC. I'd say make it second or even a primary stat, since staying away from the Barbarian is arguably more important than returning his output, until he's out of rages. You'll be doing more damage, anyway, since you can (if this build is at all allowed) deal two unarmed attacks + Str per round.

So yeah, my suggestion for a build remains as such:

V. Human
Dual Wielder Feat
Strength and Dex as primary stats
Fighter with TWF as your Fighting Style.

I think you'll at least stand a chance. This is operating under the assumptions outlined by the OP's posts, wherein the Fighter and Barbarian both had access to their class features, so Fighter can Wind and Barbarian can Rage. It's still stacked in the Barbarian's favour, as he's built for this sort of encounter, but if you're faster and hit more, you stand a chance.

Also I just want to weigh in that strafing the Barbarian such to avoid a pummeling seems like a valid strategy to me.


* http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/03/25/unarmed-strike-light/

[MustacheFart]

You're right, of course, by RAW, but I do find it a little unintuitive that the hand I use to swing my light weapon is somehow more cumbersome or heavy than the weapon itself. BY that reasoning I wonder fruitlessly at how I get any off-hand attacks off. You're still right, though: by RAW it's not allowed, which is why I suggested it'd be heavily dependent upon DM approval and interpretation. I assume they're not classified as light weapons to avoid some sort of exploit or abuse I haven't accounted for, however.

(The Sage Advice is along the same line of thought as me on this one, too, for what it's worth*. It's Mike Mearls, though, and I've seen it suggested the forum prefers Crawford. It's up to the DM at your table in the end, anyway.)

But if that really is your only objection to the possibility of the build, take Variant Human and the Dual Wielder feat. It allows both weapons to be not-light, so that eliminates that concern.

Don't be Dex-based for damage, no, but a high Dex is essential for a higher unarmored AC. I'd say make it second or even a primary stat, since staying away from the Barbarian is arguably more important than returning his output, until he's out of rages. You'll be doing more damage, anyway, since you can (if this build is at all allowed) deal two unarmed attacks + Str per round.

So yeah, my suggestion for a build remains as such:

V. Human
Dual Wielder Feat
Strength and Dex as primary stats
Fighter with TWF as your Fighting Style.

I think you'll at least stand a chance. This is operating under the assumptions outlined by the OP's posts, wherein the Fighter and Barbarian both had access to their class features, so Fighter can Wind and Barbarian can Rage. It's still stacked in the Barbarian's favour, as he's built for this sort of encounter, but if you're faster and hit more, you stand a chance.

Also I just want to weigh in that strafing the Barbarian such to avoid a pummeling seems like a valid strategy to me.

A couple things:

1) if you're going to go variant human with a feat then so can the barbarian. Picking up tavern brawler or even sentinel will immediately stop any "strafing".

2) The problem is you're not "strafing". You're running back 25+ feet because that's the only thing mechanically that would offer any benefit. Actually "strafing" around would fail because the barbarian would simply make a b-line for the fighter on his turn.

This is why there's the Dodge action. It's the closest thing to "strafing", bobbing, rope-a-dope, etc.

[MustacheFart]

People keep setting more and more conditions to facilitate the fighter getting beaten unconscious.

No weapons, that's cheating

Rage is okay though, nothing in the text says that's unfriendly

Fighter wants to run? We're in a ring now, no running away

Also, running away for any length of time constitutes a loss, because I say so

No champion 18, no monk dips, no battle master maneuvers, no feat abuse, no using anything that would give the fighter an advantage. Again, because I say so.

No, I don't care that the fighter gets extra feats or that many fighters multiclass; those things aren't relevant because we're whatever level.



It's almwyost like some of the people in this thread want to see one player character pummel and humiliate another. Call me crazy, but this feels like a conversation with that guy.

I think you're grossly over-exagerating. Everything you've mentioned, though in an irritable tone, is completely logical and valid as constraints given the fact that the OP established the principle constraint of:

A brawl between a low level fighter vs a low level barbarian.

Sure you could toss in feats and multiclassing and everything under the kitchen sink but that not only makes it more difficult to calculate, it also violates the above constraint presented by the OP. So, no you can't have multiclassing or other higher level crap for the purpose of this debate.

This isn't about keeping the fighter down. It's about comparing two classes in a specific encounter during the infancy of their career.

The fact is in the specific scenario presented by the OP, the fighter doesn't stand a good chance in a "friendly brawl" with the barbarian. That is, a comparison between a level 1 fighter versus a level 1 barbarian. You can be butthurt over that fact all you want but it doesn't refute it.

Since I'm apparently "that guy" who brought up the ring (actually the OP mentioned a muddy pit I thought but whatever), I'll stick to the point I made earlier. Let's say the fighter chooses to run from the barbarian to outlast his rage. What does the fighter do to counter that first opportunity attack he provokes? What about if the barbarian punches himself for very minimal damage to keep his rage going as he chases down the fighter, catching him the next round? What happens if the barbarian simply pops another use of rage after the fighter has kited him for that first rage? Surely there will be some hits in their on the fighter before he can get away each time. At low level the fighter lacks the HP to survive those hits even with 2nd wind.


They do!

How else are they going to prove that the fighter is completely worthless without taking everything away from him and then forbidding him from getting anything that would be worthwhile.

It's not about tearing the fighter down. It's about recognizing that in this specific scenario at this specific point the math is in the favor of the barbarian. Why is that a problem? It doesn't lesson the fighter any. It would be like any noncaster having a flying contest with a wizard without allowing any flying machines or items. You have to fly. Not the greatest example but you should get the point.

This is why I am in agreement that it should be done with skill checks because early on the actual mechanics make such a matchup imbalanced.

[Held]

With all the talk of running away/tactically retreating from the barbarian... What's really to stop him from, you know, not activating his (second) rage until you're in range?

"Let's fight when you're done fleeing."

You get in close, he grapples you to the ground as he rages, punches the tar out of you and then some for running away.

I really don't see how running away will help much beyond hoping the barbarian will fail his grapple twice, or hope you win the initiative roll and then... run away to start just to avoid being in grapple range? :smallconfused: I get that everyone embraces the benefit of tactical retreat, but the barbarian simply need not activate his rage until the fighter is ready to fight. When the fighter is ready to fight, activate rage, commence grappling him to the floor and beat the daylights outta him. EDIT: This all assumes the fighter doesn't mean to win the fight to impress anyone and deals with just mechanics. In an actual fight, consider the ramifications of refusing to fight your opponent when he's strong and "backing off" until he agrees not to fight to his full ability.

[SharkForce]

if you've *forced* your opponent to fight at less than full strength by your strategy, that is not remotely the same thing as refusing to fight until your opponent "agrees" to fight at full capability. *if* you can force it, that is.

[Zyzzyva]

I sorta like the raging arguments over the intent of the OP. :smallbiggrin: I will say I am satisfied there's nothing the fighter can do in the spirit of the match that can make his odds better than "very unlikely", although I like the lvl 3-5 Menacing Strike-no Fearlessness window.

Now, proceed with your regularly scheduled argument.

[Held]

if you've *forced* your opponent to fight at less than full strength by your strategy, that is not remotely the same thing as refusing to fight until your opponent "agrees" to fight at full capability. *if* you can force it, that is.

There's no way to force it other than continuously run away until your opponent for some reason uses his rage again. Even if he uses rage the first time and you run away/tactically retreat, there's no reason for the barbarian to enter his rage again until you come within range... at which point the dance happens again. Pretty much if you opt to run away from the barbarian for fear of rage, you should keep running away until your opponent decides to waste his rage charges so you dare approach again.

Unless you like the risky strategy of coming in close, taking a hit and then running away afterwards, though letting the barbarian get in free hits seems like a counter-productive strategy to me. (I mean, even if you hit him while his rage is down, you're still dealing with unarmoured defences, which really is a greater problem to me than the +2 damage and -2/-3 damage rage gives.)

[Rush]

A couple things:

1) if you're going to go variant human with a feat then so can the barbarian. Picking up tavern brawler or even sentinel will immediately stop any "strafing".

Ooh, good point. Somehow it slipped my mind that giving access to feats would allow the Barbarian access as well. I stand by my build as a somewhat viable option, however, even if it's become more contingent upon the build the Barbarian chooses.



2) The problem is you're not "strafing". You're running back 25+ feet because that's the only thing mechanically that would offer any benefit. Actually "strafing" around would fail because the barbarian would simply make a b-line for the fighter on his turn.

This is why there's the Dodge action. It's the closest thing to "strafing", bobbing, rope-a-dope, etc.

Yeah, fair enough! That's why, in my first post in the thread, I suggested the Fighter use the Dodge action to attempt to tire the Barbarian out. I think my understanding of Rage was lacking, though: I thought the Barbarian had to land their attack and/or take damage to keep raging, but upon rereading it looks as if the act of attacking alone is sufficient, regardless of delivery. So my original plan doesn't work, either!

I'm not really all that invested in the "strafing" strategy, but I don't have a real mechanical problem with it either. You're right that "strafing" isn't really the best word for "running the hell away over and over again", either. It's possibly a good way to avoid getting pummeled, though, even if it is contingent, as you rightly point out, on the Barbarian missing their OAs and other external, circumstantial benefits. Slim chance, but a chance.

I'm more interested in seeing how the TWF I've suggested build would turn out. The Fighter's still at a disadvantage, as the Barbarian is simply better built for this encounter, but I think it addresses most of the Fighter's largest shortcomings, even if it doesn't wholly overcome Rage, as the Dodge action won't allow you to outlast the opponent's Rage. You'd have to dodge ten attacks consecutively waiting for the first Rage to run out, and another ten outlasting the second. Unlikely, but possible. You're the lesser opponent, what are your other options?

Well, there's running away, as we've discussed, but that's not much. Arguably a forfeiture anyway; an argument we've seen above.

So yeah, my preferred build remains as above, and my strategy would now be to spam Dodge and hope for the best. Odds are you're getting plastered, but if you get lucky, you might just be able to pull through and lay it into the Barbarian post-rage. At that point, hopefully you've dodge enough attacks that with a dose of Second Wind, you're still competitive in HP, and you can use Action Surge to catch up a bit on damage dealt. Depending on the Barbarian's own build, your damage output per round could be greater, too. It'll be competitive, anyway, even if the odds are still in ol' Barb's favour.

I kind of want to roll up a Fighter and Barbarian and try this out with a friend.

P.S.
If your DM is willing to allow you to TWF without taking the feat, then the V. Human option is unnecessary and you can take whatever race you want (probably Half-orc, I feel intuitively). Or you can still take V. Human, but you can be the one who takes Tavern Brawler, since your DM has ruled you can use TWF with both fists anyway. DM dependent, though!