Is this Barbarian Knight a good build for a first time player?

[PunkManiak]

I've played the online game before and have talked a lot to some of my friends who have played it, but I've never played the original tabletop game before. The character I've been working is a broadsword and shield wielding Barbarian in scalemail. He ends up with decent AC and HP and hopefully good damage. I'm hoping that this will be a good build for me to start with, but I'd appreciate some input on him.

https://expirebox.com/download/cefac9159f9fb6a930679573a72c493d.html

So, does this look like a good build for me to start with? I might have ****ed up a little bit creating the character, so feel free to tell me where I did so. It's meant to be a low-level campaign so I can get my feet wet.

[Venger]

I've played the online game before and have talked a lot to some of my friends who have played it, but I've never played the original tabletop game before. The character I've been working is a broadsword and shield wielding Barbarian in scalemail. He ends up with decent AC and HP and hopefully good damage. I'm hoping that this will be a good build for me to start with, but I'd appreciate some input on him.

https://expirebox.com/download/cefac9159f9fb6a930679573a72c493d.html

So, does this look like a good build for me to start with? I might have ****ed up a little bit creating the character, so feel free to tell me where I did so. It's meant to be a low-level campaign so I can get my feet wet.

I assume dodge and toughness are taxes in one of pf's chains. if not, change them to something good, though I know pf ruined power attack.

even with that in mind, sword and board is terrible in any edition. ditch the shield, use both hands and kill people with a greatsword.

[PunkManiak]

Yes, obviously sword and board is inferior damage-wise to a two-handed weapon. However the character is also meant to be a damage soaking tank instead of a pure warrior.

As for the feats, toughness is a boost to his HP for tanking a bit and for damage soaking, and the other feat is for a boost to AC, if you can think of a better way to build a party's warrior/tank, please tell me.

[Venger]

Yes, obviously sword and board is inferior damage-wise to a two-handed weapon. However the character is also meant to be a damage soaking tank instead of a pure warrior.

As for the feats, toughness is a boost to his HP for tanking a bit and for damage soaking, and the other feat is for a boost to AC, if you can think of a better way to build a party's warrior/tank, please tell me.

so, you ask for advice on improving your character, but when I give it, you ignore it. which aspects do you not want to change, and what aspects are you looking for suggestions on? do you just want advice on feats? equipment? etc

tanking isn't a viable strategy or one that can be replicated very well in 3.x, and even with something that comes close, like a crusader, being competent in melee doesn't impinge your ability to get targeted for hp damage.

is this a pure pathfinder character? if so, you may want to tag the thread as such so people knowledgeable about it can render advice.

[Drakevarg]

Generally speaking I find it in poor taste to, when asked if a setup effectively fills the intended function, reply with "that intended function is dumb, do something else."

To answer the original question, it's a first-level character that doesn't make any actively terrible mistakes. Are there better builds? Sure. There usually are. Just off the top of my head you could probably produce a more adept shield specialist if being the wall is your desired archetype. Combat Reflexes -> Hold the Line, Improved Shield Bash -> Shield Charge, Block Arrow, Tunnel Fighting -> Stoneback. None of these are the best you can possibly do, they're just what comes to mind in a few minutes of thought.

There's not a lot of input to be made on a static moment in a character's life, what matters more is how you plan on growing it over time, and in my experience that usually comes down less to carefully planned builds and more on correcting for moment-to-moment shortcomings in a living campaign.

[Deadline]

The general rule is that killing your enemies is the best way to prevent damage to the party. Believe it or not, a two-hander will last longer in a fight than a sword and boarder, because a couple points of AC won't matter from, say, level 6 onward. I think it starts to not matter as early as the big bruisers become regular enemies (like Ogres and such).

That being said, the "tank" role generally requires two things:

1. The ability to intercept enemy attacks.
2. The ability to survive against those attacks.

#1 is the problem. If your GM generally agrees to have the enemies focus on your character, then congratulations! You are now a tank. However, if the GM has the enemies function intelligently, they will prioritize threats. And the heavily armored guy with a shield who doesn't hit very hard takes a backseat to the lightly armored rogue who will stab you in the spleen, or the guy in pajamas who can kill you with bat guano and finger waggles. And if you don't have a way to force them to attack you, then you aren't much of a tank. There are some feats and classes that provide at least some tanking ability though, but you may not like them or find that they fit your character.

Do you already have #1 covered, or do you need help with it?

[Drakevarg]

#1 is the problem. If your GM generally agrees to have the enemies focus on your character, then congratulations! You are now a tank. However, if the GM has the enemies function intelligently, they will prioritize threats.

Goad feat, Races of Stone, exists pretty much for exactly this. I believe there are a few other similar feats and abilities, but that's the first one that comes to mind.

[Deadline]

Goad feat, Races of Stone, exists pretty much for exactly this. I believe there are a few other similar feats and abilities, but that's the first one that comes to mind.

Yes, Goad exists, but it's not very good (the creature can just take a 5' step away from you and use ranged weaponry against anyone it likes, assuming it fails the fairly easy Will save). Similarly, the Knight's Challenge class feature also exists, and likewise sucks. Slightly better are a pair of bodyguard style feats in Drow of the Underdark, or the old Devoted Defender PrC in ... Sword and Fist? (3.0 material), all of which let you jump in front of attacks meant for your enemies. Similarly, a tough Cleric with Shield Other works (or someone with a tough friend, both of whom wear rings of friend shielding). Far better are the options in the Tome of Battle (or Path of War in PF). There are several options that make attacking you more favorable for the enemy, and attacking your allies less favorable. If you want a tough rock who soaks up the attacks (and draws attacks to him), a Crusader with Stone Power and Iron Guard's Glare is miles better than anything with Goad or Knight's challenge. Heck, you can even give your Crusader a shield too, because his maneuvers will still be plenty threatening even without a 2-handed weapon.

Then there's the more simple alternative of just making yourself a more dangerous threat, which enemies would be stupid to ignore. Simple sword and board is the worst way to do that. Hence the suggestions of Two-handing. You can also be a much more credible threat to enemies with the Agile Shield fighter feats in the PHBII(I think), or by building a lockdown-style fighter who focuses on attacks of opportunity and not making it easy for enemies to get by or away from you.

And I think that's probably the sum total of tanking options in 3.5/PF. I'm not super familiar with PF though, so I'm likely missing some option.

I really, really wish tanking were a more viable option in 3.5/PF. You can kinda do it, but not as well as you'd probably want to.

[Drakevarg]

At a certain point you just have to sacrifice efficiency for flavor, or we might as well all just play TOp Wizards. Half the fun of playing D&D is being able to bring character concepts to life, and if the OP wants to play a sword-and-boarder than telling him not to is the same as saying "your idea of fun is wrong."

It doesn't matter if it's effective. It matters if the player enjoys themselves. Don't ask what would be a better idea, ask what would be a better way to fulfill this idea.

[PunkManiak]

@Drakevarg Exactly. This build isn't so simple as a sword and shield build, I'd actually calculated for a need to increase his damage output to make him more of a threat. It's why I gave him a spiked shield.

Essentially he's wielding a main weapon in his right hand, and a secondary in his right, so he's almost dual weaponing. I'm figuring for increasing his damage output I'm going to want to use that to my advantage as well as gaining improved shield bash, so he can use both in combat. I'm thinking a two level dip into Ranger could work, and be of use, in order to get the two-weapon fighting style. Is there a feat that allows you to attack with both weapons in one round? I think it could be incredibly useful.

[Venger]

That's a default ability from twf. When I'm off mobile I'll link you to darrin's shield handbook

[Drakevarg]

Essentially he's wielding a main weapon in his right hand, and a secondary in his right, so he's almost dual weaponing. I'm figuring for increasing his damage output I'm going to want to use that to my advantage as well as gaining improved shield bash, so he can use both in combat. I'm thinking a two level dip into Ranger could work, in order to get the two-weapon fighting style. Is there a feat that allows you to attack with both weapons in one round? I think it could be incredibly useful.

You can always attack with both weapons in one round, provided you make a full attack. As for being able to both move and attack with both weapons, the Dual Strike feat from CAdv lets you attack with both weapons as a standard action (you make a single attack roll with the worse of the two modifiers, and if you hit you deal damage with both). It's intended for running battles with two weapons.

If that's the sort of path you plan on going for, I'd definitely look into getting as much use out of your shield as possible, both as a shield and as an off-hand weapon. Not relevant to this discussion, but this kind of build would probably be excellent for E6 since you would be able to invest in a huge number of feats without having to worry about 'wasting' them.

[Deadline]

At a certain point you just have to sacrifice efficiency for flavor, or we might as well all just play TOp Wizards. Half the fun of playing D&D is being able to bring character concepts to life, and if the OP wants to play a sword-and-boarder than telling him not to is the same as saying "your idea of fun is wrong."

It doesn't matter if it's effective. It matters if the player enjoys themselves. Don't ask what would be a better idea, ask what would be a better way to fulfill this idea.

Except that no one is telling him his idea of fun is wrong. For reference, the OP mentioned that "the character is also meant to be a damage soaking tank instead of a pure warrior.", so the natural assumption seems like it would be to offer tips for how to be a better tank. As has already been mentioned, perhaps counterintuitively, sword and board is actually the worst way to achieve this.

If the goal is to build a "tank", there are better ways of doing it (as indicated by suggestions for two-handed fighting, and the mention of Dodge and Toughness being really bad feats). If the goal is to build a "tank that wields sword and board", I mentioned several ways to do that (Agile Shield fighter chain, Crusader, and Drow of the Underdark bodyguard feats).

For feat choices, Improved Toughness is better than Toughness, and Dodge is mostly pointless unless it's taken as a pre-requisite for something. Midnight Dodge is almost always a better choice, especially when paired with Shape Soulmeld. I'm away from my books at the moment, so I can't quite remember exactly what the Drow of the Underdark feats are called, but check them out, because they are way better than Goad.

I'll echo Venger's question, as it will likely funnel future feedback into a more positive direction:

which aspects do you not want to change, and what aspects are you looking for suggestions on? do you just want advice on feats? equipment? etc

[Drakevarg]

For feat choices, Improved Toughness is better than Toughness,

PF Toughness is apparently a hybrid of Toughness and Improved Toughness. You get +3 HP off the bat, +1 for every HD past the third. So best of both worlds.

[Deadline]

PF Toughness is apparently a hybrid of Toughness and Improved Toughness. You get +3 HP off the bat, +1 for every HD past the third. So best of both worlds.

That's not so bad then. It's still not great, but the potential is there to be decent when you hit higher levels. You are probably still better off not taking either of them in favor of something that will improve your survivability, but you don't have to squeeze every last drop of efficiency out of every feat you take.

@PunkManiak, so do you have answers to Venger's questions? Which parts of your build do you want to keep, and which ones do you want suggestions on for changing? Also, is this pure Pathfinder? Do you have access to 3.5 classes and feats? How about Path of War?

[PunkManiak]

Not really. It seems like improving his damage output as well as his use of his shield via twf, would be my best bet, but this character is meant for a low-level 1-5 game, so it may not be that much of a worry.

The one feat I'm somewhat iffy about is Pathfinder's Dodge, since I think that was the second feat I took. If AC is negligible later on, I might be able to do better.

If there's a better feat for survivability and increasing HP let me know. Like I said I'm a novice without much experience, so I don't know everything.

Not sure if this will be for pathfinder or 3.5, I'm more interested in having a build idea ready to present to a DM, after finding a local game.

Also, apologies if this is overly brief, but I am at work.

[PunkManiak]

As for which parts of the build I want to keep. I built this character from the ground up to be the archetypal knight, wielding a sword and shield, and when needed riding in on horseback. He'll also most likely need a good bit of survival skill. (Armor, shield, and weapon ain't cheap.)

I'd like him to be a Barbarian Knight, almost a Berserker in armor, who can fight in the front lines and be able to survive, while protecting the party. I've actually been thinking about getting feats for heavy armor and a tower shield eventually, but that may not happen.

[arkangel111]

3.5 or pf? 3.p? My suggestions are highly dependent on which game you are playing as well as any available/banned sources.

[Deadline]

If 3.5 is on the table, see if Tome of Battle is also available (and make a Crusader, they are tough, tanky, and dangerous right out of the box). If it's just Pathfinder, see if Path of War is available and use whatever the Crusader equivalent is in that. If it's neither, then things get a bit trickier, and we'd need to know allowed sources to really give you solid suggestions.

Assuming the above items aren't available, look at these options:

If Drow of the Underdark is available, take Dutiful Guardian and Constant Guardian feats. The first feat lets you grant one ally a +2 dodge bonus (by taking a -2 penalty yourself), and the second feat in the chain lets you switch places with an ally who is being attacked in order to take the hit. Both feats do require that you remain within 10ft. of your protected ally.

If Complete Adventurer or PHBII is available, consider either the Goad feat (because it's better than nothing), or just going with a single classed Knight (a new base class introduced in the PHBII). Also, if PHBII is available, look into the Agile Shield fighter chain. It's two weapon fighting with sword and board without the terrible Dex prerequisites. Use a spiked shield, and try to be as dangerous as you can.

If the 3.0 Sword and Fist is on the table, look into the Devoted Defender. I don't remember it being very good, but it did have pretty much the only "tanking" ability in the game at the time.

If all you have is Core, uh, maybe a straight sword and board cleric of a war deity with longsword as a favored weapon (Heironious)? Once you hit 3rd level, cast Shield Other on your squishy protectees, and then wade into melee with heavy armor, shield, and sword. Also if core is available, I think the Stand Still feat is in there. If not, it's in the Expanded Psionics Handbook. It'll let you stop enemy movement when you hit them with an Attack of Opportunity. Because if you can't make them attack you, at least you can try to make it so they can't get away from you.

[Crake]

Generally speaking I find it in poor taste to, when asked if a setup effectively fills the intended function, reply with "that intended function is dumb, do something else."

To be fair, venger didn't say tanking was dumb, but instead that it wasn't really doable in dnd, due to lack of a reliable taunt mechanic. The best way to draw attention to yourself is to make yourself the best target, and the best way to make yourself the best target is to do the most damage, while also being the most accessible to attack. This means you actually need to be hittable, but have a way to mitigate the damage, because again, if enemies have a hard time hitting you, they're just going to start avoiding you, mitigating your damage, and attacking other people.

[Venger]

To be fair, venger didn't say tanking was dumb, but instead that it wasn't really doable in dnd, due to lack of a reliable taunt mechanic. The best way to draw attention to yourself is to make yourself the best target, and the best way to make yourself the best target is to do the most damage, while also being the most accessible to attack. This means you actually need to be hittable, but have a way to mitigate the damage, because again, if enemies have a hard time hitting you, they're just going to start avoiding you, mitigating your damage, and attacking other people.

Well, yeah, but why would he respond to what I actually said when he can respond to a strawman?

xph is core, but if your gm pretends it's not for whatever reason, stand still was originally printed in deities and demigods so either way it's a valid option

[Sam K]

At a certain point you just have to sacrifice efficiency for flavor, or we might as well all just play TOp Wizards. Half the fun of playing D&D is being able to bring character concepts to life, and if the OP wants to play a sword-and-boarder than telling him not to is the same as saying "your idea of fun is wrong."

It doesn't matter if it's effective. It matters if the player enjoys themselves. Don't ask what would be a better idea, ask what would be a better way to fulfill this idea.

That's very true. However, there is often a question about which flavor you actually want. In the original post, there are two major flavor elements:

1. Tank (someone who can soak up damage and protect others).
2. Sword and board fighting.

If the main flavor is sword and board, then obviously going sword and board is the right idea. If someone enjoys that, they should play it. But if the main flavor is TANK, sword and board is a bad idea because it doesn't actually help very much with either soaking up damage or protecting others. Tripping or combat reflexes, reach and the stand still feat would serve much better in protecting others and making yourself harder to hit.

As the OP clarified in a later post, sword and board is an integral part of the character concept, so a more efficient tank build may not be as high of a priority. But based on the original question, I think it's fair to say that the original build presented is fairly bad at granting at least one of the main flavors requested.

[Drakevarg]

Well, yeah, but why would he respond to what I actually said when he can respond to a strawman?

I did respond to what you said, I just expanded it to hyperbole to make a point.

[Venger]

I did respond to what you said, I just expanded it to hyperbole to make a point.

That is the exact definition of what a strawman is, dude.

[Drakevarg]

That is the exact definition of what a strawman is, dude.

A strawman is ignoring actual points in favor of a simpler, self-defined point so you can call it your opponent's point and declare yourself victorious when you eviscerate it.

My point was more "I find very premise of your point condescending, let me exaggerate it to make it obvious to people who don't have a twitch reaction against it." To make an analogy, it's like exaggerating a mildly unpleasant thing to explain how people with a phobia about it feel to those who don't.

[Nifft]

Critiques of the character:

- "Eyes: Gray" -- that's notable in fiction mostly for being pretentious. Avoid unless necessary.

- "Hair: Sanguine" -- what, literally blood-colored hair? That's not natural for a human. Also it's gross.

- Max Skill Ranks: 3.0 -- that's neither 3.5e nor Pathfinder, did you intend to use a houserule here?

- Feats: Dodge, Toughness -- um. Where's his Power Attack? Everybarby needs a Power Attack.

- Primary Weapon: Iron Broadsword 1d6 -- what is this and why is he not at least given a Longsword for 1d8+3 (19/x2), or better yet a Two-Handed Sword for 2d6+4 (19/x2)? And why is his attack bonus zero instead of +4?


You've been talking about TWF, but there's no TWF feats here, and with 14 Dex he's not going to get very deep in the TWF chains.

If this is NOT supposed to be a "challenge" character, and instead is supposed to be a nice thing for a new player, then I heavily recommend re-thinking the "knight" part, and instead focusing on making a normal, competent Barbarian. Two-hander, RAGE, Power Attack, Leap Attack, all the usual suspects. Maybe you've already seen a standard Barbarian in action, but this new player has not. Let the new player feel the rush of power that comes with a fully operational charging Barbarian.

[Crake]

Critiques of the character:

- "Eyes: Gray" -- that's notable in fiction mostly for being pretentious. Avoid unless necessary.

- "Hair: Sanguine" -- what, literally blood-colored hair? That's not natural for a human. Also it's gross.

- Max Skill Ranks: 3.0 -- that's neither 3.5e nor Pathfinder, did you intend to use a houserule here?

- Feats: Dodge, Toughness -- um. Where's his Power Attack? Everybarby needs a Power Attack.

- Primary Weapon: Iron Broadsword 1d6 -- what is this and why is he not at least given a Longsword for 1d8+3 (19/x2), or better yet a Two-Handed Sword for 2d6+4 (19/x2)? And why is his attack bonus zero instead of +4?


You've been talking about TWF, but there's no TWF feats here, and with 14 Dex he's not going to get very deep in the TWF chains.

If this is NOT supposed to be a "challenge" character, and instead is supposed to be a nice thing for a new player, then I heavily recommend re-thinking the "knight" part, and instead focusing on making a normal, competent Barbarian. Two-hander, RAGE, Power Attack, Leap Attack, all the usual suspects. Maybe you've already seen a standard Barbarian in action, but this new player has not. Let the new player feel the rush of power that comes with a fully operational charging Barbarian.

If we're getting nitpicky, weight is in lb, that's a lowercase L, not a capital I. lb means pound, as the unit of weight meaurement, an ib is not a thing :smalltongue:


A strawman is ignoring actual points in favor of a simpler, self-defined point so you can call it your opponent's point and declare yourself victorious when you eviscerate it.

My point was more "I find very premise of your point condescending, let me exaggerate it to make it obvious to people who don't have a twitch reaction against it." To make an analogy, it's like exaggerating a mildly unpleasant thing to explain how people with a phobia about it feel to those who don't.

Venger's point was that "idea X isn't really doable in this system", but your response was to "that idea is dumb/I don't like it". That is not the point of what venger was saying, so by your own definition of a strawman, that's exactly what you did.

[Drakevarg]

Venger's point was that "idea X isn't really doable in this system", but your response was to "that idea is dumb/I don't like it". That is not the point of what venger was saying, so by your own definition of a strawman, that's exactly what you did.

"Doesn't work" and "is dumb" are conflatable, the later is mostly just being a lot less diplomatic. I wasn't trying to suggest Venger simply didn't like the idea, merely that I find using as a response to "how do I do X" the solution "don't do X" condescending.

[Nifft]

If we're getting nitpicky, weight is in lb, that's a lowercase L, not a capital I. lb means pount, as the unit of weight

If we're getting nitpicky, the word is pound. :wink:


"Doesn't work" and "is dumb" are conflatable, the later is mostly just being a lot less diplomatic. I wasn't trying to suggest Venger simply didn't like the idea, merely that I find using as a response to "how do I do X" the solution "don't do X" condescending.

Telling someone their idea is dumb is not merely "less diplomatic", it's more like trying to pick a fight.

Secondly, there are several questions bundled up in the OP. One of the questions is, "How do I make a Barbarian for a new player -- maybe like this?" So the answer of "not like that" is perfectly valid -- it's a good answer to the first question, which is: "How do I make a Barbarian for a new player?"

[Crake]

If we're getting nitpicky, the word is pound. :wink:

Lel, that's a typo on my end :smalltongue:


"Doesn't work" and "is dumb" are conflatable, the later is mostly just being a lot less diplomatic. I wasn't trying to suggest Venger simply didn't like the idea, merely that I find using as a response to "how do I do X" the solution "don't do X" condescending.

Those two things are certainly not conflatable. And the answer wasn't "don't do X", but rather "X is not possible". Which again, are two very different statements and are certainly also not conflatable. It's like someone saying "I want to fly like a bird" and someone says "You can't fly like a bird" vs saying "Don't fly like a bird, that's dumb". One says flying is impossible, the other is saying that flying is possible, but a bad idea.

[Elkad]

You don't NEED a lockdown build to tank. You can often do it with clever positioning and teamwork.

Use terrain to your advantage. Just stand between the Ogre and the Squishy Wizard instead of charging off in search of triple digit damage at 3rd level.
Bonus if the Wizard can create some terrain to help (including turning you into more terrain via Enlarge/Polymorph). Obviously this works best indoors, but the casters (or even muggles with bags of caltrops) can build terrain on the fly.

Big parties make it easier of course. A party of 8 can actually have a formation, instead of just a marching order. Hide the squishy(ies) in the center. If something does manage to slip past, everyone turns and takes flank attacks on it.

[Red Fel]

If 3.5 is on the table, see if Tome of Battle is also available (and make a Crusader, they are tough, tanky, and dangerous right out of the box). If it's just Pathfinder, see if Path of War is available and use whatever the Crusader equivalent is in that. If it's neither, then things get a bit trickier, and we'd need to know allowed sources to really give you solid suggestions.

Seconding this. In fact, the PF alternative (the Warder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/classes/warder/), by the way) is probably the best option for almost everything you've described. Deals solid damage? Yup. Awesome with sword and board? Sure thing. Soaks hits like a champ? Easily. Covers the party? Oh my, yes, and in several ways.

First, the Aegis class feature allows you to grant nearby allies a bonus to AC and Will saves. Basically, just being there makes your team more resilient. Second, the Armiger's Mark class feature allows you to mark an enemy you strike - he now takes a penalty to attack anybody but you. Later, you can use this as an AoE ability, no striking required. And third, the Defensive Focus class feature basically allows you, as a full round action, to designate a massive area around yourself - all enemies in this area who trigger AoOs for, well, pretty much anything get smacked by you. And yes, you can use these AoOs to activate your Armiger's Mark against that enemy. This basically turns you into a standing battle platform, and forces the enemy to confront you if they want to get at your squishy allies.

Oh, and as a capstone you can basically exhaust yourself to become an unkillable tank for the remainder of combat.

So, yeah. If PF material (and, technically, third party, but DSP is just so good) is on the table, consider going for this.

[Drakevarg]

Telling someone their idea is dumb is not merely "less diplomatic", it's more like trying to pick a fight.

Trying to pick a fight isn't terribly diplomatic.


Secondly, there are several questions bundled up in the OP. One of the questions is, "How do I make a Barbarian for a new player -- maybe like this?" So the answer of "not like that" is perfectly valid -- it's a good answer to the first question, which is: "How do I make a Barbarian for a new player?"

If the question was at any point merely "how do I make a Barbarian," you might have a point. But that question came with qualifiers from the start.


Those two things are certainly not conflatable. And the answer wasn't "don't do X", but rather "X is not possible". Which again, are two very different statements and are certainly also not conflatable. It's like someone saying "I want to fly like a bird" and someone says "You can't fly like a bird" vs saying "Don't fly like a bird, that's dumb". One says flying is impossible, the other is saying that flying is possible, but a bad idea.

Venger did not say "X is not possible" (at least not at the time where I made my reply). What they said was "X is terrible in any edition" and "X isn't viable." Which to me reads "X is a bad idea" more than it reads "X is impossible." So to use your bird metaphor, it's "You can't fly like a bird" vs. "Trying to fly like a bird is a bad idea."

Our personal interpretation of what was said may be different, and mine might be flatly wrong in terms of what was intended to be communicated. But a communication error (on which end is irrelevant) is not the same thing as a strawman fallacy.