[4e]Which is harder to kill, Fighter or Barb?

[Vortling]

What the topic says. I'm looking to make a really tough character in 4e and am wondering which one will be the toughest to kill of those two. If there is another class that is even tougher I'm open to suggestions.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Fighter is a defender, so it has more defense focused powers. They're pretty hard to kill, in my experience.

Barbs are strikers, and although they have more HP than normal strikers, they burn through it really quick. They can deal much more damage than a Fighter, though.

[Gralamin]

Paladin's are the toughest to kill in my experience (Healing + loads of HP + High AC), with Fighters as the second hardest.
I haven't played a Barbarian, but what I understand they suffer from a chronic lack of AC, making them quite squishy.

[Zocelot]

Fighters are more durable, by the mechanics, because of their considerably higher AC.

If you want to make a character that only wears a loincloth in -40 degrees, or equally manly feats, then you should make a barbarian.

[Suzuro]

Paladin's are the toughest to kill in my experience (Healing + loads of HP + High AC), with Fighters as the second hardest.
I haven't played a Barbarian, but what I understand they suffer from a chronic lack of AC, making them quite squishy.

Quoted for truth.

-Suzuro

[Yakk]

What do you want to do in a fight?

Barbarians are strikers who sometimes soak up attacks. That means their main job is killing stuff dead. Quite often it isn't optimal for monsters to attack a striker -- you'd rather take out the leader or controller.

Strickers usually attempt to make themselves do as much damage as possible, as opposed to building up their toughness.

Fighters are defenders who deal decent damage. Defenders play a balancing game, where they make it a bad deal to attack them (due to their high HP, defense, and healing surges), and bad deal not to attack them (by punishing everyone who doesn't attack them). Done right, you end up with a hard-to-kill badass who drives the enemies crazy.

[Asbestos]

Paladin's are the toughest to kill in my experience (Healing + loads of HP + High AC), with Fighters as the second hardest.
I haven't played a Barbarian, but what I understand they suffer from a chronic lack of AC, making them quite squishy.

Barbs, at least the one we have access to, gain temporary HP whenever they drop an enemy to 0 hp and have an at-will that grants them temporary HP. They have a bunch of other powers that grant them temporary HP as well. They're easier to hit than a Fighter, but are still decent at surviving.

[Guinea Anubis]

Paladin's are the toughest to kill in my experience (Healing + loads of HP + High AC), with Fighters as the second hardest.
I haven't played a Barbarian, but what I understand they suffer from a chronic lack of AC, making them quite squishy.

this is more or less what I was going to say.

[Vortling]

What do you want to do in a fight?

Barbarians are strikers who sometimes soak up attacks. That means their main job is killing stuff dead. Quite often it isn't optimal for monsters to attack a striker -- you'd rather take out the leader or controller.

Strickers usually attempt to make themselves do as much damage as possible, as opposed to building up their toughness.

Fighters are defenders who deal decent damage. Defenders play a balancing game, where they make it a bad deal to attack them (due to their high HP, defense, and healing surges), and bad deal not to attack them (by punishing everyone who doesn't attack them). Done right, you end up with a hard-to-kill badass who drives the enemies crazy.

I'm trying to find which class fits best with a previous character from 3.5 so what I want to do may not be really relevant. I think I may be looking at barbarian simply because I want someone in the thick of things who does sizable damage. The 3.5 character I'm trying to convert is a multiclass barbarian/warblade with the warblade heavy on the tiger claw and iron heart disciplines.

[DragonBaneDM]

I vote fighter here. Better AC, ability to fight at a range before they get in close. Barbarian can kill you faster. Fighters kill just a tad slower and have better defensive capabilities.

But if Paladin was a choice, it wouldn't be close at all. Full plate from Level One, AMAZING Self Healing Ability. Impossible to hit. Also impossible to kill. I have one in my party.

He does nothing but tank.... It's astounding. I can kill everyone else but him, and it's rather funny how frustrated I can get with him.

[LotharBot]

My group ran a PvP fight the other day to get comfortable with our new characters (all level 5). The Barbarian got taken out by Unbalancing Parry from the ranger (tossed out of the ring) while the dwarf fighter survived being focused on by the warlord and the ranger. The barbarian, who had taken plate proficiency, and the fighter later did a 1v1, and the fighter won pretty solidly. Granted, he was using Rain of Steel, but he was also rolling pretty bad. He was just really tough to hit.

A well-built fighter is going to be VERY hard to kill. That same fighter rarely takes damage with his 26 AC at level 6. The only thing that might be tougher is a well-built Paladin, due to the self-healing abilities and such.

[Yakk]

I'm trying to find which class fits best with a previous character from 3.5 so what I want to do may not be really relevant. I think I may be looking at barbarian simply because I want someone in the thick of things who does sizable damage. The 3.5 character I'm trying to convert is a multiclass barbarian/warblade with the warblade heavy on the tiger claw and iron heart disciplines.

You are spewing mechanics. I'm asking what is the concept of the character?

Was the character a defender of the rest of the party, or someone who tried to kill things? Technical fighter who formed a wall of steel, or a raging battlefiend who wallowed in blood?

You won't be able to duplicate mechanics -- instead, think about what you want to express in the character concept, then find a class that pulls off a decent approximation of that concept.

Also note that the Barbarian is not a complete class at this point.

[Lapak]

You are spewing mechanics. I'm asking what is the concept of the character?

Was the character a defender of the rest of the party, or someone who tried to kill things? Technical fighter who formed a wall of steel, or a raging battlefiend who wallowed in blood?

You won't be able to duplicate mechanics -- instead, think about what you want to express in the character concept, then find a class that pulls off a decent approximation of that concept.

Also note that the Barbarian is not a complete class at this point.

A Tiger Claw-heavy barbarian/warblade who tries to deal damage in the thick of combat certainly sounds well enough defined to take a guess. He's a heavy-duty damage dealer who makes lots of hard-hitting attacks. Warblade and Barbarian are both medium-armor types. EDIT: To clarify, both Barbarian and Tiger Claw are savage 'kill the other guy as bloodily as possible before he kills you' styles of character. [/edit] I'm perfectly comfortable guessing that Barbarian would be the right choice when it's published and that Striker is the role he's going for.

[Dairun Cates]

Fighter's generally harder to kill, but I'd rather meet a fighter than a barbarian in most cases.

[Yakk]

Oh, so he's a striker-type character? Sure, go Barbarian. As a bonus, you already have the class, so it should fit with your backstory.

Multiclass Fighter for the Warblade part of your backstory.

[SadisticFishing]

3.5 => 4e
Warblade = Fighter
Barbarian = Fighter

The new Barbarian is FAR more like a Totemist than a Barbarian. If your old character didn't channel elemental animal spirits, the new fighter fits it far better.

More importantly though, what does your group need? A striker or defender?

Oh, also, a Fighter with a two handed weapon can do just as much damage as a Barbarian, I think. Even more if people are provoking OAs properly. Stances are ridiculously powerful.

[Vortling]

A Tiger Claw-heavy barbarian/warblade who tries to deal damage in the thick of combat certainly sounds well enough defined to take a guess. He's a heavy-duty damage dealer who makes lots of hard-hitting attacks. Warblade and Barbarian are both medium-armor types. EDIT: To clarify, both Barbarian and Tiger Claw are savage 'kill the other guy as bloodily as possible before he kills you' styles of character. [/edit] I'm perfectly comfortable guessing that Barbarian would be the right choice when it's published and that Striker is the role he's going for.

Thank you. That helps. Striker is probably the role he would fill in 4e though I may need to take armor feats and such to bring up his survivability. Thank you all.

[Knaight]

That said the barbarian healing means that they can be swarmed by minions and live for ages. Pull a Hurin basically.

[SadisticFishing]

That said the barbarian healing means that they can be swarmed by minions and live for ages. Pull a Hurin basically.

A fighter doesn't have to live for ages against minions though, heh. AoE encounter powers, stances, and cleave.

[Knaight]

Neither does the barbarian, although they aren't as good at slaughtering them as the fighter. But the barbarian can enter a fight with a bunch of minions, and come out the other side with more hit points than he with in, without using a healing surge.

[SadisticFishing]

Neither does the barbarian, although they aren't as good at slaughtering them as the fighter. But the barbarian can enter a fight with a bunch of minions, and come out the other side with more hit points than he with in, without using a healing surge.

Err... how?

Plus the barbarian can't take them down two at a time, and you'd be surprised how fast minions can mow down someone with the lowest possible armor in the game...

[Zocelot]

Oh, also, a Fighter with a two handed weapon can do just as much damage as a Barbarian, I think. Even more if people are provoking OAs properly. Stances are ridiculously powerful.

I won't argue with the rest of your post (although i disagree that 3.5e=>4e). The quoted text however, is ridiculous. The barbarian has more [W], even at very low levels, rages that increase damage, and At-wills that do more then the standard [W] worth of damage.

[Knaight]

Err... how?

Plus the barbarian can't take them down two at a time, and you'd be surprised how fast minions can mow down someone with the lowest possible armor in the game...

They gain hit points with every kill, meaning that they can go from wounded to full. And they can take them down two at a time with some of the later powers, and given a checkpoint they aren't even going to need to.

[SadisticFishing]

I won't argue with the rest of your post (although i disagree that 3.5e=>4e). The quoted text however, is ridiculous. The barbarian has more [W], even at very low levels, rages that increase damage, and At-wills that do more then the standard [W] worth of damage.

3.5=>4e, I meant, it's like a table. Conversions. Warblade or Barbarian are both more like the 4e Fighter than Barbarian.

Reaping Strike is like, 2% less damage than the barbarian at-wills, more if the monster is hard to hit.

Sure, the barbarian gets SLIGHTLY more [W], but he doesn't get to make attacks when the striker provokes, and doesn't have stances (which are INCREDIBLE in pure DPS, usually something like 8-10[W]).

No, they gain temporary hitpoints, I believe.