Barbarian: Good or Bad?

[Vogonjeltz]

Whether it's located along a line between squares is irrelevant. The rules say, "When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from your square to the target’s square goes through a wall." The tower shield in this situation is being treated as a wall, and it in fact is a wall, and it fulfills all other requirements of cover in this situation from both directions.

It isn't a wall, and the rules only say it provides cover to the user.

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

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

Logically the shield should just provide cover without any action at all. Logically the user can peek around the shield to keep an eye on the defenseless opponent taking advantage of their being distracted. Logically. Cover isn't a fear affect, so I'm not sure where you're getting this cowering.

And you are basing that on your opinion then rather than what the rules actually say?

I don't know why you would say that. I'm obviously only using the rules, not someone's opinion of how the rules ought to work.

[Gwendol]

So, at your table only a wall can provide cover from melee attacks then?

EDIT: You make the claim that the normal rules for cover (i.e. cover goes both ways) do not apply in this case. I'm interested to see how you reach that conclusion, other than pointing at the tower shield not being a wall. It does provide cover, but where does that imply disregarding the other rules for cover in melee?

[eggynack]

It isn't a wall, and the rules only say it provides cover to the user.

What is a wall to your mind then? Because I've gotta say, if the only things that count for cover are going to be objects that are officially walls in some fashion, then the game is going to start acting in some really silly ways.

[bekeleven]

So, at your table only a wall can provide cover from melee attacks then?

EDIT: You make the claim that the normal rules for cover (i.e. cover goes both ways) do not apply in this case. I'm interested to see how you reach that conclusion, other than pointing at the tower shield not being a wall. It does provide cover, but where does that imply disregarding the other rules for cover in melee?

The idea he's getting at is:

Fluff: Cover is something that stops your swings. When the enemy swings, they hit the tower shield. When he swings, he moves the tower shield a bit and swings on the side of it. As he controls the cover, he can choose to move it out of the way when he needs to hit something behind it.

Crunch: "However, you can instead use it as total cover" does not say cover is mutual.

The issues with this approach are as follows:

Give Up Attacks: That's pretty blatant. AoOs are attacks.

Readied Strikes: Since cover is mutual in the sense that a wall between you blocks both players, that means your enemy could ready an action to strike when you moved the shield to strike him. This is a complicated rules interaction that's not really explained in the rules, and at some point begins feeling like a stretch.

That said, you can respond to those the following ways:

On losing attacks: There is no listed action type for swapping between tower shield types. At minimum you should be able to full attack then swap to cover after your round. At maximum munchkin, you can swap shield types every time someone would provoke.

On Complicated rules extrapolations: Other readings of the tower shield rules don't change some tower shield dysfunctions, and at some point the issue is not that one reading is crazier, so much as which crazy you're willing to accept.

The most important thing to note, in my opinion, is that any time you're attacking you're not using the shield for cover, so the cover clause doesn't apply in any case. The only question in my mind is how often you can switch.

[Gwendol]

Total cover is just that. The FAQ does a good job explaining how the usual rules for cover interact with the tower shield used for cover. You can't make the AoO because there is a movable wooden wall in the way.

[eggynack]

Also, gotta say, the game still explicitly states that you're giving up attacks for this benefit. I don't even really see where the argument is. Am I missing some sort of quote that says, "Hey, that tower shield thing that says that you can't make attacks? That's only in certain circumstances,"? I don't think I've seen one, even this theoretical FAQ quote that supposedly creates any kind of alternate meaning. It looks like even the FAQ explicitly states that the tower shield provides bidirectional cover no matter what you do, and stops AoO's.

Seriously, at this point we're arguing against theoretical FAQ entries. That's just not evidence to a ridiculous extent. Pretty sure this whole issue is just a non-object.

[bekeleven]

Give Up Attacks: That's pretty blatant. AoOs are attacks.
[...]
On losing attacks: There is no listed action type for swapping between tower shield types. At minimum you should be able to full attack then swap to cover after your round. At maximum munchkin, you can swap shield types every time someone would provoke.

Also, gotta say, the game still explicitly states that you're giving up attacks for this benefit. I don't even really see where the argument is. Am I missing some sort of quote that says, "Hey, that tower shield thing that says that you can't make attacks? That's only in certain circumstances,"? I don't think I've seen one, even this theoretical FAQ quote that supposedly creates any kind of alternate meaning. It looks like even the FAQ explicitly states that the tower shield provides bidirectional cover no matter what you do, and stops AoO's.

Seriously, at this point we're arguing against theoretical FAQ entries. That's just not evidence to a ridiculous extent. Pretty sure this whole issue is just a non-object.

OK, you've hit step 3 of my 6. Keep reading.

[Troacctid]

I honestly don't see what any of this has to do with Barbarians.

[Sir Chuckles]

We're all raving mad like them?
Man, I love being raving mad.

[Vogonjeltz]

So, at your table only a wall can provide cover from melee attacks then?

EDIT: You make the claim that the normal rules for cover (i.e. cover goes both ways) do not apply in this case. I'm interested to see how you reach that conclusion, other than pointing at the tower shield not being a wall. It does provide cover, but where does that imply disregarding the other rules for cover in melee?

Of course not, I just told you we use the rules in the book.

The requirements for melee cover are: If a line from the attackers square to the defenders's square goes through a wall (including a low wall), then the defender has cover.

The Tower Shield has this rule which is distinct and different than cover rules from objects/obstructions/walls: "However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding."

Nowhere is there mention of a wall, or low wall. So. A) The inference that Tower Shield = Mobile Wall on the part of the sage does NOT make sense in that if it were a wall it would not require any action at all to use as total cover, it simply would be total cover all the time. and B) Because it is not a wall or low wall and the shield's rule ONLY specifies that the user gains total cover, no one else benefits.

Now, if I recall correctly there is a variant rule in Unearthed Arcana regarding facing and shields, but this is Core we are discussing, not the variants.

It's just about impossible to have all of your bases covered. I mean, maybe with infinite wealth it's possible, but the number of bases in this game is insanely high. I'm highly skeptical of your claims, in other words.

The problem with the argument that Offense > Defense is two part:
1) Adding to defense is half as expensive as adding to offense. (+10 in defense enhancements is as expensive as +5 in offensive enhancements)
2) Offense is specific, defense is (usually) general. Having a great melee offense weapon does nothing for ranged offense. Conversely, defense applies to both.

To bring these points back to the discussion of the Barbarian:
The Barbarian focuses purely on offense at the actual expense of defense. Although this can make them very dangerous when taking a specific race/featlayout/weapon and having perfect circumstances at their beck and call (flat featureless plain, and a single enemy who fails to win initiative), anytime this confluence of events does not come to pass, and the stars don't align in harmony to put a sacrificial lamb in front of them, the Barbarian class performs significantly less well.

Just pointing out all the deck stacking that you engaged in by attempting to pick a specific race/feat/alternative class feature/specific terrain layout combination isn't representative. I'm talking general propositions that are intended to apply broadly to the class as a whole, you're talking a single niche case.

The idea he's getting at is:

Fluff: Cover is something that stops your swings. When the enemy swings, they hit the tower shield. When he swings, he moves the tower shield a bit and swings on the side of it. As he controls the cover, he can choose to move it out of the way when he needs to hit something behind it.

Crunch: "However, you can instead use it as total cover" does not say cover is mutual.

The issues with this approach are as follows:

Give Up Attacks: That's pretty blatant. AoOs are attacks.

Readied Strikes: Since cover is mutual in the sense that a wall between you blocks both players, that means your enemy could ready an action to strike when you moved the shield to strike him. This is a complicated rules interaction that's not really explained in the rules, and at some point begins feeling like a stretch.

That said, you can respond to those the following ways:

On losing attacks: There is no listed action type for swapping between tower shield types. At minimum you should be able to full attack then swap to cover after your round. At maximum munchkin, you can swap shield types every time someone would provoke.

On Complicated rules extrapolations: Other readings of the tower shield rules don't change some tower shield dysfunctions, and at some point the issue is not that one reading is crazier, so much as which crazy you're willing to accept.

The most important thing to note, in my opinion, is that any time you're attacking you're not using the shield for cover, so the cover clause doesn't apply in any case. The only question in my mind is how often you can switch.

You hit the nail on the head in terms of what I'm suggesting.

Further suggestion: Even though I disagree with the FAQs suggestion that the tower shield constitutes a wall, by its own admission the loss of attacks = standard action. So unless you want to argue that none of what the FAQ says is true, the use of the tower shield as full cover doesn't prevent AoO from happening.

The enemy can't ready an action AND provoke. Readied actions require the subject to use a standard action and take no movement except a 5-foot step (none of which provokes).

I read the giving up attacks clause as simply saying you can't use an attack/full-attack action, requiring no action at all but not giving up the ability to threaten. (Because it doesn't say that).

Also, gotta say, the game still explicitly states that you're giving up attacks for this benefit. I don't even really see where the argument is. Am I missing some sort of quote that says, "Hey, that tower shield thing that says that you can't make attacks? That's only in certain circumstances,"? I don't think I've seen one, even this theoretical FAQ quote that supposedly creates any kind of alternate meaning. It looks like even the FAQ explicitly states that the tower shield provides bidirectional cover no matter what you do, and stops AoO's.

Seriously, at this point we're arguing against theoretical FAQ entries. That's just not evidence to a ridiculous extent. Pretty sure this whole issue is just a non-object.

The meaning of that phrase is what is being debated. The rules don't say the user no longer threatens, so absent that phrase the user does still threaten and still can make an attacks of opportunity.

[Oddman80]

I can't believe a thread questioning weather or not Barbarian is a good class has gone 10 full pages deep. I do get that the majority of the thread got hijacked to discuss a statistical comparison between Barbarian and Fighter...

That said can everyone at least agree that Barbarian 2/Fighter 4 is vastly superior to Barbarian 6 and Fighter 6?

[Sartharina]

I can't believe a thread questioning weather or not Barbarian is a good class has gone 10 full pages deep. I do get that the majority of the thread got hijacked to discuss a statistical comparison between Barbarian and Fighter...

That said can everyone at least agree that Barbarian 2/Fighter 4 is vastly superior to Barbarian 6 and Fighter 6?

No. Barbarian 6 provides more rages, has more HP, will get a bigger rage later, has more skill points, and can be immune to flanking and sneak attack (And if he goes the Uncanny Dodge route instead of Tripping, gains pretty potent defensive boosts - especially against monsters with class levels and features.)

I also disagree that Barbarian trades Defense for Offense. It's possible to make a VERY defensively-minded barbarian - especially with the whirling frenzy archetype. They can get the same AC bonuses as a Fighter by grabbing a +5 Animated Shield and wearing +5 Mithril Full Plate armor (Breastplate at lower levels, especially if they can get a +3 Dex modifier)

[Extra Anchovies]

No. Barbarian 6 provides more rages, has more HP, will get a bigger rage later, has more skill points, and can be immune to flanking and sneak attack (And if he goes the Uncanny Dodge route instead of Tripping, gains pretty potent defensive boosts - especially against monsters with class levels and features.)

Barbarian 5/Fighter 1 is better than Barbarian 6, because +1 to trap sense is not worth one feat. I am also of the opinion that Barbarian 4/Fighter 2 is better than B5/F1; sometimes-immunity to sneak attack and immunity to flanking is worth less than one feat outside of E6. If you're letting your enemies catch you flat-footed, you're doing something wrong, and the same goes for letting them flank you. Getting a bigger rage is irrelevant, because taking Barbarian to 11 is a trap. Even a Frenzied Berserker will want to go Barbarian 6/Frenzied Berserker 10/Barbarian +4 to get Supreme Power Attack, and will probably have traded the later Barbarian levels for other PrCs anyways (e.g. Bear Warrior).

[Vogonjeltz]

No. Barbarian 6 provides more rages, has more HP, will get a bigger rage later, has more skill points, and can be immune to flanking and sneak attack (And if he goes the Uncanny Dodge route instead of Tripping, gains pretty potent defensive boosts - especially against monsters with class levels and features.)

I also disagree that Barbarian trades Defense for Offense. It's possible to make a VERY defensively-minded barbarian - especially with the whirling frenzy archetype. They can get the same AC bonuses as a Fighter by grabbing a +5 Animated Shield and wearing +5 Mithril Full Plate armor (Breastplate at lower levels, especially if they can get a +3 Dex modifier)

I say no as well, but mostly because the barbarian levels are wasted space if the character wants to take the more complex combat feats. What does barbarian bring to the table? Brief bonuses and then penalties?

Whirling frenzy trades 4 points of con and 2 points of to hit for 4 points of AC. This means 2 fewer hp per level and 2 fewer rounds of rage, after which they are weaker than they started.

Also the inability to use combat expertise or tower shields means the barbarian will never really catch up in defense. Requiring a higher Dex to try and close the gap in AC means less points for other stats.

Don't get me wrong, the Barbarian has a bunch of interesting abilities, like the Monk, but it is always going to be short on defense.

[eggynack]

OK, you've hit step 3 of my 6. Keep reading.

You seem to be using a bit of a "The rules don't say I can't," argument there. What's giving you even the initial authority to swap out shields here, let alone the authority to do it off turn? You're not even doing standard shield swapping here. You're swapping out a shield being used in a particular way.

1) Adding to defense is half as expensive as adding to offense. (+10 in defense enhancements is as expensive as +5 in offensive enhancements)

In that one form, in that one case, yes, defense is cheaper. You need more than defense against one thing in order to present defense as a meaningful threat though, if you can present defense as a meaningful threat at all, but a threat just starts out as a threat at the outset.

2) Offense is specific, defense is (usually) general. Having a great melee offense weapon does nothing for ranged offense. Conversely, defense applies to both.[/QUOTE]
That's the exact opposite of my understanding of things, especially when we move outside of mundane combat. Stunning works on everyone except for folks immune to stunning. Immunity to stunning only works on folks specifically running this specific form of offense. Similarly, the melee offense applies against anyone you can reach, while your defense only works against these specific types of attacks.

The Barbarian focuses purely on offense at the actual expense of defense. Although this can make them very dangerous when taking a specific race/featlayout/weapon and having perfect circumstances at their beck and call (flat featureless plain, and a single enemy who fails to win initiative), anytime this confluence of events does not come to pass, and the stars don't align in harmony to put a sacrificial lamb in front of them, the Barbarian class performs significantly less well.

I don't even really see how the barbarian is sacrificing that much defense here. The class has marginally worse shield/armor access, but whirling frenzy immediately makes up for some of that ground. Moreover, even when the situation isn't perfect, the barbarian still has access to a pair of high strength power attacks, and those don't even do the AC dropping bit.

Just pointing out all the deck stacking that you engaged in by attempting to pick a specific race/feat/alternative class feature/specific terrain layout combination isn't representative. I'm talking general propositions that are intended to apply broadly to the class as a whole, you're talking a single niche case.

Race/feat/ACF doesn't qualify as deck stacking. That's just build optimization. Terrain stuff is relevant though, and I thing I began to address.

I read the giving up attacks clause as simply saying you can't use an attack/full-attack action, requiring no action at all but not giving up the ability to threaten. (Because it doesn't say that).

Reading it that way doesn't really fit any definition of attack I'm aware of. The game doesn't say attack option. It just says attack.

The meaning of that phrase is what is being debated. The rules don't say the user no longer threatens, so absent that phrase the user does still threaten and still can make an attacks of opportunity.

Whether the user threatens is completely irrelevant. The user can't attack. An attack of opportunity is an attack, so the user can't make use of them.

[Extra Anchovies]

I say no as well, but mostly because the barbarian levels are wasted space if the character wants to take the more complex combat feats. What does barbarian bring to the table? Brief bonuses and then penalties?

Whirling frenzy trades 4 points of con and 2 points of to hit for 4 points of AC. This means 2 fewer hp per level and 2 fewer rounds of rage, after which they are weaker than they started.

Also the inability to use combat expertise or tower shields means the barbarian will never really catch up in defense. Requiring a higher Dex to try and close the gap in AC means less points for other stats.

Don't get me wrong, the Barbarian has a bunch of interesting abilities, like the Monk, but it is always going to be short on defense.

The constitution boost from rage is mostly a trap. The only good thing it does is increase the rage's duration; remember, you lose HP at the end of a rage equal to the amount you gained at the start. So if you're 12th level, you're in the negatives if you end a rage with less than 24 HP, and you're dead if you end with less than 14.

Whirling Frenzy also gives an extra attack. Having one more attack than usual makes the expected number of hits higher than it would be in normal rage, especially if you have buffs active that increase your attack modifier. One extra attack for you could mean one fewer full attack for the enemy.

Rage durations are an issue? Then you aren't dealing enough damage per round, clearly But you can also pick up the Extend Rage feat, which for one feat extends all of your rages by five rounds.

Also, a Whirling Frenzy Barbarian gets +2 to AC, which helps with their defenses, but AC actually stops mattering after a few levels, because the stuff that's worth avoiding starts being delivered via touch attack or by creatures with high attack bonuses (e.g. outsiders, dragons, and magical beasts).

[Sartharina]

I say no as well, but mostly because the barbarian levels are wasted space if the character wants to take the more complex combat feats. What does barbarian bring to the table? Brief bonuses and then penalties?

Greater Hit Die, more skill points, Uncanny Dodge, and Damage Reduction at higher levels (Good against multiattacks, weak against single blows).

Whirling frenzy trades 4 points of con and 2 points of to hit for 4 points of AC. This means 2 fewer hp per level and 2 fewer rounds of rage, after which they are weaker than they started.

By the time they're weaker than they started, the fight's over. It doesn't trade 2 points of To Hit unless you choose to make an extra attack (Still gives STR bonuses!) - Like Two Weapon Fighting or Flurry of Blows, but with a Greatsword and all its goodies. But what you might loose is the bonus to not chopping your own team to pieces.

Also the inability to use combat expertise or tower shields means the barbarian will never really catch up in defense. Requiring a higher Dex to try and close the gap in AC means less points for other stats.

Their greater HP and better saves offset a slightly lower AC. I've never seen a fighter bother using Combat Expertise or Tower Shield, because the penalties to attack aren't worth it.

[Extra Anchovies]

Greater Hit Die, more skill points, Uncanny Dodge, and Damage Reduction at higher levels (Good against multiattacks, weak against single blows).

I think it's worth noting that DR 5/— isn't going to mean a single thing at 20th level. DR 5/— barely means anything at 10th level. If someone's dealing 15 or fewer damage per hit (that is, enough that your DR blocks at least a third of it) and you're 20th level, those attacks: A) are going to have some nasty rider effects on them, B) are being made my enemies way below your CR bracket, or C) are coming from an enemy who's so debuffed that you've already won the fight anyways.

The greater hit die means an average of 21 more HP, enough to be offset almost entirely by Improved Toughness. Congratulations, you get the equivalent of a feat. Not too much of an advantage, and almost a non-advantage if you aren't taking average HP.

The skill points I will concede as being a noticeable advantage. Plus, you have one of the two perception skills in-class, which is a good thing. Uncanny Dodge also gets more useful at higher levels, because initiative becomes more important, but Improved Uncanny Dodge is situational enough to not be particularly important, and UD is a second-level ability, within easy dipping range for any martial.

[eggynack]

I think it's worth noting that DR 5/— isn't going to mean a single thing at 20th level. DR 5/— barely means anything at 10th level. If someone's dealing 15 or fewer damage per hit (that is, enough that your DR blocks at least a third of it) and you're 20th level, those attacks: A) are going to have some nasty rider effects on them, B) are being made my enemies way below your CR bracket, or C) are coming from an enemy who's so debuffed that you've already won the fight anyways.

Streetfighter grants far more relevant effects to the barbarian's doings, if we're talking about the long haul barbarian.

[atemu1234]

Streetfighter grants far more relevant effects to the barbarian's doings, if we're talking about the long haul barbarian.

Source pls.

[eggynack]

Source pls.

Here ya go.

[Extra Anchovies]

Streetfighter grants far more relevant effects to the barbarian's doings, if we're talking about the long haul barbarian.

Indeed. Cleaving Charge is nasty good (especially with shock trooper), feeling much more like a high-level ability than DR 5/— does. If I'm ever in a game where (for some reason) no multiclassing is allowed, I'll probably play a Spirit Lion Totem Streetfighter Barbarian, with Whirling Frenzy. (This works because Spirit Totem and Totem Manifestation are actually separate alternative class features, so I can take Pounce without taking the Lion's Roar)

[bekeleven]

You seem to be using a bit of a "The rules don't say I can't," argument there. What's giving you even the initial authority to swap out shields here, let alone the authority to do it off turn? You're not even doing standard shield swapping here. You're swapping out a shield being used in a particular way.

I'm swapping out a tower shield for... a tower shield? The same tower shield? Yeah, the rules don't say I can't do that...

I'm performing the action "stop using an item in a specific way," when using the item in that way has no required action to begin or end.

[eggynack]

I'm swapping out a tower shield for... a tower shield? The same tower shield? Yeah, the rules don't say I can't do that...

I'm performing the action "stop using an item in a specific way," when using the item in that way has no required action to begin or end.

What I'm saying is that the rules don't say you can do this as a non or immediate action. In any case, it looks like swapping the tower shield's nature is either a move or free action. Move for manipulating an item/moving a heavy object, or maybe free for dropping an item. Neither can be done off round.

[Gwendol]

Of course not, I just told you we use the rules in the book.

The requirements for melee cover are: If a line from the attackers square to the defenders's square goes through a wall (including a low wall), then the defender has cover.

The Tower Shield has this rule which is distinct and different than cover rules from objects/obstructions/walls: "However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding."

Nowhere is there mention of a wall, or low wall. So. A) The inference that Tower Shield = Mobile Wall on the part of the sage does NOT make sense in that if it were a wall it would not require any action at all to use as total cover, it simply would be total cover all the time. and B) Because it is not a wall or low wall and the shield's rule ONLY specifies that the user gains total cover, no one else benefits.

Yes, different in that you need to give up your attacks to use the shield as cover. That's it. Any ally would gain cover against ranged attacks as normal, and the reason why the shield does not provide cover against targeted spells is that it is still an attended object. The rest of the quoted paragraph are your personal musings.

The FAQ claims using the shield as cover requires a standard action, FWIW.

Back to the topic of Barbarians: the temp HP do have an impact when the class is used for monsters in that they become harder for the heroes to bring down. Also, the streetfighter barbarian is great all around in that similar to Zhent fighter you give up "nothing" for something.

[Vogonjeltz]

In that one form, in that one case, yes, defense is cheaper. You need more than defense against one thing in order to present defense as a meaningful threat though, if you can present defense as a meaningful threat at all, but a threat just starts out as a threat at the outset.

Are you saying you don't think weapon attacks are dangerous unless they're two-handed power attacking on a charge? If that's what you meant, I can't agree at all. If you didn't mean that, then it didn't come across and needs to be explained more clearly for me.

That's the exact opposite of my understanding of things, especially when we move outside of mundane combat. Stunning works on everyone except for folks immune to stunning. Immunity to stunning only works on folks specifically running this specific form of offense. Similarly, the melee offense applies against anyone you can reach, while your defense only works against these specific types of attacks.

I was thinking in terms of AC working on both melee and ranged, dodge working on touch attacks, etc... bonuses to armor affect different kinds of attacks, bonuses to a melee weapon are only going to do anything for melee, but do nothing for ranged.

Of course, as a counter-example of stunning, we have immunity to mind-affecting, which works defensively against a broad range of things, or Fortification which works against attack roll spells, melee, ranged, and extra dice from sneak attacks.

I don't even really see how the barbarian is sacrificing that much defense here. The class has marginally worse shield/armor access, but whirling frenzy immediately makes up for some of that ground. Moreover, even when the situation isn't perfect, the barbarian still has access to a pair of high strength power attacks, and those don't even do the AC dropping bit.

It's the penalties taken after rage ends, and if rage is only lasting 3+conmod rounds it's a perfectly viable strategy of an enemy to just delay until they have favorable conditions. Those negatives are sufficient to swing a battle out of the Barbarian's favor if they can't end it almost immediately.

Race/feat/ACF doesn't qualify as deck stacking. That's just build optimization. Terrain stuff is relevant though, and I thing I began to address.

Reading it that way doesn't really fit any definition of attack I'm aware of. The game doesn't say attack option. It just says attack.

Whether the user threatens is completely irrelevant. The user can't attack. An attack of opportunity is an attack, so the user can't make use of them.

Sorry, I didn't realize you weren't aware of the game rule definition of attack. Here it is:

Attack

Making an attack is a standard action.

Not an attack of opportunity, that's something else entirely.

The constitution boost from rage is mostly a trap. The only good thing it does is increase the rage's duration; remember, you lose HP at the end of a rage equal to the amount you gained at the start. So if you're 12th level, you're in the negatives if you end a rage with less than 24 HP, and you're dead if you end with less than 14.

Whirling Frenzy also gives an extra attack. Having one more attack than usual makes the expected number of hits higher than it would be in normal rage, especially if you have buffs active that increase your attack modifier. One extra attack for you could mean one fewer full attack for the enemy.

Rage durations are an issue? Then you aren't dealing enough damage per round, clearly But you can also pick up the Extend Rage feat, which for one feat extends all of your rages by five rounds.

Also, a Whirling Frenzy Barbarian gets +2 to AC, which helps with their defenses, but AC actually stops mattering after a few levels, because the stuff that's worth avoiding starts being delivered via touch attack or by creatures with high attack bonuses (e.g. outsiders, dragons, and magical beasts).

Yeah, I chalk the bonus hp from the Con boost up to the concept of short intense fights. If the Barbarian can't do it in 3+Conmod rounds, it probably isn't happening.

Technically the -2 on all attacks offsets the bonus to hit from +4 str, so the frenzy is only granting an extra attack and all attacks at +2 damage, which I agree isn't bad and definitely could shorten a fight. I just find it kind of funny that it's basically Flurry of Blows with a short duration timer.

Well, I would go for that, but if the Barbarian wants Shock Trooper by 6th level they can't actually get Extend Rage without being Human or taking flaws (which aren't necessarily available). Being Human means forgoing all those racial stat bonuses that eggynack was relying on. /shrug

It's actually a dodge bonus to AC, so it applies to touch attacks. Actually that's partly why Combat Expertise is so great, it's also a dodge bonus, so it applies to touch attacks...but Barbarians can't use that in rage/frenzy. That goes back to their main drawback as a class, they're pretty well locked into being all offense all the time.

Greater Hit Die, more skill points, Uncanny Dodge, and Damage Reduction at higher levels (Good against multiattacks, weak against single blows).

By the time they're weaker than they started, the fight's over. It doesn't trade 2 points of To Hit unless you choose to make an extra attack (Still gives STR bonuses!) - Like Two Weapon Fighting or Flurry of Blows, but with a Greatsword and all its goodies. But what you might loose is the bonus to not chopping your own team to pieces.

Their greater HP and better saves offset a slightly lower AC. I've never seen a fighter bother using Combat Expertise or Tower Shield, because the penalties to attack aren't worth it.

For a single feat a Fighter can have the DR of a 12th lvl Barbarian, For 2 feats he can have the DR of a 16th lvl Barbarian. (Armor Specialization + Greater Resiliency) (unless we don't think GR works on AS, then strike that second half)

Ideally this is so. True, but who is going to take Whirling Frenzy and NOT use that bit? I totally agree all three of those things make the attacks more effective. The penalty almost entirely offsets the gain from str though.

Saves only come into play if there's something to save against and the AC/HP value is relative to the threat and the levels of each. Extra HP only matters if the addition means the character can survive another hit on average. Anything less is essentially wasted. The penalty for using either CE or the shield is well exceeded by the benefit, though the use of Combat Expertise is meant to be done tactically whereby the opponent can't hit except off a 20, while the user can.

Yes, different in that you need to give up your attacks to use the shield as cover. That's it. Any ally would gain cover against ranged attacks as normal, and the reason why the shield does not provide cover against targeted spells is that it is still an attended object. The rest of the quoted paragraph are your personal musings.

The FAQ claims using the shield as cover requires a standard action, FWIW.

Back to the topic of Barbarians: the temp HP do have an impact when the class is used for monsters in that they become harder for the heroes to bring down. Also, the streetfighter barbarian is great all around in that similar to Zhent fighter you give up "nothing" for something.

And different in that it doesn't prevent the character from being targeted by spell attacks, AND different in that it doesn't say anything about it creating a wall that can be used for cover by anyone else, ally or enemy.

It would be different if the errata or premium 3.5 phb had something to say about this requiring an action, but they don't, that's something the FAQ author(s) are inferring. On the other hand, it can be read as saying these are mutually exclusive things. i.e. If you're going to use the shield as cover you can't choose the attack action (or the full attack action).

There's some precedence for this in the Ride Skill:
"Cover

You can react instantly to drop down and hang alongside your mount, using it as cover. You can’t attack or cast spells while using your mount as cover. If you fail your Ride check, you don’t get the cover benefit. This usage does not take an action."

I think we can agree the shield's description could have been more specific (i.e. This takes no action or This requires a standard action). The problem with saying it acts as a wall on a particular side is that there is no facing in D&D combat.

[eggynack]

Are you saying you don't think weapon attacks are dangerous unless they're two-handed power attacking on a charge? If that's what you meant, I can't agree at all. If you didn't mean that, then it didn't come across and needs to be explained more clearly for me.

They're dangerous, but they're quite a bit less dangerous than the character that's killing anything he has a clear path to. More to the point, we're not even really on "anything aside from an ubercharger" when we start talking about a character capable of defending himself against just about all comers in arena battles. There's uberchargers, and then there's regular THF folk, and then there's a bunch of other stuff, and at the bottom of the offense/defense trade off is whatever Emeraldstreak seems to be talking about. I'm not sure that that character at the bottom of the ladder is necessarily going to be dangerous.

I was thinking in terms of AC working on both melee and ranged, dodge working on touch attacks, etc... bonuses to armor affect different kinds of attacks, bonuses to a melee weapon are only going to do anything for melee, but do nothing for ranged.

Well, whirling frenzy does help quite a bit for archery, because multiple attacks, and combat expertise only works in melee, so it might actually be the opposite of this to some extent.

Of course, as a counter-example of stunning, we have immunity to mind-affecting, which works defensively against a broad range of things, or Fortification which works against attack roll spells, melee, ranged, and extra dice from sneak attacks.

There are some definite broad scope defenses, but they can be very expensive, and they can often be worked around with less work than it required to put them up in the first place. Immunity to mind affecting doesn't really protect you from that much more than immunity to stunning does, if you think about it relative to what was spent to reach that point.

It's the penalties taken after rage ends, and if rage is only lasting 3+conmod rounds it's a perfectly viable strategy of an enemy to just delay until they have favorable conditions. Those negatives are sufficient to swing a battle out of the Barbarian's favor if they can't end it almost immediately.

That's really more sacrificing long term for short term than sacrificing defense for offense, I think. And, given the often short term nature of D&D combat, that's a pretty good sacrifice to make. It helps that barbarians work to make fights be short term.

Sorry, I didn't realize you weren't aware of the game rule definition of attack. Here it is:

Not an attack of opportunity, that's something else entirely.

That's not the only definition of attack listed in the books. You need only look to the glossary to see the definition, "Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll," which obviously includes AoO's. Similarly, you need only look to the section for AoO's to see that they're repeatedly described as an attack/melee attack.

Technically the -2 on all attacks offsets the bonus to hit from +4 str, so the frenzy is only granting an extra attack and all attacks at +2 damage, which I agree isn't bad and definitely could shorten a fight.

It's quite a bit more than that. Strength bonus applies to just about all of the combat maneuvers, and it's actually a +3 to damage if you're running a two handed weapon.

[Gwendol]

And different in that it doesn't prevent the character from being targeted by spell attacks, AND different in that it doesn't say anything about it creating a wall that can be used for cover by anyone else, ally or enemy.

It would be different if the errata or premium 3.5 phb had something to say about this requiring an action, but they don't, that's something the FAQ author(s) are inferring. On the other hand, it can be read as saying these are mutually exclusive things. i.e. If you're going to use the shield as cover you can't choose the attack action (or the full attack action).

There's some precedence for this in the Ride Skill:
"Cover

You can react instantly to drop down and hang alongside your mount, using it as cover. You can’t attack or cast spells while using your mount as cover. If you fail your Ride check, you don’t get the cover benefit. This usage does not take an action."

I think we can agree the shield's description could have been more specific (i.e. This takes no action or This requires a standard action). The problem with saying it acts as a wall on a particular side is that there is no facing in D&D combat.

And in the absence of clarifying text it is helpful to actually follow the normal rules for cover, rather than making up new ones. I have never, ever discussed facing in this thread, so I don't see what problem we might have there.

I'm surprised you don't list uncanny dodge as a kind of defence the fighter will have a hard time accessing. This is truly an advantage since flat-footedness can be expected on every other fight or so, and flanking may also be expected to occur on a regular basis.

[Lans]

An archer fighter should be close to Eggy's shocktrooper barbarian in damage at level six. Weapon focus, point blank shot, rapidshot, dead eye, crossbow sniper, hit and run, and the targeteer ability adds up to 3.5x dex to damage, so about 32 if you do it right

[eggynack]

An archer fighter should be close to Eggy's shocktrooper barbarian in damage at level six. Weapon focus, point blank shot, rapidshot, dead eye, crossbow sniper, hit and run, and the targeteer ability adds up to 3.5x dex to damage, so about 32 if you do it right

Wait, is that 32 damage per round, or 32 damage per attack? And if it's the latter, then how much damage is happening on a full attack?