What's the problem about fighter/barbarians?

[Kilaya76]

I frankly don't think a reasonably well played UMD character with wands will ever lose in pvp. Once you get improved invis, dispel, and hold person, you are next to invulnerable. And if dislike for fighter/barbs do not come from perceived mechanical superiority, then I find unfair that classes combo that ARE mechanically superior (and thus would more likely be used for powergaming) are given more attention by the dms than a “boring” combo.
 
If you only see a tank when you look at a fighter/barb build, what do you see when you look at a UMD build? I bet you think "Well, this char looks like a powerbuild, but I guess good rp could come out of it".
 
Ignoring a char concept as a whole without looking at each concept individually is unfair.
 
Especially when, as it is, the antagonism between barbs and fighters makes no sense. Class descriptions say fighters have discipline and training while barbarians scorn it, but then why do barbarians, just like fighters, have access to all martial weapons, why do they have the same BAB or why can they take weapon focus, all of which obviously requires training and discipline? I guess barbarians didn't know how to fight all of a sudden, they had to learn and train first. Frankly, all the fighting classes (rangers, barbarians, paladins) are fighters to an extent, with the difference that they are less focused on combat training.
 
So, for example, a wild barbarian who chooses to focus more on martial training than he already does could take fighter levels, and retain much of what made him a barbarian in the first place. Frankly, I don't think this and other explanations make a concept any more illogical than a fighter/bard, or fighter/rogue.
 
As Panama said, looking at the char rp and not at the char sheet is the best thing to do. And I'm not saying my char is the best out there.

[SkillFocuspwn]

Nobody is saying it is wrong. People are saying they don't like it, personally, and it is often not RPed to justice. That does not mean a well-played one cannot exist, or that you are not welcome to try one. I'm sure the DMs would be stunned if one could be played well!

They just generally aren't.

[Caddies]

SFP has it.

[derfo]

anyone can say a certain class combination makes sense or is 'illogical' (however you would associate a personality specifically with logic in entirety)

and with the wands listed in the first paragraph, or even a much large arsenal of wands, you are nowhere near untouchable.

a barb/fighter with an equivalent of potions can match that sort of thing with relative ease and i have seen it proven before multiple times

[petey512]

True. Furthermore, this is veering off-topic, and the question that was on topic has been answered by a majority of the DM crew, thusly this thread really has no more of a point to it. If you want talk about how terrible multi-classing is then make a new thread about it.

[PanamaLane]

One of the other reasons I don't fancy the particular combination is because for every one, single ftr/barb that is well played and characterized, there are 20 that are taken by clueless players who purely want the mechanical benefits.  That tarnishes the combination and I am human.  It makes me prone to quickly looking past any ftr/barb character rather than spending the time to see if the combination really "works" for the particular concept.

I just hope you don't let it be a grudge. I can think of a lot of cool ways to play a barb/fighter.

Characters I would consider Barb/Fighter varients:
Wolverine
Lancelot (pre and post Arthur's court)
Genghis Khan
Crazy Horse
Andrew Jackson
Jake LaMotta
Rambo
Clint Eastwood
Chewbacca

Yes, people will do it for the build, but since when has making a strong build been a bad thing? Usually I see it encouraged by the DM team. You guys know I have nothing invested in this either, as my characters almost always have terrible builds. I just wouldn't mind seeing some cool barb/fighters if they were played well.

If they aren't played well, I don't see what makes them any different from any other build that's not played well.

[Thomas_Not_very_wise]

[makes a chewbacca noise]

[Amourae]

Just a wierd line of thought but I don't think that any build should be justified by the way that you role play the character. But the way that you role play your character should always be supported by the build.
 

Does this makes any sense or am I being oddly redundant here?

[Luke Danger]

Well, looking at it, a Ftr/Barb could of been a solider who learned the more ancient ways of combat (IE, rages), and uses them when he needs them, but does so tactically. On the flip side, a Barb/ftr, a wildsman at heart, had a more formal training with a fighter.

Here's an example story.

Dave the Barbarian was a wild man and fought with battle rages (True Nuteral), and had more 'city-understood' honor than other wildsmen. Ted the Sharborneth Sergeant-At-Arms was a skilled soldier who used discipline and a variety of technquies he had learned as he trained, but wasn't the most lawful Sharborneth, in reality, he was a (True Nuteral) Tempuran. They meet in battle as House Sharborneth expands. The two are tied well, Dave dishes out a beating to Ted and Ted makes it hard on Dave to actually hit, evenly matched, their battle comes to a draw, and, intrestingly enough, form a friendship, and as it goes, they learn more of each other, and start to incorporate eachother's technquies (thus Ted becomes a Fighter/Barb, and Dave becomes a Barb/Fighter, note the class order).


Now I don't expect -every- Barb/Ftr or Ftr/Barb to be the same, but it -is- an explainable backstory.

To be honest, the rift between Wizards and Sorcerors, or City and Druids, is much the same. Why would a wizard see a sorceror as uncontrollable if they aren't letting their whim dictate their actions and spells? Why would a sorceror think wizards too 'bookish'? It's a question that has fooled me, I would figure Wizards having respect for the natural talent of a Sorceror, while the other would have respect for the immense ammount of spells the Wizards can learn.

To be honest, it's how you -play- it that matters to me, if you have something beleivable and workable that backs your mechanics up, I'm all for it, but if you just take it but can't justify it, then seriously, don't. A Ftr/Rogue with UMD can easily be portray as a fighter who has been practicing with wands, but not quite as skilled as a wizard/cleric (depending on the wand), that certainly is how I would play it in many cases.

[9lives]

Regardless of the build, interesting characters generate interest.

I'm not fond of the build myself, but I've been guilty of utilising it in the past. Now, though, I find it difficult to reasonably justify - Especially when people are using the abilities of both in tandem (as one would expect from a multiclass).

My interpretation has the two as mutually exclusive. The unrestrained fury of the Barbarian, and the finely drilled martial skill of the Fighter. Different paths to one goal (CRUSHINGS). The shift from one to the other is doable, and cool. The learning of discipline, or the loss of one's restraint. But this seems like it would be a lengthy process, with its own causes and motivations, and not just because you hit level 5.

Snot's post hits the proverbial nail on the etcetera. Read it.

[Thomas_Not_very_wise]

There is no point in discussing this, proponents can always rationalize the build and opponents can always offer counter-arguments. Either you like it or you don't, and there's probably not a single reasoning out there that will make you think otherwise. As it happens, the vast majority, if not the entirety, of the EfU DM staff dislike this combination, and Howland and Scotty have explained well why that is.

There is no point in discussing this, proponents can always rationalize the build and opponents can always offer counter-arguments. Either you like it or you don't, and there's probably not a single reasoning out there that will make you think otherwise. As it happens, the vast majority, if not the entirety, of the EfU DM staff dislike this combination, and Howland and Scotty have explained well why that is.

There is no point in discussing this, proponents can always rationalize the build and opponents can always offer counter-arguments. Either you like it or you don't, and there's probably not a single reasoning out there that will make you think otherwise. As it happens, the vast majority, if not the entirety, of the EfU DM staff dislike this combination, and Howland and Scotty have explained well why that is.

There is no point in discussing this, proponents can always rationalize the build and opponents can always offer counter-arguments. Either you like it or you don't, and there's probably not a single reasoning out there that will make you think otherwise. As it happens, the vast majority, if not the entirety, of the EfU DM staff dislike this combination, and Howland and Scotty have explained well why that is.

[Howlando]

I've made my opinion clear, although I'm not sure most of the people reading this thread have read or understood it.

My argument simply is that in NWN, this particular mechanical combination lacks style to me. Nothing to do with "power" and exhausted, tired out arguments about the effectiveness of wands is completely besides the point.

I don't really see the need to repeat myself much here, just re-read my post below if you really must.

Feel free to agree or disagree, and play what you want, it's not like it really matters what I think.

[ScottyB]

As with the "Batman's alignment" argument, I disagree with many of the supposed Fighter/Barbs identified by PanamaLane.

Rambo is a ranger with FE: Human, for example.
The Man With No Name is more of a rogue, multiclassed with pure badass.
Wolverine is pure barb.
Andrew Jackson gets his own special PrC.

And with that, this thread is successfully derailed.

[PanamaLane]

Andrew Jackson gets his own special PrC.

lol.

But Rambo is def barb/fighter. He's a trained weapon that goes off the deep end.

[9lives]

He's a fighter/barb, then.

no skill points : - (