@Doom972 He is definitely at his best though when faced with hordes (or high difficulty versions) of his favored enemy. Beware if you're a dragon, vampire, mindflayer, etc and this guys favored enemy.
@Sceptenar: Nice. I'd totally dual to the thief...that really combines well with the barbarian actually. I should fine out how that's done. I kind of wonder if Barbarians will ever get kits - it's kind of a shame they get no dual class or kit options. But really the game is flooded with kits already.
I find it strange that so many people have been basing their choices on fluff instead of mechanics. Classes are nothing more than mechanical representations of whatever the hell you want your character to do. People saying they dislike barbarians because they're uncivilized and smelly and stuff just sound dumb IMHO (sorry to anyone who said things like this, just letting you know how it sounds).
I still picked Fighter however. I've always played the game with proper weapon specialization (BG I had true grandmastery, and true grandmastery has been one of the longest standing fixes for BG II out there, and is available in several fixpacks/tweaks). In terms of Berserker vs Barbarian, I chose berserker 'cause their immunities are better. In terms of power and damage, the OP mentioned barbarians + draw upon holy might, but the funny thing is Fighters actually have access to that spell with dual-classing, and of course can wield the Crom Fayer or wear belts or do anything else that raises Strength and their berserk still stacks.
For example, there's nothing stopping a Fighter from collecting multiple Tomes of Strengths via multiple play throughs. Once your Strength hits 25, there is nothing more that Rage can do for you. The 25 strength hammer all by its lonesome trumps the Barbarian. Dual-classing trumps the barbarian. True grandmastery trumps the barbarian. Multiclassing trumps the barbarian. Meanwhile, Fighters are more versatile, because not only are you naturally a better tank (and thus very survivable through BG I and BG II: SoA), but you can rock melee and ranged pretty hard (and if you're multiclassed or dual-classed, stoneskin trumps Barbarian damage reductions fiercely).
I do think that Barbarians are pretty low-end powerful, in the sense that they can be pretty strong with relatively little investment. Half Orc with maxed Str + Con + Rage is powerful early on. However, it's entirely possible to more or less get those benefits 24/7 with any melee character with some time and/or investments. Heck, there's a belt in BG II that gives you Str 21, if I recall.
The extra speed that barbarians have has in many cases been a hindrance as much as helpful to me in the past. If you've got AI scripts set, your barbarian can quickly get himself or herself into trouble if you're not tightly micro-managing them, and it can backfire something fierce if you lack certain protections (such as getting charmed between rages).
The barbarian hit die isn't that special to me. 18 HP is nice, but has never seemed like anything to write home about. Especially since you're much more likely to get hit repeatedly anyway, which makes the extra-HP a moot point (In fact, all things being equal, your barbarian may actually die faster despite the slightly higher HP).
How do you figure the Ranger beats Barbarian in offensive might? Hell, how do you figure the Ranger beats the Fighter at offense?
The Ranger is best suited for archery and dual-wielding and can he can sneak - all of these abilities makes him excellent in delivering fast deadly strikes. If the Ranger is ambushed, or if his attacks are avoided, he can be overwhelmed more easily than other warrior classes due to a lack of shield and using light armor. You can have him wear heavy armor and use a shield, but then you wouldn't make much use of ranger abilities, and are better off with making a fighter or paladin.
But the Fighter is equally capable of dual-wielding, as is the Barbarian. They just don't get two free pips in it. On top of that, they have Grand Mastery and Rage, respectively.
Though, you're right, Sneak is fairly useful. It's just a shame so many of the enemies you'd actually want to sneak up on will initiate conversation despite your invisibility.
Though, you're right, Sneak is fairly useful. It's just a shame so many of the enemies you'd actually want to sneak up on will initiate conversation despite your invisibility.
But the Fighter is equally capable of dual-wielding, as is the Barbarian. They just don't get two free pips in it. On top of that, they have Grand Mastery and Rage, respectively.
Though, you're right, Sneak is fairly useful. It's just a shame so many of the enemies you'd actually want to sneak up on will initiate conversation despite your invisibility.
"They just don't get two free pips in it" - Which makes my point. You can give them that ability at a sacrifice, while a ranger gets it automatically. So if you want to make a dual-wielding character, the ranger would be the best candidate in that aspect.
"They just don't get two free pips in it" - Which makes my point. You can give them that ability at a sacrifice, while a ranger gets it automatically. So if you want to make a dual-wielding character, the ranger would be the best candidate in that aspect.
The "best" candidate? Admittedly, the two free pips are convenient, but meaningless the second a Fighter has three pips in both dual-wielding and his weapon of choice. The damage output is ultimately going to be better with a Fighter or Barbarian.
If playing a pure class barbarian wins over fighter because of natural 20% damage reducton. 20+20+40=80% damage reduction which is pretty EPIC. The problem ofc is that so many other classes get too its not even funny. But not the pure fighter.
I still picked Fighter however. I've always played the game with proper weapon specialization (BG I had true grandmastery, and true grandmastery has been one of the longest standing fixes for BG II out there, and is available in several fixpacks/tweaks).
...
For example, there's nothing stopping a Fighter from collecting multiple Tomes of Strengths via multiple play throughs. Once your Strength hits 25, there is nothing more that Rage can do for you.
...
So you use a tweak buffing the fighter, "cheat" his stats to 25 and use that as example why the fighter is superior? You even use stoneskin. That means you need to dual class into mage and somehow still use heavy armor and dish out the same meelee damage as a barbarian.
I admit fighters (especially kits and/or multi- and dual-classes ) are probably better, but I'm totally partial towards the barbarian. They have a certain... something that appeals to me. The natural resistances are nice (40% when using DoH, stacking with the HLA), and the armor restriction isn't that harsh (you can still use nice ones like the white dragon scale mail, for example). Also, more HP (again, combined with the resistances) is a great asset at high levels when AC may not be that important anymore.
I still picked Fighter however. I've always played the game with proper weapon specialization (BG I had true grandmastery, and true grandmastery has been one of the longest standing fixes for BG II out there, and is available in several fixpacks/tweaks).
...
For example, there's nothing stopping a Fighter from collecting multiple Tomes of Strengths via multiple play throughs. Once your Strength hits 25, there is nothing more that Rage can do for you.
...
So you use a tweak buffing the fighter, "cheat" his stats to 25 and use that as example why the fighter is superior? You even use stoneskin. That means you need to dual class into mage and somehow still use heavy armor and dish out the same meelee damage as a barbarian.
I am confused...
Instead of singling out one portion of my post to make it sound silly, perhaps you should look at the whole thing. I mentioned that in BG I that grandmastery works as intended, and that it is one of the most common fixes in BG II expanded content (a fix that is also important in BG Tutu and BGT). However, I didn't base my whole points in grandmastery. In fact, it wasn't even a major contender, next to the other aspects (in fact, it was no more than 25% of the reasons Fighter>Barbarian).
The reason spells like stoneskin and the like were mentioned was simple. The OP mentioned that by combining the barbarian's rage with stuff like a 19 base strength (half-orc only) plus Draw Upon Holy Might (possible via bhaalspawn power, but you loose this later), that you get get really big bonuses. I remarked that barbarians will never access spells because they cannot multi or dual class; while a Fighter actually can get access to any spell in the game (being a fighter/mage, fighter/cleric, fighter/druid, or even fighter/mage/cleric), which grants the Fighter access to such spells for real and better spells to boot.
I also pointed out that Strength isn't terribly hard to buff. Belts, potions, natural bonuses, tomes, and so forth. Fighter benefits stack nicely with Strength, whilist hitting the Strength cap means Barbarians only get their immunities, and berserkers have better immunities. Grandmastery also stacks with strength.
If you dual-class to mage, you have several options. Forgo armor and be better off than the barbarian defensively (since by the time the barbarian begins to look sexy in ToB, AC matters little and you'll have tons of sexy resistances via robes and spells), or pre-combat buff for major battles and then don your armor (I'm not as fond of this option, but some are). For everything else, there's elven chain.
Instead of singling out one portion of my post to make it sound silly, perhaps you should look at the whole thing. ...
I didn't want to annoy you, I just wanted to point out that you the fighter can't have all the advantages you listed at the same time. And if he multiclasses he doesn't have the immunities granted by berserker's rage. Dual class he won't have the saves and the THAC0 of a pure fighter/barbarian. In summary I think that your comparison is kind of one-sided.
@Ashiel: The change in Grandmastery is a nerf, not a bug. A great discussion can be found here: http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/3268/#Comment_3268. Fighters are not supposed to have it in BG2/BG1tutu, so I'm making the comparison as if they did not. If 'true' GM existed, Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins would be a lot less common.
While your other comparisons are entirely correct, they present only part of the picture. Your comparisons all take place at a very late point in the BG saga (the end of BG2) and ignore much of the game in-between (BG1, early BG2). This is a big chunk of time over which the Barbarian is competitive or better.
Dual classing also means starting over and re-leveling, which takes time. In addition, if you dual from a fighter to a mage (to get stoneskin) your fighting abilities stop progressing. A single class Barbarian will eventually overtake you in THAC0 and HP significantly. In ToB, the difference could be huge!
I love Barbarians, but I can totally see why the Fighter is more popular. The fighter has a distinct edge at certain points, but never outright dominates IMO.
You guys are aware that there is no further THAC0 progression after it hits 0, right? In other words, martial characters get little beyond some extra hit points past 20th level without dual/multi-classing (which basically means Fighters don't die as much at low levels where AC is important, and are still useful at very high levels when it's not). There's also -- again -- the fact that all Barbarians have going for them is ability score modifiers, which can be reached 24/7 by Fighters and Barbarians. The difference is that the Barbarian stops having a useful ability compared to the Berserker in this case. Berserker also has better immunities last I checked.
Likewise, yes, dual-classing does require you to start over, but that's not a huge deal since you just re-collect some experience. Farming experience points isn't particularly difficult and you still possess the HP to keep you alive. You get the lion's share of your levels back quickly (as a humorous example, dual-class Yoshimo IMMEDIATELY when you get him, and he'll have gained about 4-5 levels in Fighter before you even get out of the next room :P).
@Ashiel Barbarian continues to gain damage resistance and is immune to backstab. Martial characters also get their HLAs, which Dual-Class Fighters only get if their second class is Fighter.
I voted fighter for the berserker kit, for one big reason: berserker rage protects against Imprisonment, and barbarian rage does not. I think this one fact makes a huge difference in the late game, especially if you fight liches.
@Ashiel: To get maximum fighter THAC0, you would have to achieve level 20. Assuming no XP farming (or worse yet, XP cap lol), you would not do this until early ToB. You would then have to Dual class and start over. To re-gain these fighting abilities, you must achieve level 21 in your new class. This means progressing much further into ToB or doing a ton more XP farming. Some players don't enjoy this style of gaming and prefer a character that pays dividends fast.
As for the Yoshimo example... This first 4 or 5 levels in any class are easy to gain The 10th and beyond levels are hard to gain, whether or not you are in BG2/ToB.
Of course some people prefer instant gratification. I prefer long-term awesomeness. I'm the sort who wouldn't mind replaying the game to get more tomes (you can legally max out all your stats in BG I-II if you love replaying the game). I say Fighter has a great potential than Barbarian.
I think dual classing is a bit of a gimmick, tbh, especially from a very high level. Going from a 20th level fighter to a 1st level mage... I didn't really like dual classing Imoen in BG1, and usually didn't. If you do though, yes, at the xp cap, she is pretty powerful.
Of course some people prefer instant gratification. I prefer long-term awesomeness. I'm the sort who wouldn't mind replaying the game to get more tomes (you can legally max out all your stats in BG I-II if you love replaying the game). I say Fighter has a great potential than Barbarian.
I like to have at least one barbarian, they're invaluable in the ilithid city in BG2. ( Rage makes them immune to many of the mind flayer psionic attacks )
Yep but overall over the scope of the games fighters don't need more THAC0 either. I still love making pure fighters and I keep leveling them for all those epic abilities that in certain abilities you can get multiples of -- which I use until I have to rest to get them back. The more I have the less resting he has to do and while its more convenience it is good enough for me and saw me through to the end of many games.
I played a barbarian through at one point too and the game overall wasn't any more easier or harder. Mostly its style and what you like.
You guys are aware that there is no further THAC0 progression after it hits 0, right? In other words, martial characters get little beyond some extra hit points past 20th level without dual/multi-classing (which basically means Fighters don't die as much at low levels where AC is important, and are still useful at very high levels when it's not). There's also -- again -- the fact that all Barbarians have going for them is ability score modifiers, which can be reached 24/7 by Fighters and Barbarians. The difference is that the Barbarian stops having a useful ability compared to the Berserker in this case. Berserker also has better immunities last I checked.
Likewise, yes, dual-classing does require you to start over, but that's not a huge deal since you just re-collect some experience. Farming experience points isn't particularly difficult and you still possess the HP to keep you alive. You get the lion's share of your levels back quickly (as a humorous example, dual-class Yoshimo IMMEDIATELY when you get him, and he'll have gained about 4-5 levels in Fighter before you even get out of the next room :P).
Technically the barbarian is a fighter kit as far as the game is concerned...
While this is true in terms of game code, you can't dual-class out of Barbarian unless you mod your game.
If they change that for Enhanced Edition, I think Barbarian is the easy call out of the two simply because every kit minus Cleric you can dual-class into can't wear heavy armors anyway. Otherwise, fighters because if you take into consideration the entire series, you can get to level 12 and still dual-class to a max level mage/thief/cleric/druid by the end of BG2, let alone Throne of Bhaal.
The Berserker Kit for fighters is better than Barbarian anyway.
Haven't read the whole thread, but my vote went to the barb. If you are talking single-class and not all of the options for dual classing, I find the barb a lot more versatile and fun. I love the movement speed, extra hp, rage (no fatigue afterwards is awesome), and I LOVE the resistances the barb gets late game when AC doesn't matter anymore.
2) Weapon specialisation will increase the number of attacks. So with a comparable strength the fighter will do more "sustainable" damage in the long run. Although the barbarian's rage isn't to be shunned.
While damage reduction might be a nice perk for barbarians do you really need it in a party setup? Blur / Improved invisibility / Stoneskin (e.g. dual class Fighter -> Mage) / Displacement (e.g. dual class Fighter -> Mage) + Haste will have a similar effect vs melee attacks.
Comments
I still picked Fighter however. I've always played the game with proper weapon specialization (BG I had true grandmastery, and true grandmastery has been one of the longest standing fixes for BG II out there, and is available in several fixpacks/tweaks). In terms of Berserker vs Barbarian, I chose berserker 'cause their immunities are better. In terms of power and damage, the OP mentioned barbarians + draw upon holy might, but the funny thing is Fighters actually have access to that spell with dual-classing, and of course can wield the Crom Fayer or wear belts or do anything else that raises Strength and their berserk still stacks.
For example, there's nothing stopping a Fighter from collecting multiple Tomes of Strengths via multiple play throughs. Once your Strength hits 25, there is nothing more that Rage can do for you. The 25 strength hammer all by its lonesome trumps the Barbarian. Dual-classing trumps the barbarian. True grandmastery trumps the barbarian. Multiclassing trumps the barbarian. Meanwhile, Fighters are more versatile, because not only are you naturally a better tank (and thus very survivable through BG I and BG II: SoA), but you can rock melee and ranged pretty hard (and if you're multiclassed or dual-classed, stoneskin trumps Barbarian damage reductions fiercely).
I do think that Barbarians are pretty low-end powerful, in the sense that they can be pretty strong with relatively little investment. Half Orc with maxed Str + Con + Rage is powerful early on. However, it's entirely possible to more or less get those benefits 24/7 with any melee character with some time and/or investments. Heck, there's a belt in BG II that gives you Str 21, if I recall.
The extra speed that barbarians have has in many cases been a hindrance as much as helpful to me in the past. If you've got AI scripts set, your barbarian can quickly get himself or herself into trouble if you're not tightly micro-managing them, and it can backfire something fierce if you lack certain protections (such as getting charmed between rages).
The barbarian hit die isn't that special to me. 18 HP is nice, but has never seemed like anything to write home about. Especially since you're much more likely to get hit repeatedly anyway, which makes the extra-HP a moot point (In fact, all things being equal, your barbarian may actually die faster despite the slightly higher HP).
Though, you're right, Sneak is fairly useful. It's just a shame so many of the enemies you'd actually want to sneak up on will initiate conversation despite your invisibility.
I am confused...
The reason spells like stoneskin and the like were mentioned was simple. The OP mentioned that by combining the barbarian's rage with stuff like a 19 base strength (half-orc only) plus Draw Upon Holy Might (possible via bhaalspawn power, but you loose this later), that you get get really big bonuses. I remarked that barbarians will never access spells because they cannot multi or dual class; while a Fighter actually can get access to any spell in the game (being a fighter/mage, fighter/cleric, fighter/druid, or even fighter/mage/cleric), which grants the Fighter access to such spells for real and better spells to boot.
I also pointed out that Strength isn't terribly hard to buff. Belts, potions, natural bonuses, tomes, and so forth. Fighter benefits stack nicely with Strength, whilist hitting the Strength cap means Barbarians only get their immunities, and berserkers have better immunities. Grandmastery also stacks with strength.
If you dual-class to mage, you have several options. Forgo armor and be better off than the barbarian defensively (since by the time the barbarian begins to look sexy in ToB, AC matters little and you'll have tons of sexy resistances via robes and spells), or pre-combat buff for major battles and then don your armor (I'm not as fond of this option, but some are). For everything else, there's elven chain.
And if he multiclasses he doesn't have the immunities granted by berserker's rage. Dual class he won't have the saves and the THAC0 of a pure fighter/barbarian.
In summary I think that your comparison is kind of one-sided.
While your other comparisons are entirely correct, they present only part of the picture. Your comparisons all take place at a very late point in the BG saga (the end of BG2) and ignore much of the game in-between (BG1, early BG2). This is a big chunk of time over which the Barbarian is competitive or better.
Dual classing also means starting over and re-leveling, which takes time. In addition, if you dual from a fighter to a mage (to get stoneskin) your fighting abilities stop progressing. A single class Barbarian will eventually overtake you in THAC0 and HP significantly. In ToB, the difference could be huge!
I love Barbarians, but I can totally see why the Fighter is more popular. The fighter has a distinct edge at certain points, but never outright dominates IMO.
In mentality or what style of fighting i like more, it would be barbarian.
Likewise, yes, dual-classing does require you to start over, but that's not a huge deal since you just re-collect some experience. Farming experience points isn't particularly difficult and you still possess the HP to keep you alive. You get the lion's share of your levels back quickly (as a humorous example, dual-class Yoshimo IMMEDIATELY when you get him, and he'll have gained about 4-5 levels in Fighter before you even get out of the next room :P).
Barbarian continues to gain damage resistance and is immune to backstab. Martial characters also get their HLAs, which Dual-Class Fighters only get if their second class is Fighter.
As for the Yoshimo example... This first 4 or 5 levels in any class are easy to gain The 10th and beyond levels are hard to gain, whether or not you are in BG2/ToB.
I played a barbarian through at one point too and the game overall wasn't any more easier or harder. Mostly its style and what you like.
If they change that for Enhanced Edition, I think Barbarian is the easy call out of the two simply because every kit minus Cleric you can dual-class into can't wear heavy armors anyway. Otherwise, fighters because if you take into consideration the entire series, you can get to level 12 and still dual-class to a max level mage/thief/cleric/druid by the end of BG2, let alone Throne of Bhaal.
The Berserker Kit for fighters is better than Barbarian anyway.
1) More armor options.
2) Weapon specialisation will increase the number of attacks. So with a comparable strength the fighter will do more "sustainable" damage in the long run. Although the barbarian's rage isn't to be shunned.
While damage reduction might be a nice perk for barbarians do you really need it in a party setup? Blur / Improved invisibility / Stoneskin (e.g. dual class Fighter -> Mage) / Displacement (e.g. dual class Fighter -> Mage) + Haste will have a similar effect vs melee attacks.