-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Who is better DAMAGE MACHINE a Fighter or a Barbarian or a Rogue?
- Thread starter Corwin the Confused
- Start date
I would have to disagree with a few of you.
At high levels like 10th and considering no magical items, the rogue is by far the Damage Machine.
BUT... probably after his first succesful sneak attack (which would rip of a good % of HP) he would become the primary target and get squished quickly since he normally doesnt have a good AC (but that can be better than the Barbarians) and low HP. He could maybe win using springattack but then its only 1 attack per round, at least he wouldnt die using it.
Second place I would say fighter, for he could have feats like Expertise, Improved trip, Knock-Down that would make Monster "X" decrease numbers of hits on him or not allow full-round attacks.
I would have to say that Barbarian at Lower levels would win because he can dish alot of damage raging and using a Two-handed weapon, and would probably kill any low level enconter in a few rounds, were a fighter would take a bit more and a rogue with little sneak attack forever.
My 2 cents...
At high levels like 10th and considering no magical items, the rogue is by far the Damage Machine.
BUT... probably after his first succesful sneak attack (which would rip of a good % of HP) he would become the primary target and get squished quickly since he normally doesnt have a good AC (but that can be better than the Barbarians) and low HP. He could maybe win using springattack but then its only 1 attack per round, at least he wouldnt die using it.
Second place I would say fighter, for he could have feats like Expertise, Improved trip, Knock-Down that would make Monster "X" decrease numbers of hits on him or not allow full-round attacks.
I would have to say that Barbarian at Lower levels would win because he can dish alot of damage raging and using a Two-handed weapon, and would probably kill any low level enconter in a few rounds, were a fighter would take a bit more and a rogue with little sneak attack forever.
My 2 cents...
reapersaurus
Explorer
I must be blind tonight.Caliban said:
Could someone quote where it was specified that there was no magic?
edit: ahh.. found it.
3rd clarification.
the no-magic restriction was also in the same clarification that said all 18's for stats.
Both restrictions I throw out as being frankly bogus and skewing towards a proper comparison of class abilities.
Throwing out magic but including all the fighter feats is not a good comparison.
Last edited:
Thanee
First Post
Against a monster that can be sneak attacked and in a situation that allows for sneak attacks (i.e. flanking), the Rogue will be the best.
In other cases, the Rogue will probably suck horribly, while the Fighter and the Barbarian both (I'd say the Barbarian is better in raw damage output a little) will be at full strength.
On average the Barbarian would be the best, I think.
Bye
Thanee
In other cases, the Rogue will probably suck horribly, while the Fighter and the Barbarian both (I'd say the Barbarian is better in raw damage output a little) will be at full strength.
On average the Barbarian would be the best, I think.
Bye
Thanee
Thanee
First Post
reapersaurus said:
Why so?
Fighter feats are comparable to sneak attack, both are class abilities.
IMHO it's not a good comparison, if you assume a monster that can be sneak attacked, as this is not always the case.
Why not compare two monsters, one that can and one that cannot be sneak attacked and then compare the average damage?
Bye
Thanee
Rashak Mani
First Post
A good mix of fighter and barbarian would do the trick even better... but in your example a Barbarian would deal out more damage. A Big weapon adds 50% of the Str Bonus which with Rage would be +3 damage already.
In combat in general thou the Fighter has a better advantage overall ... better AC... can use different combat styles better. If the case were a attack on a horde of Goblins... a fighter with Whirlwind would deal out much more damage.
In combat in general thou the Fighter has a better advantage overall ... better AC... can use different combat styles better. If the case were a attack on a horde of Goblins... a fighter with Whirlwind would deal out much more damage.
Rogue is a really bad class to throw into this. They either are very effective, or utterly screwed. If flanking they are great, though realisitically not for long unless they can somehow avoid getting smacked around. If they aren't flanking they can't do anything.
Lets assume the fighter types have a 18 str and the rogue a 18 dex and weapon finesse. Both fighters have greatswords, the rogue a rapier. Lets also assume level 10 characters (just to pick a level). All classes started with 16s and put both points in the primary stat. Fighter and Barb have PowerAttack (whereas the rogue took Weapon Finesse). The Fighter is specialized with his weapon. Everyone has MW weapons (no magic). We'll give the Rogue a Str of 12 (+1). Both fighters will Power Attack to keep the same attack as the rogue (to remove a variable, not exactly perfect I know).
Rogue (in flanking position):
BAB +7/+2
Flank +2
Dex +4
MW +1
For a total of +14/+9
Damage 6d6+1 (Avg 22) per hit
Barbarian (Raging)
BAB +10/+5
Flank +2
Str +6
MW +1
For a total of +19/+14
Power Attack +5
Damage 2d6+14 (Avg 21) per hit
Fighter
BAB +10/+5
Flank +2
Str +4
WpnFocus +1
MW +1
For a total of +18/+13
Power Attack +4
Damage 2d6+12 (Avg 19) per hit
So the Rogue wins by a point. This assumes they all have an equal chance of hitting. Against an opponent with high AC the fighter and barbarian will easily take the lead since they will probably hit with both attacks, and the rogue will be lucky to hit with one (though they'll be doing a few less points of damage).
So in the perfect situation the rogue can fight as well as a fighter type. Given that its not always the case the Barb does more damage than a fighter in the same situation, and both are vastly superior to the rogue one-on-one or where flanking/criticals don't apply.
Lets assume the fighter types have a 18 str and the rogue a 18 dex and weapon finesse. Both fighters have greatswords, the rogue a rapier. Lets also assume level 10 characters (just to pick a level). All classes started with 16s and put both points in the primary stat. Fighter and Barb have PowerAttack (whereas the rogue took Weapon Finesse). The Fighter is specialized with his weapon. Everyone has MW weapons (no magic). We'll give the Rogue a Str of 12 (+1). Both fighters will Power Attack to keep the same attack as the rogue (to remove a variable, not exactly perfect I know).
Rogue (in flanking position):
BAB +7/+2
Flank +2
Dex +4
MW +1
For a total of +14/+9
Damage 6d6+1 (Avg 22) per hit
Barbarian (Raging)
BAB +10/+5
Flank +2
Str +6
MW +1
For a total of +19/+14
Power Attack +5
Damage 2d6+14 (Avg 21) per hit
Fighter
BAB +10/+5
Flank +2
Str +4
WpnFocus +1
MW +1
For a total of +18/+13
Power Attack +4
Damage 2d6+12 (Avg 19) per hit
So the Rogue wins by a point. This assumes they all have an equal chance of hitting. Against an opponent with high AC the fighter and barbarian will easily take the lead since they will probably hit with both attacks, and the rogue will be lucky to hit with one (though they'll be doing a few less points of damage).
So in the perfect situation the rogue can fight as well as a fighter type. Given that its not always the case the Barb does more damage than a fighter in the same situation, and both are vastly superior to the rogue one-on-one or where flanking/criticals don't apply.
Last edited:
Thanee
First Post
Of course, now you can add in various feats to increase the effectiveness of everyone. The Rogue will most probably max out attacks with TWF. The Fighter might do that to, with Shield Expert and all the works.
Also, level 11 would give both the Barbarian and the Fighter another attack from high BAB, so the level 10 comparison is to the Rogue's favor, too!
Bye
Thanee
Also, level 11 would give both the Barbarian and the Fighter another attack from high BAB, so the level 10 comparison is to the Rogue's favor, too!
Bye
Thanee
Malin Genie
First Post
I find it really interesting that I keep coming across posts which basically assert "Rogues dominate combat" and "rogues are killing machines" but I have yet to come across the phenomenon in reality in any of my campaigns....
That aside, you do realise that
(1) Sneak Attacks are denied if there's any degree of concealment? (so if the combat takes place at night, or there is an obscuring mist spell going, or the opponent is subject to a blur or displacement (even minor displacement) effect etc) there can be no Sneak Attack?
(2) The Rogue has to be able to reach vital organs. A non-flying rogue could quite legitamately be denied Sneak Attacks against a Fire Giant opponent as all he can reach is the legs.
(3) A rogue who is grappled is dead meat. A rogue sitting next to a 9-headed pyrohydra is going to deal 25d6 damage (in ideal circumstances and assuming you decide the rogue can reach vital organs,) then: grapple, grapple (if the first is repelled by an AoO) then rip, tear, rend, chomp, gobble.
In my experience, fighters are the ones who shine in combat, which is as it should be. Barbarians can take damage but get hit too much (I play a Barbarian - at 4th level my Raging hp are 48, but I'm only AC 13.) A Fighter can take almost as much damage, but gets hit far less often (the party Ftr has only 33 hp but AC 19,) and sure he deals less damage than the Barbarian with a 2H Sword, but he'll deal it consistently, get extra hits from Cleave, can use Power Attack to get extra damage if the opponent's AC is low, etc etc. In a straight-out fight between a Bbn10 and Ftr10 with appropriate (roughly equal value, not ridiculously min-maxed) equipment, I'd put my money on the Ftr every time. In fact, against an average CR10 opponent (whether that be several smaller creatures or a single large creature,) I'd go with the Ftr every time.
A rogue's Sneak Attack allows him/her to be an often useful, and occasionally devastating, melee opponent which is a great improvement over 1/2e backstab, but (s)he'll never come close to a Bbn let alone a Ftr over time, over a range of encounters, or even in the great majority of individual encounters. Given the rogue's skill range, that is IMHO as it should be.
That aside, you do realise that
(1) Sneak Attacks are denied if there's any degree of concealment? (so if the combat takes place at night, or there is an obscuring mist spell going, or the opponent is subject to a blur or displacement (even minor displacement) effect etc) there can be no Sneak Attack?
(2) The Rogue has to be able to reach vital organs. A non-flying rogue could quite legitamately be denied Sneak Attacks against a Fire Giant opponent as all he can reach is the legs.
(3) A rogue who is grappled is dead meat. A rogue sitting next to a 9-headed pyrohydra is going to deal 25d6 damage (in ideal circumstances and assuming you decide the rogue can reach vital organs,) then: grapple, grapple (if the first is repelled by an AoO) then rip, tear, rend, chomp, gobble.
In my experience, fighters are the ones who shine in combat, which is as it should be. Barbarians can take damage but get hit too much (I play a Barbarian - at 4th level my Raging hp are 48, but I'm only AC 13.) A Fighter can take almost as much damage, but gets hit far less often (the party Ftr has only 33 hp but AC 19,) and sure he deals less damage than the Barbarian with a 2H Sword, but he'll deal it consistently, get extra hits from Cleave, can use Power Attack to get extra damage if the opponent's AC is low, etc etc. In a straight-out fight between a Bbn10 and Ftr10 with appropriate (roughly equal value, not ridiculously min-maxed) equipment, I'd put my money on the Ftr every time. In fact, against an average CR10 opponent (whether that be several smaller creatures or a single large creature,) I'd go with the Ftr every time.
A rogue's Sneak Attack allows him/her to be an often useful, and occasionally devastating, melee opponent which is a great improvement over 1/2e backstab, but (s)he'll never come close to a Bbn let alone a Ftr over time, over a range of encounters, or even in the great majority of individual encounters. Given the rogue's skill range, that is IMHO as it should be.
Darklone
Registered User
Hehehe adding to the confusion!
What about barbarian rogues and fighter rogues? IME they are worst. Hit better than the rogue, have more hitpoints and the few feats they are missing are easily balanced by the skillpoints and the extra sneak attack damage. Plus: Uncanny dodge really may be a lifesaver against enemy sneakattacks.
As far as damage in combat goes: Barbarians a close winner in front of the fighter, rogue generally sucks fast. The extradamage the rogue has is countered by twohanded larger weapons and loads of strength (which helps hitting too) and generally more attacks. Plus Power Attack helps to dish out more damage against enemies you hit easily (barbarians No1 problem against fighters).
Since I know scarcely any barbarian without cleave and power attack... rogues extra damage quickly looks obsolete.
What about barbarian rogues and fighter rogues? IME they are worst. Hit better than the rogue, have more hitpoints and the few feats they are missing are easily balanced by the skillpoints and the extra sneak attack damage. Plus: Uncanny dodge really may be a lifesaver against enemy sneakattacks.
As far as damage in combat goes: Barbarians a close winner in front of the fighter, rogue generally sucks fast. The extradamage the rogue has is countered by twohanded larger weapons and loads of strength (which helps hitting too) and generally more attacks. Plus Power Attack helps to dish out more damage against enemies you hit easily (barbarians No1 problem against fighters).
Since I know scarcely any barbarian without cleave and power attack... rogues extra damage quickly looks obsolete.
Similar Threads
