I'd go Fighter1/BarbarianX for Two Weapon Fighting and then into Barbarian. It's easier to pump Unarmouored Defense with a Barbarian than it is a Monk.
The problem is that a barbarian needs to use strength attacks. The easiest way to pump AC on an unarmored fighter is by raising dexterity on a build that uses finesse weapons.
Barbarian doesn't need high AC though, they have damage resistances and can & should pump AC by increasing CON to maximized the effectiveness of their resistances. Two weapon fighting luckily doesn't need much in the way of feats to be effective, so you can either pump stats for AC or pick up other defensive feats pretty freely.
If this is 2025 rules, you could also consider dance bard as a multiclass on a DEX fighter base instead of barb, since that also gives you an Unarmored Defense option (10+DEX+CHA)
Please stop suggesting Bard as a class somebody should select to play.
I think I'll keep suggesting whatever class seems appropriate for the situation, thanks
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
In this specific case, in this specific thread, it's because it's just objectively worse than Barbarian for that the OP was looking for.
There is no such thing as "objectively worse". There are just different play styles and different approaches
I'll take a bard main any day over someone who thinks there's an "objectively right" way to build a character
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
In this specific case, in this specific thread, it's because it's just objectively worse than Barbarian for that the OP was looking for.
There is no such thing as "objectively worse". There are just different play styles and different approaches
I'll take a bard main any day over someone who thinks there's an "objectively right" way to build a character
You'd be wrong. The reason the term "meta" exists is because there's an objectively correct best way to build a character.
Does that mean you should? Nah, not if you don't want. Hell, my favourite class in the game is Purple Dragon Knight so I am not beyond playing subpar classes. Bard ain't the way, though, bro. It just ain't the way.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If this is 2025 rules, you could also consider dance bard as a multiclass on a DEX fighter base instead of barb, since that also gives you an Unarmored Defense option (10+DEX+CHA)
Please stop suggesting Bard as a class somebody should select to play.
Bad take. In 2024 rules the dance bard is a viable way to get unarmored defense. This was suggested before op clarified that they're using 2014 rules so there is absolutely no reason for this. Just because you don't like bards doesn't make the class bad for what the OP is looking for.
Back to OP's question, in 2014 rules there are only 2 ways to get unarmored defense, monk and barbarian. Barbarian is better than monk in this ruleset since two-weapon fighting in 2014 only gives you a bonus action attack instead of letting you make it as part of the attack action. Since the monk already has a reliable use of its bonus action it doesn't benefit from two-weapon fighting. For a build like Inosuke a battle master fighter, to try to emulate the different forms, and get the two-weapon fighting style. Either the totem warrior or zealot barbarians would be appropriate. Totem warrior makes the most sense as you just reskin the bear to a boar, you're only changing one letter. You'll want more fighter levels than barbarian because you will be ASI starved by wanting strength, constitution, and dexterity high while also wanting the dual wielder feat to wield normal weapons with your dual wielding.
I'd recommend starting barbarian, getting 6 level in fighter, taking barbarian to 4, then the rest into fighter. The downside to this is that you don't get extra attack until level 6 and don't get reckless attack until level 8. The boar resistance is also delayed until character level 9. This progression would give you 7 ASIs if you go to level 20. One of those is tied up with the dual wielder feat so you have 6 ASIs to max out strength, con, and dex probably in that order.
Back to OP's question, in 2014 rules there are only 2 ways to get unarmored defense, monk and barbarian. Barbarian is better than monk in this ruleset since two-weapon fighting in 2014 only gives you a bonus action attack instead of letting you make it as part of the attack action. Since the monk already has a reliable use of its bonus action it doesn't benefit from two-weapon fighting. For a build like Inosuke a battle master fighter, to try to emulate the different forms, and get the two-weapon fighting style. Either the totem warrior or zealot barbarians would be appropriate. Totem warrior makes the most sense as you just reskin the bear to a boar, you're only changing one letter. You'll want more fighter levels than barbarian because you will be ASI starved by wanting strength, constitution, and dexterity high while also wanting the dual wielder feat to wield normal weapons with your dual wielding.
I'd recommend starting barbarian, getting 6 level in fighter, taking barbarian to 4, then the rest into fighter. The downside to this is that you don't get extra attack until level 6 and don't get reckless attack until level 8. The boar resistance is also delayed until character level 9. This progression would give you 7 ASIs if you go to level 20. One of those is tied up with the dual wielder feat so you have 6 ASIs to max out strength, con, and dex probably in that order.
Good advice. I'd probably go higher in Fighter and ignore Barbarian subclass personally.
Good advice. I'd probably go higher in Fighter and ignore Barbarian subclass personally.
I'd probably ditch fighter completely. Two weapon fighting style gives you... 3-5 dpr, depending on your level. Given that a raging barbarian (with a 16 strength and two 1d6 weapons) is already doing 2d6+7 at level 1, that's not that big a deal -- though if you really want it, I suggest playing a variant human and taking Martial Adept (from TCoE) as your first level feat.
Good advice. I'd probably go higher in Fighter and ignore Barbarian subclass personally.
I'd probably ditch fighter completely. Two weapon fighting style gives you... 3-5 dpr, depending on your level. Given that a raging barbarian (with a 16 strength and two 1d6 weapons) is already doing 2d6+7 at level 1, that's not that big a deal -- though if you really want it, I suggest playing a variant human and taking Martial Adept (from TCoE) as your first level feat.
Besides the fact that the op is asking which multiclass would be better in the title, there are 2 big reasons why you don't ditch the fighter.
1. More ASIs. The build plan on post 30 gets you 7 ASIs instead of 5 with straight barbarian. Getting to level 20 in barbarian does give you an extra 4 in con and strength but you have to wait until level 20 and that is only relevant for a few battles. This way you're better in the tiers that most people play.
2. Theme. The OP said they wanted a build like Inosuke from demon slayer in post 13. That anime has breathing styles with different forms. Battle master maneuvers can approximate those forms. Since this is 2014 rule the only other thing that I can think of to approximate the forms is the swords bard flourishes.
As an added reason multiple attacks from the fighter along with the damage bonus from two-weapon fighting and maneuvers far outweighs the rage damage bump and brutal critical.
1. More ASIs. The build plan on post 30 gets you 7 ASIs instead of 5 with straight barbarian. Getting to level 20 in barbarian does give you an extra 4 in con and strength but you have to wait until level 20 and that is only relevant for a few battles. This way you're better in the tiers that most people play.
2. Theme. The OP said they wanted a build like Inosuke from demon slayer in post 13. That anime has breathing styles with different forms. Battle master maneuvers can approximate those forms. Since this is 2014 rule the only other thing that I can think of to approximate the forms is the swords bard flourishes.
As an added reason multiple attacks from the fighter along with the damage bonus from two-weapon fighting and maneuvers far outweighs the rage damage bump and brutal critical.
1. More ASIs are good, but not amazing unless you want to pick up multiple feats, which two-weapon fighting doesn't need/want to do in 2014 rules.
2. For Maneuvers all you need is 3 levels of fighter, Battlemaster doesn't scale much beyond those first 3 levels.
3. Multiple attacks from fighter do not make up for the damage bonus from Rage, because Rage adds to each attack so is stronger the more attacks you make, whereas multiple attacks are better the more damage you do per attack, Two-weapon fighting doesn't do that much damage on each attack but makes multiple attacks which means Rage is better than increasing Extra Attacks.
1. More ASIs. The build plan on post 30 gets you 7 ASIs instead of 5 with straight barbarian. Getting to level 20 in barbarian does give you an extra 4 in con and strength but you have to wait until level 20 and that is only relevant for a few battles. This way you're better in the tiers that most people play.
2. Theme. The OP said they wanted a build like Inosuke from demon slayer in post 13. That anime has breathing styles with different forms. Battle master maneuvers can approximate those forms. Since this is 2014 rule the only other thing that I can think of to approximate the forms is the swords bard flourishes.
As an added reason multiple attacks from the fighter along with the damage bonus from two-weapon fighting and maneuvers far outweighs the rage damage bump and brutal critical.
1. More ASIs are good, but not amazing unless you want to pick up multiple feats, which two-weapon fighting doesn't need/want to do in 2014 rules.
2. For Maneuvers all you need is 3 levels of fighter, Battlemaster doesn't scale much beyond those first 3 levels.
3. Multiple attacks from fighter do not make up for the damage bonus from Rage, because Rage adds to each attack so is stronger the more attacks you make, whereas multiple attacks are better the more damage you do per attack, Two-weapon fighting doesn't do that much damage on each attack but makes multiple attacks which means Rage is better than increasing Extra Attacks.
Debatable- looking at the classes individually if we assume the 65% hit rate, then at level 11 it's 10(3d6, 3+4+3)+10(max ability)+12(3*4 Rage) for 32*.65=21. With Fighter it's 14(4d6, 3+4+3+4)+20 for 34*.65=22. So, a TWF Fighter is technically better than a TWF Barbarian, but only nominally. You can edge the Barbarian slightly ahead with the TWF Fighting Style, but it's still not a really noticeable difference. Go Barbarian main if you want to be tanky, or Fighter if you want to lean into the Maneuvers. The dpr aspect isn't really significant.
1. More ASIs. The build plan on post 30 gets you 7 ASIs instead of 5 with straight barbarian. Getting to level 20 in barbarian does give you an extra 4 in con and strength but you have to wait until level 20 and that is only relevant for a few battles. This way you're better in the tiers that most people play.
2. Theme. The OP said they wanted a build like Inosuke from demon slayer in post 13. That anime has breathing styles with different forms. Battle master maneuvers can approximate those forms. Since this is 2014 rule the only other thing that I can think of to approximate the forms is the swords bard flourishes.
As an added reason multiple attacks from the fighter along with the damage bonus from two-weapon fighting and maneuvers far outweighs the rage damage bump and brutal critical.
1. More ASIs are good, but not amazing unless you want to pick up multiple feats, which two-weapon fighting doesn't need/want to do in 2014 rules.
2. For Maneuvers all you need is 3 levels of fighter, Battlemaster doesn't scale much beyond those first 3 levels.
3. Multiple attacks from fighter do not make up for the damage bonus from Rage, because Rage adds to each attack so is stronger the more attacks you make, whereas multiple attacks are better the more damage you do per attack, Two-weapon fighting doesn't do that much damage on each attack but makes multiple attacks which means Rage is better than increasing Extra Attacks.
You're missunderstanding my analysis or trying to give bad advice. My post was in response to someone saying to ditch the fighter entirely. This entire thread and my proposal is not a single class fighter but how to do a fighter multiclass to get unarmored defense. The OP even specified in post 13 they wanted a build like Inosuke from demon slayer.
In the context of a fighter barbarian multiclass (the topic of this thread) it's inane to claim the extra 2 damage that rage scales to at higher levels would make up for another attack. Assuming all 3 attacks hit that's only 6 DPR max (with a .6 base hit chance it's 3.6 DPR when you factor in advantage). An extra attack is 10 DPR with a .6 base hit chance, advantage, and a 20 strength. That doesn't even factor in a magic weapon which I'd assume they have. More fighter levels (at least getting 11 for 3 attacks) in that multiclass is significantly better than more barbarian levels especially in the 2014 ruleset that OP is using. ASI are incredibly important for an unarmored strength build. You want strength, con, and dex (in that order) up to 20 if possible so that you have a 20 ac (this would actually have 21 because of the 2014 dual wielder) and not suck at initiative rolls or dex saves. Getting 7 ASIs allows you to do that while taking the dual wielder feat if you're using point buy.
If this is 2025 rules, you could also consider dance bard as a multiclass on a DEX fighter base instead of barb, since that also gives you an Unarmored Defense option (10+DEX+CHA)
Please stop suggesting Bard as a class somebody should select to play.
What's so bad about Bards that you're telling somebody not to play the class?
Bard players are objectively the most insufferable players at -EVERY- table. In this specific case, in this specific thread, it's because it's just objectively worse than Barbarian for that the OP was looking for.
Personally I've never played with a bad bard player and yes they can be obnoxious but that is all based on the player not the class
Barbarian doesn't need high AC though, they have damage resistances and can & should pump AC by increasing CON to maximized the effectiveness of their resistances. Two weapon fighting luckily doesn't need much in the way of feats to be effective, so you can either pump stats for AC or pick up other defensive feats pretty freely.
I think I'll keep suggesting whatever class seems appropriate for the situation, thanks
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There is no such thing as "objectively worse". There are just different play styles and different approaches
I'll take a bard main any day over someone who thinks there's an "objectively right" way to build a character
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You'd be wrong. The reason the term "meta" exists is because there's an objectively correct best way to build a character.
Does that mean you should? Nah, not if you don't want. Hell, my favourite class in the game is Purple Dragon Knight so I am not beyond playing subpar classes. Bard ain't the way, though, bro. It just ain't the way.
...has absolutely nothing to do with D&D
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Bad take. In 2024 rules the dance bard is a viable way to get unarmored defense. This was suggested before op clarified that they're using 2014 rules so there is absolutely no reason for this. Just because you don't like bards doesn't make the class bad for what the OP is looking for.
Back to OP's question, in 2014 rules there are only 2 ways to get unarmored defense, monk and barbarian. Barbarian is better than monk in this ruleset since two-weapon fighting in 2014 only gives you a bonus action attack instead of letting you make it as part of the attack action. Since the monk already has a reliable use of its bonus action it doesn't benefit from two-weapon fighting. For a build like Inosuke a battle master fighter, to try to emulate the different forms, and get the two-weapon fighting style. Either the totem warrior or zealot barbarians would be appropriate. Totem warrior makes the most sense as you just reskin the bear to a boar, you're only changing one letter. You'll want more fighter levels than barbarian because you will be ASI starved by wanting strength, constitution, and dexterity high while also wanting the dual wielder feat to wield normal weapons with your dual wielding.
I'd recommend starting barbarian, getting 6 level in fighter, taking barbarian to 4, then the rest into fighter. The downside to this is that you don't get extra attack until level 6 and don't get reckless attack until level 8. The boar resistance is also delayed until character level 9. This progression would give you 7 ASIs if you go to level 20. One of those is tied up with the dual wielder feat so you have 6 ASIs to max out strength, con, and dex probably in that order.
Good advice. I'd probably go higher in Fighter and ignore Barbarian subclass personally.
I'd probably ditch fighter completely. Two weapon fighting style gives you... 3-5 dpr, depending on your level. Given that a raging barbarian (with a 16 strength and two 1d6 weapons) is already doing 2d6+7 at level 1, that's not that big a deal -- though if you really want it, I suggest playing a variant human and taking Martial Adept (from TCoE) as your first level feat.
Besides the fact that the op is asking which multiclass would be better in the title, there are 2 big reasons why you don't ditch the fighter.
1. More ASIs. The build plan on post 30 gets you 7 ASIs instead of 5 with straight barbarian. Getting to level 20 in barbarian does give you an extra 4 in con and strength but you have to wait until level 20 and that is only relevant for a few battles. This way you're better in the tiers that most people play.
2. Theme. The OP said they wanted a build like Inosuke from demon slayer in post 13. That anime has breathing styles with different forms. Battle master maneuvers can approximate those forms. Since this is 2014 rule the only other thing that I can think of to approximate the forms is the swords bard flourishes.
As an added reason multiple attacks from the fighter along with the damage bonus from two-weapon fighting and maneuvers far outweighs the rage damage bump and brutal critical.
1. More ASIs are good, but not amazing unless you want to pick up multiple feats, which two-weapon fighting doesn't need/want to do in 2014 rules.
2. For Maneuvers all you need is 3 levels of fighter, Battlemaster doesn't scale much beyond those first 3 levels.
3. Multiple attacks from fighter do not make up for the damage bonus from Rage, because Rage adds to each attack so is stronger the more attacks you make, whereas multiple attacks are better the more damage you do per attack, Two-weapon fighting doesn't do that much damage on each attack but makes multiple attacks which means Rage is better than increasing Extra Attacks.
Debatable- looking at the classes individually if we assume the 65% hit rate, then at level 11 it's 10(3d6, 3+4+3)+10(max ability)+12(3*4 Rage) for 32*.65=21. With Fighter it's 14(4d6, 3+4+3+4)+20 for 34*.65=22. So, a TWF Fighter is technically better than a TWF Barbarian, but only nominally. You can edge the Barbarian slightly ahead with the TWF Fighting Style, but it's still not a really noticeable difference. Go Barbarian main if you want to be tanky, or Fighter if you want to lean into the Maneuvers. The dpr aspect isn't really significant.
You're missunderstanding my analysis or trying to give bad advice. My post was in response to someone saying to ditch the fighter entirely. This entire thread and my proposal is not a single class fighter but how to do a fighter multiclass to get unarmored defense. The OP even specified in post 13 they wanted a build like Inosuke from demon slayer.
In the context of a fighter barbarian multiclass (the topic of this thread) it's inane to claim the extra 2 damage that rage scales to at higher levels would make up for another attack. Assuming all 3 attacks hit that's only 6 DPR max (with a .6 base hit chance it's 3.6 DPR when you factor in advantage). An extra attack is 10 DPR with a .6 base hit chance, advantage, and a 20 strength. That doesn't even factor in a magic weapon which I'd assume they have. More fighter levels (at least getting 11 for 3 attacks) in that multiclass is significantly better than more barbarian levels especially in the 2014 ruleset that OP is using. ASI are incredibly important for an unarmored strength build. You want strength, con, and dex (in that order) up to 20 if possible so that you have a 20 ac (this would actually have 21 because of the 2014 dual wielder) and not suck at initiative rolls or dex saves. Getting 7 ASIs allows you to do that while taking the dual wielder feat if you're using point buy.
Personally I've never played with a bad bard player and yes they can be obnoxious but that is all based on the player not the class