How balanced is the difference between barbarians and fighters? Is one generally just better? Right now, I have a half-orc barbarian.

WELCOME TO IW!!!!!
[img]graemlins/thewave.gif[/img]
The big difference is in the choice of armour.
Grand mastery isn't as good as it should be!
The Barbarian is fun IMHO!Had a half orc myself! :D

I cannot help you with your question(but a half-orc-barbarian certainly HAS to be a killing machine, right?), but congratulations to your first post and welcome to the ironworks, thisisgabe, member #8243 [img]smile.gif[/img] :D

I've not yet played a Barbarian, but they seem to be fairly equal to Fighters, as their greater HP and their physical resistances seem to balance their armor restrictions. Also, there happens to be a VERY nice set of armor they can wear, although giving it to a Barbarian means your Thief can't use it, and it's better for your Thief. True, they can't get that 3rd weapon star, but they have a nice Rage. It might just boil down to which of the classes has better Saving Throws, although personally I'm fond of the Fighter, as I like Multiclasses.

I think that the saves are the same for both classes.

i think that the lack of weapon super-specialization is not really a drawback. unless you have the Grandmastery patch on, those extra three stars are really a waste of points. with only "mere" specialization, you become really good with a large variety of weapons, so can be flexible and not have to use one inferior weapon you're proficient in while waiting for a really good one. For instance, my cavalier had 1 point in flails and none in axes, but dual-wielded the Flail of the Ages and Frostreaver quite happily until he got Carsomyr.

Barbarian rage is good, too, since you don't get winded like beserkers, among other things.