Esker
Hero
How are you getting both double-bladed scimitar proficiency and having it as a finesse weapon at 5th?
Valenar Wood Elf, presumably?
How are you getting both double-bladed scimitar proficiency and having it as a finesse weapon at 5th?
The logic is flawed. First, they aren't the worst at damage, bard's natural damage capabilites are awful and require heavy investments and trade-offs to compete with main damage classes.They are the actual worst at damage.
The logic is flawed. First, they aren't the worst at damage, bard's natural damage capabilites are awful and require heavy investments and trade-offs to compete with main damage classes.
Second, being the worst at something doesn't make you bad. I can be in the last place at the Olympics, that doesn't make me a bad athlete.
In this case it is an Eberron build (uses the Eberron sourcebooks) in which there is a wood elf variantHow are you getting both double-bladed scimitar proficiency and having it as a finesse weapon at 5th?
The logic is flawed. First, they aren't the worst at damage, bard's natural damage capabilites are awful and require heavy investments and trade-offs to compete with main damage classes.
There are many people here who find this whole exercise an "apples-to-oranges" comparison, either because they do not value DPR in their campaigns, because they do not believe accurately DPR measures the utility that is provided, or because arguments always boil down to someone claiming that their DPR model truly accounts for the "citrus difference" while the other person is like, "No way, Johnny Appleseed."
Anyway, even in these divided times, hopefully we can all agree on a simple truism; Bards should be consigned to the Appendix of the next PHB, and thence to the dustbin.
I think you'll find that most people arguing against monks are not just limiting to DPR. For example, people are trying to argue Monks make decent tanks (which has little to nothing to do with DPR) except they really, really don't.
Monks make decent skirmishers - assuming they properly conserve their ki (and/or are given enough short rests) and monks can lock down magic resistant foes decently.
So this is almost certainly tongue in cheek, yes (quite hard to tell with some of the assertions being made lately)?
I find the 5e Bard to be an extremely good version of the class, much better than the 3e or 2e version. Bards are extremely effective at aiding the rest of the party - The Bard in my group routinely turns fights I though would be nail biters into cakewalks!
This is a prime example of the myopia I referenced above.
How is a Rogue a better archer then a Monk?
How is the Rogue applying Sneak Attack on those ranged attacks?
What are the opportunity costs to the Rogue solely being an archer?