The specific thing I called vibes was "if that's your stance then you can never actually say how much of an impact they have, let alone whether that impact is more significant than the impact of the Barbarians features."
Again, nothing I ever said.
Very simply, my claim is that the fighter/bard is good(not great) in combat situations, and very good outside of combat(another form of power). The barbarian is great in combat, and not good at all in most out of combat situations.
You claimed the fighter/bard was abysmal, and to "prove" it you gave white room theory crafting that failed to take spells, special abilities of the fighter/bard, special abilities of monsters, etc. into account.
DPR =/= combat ability/effectiveness.
Later in that same post I explicitly agreed that spells increase combat value. What I’ve been asking is how much and how that compares to the Barbarian’s features. You’ve said that can’t be estimated because we don’t know which spells, how many slots, or what monsters.
Along with other variables that make spells better or worse.
Actual game play isn't at all like your white room math.
At this point it’s clear we’re working from incompatible frameworks, so I'm going to do us both a favor and bow out here.
Sounds good. It can be hard for people who are very mathematically inclined and like things in neat boxes to deal with something like D&D combat, which resists being fit into neat boxes. Since you keep trying to force things into neat boxes(doomed to fail), and I'm accepting the game as it is, we aren't going to agree on this topic.
