D&D 5E BattleMasters maneuvers vs Sword Bard Blade Flourish

[delph]

I just read about Bard and College of Sword and his Blade Flourish. And immediately I started comparing with BM maneuvers. Blade Flourishes are just 3 versions but everyone is useful, BM have 4 maneuvers from 3rd lvl and (if you have good charisma) both of them have 3 use. But fighter per SR, Bard per LR. and it started from d6, maneuvers started from d8, both of them finished with d12.

Blade Flourish is little bit weaker then maneuvers, so it make it Sword bard weaker vs Battlemaster. But it changes on 14th level. When Bard can take d6 for every turn and isn't limited by a number of inspirations dies he has. When he take defensive flourish every turn and have a defensive duelant feat, he can boost his AC so high, he is almost untouchable.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

and he's not left handed...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Having a amazing AC at level 4 makes you "untouchable". At level 14? No. It means you get nailed by a spell or ability not a melee attack.

 

[Esker]

Blade Flourish is little bit weaker then maneuvers, so it make it Sword bard weaker vs Battlemaster.

Well... I don't think that follows. The blade flourishes are weaker overall (although Battlemaster doesn't get anything AC-boosting effect, which can be huge; on the other hand, Swords bard doesn't have shield proficiency, so unless they're multiclassed, needs the defensive flourish just to keep up), but that doesn't mean the class is weaker. Battlemaster is all about fighting and using those maneuvers; Swords Bard is a full caster on top of getting the flourishes.

 

[Esker]

When he take defensive flourish every turn and have a defensive duelant feat, he can boost his AC so high, he is almost untouchable.

He is still wearing medium armor and has no shield. So even after the feat, at level 14 we're still only talking about an 18 base AC, up to about 21-22 when using those d6 flourishes. That's really not even that high for level 14 (now I guess he might have magic armor by then, but that's another story). Even a group of kobolds will have a 1 in 4 chance or so of hitting you. Plus, as @Ruin Explorer pointed out, it doesn't stop things that don't target AC. It also doesn't stop crits. And worse, you need to hit with at least one attack to get the benefit of the flourish.

Edit: Sorry, I was thinking about dual wielder, not defensive duelist. DD gives your proficiency bonus, not a flat +1. So it's a much different story, with a base AC by level 14 of 22, up to 25-26 with defensive flourish. Still, by that level you're likely dealing with creatures that have attack bonuses of +12 or so. So they only need to roll a 13-14 to hit you. And everything else (anyone hits you on a crit; non-AC effects are still a problem) still stands.

 

[Mort]

Defensive duelist applies to only 1 attack per round (at the cost of a reaction).

By 14th level it's going to be rare for monsters to have less than 2-3 attacks per round.

 

[Mort]

A sword bard may be better off grabbing shield (10th level) if he's constantly wading into serious melee.

 

[Esker]

A sword bard may be better off grabbing shield (10th level) if he's constantly wading into serious melee.

I knew there was a reason I never looked seriously at Defensive Duelist. I overlooked the one attack bit.

Having access to the Shield spell seems crucial. My solution with the Swords Bard I'm playing now was the old one level of Hexblade. That gives Shield spell, physical shield proficiency, and the ability to focus solely on CHA. Delays all the bard stuff by a level, obvs, which hurts, and you really need war caster to use both Shield and a shield; but let's be honest, you wanted that anyway, and the benefit is tremendous.

 

[5ekyu]

I knew there was a reason I never looked seriously at Defensive Duelist. I overlooked the one attack bit.

Having access to the Shield spell seems crucial. My solution with the Swords Bard I'm playing now was the old one level of Hexblade. That gives Shield spell, physical shield proficiency, and the ability to focus solely on CHA. Delays all the bard stuff by a level, obvs, which hurts, and you really need war caster to use both Shield and a shield; but let's be honest, you wanted that anyway, and the benefit is tremendous.

To be fair, DD is triggered on a hit, not an attack, so if you have a decent AC, that's the equivalent of maybe 2-3 attacks worth of flat bonus.

But on the more general topic, to me the battle maneuvers and flourishes seem to only be cosmetically similar. The flourishes are more just bonuses as numbers. The maneuvers are more about inflicting conditions or new opportunities. The former is a buff, the latter more control or debuff.

 

[Mort]

To be fair, DD is triggered on a hit, not an attack, so if you have a decent AC, that's the equivalent of maybe 2-3 attacks worth of flat bonus.

But on the more general topic, to me the battle maneuvers and flourishes seem to only be cosmetically similar. The flourishes are more just bonuses as numbers. The maneuvers are more about inflicting conditions or new opportunities. The former is a buff, the latter more control or debuff.

I'll definitely agree.

My group has both a BM fighter and a college of swords bard. Both like melee - yet they don't come off as remotely similar.