D&D General Path of Feats: a Superior Design than Subclasses

[Silam]

Using one of the most conservative Barbarian estimates there is, the Barbarian does double the damage of the fighter/bard and if fighting bps attackers will have 150% the survivability. In all likelihood it's much much higher. I don't really care what spells you pick as the Fighter/Bard, it's not going to come close to making up for that kind of disparity. *Note any action spells cast in combat further tank the Fighter/Bard dpr as well.

EDIT: Fixed hp and ac values for fighter/bard.

Thanks for taking a stab at the math. Those numbers are compelling.

I see that you’ve included True Strike for the Bard, but then you say you don’t really care about spells… but why? Do you not think that a defensive buff like Bladeward, which is at will, would help? It adds 2.5 AC on average (which bumps the eHP to 190 if my math is right?)… Or if we wanted to consider more serious resource expenditure, Mirror Image is quite good as well (though spending slots is its own rabbit hole in terms of making the comparison fair, but yet, the option is there at least some times during the day…).

Interestingly, if these two builds were to fight one another, the True Strike’s radiant damage would pierce the Rage DR, thus slashing the Barb’s eHP in half…

Is it a case of "caveman can beat everyone except the pretty boy, so caveman respects the pretty boy, even though the pretty boy is half the man he is"

 

[Bill Zebub]

I haven't touched D&D in a few years, but I gotta say I like the idea of feat chains unlocking "subclass".

I'd love to see a variant that didn't have any regular subclasses, just feat chains, but with the feats coming from general lists. Or at least more general. (One thing I like about Nimble is that each class has it's own feat-equivalent.)

The other neat thing this can do is create an incentive to take the less optimized feats.

 

[Maxperson]

I wouldn’t classify fighter 3 / bard 3 as anything but abysmal at combat.

Yea. All 3 uses of those a day…

It's entirely subjective is the problem. What you see as abysmal at combat, I don't. We're both right, because whether it's good or abysmal is entirely subjective.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, sure… I won’t go super in-depth so this may be ultimately unsatisfactory, but let’s give it a shot.

The main concern is that the Barb 6 gets their 5th level scaling via Extra Attack while the Fighter 3 / Bard 3 does not get any 5th level class feature.

Fighter 3 gets some Weapon Masteries just like the Barb, so we can assume they both pick the same weapon, to attempt to normalize things. Either they both pick heavy weapons, or both do TWF or whatever. I don’t have much preference. Let’s say Greatsword for 2d6 and Graze.

The Fighter also gets a Fighting Style which the Barb lacks. Let’s say we pick GWF to keep going down the 2-handed route.

The important point to ponder is what does Bard 3 gets us. It gets us spells of levels 0-2, and the ability to allocate our concentration slot… if we start with cantrips, since when comparing martials we often like to think of the sustained combat angle, we can highlight Bladeward and True Strike.

Bladeward can be a fine way to use our concentration without expending resources (besides the Action to cast it). Depending how your DM handles cantrips that last a minute, you may be allowed to keep it always on (i.e., always cast it once a minute when walking in a dungeon). Some tables handle this by saying you have 1d10 rounds left on the spell at start of combat. If that’s not allowed, then we have to consider if getting +1d4 of AC is a valuable enough use of an Action.

True Strike, being a cantrip, has character-level based scaling, so that is kind of the ticket in terms or making up for the lack of 5th level class feature. So that’s +1d6.

So anyway… the Barb does two attacks at 2d6 + Str + 2 (assuming Rage) each. The Fighter/Bard does one attack only at 3d6 + Cha, but the 1s and 2s are considered 3s.

Assuming a +4 Str for the Barb (given their 4th level ASI), and a +3 Cha for the MC build, the averages come up to 13 damage per attack for the Barb, and 15 damage per attack for the MC.

Damage-wise, the Barb should come out ahead on average with the extra attack and reckless attack.

Defense-wise, I assume the Fighter/Bard probably gets better AC thanks to heavy armor and not having reckless attack cause advantage against them. If Bladeward is on, even more so.

HP-wise, the Barb should be ahead thanks to slightly bigger HDs and damage resistance, but the Fighter/Barb has plenty of Bonus Action healing for themselves (SW) or even others (HW), so durability should be quite good for both.

The big question is whether the Fighter spends their AS or not, and what for. AS is only slightly more scarce than Rage, since both recharge one use per short rest, so there’s only one more use of Rage per day than AS, given equal short rests (though of course Rage can last more than one round). AS can be used both offensively or defensively. Against a punishing opponent, it could be used to still attack while also bringing up Bladeward or Mirror Image via the regular Action. It could also be used to attack twice. Either way, the AS Attack action would yield an average damage of 11, since no True Strike. 13 x 2 = 15 + 11 so the average damage is tied in an AS round (assuming no reckless attack or that both somehow have advantage).

Anyway, it remains handwavy, and I’m not going to take a firm stand one way or another. But I’ll say, directionally, that it seems to me the Barb is stronger on offense and weaker on defense. How much either one matters in a given fight is case by case.

All in all, even though the scaling of True Strike is not as advantageous as the scaling of Extra Attack, it is not immediately clear to me that one is abysmal… maybe still weaker overall, but not 50% of the strength as one could assume thinking exclusively of Extra Attack. Maybe it’s more like 2/3 or 3/4 of the strength. Again though, very situational…

And you've left off the two subclasses. That fighter 3/bard 3 could have 4 superiority dice and 3 maneuvers to deal extra damage and/or do nifty combat stuff with. And then perhaps cutting words for some extra defense in combat.

 

[Maxperson]

Thanks for taking a stab at the math. Those numbers are compelling.

I see that you’ve included True Strike for the Bard, but then you say you don’t really care about spells… but why? Do you not think that a defensive buff like Bladeward, which is at will, would help? It adds 2.5 AC on average (which bumps the eHP to 190 if my math is right?)… Or if we wanted to consider more serious resource expenditure, Mirror Image is quite good as well (though spending slots is its own rabbit hole in terms of making the comparison fair, but yet, the option is there at least some times during the day…).

Interestingly, if these two builds were to fight one another, the True Strike’s radiant damage would pierce the Rage DR, thus slashing the Barb’s eHP in half…

Is it a case of "caveman can beat everyone except the pretty boy, so caveman respects the pretty boy, even though the pretty boy is half the man he is"

Yeah. The spells absolutely matter when comparing the two in combat. To not have the spells included is disingenuous. The fighter/bard isn't just doing damage to affect the fight. Further, he gave the fighter/bard defensive style when there would be other factors the character has for mitigating hits, like cutting words. He would take great weapon fighting, not defensive. Plus a battle master could be disarming the enemy and doing extra damage while reducing the enemy damage, and so on.

The fighter/bard is far more effective in combat than @FrogReaver showed with his math.

 

[Corinnguard]

Purple Martin Games' Manual of Adventurous Resources: Complete (or MoAR) for Level Up does happen to have a synergy feat chain for anyone wanting to become a Lich.

Apprentice Lich---> Journeyman Lich ---> True Lich

Here are the prerequisites for each one:

Apprentice

Prerequisites: Must be able to cast at least 4th-level spells and one of the following: you must have researched the process of becoming a lich, been mentored by an existing lich, or become so obsessed by some long-term scholarly project that you routinely forget to eat and sleep in favor of more study or research time.

Journeyman

Prerequisite: Apprentice Lich, ability to cast 6th level spells

True

Prerequisite: Journeyman Lich, ability to cast 8th level spells

Wizards pick up 4th-level spell slots at 7th level, so the earliest they can meet the first feat of the Lich synergy feat chain is at 8th level. The last two feats of the chain can only be picked up at 12th and 19th level.

MoAR also has a synergy feat chain for anyone wanting to be a Mummy too. There are synergy feat chains for those who want to be a vampire (Adventurer's Guide) or a lycanthrope (Gate Pass Gazette issue #0) as well.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah. The spells absolutely matter when comparing the two in combat. To not have the spells included is disingenuous.

Then say what spell are you using, because most likely we can factor it in. What I find is that most the time when spells are brought up, it's treated as spells doing everything all at once all the time and that they never take actions to cast. That's just not the case.

Further, he gave the fighter/bard defensive style when there would be other factors the character has for mitigating hits, like cutting words. He would take great weapon fighting, not defensive.

GWF is only +0.55 DPR. Giving them defense added about 14 eHP. It's such a minor tradeoff either way. That proposed modification changes nothing due to the already overwhelming gap.

Plus a battle master could be disarming the enemy and doing extra damage while reducing the enemy damage, and so on.

A zealot can:
Heal 5d12 = +118 eHP
Damage + 6.5 * 0.84 = +5.5 DPR every single turn.

If anything including subclasses is going to push the Fighter 3/Bard 3 even further behind. And if we were being really fair instead of conservative, I should include GWM on the Barbarian as well.

*Note: GWM adds about +4.3 DPR when BA attack on crit is also included.

The fighter/bard is far more effective in combat than @FrogReaver showed with his math.

Yes, there are spell slots. If you want to argue spells, that even just 4 level 1 slots and 2 level 2 slots trumps everything else, that's certainly a take. But as I said at the start of this reply, if there's a specific spell you envision as making the Bard/Fighter definitively better than let's hear it.

Ultimately though, if the main rebuttal is spells, then just compare to a single class Valor Bard = more spells, better spells, better damage, more uses of bardic inspiration since they recharge on a short rest along with getting ASI/Feat and better AC than your GWF change.

 

[Maxperson]

Then say what spell are you using, because most likely we can factor it in. What I find is that most the time when spells are brought up, it's treated as spells doing everything all at once all the time and that they never take actions to cast. That's just not the case.

Potential spells used in combat: Bane, Charm Person, Command, Cure Wounds(healing adds to combat effectiveness), Dissonant Whispers, Faerie Fire, Healing Word, Heroism, Silent Image, Sleep, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Thunderwave, Aid, Blindness/Deafness, Cloud of Daggers, Crown of Madness, Enhance Ability, Enlarge/Reduce, Enthrall, Heat Metal, Hold Person, Invisibility, Lesser Restoration, Mirror Image, Phantasmal Force, See Invisibility, Shatter, Silence, and Suggestion.

We don't know which spells the bard will have at any given time, so it's not possible to accurately factor in spells other than to say that they will have a significant impact on combat.

You are correct that a lot of times people try to get spells to do everything, but I'm not doing that. I've played 5e for a long time and the number of times full spellcasting classes use zero spell slots in combat is close to zero. They may not use every slot for combat, but some slots will be used and are a part of the character's combat effectiveness.

Additionally, the fighter subclass will add effectiveness that you did not factor in.

Yes, there are spell slots. If you want to argue spells, that even just 4 level 1 slots and 2 level 2 slots trumps everything else, that's certainly a take. But as I said at the start of this reply, if there's a specific spell you envision as making the Bard/Fighter definitively better than let's hear it.

That may be a take, but it's also a Strawman. Saying spells will greatly improve the bard in combat is a fact, but that's different than saying that every spell will be used for combat. The former I said. The latter I did not.

Ultimately though, if the main rebuttal is spells, then just compare to a single class Valor Bard = more spells, better spells, better damage, more uses of bardic inspiration since they recharge on a short rest along with getting ASI/Feat and better AC than your GWF change.

And the loss of hit points, better armor, action surge, etc.

 

[FrogReaver]

Potential spells used in combat: Bane, Charm Person, Command, Cure Wounds(healing adds to combat effectiveness), Dissonant Whispers, Faerie Fire, Healing Word, Heroism, Silent Image, Sleep, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Thunderwave, Aid, Blindness/Deafness, Cloud of Daggers, Crown of Madness, Enhance Ability, Enlarge/Reduce, Enthrall, Heat Metal, Hold Person, Invisibility, Lesser Restoration, Mirror Image, Phantasmal Force, See Invisibility, Shatter, Silence, and Suggestion.

We don't know which spells the bard will have at any given time, so it's not possible to accurately factor in spells other than to say that they will have a significant impact on combat.

IMO, 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.

It's just vibes.

You are correct that a lot of times people try to get spells to do everything, but I'm not doing that. I've played 5e for a long time and the number of times full spellcasting classes use zero spell slots in combat is close to zero. They may not use every slot for combat, but some slots will be used and are a part of the character's combat effectiveness.

I think trying to keep the spell use ambiguous ends up doing exactly that whether you intend it to or not.

Additionally, the fighter subclass will add effectiveness that you did not factor in.

So will the Barbarian subclass for the Barbarian - even more effectiveness than the Fighter subclass.

That may be a take, but it's also a Strawman. Saying spells will greatly improve the bard in combat is a fact,

I've agreed spells improve the Fighter3/Bard 3 in combat, but greatly is he real question, or more generally it is to what extent they improve the bard in combat, a question that you believe is unanswerable in the worst case and unestimatable in the best case because as you said "We don't know which spells the bard will have at any given time, so it's not possible to accurately factor in spells".

I believe that question can be answered, or at least decently estimated and I've been trying to walk through that with you.

but that's different than saying that every spell will be used for combat. The former I said. The latter I did not.

I'm giving the Bard an edge compared to you then, because I assume all spells are being used for combat for the comparison.

And the loss of hit points, better armor, action surge, etc.

Since you agree that better hit points and martial features can outdo spells, why are you only arguing that's possible for the Fighter 3/Bard 3 compared to the Valor Bard 6 and not also for the Barbarian 6 compared to the Fighter 3/Bard 3?