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

[Maxperson]

My point is why are we comparing a boxer and a dancer only by how well they can punch each other in the face while standing two feet from each other?

What would it matter if a barbarian can hit a goblin harder and take more goblin blows than the fighter-bard if those are not things the fighter-bard aims to be competitive in? It's not about looking for ways to change the parameters so that the math evens out.

Not when in practice many playstyles would aim to make it even more uneven, such as a fighter-bard consuming their resources and action economy to make the barbarian both deal more damage and survive taking more damage, like Commander's Strike, Heroism and Bardic Inspiration. Nor still further playstyles that just wouldn't care about what the math depicts, like the fighter-bard who responds to the quoted request with Jack of All Trades, expertise in Survival and Religion, and Comprehend Languages.

This. The math can't really show how much damage suggestion or charm person does. It doesn't take into account the healing the bard does to the barbarian to allow the barbarian to stay up and deal more damage, making a portion of the barbarian's damage the bard's damage. It can't take into consideration the illusion the bard uses to keep some monsters out of the combat for a round or two.

There are just too many variables for any math to be anything other than an interesting white room comparison that means next to nothing in actual game play.

 

[Maxperson]

Because those are the metrics that are being measured.

@FrogReaver never said that Fighter3/Bard3 is a poor choice or has no utility; they said that the Fighter3/Bard3 is "abysmal in combat" compared to a Barbarian 6. And going by the metric of "who is going to fall down first, them or me?", the Fighter/Bard is very bad compared to the Barbarian.

Sure, but this is the equivalent of trying to figure out which of two men is the most attractive by only measuring shoe size. Is the metric being measured? Yes! Is it going to show an accurate assessment of which is more attractive? No!

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, but this is the equivalent of trying to figure out which of two men is the most attractive by only measuring shoe size. Is the metric being measured? Yes! Is it going to show an accurate assessment of which is more attractive? No!

Yes, but you should always disagree with people on the question they are answering, not the question you think they should be asking. That's what causes so many disagreements.

The relevant question that should have been asked at the start of the exchange when @FrogReaver said that the Fighter/Bard was "abysmal in combat" (which was what led to this tangent) was "What exactly do you mean by abysmal in combat"?

For some people, the rogue or the diplomancer who can bypass combat entirely is the true master of combat. For others, "combat" is only the use case when the initiative is rolled and damage is being taken. Both usages of the term have validity.

 

[jayoungr]

Subclasses, on the other hand, feel like straightjackets.

You say "straitjacket," I say "strong thematic cohesion."

I get why (some) people enjoy 3.X-era-style talent trees, but neither system is superior in an objective sense. It's all just taste.

 

[FrogReaver]

I appreciate the effort, but that was already understood by me. My pushback was against that being a valuable metric to measure and that contained within its scope there are factors that would make the math seem worse by intention as one example.

On metric value:
If the concern is that the metric itself isn’t valuable, then I need to know what you think a valuable combat metric would measure. Without either concrete features or an alternative metric, I can’t address the objection.

On my current analysis:
My initial assessment that Fighter 3/Bard 3 was abysmal was specifically about combat. I internally considered spells in my analysis and my conclusion was that Level 1–2 Bard slots don’t come close to closing the demonstrated gap with Barbarian 6, they narrow it from abysmal to slightly less abysmal, but the gap remains large.

Extended analysis:
And even if those low‑level slots did close the gap with Barbarian 6, that would imply that level 1–2 spells are strong enough to overcome a very large combat deficit. If that were true, then level 3 spells which everyone agrees are dramatically more impactful would represent an even bigger jump. In that case, the spellcasting progression would overshadow everything else, and the Fighter 3/Bard 3 would still be abysmal compared to Bard 6, who gains those much more powerful level 3 spells and slots while maintaining similar damage, AC, and other baselines.

Essentially, claiming that Fighter 3/Bard 3 is comparable in combat implicitly asserts that low‑level spellcasting alone is strong enough to nearly erase large martial advantages which is effectively a claim of caster superiority, and an even bolder one than is typically made.

Request for concrete features
If you think I’m wrong, then I need the specific support or control features you believe materially change that outcome so I can model them. Broad categories like “support” or “utility” aren’t actionable, I need the actual features.

 

[Maxperson]

On metric value:
If the concern is that the metric itself isn’t valuable, then I need to know what you think a valuable combat metric would measure. Without either concrete features or an alternative metric, I can’t address the objection.

It's not that it has no value. It's that it has virtually no value in isolation.

On my current analysis:
My initial assessment that Fighter 3/Bard 3 was abysmal was specifically about combat. I internally considered spells in my analysis and my conclusion was that Level 1–2 Bard slots don’t come close to closing the demonstrated gap with Barbarian 6, they narrow it from abysmal to slightly less abysmal, but the gap remains large.

Suggestion can take a powerful creature out of combat indefinitely. Charm Person can turn an enemy into a friend. Phantasmal Force can take an enemy or enemies out of the fight for a round or two. Healing to keep the barbarian up or bring him conscious turns a portion of the barbarian's damage into the bard's damage. Tasha's Hideous Laughter incapacitates an enemy and knocks it prone, allowing the barbarian(and everyone else) to pretty much have his way with it. Heat Metal can allow the bard to Cook and Book. Command can disarm, prone or whatever the enemy. And on and on.

These things for the most part don't translate easily into DPR.

Extended analysis:
And even if those low‑level slots did close the gap with Barbarian 6, that would imply that level 1–2 spells are strong enough to overcome a very large combat deficit. If that were true, then level 3 spells which everyone agrees are dramatically more impactful would represent an even bigger jump. In that case, the spellcasting progression would overshadow everything else, and the Fighter 3/Bard 3 would still be abysmal compared to Bard 6, who gains those much more powerful level 3 spells and slots while maintaining similar damage, AC, and other baselines.

Have you been paying attention to the complaints about spellcasting since 5e came out? Spells are still king.

Essentially, claiming that Fighter 3/Bard 3 is comparable in combat implicitly asserts that low‑level spellcasting alone is strong enough to nearly erase large martial advantages which is effectively a claim of caster superiority, and an even bolder one than is typically made.

The argument, at least as I've made it, is not that they are comparable. Just that while the barbarian is great, the bard is still good.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's not that it has no value. It's that it has virtually no value in isolation.

Suggestion can take a powerful creature out of combat indefinitely. Charm Person can turn an enemy into a friend. Phantasmal Force can take an enemy or enemies out of the fight for a round or two. Healing to keep the barbarian up or bring him conscious turns a portion of the barbarian's damage into the bard's damage. Tasha's Hideous Laughter incapacitates an enemy and knocks it prone, allowing the barbarian(and everyone else) to pretty much have his way with it. Heat Metal can allow the bard to Cook and Book. Command can disarm, prone or whatever the enemy. And on and on.

These things for the most part don't translate easily into DPR.

Have you been paying attention to the complaints about spellcasting since 5e came out? Spells are still king.

The argument, at least as I've made it, is not that they are comparable. Just that while the barbarian is great, the bard is still good.

I’m still participating in the thread generally, but I’m not re‑entering the discussion we bowed out of earlier. I’ve already explained why that exchange wasn’t productive, and nothing here changes that. I’m going to stick with my decision to disengage from that specific conversation

 

[Rainbow Scissors]

I was reading through some of the thread and had a thought about the class-through-feats idea: would that be similar to how 4E multiclassing worked?

 

[Silam]

Request for concrete features
If you think I’m wrong, then I need the specific support or control features you believe materially change that outcome so I can model them. Broad categories like “support” or “utility” aren’t actionable, I need the actual features.

That is one path that can be explored to make the analysis feel less like white room theory crafting and more like a real game. Another path is to clarify what the actual scenario is. Currently, it feels like the scenario is both competitors are slugging into a punching bag for 6 seconds and some scientist is measuring how far back the punching bag is swinging.

Actual scenarios we could consider are:

1. The Barb 6 and the Fighter 3 / Bard 3 fight one another. As I alluded to in an earlier post, in that scenario, the True Strike's radiant damage pierces the Rage DR, which cuts the Barb's eHP in half, and if the Bard also casts Bladeward, then their eHP goes way above the Barb's. I think there's a strong argument here that in a duel scenario, the multi-classed pretty boy beats the single-classed brute. Is it the most relevant scenario? No. But it's an interesting one. Certainly, if in-game, while role-playing the Barb said "we all know you are abysmal in combat and only good for playing your flute!" and the Bard threw down the gauntlet and then proceeded to beat the Barb fair and square in a duel, and then proceed to heal the Barb after making them unconscious, the Barb would probably shut his mouth and respect what the Bard brings to the table.
2. There is a swarm of rats. Each has 1 HP and 10 AC. A character with more attacks wins over one with fewer attacks, no matter how strong they are, and one with an AoE (such as Thunderclap) wins even more. Again, advantage to the Bard if they have that cantrip.
3. There is a mob of weak monsters like goblins. The dynamic is similar to the rats, but minimum damage counts for more. The Thunderclap's 2d6 (with 6th character level scaling) has more likelihood to leave a goblin alive. The Barb probably has an edge here but it's slight, and depends on how surrounded the characters are. If the Bard is surrounded by 8 goblins, then two rounds of Thunderclap on those 8 has a decent shot of killing them all, which would then get us a rate of 4 dead goblins per round, which the Barb will have a hard time competing with at "just" 2 attacks per round (who's not scaling now?). Maybe the Barb can compete via TWF or Cleave, but either way, it's still pretty close.
4. A boss fight. One strong monster. Now things like damage over time and Vex weapons start mattering, whereas they did not really up until now. This is the scenario where the Barb's 2 attacks and higher DPR really shines (though Heat Metal as @Maxperson said could be significant, assuming the boss carries some metallic gear).
5. A boss with minions. This is a mix of scenarios 3 and 4 at the same time, but with the extra twist that if you charm the boss, he could walk away / let the heroes walk through, and the minions would just follow the lead of their boss. Persuasion and Charm Person are not going to work in every scenario, since it depends on starting attitude, skill checks or saves, and other factors, but I think it's fairly clear that the Bard has an edge here... Of course, you could also say that when the boss is killed, the minions have some likelihood of having a morale failure and rout, in which case the Barb is the best since they will kill the boss the quickest. But charming the boss costs one slot and no HP, while killing the boss costs one Rage and probably quite a few HP, so there is also a degree to how much you can win an encounter.

In the above 5, I'm giving the win to the Fighter/Bard on the 1st and 2nd, and the win to the Bard on the 4th (i.e., I'm assuming the boss carries no metallic gear). The 3rd one is IMO close to a tie but maybe there is a slight edge for the Barb assuming the characters are probably not totally surrounded by 8 enemies each. The 5th one is the hardest to adjudicate, if the DM allows persuasion or charms to work, then the Bard has the most efficient way to win the encounter, whereas if it comes to blows, the Barb can slay the leader and rout the minions sooner. You can craft any number of other scenarios. But the point is, there are a variety of them.

Ultimately, it's clear that the party with both heroes is way ahead of a party with two Barbs or another with two Bards. So in that sense, the strongest build is the one the party doesn't have yet.

You say "straitjacket," I say "strong thematic cohesion."

I get why (some) people enjoy 3.X-era-style talent trees, but neither system is superior in an objective sense. It's all just taste.

I am like a cat chasing a laser pointer with the above tangential discussion, but I really should be focusing on this which is much more on-topic ...

Yes, it's ultimately a matter of taste.

However, I don't see why feats would have lesser cohesion than the class/subclass system. I believe your point is that you pick one feat from some theme or path, and then pick another feat from another theme, and that in your view lacks cohesion. Sure. But assuming your table plays with the optional multi-classing rule, which most do, then you are always free to not keep going in a class and start leveling another one. If you do so, then how is that anymore cohesive than picking a martial feat at 4th level and a magic feat at 8th level? It's not... either system allow for branching out into another direction.

The reason I say subclasses are like straitjackets is that with feats, I can pick Elemental Adept (fire), then for my next feat I can pick Elemental Adept (acid). Whereas if at Wizard level 3 I pick Illusionist, then at level 6 I must pick the level 6 Illusionist feature. But why am I railroaded into that subclass, why not allow rebooting into another subclass?

It would be nice if, for example, at Wizard 6 I could pick the Diviner level 3 feature and thereby start another specialization. And then at level 10, I could pick yet another level 3 Wizard subclass feature (and thereby dabble in a 3rd school specialization) OR the level 6 subclass feature of either the Illusionist or the Diviner. I don't see why it would be thematically inappropriate for a Wizard to go to medium depth into both Illusion and Divination (which are really two sides of the same coin... make naughty word up, and see through said naughty word). A Wizard that splits their specialization in two is still much more thematically coherent than a Wizard who multi-classes into a Barbarian (ok, granted, this is the worst possible combination but it's just to make a point... more plausible combinations like Fighter/Wizard would still be a bigger thematic departure).

There could be balance reasons why a Wizard 6 with the 3rd level features of two subclasses and no 6th level subclass feature might be too strong. So I'm not necessarily saying that this subclass reboot system I just described is actually desirable. 5e was not designed for that so it carries certain risks. But with feats it is much cleaner to support these options of either going deeper into a very narrow path, branching out slightly into a different but still closely-related path, or going farther afield into a completely different path. Whereas with the class system (in the absence of the above hypothetical subclass reboot mechanic) you have only the 1st or 3rd option, not the 2nd one.

 

[CreamCloud0]

However, I don't see why feats would have lesser cohesion than the class/subclass system.

i would assume the reasoning would be because subclasses can work on the guarantee that a character will have X, Y and Z features, both ones from baseclass and prior subclass levels, meaning they can make connections between those features in a way that feats can't really do, a monk subclass knows it gets to call upon ki/focus points (and by proxy, flurry of blows, patient defence and step of the wind), unarmoured defence, martial arts, unarmoured movement, a decent chance of high DEX or WIS and probably more i'm missing.

feats, by their nature of being individual packages, tend not to get those guarantees except for when they have prerequisites, which are generally not the most desired feats due to said gate to entry, they have to be accessible to a rogue, a barbarian, a warlock and all the other classes, and even if you can access those features by another feat, feats in and of themselves are a very expensive currency that don't come frequently, meaning for most people, if your feat requires another to access you won't be getting it sooner than 8th level, which is often not too soon before most games end.