Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9890591" data-attributes="member: 6795602">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 featuresIf 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.</blockquote>

Verification