Discussion YMMV / DungeonsAndDragonsFifthEdition

"Barbarians being weak" is a weird take to me that I disagree with — they're mostly linear and basic, not weak. Monks though definitely get a worse wrap in at least the communities I frequent just because they're overshadowed a lot by the insane numbers other damage classes can rack up. I don't think they're "bad" or even as conceptually unfocused when compared to the vanilla Ranger, but in addition to me just thinking their numbers are undertuned, their role and particular strengths aren't nearly as obvious as others — Monks are definitely mobile and have more survivability than a Rogue, but but hot damn Rogues have stupid optimal damage in optimal conditions.

Admittedly, I mostly play in groups that roll for stats rather than point buy, and a monk starting with 18 or even 20s in their Dexterity and Wisdom scores is gonna really hit the ground running a lot faster than one who starts with 14 or 16 in their core stats. But people turning up their noses at d4 damage dice are missing that they add their full modifier to every attack, and that's a lot more damage than fighters at comparable levels until fighters pull up even around level 11... and that's before we compare how often a monk can flurry vs. a fighter action surge, or how powerful being able to dodge as a bonus action is.

Should we throw out a whatsit, a message to Tales Of Awesome to come here and talk to us first, or should I delete (or at least comment out) his writing and see if he feels like arguing the point?

I had a huge post written out, theeeeeen I accidentally xed out. I'm too war-beaten after writing the huge thing and redoing calculations to reset, so I'm gonna bow out XD. I got this from various forums and optimization sites for the Barbarian. I could argue it some other time when I'm not pissy over losing the post I worked on for an hour, but I'd be okay with you swapping it if you're that convinced on Barbarian.

Don't for Monk, though. I just added some of its problems. The OP for the Monk one is unknown to me, you'll want to discuss that with them.

Sorry about that. I’ve been in that situation myself and it sucks.

That said, on a non-math related front, I'm not particularly sympathetic to the argument that enemies will just ignore the barbarian to focus on the rest of the party because that smacks of poor GMing and even metagaming, and the only alternative is a return to the World of Warcraft style mechanics they went and made a whole new edition to get away from accusations of. A screaming potentially-half-naked maniac is in your facing smashing you with an axe and even if he's doing half a point less damage on average than a fully optimized fighter or whatever, that's still probably going to command the average mentally weak creature's attention, to say nothing of even a fair number of intelligent adversaries.

I can talk about that, at least.

This is one area where Pathfinder 2e is so much better, because diagonal movement is so much more restricted and the general power level of each individual hit is so much stronger than it is in D&D 5e that every Reactive Strike (their term for AoO) counts. Additionally, Monks and Barbarians are actually true tank classes in Pathfinder 2e, whereas I hesitate to say as much in 5e.

Simply put, a fight in 5e is going to take 2-4 rounds, maybe 5 in boss fights, maybe more in all-out, end-of-story slugfests. I tried to figure out how to get the calculations for Barbarian through, and eventually found that, with advantage (which they get easily), Barbarians get a crit 9.75% of the time they make an attack. This next part is where the math gets a little flaky for me, because I don't know how to calculate this and I couldn't find exact numbers, but apparently it works out to a little worse than a coin flip every two attacks made with Reckless Attack - about 48%.

A Barbarian's damage output is tied to two things; their extra Rage damage, and Brutal Critical. This is, of course, omitting things a subclass can add - particularly Zealot - but damage is just one part of this. Additionally, even with Zealot's damage output, you're losing out on Totem Bear, so outside of fights with enemy soldiers and the like you're going to be taking pretty heavy damage.

But I digress.

Brutal Critical feels good when it goes off, but that's the problem; when it goes off. A Fighter in a similar situation doesn't need to crit fish to do their damage, they just attack more. The damage calcs I've been finding on the forums and discussions on Barbarian make it pretty clear the expected damage you actually get out of Brutal Critical triggering is so much weaker than a Fighter just hitting things more two levels later. And I'm not even saying Fighter is a particularly powerful class - I think we're all aware mages rule the roost in 5e.

Even if we assume Brutal Critical procs at least once every combat - and that is indeed a very generous assumption - D&D5e is a low-numbers game that runs off the martial characters making multiple attacks to get their damage. This is often why people dunk (I'd say unfairly, because Sneak Attack has its own merits) on the Rogue, and why many people consider the Fighter and the crazy crud you can do with some Ranger builds as the gold standard of Martials... in a game where the gold standard is mages.

That brings me pretty easily into the point I wanted to make last night and where I argue.

First, though, my personal bias I didn't see in forums but leads into the point I see in forums.

Ranged attacks.

Yes, Barbarians and Monks have awesome mobility, but without magic items it is entirely grounded. Monks have some leeway because they can use (weak) ranged weapons, but once level 7 hits - if not before that - you start running into flying monsters. A Barbarian and Monk won't always have walls to run up to fight flying creatures, and flying creatures frequently have mechanics that let them not proc opportunity attacks or have damage options that work at a distance. Dragons are the prime example of the latter, as are player races that can fly and use bows, like Owlen and Winged Tieflings.

A Barbarian fighting a flying creature in the sorts of areas a flying creature would fight in - areas with open sky - has no recourse if that flying creature stays out of javelin range. Even if the dope gets into javelin range, the rules for thrown weapons make it supremely difficult for Barbarians to get more than one attack off, and even if they somehow do, they're typically not going to have a collection of magical throwing weapons to hit the vast majority of monsters with nonmagical weapon resistance.

Now, this could get into a broader conversation about how melee is borked in 5e - it is - and how the guarantee of magic items in systems like Pathfinder or even the last edition of D&D, 4e, made it so that you could reliably get flying equipment whereas every game I've ever played in or seen for 5e have been incredibly restrictive about getting magic items, and how Barbarians tank better in Pathfinder because they actually account for diagonals, meaning a Barbarian interposing herself in front of Mr. Wizard is actually a challenge for enemies to overcome and not an opportunity to just zigzag around her, but at this point I'm digressing. It merely feeds into the bigger issue, and why I ultimately agree with accounts of Monk and Barbarian being the weakest classes in 5e.

It's about options.

Let's assume Brutal Critical and Reckless Attack are very generous. Let's assume they happen consistently enough a Barbarian can keep up with a Fighter's damage output. Let's also assume that despite being ridiculously MAD for little benefit (relying on AC to avoid damage is terrible in mid-to-late game D&D because your AC does not keep up with monster to-hit) the Monk manages to somehow get around their crippling HP weakness, max out Dex and Wisdom for 20 AC, and assume monsters stick to +13 to-hit (a 65% chance to hit, which is the math assumed for PCs against enemies. This is generous - most late monsters can have +14-+20) , meaning the Monk runs into few survivability issues in combat. The lack of a viable ranged strategy outside of certain subclasses that force them to choose how they get over one of their problems is still a major issue, as is this;

' A screaming potentially-half-naked maniac is in your facing smashing you with an axe and even if he's doing half a point less damage on average than a fully optimized fighter or whatever, that's still probably going to command the average mentally weak creature's attention, to say nothing of even a fair number of intelligent adversaries. '

This, to me, is one of the biggest issues in 5e. You would be right - if a Barbarian had charisma worth a damn.

Even in games with rolled stats it's ridiculously hard for the Barbarian to be the scariest person in the room, and I'll get to that in a second, but rest assured that they legitimately have a hard time intimidating people and being memorable.

The problem is options.

Why are Wizards considered the best class in the game? (I'd argue Bards, personally, but work with me here.)

When in combat, a Wizard contributes just as much as her allies.

Outside of combat, a Wizard contributes more because she has options. It's been two years since I've seen athletics - the only reason to emphasize strength over dexterity - rolled once to deal with an out-of-combat problem. There's a lake? Water Walk. Need to climb a cliff? Fly, Spider Climb.

The exceptions to this, typically, are socialization and stealth. It's incredibly risky to solve all your problems with charms to make creatures talk to you, and a fair few number have charm resistance and immunity. In situations like those, what makes the difference?

Expertise.

And that's why I refuse to believe the whole 'skill monkey is a meme' discourse. Expertise is gamechanging. A character with a +0 in Strength and Expertise in Athletics will end play with +12 Athletics, whereas a person with a +5 in Strength and Proficiency in Athletics will end at +11. Not equal.

Barbarians have nothing to do outside of combat. Same with Monks. Barbarians have athletics and that's about it, and they likely don't even have Expertise in it. Almost everything a Barbarian can do to solve an out-of-combat situation can be replicated by magic to make the problem go away. We'd need to assume the party doesn't have a mage or a Rogue with athletics expertise for the Barbarian to have a legitimate use-case here outside of mutliclassing. Each of the Barbarian subclasses shores up one of their issues in combat but exposes others. Zealot fixes damage output but does nothing to account for tanking for party members. Ancestral allows the Barbarian to draw aggro and even gives them some limited out-of-combat utility but exposes how reliant they are on resistance to stay up, which is a problem when monsters with elemental damage exist. Totem Bear (because you're doing this for bear) fixes any survivability issues but does nothing to account for damage or drawing aggro, leading into the tank fallacy - the enemy is more threatened by Mrs. Sorcerer, likely can just walk around the Barbarian because diagonals don't work and Attacks of Opportunity from anyone but Rogues aren't a significant hassle, and probably will.

Monks have the unfortunate issue of having to compete with Rogues and Rangers, and they're terrible at it. Like Barbarian, their subclasses can fix some of their issues, but any outside of Kensei and Ascendant Dragon are going to struggle with flying enemies, their resilience will always be an issue because they're MAD, and if they don't want to cut into their impressive damage output Mobile is damn-near-required as a feat tax so they don't constantly take opportunity attacks running in and out of range of monsters. Out-of-combat, everything a Monk does well a Ranger or Rogue does better, as all three are heavily incentivized to run Dex / Wis and two of those three have some form of Expertise, and it isn't Monk. There's a reason it's recommended Shadow Monks MC into Rogue for the Stealth Expertise and BA Disengage. Rogues and Rangers can keep up with or exceed Monks in damage, don't risk themselves as much since they're heavily incentivized for ranged combat, largely have more options to take for niche situations, and have better out-of-combat utility.

If they're having trouble distinguishing themselves in battle and are outclassed out of battle, there's an issue here.

And yes, I know, 'well then have the DM let the Barbarian roll strength for intimidation instead of charisma.' That's a legitimate rule that can apply. It still doesn't account for the fact that, with Expertise, the Bard will do the job better, have several out-of-combat spell options to contribute to solve problems, and is still the best class in the game because of their bonkers subclasses and spell lists.

The issue I have with your arguments are that they're all subjective in regards towards the DM heavily accommodating Barbarian and Monk weakness, and we have to assume the 'general' scenarios where that largely is up in the air, not worst or best case. In Pathfinder, the DM is incentivized to target the Barbarian in the way of the Wizard because Reactive Strike is actually serious damage in PF2e and has a solid chance of stopping enemy movement, and diagonals are accounted for to make it harder for enemies to reach the mage backline. That's not even getting into how actions differ between systems to empower martials.

This isn't an issue for Fighters, who have more ASIs they can devote to feats to change up their options, more broadly useful subclasses to shore up weaknesses and give them unique advantages, more attacks per round to hit with in a game where martial supremacy is typically determined by how many attacks you can make, and, if all else fails, a dedicated 'mage' option to give them out-of-combat utility.

Paladins, too. They suck with ranged attacks but their spellcasting and auras are some of the best features in the game, and even then they still compete with Bards for out-of-combat utility unfavorably given Bards get expertise. For a Paladin to contribute meaningfully in combat, they can set up a lawn chair, stand on it (so they don't count as prone) or lie on it if ranged attacks are an issue, put on some sunglasses, and read the Sunday paper while their Aura of Protection does all the work needed to keep their Cleric casting spells behind them invincible. Maybe throw in Bless. This is a niche they don't need to compete in because it's unique to them.

This used to be an issue for Rangers, who fell under Master of None category, but the new features afforded to them, including free Expertise, the Skill Expert feat and their lack of a tax in others feats so they can take it, and their broadly excellent subclasses saved them entirely.

Note, of the things I've mentioned, the only places I break from public opinion and run with my own interpretations are ranged attacks making a difference and Expertise. Otherwise, everything I'm laying out here is stuff you'll see on nearly any forum.

So, the site ate my detailed response, and I myself find some of my motivation to reply sapped by this in turn.

The short version I guess is that it sounds like you genuinely like things that I hated so much I never want to see them in any version of D&D ever again, that your games have a much more mathhammer, "Fights are two people running at each other and standing perfectly still trading dice rolls until someone's dead" approach to combat than my own do, and we will probably never agree about the extent to which, as you yourself admit, these are class problems that would not similarly affect a similarly built fighter.

I note, for example, that we've had diametrically opposed experiences with magic items in 5e, with most printed adventures and most gamemasters I've played under showering the party in at-least-usable magic items and weapons.

And I agree that skills and expertise are still important, although I think, again, you underweight barbarians getting a bunch of extra normal skills and monks getting a bunch of not-completely-useless utility powers like permanent tongues or being able to walk on walls.

But the bottom line here is that none of them are, in my mind, bad enough to deserve a slot under Low-Tier Letdown. If you want to play them, you'll have a good time and do plenty of damage in fights and have reasonably useful skillsets in situations you want to build for. You won't have the problems the core ranger did where you're better off playing a fighter with the unarmed combat fighting style or whatever. And that, more than half a percent less damage because of how rare critical hits are, is what's actually relevant here in my mind.

I still don't understand how most encounters are supposed to last 2-4 rounds when in my experience it's at least five and more than ten is common, but whatever, that's just different tables I guess. And I still don't see how all of this doesn't hit the fighter even worse when they have even less out of combat utility than either monks or barbarians, handful of subclass options aside, and also do less damage than the monk even on their spike turns until level 11 and don't surpass them until level 20.

First of all, sorry about your reply, that sucks.

'I still don't understand how most encounters are supposed to last 2-4 rounds when in my experience it's at least five and more than ten is common, but whatever, that's just different tables I guess. And I still don't see how all of this doesn't hit the fighter even worse when they have even less out of combat utility than either monks or barbarians, handful of subclass options aside, and also do less damage than the monk even on their spike turns until level 11 and don't surpass them until level 20. '

Uh... I'm willing to agree to disagree on a lot of this but if you go to most forums they're gonna give you an odd look when you say your combats last 5-to-10. Given how long just a single round can be in some circumstances, that sounds like a single combat taking multiple sessions to me.

'The short version I guess is that it sounds like you genuinely like things that I hated so much I never want to see them in any version of D&D ever again, that your games have a much more mathhammer, "Fights are two people running at each other and standing perfectly still trading dice rolls until someone's dead" approach to combat than my own do, and we will probably never agree about the extent to which, as you yourself admit, these are class problems that would not similarly affect a similarly built fighter. '

This is a rather rude and dismissive response! I'm not trying to pick a fight here, and I'm not some munchkin optimizer. I largely went from playing 5e to PF2e because I felt martials were too limited in D&D 5e, because I want to avoid fights like that.

I've just personally played, seen, and read about horror stories with Monk and Barbarian, hence why I'm adding to the Monk post and putting in a Barbarian post. I will admit, though, that you might have a point on adventure paths, since most of what I watch, read about, play, and run are all original content by their creators. (In my case it's that I have a hard time keeping track of worlds I didn't build myself, and I like giving my players the opportunity to build the kingdoms and empires they come from - it's a ton of fun!)

It's true Fighters don't innately have much utility, but most of their subclasses give it to them, which can't be said for Monk and Barbarian. Ancestral Guardians and some Totem functions are the only things I can think of off the top of my head that have features dedicated to out-of-combat utility, and let me tell you this is where my personal experiences come in.

Playing a Barbarian sucked. I never had things to contribute out of combat beyond being a bodyguard because our Rogue and Bard pretty much covered socialization and adventure concerns, and even in combat my job as the tank was offset by the fact that, unlike in PF2e, diagonals aren't accounted for, so most enemies can just half-diamond around me to hit my mage allies anyway. That's why I agree with the forum posts I've been reading.

Battle Master, legitimate niche analyzing characters and can, with recent maneuvers, enhance several of their skill checks. Basically made to work with Skill Expert. Have a combat niche that can't be copied.

Cavalier, unique hold the line niche, free skill.

Banneret, free Persuasion expertise, free skill. Still kinda bad though.

Arcane Archer, also pretty bad, but free cantrip and skill.

Pretty much everyone agrees Echo Knight is overtuned.

Eldritch Knight, Spellcasting, so unmatched AC and out-of-combat utility.

Psi Warrior, unique mechanic for defending allies.

Samurai and Rune Knight take the cake, though, having insane amounts of out-of-combat utility - especially Rune Knight, which can get expertise in tools like Artificer and free advantage on several skills on top of so many aggro and redirection abilities they can use their reaction every combat round in a given day and not run out of redirection techniques. A properly specced Samurai has bar none the best Persuasion in the game.

Some Barbarian and a scant few Monks - mostly limited to Shadow - subclasses can also contribute to their out of combat utility, but it's been my experience both personally and from recountings that these classes have a lot of flaws that end with them just not being fun. Yes, a Monk deals good damage, I'm not refuting that, and Stunning Strike is incredible, but they have such a low pain threshold and are so ludicrously MAD they have an incredibly difficult time affording Skill Expert to make even one of their proficiencies stand out next to a Rogue. Anything a base Monk can do, a base Rogue can do better unless that Rogue is divested of their weapon, which is an infrequent occurrence. It's really only subclasses where Monk has some meaningful contributions, and even then it's not like Rogue can't match them. Scout and the two extra free Expertises, for example. Until Ranger was revamped this made them better than Rangers at what Rangers did, period, and it still makes them better survivalists than Rangers. That's not even getting into the psychic subclass that just gives you free bonus dice to your skills that are only expended when they net you success.

I don't personally have any issue with martials in 5e, but I do think they got the short end of the stick, and there are several eloquent essays proving that. Since they default at the back half at the ladder, the ones who struggle to distinguish themselves are going to be especially unfun to play, especially when a Barbarian shares a party with a mage (especially Bard) or a Monk shares a party with a Rogue or Ranger - and Rogues are incredibly popular. I agree with you - Monks are awesome in combat, but that's where it starts and stops. In a dungeon crawl? Sure, okay, Monks shine a lot more there if they make room for Mobile so they don't get knocked over like a leaf in a stiff breeze.

Most games I've played, run, and watched are more along the line of campaigns, though, and it's going to suck when the Barbarian is three sessions into an arc dealing with a city where she just doesn't have anything to do while the Samurai is wining and dining, the Ranger is making in-roads as a bounty hunter, and the Rogue is running the information network.

PF2e is so much better about this given how skill progression works. If you love Barbarian and Monk I highly recommend jumping systems. Their usefulness is like night and day by comparison.

And just to be clear - we're having discourse on this, so there's obviously an argument for the other side. I'm not gonna die on the Barbarian hill, I'm just giving my reasons. I'd suggest we either have some third parties join in to adjudicate, or you can just change it back.

Don't touch Monk though until you've contacted the person who posted that. That was not me.

Conversely, I played a barbarian in a team full of combat bunnies and had to handle literally every non-lockpicking, non-Arcana or Religion skill test because between a cleric, a fighter, and a sorcerer everyone had gone for high-Dexterity builds with no skillsets outside their narrow niches, so my own impressions are probably colored by that. One thing I do like about 5e is that it does feel like it's comparatively easy, sometimes, to feel like I'm pitching in just by being proficient, but I also feel deeply the pain of standing around feeling useless all session and I apologize you had to go through that.

I'm also very sorry for insulting and being rude, and I'm very glad you mastered your own temper in return and did not respond as I probably deserved.

(There was a genuine attempt at a lighthearted jab at Pathfinder 2e's shield rules here that quickly turned genuinely hateful, and I chose to delete it rather than soil an attempt at an apology with it.)

Hey, I like Shield rules in Pathfinder 2e! I need to destroy you!

I kid I kid. (Shield rules in Pathfinder 2e are fine though :P)

I think it's just how our perceptions are colored, though you'd have a hard time convincing me Bard isn't the most broken class in the game and there is no real balance between martials and mystics. You lucked out and were in a party without a Bard or a Rogue so it worked out better for ya.

I played a bard out to level 17 before that years long campaign got TPK'd. I agree that they're very strong, but their limited ability to access their spells and limited spell list does a lot to keep them on a leash; wizards' gigantic and superior spell list, ability to increase it without bound, getting more spells per day than everyone else, and that they don't even have to prepare their ritual spells in advance still makes them the superior casters overall, and once they had access to Enhance Ability and a spell to grant expertise they greatly reclaimed the few niches other casters had when it comes to skill utility. And, while I think I'm a little happier with how the weapon fighters make it work for them than you are, I think we'll both agree that bard are at their strongest when they're just being casters and at their weakest when they piddle around pretending they're weapon fighters instead of throwing out a potentially game-changing spell every single round.

I also think a lot of the "bards are broken!" stuff boils down to arguing "Lore bards are broken," since they get more of the bards' strongest features from very early on and don't need to worry so much about wobbling around trying to pretend they aren't casters. Most of the other subclasses aren't as obscenely strong as a competently constructed Lore bard. For the record, I was playing Keith Baker's hobgoblin bard college from Exploring Eberron, and we had a couple weapon-users in the party so it worked out.

I guess I let the Bladesinger stay under Game-Breaker even if, like the Synthesist before it, I feel it's not even better than a normal wizard because every round you're wobbling around with cantrips and extra attacks like an eldritch knight is a round you aren't casting fifth level spells+ and decimating encounters. It's certainly a popular opinion even if I disagree.

'I played a bard out to level 17 before that years long campaign got TPK'd. I agree that they're very strong, but their limited ability to access their spells and limited spell list does a lot to keep them on a leash; wizards' gigantic and superior spell list, ability to increase it without bound, getting more spells per day than everyone else, and that they don't even have to prepare their ritual spells in advance still makes them the superior casters overall, and once they had access to Enhance Ability and a spell to grant expertise they greatly reclaimed the few niches other casters had when it comes to skill utility. And, while I think I'm a little happier with how the weapon fighters make it work for them than you are, I think we'll both agree that bard are at their strongest when they're just being casters and at their weakest when they piddle around pretending they're weapon fighters instead of throwing out a potentially game-changing spell every single round.

I also think a lot of the "bards are broken!" stuff boils down to arguing "Lore bards are broken," since they get more of the bards' strongest features from very early on and don't need to worry so much about wobbling around trying to pretend they aren't casters. Most of the other subclasses aren't as obscenely strong as a competently constructed Lore bard. For the record, I was playing Keith Baker's hobgoblin bard college from Exploring Eberron, and we had a couple weapon-users in the party so it worked out. '

The thing with Bards is that they combine Expertise with spellcasting and several amazing support abilities that make them, along with Paladins, the perfect solo characters. They can do anything and do it well, though obviously there are some caveats for a D8 class that can't get Shield without MCing until 10th level. Put them in a party and they're a force multiplier for everyone with Inspiration, not that they need anyone for what they do. Wizards do have Enhance Ability, Skill Empowerment, and several great subclasses, though for me personally the better HP, easy access to Expertise, sheer amount of skills, access to Aid, and the ways Jack of All Trades interacts with things (Bonus to init, bonus to Counterspell and Dispel Magic, bonus to a LOT of things) pushes Bard over the edge, especially factoring in their subclasses. Plus, Bards get Glibness and that's just 'I win at Persuasion' the spell. I will agree Wizards (and, personally, Clerics) give them stiff competition, though.

And yes, when I say their subclasses, I mean roughly half of them. I've found uses for College of Swords and College of Valor, but if I'm being honest it's the basic Bard toolkit propping them up more than anything, with Booming Blade there to sweeten the deal. College of Spirits has a lot of great effects, but the innate randomness makes it difficult to use reliably - not that Wizards aren't without their duds (Necromancy, Transmutation, Enchantment come to mind)

The other half, though - wow. Glamor is absurd and the best battlefield support subclass in the game besides maybe Battlemaster, and that's only if the Battlemaster is working with a Rogue. The only other competition I can think of is Shepherd Druid. Being able to arrange your allies and give them Temp HP as a bonus action for only the cost of an inspiration die changes the entire game. It can turn an ambush against you into a murder nest with your enemies trapped in the middle. That's not even getting into Bonus Action Command and 'no you don't attack me.'

Lore's great, don't get me wrong, but it's competing with serious giants. Having more skills is the main reason to get it, as are the increased number of spells - thankfully, that's a legitimate niche.

Creation is limited only by your imagination and what your DM lets you get away with, and if the answer is 'not much' then it still has fantastic backing in a battlefield / transportation pet and excellent riders to inspiration.

But I think everyone knows the best class/subclass combination.

Eloquence is overpowered, and though I'm not a minmaxer, I am more than happy to abuse it because I'm a pacifist that likes talking my enemies into surrendering. Persuasion set to +10 from level 3 is overtuned and gives Rogue serious competition, since Persuasion and Deception are all a Bard really needs, and that's not even getting to the elephant in the room. Considering the discourse around Silvery Barbs, it shouldn't be difficult to understand how a static decrease to an enemy's next save can change combat entirely, considering how enemies are given such high Wisdom and Constitution to avoid 'win' buttons like Hold or Dominate Monster, Disintegrate, Plane Shift, and so on. And that's just the first two features! Giving Bards inspiration insurance is wild - and that's before the two-for-one deal regarding passing inspiration off to another party member. If there's a Rogue, Ranger, Samurai, or Knowledge Cleric in the party the Eloquence Bard makes them unstoppable in the skill department.

'I guess I let the Bladesinger stay under Game-Breaker even if, like the Synthesist before it, I feel it's not even better than a normal wizard because every round you're wobbling around with cantrips and extra attacks like an eldritch knight is a round you aren't casting fifth level spells+ and decimating encounters. It's certainly a popular opinion even if I disagree. '

Bladesinger is reliant on rolled stats. I'm in a game where I am one because I rolled stats and lucked out on high dex and int. If you can get that via rolled stats, they shoot up in viability substantially. You're not playing them to wade into melee; you're playing them to have the one AC value in the game besides Artificer that actually stands a decent chance of not being constantly beat from 15th level on, and so that when you are somehow hit you don't lose concentration. That said, I'm still debating on if Abjurer is better, purely because Abjurer can pull stuff like that off (replace massive AC for a shield that doesn't allow for concentration saves) and not need ridiculously high dex to do it. I'd veer towards 'Abjurer is purely better' overall though. Bladesinger doesn't know what it wants since it gives you performance, and unlike Fey Rangers that recognized you should modify the skills themselves to match your attributes, you're not given 'int-to-cha' skills to actually capitalize on performance.

I will say it's the best mage-side gish, though. Being allowed to add a cantrip to your extra attack does help it somewhat. I could see the argument it's worse than base Wizard though given how it makes you feel invincible in a d6 class - anyone who thinks that way isn't Wizarding properly and is going to overextend at some point and have to deal with 10d6 fire damage to the face.

Yall, I think we're getting really sidetracked about what is actually discussed here. We can talk about maths and our subjective application about them in our games all day, but a preliminary search just seems to be in agreement that Barbarians are fine and respectable the way they are, Monks need some help (otherwise One D&D wouldn't be constantly trying to rework and buff them). We really don't need excessive paragraphs trying to decisively prove them as being "the worst", this is YMMV and it can be summed up with those general bullet points.

Sorry. Should’ve swapped to P Ms multiple posts ago.

I still don’t fully understand why monks need help when I’ve never played in a game where they didn’t out perform other marshals by a fair distance, but that does seem to be the consensus even if I’d probably want to modify some of the specific points as they exist now.