Being better than a Berserker at DPR is next-level trivial because a Berserker won't willingly frenzy multiple times per long rest. It's just a genuinely uninteresting comparison to compete with a Berserker.
Treantmonk literally did a video on this recently. it was more of an overall barbarian analysis but directly about how 14th zealot is amazing. They are basically the most tanky of all barbarians. especially if you get the healer feat or a periapt of wound closure.
I know some people have mixed feelings about him but there is no question he tries to put thought into his opinions. I learn alot even when I disagree with him. here's the link if interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8VO24md_0w&t=3105s
Thanks for sharing such detailed working! I'll have to pore over it properly later but there a few possible issues:
It doesn't look like any reaction attacks are being factored in? From 14th-level Berserker has Relation which, if they're using Reckless Attack, they'll probably get fairly regularly. Hard to say exactly how often, but if we assume a DM properly runs Reckless Attack as making them a more inviting target (enemies optimise by chance to hit and perceived threat) then it could be high.
PAM seems of no value on the Berserker if you don't factor in reaction attacks, but if you assume a 50% chance of the enemy coming to you, then it's a free attack. I probably wouldn't take it personally, but it depends on the build (a polearm Berserker is perfectly viable).
I've tried to double check, but it looks like the assumption is that as soon as Great Weapon Master is available then it will always be used on every attack? This is a bit tricky because in reality against a high AC opponent you wouldn't use the -5 to hit for +10 damage attacks, as it's better to hit and deal any damage than to only do extra damage on the few hits that land. Does the script already calculate both with and without GWM (when available) and use the better of the two? My quick math suggested not but I'm not sure, I'd need to work through more than just a single random pick.
Do we factor in charm and fear immunity? I couldn't quickly find a source for how commonly inflicted those conditions are, but being immune means never missing a round to them, or losing Rage because of them.
In general the problem is too many diverging choices and too wide a range of levels; the more complex you make the comparisons, the more the complexity is lost in the results. Your optimised zealot for example is now a different race in order to get a free starter feat, and you've arguably already built with too many feats already (for a Berserker I doubt I'd personally take both GWM and PAM, and I'd be more inclined to take Slasher over Sentinel for a greataxe or Piercer for a pike).
It'd be better to compare a common build that works for both; if you wanted an optimised Berserker that's not too dissimilar from the optimised zealot I'd go PAM human with pike, GWM at 4th, and Piercer instead of Sentinel (as it raises average damage on all piercing attacks and basically gives you the same extra level on Brutal Criticals). It's a somewhat weird build, but a lot easier to compare. I'll see if I can create a comparison using something along those lines later; need to figure out how to factor in the reaction attacks.
There's also the other way to keep things simple; since feats are actually an optional rule (as are variant humans) then how do things differ with zero feats taken? The Berserker gets all of their extra attacks built-in, the Zealot needs to use two-weapon fighting in that case.
But this is why these comparisons get difficult; too simple and the results aren't that useful, too complex and you only raise the complexity that's missing (and either have to do ten times the work or try to simplify a little), I think the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle. It's also worth remembering that few campaigns make it past 10th level, though it's still worth seeing what the upper levels can be like, even though they're likely to diverge more and more (e.g- what if the Berserker takes fewer feats and a level in Hexblade Warlock for Hexblade's Curse to double critical chance and some out of combat utility)?
Of course the other thing the comparison won't tell us is which is more fun to play; personally I really enjoy the Berserker, while I find the Zealot a bit boring. Berserker having a significant drawback on Frenzied Rage actually makes it more enjoyable for me, as it makes it more of a strategic choice when to us it, whereas getting bonus damage basically all the time is IMO one of the most boring features in the game. While it's not relevant to damage output, it's relevant to how "underwhelming" a sub-class is; a Berserker is bursty and has drawbacks, but that makes it more challenging to play, and challenging usually means fun for me, same reason I usually take at least one negative ability score on a character, as I like to have weaknesses.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Thanks for sharing such detailed working! I'll have to pore over it properly later but there a few possible issues:
It doesn't look like any reaction attacks are being factored in? From 14th-level Berserker has Relation which, if they're using Reckless Attack, they'll probably get fairly regularly. Hard to say exactly how often, but if we assume a DM properly runs Reckless Attack as making them a more inviting target (enemies optimise by chance to hit and perceived threat) then it could be high.
PAM seems of no value on the Berserker if you don't factor in reaction attacks, but if you assume a 50% chance of the enemy coming to you, then it's a free attack. I probably wouldn't take it personally, but it depends on the build (a polearm Berserker is perfectly viable).
I've tried to double check, but it looks like the assumption is that as soon as Great Weapon Master is available then it will always be used on every attack? This is a bit tricky because in reality against a high AC opponent you wouldn't use the -5 to hit for +10 damage attacks, as it's better to hit and deal any damage than to only do extra damage on the few hits that land. Does the script already calculate both with and without GWM (when available) and use the better of the two? My quick math suggested not but I'm not sure, I'd need to work through more than just a single random pick.
Do we factor in charm and fear immunity? I couldn't quickly find a source for how commonly inflicted those conditions are, but being immune means never missing a round to them, or losing Rage because of them.
In general the problem is too many diverging choices and too wide a range of levels; the more complex you make the comparisons, the more the complexity is lost in the results. Your optimised zealot for example is now a different race in order to get a free starter feat, and you've arguably already built with too many feats already (for a Berserker I doubt I'd personally take both GWM and PAM, and I'd be more inclined to take Slasher over Sentinel for a greataxe or Piercer for a pike).
It'd be better to compare a common build that works for both; if you wanted an optimised Berserker that's not too dissimilar from the optimised zealot I'd go PAM human with pike, GWM at 4th, and Piercer instead of Sentinel (as it raises average damage on all piercing attacks and basically gives you the same extra level on Brutal Criticals). It's a somewhat weird build, but a lot easier to compare. I'll see if I can create a comparison using something along those lines later; need to figure out how to factor in the reaction attacks.
There's also the other way to keep things simple; since feats are actually an optional rule (as are variant humans) then how do things differ with zero feats taken? The Berserker gets all of their extra attacks built-in, the Zealot needs to use two-weapon fighting in that case.
But this is why these comparisons get difficult; too simple and the results aren't that useful, too complex and you only raise the complexity that's missing (and either have to do ten times the work or try to simplify a little), I think the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle. It's also worth remembering that few campaigns make it past 10th level, though it's still worth seeing what the upper levels can be like, even though they're likely to diverge more and more (e.g- what if the Berserker takes fewer feats and a level in Hexblade Warlock for Hexblade's Curse to double critical chance and some out of combat utility)?
Of course the other thing the comparison won't tell us is which is more fun to play; personally I really enjoy the Berserker, while I find the Zealot a bit boring. Berserker having a significant drawback on Frenzied Rage actually makes it more enjoyable for me, as it makes it more of a strategic choice when to us it, whereas getting bonus damage basically all the time is IMO one of the most boring features in the game. While it's not relevant to damage output, it's relevant to how "underwhelming" a sub-class is; a Berserker is bursty and has drawbacks, but that makes it more challenging to play, and challenging usually means fun for me, same reason I usually take at least one negative ability score on a character, as I like to have weaknesses.
Thank you! I made the sheet so I could easily compare builds and it was just a matter of entering the builds and seeing what the results were.
As for how my sheet deals with GWM or SS it calculates both the normal expected damage and the expected damage with the -5/+10 trade off. This is done for each attack against all considered target ACs. Then when summing the expected damage for each attack to get the total DPR only the larger value is used. So at a given level and target AC it will either always use the GWM calculation or never use it, depending on which yields more damage on average. Where exactly that transition point is depends on the player's To Hit bonus and the target's AC.
Here is a graph comparing Bob the Berserker to Bob the Zealot. Both are level 8 and Bob the Berserker has GWM and Bob the Zealot does not. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DLygBccY78a0fNq93f1fOeJmT0fIhth0/view?usp=sharing Bob the Berserker is using GWM against targets with an AC of 18 or lower and then using normal attacks against targets with AC 19 or higher.
I agree with your point about the problems when it comes to trying to compare builds. Either you make assumptions to make a more general comparison or you can directly compare specific builds. With the former you can debate the assumptions used and with the later you can debate the specifics of the builds. When I joined this thread I started with simplified example and have elaborated and made more detailed comparisons as people have raised various points. And indeed as you point out my comparisons still make simplifications by not considering reaction attacks, hit points, conditions, etc.
I am also not a fan of the flavor of the Zealot. The free bonus damage of Divine Fury amounts to little more than book keeping, rather than interesting player choice. I find it very frustrating how effective Divine Fury and PAM are because I feel they overshadow so many playstyles. I prefer the mobility and versatility of the Path of the Beast and have a Path of the Beast/Way of the Ascendant Dragon character concept I would like to play when I get the chance.
Also just an FYI a Pike qualifies for the reaction attack granted by PAM but not the bonus action attack, at least according to DnDBeyond.
Treantmonk literally did a video on this recently. it was more of an overall barbarian analysis but directly about how 14th zealot is amazing. They are basically the most tanky of all barbarians. especially if you get the healer feat or a periapt of wound closure.
I know some people have mixed feelings about him but there is no question he tries to put thought into his opinions. I learn alot even when I disagree with him. here's the link if interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8VO24md_0w&t=3105s
I saw that. I haven't yet dug into what he said about the "dead" Barbarian still being able to heal, but I'm only assuming at this point it's been confirmed through Sage Advice? I think it's reasonable (although not a given) to interpret that a level 14 raging barbarian who fails all his death saves is essentially an animated dead person, and cannot then heal.
Assuming Treantmonk is correct, I'm surprised he didn't suggest having a Druid or Ranger hand the Barbarian a fist full of Goodberries. That would seem to be the most resource friendly option by far.
I just watched Treantmonk's video and it is a good analysis. In fact the only qualms I have with it is how he describes the Rage Beyond Death class feature and some of the conclusions he makes as a result.
There isn't a specific errata regarding if a Zealot raging at 0 hitpoints can be healed but I did find that Jeremy Crawford answered this question directly in a tweet: https://twitter.com/NomsOfOms/status/988025605328392192
The only reason a player cannot be healed after failing three death saving throws is because they are now dead. Rage Beyond Death specifically tells us that the zealot does not die when they fail their third death saving throw if they are still raging. As a result the zealot is still a valid target for healing.
When describing Rage Beyond Death Treatmonk describes it as being unable to die because you are dead already. This isn't accurate, you are at 0 hit points but you are not dead and it is still possible to die through means other than failing death saving throws. If the player was considered dead then a spell like Power Word Kill would have no effect. All Rage Beyond Death does is prevent you from falling unconscious when your hitpoints reach 0 and dying from failing death saving throws. All the other effects of taking damage while at 0 hit points still apply. Specifically this means an automatic failed death saving throw and potentially dying from massive damage. The zealots massive hitpoint pool makes dying from massive damage unlikely but it is still technically possible.
I just watched Treantmonk's video and it is a good analysis. In fact the only qualms I have with it is how he describes the Rage Beyond Death class feature and some of the conclusions he makes as a result.
There isn't a specific errata regarding if a Zealot raging at 0 hitpoints can be healed but I did find that Jeremy Crawford answered this question directly in a tweet: https://twitter.com/NomsOfOms/status/988025605328392192
The only reason a player cannot be healed after failing three death saving throws is because they are now dead. Rage Beyond Death specifically tells us that the zealot does not die when they fail their third death saving throw if they are still raging. As a result the zealot is still a valid target for healing.
When describing Rage Beyond Death Treatmonk describes it as being unable to die because you are dead already. This isn't accurate, you are at 0 hit points but you are not dead and it is still possible to die through means other than failing death saving throws. If the player was considered dead then a spell like Power Word Kill would have no effect. All Rage Beyond Death does is prevent you from falling unconscious when your hitpoints reach 0 and dying from failing death saving throws. All the other effects of taking damage while at 0 hit points still apply. Specifically this means an automatic failed death saving throw and potentially dying from massive damage. The zealots massive hitpoint pool makes dying from massive damage unlikely but it is still technically possible.
👍 Good post. That all makes sense and good find with Jeremy‘s input.
Being better than a Berserker at DPR is next-level trivial because a Berserker won't willingly frenzy multiple times per long rest.
Considering the number of posts from former wanna-be Berserker players melting down because they "died from exhaustion" I'm not remotely convinced of this.
Being better than a Berserker at DPR is next-level trivial because a Berserker won't willingly frenzy multiple times per long rest. It's just a genuinely uninteresting comparison to compete with a Berserker.
Yeah, but it's a comparison worth making because doing tons of damage at a high cost is (ostensibly) the berserker's main thing.
Treantmonk literally did a video on this recently. it was more of an overall barbarian analysis but directly about how 14th zealot is amazing. They are basically the most tanky of all barbarians. especially if you get the healer feat or a periapt of wound closure.
I know some people have mixed feelings about him but there is no question he tries to put thought into his opinions. I learn alot even when I disagree with him. here's the link if interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8VO24md_0w&t=3105s
Thanks for sharing such detailed working! I'll have to pore over it properly later but there a few possible issues:
In general the problem is too many diverging choices and too wide a range of levels; the more complex you make the comparisons, the more the complexity is lost in the results. Your optimised zealot for example is now a different race in order to get a free starter feat, and you've arguably already built with too many feats already (for a Berserker I doubt I'd personally take both GWM and PAM, and I'd be more inclined to take Slasher over Sentinel for a greataxe or Piercer for a pike).
It'd be better to compare a common build that works for both; if you wanted an optimised Berserker that's not too dissimilar from the optimised zealot I'd go PAM human with pike, GWM at 4th, and Piercer instead of Sentinel (as it raises average damage on all piercing attacks and basically gives you the same extra level on Brutal Criticals). It's a somewhat weird build, but a lot easier to compare. I'll see if I can create a comparison using something along those lines later; need to figure out how to factor in the reaction attacks.
There's also the other way to keep things simple; since feats are actually an optional rule (as are variant humans) then how do things differ with zero feats taken? The Berserker gets all of their extra attacks built-in, the Zealot needs to use two-weapon fighting in that case.
But this is why these comparisons get difficult; too simple and the results aren't that useful, too complex and you only raise the complexity that's missing (and either have to do ten times the work or try to simplify a little), I think the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle. It's also worth remembering that few campaigns make it past 10th level, though it's still worth seeing what the upper levels can be like, even though they're likely to diverge more and more (e.g- what if the Berserker takes fewer feats and a level in Hexblade Warlock for Hexblade's Curse to double critical chance and some out of combat utility)?
Of course the other thing the comparison won't tell us is which is more fun to play; personally I really enjoy the Berserker, while I find the Zealot a bit boring. Berserker having a significant drawback on Frenzied Rage actually makes it more enjoyable for me, as it makes it more of a strategic choice when to us it, whereas getting bonus damage basically all the time is IMO one of the most boring features in the game. While it's not relevant to damage output, it's relevant to how "underwhelming" a sub-class is; a Berserker is bursty and has drawbacks, but that makes it more challenging to play, and challenging usually means fun for me, same reason I usually take at least one negative ability score on a character, as I like to have weaknesses.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Thank you! I made the sheet so I could easily compare builds and it was just a matter of entering the builds and seeing what the results were.
As for how my sheet deals with GWM or SS it calculates both the normal expected damage and the expected damage with the -5/+10 trade off. This is done for each attack against all considered target ACs. Then when summing the expected damage for each attack to get the total DPR only the larger value is used. So at a given level and target AC it will either always use the GWM calculation or never use it, depending on which yields more damage on average. Where exactly that transition point is depends on the player's To Hit bonus and the target's AC.
Here is a graph comparing Bob the Berserker to Bob the Zealot. Both are level 8 and Bob the Berserker has GWM and Bob the Zealot does not.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DLygBccY78a0fNq93f1fOeJmT0fIhth0/view?usp=sharing
Bob the Berserker is using GWM against targets with an AC of 18 or lower and then using normal attacks against targets with AC 19 or higher.
I agree with your point about the problems when it comes to trying to compare builds. Either you make assumptions to make a more general comparison or you can directly compare specific builds. With the former you can debate the assumptions used and with the later you can debate the specifics of the builds. When I joined this thread I started with simplified example and have elaborated and made more detailed comparisons as people have raised various points. And indeed as you point out my comparisons still make simplifications by not considering reaction attacks, hit points, conditions, etc.
I am also not a fan of the flavor of the Zealot. The free bonus damage of Divine Fury amounts to little more than book keeping, rather than interesting player choice. I find it very frustrating how effective Divine Fury and PAM are because I feel they overshadow so many playstyles. I prefer the mobility and versatility of the Path of the Beast and have a Path of the Beast/Way of the Ascendant Dragon character concept I would like to play when I get the chance.
Also just an FYI a Pike qualifies for the reaction attack granted by PAM but not the bonus action attack, at least according to DnDBeyond.
I saw that. I haven't yet dug into what he said about the "dead" Barbarian still being able to heal, but I'm only assuming at this point it's been confirmed through Sage Advice? I think it's reasonable (although not a given) to interpret that a level 14 raging barbarian who fails all his death saves is essentially an animated dead person, and cannot then heal.
Assuming Treantmonk is correct, I'm surprised he didn't suggest having a Druid or Ranger hand the Barbarian a fist full of Goodberries. That would seem to be the most resource friendly option by far.
I just watched Treantmonk's video and it is a good analysis. In fact the only qualms I have with it is how he describes the Rage Beyond Death class feature and some of the conclusions he makes as a result.
There isn't a specific errata regarding if a Zealot raging at 0 hitpoints can be healed but I did find that Jeremy Crawford answered this question directly in a tweet: https://twitter.com/NomsOfOms/status/988025605328392192
The only reason a player cannot be healed after failing three death saving throws is because they are now dead. Rage Beyond Death specifically tells us that the zealot does not die when they fail their third death saving throw if they are still raging. As a result the zealot is still a valid target for healing.
When describing Rage Beyond Death Treatmonk describes it as being unable to die because you are dead already. This isn't accurate, you are at 0 hit points but you are not dead and it is still possible to die through means other than failing death saving throws. If the player was considered dead then a spell like Power Word Kill would have no effect. All Rage Beyond Death does is prevent you from falling unconscious when your hitpoints reach 0 and dying from failing death saving throws. All the other effects of taking damage while at 0 hit points still apply. Specifically this means an automatic failed death saving throw and potentially dying from massive damage. The zealots massive hitpoint pool makes dying from massive damage unlikely but it is still technically possible.
👍 Good post. That all makes sense and good find with Jeremy‘s input.
Considering the number of posts from former wanna-be Berserker players melting down because they "died from exhaustion" I'm not remotely convinced of this.
Their tears are delicious, BTW.
Behind every successful Warlock, there's an angry mob.