Prose's Guide to Xanathar's Guide to Everything

[ProseBeforeHos]

Why is it worse than greater invisibility?

Less versatile since it can't be cast on others.

[Snowbluff]

"Swords bard gets extra attack which is great. Adding damage and bonus with inspiration is good."

"As Whisper bard you have spellcasting you can be doing. Adding damage with inspiration is bad." \

[ProseBeforeHos]

"Swords bard gets extra attack which is great. Adding damage and bonus with inspiration is good."

"As Whisper bard you have spellcasting you can be doing. Adding damage with inspiration is bad." \

What part of this is confusing? Sword bard gets an extra attack and a fighting style, using inspirations boost both AC and damage (helping them in melee) The correct strategy for a sword bard is to buff turn 1 and then attack action every turn after.

Whisper bard has none of these advantages. Levels 1-5 they can use their insp. to keep up with the rogues in damage, but after that you're better off casting spells (thus the ability is wasted).

[MaxWilson]

Why is it worse than greater invisibility? Contrarily to greater invisibility, it still works against True Sight / See Invisible, and does a free 2d8 damage when hit.

(1) True Sight allows you to see normally in darkness, so it works against Shadow of Moil and Greater Invisibility equally. No advantage there.

(2) Shadow of Moil does not prevent creatures with darkvision from seeing you, so you won't get advantage against them, unlike Greater Invisibility.

(3) Shadow of Moil can block your own vision, so if enemies have darkvision and you do not, enemies in melee with you will gain advantage on attacks against you.

(4) Shadow of Moil isn't very good for hiding during combat, but Greater Invisibility + bonus Hide (on e.g. a Rogue 2/Bladesinger X, or a goblin feylock) can be very strong defensively by making you hard to target. Shadow of Moil will let you hide, but enemies are allowed to just guess your location and target the center of the sphere, and if they do they will always hit you there. And again, you can't hide at all from creatures with darkvision because they can see you in the dark.

(5) That free 2d8 could just as easily come from Fire Shield (wizard's spell, accessible to Fiendlocks), which lasts ten times longer and doesn't require concentration.

TL;DR Shadow of Moil is kind of neat if you have Devil's Sight, since it lets you get the effects of Blur, Fire Shield, and Faerie Fire all at the same time albeit, albeit in a slightly weaker form (esp. against monsters with darkvision). But it's not as good as Greater Invisibility at making you invisible. (Quelle surprise.)

[Merudo]

(1) True Sight allows you to see normally in darkness, so it works against Shadow of Moil and Greater Invisibility equally. No advantage there.

(2) Shadow of Moil does not prevent creatures with darkvision from seeing you, so you won't get advantage against them, unlike Greater Invisibility.

(3) Shadow of Moil can block your own vision, so if enemies have darkvision and you do not, enemies in melee with you will gain advantage on attacks against you.

(4) Shadow of Moil isn't very good for hiding during combat, but Greater Invisibility + bonus Hide (on e.g. a Rogue 2/Bladesinger X, or a goblin feylock) can be very strong defensively by making you hard to target. Shadow of Moil will let you hide, but enemies are allowed to just guess your location and target the center of the sphere, and if they do they will always hit you there. And again, you can't hide at all from creatures with darkvision because they can see you in the dark.

(5) That free 2d8 could just as easily come from Fire Shield (wizard's spell, accessible to Fiendlocks), which lasts ten times longer and doesn't require concentration.

TL;DR Shadow of Moil is kind of neat if you have Devil's Sight, since it lets you get the effects of Blur, Fire Shield, and Faerie Fire all at the same time albeit, albeit in a slightly weaker form (esp. against monsters with darkvision). But it's not as good as Greater Invisibility at making you invisible. (Quelle surprise.)

1) Shadow of Moil doesn't obscure you through darkness, magical or otherwise, but through flame-like shadows ("Flame-like shadows wreath your body until the spell ends, causing you to become heavily obscured to others"). The two are different. Even if a DM rules that Shadow of Moil obscures through magical darkness (which it doesn't), you'd still be protected from See Invisibility.

2. Darkvision doesn't let you see through magical darkness, or other forms of obscurement (Fog Cloud, Sleet Storm, etc) that aren't mundane darkness.

3. Most light sources (torches, light spell, etc) provide bright light in a 20-foot radius, so carrying one is enough to make sure you don't get blinded by your own Shadow of Moil.

4. I agree that Shadow of Moil isn't great for hiding during a fight. A ball of flame-like shadows surrounded by dimmed light isn't hard to locate at all.

5. Shadow of Moil & Fire Shield both stack, for 4d8 on hit. Plus, the fact that Shadow of Moil effectively replicates two level 4 spells (Greater Invisibility & Fire/Shadow Shield) is a huge point in its favor.

[Gnomes2169]

1) Shadow of Moil doesn't obscure you through darkness, magical or otherwise, but through flame-like shadows ("Flame-like shadows wreath your body until the spell ends, causing you to become heavily obscured to others"). The two are different. Even if a DM rules that Shadow of Moil obscures through magical darkness (which it doesn't), you'd still be protected from See Invisibility.

2. Darkvision doesn't let you see through magical darkness, or other forms of obscurement (Fog Cloud, Sleet Storm, etc) that aren't mundane darkness.

Just want to point out that there are two points of flawed logic here.

1. Unless the spell or effect says otherwise, there is no distinction between magical and mundane darkness. The Darkvision rule makes no exception for it, and the Darkness spell has to straight-up call out that darkvision and mundane light sources are unable to illuminate it.

2. Shadows of Moil explicitly creates darkness, the shadow-like flames are just fluff for the effect ("The shadows turn dim light within 10 feet of you into darkness, and bright light in the same area to dim light.") It also does not in any way call out that normal darkvision cannot see through this darkness and that it cannot be iluminated by mundane means, unlike the spell Darkness, so Darkvision can still see into Shadows of Moil and a torch can still break the total darkness if it is brought too close (and casts you into the bright light). On the plus side, this also means that you do not need Devil's Sight to see out of it, as long as your enemy is illuminated by an external source, you are not within darkness that prevents all normal vision out.

So given that, it's basically a Fire Shield that gives you resistance to an exceptionally rare damage type (radiant) instead of a common one (fire), deals necrotic damage, and has a chance of making creatures without darkvision blind when targeting you at dusk/ night/ in the middle of a dungeon where you are only illuminated by the edge of a torch's light. It's not Greater Invisibility by any means, and it's not as generally protective as Fire Shield, but it's a good in-between.

[EvilAnagram]

Just want to point out that there are two points of flawed logic here.

1. Unless the spell or effect says otherwise, there is no distinction between magical and mundane darkness. The Darkvision rule makes no exception for it, and the Darkness spell has to straight-up call out that darkvision and mundane light sources are unable to illuminate it.

2. Shadows of Moil explicitly creates darkness, the shadow-like flames are just fluff for the effect ("The shadows turn dim light within 10 feet of you into darkness, and bright light in the same area to dim light.") It also does not in any way call out that normal darkvision cannot see through this darkness and that it cannot be iluminated by mundane means, unlike the spell Darkness, so Darkvision can still see into Shadows of Moil and a torch can still break the total darkness if it is brought too close (and casts you into the bright light). On the plus side, this also means that you do not need Devil's Sight to see out of it, as long as your enemy is illuminated by an external source, you are not within darkness that prevents all normal vision out.

So given that, it's basically a Fire Shield that gives you resistance to an exceptionally rare damage type (radiant) instead of a common one (fire), deals necrotic damage, and has a chance of making creatures without darkvision blind when targeting you at dusk/ night/ in the middle of a dungeon where you are only illuminated by the edge of a torch's light. It's not Greater Invisibility by any means, and it's not as generally protective as Fire Shield, but it's a good in-between.

I fundamentally disagree with this reading. The spell description does not say that it creates an area of darkness. It says the light around you dims, and you are heavily obscured. It does not say that you are encased in darkness.

[Gnomes2169]

...

“”Flame like shadows wreath your body until the spell ends, causing you to become heavily obscured to others. The shadows turn dim light within 10 feet of you into darkness, and bright light in the same area into dim light.”

...

So. It creates darkness via shadows if you are in an area of dim light. Darkness as in the lighting stage. Regardless of whether or not it is darkness, the magical spell, what is generated is categorically darkness within dim light. And the darkness generated is not called out as any different from natural darkness.

However, if you are in bright light, then what is generated instead is dim light. The mid-way category between the states of bright light and darkness. This dim light is also special in no other way than it exists specifically within 10 feet of you, and it is not called out to block line of sight or natural illumination (though it does prevent any natural or magical illumination from being bright light, since it is adjusted back down to dim within that 10 foot radius).

How do you read it any other way?

Maybe a better way to put it is that the spell reduces the light category by 1, kinda like a magical light filter. So if Bright is 2, dim is 1 and darkness is 0 or lower, this spell applies a -1 filter to the light stage. Which means it reduces the light state around you to by one stage, potentially reducing it to 0, which can be said to potentially produce an area of darkness around you. Thus this spell can be said to produce darkness, but unlike the spell Darkness, it does not have any special limitations beyond that, and thus things that apply to natural darkness (the phenomina) like darkvision still have their full effect. In addition, the light levels can never go up to 2 (bright) due to the -1 “filter” that the shadows produce.

... better?

[Aett_Thorn]

Well. I think that there's a fairly logical way to read the spell such that the "to others" portion would affect the darkness created by the spell as well. I mean, creating an area around the caster that the caster can't see through would just seem like it's not quite RAI, even if it is RAW.

[Merudo]

So given that, it's basically a Fire Shield that [...] has a chance of making creatures without darkvision blind when targeting you at dusk/ night/ in the middle of a dungeon where you are only illuminated by the edge of a torch's light. It's not Greater Invisibility by any means, and it's not as generally protective as Fire Shield, but it's a good in-between.

Incorrect.

Reading the spell description tells us it has two distinct effects:

1. Flame-like shadows cause the caster to become heavily obscured to others.
2. The shadows also dim the light within 10 feet of the caster

Effect #1 is similar to a Fog Cloud effect (heavily obscuration without mention of darkness or invisibility), in that Darkvision and True Sight can't see through it. The only difference is that the caster can see through the shadows.

Effect #2 is a magical dimming of the light within 10 feet of the caster. It may or may not result in darkness, depending on the light conditions. Carrying a torch or using the Light spell results in dim light. If the dimming does result in darkness, then Darkvision and True Sight can indeed see through the darkness, but NOT through the heavily obscuration described above.

[Snowbluff]

What part of this is confusing? Sword bard gets an extra attack and a fighting style, using inspirations boost both AC and damage (helping them in melee) The correct strategy for a sword bard is to buff turn 1 and then attack action every turn after.

Whisper bard has none of these advantages. Levels 1-5 they can use their insp. to keep up with the rogues in damage, but after that you're better off casting spells (thus the ability is wasted).

Except when they're both burning Inspiration to fight, they have roughly the same DPR (sword is 28 DPR (1d10+2d8+14) with an inspiration at 10, whisper is 27 (1d8+5+5d6), simply because the damage on Psychic Blades scales way faster Whisper's is higher when using blade cantrips (ignoring the secondary effect, another 4.5 damage), since, like rogue, they're not using their action to extra attack, might as well.

And the fact that by level 10, they'll both have a glut of slots, and will be able to spam spells that have better DPR (they can learn fireball off of the top of my head, they're probably better DPR spells)in the first place. They're both better off casting by default, just when built for it, Whisper will actually be able to outdo their spells slots CHA mod per SR.

[Crgaston]

Incorrect.

Reading the spell description tells us it has two distinct effects:

1. Flame-like shadows cause the caster to become heavily obscured to others.
2. The shadows also dim the light within 10 feet of the caster

Effect #1 is similar to a Fog Cloud effect (heavily obscuration without mention of darkness or invisibility), in that Darkvision and True Sight can't see through it. The only difference is that the caster can see through the shadows.

Effect #2 is a magical dimming of the light within 10 feet of the caster. It may or may not result in darkness, depending on the light conditions. Carrying a torch or using the Light spell results in dim light. If the dimming does result in darkness, then Darkvision and True Sight can indeed see through the darkness, but NOT through the heavily obscuration described above.

This is exactly how I read it as well.

[MaxWilson]

Incorrect.

Reading the spell description tells us it has two distinct effects:

1. Flame-like shadows cause the caster to become heavily obscured to others.
2. The shadows also dim the light within 10 feet of the caster

Effect #1 is similar to a Fog Cloud effect (heavily obscuration without mention of darkness or invisibility), in that Darkvision and True Sight can't see through it. The only difference is that the caster can see through the shadows.

Effect #2 is a magical dimming of the light within 10 feet of the caster. It may or may not result in darkness, depending on the light conditions. Carrying a torch or using the Light spell results in dim light. If the dimming does result in darkness, then Darkvision and True Sight can indeed see through the darkness, but NOT through the heavily obscuration described above.

Interesting argument. I'll have to consider that next time I reread the spell text. That would make it significantly stronger.

[ProseBeforeHos]

Except when they're both burning Inspiration to fight, they have roughly the same DPR (sword is 28 DPR (1d10+2d8+14) with an inspiration at 10, whisper is 27 (1d8+5+5d6), simply because the damage on Psychic Blades scales way faster Whisper's is higher when using blade cantrips (ignoring the secondary effect, another 4.5 damage), since, like rogue, they're not using their action to extra attack, might as well.

And the fact that by level 10, they'll both have a glut of slots, and will be able to spam spells that have better DPR (they can learn fireball off of the top of my head, they're probably better DPR spells)in the first place. They're both better off casting by default, just when built for it, Whisper will actually be able to outdo their spells slots CHA mod per SR.

Lot of theory-crafting here. If you're gonna be using blade cantrips that means being in melee, but without the bonus AC that flourishes provide. Also remember that the swords bard has a very clear build path i.e. TWF + pump dex (or dueling + pump cha w/ hexblade multiclass). The whisper bard has to pick between pumping dex to boost their psi blades (which are only usable with inspirations) or pumping charisma for everything else.

I don't disagree that bards are generally better when casting spells, but if you want a 'fighting bard' then valor and swords give you that, whispers does not.

[CapnZapp]

Storm Herald
A barbarian that specializes in AOE control and damage. You'll get much more use out of this barb in a game with a defined battlemap so you can position yourself to hit as many creatures as possible with your aura.

Storm Aura:

• Desert: Fire damage is widely resisted, the damage amount is low and it hits your allies? Not very impressive.
• Sea:The best damage dealing option, it's not any weaker against single targets and lightning is rarely resisted.
• Tundra: Keep in mind temp HP doesn't stack which doesn't make this as good as it might initially appear. In a melee heavy party this might get stronger.

Storm Soul:

• Desert: Fire damage is widely resisted, but also a very common damage type on monsters. For the same reason that the damage aura is bad, the resistance here is good.
• Sea: Lightning damage is rare. But a swimming speed and underwater breathing is probably the most useful of the environmental advantages.
• Tundra: Cold damage doesn't come up as much as fire. The ice-cube making effects are fluffy, but you'll struggle to find a more practical use for it.

Shielding Storm:
Desert is the real winner here, never fear a fireball again! The other damage types aren't common enough to be as useful, though it may occasionally save your skin.

Raging Storm:

• Desert: Better than the damaging aura, but not by much, and with the same restrictive damage type.
• Sea: A strong ability, potentially setting up both you and your allies with advantage.
• Tundra: Seems good at first glance, but the limited range of your aura (and the general flexibility of higher level monsters) make this less useful.

Since you're "locked into" your abilities depending on which aura you pick at level 3, each one might as well be considered a separate path in terms of power. As such, it's easier to rate each one individually than the entire path - Desert and Tundra are both underwhelming, whereas Sea is the best option here.

"You can change your environment choice whenever you gain a level in this class."

You can pick the environment best suited to level 3 at level 3. Then you can switch to another when you reach level 6. This means you need to rate this differently than a regular (permanent) build choice. You don't need to suffer a bad low-level feature just to get access to an awesome feature down the line, since there is no line. A circumstantial ability (like water breathing or lightning resistance) doesn't deserve a lower rating, since you can assume the character picks it when he needs it: "okay so we're summoned to Poseidon's Court? I guess I'll switch to Sea."

Sure you can't switch over a short rest, but still - much more flexible than regular build choices.

This means the rating of each individual choice is less important than usual (you choose what you think will come up for the next few levels) while the (positive) impact upon the overall subclass needs emphasis.

[CapnZapp]

Blade Flourish:

• Defensive Flourish: As a melee bard both your AC and HP will be relatively low. As well as reinforcing your defenses with spells, this ability will make it easier for you to hang in melee. By level 5 you're getting an avg. 4.5 AC from this ability, almost as good a shield spell!
• Slashing Flourish: Situationally useful since it has no limit on the number of creatures you can hit. If you can hit 3 or more it may be worth it, for less than that I would prefer the other options.
• Mobile Flourish: Again, situational. Knock a guy off a bridge. Or use it to create space for you to escape a fight without disengaging (very good with the +10 ft. movement you get). The least useful part of this is the reaction to follow up.

Again, you rate this as if you need to make a choice that you're locked into.

But you gain all three flourishes and can select the one best suited for each combat turn. This means that any reservations such as "if you can hit 3 or more" goes away - feel free to use it only when you can hit three or more!

Please re-rate Blade Flourish with this in mind.

[ProseBeforeHos]

Updated the guide, including adding the reprinted SCAG subclasses I didn't bother to add the first time. Hopefully this will be the final update I need to do. Hope it proves useful to y'all!

[sophontteks]

Glamour bards underestimated.

Enthralling performance
Enthralling performance roots out anyone that the NPCs know of who wishes the party harm. Idolizing the performer is far better then being an acquaintance. Effects multiple people. If a bard can't perform for a minute in any non-combat situation, they are a bard bard. Its an insanely beefed up charm person. Why do people call this ability bad just because its a non-combat skill!?!

Just perform as any new location and get all the information you need, all the allies you need, and know who may be trying to harm you. They will even thwart plots against you on their own, sometimes without you even knowing what may have gone down. And that's before you supplement it with additional low DC persuasion checks.

Mantle of Majesty
Spells are limited. When it doesn't work we have spells. When it does, well, commanding on every turn in combat while using vicious mockery is great control. Auto-fails on charmed targets gives this ability non-combat potential that was missed in the description. Anyone a bard can get to listen to a performance turns into their puppet for a minute.

Mantle of inspiration
The biggest boon to this is that you can allow your allies to move out of the AOE of big CC spells at a very low cost while giving them all HP. Bards have very powerful AOE CC spells. But its also good for saving allies who are surrounded, allowing the front line to retreat if things go south, and creating a wall of allies if your in trouble. Anything that allows a bard to Fear/faerie fire/ hypnotic pattern the enemy in the middle of a fight without hitting allies is really strong.

[Sception]

Edit, nevermind, already said all this

[PeteNutButter]

Lot of theory-crafting here. If you're gonna be using blade cantrips that means being in melee, but without the bonus AC that flourishes provide. Also remember that the swords bard has a very clear build path i.e. TWF + pump dex (or dueling + pump cha w/ hexblade multiclass). The whisper bard has to pick between pumping dex to boost their psi blades (which are only usable with inspirations) or pumping charisma for everything else.

I don't disagree that bards are generally better when casting spells, but if you want a 'fighting bard' then valor and swords give you that, whispers does not.

One of the things I'd consider is that for multiclassing the whisper bard has some perks. It's more damage than the swords, at the cost of defense. A GWM paladin for instance might prefer the 3d6 "smites" over the 4.5 AC, as the AC is hard to keep viable into mid to late levels without heavy investment. Damage is always good. Additionally, if you already have extra attack you aren't missing any features taking the whisper bard to level 6+.

Additionally an archer that already has extra attack, likely a fighter, has more to gain from the whisper bard. Something like Fighter 5-6/Whisper 10 gives extra attack and a nice split between the sneak attack a rogue would give while still getting the Swift Quiver spell (as well as all the other casting). The bonuses from swords bard would be much less useful.

[strangebloke]

One of the things I'd consider is that for multiclassing the whisper bard has some perks. It's more damage than the swords, at the cost of defense. A GWM paladin for instance might prefer the 3d6 "smites" over the 4.5 AC, as the AC is hard to keep viable into mid to late levels without heavy investment. Damage is always good. Additionally, if you already have extra attack you aren't missing any features taking the whisper bard to level 6+.

Additionally an archer that already has extra attack, likely a fighter, has more to gain from the whisper bard. Something like Fighter 5-6/Whisper 10 gives extra attack and a nice split between the sneak attack a rogue would give while still getting the Swift Quiver spell (as well as all the other casting). The bonuses from swords bard would be much less useful.

Hadn't considered the multiclass angle directly, but I had noted that Psychic daggers fit well into a few multiclass builds. Good point.

I argued heavily about this in another thread Snowbluff. I was wrong about a few things in that argument, but here's a restatement of my position that I think makes more sense:

Summary
For a melee-focused bard, swords is the best option, because their melee capabilities come with a low opportunity cost. Whispers bard might be a better pick overall if the out-of-combat abilities are relevant to your campaign, or if you're fighting at range.

Resilience
Swords bard is more resilient at every level, for a lower cost. He needs 14 DEX to get 17 AC, and can boost that to 21.5-23.5 with a single inspiration die. Whispers bard needs magic initiate:wizard (for mage armor) and 18 DEX to get 17 AC which would put him two ASIs (and therefore, six BI usages) behind the swords bard. If they both max CHA before touching DEX or magic initiate, the Whispers bard will have 15 AC, which is not enough AC to remain in melee safely. The Swords bard has better tools for disengaging, and is more mobile, and at high levels can flourish on every turn that he attacks for 21.5 AC.

Resourceless DPR
Rerunning the numbers on the damage calcs, a Whispers bard with Booming Blade does pretty much the same damage that the swords bard does if the enemy moves and takes bonus damage, and less if he doesn't. For the levels people actually play at (3-11) the swords bard is 5-8 damage per round ahead of the Whispers Bard whose opponent remains stationary, and the Whispers Bard who opponent moves is 0 damage per round ahead of the swords bard until level 11, where they jump up to being 8 damage ahead of swords.. I can show my math if anyone contests this, but I'm trying to be brief. Suffice to say I'd consider them roughly comparable, but only if the Whispers Bard can get Booming Blade without spending an ASI or multiclassing.

Resource-Consuming DPR
For damage on turns where a BI is expended, the analysis becomes complex. If the Swords Bard uses slashing flourish on two targets, he deals comparable DPR to a Whisper Bard who uses Psychic Blades and Booming Blade against a single stationary target, until level 11. The Whispers Bard's damage is single-target as opposed to slashing flourish which is multi-target, which makes it arguably better, but slashing flourish also comes with two chances to land it, and can be applied to more than two targets.

Building without BB
If the Whispers bard does not have BB or GFB, they fall far behind in steady-state damage and are behind in burst damage as well until level ~15 or so. This analysis assumes that they got the blade cantrips as a racial feature via High elf or vHuman. A whispers bard with the blade cantrips is not an AL legal build.

Conclusion
TL;DR. The swords bard has way more AC and deals more steady-state damage without needing feats or DEX boosts. At high levels, with feat support (or wise racial choice) the Whispers bard becomes slightly better at pure DPR, but remains far more fragile in melee.

At range, the Whispers bard is massively outclassed by a Valor bard who has the sharpshooter feat.

[apepi]

Superior Mobility doesn't increase flying speed, just climbing and swimming.

[PeteNutButter]

Hadn't considered the multiclass angle directly, but I had noted that Psychic daggers fit well into a few multiclass builds. Good point.

I argued heavily about this in another thread Snowbluff. I was wrong about a few things in that argument, but here's a restatement of my position that I think makes more sense:

Summary
For a melee-focused bard, swords is the best option, because their melee capabilities come with a low opportunity cost. Whispers bard might be a better pick overall if the out-of-combat abilities are relevant to your campaign, or if you're fighting at range.

Resilience
Swords bard is more resilient at every level, for a lower cost. He needs 14 DEX to get 17 AC, and can boost that to 21.5-23.5 with a single inspiration die. Whispers bard needs magic initiate:wizard (for mage armor) and 18 DEX to get 17 AC which would put him two ASIs (and therefore, six BI usages) behind the swords bard. If they both max CHA before touching DEX or magic initiate, the Whispers bard will have 15 AC, which is not enough AC to remain in melee safely. The Swords bard has better tools for disengaging, and is more mobile, and at high levels can flourish on every turn that he attacks for 21.5 AC.

Resourceless DPR
Rerunning the numbers on the damage calcs, a Whispers bard with Booming Blade does pretty much the same damage that the swords bard does if the enemy moves and takes bonus damage, and less if he doesn't. For the levels people actually play at (3-11) the swords bard is 5-8 damage per round ahead of the Whispers Bard whose opponent remains stationary, and the Whispers Bard who opponent moves is 0 damage per round ahead of the swords bard until level 11, where they jump up to being 8 damage ahead of swords.. I can show my math if anyone contests this, but I'm trying to be brief. Suffice to say I'd consider them roughly comparable, but only if the Whispers Bard can get Booming Blade without spending an ASI or multiclassing.

Resource-Consuming DPR
For damage on turns where a BI is expended, the analysis becomes complex. If the Swords Bard uses slashing flourish on two targets, he deals comparable DPR to a Whisper Bard who uses Psychic Blades and Booming Blade against a single stationary target, until level 11. The Whispers Bard's damage is single-target as opposed to slashing flourish which is multi-target, which makes it arguably better, but slashing flourish also comes with two chances to land it, and can be applied to more than two targets.

Building without BB
If the Whispers bard does not have BB or GFB, they fall far behind in steady-state damage and are behind in burst damage as well until level ~15 or so. This analysis assumes that they got the blade cantrips as a racial feature via High elf or vHuman. A whispers bard with the blade cantrips is not an AL legal build.

Conclusion
TL;DR. The swords bard has way more AC and deals more steady-state damage without needing feats or DEX boosts. At high levels, with feat support (or wise racial choice) the Whispers bard becomes slightly better at pure DPR, but remains far more fragile in melee.

At range, the Whispers bard is massively outclassed by a Valor bard who has the sharpshooter feat.

I'd agree with this all. Whisper bard is massively outclassed by the swords bard, single classed. It's only with the MC considerations that the whisper bard can hope to be a competitive option. That's because a lot of the benefits of the sword bard over whispers (armor proficiencies/extra attack/potentially a FS) can be picked up easily in 5 levels of another class. With those out of the window, you are comparing ~1d8 to damage and AC vs 3d6 damage. Those are fair comparisons and equally viable depending on build focus.

[ProseBeforeHos]

Superior Mobility doesn't increase flying speed, just climbing and swimming.

Good catch, ty!

[apepi]

Good catch, ty!

Small other thing, Ethereal Step only cost extra movement if you go up or down. It does not cost extra movement if you are moving flat. Though I do wonder how it works with stairs...

[Godshoe]

Dragon's Breath: Edit: Having read the spell descriptor more carefully I've re-rated this spell. 3d6 as an action is not bad at all, and potentially even better when used on a flying familiar who can strafe the battlefield while you cast concentration free spells

Does it really will work with common familiars or only with chain pact?

[Moosoculars]

Just a comment on the red rating of mind spike. It combines with the diviners level six ability very well as you burn a third level spell on mind spike, regain a second level spell, burn a second level on mind spike, regain a first, burn a first on mind spike. That’s three castings (two upcast) for one level 3 slot. Very useful in protracted battles or just to keep blasting at tough opponents.

[ciarannihill]

Just a comment on the red rating of mind spike. It combines with the diviners level six ability very well as you burn a third level spell on mind spike, regain a second level spell, burn a second level on mind spike, regain a first, burn a first on mind spike. That’s three castings (two upcast) for one level 3 slot. Very useful in protracted battles or just to keep blasting at tough opponents.

I mean a lot of the ratings with hindsight are fairly flawed -- Elven Accuracy, Samurai, Oath of Conquest, etc.

But this is what happens with 8 months of hindsight and application compared to an initial impression, what can you do?


And as always with guides like these: YMMV depending on your campaign, party and DM.

[ProseBeforeHos]

Just a comment on the red rating of mind spike. It combines with the diviners level six ability very well as you burn a third level spell on mind spike, regain a second level spell, burn a second level on mind spike, regain a first, burn a first on mind spike. That’s three castings (two upcast) for one level 3 slot. Very useful in protracted battles or just to keep blasting at tough opponents.

Yes that's a good point. There's a lot of stuff in this guide that didn't get the absolute power level correct. Still embarrassed I gave enemies abound a red rating initially.

I mean a lot of the ratings with hindsight are fairly flawed -- Elven Accuracy, Samurai, Oath of Conquest, etc.

But this is what happens with 8 months of hindsight and application compared to an initial impression, what can you do?

I think I got two of those three pretty right! Eleven accuracy doesn't do all that much for you if you don't have extended crit (champion/hexblade), and samurai remains a class locked into GWM/SS cheese.

I did end up changing my rating on Oath, not because I think the base class is all that great (still lags behind ancient), but because the "three attacks at level 5" of the spiritual weapon paladin ended up being even more insane that I first suspected.

And as always with guides like these: YMMV depending on your campaign, party and DM.

I don' disagree with this though


I may at some point in the future go and re-update my guide, changing mind spike and others, but I'm not sure there's still a lot of interest for a XGTE specific guide anymore, especially with MToF out now.

[ciarannihill]

I think I got two of those three pretty right! Eleven accuracy doesn't do all that much for you if you don't have extended crit (champion/hexblade), and samurai remains a class locked into GWM/SS cheese.

One of the big things is how powerful these two things end up when combined. Gives Archery Samurai and Hexblade/Samurai multiclasses an INSANE ability to Nova with Elven Accuracy, GWM/SS, Fighting Spirit and Action Surge, I feel like that deserves an asterisk in the body at the very least, but just my opinion. :P

Elven Accuracy is the primary thing I have slight issue with, mainly because it being a half feat for 4 different stats makes it essentially an auto-pick for any Elf using a non-Strength class to make a 17 into an 18 with added benefit.

I did end up changing my rating on Oath, not because I think the base class is all that great (still lags behind ancient), but because the "three attacks at level 5" of the spiritual weapon paladin ended up being even more insane that I first suspected.

I think you underestimate the ability for the aura to lock down numerous enemies to protect back line allies, but this is very party composition dependent. It scales with number of back line allies compared to front line allies, so it's very YMMV. In campaigns with numerous backliners when you're the sole melee combatant I'd argue it's easily the strongest ability for the subclass.


Still, a guide like this is a large undertaking and it's impossible to satisfy everyone who reads it with every evaluation therein and I appreciate how respectfully you take and respond to criticism, good on you.