Horde Breaker vs Frenzy

[Theodoxus]

I haven't seen any discussion, so I was curious of people's opinions of these two abilities.

I gather from most discussion on Hunters, that Horde Breaker is generally seen as the best of the level 3 options, with Colossus being the go-to for campaigns with small groups of powerful foes (if such as thing is known up front).

On the other hand, Frenzy (and Berserker in general) is seen as suboptimal to Totem (the "Beastmaster" of the Barbarian class, if you will).

So, I'm really curious why Frenzy has the harsh Exhaustion stipulation on it, when Horde Breaker (albeit slightly more situational) provides the same benefit (and is actually technically better, as it's not a bonus action, but a free attack).

So, while yes, Frenzy allows a barbarian to move, attack, move, attack, move bonus attack, and Horde Breaker requires two foes to be adjacent to each other (well, the common interpretation of 'within 5' of each other). it doesn't seem on par with each other. The Ranger, regarded as less 'fighty' than a Barbarian, gains a free attack with no opportunity cost, as often as two foes are within proximity to each other. The Barbarian, regarded as more 'fighty' than a Ranger, gains a bonus action, with the hefty opportunity cost of a level of exhaustion, every round he remains raging (so, a double cost, if you will; 1) raging, 2) exhaustion.

How is this even fair?

Would you adopt a ruling that as long as the barbarian is using the same triggering mechanism as Horde Breaker requires (so, two foes within 5' of each other), he can make a bonus attack that round without triggering exhaustion - provided the bonus attack went against a second target.

Honestly, looking at the two abilities - which are granted at the same level, I'd rule that Horde Breaker is a bonus action and Frenzy is a free action - which would make a lot more sense for the exhaustion effect. You're literally pushing yourself above and beyond what you're capable of.

But as a bonus action, I don't think Frenzy makes sense to grant exhaustion. It doesn't stack up with Horde Breaker.

Thoughts?

[TopCheese]

Horse Breaker won't typically have 2d6+str +10 w/advantage and extra crit dice helping it along.

Its less about the specific features and more about the package.

Exhaustion is a bit much but that's just why you play Barbarian 5/Cleric 15.

[Theodoxus]

If one were starting at 20, I suppose that build would be viable... ;)

If one were to build two comparable characters, the barbarian would just edge out the ranger, but it'd be close.

Barbarian w/ GWM would be doing 2d6 (greatsword) + Str + 10 (GWM) + 2-5 (damage bonus) w/advantage.

Ranger w/ GWM would be doing 2d6 (greatsword) + Str + 10 (GWM) + 1d6 (Hunter's Mark) sans advantage

Frenzy would grant the Barbarian 3 attacks (2 normal, 1 bonus).

Horde Breaker would grant the Ranger 3 attacks (2 normal, 1 free - provided the conditions were met.)

Against a single target, the Barbarian is the clear winner. However, against multiple targets that trigger Horde Breaker, the Ranger is the clear winner - especially if he triggers a Critical or kills one of the opponents. The Bonus Action from GWM will activate, allowing him to make a 4th attack. The Barbarian in the same situation is still stuck at 3 attacks, as Frenzy is taking up the Bonus Action slot.

I really don't understand how these two abilities made it into the final book in this fashion. HB should be a bonus action, Frenzy should be free - at a minimum, all things being equal.

That way, Frenzy would pull ahead when used with GWM or PAM or GWM/PAM and Ranger would remain king of the ranged attack.

[Kryx]

Frenzy has been discussed heavily: Best Frenzy Changes/Fixes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?442679-Best-Frenzy-Changes-Fixes)

It should be a free action.

I think you're overvaluing horde breaker though. It's nice, but I'd guess maybe half the rounds you'll hit someone who is adjacent to another creature. Plus you're splitting damage. Whereas colossus slayer will happen on most rounds and will focus the damage.

[Nowhere Girl]

There is a reason that friends don't let friends roll a frenzy barbarian.

Unless you're starting at 15th level or higher and the DM will permit you to stay in rage 24/7 (at which point you can legitimately deliver the line, "I'm always angry"), it's go totem or go home.

I mean, you can make a frenzy barbarian and sort of function, sure; however, as written, they're hilariously sub-optimal bordering on complete rotting garbage. I'd even rather play an elements monk. Yes, even that.

As written, frenzy barbarians are, like wild mages (who, post-errata, can't even use their metamagic to try to mitigate the chance of a wild surge TPK because apparently, WotC thought a wild mage might be in danger of not sucking at some point by accident), arguably "trap" options. As far as I can tell, they're the only choices that either completely cripple you for just using your core mechanic or (in the case of the wild mage) make you actively dangerous to your own party.

[Malifice]

It should be a free action.

No, it shouldnt. This just compounds a different problem by making Frenzy OP to the point that every Barbarian will take the Berserker path, and will spend a majority of their adventuring career utterly useless outside of combat (via disadv on all checks) and spend a majority of time in combat dominating other classes.

The solution of 'your first frenzy of per day does not cause exhaustion' is better. You get 1 x nova per day safely.

[Theodoxus]

I'm not sure making Frenzy a free action would so vastly pull people over from their bear tanks as to be OP. But then, I'm of the opinion that making tough choices is part of the charm. As is, Nowhere Girl has the right of it - Berserker is so sub-optimal that choosing it on purpose while knowing the options Totem provides is akin to insanity. Not to Stormwind Fallacy the place up, but basically, going Berserker is only for RP purposes, as written.

But I'm curious what your take on the whole Horde Breaker is free but Frenzy is Bonus is, Malifice. I think I make a good, well, decent argument that their activity costs should be swapped. Bonus for HB, Free for Frenzy. As written, Horde Breaker makes barbars cry.

[Malifice]

I'm not sure making Frenzy a free action would so vastly pull people over from their bear tanks as to be OP.

A GWM human barbarian at 3rd level is getting 3 attacks (with advantage) per round at +0 dealing 1d12+15 damage each.

Thats insane.

[Sindeloke]

Ranger with Horde Breaker and any kind of team effort is doing the same, and didn't have to spend a rage or a bonus action.

Now I don't disagree that GWM is a problem, but that's a different issue. I'm not sure if +10 is too much or +hit and/or advantage is way too easy to come by, but something there is definitely off.

[Xetheral]

A GWM human barbarian at 3rd level is getting 3 attacks (with advantage) per round at +0 dealing 1d12+15 damage each.

Thats insane.


Now I don't disagree that GWM is a problem, but that's a different issue. I'm not sure if +10 is too much or +hit and/or advantage is way too easy to come by, but something there is definitely off.

Actually, the benefits of GWM are usually overstated. For example, against AC 11, +5/1d12+5 averages to 7.875 damage, whereas +0/1d12+15 averages to 10.25 damage. Sure, an extra 2.375 DPR is good, but you're spending a feat to do it and the benefit only goes down as the AC goes up: at AC 13 the damage increase is down to 1.375, and at AC 16 you actually lose 0.125 DPR if you use GWM.

Edit: The barbarian in this case is indeed helped by access to advantage via Reckless Attack, which means GWM provides more of a boost at low ACs and continues to provide a damage increase all the way up to AC 17 (although at that point it's virtually negligible). Still, the hit penalty makes the damage bonus far less significant than it viscerally appears to be, and the fact that it helps most against weaker opponents with low AC significantly reduces its value.

[Malifice]

Actually, the benefits of GWM are usually overstated. For example, against AC 11, +5/1d12+5 averages to 7.875 damage, whereas +0/1d12+15 averages to 10.25 damage. Sure, an extra 2.375 DPR is good, but you're spending a feat to do it and the benefit only goes down as the AC goes up: at AC 13 the damage increase is down to 1.375, and at AC 16 you actually lose 0.125 DPR if you use GWM.

Edit: The barbarian in this case is indeed helped by access to advantage via Reckless Attack, which means GWM provides more of a boost at low ACs and continues to provide a damage increase all the way up to AC 17 (although at that point it's virtually negligible). Still, the hit penalty makes the damage bonus far less significant than it viscerally appears to be, and the fact that it helps most against weaker opponents with low AC significantly reduces its value.

There is also the issue that landing a (d12+15) damage attack is quite likely to kill many foes one would enounter at 3rd level (mooks) and trigger a bonus action third attack (also dealing 1d12+15).

Three attacks at that level (all with advantage) and you are looking at close to an approx 40 percent chance of landing a critical hit most rounds too.

Our GWM Barb swings once (sometimes twice), hits like a truck, and is near impossible to put down. I shudder to think what an extra attack a round will look like. (4 attacks at 5th level at +2 doing 1d12+15 at advantage would just be far too brutal).

[Kryx]

The solution of 'your first frenzy of per day does not cause exhaustion' is better. You get 1 x nova per day safely.
This is a solution to an entirely different problem.

The issue is frenzy is quite bad in a game with feats as polearm and polearm+GWM gain about 4% damage from frenzy.
Costs don't matter if the benefit is nothing.

This was all discussed in the other frenzy thread.

[Kryx]

Actually, the benefits of GWM are usually overstated. For example, against AC 11, +5/1d12+5 averages to 7.875 damage, whereas +0/1d12+15 averages to 10.25 damage. Sure, an extra 2.375 DPR is good, but you're spending a feat to do it.
That's a nearly 30% increase in DPR. The boost is similar at all levels The benefit is not overstated at all - I've done the math.

[Xetheral]

That's a nearly 30% increase in DPR. The boost is similar at all levels The benefit is not overstated at all - I've done the math.

While the increase is indeed approximately 30%, I'm not convinced that the proportional increase is a particularly useful metric. The absolute increase (as compared to enemies' hit point totals) is far more relevant to combat outcomes. 2 extra DPR isn't likely to end much of any fight appreciably sooner, and you only get 2 extra DPR against AC 11 enemies who frequently aren't intended to be much of a threat anyway.

If I remember correctly, your DPR comparisons use a fixed AC for each level, yes? While extremely useful in the abstract to compare various classes (which I understood to be the focus of your effort), individual characters will encounter a wide range of ACs at every level. Against the lower ACs, GWM will help a ton, but against higher ACs the benefit of GWM is rapidly lost. An ability that is most useful against the easiest opponents is far less valuable than one that is most useful against tougher opponents.

[Kryx]

you only get 2 extra DPR against AC 11 enemies who frequently aren't intended to be much of a threat anyway.
A Polearm+GWM Fighter at 20 has his dpr go from 63 to 74 (~17%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19)
A Polearm+GWM Barbarian at 20 has his dpr go from 63 to 79 (~25%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19)
A Longbow Ranger at 20 has his dpr go from 31 to 39 (~25%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19, average cover of 1.45)
A Heavy Crossbow Ranger at 20 has his dpr go from 34 to 39 (~14%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19, average cover of 1.45)
A Hand Crossbow Ranger at 20 has his dpr go from 34 to 40 (~17%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19, average cover of 1.45)
A Bladelock at 20 has his dpr go from 48 to 59 (~22%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19)

That's 14-25% increase in damage from -5/+10 alone, not to mention the GWM aspect. That is significantly better than pretty much every other feat besides maybe Polearm (likely still better).

[Strill]

A Polearm+GWM Fighter at 20 has his dpr go from 63 to 74 (~17%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19)
A Polearm+GWM Barbarian at 20 has his dpr go from 63 to 79 (~25%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19)
A Longbow Ranger at 20 has his dpr go from 31 to 39 (~25%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19, average cover of 1.45)
A Heavy Crossbow Ranger at 20 has his dpr go from 34 to 39 (~14%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19, average cover of 1.45)
A Hand Crossbow Ranger at 20 has his dpr go from 34 to 40 (~17%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19, average cover of 1.45)
A Bladelock at 20 has his dpr go from 48 to 59 (~22%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19)

That's 14-25% increase in damage from -5/+10 alone, not to mention the GWM aspect. That is significantly better than pretty much every other feat besides maybe Polearm (likely still better).

Doesn't that match the effectiveness of +2 STR? The last time I calculated it out, a +2 STR bonus was worth around +15% to 25% DPR.

[Kryx]

Doesn't that match the effectiveness of +2 STR? The last time I calculated it out, a +2 STR bonus was worth around +15% to 25% DPR.
About, yes. The difference here is that -5/+10 is half of the feat. Melee guys get GWM which is the same value (for anyone without a polearm). Ranged guys get to ignore cover (effectively +1.45-2 to hit) and get to attack at further range.
Overall the feat is a 35-50% DPR increase.

The other factor is bounded accuracy - you can only increase the main stat so much.

[MaxWilson]

No, it shouldnt. This just compounds a different problem by making Frenzy OP to the point that every Barbarian will take the Berserker path, and will spend a majority of their adventuring career utterly useless outside of combat (via disadv on all checks) and spend a majority of time in combat dominating other classes.

The solution of 'your first frenzy of per day does not cause exhaustion' is better. You get 1 x nova per day safely.

No it won't. I know because I made it a full Extra Attack while frenzying and both of my players still picked bearbarians. They don't even hang out on forums, they're just going off previous experience with a wolf totem barbarian wishing he had picked bear.

The exhaustion cost of Frenzy is still significant. Making it a free action instead of bonus action just makes it competitive instead of total garbage.

-Max


While the increase is indeed approximately 30%, I'm not convinced that the proportional increase is a particularly useful metric. The absolute increase (as compared to enemies' hit point totals) is far more relevant to combat outcomes. 2 extra DPR isn't likely to end much of any fight appreciably sooner, and you only get 2 extra DPR against AC 11 enemies who frequently aren't intended to be much of a threat anyway.

You'd have to work really hard to persuade me that absolute DPR increase is more important than the proportion of the increase. 30% damage increase means ending the fight 30% faster unless you're in a situation where the threat is going to end by some means other than HP ablation (run away?), reducing HP loss by 24%. That's pretty decent for one feat, and if you can get advantage via Help from a weaker character you might be able to increase damage by more than 30%. One reason I like Sharpshooter/GWM is that it makes combat more tactically interesting in a way that has nothing to do with spells.

[Theodoxus]

A Polearm+GWM Fighter at 20 has his dpr go from 63 to 74 (~17%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19)
A Polearm+GWM Barbarian at 20 has his dpr go from 63 to 79 (~25%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19)
A Longbow Ranger at 20 has his dpr go from 31 to 39 (~25%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19, average cover of 1.45)
A Heavy Crossbow Ranger at 20 has his dpr go from 34 to 39 (~14%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19, average cover of 1.45)
A Hand Crossbow Ranger at 20 has his dpr go from 34 to 40 (~17%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19, average cover of 1.45)
A Bladelock at 20 has his dpr go from 48 to 59 (~22%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19)

That's 14-25% increase in damage from -5/+10 alone, not to mention the GWM aspect. That is significantly better than pretty much every other feat besides maybe Polearm (likely still better).

That's wonderful - care to run the numbers of 1) Barbarian using Frenzy (per book) sans feats vs Ranger using Horde Breaker (per book) sans feats.
2) Barbarian using Frenzy (as free attack) sans feats vs Ranger using Horde Breaker (as Bonus) sans feats
3) Barbarian using Frenzy (per book) with GWM vs Rangers using Horde Breaker (per book) with GWM
4) Barbarian using Frenzy (as free attack) with GWM vs Ranger using Horde Breaker (as Bonus) with GWM

(heck, add Polearm Master to the mix of 3 & 4 if you want - though that's probably just overkill)

The point is, we're not looking at why Frenzy is bad - we're trying to determine if Frenzy and Horde Breaker are comparable abilities as written, or if (as hypothesized) Frenzy is considerably weaker as written and if a simple fix (that swapping action types (free vs bonus) on the abilities bring them closer in line.

[Kryx]

I can maybe run some numbers soon, but am leaving for vacation tomorrow.

I can already tell you that Barbarian will do significantly more damage either way.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19858309&postcount=13 are some numbers for barbarian w/o feats and a Longbow ranger. TWF is significantly less. Adding frenzy would be significantly more.

Even if you did give the ranger a Greatsword he'd still lose by probably 30-40% I'd guess offhand.

[MaxWilson]

That's wonderful - care to run the numbers of 1) Barbarian using Frenzy (per book) sans feats vs Ranger using Horde Breaker (per book) sans feats.
2) Barbarian using Frenzy (as free attack) sans feats vs Ranger using Horde Breaker (as Bonus) sans feats

I'll do a couple of these using the dice tool (http://maxwilson.github.io/RollWeb/Roll/).

1.) Barbarian 20 w/ Frenzy per book sans feats vs. Balor: +13 to attack for 1d12+11 damage per strike, three times per turn, plus brutal critical. He needs a 6 or more to hit, with advantage, so that is "avg.3.6A?d12+11" plus brutal critical (which the tool doesn't handle). That is 51.12 plus brutal critical, which I hand-calculate as 3/20 * avg.3d12 = 2.92, so total damage is 54.04.

Ranger with Horde Breaker sans feats will use a greatsword instead of an axe because of no brutal critical, and he doesn't have Str 24 and doesn't get advantage or rage, so he will attack three times at +11 for 2d6+5, hitting on an 8 or greater. avg.3.8?2d6+5 is 24.45, half the damage of the barb.

2.) Is identical to #1 because without feats there is no conflict with the bonus action. 54.04 for the barb, 24.45 for the ranger.

[Xetheral]

A Polearm+GWM Fighter at 20 has his dpr go from 63 to 74 (~17%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19)
A Polearm+GWM Barbarian at 20 has his dpr go from 63 to 79 (~25%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19)
A Longbow Ranger at 20 has his dpr go from 31 to 39 (~25%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19, average cover of 1.45)
A Heavy Crossbow Ranger at 20 has his dpr go from 34 to 39 (~14%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19, average cover of 1.45)
A Hand Crossbow Ranger at 20 has his dpr go from 34 to 40 (~17%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19, average cover of 1.45)
A Bladelock at 20 has his dpr go from 48 to 59 (~22%) when using -5/+10 (enemy AC of 19)

That's 14-25% increase in damage from -5/+10 alone, not to mention the GWM aspect. That is significantly better than pretty much every other feat besides maybe Polearm (likely still better).

I should have clarified that my claim regarding AC 11 was specific to the sample 1st-level character using +5/1d12+5 vs +0/1d12+15. At level 20 the statistically-equivalent AC (barring magic weapons) is AC 17. Your numbers for AC 19 accordingly make perfect sense. I would note, however, that due to bounded accuracy, the distribution of ACs (relative to attack bonuses) at high level is different than the distribution of ACs at low level.


You'd have to work really hard to persuade me that absolute DPR increase is more important than the proportion of the increase. 30% damage increase means ending the fight 30% faster unless you're in a situation where the threat is going to end by some means other than HP ablation (run away?), reducing HP loss by 24%. That's pretty decent for one feat, and if you can get advantage via Help from a weaker character you might be able to increase damage by more than 30%. One reason I like Sharpshooter/GWM is that it makes combat more tactically interesting in a way that has nothing to do with spells.

Unless you're in a one-on-one matchup, a 30% increase in personal DPR isn't going to end a fight 30% faster. If we assume a four person party, and further assume that the character types wanting to take GWM are damage-focused, the character might represent a third of the party's damage output. Accordingly, a 30% increase in personal DPR is only likely to end a fight 10% faster. Considering that most D&D fights last fewer than 5 rounds, we might (very crudely) approximate that as a result of taking GWM, half of all fights will end one round sooner as a result of a 30% damage increase on a damage-focused character. A useful metric, perhaps, but one with a great deal of imprecision and ambiguity.

If instead we look at the absolute DPR increase and compare it to the enemies' HP totals, it's far easier to see the impact on combat results of an extra +2 average DPR, without needing to worry about the damage contribution of the rest of the party. For example, if the enemies have 20 HP each, over a 5 round combat one would expect the character with GWM to be able to dispatch an extra half of an opponent. The length of the combat is therefore shortened by a fraction equal to 1 over twice the number of 20 HP opponents. It's still an approximation, but a much more precise one, giving both the player and the DM a better sense of the feat's impact on gameplay.

(Edit: Also, remember when using either of these approximations that they only apply where the 30% increase applies, namely, to foes with easily-hittable ACs.)

Ultimately, both the absolute and the relative increase in DPR mean the same thing, since they are derived from each other. I simply find the absolute increase easier to work with and therefore a better intuitive metric when casually evaluating gameplay elements. (For a suitably-rigorous numerical evaluation, the choice of working with absolute or relative increases is, of course, irrelevant.)

[Theodoxus]

I'll do a couple of these using the dice tool (http://maxwilson.github.io/RollWeb/Roll/).

1.) Barbarian 20 w/ Frenzy per book sans feats vs. Balor: +13 to attack for 1d12+11 damage per strike, three times per turn, plus brutal critical. He needs a 6 or more to hit, with advantage, so that is "avg.3.6A?d12+11" plus brutal critical (which the tool doesn't handle). That is 51.12 plus brutal critical, which I hand-calculate as 3/20 * avg.3d12 = 2.92, so total damage is 54.04.

Ranger with Horde Breaker sans feats will use a greatsword instead of an axe because of no brutal critical, and he doesn't have Str 24 and doesn't get advantage or rage, so he will attack three times at +11 for 2d6+5, hitting on an 8 or greater. avg.3.8?2d6+5 is 24.45, half the damage of the barb.

2.) Is identical to #1 because without feats there is no conflict with the bonus action. 54.04 for the barb, 24.45 for the ranger.

Ranger would be using Hunter's Mark, for another d6 on each hit, just saying ;)

That's the first fight - second fight, the barbarian now has a level of exhaustion, so maybe he won't Frenzy again.

In a 5 minute adventuring day, the Barbar will win hands down. I guess my original assertion was on a holistic view. On top of that, I'm looking more at the 7-12 level range most games play in, not the mythical level 20, where, why play anything other than a wizard anyway?

But it's interesting. Without feats, what can a totem barbarian do with his bonus attack action? Is TWF the most optimal choice at that point?

[TopCheese]

Ranger would be using Hunter's Mark, for another d6 on each hit, just saying ;)

That's the first fight - second fight, the barbarian now has a level of exhaustion, so maybe he won't Frenzy again.

In a 5 minute adventuring day, the Barbar will win hands down. I guess my original assertion was on a holistic view. On top of that, I'm looking more at the 7-12 level range most games play in, not the mythical level 20, where, why play anything other than a wizard anyway?

But it's interesting. Without feats, what can a totem barbarian do with his bonus attack action? Is TWF the most optimal choice at that point?

Outside of multiclassing, not much.

Each martial class should have gotten a core class (not sub class) feature something like cunning action. Give movement and interactive options.

For a barbarian you could say, idk, bonus action use an item action (to attempt to break an item), grab, or dash.

[Kryx]

I should have clarified that my claim regarding AC 11 was specific to the sample 1st-level character.
DMG 274 is where I got my numbers for AC. 20 is AC 19, 1 is AC 13. Though Lower CRs should really be lower than 13 based on all the ones I've seen



But it's interesting. Without feats, what can a totem barbarian do with his bonus attack action? Is TWF the most optimal choice at that point?
RAW TWF is never the best option. TWF is mathematically bad, feats or not. Especially when it 1d8+str on 2 attacks and opportunity attacks +1d8 vs 2d6+str on 2 attacks and opportunity attacks

[Vogonjeltz]

So, I'm really curious why Frenzy has the harsh Exhaustion stipulation on it, when Horde Breaker (albeit slightly more situational) provides the same benefit (and is actually technically better, as it's not a bonus action, but a free attack).

It's technically worse in that Frenzy is on demand and not reliant on there being another target that's both within range of you and adjacent to the original target. Frenzy gets the Barbarian 2 attacks with a 2h weapon by level 3. Everyone else has to wait till level 5.


Exhaustion is a bit much but that's just why you play Barbarian 5/Cleric 15.

I think I'd rather just hire a Cleric to tag along, that would be more efficient.

[MaxWilson]

Ranger would be using Hunter's Mark, for another d6 on each hit, just saying ;)

That's the first fight - second fight, the barbarian now has a level of exhaustion, so maybe he won't Frenzy again.

In a 5 minute adventuring day, the Barbar will win hands down. I guess my original assertion was on a holistic view. On top of that, I'm looking more at the 7-12 level range most games play in, not the mythical level 20, where, why play anything other than a wizard anyway?

But it's interesting. Without feats, what can a totem barbarian do with his bonus attack action? Is TWF the most optimal choice at that point?

Good catch on Hunter's Mark. That's why I posted the formulas, so you can tweak them as you like and recompute.

avg.3.8?3d6+5 = 31.80.