D&D 5E Bladesinger - a criticism of its design

Ovinomancer said:

Is the cleric not healing themselves? Warding bond doesn't reduce the damage load to the party, it just spreads it out.

Click to expand...

I understood we were agreeing 18 per hit, and one hit? So 9 to each of them. One 30 point channel restores that (and can be split as desired between them).

Ovinomancer said:

Also, we need to clarify the scenario. This is 1 round of combat prepping and then 2 rounds defeating the giants, or some other setup? How many attacks does the bladesinger take in each combat and of what kind? Further, the bladesinger should be assumed to lose initiative at least once in four combats against giants, so are we going to factor in the initial no-defenses up but mage armor round of damage? Where do you want that one -- best case is the last, worst is the second after choosing to take a hit in the first.

Click to expand...

Remember that I think the BS only needs 1 Shield per 3 or 4 combats for being hit more than once. The reason I conceded you 1 per 2 is to cover times giants win initiative. Giants have -1 Initiative. BS has +4.

What I was finding in playtests is that giants can open with a rock throw apiece while closing. They then make Multiattacks with their clubs. If they focus BS (we're assuming they are) they die quickly: probably on successive rounds 3 and 4.

Giant 1 = 1 rock + 6 clubs + dies
Giant 2 = 1 rock + 8 clubs + dies

vonklaude said:

I understood we were agreeing 18 per hit, and one hit? So 9 to each of them. One 30 point channel restores that (and can be split as desired between them).

Click to expand...

Ah, good, I understand.

Remember that I think the BS only needs 1 Shield per 3 or 4 combats for being hit more than once. The reason I conceded you 1 per 2 is to cover times giants win initiative. Giants have -1 Initiative. BS has +4.

What I was finding in playtests is that giants can open with a rock throw apiece while closing. They then make Multiattacks with their clubs. If they focus BS (we're assuming they are) they die quickly: probably on successive rounds 3 and 4.

Giant 1 = 1 rock + 6 clubs + dies
Giant 2 = 1 rock + 8 clubs + dies

Click to expand...

This is why I ask these questions:

At AC 23 with blur (INT 20, DEX 18, mage armor, bladesong, warding bond), +8 attack bonus, 16 total attacks:
1 hit.....78%
2 hits....43%
3 hits....17%
4 hits....5%

Over the full day (4 such encounters, 64 total attacks):
1 hit.....99.7%
2 hits....98%
3 hits....94%
4 hits....84%
5 hits....69%
6 hits....52%
7 hits....35%
8 hits....22%
9 hits....12%
10 hits...6%
11 hits...3%
12 hits...1%

So, given this, assuming the bladesinger take 1 hit with shield per combat and shields any additional hits, at 4 fights there's a 52% chance she'll need to shield twice and a 1:3 chance she'll need to shield 3 times. 1:5 4 times and 1:8 5 times. After that it's pretty bad luck.

If we make the assumption that 1 fight starts by losing intiative, then the odds of being hit increase: chance for 1 hit while blured with bladesong is 17%, chance for hit with no blur and no bladesong but with shield is 51%. The combined PDF is a good bit more complicated and I don't have the time to build it, so let's just say that the need for 1 more shield to the above is high.

Your assumption of 1 shield needed per day is low, in my opinion given the probabilities, but not horribly so. I would expect the need to shield 2-3 times.

But let's turn to damage. What's the average contribution per round for the bladesinger (I assume that's 3d8+8 for GFB), rogue, archer, and cleric?

Ovinomancer said:

But let's turn to damage. What's the average contribution per round for the bladesinger (I assume that's 3d8+8 for GFB), rogue, archer, and cleric?

Click to expand...

Giants are AC 13, HP 10d12+40, Dex save -1, Initiative -1.

Turns 2, 3, 4 = BS makes one attack at +7 with Longsword/Booming Blade every round after the first: damage is 2d8+4 and - tank mission accomplished - let's suppose giants never move if they are hit
Turns 1, 2, 3, 4 = Archer has two Longbow* attacks at +3 doing d6+3+10 each with Precision converting misses by 1-4 into hits
Turns 2, 3, 4 = Rogue has one Longbow attack at +1 doing d8+3+3d6 always getting SA due to giants engaging BS
Turn 1 = Rogue has one Longbow attack at +1 doing d8+3 not getting SA due to giants still closing
Turns 2, 3, 4 = Cleric uses Sacred Flame** for 2d8, DC is 15

At a simple estimate, Archer lands about 420 damage over their 16 turns of attacks
Ditto, Rogue lands about 190 damage over their 12+4 turns of attacks
Ditto, and given zero BB procs, BS lands 120 damage over their 12 turns of attacks
Ditto, Cleric lands about 120 damage over their 12 turns of attacks

So simple damage estimate per 4-round combat is 210.***

FWIW I think Defense style Champion lands about 250 damage over the day. They likely take their turn before the giants, so in their first turn they advance, throw the javelin they are holding and then draw another and throw it. Second turn draw longsword for melee. They're dealing about 30 damage more than BS during each combat. If giants are moving, BS doubles its damage of course, but could these tanks be better using the Help action for power-attackers, rather than making their own attacks?




*Of course Hand Crossbow would do more, but with a Longbow Archer and Rogue can stay well out of range of reprisals. I feel like it is wrong to optimise only for damage, in these scenarios.
**I don't want to complicate things, but the quickest kills came using Bless, which shortens the fight and might prove the most efficient tactic. Let's ignore it for now.
***I didn't work it out this way until now, but this estimated damage value chimes well with playtest results.

Ovinomancer said:

Over the full day (4 such encounters, 64 total attacks):
1 hit.....99.7%
2 hits....98%
3 hits....94%
4 hits....84%
5 hits....69%
6 hits....52%
7 hits....35%
8 hits....22%
9 hits....12%
10 hits...6%
11 hits...3%
12 hits...1%

Click to expand...

I hit a problem in my implementation of the formula for the cumulative probability density function. The output matches yours exactly fro 8 attacks, but for 64 attacks it goes wonky. I have

AC 23
+8 to hit
attacks/day 64

r = 1 to 5
m-r = 63 to 59
m! = 1.26887E+89

looking just at r = 1

(m-r)! = 1.9826E+87
mCr = m!/r!(m-r)! = 64
p^r = 0.09
(mCr)*(p^r) = 5.76
1=p = .91
(1-p)^(m-r) = 0.002627893

(mCr)*(p^r)*(1-p)^(m-r) = 0.015136665

E (for r=1) = ~48%

The behaviour of the output is strange, the higher the AC the better the chance of being hit. That doesn't happen for low values of m such as 8.

Regarding order of operations, exponents and factorials before multiplication and division, right? I don't use factorials much.

Any idea what is up with this? As an aside, it took me awhile to figure out what mCr was, and to understand that m was the same as the n denoted in most places (i.e. nCr). I learned stuff

vonklaude said:

I hit a problem in my implementation of the formula for the cumulative probability density function. The output matches yours exactly fro 8 attacks, but for 64 attacks it goes wonky. I have

AC 23
+8 to hit
attacks/day 64

r = 1 to 5
m-r = 63 to 59
m! = 1.26887E+89

looking just at r = 1

(m-r)! = 1.9826E+87
mCr = m!/r!(m-r)! = 64
p^r = 0.09
(mCr)*(p^r) = 5.76
1=p = .91
(1-p)^(m-r) = 0.002627893

(mCr)*(p^r)*(1-p)^(m-r) = 0.015136665

E (for r=1) = ~48%

The behaviour of the output is strange, the higher the AC the better the chance of being hit. That doesn't happen for low values of m such as 8.

Regarding order of operations, exponents and factorials before multiplication and division, right? I don't use factorials much.

Any idea what is up with this? As an aside, it took me awhile to figure out what mCr was, and to understand that m was the same as the n denoted in most places (i.e. nCr). I learned stuff

Click to expand...

Yours mCr (or nCr, interchangeable) is correct. If you want to know how many ways you can get q success in m trials, just thinking that through its 64.

I'm not sure what you did to get your sum, though. That's the step you lost me.

Ah, I may have made a mistake in giving the formula for the sum. K goes from 0 to r-1, not r. For at least 1 hit you want 1-chance to completely miss. For at least two you want 1 - chance to hit once or nonce. I think I put k going from 0 to r. At low m, that's not going to be a significant error, but as m grows, it will be.

Mea culpa.

Ovinomancer said:

Ah, I may have made a mistake in giving the formula for the sum. K goes from 0 to r-1, not r. For at least 1 hit you want 1-chance to completely miss. For at least two you want 1 - chance to hit once or nonce. I think I put k going from 0 to r. At low m, that's not going to be a significant error, but as m grows, it will be.

Click to expand...

That seems to have fixed it: my results now match yours for BS.

To verify further, for our Champion with Dueling (sword and shield) and Defense fighting style I find -

12 hits - essentially a certainty
21 hits - better than 90%
26 hits - better than 50%
31 hits - better than 10%
>35 hits - worse than 1%

If we wanted a 90% certainty then we can say that BS takes 3 hits and Champion 21. Can that be right?!

It won't surprise me in the least if I have something wrong there...

vonklaude said:

That seems to have fixed it: my results now match yours for BS.

To verify further, for our Champion with Dueling (sword and shield) and Defense fighting style I find -

12 hits - essentially a certainty
21 hits - better than 90%
26 hits - better than 50%
31 hits - better than 10%
>35 hits - worse than 1%

If we wanted a 90% certainty then we can say that BS takes 3 hits and Champion 21. Can that be right?!

It won't surprise me in the least if I have something wrong there...

Click to expand...

Nope, that looks right. AC 21 against 64 +8 attacks.

In my experience, while these game balance discussions always assuming no magical item drops, that's never been the case in any game I've been in that has gone on for four or more sessions.

If I wanted raw AC and saves, I would have designed a Variant Human Fighter 1/Abjurer X instead of a Bladesinger. The Bladesinger beats them out only with no item drops. If by level 12-14 or so the Fighter/Abjurer has +2/3 and +2/3 shield and plate (which is very possible if you play pretty much any HC from level 1 to conclusion, let alone if you're hunting or trading for specific items) will simply have a better AC. The Bladesinger will have a much better offense, especially if magical items drop, but as people mentioned in this thread you shift more towards a pure spellcaster build over time anyway.

Okay, I took your suggested numbers for your party but ended up in a different place than you did. Help me review:

Bladesinger, DEX 18 -- 1st round prep, then BB for 2d8+4 with a +7 attack bonus
Archer fighter, DEX 18 (I upped this from your 16?) -- using sharpshooter, 2 attacks, d8+14 each at +2 attack bonus
Rogue, DEX 18 )again, upped from 16?) -- no sneak first round so d6+4, sneak thereafter for 5d6+4, +7 attack bonus
Cleric, WIS 18 -- 1st round prep, cast sacred flame after for 2d8 DC 15 (giant's fail 75% of the time)

So, from that I get:
round 1
Bladesinger 0
Cleric 0
Archer: 19.4 (37 * .4 + .1 * 46)
Rogue: 5.8 (7.5 * .7 + .05 * 11)
Total damage dealt (ave): 25.2

Round 2 (and thereafter)
Bladesinger: 10.2 (13 * .7 + .05 * 22)
Cleric: 6.75 (9 * .75)
RogueL 16.65 (21.5 * .7 + .05 * 39)
Archer: 19.4
Total damage dealt this round: 53

Round 1 total damage: 25.2
Round 2 total damage: 78.2
Round 3 total damage: 131.2 (1st giant dead)
Round 4 total damage: 184.2
Round 5 total damage: 237.2 (2nd giant dead)

Bladesinger party takes 5 rounds, with 2 rocks +4 clubs +4 clubs +2 clubs +2 clubs or 14 attacks a combat, not 12? I guess this depends on initiative? 12 is good.

A champion party with a greatsword champ, same rogue, same cleric (but casts spiritual weapon that attacks 1st in round 2 instead of warding bond), wizard that searing ray and magic missiles before flame bolting will end this same fight on round 4 instead of 5 taking 2 rocks, 4 clubs, 2 clubs, 2 clubs or 10 total attacks. Accounting for Champion crits and extra attack, they almost kill a giant in round 2. A magic weapon for the champion seals this deal handily and reduces total attacks to 8.

A champion party with sword and board defensive still, otherwise same as above barely edges out the giants in 4 rounds, and it's unlikely that they exactly match the first giant's hp's and apply everything after immediately to the second giant, so let's go with 5 rounds for this group as well. The greatsword group handily deals enough damage, so even a 1 hitpoint greatsword hit doesn't change their math.

So, then, how many hits is an AC 18 greatsword champion expected to take over 32 attacks?
6 hits....~100.00%
7 hits.......99.09%
8 hits.......97.52%
9 hits.......94.25%
10 hits......88.44%
11 hits......79.54%
12 hits......67.67%
13 hits......53.82%
14 hits......39.61%
15 hits......26.76%
16 hits......16.48%

My spreadsheet was built to provide chance for up to 16 hits on the assumption that would be plenty. I think that holds.
So, 2:3 to take 12 hits, 1:2 for 13. Let's assume 3 hits per fight. Average damage is 18.5 for 55.5 damage. The fighter doesn't drop in any given fight, but after first fight a second wind (11.5 hp healing, remainder 44) and cleric can burn their channel for 30 of that, leaving 14. Can't carry that into the second fight, without dying, so a 1st level heal will cure 8.5, leaving 5.5. Next fight ends with champ down 61 hps, very close to dropping. Short rest, burns 3 hit die for 30.5 healing, down 30.5 now. Cleric uses second channel, healed. Cleric now at 3/1/3. 3rd fight, comes out down 55.5 damage. Second wind heals 11.5, down 44. Cleric casts 2 cure wounds at 1st for 17, leaves 27. Not good enough. Another gets us to 19.5, will need a 3rd slot to get to the last fight. Cleric is down to 0/0/2 going into the last fight. Last fight cleric uses a 3rd for spiritual weapon, champion survives with 55.5 damage, long rest.

Greatsword champion comes out slightly worse than the Bladesinger in total party resource burn. If I add in action surge in two fights, the increase in damage takes out a giant one turn faster and reduces total damage taken by enough to get into parity with the bladesinger party. Neither party is particularly good at damage out (I think you shorted your bladesinger by using booming blade). Both have resources left for the wizard/cleric to use a 3rd slot for exploration purposes. It seems a wash between damage out and damage in.

The sword and board champion, however, is a clear loser to the Bladesinger.


ETA: I figured both archers as champion archers, and just realized at the end that you specified a battlemaster archer using precision. Damage for bladesinger party goes up accordingly and the Bladesinger party does defeat the giants in 4 turns, not 5. However, the effectiveness of a battlemaster over a champion fighter, especially with SS/GWM and precision, has been beaten to death and clearly shown on these boards. I think to be as fair a comparison as possible, if the bladesinger is being compared to a champion, that the bladesinger party have a champion and not a battelmaster to make the comparison even. That way, it's as similar as possible for comparison: bladesigner party is wizard (bladesinger), cleric (life) rogue (AT), fighter (champion) and the Champion party is: fighter (Champion), wizard (unspecified), cleric (life), and rogue (AT). The only difference then is changing the tradition of the bladesinger and changing the champion and wizaard from a melee role to a ranged role.

ETA2: the sword and board champion still loses to the bladesinger with similar parties, so it's still a clear win for team Bladesinger.

Rofel Wodring said:

In my experience, while these game balance discussions always assuming no magical item drops, that's never been the case in any game I've been in that has gone on for four or more sessions.

If I wanted raw AC and saves, I would have designed a Variant Human Fighter 1/Abjurer X instead of a Bladesinger. The Bladesinger beats them out only with no item drops. If by level 12-14 or so the Fighter/Abjurer has +2/3 and +2/3 shield and plate (which is very possible if you play pretty much any HC from level 1 to conclusion, let alone if you're hunting or trading for specific items) will simply have a better AC. The Bladesinger will have a much better offense, especially if magical items drop, but as people mentioned in this thread you shift more towards a pure spellcaster build over time anyway.

Click to expand...

Dragging us ruthlessly back to my OP, my argument is that BS was bad design because it needlessly allows a Wizard (the strongest class) to overshadows martials. That happens from 2nd level onwards. Your argument could be trying to say - BS is fine because Abjurer (which is core) does the same thing from 12th level onward (or maybe, from session four onward, but I don't think many campaigns give out multiple +2 items in their fourth session). While I'm not sure that this constitutes the best possible argument against BS overshadowing martials, let's look at Abjurer for a broader analysis.

Fighter 1, Wizard X will always be 1 Wizard level behind BS. With +2 armor/shield Abjurer will be AC 25. BS will be AC 26 with +2 armor/ring (also gaining improved saves). What is the consequence of being one level behind?

1/11 vs 12 = down 1 ASI and 1 AR spell slot level
1/12 vs 13 = down a 7th level cast
1/13 vs 14 = down an arcane tradition feature and 1 AR spell slot level
1/14 vs 15 = Abjurer finally has better saves (BS did until now, due to ring), but is down an 8th level cast, BS still has a better Concentration save
This same pattern has been followed for Fighter/Abjurer's entire career, e.g. 1/2 vs 3 = down a 2nd level cast.

Abjurer has lower AC and is worse at wizardry. Following DMG pacing guidelines, the Abjurer isn't close to BS for the first half of their career (unless we assume Monty Haul for Abjurer, and nothing for BS). Per WotC's statements about character levels played at, that half of their levelling career is likely to be about 80% of the player's experience at the table.

To be clear on what I am arguing here: I accept your general claim that Wizards are stronger than Fighters. However, for me being down a caster level for your entire career while still not equalling BS AC (when you finally do gain two powerful magic items), is not winning the raw AC and saves race. In our "hard" giants encounter, at level 6, Abjurer probably isn't overshadowing Champion by tanking both giants, while at the same time being down a 3rd level spell slot and an AR spell slot level to the BS.

You know, I just realised BS gets Extra Attack at 6th level. I'll need to reduce the damage difference between BS and Champion.