D&D 5E Totally underwhelmed by 5e bladesinger, am I missing something?

Chaosmancer said:

Okay, so we're looking action for 2d8+7 (possible splash for 1d8+int) followed by 1d8+7 bonus action. If they are using Greenflame blade. That makes a lot more sense

Personally, I would go Lightning Lure and "Get Over Here!" some fool whom I couldn't quite reach if I was an EK.

That's a really interesting ability I was not aware of. Still doesn't make a 1d8+5 twice a turn bad for no daily resources.

Click to expand...

Actually, i've said i would use a much more conservative 1d8+5 as melee damage, so a total of 3d8+10 + conditionals against a 2d8+10. And remind, i say that 2d8+10 is just "meh", not bad.

And it's "meh" because, as cbwjm said, i would have loved something like war magic for bladesingers, too. Not for more damage, just... flavour.

And i do not think that bladesingers are a bad choice at all. Was just correcting on what "best" could be. It would not be fair for a comparison between a bladesinger equipped with armor and weapons (unless drow) that he could not use but acquired via features to be put against a featureless fighter. Lightning lure is another fantastic choice. Taken possibly as a cantrip pick or magic initiate at 6th level.

One thing i do not overly like of bladesingers... resource scarcity for ASI and feats. While and EK doesn't really have "AMAZING" class features it's still built on the warrior and 7 ASI. It allows for better rounding of STR INT COS and feats. It doesn't really rely on high INT either. Bladesingers have to balance DEX INT and COS a lot, leaving very little for everything else. Also, must be elf or half, so no possible variant human (at least until DM strikes)... Well, to each is own

But what if someone just enjoys being a bladesinger...

Bladesinger looks decent but more for concentration spells vs melee combat. Higher AC and bonus von con saves.

Bladesinger looks decent but more for concentration spells vs melee combat. Higher AC and bonus on con saves.

Zardnaar said:

The sacrifice subclass options. Opportunity cost. That can be a free save proficiency for example and some other abilities.

Click to expand...

It's not a sacrifice, it's a choice. The difference is, a sacrifice is something you would already have. Obviously every wizard that's not a diviner lacks portent, so you say they are sacrificing the chance to roll 2 dice a day also?

Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk

neogod22 said:

It's not a sacrifice, it's a choice. The difference is, a sacrifice is something you would already have. Obviously every wizard that's not a diviner lacks portent, so you say they are sacrificing the chance to roll 2 dice a day also?

Click to expand...

What you just described is the exact definition (well, a perfect example) of opportunity cost. By selecting the Bladesinger suite of options, you are sacrificing the opportunity to take the evoker, diviner, necromancer, etc. suites. This is not a hard concept.

Bladesingers are certainly a valid option, perhaps not even a trap option (like the 4elements monk or wild magic sorcerer are often described, although even those I can see having places). However the statement "making them the perfect class, and they sacrifice what? Nothing." is provably false. They sacrifice all the doors that they close getting through the one they traverse.

cbwjm said:

Then they should play bladesinger, I am, and even though I think that War Magic from the Eldritch Knight would be a better fit than extra attack, I'm still enjoying the class..

Click to expand...

I have to agree with this notion. I'm sure they wanted to keep Eldritch Knight unique in that regard, but the option to weave your magic into your melee attacks has always been what defined the Bladesinger (at least as far as I'm concerned). War Magic accomplishes that nicely, much better than allowing 2 Attacks with your Action.

flametitan said:

I want to focus on this, as you pointed out some fairly good points, but this is one where I think it depends on the mindset of the enemy. Certainly, ignoring the skeletons and killing the wizard is easy, especially if they try to max out skeletons, running the risk of not having that valuable counterspell, but is it really the best move for the enemy to make? Killing the necromancer doesn't kill the skeletons; they're still there, shooting at you even after death. The necromancer's death means that the skeletons won't come back tomorrow, but are they of larger priority to kill than the things that are doing the 120 DPR you've estimated them doing? Certainly from the PC point of view it's bigger that they're ignoring the skeletons, but I don't know my tactics well enough to know if it's the most logical from the monster's point of view. (or if the skeletons will fight each other after the necromancer dies, if so then yes. Kill the necromancer.)

Click to expand...

General warfare principle: kill the enemy's C&C (Command and Control) if you can. If you kill the wizard, you can expect the skeletons to go either passive or omnicidal (depending on how skeletons work in the DM's world). Either one is probably better than having them be cohesive and cooperating with the rest of the army/party.

"Kill the wizard" is no different than "kill the officers", which is a classic military goal if you can manage to achieve it. It's why casualty rates are so high among junior officers, or so I'm given to understand. Anyway, the point is that it's not a tactical innovation specifically for anti-necromancer; it's just something you can expect enemies to attempt as part of standard doctrine.

But of course you're right: not all enemies will have the same mindset, and many won't have a tactical doctrine. I'm implicitly referring here to highly-militaristic enemies like the drow (because that experience with drow and necromancer is now fresh in my mind) and hobgoblins, possibly giants. It's not something that you'd expect golems or gargoyles or normal monstrous foes to do, but you had mentioned that you were thinking about necromancer-countermeasures so I'm just ignoring all the foes that won't be interesting for a necromancer or anyone with an army, and talking about the ones that may be a tough nut to crack, which basically means "intelligent, militaristic enemies" and "powerful, mobile solo creatures".

I think bladesinger is a great option for normal wizards who sit in the back and fling spells. If an enemy does close into melee with you then just start bladesinging.

PMárk said:

I won't say bladesinger is bad, because it's not, but my 2 cents:

There isn't any real fighter/mage hybrid class in 5e so far. Bladesinger is a wizard with some melee capabilities, but it doesn't deliver what the fluff says. I'm still waiting for a real "swordmage" class, like the Magus in Pathfinder, which was designed from the start as a fighter/mage, with features tailored to that and balanced around that. Bladesinger is a wizard with some melee, EK is a fighter with some magic. Neither is a true hybrid. Yes, multiclassing is a thing, but I still want a class with unique abilities and flavor, especially since the settings' various fluffs always integrated those kind of characters and it is one of my favorite concepts.

Click to expand...

I have a radical idea, how about a fighter/wizard who divides XP equally between both classes! As we say in the IT DBA world, what could go wrong..