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

[Coroc]

TBH a better bladesinger would be a slight refluff of the eldritch Knight or a bard "college of song".
I do not get along well with the multitude of classes which now get thrown at the Players.

I much rather would see some more conversion help: It is still not resolved how to get a halfgiant or thrikreen ready to be a PC character, or any 1-20 rules for psionics (much needed for DS and Eberron), the artificer still does not feel right.

Make those existing legacies work first instead of dozens of new classes which you as a DM have to

-somehow fit into your Setting, hereby
-trusting that they do not unbalance things to much,
in the case of the bladesinger it seems a
- to be banned Gimmick class in at least some of my campaigns.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Reductio ad absurdum, your line of argument could amount to saying that we can give Wizard the whole kit-and-caboodle of Fighter and it doesn't matter because Wizard is stuff is that much more powerful than Fighter stuff. And that AC is not worthless to Wizard. They'll get hit less, and just in case they do get hit, Bladesong lets them add their Intelligence modifier to the Concentration check. Well, that's still fine because I can grapple... sorry no, they get advantage on Acrobatics. Well how about I chase them down and m... sorry no, they get 10' more walking speed just in case 60' fly turns out to not be enough.

But this is all fine, because Wizard stuff out-powers Fighter stuff by so much that who could care what Fighter stuff we give away to Wizard? Do you sense any inkling of why I struggle to see the virtue in that line of reasoning?

None of those things makes the bladesinger an effective fighter or tank, though. A high AC, more movement, acrobatics advantage are all nice, but don't impinge on the fighter space and don't improve wizard things. Given the lackluster later subclass abilities of the bladesinger, it is frontloaded, but not better than other traditions.

The bladesinger is a tradition that focuses pin improved survivability in melee at the cost of improved functionality as a wizard. That increased survivability doesn't let the bladesinger actually act as a fighter because in melee damage output is low and survivability is extremely risky. There isn't anything to the subclass that diminishes the fighter's role in the party. If you're relying on a bladesinger to be your frontline melee tank, you're going to have a sudden and rapid reduction in force at some point soon.

 

[FrogReaver]

None of those things makes the bladesinger an effective fighter or tank, though. A high AC, more movement, acrobatics advantage are all nice, but don't impinge on the fighter space and don't improve wizard things. Given the lackluster later subclass abilities of the bladesinger, it is frontloaded, but not better than other traditions.

The bladesinger is a tradition that focuses pin improved survivability in melee at the cost of improved functionality as a wizard. That increased survivability doesn't let the bladesinger actually act as a fighter because in melee damage output is low and survivability is extremely risky. There isn't anything to the subclass that diminishes the fighter's role in the party. If you're relying on a bladesinger to be your frontline melee tank, you're going to have a sudden and rapid reduction in force at some point soon.

The perks of BladeSinger isn't getting to act like a fighter. That's just a cool ribbon he has. The perks are high AC and High Concentration saves while still being allowed to pump intelligence for better spell casting (those are not just melee perks)

So if you have a non-bladesinger wizard and he is rarely ever attacked then high AC and good concentration saves matter much less. Of course monster AI and tactics are handled by an individual, the DM. Different AI and tactics are going to really shape whether bladeSinger is the best wizard. In many cases going into a campaign blind it may be better to have the AC and concentration buffs and not need them than to need them and not have them.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The perks of BladeSinger isn't getting to act like a fighter. That's just a cool ribbon he has. The perks are high AC and High Concentration saves while still being allowed to pump intelligence for better spell casting (those are not just melee perks)

So if you have a non-bladesinger wizard and he is rarely ever attacked then high AC and good concentration saves matter much less. Of course monster AI and tactics are handled by an individual, the DM. Different AI and tactics are going to really shape whether bladeSinger is the best wizard. In many cases going into a campaign blind it may be better to have the AC and concentration buffs and not need them than to need them and not have them.

Exactly. The bladesinger is a competitive tradition against other traditions who's usefulness will vary by table.

It doesn't steal from the fighter to do this.

 

[clearstream]

None of those things makes the bladesinger an effective fighter or tank, though.

But that isn't true. Above, we showed that Bladesinger survives better than heavily-armoured Champion! I think you even agreed with that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Exactly. The bladesinger is a competitive tradition against other traditions who's usefulness will vary by table.

It doesn't steal from the fighter to do this.

Of course, nearly everything varies by table. Yet we are going to continue to make generalizations because that's what we do. In general from levels 2-10ish BladeSingers are the best wizard subclass. As you noted there are exceptions, but not being best 100% of the time in every situation doesn't prevent us from classifying something as the best.

Why do we think high concentration and AC makes for the best wizard? It's because it helps the most in a wizards worst case scenarios that have a chance of coming up nearly any combat.

Most importantly it:
1. Helps Wizard keep up his encounter ending control spell that was just cast. There is nothing more swingy in the game than casting something like a hypnotic pattern only to be immediately hit and roll low on the concentration save. The bladeSinger helps keep you from being hit in the first place and from failing the concentration check if you are.
2. Helps keep you standing when you become team enemies focus.

Additionally it also:
3. Saves healing resources which frees those resources up for other party members or for extra damage.
4. Potentially saves you from casting mage armor 1-2 times per day. 1-2 level 1 spell slots is a great benefit to a wizard in levels 2-10ish as for a large portion of their career they won't have all that many higher level slots.

Don't get me wrong I think a divination wizard is better in the later levels 11-20 and a lot of these same benefits I mentioned can be said of the abjuration wizard (though I think it's obvious the bladesingers buffs in this domain are better than the abjuration wizards?). It's just what you view as simply a bump in AC and concentration affects a lot more than it seems you give it credit for.

 

[FrogReaver]

But that isn't true. Above, we showed that Bladesinger survives better than heavily-armoured Champion! I think you even agreed with that.

Generally to be an effective tank you have to deal decent damage, Otherwise that big tree we are fighting under is a better tank than all of us

 

[Ovinomancer]

But that isn't true. Above, we showed that Bladesinger survives better than heavily-armoured Champion! I think you even agreed with that.

No, I said the champion still dies alongside the bladesinger, not that the bladesinger was an effective rank. With a 20% chance of death in 2 rounds tanking a CR4, that's not an effective tank. The averaging out of crit damage into the general DOR calculations you (and I) used completely ignores the fact that a crit from that creature kills the bladesinger outright. If you redo the longevity calculations adding in the insta-gib of the crit, the bladesinger chance of survival drops precipitously, and approaches 0 over 10 rounds.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Reductio ad absurdum, your line of argument could amount to saying that we can give Wizard the whole kit-and-caboodle of Fighter and it doesn't matter because Wizard is stuff is that much more powerful than Fighter stuff.

Is it that absurdum? Except for Action Surge, of course, Action Surge can be used to cast a second spell in the same round.

And that AC is not worthless to Wizard. They'll get hit less, and just in case they do get hit, Bladesong lets them add their Intelligence modifier to the Concentration check. Well, that's still fine because I can grapple... sorry no, they get advantage on Acrobatics. Well how about I chase them down and m... sorry no, they get 10' more walking speed just in case 60' fly turns out to not be enough.

But this is all fine, because Wizard stuff out-powers Fighter stuff by so much that who could care what Fighter stuff we give away to Wizard? Do you sense any inkling of why I struggle to see the virtue in that line of reasoning?

It's not like the premise is exactly wrong...

... wizards don't 'need' melee ability or durability, they have spells (& I suppose allies, and if they don't have allies they can recruit/charm/make/animate/conjure some) to keep enemies away and otherwise avoid being targeted in the first place. Being in melee, for any wizard, isn't a disaster, it's dangerous, sure, but you can still cast your 'encounter-ending' spells.

So, really, it's kinda like the fighter with weapon selection. The fighter might use a pole-arm or greatsword or S&S or, especially a bow or hand crossbow, it seems. He probably won't use a vase or a pairing knife or a wet towel. Because there are just better weapons and he's proficient in all of them. A fighter who can inflict 4 damage with a wet towel instead of 1 may be 4x as powerful with it, but he's hardly OP in the broader sense.

 

[clearstream]

Generally to be an effective tank you have to deal decent damage, Otherwise that big tree we are fighting under is a better tank than all of us

Hmm.. so here I was using the standard RPG definition of "tank". It's a character that can take a lot of damage, not dish it out. The idea is something like the tank crowd-controls and soaks the damage, while a "striker" like a Rogue deals damage.

If the big tree could only get the foes to attack it, then yup, it'd be a great tank.