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

[Ovinomancer]

Heh You're mixing up estimating for data. What I am doing is generating live data by playtesting encounters. What you are doing (and I do as well) is estimating. An upside of estimating is that it can indicate expectations over a larger (even the full) set of cases. A downside is that the devil is in the detail: one often doesn't notice what is omitted until live data has been generated and compared. For instance, the assumption that over an 8 round combat for a foe with Multiattack, there will be 8*2 attacks. Playtesting proves that doesn't always happen.

I haven't been lucky at all. That is easy to see because of the tolerances involved. There have been zero close-shaves, no could-have-gone-either-ways, etc, for the BS party. Shield use hasn't been swingy or volatile, it has been 0-1 for the two giant group, 1-2 for the three giant group. What I think would be more telling would be to get some casters in on the side of the foes. Maybe a Hold Person or two...

To answer your request

6th level BS
Starting ability scores (rolled 1 point better than average) = 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 9 + High Elf, + ASI = 9, 18, 13, 18, 12, 10
For estimating resources, day is 2 encounters, short rest, 2 encounters, short rest, 2 encounters, long rest
Mage Armor at start of day = 17 AC
Bladesong = 21 AC
Blur = most attackers have Disadvantage
Shield if needed = 26 AC
Depending on encounter, Shield of Faith and/or Warding Bond (it varies which is better, and both is an option) = 22 AC + resistance, or 23 AC, or 24 AC + resistance

A few encounters doesn't explore even the existed state for such a large variability, which is why your play examples are largely meaningless. And, yes, you did get lucky as the pdf indicates that over 8 rounds you'll be hit 3 times 17% of the time. That's nearly 1:5.

And you didn't answer the request: give me the AC, the opponent attack bonus, and the number of times you're attacked and I'll give you the pdf. This goes for your play examples as well, so you can use what happened in play and find out if it was likely or not to happen that way again.

 

[CapnZapp]

This thread really is going to go on until everybody just tires of explaining to the OP that, no, it's just you who thinks the BS is OP, is it...?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Ovinomancer]

A few encounters doesn't explore even the existed state for such a large variability, which is why your play examples are largely meaningless. And, yes, you did get lucky as the pdf indicates that over 8 rounds you'll be hit 3 times 17% of the time. That's nearly 1:5.

And you didn't answer the request: give me the AC, the opponent attack bonus, and the number of times you're attacked and I'll give you the pdf. This goes for your play examples as well, so you can use what happened in play and find out if it was likely or not to happen that way again.

If you want to run it yourself, the pdf for "at least" is:

m = number of attacks
p = chance to hit
r = number of hits

.....r
1 - E [(mCr)*(p)^r*(1-p)^(m-r)]
....k=0

Or, the sum of all combinations where you hit <n times subtracted from 1.

Theory:
To find out what the probability of succeeding r times in m tests, you figure the combinations possible and multiply time the chance of success raise to the number of successes time the chance of failure raised to ther number of failures.


mCr is the combinations where you succeed n times in m tests.

p^r is the probability of a success raise to the number of successes needed.

(1-p)^(m-r) is the probability of failure times the number of failures.

So mCr * (p^r) * ((1-p)^(m-r)) is the probability of r successes in m events with p probability.

To find "at least", the easiest method is summing the probabilities of fewer than r successes and subtracting from 1.

 

[clearstream]

A few encounters doesn't explore even the existed state for such a large variability, which is why your play examples are largely meaningless. And, yes, you did get lucky as the pdf indicates that over 8 rounds you'll be hit 3 times 17% of the time. That's nearly 1:5.

And you didn't answer the request: give me the AC, the opponent attack bonus, and the number of times you're attacked and I'll give you the pdf. This goes for your play examples as well, so you can use what happened in play and find out if it was likely or not to happen that way again.

Huh? We have this whole time been discussing Hill Giants. [MENTION=762]Mort[/MENTION]'s scenario.

 

[clearstream]

A few encounters doesn't explore even the existed state for such a large variability, which is why your play examples are largely meaningless. And, yes, you did get lucky as the pdf indicates that over 8 rounds you'll be hit 3 times 17% of the time. That's nearly 1:5.

And you didn't answer the request: give me the AC, the opponent attack bonus, and the number of times you're attacked and I'll give you the pdf. This goes for your play examples as well, so you can use what happened in play and find out if it was likely or not to happen that way again.

The two giants are dead in either 3 or 4 rounds. In their first round, PCs typically want to kite back to buy time, and the closing giants typically want to throw rocks. Let's assume they are in normal range (they sometimes aren't, but that's fine).

After that, if they want to win the fight then they shouldn't attack the BS at all, but let's say they hate elves. The'll get 2-3 rounds each, with their Greatclubs. 4-6 attacks, each.

 

[James Gasik]

It's not that the Bladesinger was "designed wrong". It was designed to do exactly what it does- give the Wizard greater ability to function in close combat. The problem is that the designer didn't compare and contrast how the Bladesinger functions in close combat vs. how other classes function in close combat.

Compare it to other classes that are intended to be able to use magic in melee- Cleric, Paladin, Eldritch Knight Fighters, Draconic Sorcerers- when Bladesong is up, strictly superior.

Everything else is comparing Wizards vs. Fighters- and that was a problem long before the Sword Coast book came out.*

I mean, what's the justification for the Wizard again? "Oh sure, he has powerful magic, but without a Fighter to protect his squishy behind, he's useless".

Enter the Bladesinger.

Arguing about whether or not the Bladesinger can take on the role of the Fighter, which, again, is impossible to discern until we somehow figure out what an "average D&D campaign" looks like, since everyone's anecdotal evidence is going to be different, is completely secondary.

The primary question, which I believe has really been answered without much question is, does the Bladesinger remove the main weakness of the Wizard class?

In a previous post, I pointed out that this really isn't a weakness anyways- the Wizard already has the ability to defend themselves quite readily against enemies. The Bladesinger just gives them an option that doesn't involve spell slots. And it's a damn fine option too- at least equal to a 2nd-level spell buff, for free, TWICE, recharged on a short rest.

The only reason it's not overpowered is because the Wizard didn't really need it.

*I hate bringing the Wizard v. Fighter debate into this, but really, looking at the thread, we're pretty much grandfathered on this point.

 

[smbakeresq]

Never liked the bladesinger or it’s concept.

The biggest issue I have is making the Booming Blade, Greenflame etc, cantrips available to any 1st level arcane and still scalable. Now they are staple for many builds, I am not sure that was the intention. For example, every Thunder Cleric should get Booming Blade now since it now will now basically add a version of Divine Smite to every attack.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

 

[Ovinomancer]

Huh? We have this whole time been discussing Hill Giants. [MENTION=762]Mort[/MENTION]'s scenario.

No, you've discussed a 2 giant scenario and a three giant scenario with blue and warding bond, and also other situations where other spells are added. You also jump from "shield isn't really used" to "well, if I'm hit I'll just use shield." You have cake and try to eat it, too.

The two giants are dead in either 3 or 4 rounds. In their first round, PCs typically want to kite back to buy time, and the closing giants typically want to throw rocks. Let's assume they are in normal range (they sometimes aren't, but that's fine).

After that, if they want to win the fight then they shouldn't attack the BS at all, but let's say they hate elves. The'll get 2-3 rounds each, with their Greatclubs. 4-6 attacks, each.

I already provided an 8 attack example above that shows a better than 50% chance of at least 1 hit. That splits your difference.

To get that, you had to use a class resource, a 2nd level spell, a first level spell, and have someone else in the party support your supposedly inherently superior feature with another second level spell. And you'll need to expend a further 1st slot more than half the time.

That's a paragraph to beat a champion in player mail at taking hits.

Also, to touch back to your edit added replay above, how did you do 57 damage, again? 3 rounds combat, 1st is necessary to set up your defense, so 2 booming blade attacks @ 2d8+4 each and no movement procs mean you did 25 damage on 2d8? Even assuming you meant 3 rounds in melee, that still 18 damage on 2d8 3 times.

Oh, wait, are you making 2 bb attacks a round with extra attack? Blooming blade is a spell, so it uses the cast a spell action and you don't get extra attack.

 

[Mort]

In a previous post, I pointed out that this really isn't a weakness anyways- the Wizard already has the ability to defend themselves quite readily against enemies. The Bladesinger just gives them an option that doesn't involve spell slots. And it's a damn fine option too- at least equal to a 2nd-level spell buff, for free, TWICE, recharged on a short rest.

The only reason it's not overpowered is because the Wizard didn't really need it...

So it's not overpowered because the wizard is already so good this is just gilding the Lily? That's not exactly a sterling defense of the problem!

Really though, the BS address two of the low level wizards big weaknesses:

1. it improves their, normally low, AC (a lot). This helps survival at low levels a lot.
2. It gives them a very good bonus to concentration again from their primary stat, without having to boost Con.

These 2 boosts alone make it a very attractive tradition, without ever considering going into melee!

 

[Mort]

This thread really is going to go on until everybody just tires of explaining to the OP that, no, it's just you who thinks the BS is OP, is it...?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Actually, I've always thought the 5e Bladesinger was OP - just not for the melee combat reasons. After looking at this thread and a few scenarios, I think it's worse than I originally thought. So no, the OP is not alone - I think the BS is a bit much.