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

[clearstream]

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.

@Mort proposed a "hard" encounter with two giants, and the parties to face them. I ran that encounter a couple of times and found it lacked challenge for the BS, so I added another giant making it "super deadly".

In the "hard" encounter, the BS uses 0-1 Shields and the Cleric uses 0-2 healing spells. That's on top of the proactive casts. (Yes, I do wait until first round before casting things like Blur etc.) The combat runs 3-4 rounds. The giants usually can't attack with clubs in the first round. I've tried having both giants hammer on the BS, and having them ignore the BS. The latter creates more challenge for the party.

In the "super-deadly" encounter, the BS uses 1-2 Shields and the Cleric casts 1-3 healing spells + a Channel Divinity, and the Archer uses Second Wind and 1-2 superiority dice, and the Arcane Trickster uses 0-1 spells. The scariest moment for the BS is if giants roll higher initiative, in which case I have them ruthlessly focus on the BS (that's where a Shield is mostly used). That's on top of the proactive casts. The fight runs 6-8 rounds.

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

Are you taking into account the giants' disadvantage?

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.

I guess your alternative Wizard is casting no spells: the well known "torch-bearer Wizard" archetype. Wait, what? I tried a Diviner Wizard multiple times, and always used more spell slot levels. And needed more heals from the Cleric.

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.

No, of course not. This is what, the Nth time you've accused me of rigging the results. One attack with BB = 2d8+4. Giant moves = 2d8 and AoO for 1d8+4. That is 5d8+8 in one round. 13-48 damage. Giants are AC 13, BS hits on 6+. Over three rounds 39-144. Remember BS gets a movement bonus: it can keep up with the giants. Still, their best tactic so far has been to direct no attacks at BS, and target whoever else has the lightest armor.

You promised maths. I'd like to see it. Not because I want to stitch you up, but out of an honest sense of enquiry. What are the ranges from the probability function? Say for AC 23 as a compromise between Warding Bond (22), Shield of Faith (23), and both (24). The Hill Giants are +8 to hit.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

The bladesinger must devote pretty much all of it's 1st and 2nd level slots to being in melee. That's a huge resource drain for AC rather than utility or damage. This expense enables a weaker level of damage output and always carries the risk of critical. And that doesn't include the effects of enemy spellcasters throwing hold person (assuming a +1 WIS at 6th that's a 55% chance to fail against a CR6 caster) which is death (bladesong drops for instance, blur is negated, damage is multiplied). Or a cone of cold, or a stinking cloud, all of which pretty much wipe the bladesinger, and with the bladesinger high AC and front position, they're high on the target list. Even a simple dispel magic completely tanks a bladesinger who drops from an AC 23 (warding bond, mage armor, shield of fatih) with blur up to an AC 18 and still with 36 hp total. A single CR 3 caster added to the giants can eliminate the bladesinger and 6 levels of spells in one go.

So, yeah, massive expenditure of resources for a very, very fragile and fraught life on the front lines. Blur is good, but it's also a constant resource draw.

 

[Mort]

So, yeah, massive expenditure of resources for a very, very fragile and fraught life on the front lines. Blur is good, but it's also a constant resource draw.

You're missing my greater point.

Other than fluff, there is absolutely nothing that requires a BS to melee.

They are a full arcane caster with a very good AC (essentially a shield that also stacks with the shield spell) AND a big boost to concentration saves. The tradition shores up traditional wizard weaknesses and allows them much greater survivability in combat.

Are you honestly trying to argue that's not extremely strong?

Edit: I will add, after this thread, I have also seen that are quite good, not just passing, in melee.


Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Mort proposed a "hard" encounter with two giants, and the parties to face them. I ran that encounter a couple of times and found it lacked challenge for the BS, so I added another giant making it "super deadly".

In the "hard" encounter, the BS uses 0-1 Shields and the Cleric uses 0-2 healing spells. That's on top of the proactive casts. (Yes, I do wait until first round before casting things like Blur etc.) The combat runs 3-4 rounds. The giants usually can't attack with clubs in the first round. I've tried having both giants hammer on the BS, and having them ignore the BS. The latter creates more challenge for the party.

In the "super-deadly" encounter, the BS uses 1-2 Shields and the Cleric casts 1-3 healing spells + a Channel Divinity, and the Archer uses Second Wind and 1-2 superiority dice, and the Arcane Trickster uses 0-1 spells. The scariest moment for the BS is if giants roll higher initiative, in which case I have them ruthlessly focus on the BS (that's where a Shield is mostly used). That's on top of the proactive casts. The fight runs 6-8 rounds.

So we agree that you've talked about more than one scenario. Good.

Are you taking into account the giants' disadvantage?

Yup. 9% chance to hit against AC 21 with blur. With +8 to hit, that's a base 30% chance to hit (hit on a 16+), we only care about cases where the first roll hits (if it misses we're done), so it's 30% chance to roll a 30% chance or 9%.

I guess your alternative Wizard is casting no spells: the well known "torch-bearer Wizard" archetype. Wait, what? I tried a Diviner Wizard multiple times, and always used more spell slot levels. And needed more heals from the Cleric.

Nope, if they cast a scorching ray and a grease, they've spent the same slots as the bladesinger and dealt half your damage and pulled an opponent out of combat for 1-2 rounds, reducing the total number of attacks. And scorching ray is usually a bad choice.

No, of course not. This is what, the Nth time you've accused me of rigging the results. One attack with BB = 2d8+4. Giant moves = 2d8 and AoO for 1d8+4. That is 5d8+8 in one round. 13-48 damage. Giants are AC 13, BS hits on 6+. Over three rounds 39-144. Remember BS gets a movement bonus: it can keep up with the giants. Still, their best tactic so far has been to direct no attacks at BS, and target whoever else has the lightest armor.

Wait, you didn't rig things and then you had the giants get hit with booming blade and then proc it (despite your edit saying no booming blade procs) AND an AO, over and over for three rounds? Yeah, best case scenario for the bladesinger to deal damage....

You promised maths. I'd like to see it. Not because I want to stitch you up, but out of an honest sense of enquiry. What are the ranges from the probability function? Say for AC 23 as a compromise between Warding Bond (22), Shield of Faith (23), and both (24). The Hill Giants are +8 to hit.

[/quote]
I gave maths -- I provided the exact formula you need to figure it out on your own. And my offer was for AC, bonus to hit, and number of rounds, and you provided that exactly once and I gave you the numbers for the midpoint of your scenario already. If you're going to demand things, maybe actually do it before you accuse me of reneging.

For AC 22, +8 to hit, 8 attacks, blur:
At least,,,,,chance
1 hit..........65%
2 hits.........26%
3 hits.........6%
4 hits.........1%
1 Crit..........2%

For AC 23, +8 to hit, 8 attacks, blur:
1 hit...........53%
2 hits..........16%
3 hits...........3%
1 Crit...........2% (this doesn't change)

For AC 24, +8 to hit, 9 attacks, blur:
1 hit............40%
2 hits...........9%
3 hits...........1%
1 Crit...........2%

Without cleric spells, AC 21, +8 to hit, blur:
1 hit...........75%
2 hits.........37%
3 hits.........12%
4 hits...........3%
1 Crit...........2%

Loses initiative for 2 attacks (rocks) (25% chance of occurrence or 1:4 fights), , AC 17 then AC 21 with blur, +8 to hit, 4 attacks (after the 2 rocks):
Rocks:
1 hit...........84%
2 hits..........36%
Melee
1 hit...........50%
2 hits..........12%
3 hits..........1%


Pick a scenario, I'll give you the PDF. It's not as pretty as you're assuming with your play examples. And, remember, those numbers are "at least this many hits". That first one is a 65% chance of being hit at least once.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You're missing my greater point.

Other than fluff, there is absolutely nothing that requires a BS to melee.

They are a full arcane caster with a very good AC (essentially a shield that also stacks with the shield spell) AND a big boost to concentration saves. The tradition shores up traditional wizard weaknesses and allows them much greater survivability in combat.

Are you honestly trying to argue that's not extremely strong?

Edit: I will add, after this thread, I have also seen that are quite good, not just passing, in melee.


Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app

Right, yes, and if they don't melee they have a higher AC (because they probably aren't casting blur or getting clerical AC assistance) which means they're sitting at an AC 21 for most fights. This is good, yes, but relies on the enemy attacking them to have value -- it's entirely reactionary. So, yes, good, but not great. And things will still hit an AC 21. So the upshot is that they may not use the 'get away from me' tactics of the usual mage as often, relying on a high AC instead, and, yes, that is good, but is it as good as dropping a fireball on the party or denying a critical (or causing one) or any of the other traditions? Maybe for the mage, but not necessarily the party. I'd rather have an invoker along than a bladesinger, who will siphon resources to keep themselves alive when we have a fighter for that.

 

[Mort]

Right, yes, and if they don't melee they have a higher AC (because they probably aren't casting blur or getting clerical AC assistance) which means they're sitting at an AC 21 for most fights. This is good, yes, but relies on the enemy attacking them to have value -- it's entirely reactionary.

I suspect my wizard player who's character (evoker wizard AC 13) got pincutioned by arrows, after Hobgoblins realized he was the one controlling the flaming sphere, would disagree with you

As for not casting blur? Why not, unless they have a better concentration spell to rely on? It's a pretty good use of second level spell, especially in a hard fight!

Also, most wizards I've seen have shield as a backup. The BS just takes it to an extreme effectively making the AC 25 - that's HIGH. Show me a martial character, other than an eldritch knight, that can meet that by 6th level.

So, yes, good, but not great. And things will still hit an AC 21.

A low level character with an AC of 21, easily pushable to 25 at need? Sorry, that's better than "good."

So the upshot is that they may not use the 'get away from me' tactics of the usual mage as often, relying on a high AC instead, and, yes, that is good, but is it as good as dropping a fireball on the party or denying a critical (or causing one) or any of the other traditions? Maybe for the mage, but not necessarily the party. I'd rather have an invoker along than a bladesinger, who will siphon resources to keep themselves alive when we have a fighter for that.

I certainly won't contradict you that the wizard player has a plethora of great options to choose from. I'm just saying the BS is among if not at the top of those already great options.



Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app

 

[Ancalagon]

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

I have a big issue with those two cantrips not being in the PhB.... if they are so important to various "gish", why aren't they in the core book?

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[Ovinomancer]

I suspect my wizard player who's character (evoker wizard AC 13) got pincutioned by arrows, after Hobgoblins realized he was the one controlling the flaming sphere, would disagree with you

As for not casting blur? Why not, unless they have a better concentration spell to rely on? It's a pretty good use of second level spell, especially in a hard fight!

Also, most wizards I've seen have shield as a backup. The BS just takes it to an extreme effectively making the AC 25 - that's HIGH. Show me a martial character, other than an eldritch knight, that can meet that by 6th level.

Show me a martial character with the hp pool of a wizard. You're treating the use of a first level spell to get high AC as if it's devastating, and it's just not. No one complained ever about the EK getting ACs in that range through shield, and the paladin in my game, at 8th level, sported a 23 AC with shield of faith up. It's not ludicrously high, it's just good for one round at the expense of a spell slot.

And, yes, not getting hit is better than getting hit, but when your evoker gets another level and starts dropping fireballs with impunity, he may like having a 13 AC amid the smoking corpse of hobgoblins (and it doesn't matter if they save or not, really). Your evoker as a Bladesinger would have twisted out 1 additional arrow (on average) by increasing his AC from 13 to 17. Chance for 4 hobgoblins to land at least three hits against AC 13 is slightly worse than landing 2 against AC 17 (47% to 52%). So, in that case, it's not that much better.

It only looks super awesome if you roll for stats and get two high stats to drop in INT and DEX. But, even then, it's not game breaking.

A low level character with an AC of 21, easily pushable to 25 at need? Sorry, that's better than "good."

A low level character that rolled well using one of the official options for stat generation in the PHB. Yes, that's high, at low level it's very high, and pretty good, but by 5th level the field has evened out and it doesn't get better for the bladesinger. There aren't better defensive spells to use to increase survivability, and enemy attack bonuses, and most importantly damage, outpace the bladesinger's ability to deny hits. Again, a single surprise round or losing initiative can drop a bladesinger, and a dispel magic is lethal to them. Plus, while they have this nice high AC, they're burning lots of resources (especially at low level) to prop up their survivability.

Bladesingers are high resource consumption for their one trick of not getting hit. it's not overpowering, and it's a much less great choice for point buy characters.

I certainly won't contradict you that the wizard player has a plethora of great options to choose from. I'm just saying the BS is among if not at the top of those already great options.

For the bladesinger alone, maybe. Look at vonklaude's examples: the bladesinger needs the first round of the fight just to prepare themselves to fight, AND requires a cleric to also spend the first round preparing the bladesinger to fight. The resource consumption is high -- 2 second level spells spent in the first round alone to prop up the bladesinger against a hard encounter. Further, if you look at the action economy, that's 50% of the total party action resources in the first round spent to just get the bladesinger ready to fight! In a game where most fights are 3 rounds, the bladesinger is expending 4 spell levels and extending the fight by a round at the beginning of most fights!

Plus, one thing the toy example doesn't model is uncertainty about the scale of a fight or the number of fights before or after that fight. When you actually play the bladesinger, and you need those slots to handle a some rolls that go against you, you get really nervous and start to horde the spells rather than spend them so freely. The hill giant fight is entirely isolated from the rest of an adventure.

 

[smbakeresq]

I have a big issue with those two cantrips not being in the PhB.... if they are so important to various "gish", why aren't they in the core book?

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

So they can sell other books. I would think that's obvious....

 

[clearstream]

Wait, you didn't rig things and then you had the giants get hit with booming blade and then proc it (despite your edit saying no booming blade procs) AND an AO, over and over for three rounds? Yeah, best case scenario for the bladesinger to deal damage....

./self tears hair out! People kept nagging me: "Why do the giants keep attacking the BS? Why don't they run past and attack other characters?" So I had them do that, and they take lashings of damage. Or they stick with the BS, avoid BB proc... and do... very little before they die. If they want to attack characters other than BS, multiple BB proc is unavoidable.

For AC 22, +8 to hit, 8 attacks, blur:
At least,,,,,chance
1 hit..........65%
2 hits.........26%
3 hits.........6%
4 hits.........1%
1 Crit..........2%

For AC 23, +8 to hit, 8 attacks, blur:
1 hit...........53%
2 hits..........16%
3 hits...........3%
1 Crit...........2% (this doesn't change)

For AC 24, +8 to hit, 9 attacks, blur:
1 hit............40%
2 hits...........9%
3 hits...........1%
1 Crit...........2%

Without cleric spells, AC 21, +8 to hit, blur:
1 hit...........75%
2 hits.........37%
3 hits.........12%
4 hits...........3%
1 Crit...........2%

Loses initiative for 2 attacks (rocks) (25% chance of occurrence or 1:4 fights), , AC 17 then AC 21 with blur, +8 to hit, 4 attacks (after the 2 rocks):
Rocks:
1 hit...........84%
2 hits..........36%
Melee
1 hit...........50%
2 hits..........12%
3 hits..........1%


Pick a scenario, I'll give you the PDF. It's not as pretty as you're assuming with your play examples. And, remember, those numbers are "at least this many hits". That first one is a 65% chance of being hit at least once.

This maps well to what I am seeing. Often the BS needs to decide whether or not to let a hit through. With Warding Bond on, yes to the first one is reasonable because it makes good use of the Hit Dice that BS and Cleric want to spend per Short Rest. No to the second hit is when the Shield triggers. As I said: 0-1 Shield in the "hard" scenario.

Your numbers back up what I am finding in playtests and reporting here. Take the AC 22 example: often one hit, sometimes two hits, hardly ever more than that. And that is if the giants waste their time hammering solely on the BS, which I'm finding condemns them to an ineffectual death. As I said, at this point it would make a lot of sense to me if you said - okay, fine, the maths and the playtests converge on BS easily tanking giants, let's look at some groups of foes with casters.

In the hope of moving on from this point, I trust that you will accept that parties without BS spend at least some resources. In my playtests, I have found that to be more resources, but we can debate that finding after we see if casters are a BS' Achilles heel? If we make that discovery, then we can backtrack and check whether our BS alternatives - martial tanks and Diviner or Evoker Wizards - do any better. Because ultimately, the question isn't - is BS Pun-Pun? - it's does BS overshadow martial tanks while still being a solid Wizard?