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

[Ovinomancer]

Or might have been the one casting it...
I think you mean, 'at the end of a long day?' And, yeah, if the Bladesinger faces a third combat between short rests with no Bladesong he's out of luck, while the EK is still wearing armor.

Did I miss something, or can the Bladesinger not invoke it's crazy AC tricks and still cast away in full-on-Tier-1 wizardly mode?

Sure they can, but is being a back line, high AC caster stepping on fighter toes or even preferable to other tradition abilities from that same spot in the back line? Seems a wash to me.

Essentially what you're saying is that actually being a wizard is so much better than playing at being a faux-fighter that the Bladesinger could go ahead and co-opt even more of the fighter's shctick and still be operating at a net loss any time it chooses to play fighter, at all?

Agreed, up until co-opt, as I don't think the bladesinger really takes anything from the fighter at all. The bladesinger can have a high AC, but that's not really the fighter's shtick, is it? The fighter does survival on the front lines, and while a high AC certainly helps there, crits happen. When they do, the fighter is likely still in there with his high HP pool and recovery options, but the bladesinger is lying on the deck, bleeding out or staring dead. Stepping into melee as a glass shield is neato, but doesn't take away from the fighter at all.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure they can, but is being a back line, high AC caster stepping on fighter toes or even preferable to other tradition abilities from that same spot in the back line? Seems a wash to me.

High AC is certainly desireable for some wizard builds/tactics, it's further protection from having your concentration broken, for instance.

Agreed, up until co-opt, as I don't think the bladesinger really takes anything from the fighter at all.

High AC, the iconic longsword, Extra Attack...

The bladesinger can have a high AC, but that's not really the fighter's shtick, is it?

It's a non-trivial component or option thereof, or they wouldn't have heavy armor & shield proficiencies and Defensive combat style...
...but, no, the fighter has no exclusive schtick, other classes can already meet-or-beat it's AC, hps, DPR, etc... the Bladesinger, even if it did rise (sink) the the level of co-opting the fighter, would just be adding another sub-class to the list.

 

[Rhenny]

High AC is certainly desireable for some wizard builds/tactics, it's further protection from having your concentration broken, for instance.

High AC, the iconic longsword, Extra Attack... It's a non-trivial component or option thereof, or they wouldn't have heavy armor & shield proficiencies and Defensive combat style...
...but, no, the fighter has no exclusive schtick, other classes can already meet-or-beat it's AC, hps, DPR, etc... the Bladesinger, even if it did rise (sink) the the level of co-opting the fighter, would just be adding another sub-class to the list.

Is it just me, or do more people play fighters than any other class? In all of the games I've played in and DMd, we always have one or more fighters. Sometimes we don't have wizards or clerics or druids or warlocks or sorcerers, but we always have fighters. We always have rogues too. This must say something for the class regardless of mechanics and white room analysis.

I really think it comes down to preference and playstyle more than mechanics. Plenty of players are enjoying themselves playing fighters. I'm not seeing the fighter vs. wizard character envy at my tables.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is it just me, or do more people play fighters than any other class?

It's not just you. By far the most popular, or at least familiar/common/stereotypical, archetypes of the heroic fantasy genre (or myth/legend, even moreso) are most-closely-represented in D&D by the fighter. It's an unusual genre hero who exclusively skulks about stabbing folks in the back, heals with magic, turns into animals, or blows things up with spells. It's getting less unusual, of course.

So, the stereotypical hero with a sword, not using magic -> Fighter.

We always have rogues too. This must say something for the class regardless of mechanics and white room analysis.
I really think it comes down to preference and playstyle more than mechanics.

Rogue would probably be the #2 best-fit.
And, yes, if none of the Tier 1 (or 2 or 3) classes are remotely like the idea you have in your head, you play what you want, and hope the DM can sort it out.

And, if, as a designer, lots of people are playing the class, why fix it just because some optimizers consign it to Tier 5, and there are constant complaints about LFQW and 5MWD and whatnot? People are playing it, it must be fine!

 

[Rhenny]

It's not just you. By far the most popular, or at least familiar/common/stereotypical, archetypes of the heroic fantasy genre (or myth/legend, even moreso) are most-closely-represented in D&D by the fighter. It's an unusual genre hero who exclusively skulks about stabbing folks in the back, heals with magic, turns into animals, or blows things up with spells. It's getting less unusual, of course.

So, the stereotypical hero with a sword, not using magic -> Fighter.

Rogue would probably be the #2 best-fit.
And, yes, if none of the Tier 1 (or 2 or 3) classes are remotely like the idea you have in your head, you play what you want, and hope the DM can sort it out.

And, if, as a designer, lots of people are playing the class, why fix it just because some optimizers consign it to Tier 5, and there are constant complaints about LFQW and 5MWD and whatnot? People are playing it, it must be fine!

If they made fighters and rogues any better nobody would be playing the other classes! lol

 

[Ovinomancer]

High AC is certainly desireable for some wizard builds/tactics, it's further protection from having your concentration broken, for instance.

Sure, but aren't things already going off plan if the wizard is taking ranged or melee hits? At this point we're regulating the high AC to a contingency plan in case you're attacked while acting as a wizard. That certainly doesn't warrant the claim you're stealing a fighter shtick. it's entirely passive and dependent on being attacked by AC targeting attacks (a large number, granted). It's not superior to the effects of other traditions, it's on par. Good, not great option for tradition abilities. Also, high AC rapidly depreciates as you level.

High AC, the iconic longsword, Extra Attack... It's a non-trivial component or option thereof, or they wouldn't have heavy armor & shield proficiencies and Defensive combat style...

...but, no, the fighter has no exclusive schtick, other classes can already meet-or-beat it's AC, hps, DPR, etc... the Bladesinger, even if it did rise (sink) the the level of co-opting the fighter, would just be adding another sub-class to the list.

Exactly, having a high AC doesn't take the fighter's shtick, because high AC is just part of the fighter shtick. The other bits are effective weapon attacks, high hit points, and combat tier attack versatility. All of that is the fighter shtick, and the best the bladesinger has to offer is the ability to get a slightly better AC with high stats. The extra attack the BS gets is constantly weighed against the far more effective cantrip use, which obviates the extra attack (when I first read the class, the effective uselessness of extra attack given the melee weapon cantrips leapt out at me), and the BS melee attacks are going to be weak comparative to just about any other class. Hitpoints are a clear loser. And the only real versatility in attacking the BS gets is switching up cantrips, which means more melee focused cantrips and less utility or ranged -- bad choices for a primary wizard.

The bladesinger can get a high AC, but this isn't taking anything away from the fighter. If the bladesinger tries to act like the fighter, she's not as effective and has a high risk of death outright. If the bladesinger acts like a wizard with an eye towards occasionally fighter-ing, the opportunity costs in reserved spell slots to enable the melee shtick means she's worse as a wizard when trying to be a poor fighter substitute. Again, like the Mystic Theurge, the option costs for bladesinger mean she's not as effective at either role, and those roles do not synergize in any way so the net effect is a less effect wizard risking death by trying to be a poor fighter.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If they made fighters and rogues any better nobody would be playing the other classes! lol

Not at all, it'd take a huge expansion in versatility before the rogue, let alone the fighter, started eating into other classes' smaller shares of the player base.

If you really want to play a wizard (or whatever) the way most people really want to play a fighter, you'd play a hypothetical wizard that's as far behind the curve in theory as the fighter is in practice. In fact, people did that back in the day, for the first couple levels...

...most players don't choose characters on the basis of mechanics, but on concept. Even all powergamers don't always take the most powerful class, optimizing to /concept/ instead of for maximum effectiveness. "How many people play class X" is only a measure of class effectiveness if you limit your sample to inveterate, cynical optimizers. But, how effective a class tends to be does impact the play experience for everyone - cynical or not, optimizer or not. I
t's up to the DM to compensate for that, one way or another. Identifying and 'nerfing' (or even just raising community awareness of) potential problems is one way to do so. Thus threads like this.

Sure, but aren't things already going off plan if the wizard is taking ranged or melee hits?

What, things don't ever go off plan?

... It's not superior to the effects of other traditions, it's on par. Good, not great option for tradition abilities.

IDK, AC is traditionally supposed to be a wizardly weakness, no?

Exactly, having a high AC doesn't take the fighter's shtick, because high AC is just part of the fighter shtick. The other bits are effective weapon attacks, high hit points, and combat tier attack versatility.

Versatility? The BM's shtick may include combat-pillar versatility - relative to the Champion - that's about it.

All of that is the fighter shtick, and the best the bladesinger has to offer is the ability to get a slightly better AC with high stats. The extra attack the BS gets is constantly weighed against the far more effective cantrip use, which obviates the extra attack (when I first read the class, the effective uselessness of extra attack given the melee weapon cantrips leapt out at me)

Nod. Same basic observation as the above. It's not that the bladesinger doesn't poach fighter goodies, it's that its wizard goodies are still so much better that it shouldn't bother most of the time. :shrug:

 

[Ovinomancer]

What, things don't ever go off plan?

Sure, but core subclass abilities that aren't useful until things go of plan are less generally useful.

IDK, AC is traditionally supposed to be a wizardly weakness, no?

Eh. Wizards have traditionally had lots of ways to not even get attacked, so AC wasn't much of a serious drawback. They lost a few this edition, so AC is decent but still less preferable to letting the fighter get hit instead of you.

Versatility? The BM's shtick may include combat-pillar versatility - relative to the Champion - that's about it.

Even the champion had versatility. Trip, shove, etc, as revolvers to the high number of extra attacks and high STR/athletics means the fighter is very good even at the champion level of controlling melee. Add in feats and they get more. Yeah, sure, EK and BM get more toys over the champion, but the bladesinger isn't going to be shoving anyone in melee, either.

Nod. Same basic observation as the above. It's not that the bladesinger doesn't poach fighter goodies, it's that its wizard goodies are still so much better that it shouldn't bother most of the time. :shrug:

No, you're missing the point again. The bladesinger gets AC only, which isn't poaching fighter goodies. The bladesinger does very poorly at the job of tank over time because that high AC is covering the underlying fragility of the bladesinger. The bladesinger offers the ability to do a better job surviving in melee to other traditions, but it doesn't poach anything from the fighter to do it because, outside of a few points of AC with high rolled scores, it doesn't do anything better or even on par to the fighter in melee.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Eh. Wizards have traditionally had lots of ways to not even get attacked, so AC wasn't much of a serious drawback. They lost a few this edition, so AC is decent...

And concentration makes getting hit, at all, a bad thing.

No, you're missing the point again. The bladesinger gets AC only, which isn't poaching fighter goodies.

They might not be very good goodies - waving a sword about, having a high AC, waving the sword about some more with Extra Attack - nor in the least exclusive, but it's not like the fighter, in general, has a whole lot of other goodies, and the bladesinger has lifted a couple of 'em, while other wizards don't have 'em (and as you point out, don't have much use for 'em).

The bladesinger does very poorly at the job of tank over time because that high AC is covering the underlying fragility of the bladesinger. The bladesinger offers the ability to do a better job surviving in melee to other traditions...

That's about the limit of the it, yes. I mean, I've seen the point all along: The BS seems to be getting some dramatic bonuses relative to other traditions (and even classes), but they're in an area - melee offense, AC - that is largely superfluous to the wizard. Even though, in the past, it was considered a major vulnerability and balancing factor, it really isn't anymore, so being 'good' at it can be counted little more than a ribbon, what counts is how good a caster he is, and the AC helps with that, by keeping up concentration spells more easily, which is not out of line with other traditions' perks.

 

[clearstream]

The bladesinger gets AC only, which isn't poaching fighter goodies. The bladesinger does very poorly at the job of tank over time because that high AC is covering the underlying fragility of the bladesinger. The bladesinger offers the ability to do a better job surviving in melee to other traditions, but it doesn't poach anything from the fighter to do it because, outside of a few points of AC with high rolled scores, it doesn't do anything better or even on par to the fighter in melee.

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?