D&D 5E [GUIDE] NADRIGOL's Melee Bladesinger Guide

[DND_Reborn]

Bladesingers get light armor proficiency though, so it doesn't really give you any better than studded leather...

Helps a lot when I rolled a STR 8 though. I really don't like the extra weight of armor, and besides the unarmored defense boon is extra to every thing else.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This is a good illustration of why the rule exists that you can't use two different AC formulas on top of each other. It's odd to me that you were so worried about how expertise interacted with bounded accuracy but you don't mind throwing out bounded accuracy when it comes to AC calculations.

Also if you want to use agile parry you have to give up at least one of your normal weapon attacks for a punch since it requires the unarmed strike to be part of the attack action -- the monk bonus action unarmed strike doesn't qualify. Not a huge cost once you have extra attack, since you're just trading a d8 for a d4, but it's something.

Rules that work that make sense logically, mechanically, and for balance are fine. If it doesn't meet all three, something else should.

I was never worried about expertise and bounded accuracy. I've never concerned myself with BA other than I have never had the problem it was meant to "solve" and don't like BA anyway. My issue was expertise didn't make logical sense with a rogue simply being better potentially at any other skill than other classes. A wizard, for instance, should be able to have as good an Arcana as a rogue, and better in most cases.

Yeah, the Agile Parry part really won't come until later if I want to both attack with a weapon and get the AC bonus. But once I have extra attack, I can do both.

 

[Esker]

To me a nice thing also is with kensei, longswords become monk weapons and you can use your DEX for attack and damage rolls.

The rapier of course already lets you use DEX, and if you're bladesinging you can't use the longsword two-handed. But I guess it's more likely that you'll run across a magical longsword, so that's nice (and it gives you a different damage type).

 

[DND_Reborn]

The rapier of course already lets you use DEX, and if you're bladesinging you can't use the longsword two-handed. But I guess it's more likely that you'll run across a magical longsword, so that's nice (and it gives you a different damage type).

Normally true, but we don't have rapiers in our game because they don't match our game's flavor/style so the longsword was my best choice for kensei.

 

[Esker]

I was never worried about expertise and bounded accuracy. I've never concerned myself with BA other than I have never had the problem it was meant to "solve" and don't like BA anyway.

I'm not inclined to go back and dig up a quote, but I'm pretty sure BA was a reason you cited for wanting to change how expertise worked. Though I guess in the course of that conversation it became clear that it wasn't really what you were worried about since you didn't like any of the suggestions that addressed it and actually went the opposite direction with your chosen fix.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm not inclined to go back and dig up a quote, but I'm pretty sure BA was a reason you cited for wanting to change how expertise worked. Though I guess in the course of that conversation it became clear that it wasn't really what you were worried about since you didn't like any of the suggestions that addressed it and actually went the opposite direction with your chosen fix.

No, it was because there is no reason for a rogue/bard to be better at skills than classes built (in essence) for them, such as Arcana/Wizard and the Athletics/Fighter issue.

If BA came up at all it was because BA is needless as far as I am concerned, or should have been expanded to 40 as the desired limit, not 30.

 

[Esker]

We saw it as game-breaking as the rogue could sneak into and out of places without hardly a risk of being noticed. Yeah, we get it, he is mid-level with a great DEX and expertise, he should be good, but there comes a point where it takes some of the excitement out of the game when you are making hard checks routinely.

In other words, the rogue sneaks successfully on average about 90% of the time. THAT is a bit too high in our book.

RAW the rogue was nearly impossible to find because so few creatures have 15+ passive perceptions. I mean, even earlier on the rogue was +10 back with RAW at level 5. Most creatures then only had passive scores of 10-14 at best. So, all the rogue needed was a 5 to be nearly undetectable. The DM decided that was just TOO good

You may not have used the words but this is bounded accuracy you're talking about here: the chance of failure becomes too low as bonuses get very high. So why, if this is an issue for stealth, is it not an issue for attack rolls? If you're allowing mage armor and unarmored defense to stack, you're creating a situation where you could very well have an AC at which many level-appropriate creatures literally need a crit to hit you.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You may not have used the words but this is bounded accuracy you're talking about here: the chance of failure becomes too low as bonuses get very high. So why, if this is an issue for stealth, is it not an issue for attack rolls? If you're allowing mage armor and unarmored defense to stack, you're creating a situation where you could very well have an AC at which many level-appropriate creatures literally need a crit to hit you.

So, I guess you were inclined after all?

That is an issue with the creatures he was around having horrible perceptions. The average perception for monsters is only something like 13 maybe, IF they are even proficient in perception. I think at higher CRs it might get closer to 15 IIRC. I had an excel spreadsheet on it, but can't find it and probably deleted it after the other thread died off. In the rogue example, all that was required was expertise in stealth (very normal IME) and a good DEX (for a rogue, also very normal...).

And attack bonus are better than passive perceptions. The high AC requires many factors including multiclassing, using non-permanent resources (bladesong), devoting an attack to a non-superior damaging weapon (unarmed vs. longsword) for agile parry, having rolled lucky ability scores, and possibly devoting another resource for Shield spells.

Seen in a more typical light, at level 5 anyway, you are more likely to have AC 18 (13 + 3 DEX + 2 WIS) even including mage armor until you invoke the bladesong, bumping it to 21. Hardly game-breaking since a character can have an AC 21 at level 1. Throwing in a Shield spell is no different than an Eldritch Knight doing it.

So, all things considered, no I don't have a problem with this, especially when the character is built for high AC given lower HP and uses many features/resources to get it (instead of just one or two often used for such with the expertise/stealth example). If expertise had an additional cost, such as a bonus action even, I would not feel as strongly that it is too powerful.

 

[Esker]

So, I guess you were inclined after all?

Only after you denied it a second time...

Seen in a more typical light, at level 5 anyway, you are more likely to have AC 18 (13 + 3 DEX + 2 WIS) even including mage armor until you invoke the bladesong, bumping it to 21. Hardly game-breaking since a character can have an AC 21 at level 1. Throwing in a Shield spell is no different than an Eldritch Knight doing it.

I wasn't even taking the Shield spell into account, since it's a much more limited resource than bladesong is. But it is a little different than an EK doing it since they're a 1/3 caster whereas you're a full caster minus a bit for the monk dip.

You can only (I think) have AC 21 at level 1 if you are a fighter who foregoes a bunch of damage potential to wear a shield and take defense style, and you somehow acquire plate mail, which costs 1500gp. Since the fighter has to give up damage to get that AC it seems fair to assume agile parry which has a similar opportunity cost. So compared to the fighter who is fully optimized for AC and has spent a whole bunch of gold on armor, the level 3 monk/bladesinger with your house rule using mage armor, bladesong and agile parry (all of which can be on pretty much permanently) has 13 + 3 + 3 + 2 + 2 = 23.

Thinking about typical level 3 encounters, in LMoP you're facing things like hobgoblins, who have a +3 attack bonus. So even without shield, they need a crit to hit you. Essentially your house rule has cut your chances of being hit by 2/3 (since RAW they would still need an 18, which is 3 in 20, which you've reduced to 1 in 20). Against a +4 attack bonus you're cutting hits against you by half; against +5, by 40%. That means that over the course of an adventuring day you can take about twice as many attacks before going down. That's a really significant impact of a house rule. Granted it's less of an impact at higher levels as attack bonuses go up, but maybe not by that much since you're a class that can raise their AC and their casting stat, or their AC and their attack stat, with the same ASI, and so you're continuing to go up in AC even as attack bonuses rise.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Only after you denied it a second time...

And I'll continue to deny the purpose of those other threads really has anything to do with BA other than it is too restrictive.

I wasn't even taking the Shield spell into account, since it's a much more limited resource than bladesong is. But it is a little different than an EK doing it since they're a 1/3 caster whereas you're a full caster minus a bit for the monk dip.

You can only (I think) have AC 21 at level 1 if you are a fighter who foregoes a bunch of damage potential to wear a shield and take defense style, and you somehow acquire plate mail, which costs 1500gp. Since the fighter has to give up damage to get that AC it seems fair to assume agile parry which has a similar opportunity cost. So compared to the fighter who is fully optimized for AC and has spent a whole bunch of gold on armor, the level 3 monk/bladesinger with your house rule using mage armor, bladesong and agile parry (all of which can be on pretty much permanently) has 13 + 3 + 3 + 2 + 2 = 23.

Thinking about typical level 3 encounters, in LMoP you're facing things like hobgoblins, who have a +3 attack bonus. So even without shield, they need a crit to hit you. Essentially your house rule has cut your chances of being hit by 2/3 (since RAW they would still need an 18, which is 3 in 20, which you've reduced to 1 in 20). Against a +4 attack bonus you're cutting hits against you by half; against +5, by 40%. That means that over the course of an adventuring day you can take about twice as many attacks before going down. That's a really significant impact of a house rule. Granted it's less of an impact at higher levels as attack bonuses go up, but maybe not by that much since you're a class that can raise their AC and their casting stat, or their AC and their attack stat, with the same ASI, and so you're continuing to go up in AC even as attack bonuses rise.

Sure, it isn't easy to have AC 21 at level 1, but possible. And even if my elf wizard/monk has such a good AC, it isn't until level 5. And because he is multiclass, it will be at least a couple more levels before he gets Extra Attack, so using Agile Parry is hurting his offensive abilities. I am fine with that trade-off since it is an option for me to decide to go offensive or defensive so to speak.

By level 5, I am not worried about hobgoblins. Most of the creature I am likely to face by level 5 will have closer to +6 or +7 on their attack rolls. An ogre, for instance, is +6. So, yes I am hard to hit with agile parry and bladesong active, but that is the point is it not? And yes, I see it as less of an impact as I level. While I might boost my INT when I get an ASI or two, the attack bonuses go up at a relatively equal ot better rate.

So, again, not game breaking by any means. Strong, of course, but that was the point.