D&D 5E Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards 5e

[CapnZapp]

The Bladesinger used to be able to cast and attack with a blade at the same time similar to an Eldritch Knight. That's kind of the whole point of bladesinging. This Bladesinger can't do that, at least without multiclassing.

So, what would this mean? Casting a full spell and getting a full attack routine (one attack until level six; then two)?

Not harping on you Celtavian. Just getting impatient with the "bladesinger sucks" claim with no practical suggestions on how to make it work without it getting completely OP.

As I see it, as soon as you add "gets to take the Attack action each round" you no longer get to cast a full spell each round.

So, before letting disappointment get to us; we must first define what bladesinging can mean in the 5E framework.

Attack plus Cantrip
Spell plus... what?

Otherwise we're down the path of increasingly convolute ways to keep the power under control. "Smiting" is one, though personally I would not think a Wizard would want to waste away her slots on piddly damage.

An elaborate system that says "if you cast a spell at least M levels below your capacity, you can make one sword attack as a bonus action; if you cast a spell at least N levels below your capacity, you can make a full sword attack as a bonus action". Example: at level 10 you can cast level 5 spells. If you use a level three slot, you get to bladesing one attack. If you use a level two slot, you get to bladesing fully (two attacks).

In this case getting three bladesing attacks would require you to be level 18 casting level one spells. Eleven fighter levels for the three attacks; then seven Bladesinger levels to gain level four slots (N=3 here). Hmmm. It already sounds like way too much work for very little benefit.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

Back to what I really want to know:

Your evaluation seems disappointed the Bladesinger can't emulate your image of an "elf with a sword in one hand, spells casting from the other, all while wearing some cool elven chain".

But what do you really feel is missing? What martial offense would you give the class?

I guess if I were to design the class option myself, I would have given it less defense and more offense. There needs to be some offensive ability at the 2nd level bladesong abilities.

I'm not a game designer, but since you put me on the spot, I guess I would remove the 2nd level AC bonus, and instead provide the Int damage bonus. Wizards have other defensive options anyways, and the Bladesinger gets the ability to absorb damage later on as well. At 14th level I would then apply the AC bonus.

I'm asking because you never discuss why it might be that the SCAG class can't fulfil your Bladesinger hopes.

It's the lack of offense, or to be more specific, it's the concentration of lower level bladesinger powers on defense. If I'm going to swing a sword in combat with my wizard, the sword needs to be a solid offensive option for the character.

You say the traditional Bladesinger is "Bad or nearly useless", which is somewhat strong to say about a full spellcasting class with access to level 9 spells and the full Wizard spell list.

Let me qualify that criticism. The Bladesinger becomes bad as a melee combatant. Naturally, any full class Wizard is quite powerful when they cast spells. Note that I gave the class a green rating if just used as a defensive buff for a regular spellcaster.

However, if that bladesinger draws their sword and becomes worse for doing so, I don't think the option achieves what it should.

Is it the cantrips? Would your evaluation of the traditional Bladesinger be better if the new cantrips simply didn't exist?

I won't say they don't make any difference at all, because when evaluating character options, I tend to evaluate them compared to similar options. I couldn't help but note that certain other melee/spellcasting options become more powerful with the addition of the cantrips, which makes the Bladesinger worse by comparison.

However, since there are absolutely zero offensive abilities this class gains (beyond that of a normal wizard with a sword) before level 6, and then only a single extra attack until level 14, I would still find the Bladesinger lacking as a melee option, compared to say a Valor Bard or Cleric until level 14, which seems really late to me to be catching up.

You say "this is a decent tradition for Wizards who have no intention of ever using a weapon" as if that's a bad thing.

Nope, I think it's a good thing, and a saving grace of the subclass. I could see playing the subclass just to get all the great abilities added to my wizard. I just wouldn't be drawing a sword. From a mechanical point that's fine, as the subclass offers enough power to be a viable option, it just doesn't turn your wizard into an effective melee character IMO.

But how do you incentivize the Wizard to ever use a weapon, given all her spells?

If you take a look at most Clerics, you will find them using weapons, though not all Clerics use weapons. Either choice works well depending on your build/focus. This is what the Bladesinger should achieve, to have drawing a weapon not be a bad idea. I note that Clerics have a number of spells that help them be more effective in melee (Spirit guardians and Spiritual weapon come to mind), perhaps Bladesingers should be given abilities or spell options that provide benefits that compare in offensive boost.

And again I ask your comment on the argument the Bladesinger turns the blade-wielding Wizard from terrible to not-an-embarrasment-to-yourself which might be good enough.

Yes, I do think with a bit of a Multiclass you can still make the concept work, which is definitely a good thing. I note Mellowred made a suggestion regarding Paladin 2/Wizard X, I hadn't thought of that, and the more I think about it, the more I like it. In fact, I think I'm going to give him xp for that post right now.

If anything, your assessment of the God Wizard build makes me weep for the Sorcerer. One of the last small reasons to ever play a Sorcerer was the extra sturdiness of the Draconic subclass. Not any more.

In my opinion, the draw of the sorcerer has nothing to do with sturdiness, it's about those sorcery points and how they can enhance spells.

Hopefully that answers your questions.

 

[mellored]

Divine Smite on a full caster is probably too much. But a 3rd level slot for 4d8 guaranteed to a single target vs. 8d6 save for 4d6 vs. multiple opponents from Fireball or Lightning Bolt isn't an efficient use. Heck, a single target fireball that they save against does the same as the divine smite.

more like 5d8+dex = 27.5, not expended if you miss and can crit.
vs 8d6 = 28, 1/2 on a miss.

and fireball is also above the norm.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

snip

yeah, the damage bonus is late and the multi attack does not play well with the new cantrips... but calling the bladesinger wizard out as a bad melee combatant? NO. He is ok. At least as good as the cleric, Durable and you can still cast spells that enhance your melee ability considerably. Magic weapon, elemental weapon, and other offensive spells. Haste, while a little risky at other wizards, should work well with your concentration bonus. Thing is, dexterity should be your highest stat, followed by Int, and then constitution.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

yeah, the damage bonus is late and the multi attack does not play well with the new cantrips... but calling the bladesinger wizard out as a bad melee combatant? NO. He is ok. At least as good as the cleric, Durable and you can still cast spells that enhance your melee ability considerably. Magic weapon, elemental weapon, and other offensive spells. Haste, while a little risky at other wizards, should work well with your concentration bonus. Thing is, dexterity should be your highest stat, followed by Int, and then constitution.

You think the Bladesinger compares decently to the Cleric for offense? I would be interested to know why. Keep in mind that you can use magic weapon OR elemental weapon OR haste. A Cleric can have Spiritual weapon plus the ultra potent Spirit guardians at once in addition to weapon attacks. Depending on the kind of Cleric you play there can be more goodies including extra attacks, bonuses to hit, and more.

The oft maligned Blade Pact Warlock also contains an offensive punch right from level 1 that the Bladesinger simply cannot match until 14th level.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I know about the concentration rule. And yes, if you count cleric spells, yeah he may be a little ahead... but the wizard has spells too.
A bard is surely no better in melee however and the bladesinger mirrors its extra attack progression.
If you don't discount the fact that the wizard may soften up the targets before entering melee you may notice that the wizard is dangerous enough. And last but not least, as an elf with decent dex you can always employ the longbow which compares favourably vs eldritch blast.
Maybe the bladesinger is also designed with multiclassing fighter in mind, if you want to focus on pure melee.

 

[Celtavian]

So, what would this mean? Casting a full spell and getting a full attack routine (one attack until level six; then two)?

Not harping on you Celtavian. Just getting impatient with the "bladesinger sucks" claim with no practical suggestions on how to make it work without it getting completely OP.

As I see it, as soon as you add "gets to take the Attack action each round" you no longer get to cast a full spell each round.

So, before letting disappointment get to us; we must first define what bladesinging can mean in the 5E framework.

Attack plus Cantrip
Spell plus... what?

Otherwise we're down the path of increasingly convolute ways to keep the power under control. "Smiting" is one, though personally I would not think a Wizard would want to waste away her slots on piddly damage.

An elaborate system that says "if you cast a spell at least M levels below your capacity, you can make one sword attack as a bonus action; if you cast a spell at least N levels below your capacity, you can make a full sword attack as a bonus action". Example: at level 10 you can cast level 5 spells. If you use a level three slot, you get to bladesing one attack. If you use a level two slot, you get to bladesing fully (two attacks).

In this case getting three bladesing attacks would require you to be level 18 casting level one spells. Eleven fighter levels for the three attacks; then seven Bladesinger levels to gain level four slots (N=3 here). Hmmm. It already sounds like way too much work for very little benefit.

I stated what I would do in another SCAG thread: I would have built a class (chassis I guess you would refer to it) like the Pathfinder Magus and made Bladesinger an archetype. Building Bladesinger off of a wizard is a bad idea in my opinion. I would have waited until I did some more with the game before I incorporated one of the more popular FR archetypes. I might have even built the Bladesinger off the bard, which in this edition might have made more sense allowing them to use Inspiration in interesting ways. With this current version, I'll explore multiclass options to see if can make an interesting bladesinger. At the moment I think there are more interesting wizard archetypes than the Bladesinger, which I find doesn't do what it should do conceptually. It should have at least had the ability to cast a spell and make an attack in the same turn as the bare minimum without having to use on of those awful cantrips.

To me it's more of a disconnect by the game designers:
1. They don't test the damage against other builds at higher level. This problem is common to most class based RPGs.
2. They have mechanics that breakdown once you incorporate things like feats. The math starts to break down once you incorporate these options. Since D&D provided these options, it would be nice if the game designers included in each book optional feats to balance things out for those of us using them.

 

[CapnZapp]

Thanks, Treeantmonk and Celtavian.

My problem though with "more offense, less defense" is that a Wizard without defense won't enter melee.

To encourage a spellcaster to enter melee, and forego his spellcasting, I would need:
* better than average AC (since I have less than average hit points)
* serious advantages visavi concentration, compared to the regular spellcaster, since my defensive buffs are worthless if they go poof when I get hit
* fighter-like damage output, since why otherwise risk melee?

That's why I want to question the fundamental premise of the bladesinger.

What fighting ability do you expect? What spellcasting ability do you expect?

Because as I see it, the only balance that would make me enter melee, is the Eldritch Knight's:
Very good melee offense (in fact, full fighter chassis)
Very good melee defense (in fact, full fighter chassis)
Rather crappy spellcasting, so much so spells can never outshine my sword

Building the bladesinger on the Wizard chassis has fundamental problems. I realize you love how the Bladesinger is a full wizard with level 9 spells, but that is the very crux of the problem.

Even if my bladesinger got full Eldritch Knight melee offense and defense, I probably STILL would not enter melee. I probably STILL would play the character as your God Wizard.

I guess my point is that the only way you'll get a minmaxer to go up close to danger and poke holes in it, is if all other options are less effective.

And in fact, that's the whole raison d'être for the fantasy genre. You NEED rules that explain why you would ever go full Conan. The whole basis for hit point buffers and nerfed ranged fire and only five fireballs a day is precisely this: to justify the existence of in-yer-face fighters.

D&D already has the problem where ranged combat can be as effective as melee combat, without even the most fundamental disadvantages (ignore cover, ignore being in melee). In this case, you can be a ranged combatant that rains fire on your foes. That only exacerbate the issue.

 

[CapnZapp]

If I'm going to swing a sword in combat with my wizard, the sword needs to be a solid offensive option for the character.

In my opinion a character with wizard AC and wizard hp needs to be significantly better with a sword than the fighter, for melee combat to be an option.

Perhaps if bladesinging waived all concentration limitations for a select group of spells (cast at "self")? No "only one at a time". No "pain wrecks your mojo".

Meaning that during a bladesong the character could buff himself with every melee buff? Seriously - I mean all of them at the same time, with little or no risk of them falling off when I get hit.

Maybe that would entice me to actually enter melee. Just maybe.

 

[Blue]

more like 5d8+dex = 27.5, not expended if you miss and can crit.
vs 8d6 = 28, 1/2 on a miss.

and fireball is also above the norm.

True, you are also getting weapon damage in it. It's only expended on a hit, while the Fireball is expended regardless fo save, but it's full or half, not full or none.

The spells we're talking about can be multi-target, which can be efficient in softening up many opponents. Divine Smite you can apply with every attack, so you can apply it a lot more frequently if not as efficiently in terms of spell slot offensive usage, but a dead foe doesn't hit back so perhaps more efficiently in terms of defensive/healing resources from the party if there are few, big targets.

All in all, it seems complementary, with damaging spells (a subset) probably better at speed of damage for multiple opponents and divine smite at speed of damge for single opponent (assuming multiple attacks). That sore of makes someone who has both as well as utility spells and good defenses covering TOO many points.

So maybe I'm glad bladesinger doesn't have divine smite, because then they could shine in too many arenas - I think they have ones they shine in now already.