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

[smbakeresq]

I saw war wizard too. I really think that they are trying to build an blaster that can keep up damage wise with some-non wizard damage builds. I don't think its a good idea, and I don't think under the current ruleset it is all that possible or even desirable.

 

[clearstream]

UPDATE 2: I have evaluated the SCAG Bladesinger and cantrips, find them in the link below:

This assessment appears to miss a few key elements.

Armor and Weapon proficiency
Should be green. You need it to take Rapier.

Bladesong
I don't think it makes any sense to rate the components separately because they all come with the feature, no option, but as you have -
-- The buff to Acrobatics is for resisting shoves and grapples which would otherwise create a vulnerability. It's green or blue.
-- The bonus speed should be blue: being able to keep or close range is very strong. It's great in both your modes (melee and caster).

Extra Attack
Should be orange or red, it's worthless because you should be using the cantrips. It's just avoids brown because it lets you take two shots with your bow... should you ever need to use that.

Build Options
Traditional Bladesinger should be blue, it's amazing. Take Blur, beg a buff off your divine caster, and do whatever the hell you like. Or play full Wizard with concentration and movement advantages.
God Wizard should be red or brown. This is about the worst use of Bladesinger possible. If you want God Wizard, take a Diviner or Evoker like a sensible person.
Bladesinger (kind of) should be orange or red. Giving up a Wizard level for abilities you can do without. Warcaster is used by Bladesinger to abuse GFB and BB. You can't TWF with the cantrips.
Bladesinger as a two level dip should be green. Not as good as traditional, but decent for some gishes.
Paladin as a two level dip should be red or brown. Smite is good. Access to some of the buffs is good. Two levels of Wizard is better.

Cantrips
Booming Blade should be blue for Bladesingers. Think about how it works with Warcaster (which should be your second or third feat). And it enables Bladesinger with Blur to tank better than most martials (yes, better than plate and shield martials).

The review feels like attachment to the concept of God Wizard has gotten in the way of appreciating what Bladesinger is good at. It should be straight forward: don't choose Bladesinger if you want to play a God Wizard. Choose Diviner. If you want to approach wizardry a different (but equally powerful) way, take Bladesinger.

 

[jgsugden]

Yes, I have Xanathar's on pre-order with Amazon, when I get it, I will be mulling it over and I'm sure I will have an opinion to share.
All I've heard so far is that it is supposed to be an Abjuration/Evocation specialist that gets Int bonus to Initiative. My first thoughts were, "The spells that benefit most from initiative bonus aren't kaboom spells"

But you're such a fan of Kaboom wizards....

I think the idea is to try to make a version of wizards that can be an effective 'non-Godwizard' model - that can get in there, Alpha Strike with large area damage spells and then use magic from a dangerous front line position, wading in with Cones of Cold, etc... I think that is very hard to do within the existing framework of the wizard class.

I'll likely be adding the new spells to my guide as well.

Discussion of the new spells is one of the most interesting things to me. I'm really looking forward to seeing some favorites from past editions return, although I wonder if Tenser's Transformation will be more effective than a T-rex Polymorph, etc...

I also imagine you may want to revist some of your current spell analysis after we see the section on Spellcasting that discusses identifying a spell, perceiving a caster at work, invalid targets... Specific rules for identifying a spell as it is cast may have impacts on Counterspell, for example.

Some racial feats may be worth mentioning, and we may have some new multi-class options worth discussing as well. They put some effort into not making Int a dump stat for all other classes, afterall, and the Mastermind might be an interesting multiclass option for a 3 level dip.

 

[Phazonfish]

This assessment appears to miss a few key elements.

Armor and Weapon proficiency
Should be green. You need it to take Rapier.

Bladesong
I don't think it makes any sense to rate the components separately because they all come with the feature, no option, but as you have -
-- The buff to Acrobatics is for resisting shoves and grapples which would otherwise create a vulnerability. It's green or blue.
-- The bonus speed should be blue: being able to keep or close range is very strong. It's great in both your modes (melee and caster).

Extra Attack
Should be orange or red, it's worthless because you should be using the cantrips. It's just avoids brown because it lets you take two shots with your bow... should you ever need to use that.

Build Options
Traditional Bladesinger should be blue, it's amazing. Take Blur, beg a buff off your divine caster, and do whatever the hell you like. Or play full Wizard with concentration and movement advantages.
God Wizard should be red or brown. This is about the worst use of Bladesinger possible. If you want God Wizard, take a Diviner or Evoker like a sensible person.
Bladesinger (kind of) should be orange or red. Giving up a Wizard level for abilities you can do without. Warcaster is used by Bladesinger to abuse GFB and BB. You can't TWF with the cantrips.
Bladesinger as a two level dip should be green. Not as good as traditional, but decent for some gishes.
Paladin as a two level dip should be red or brown. Smite is good. Access to some of the buffs is good. Two levels of Wizard is better.

Cantrips
Booming Blade should be blue for Bladesingers. Think about how it works with Warcaster (which should be your second or third feat). And it enables Bladesinger with Blur to tank better than most martials (yes, better than plate and shield martials).

The review feels like attachment to the concept of God Wizard has gotten in the way of appreciating what Bladesinger is good at. It should be straight forward: don't choose Bladesinger if you want to play a God Wizard. Choose Diviner. If you want to approach wizardry a different (but equally powerful) way, take Bladesinger.

Keep in mind, he is assessing the Bladesinger abilities based on how useful they are to his "god wizard" support caster build, NOT how useful they are to a gish; for instance Booming Blade should not be blue because if you are in range to use it your number one priority is getting OUT of a range where you could use it.

 

[CapnZapp]

I wouldn't get into a Bladesinger discussion here as well, that poster is phenomenally resilient in not budging his view that subclass is omg-levels of OP, and none of our arguments have mattered.

I really hope that discussion can stay in the existing thread.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[clearstream]

I wouldn't get into a Bladesinger discussion here as well, that poster is phenomenally resilient in not budging his view that subclass is omg-levels of OP, and none of our arguments have mattered.

I really hope that discussion can stay in the existing thread.

This review covers Bladesinger. Therefore talking about that is appropriate for the thread. @Treantmonklvl20 makes their analysis using "God-Wizard" as its yardstick. Unsurprisingly, that leads to mistaken evaluations. It's like judging Black-forest Gateaux for it's qualities as a Cheesecake.

In the longer thread the arguments made have mattered where they could be carried: on many points forcing me to shift my position.

• I asserted that Bladesinger could tank better than most martials. It was robustly shown (page 35 of the thread) that at the point where a Battlemaster or Champion is pushed past its sustainable limit 67% of the time (making generous assumptions about their damage dealing advantages*) Bladesinger is pushed past its limit only 25% of the time. *I conceded that martials deal more damage, given few triggers of the BB secondary.
• I asserted that the ability array that makes it tank better than most martials by level 4 would be frequent**. It was robustly shown (page 39 of the thread) that the array occurs about 87% of the time in a 4 PC adventuring party. **I ignored arguments that the analysis should be made using the optional character generation method: as you have argued many times, the game should be balanced around the standard rules.
• I asserted that Bladesinger could do this so efficiently that it would still have spare high-level spell slots for wizardry. Once we ignore matters of style (e.g. resolving the encounter with an AoE versus a cantrip) it was demonstrated that Bladesinger, and Bladesinger's party, frequently*** has more resources left over for wizardry each day than the alternatives (due to the efficiency of Bladesong and the cantrips). ***This isn't a fully settled question, but I believe the counter-case cannot be proved.

Although those analyses focussed on specific scenarios, they were generalisable (we chose foes with high, not low, attack values for their CR, and I tried a range of values in our probability density functions).

In closing, you might mistake the purpose of my criticism. It was a technical criticism of the mechanics design, in part motivated by a desire to avoid a return to the splatbook power-creep of 3rd edition. I'm confident of the assessment. On a group by group basis that might not be a problem. They might never include one in their game, or if they do, theirs might have lower ability scores, or might skip over the choices that push it up the power curve. A group with a Bladesinger might not include any of the classes it potentially overshadows. And even if it does, the player running the character might still be contributing to the overall fun at the table.

I like the Bladesinger sub-class. It's mechanical balancing issues are a disappointment to me. However, the in-depth analysis I've made of it can shed light on the assessments here.

 

[clearstream]

Keep in mind, he is assessing the Bladesinger abilities based on how useful they are to his "god wizard" support caster build, NOT how useful they are to a gish; for instance Booming Blade should not be blue because if you are in range to use it your number one priority is getting OUT of a range where you could use it.

That's true. It is why I wrote in my criticism that -

The review feels like attachment to the concept of God Wizard has gotten in the way of appreciating what Bladesinger is good at. It should be straightforward: don't choose Bladesinger if you want to play a God Wizard. Choose Diviner. If you want to approach wizardry a different (but equally powerful) way, take Bladesinger.

It is good that [MENTION=55582]Treantmonklvl20[/MENTION] was forthright about their analytical approach at the outset. To paraphrase Goethe, we could ask of a game design -

1. What was the designer trying to do?
2. Was he/she successful in doing it?
3. Was it worth doing?

If our only answer to 3. is "If it is not a God-Wizard, then it is not worth doing", then that is going to make our analysis less useful for players who want to take another approach. That relates acutely to Bladesinger, because the sub-class strongly enables a Wizard to skirmish or tank in melee. (While remaining a full Wizard!)

 

[Phazonfish]

That's true. It is why I wrote in my criticism that -



It is good that [MENTION=55582]Treantmonklvl20[/MENTION] was forthright about their analytical approach at the outset. To paraphrase Goethe, we could ask of a game design -

1. What was the designer trying to do?
2. Was he/she successful in doing it?
3. Was it worth doing?

If our only answer to 3. is "If it is not a God-Wizard, then it is not worth doing", then that is going to make our analysis less useful for players who want to take another approach. That relates acutely to Bladesinger, because the sub-class strongly enables a Wizard to skirmish or tank in melee. (While remaining a full Wizard!)

I still think there is miscommunication here. I don't mean to speak for anyone else, but I believe Treantmonk's point isn't "if it is not a god wizard, then it is not worth doing" but rather "if it is not a god wizard, then it doesn't belong in my guide to god wizarding". If you want to discuss the merits of the Bladesinger with regards to skirmishing and tanking, look elsewhere.

 

[clearstream]

I still think there is miscommunication here. I don't mean to speak for anyone else, but I believe Treantmonk's point isn't "if it is not a god wizard, then it is not worth doing" but rather "if it is not a god wizard, then it doesn't belong in my guide to god wizarding". If you want to discuss the merits of the Bladesinger with regards to skirmishing and tanking, look elsewhere.

I can't find words in the documents provided stipulating that "Treantmonk-s-Guide-to-Wizards-5e" is a guide to "God-Wizards". The clearest intent that emerges is to create a guide to the most effective Wizardry. In that light, producing a bad assessment of Bladesinger features is unhelpful to readers. What we want is effectiveness! We should follow Treantmonk's own readiness to ignore others' denigrating his role choices, and continue to play what works. It is the outcome we should care about, not the style.

I’ve since softened my view on blast spells, and I assure you my Wizards once again hurl fireballs and the like, but it’s not their primary focus. The primary focus in 5e remains the same as it did in editions past: Provide tactical advantage to the team.

Bladesinger can provide tactical advantage to the team, but not by trying to be a "God-Wizard".

When reality would entail the above two meeting a rather messy end - someone will need to make some adjustments to said reality in order for the above two to instead meet glorious victory. What other label could such a force be labelled as than "God"? Well - how about "Primary Caster" One label or another - this guy needs to control reality to make sure the right team wins.

Bladesinger can control reality to make sure the right team wins, but not by trying to be a "God-Wizard".

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

Keep in mind, he is assessing the Bladesinger abilities based on how useful they are to his "god wizard" support caster build, NOT how useful they are to a gish

Actually, I was not rating the Bladesinger on those criteria, which is why (partially) my Bladesinger assessment isn't included in my guide. My Bladesinger review states my problem with the build (when used as a straight-wizard melee build), which is simply that defensively it is good, but offensively it is not. Melee builds (IMO) should either be:
1) Really good at dealing damage
or
2) pretty good at damage and good at taking hits

The Bladesinger doesn't fit either criteria (unless you multiclass, which I mention in the review).

Actually, and counter-intuitively, Bladesingers make not bad "god wizards", because those defensive boosts are actually quite good for a god wizard to have. I mention this in the review as well.

This assessment appears to miss a few key elements.

Armor and Weapon proficiency
Should be green. You need it to take Rapier.

Using a rapier over a shortsword (which elves will have proficiency in automatically), yeilds 1 additional point of damage. That one point might be relevant if bladesingers did OK damage, or even slightly struggled with damage, but since their damage is bad, one extra point is just bad+1. To get decent damage with a bladesinger, you need to multiclass, and that multiclass is going to get you rapier proficiency anyways. Based on that, this remains orange.

Bladesong
I don't think it makes any sense to rate the components separately because they all come with the feature, no option, but as you have -

I think the various components of Bladesong provide a different level of value. I figure that rating them separately provides a bit more detail in regards to my overall outlook on the ability. It also makes it more useful here as we debate the value of a few specific features.

-- The buff to Acrobatics is for resisting shoves and grapples which would otherwise create a vulnerability. It's green or blue.

If I'm playing a gish with a great Dex, and (assumably) Acrobatics proficiency, I fail to see a vulnerability here (unlike previous D&D editions). In fact, resistance to shoves and grapples is one of the areas where we can expect this character (even without this ability) to perform comparably to a full melee build. This ends up buffing up something that is already something you are likely not to be targeted for, making it highly circumstantial (and primarily a "flavor" ability). These kinds of abilities should be rated orange (which I did).

-- The bonus speed should be blue: being able to keep or close range is very strong. It's great in both your modes (melee and caster).

I disagree. In fact, I would say that a Bladesinger build has far less need to stay at close range than other melee builds, because of the versatility spells provide. Furthermore, again because of the versatility spells provide, we have (multiple) other means to stay in close range in those few cases where it is really important. That said, I always find extra speed useful in any build, so I ranked it green. If my 2H Paladin got this ability, THEN it would be blue.

Extra Attack
Should be orange or red, it's worthless because you should be using the cantrips. It's just avoids brown because it lets you take two shots with your bow... should you ever need to use that.

Bow? Yeah, probably not.

I disagree with you regarding the cantrips, in fact, I think this is the primary point of our disagreement on the Bladesinger. I will detail that more when we get to them.

Build Options

Traditional Bladesinger should be blue, it's amazing. Take Blur, beg a buff off your divine caster, and do whatever the hell you like.

To those not referencing my review, by "traditional bladesinger" we are referring to a straight class wizard bladesinger who takes a rapier (other hand free) and wades into melee using bladesong and BB or GFB.

I rated this option red because it turns a wizard into an offensively hopeless melee build. Not just worse than other melee builds, but WAY worse. This was explained in my red rating, and I don't see how your addition of "take blur" helps that at all (As I mention in the rating, defensively the build is already great. You can totally wade into melee and not get hit, and not contribute in any meaningful way, I just don't think that's effective). Tanks should be able to take hits and provide decent hits.

As I clearly explained why it was rated red in conjunction with the rating, you need to provide me with some counterpoint, either demonstrating how this build can be offensively capable, or explaining why I'm overvaluing offensive capability in a melee character. You have done neither here. If you can do so, and persuade me, then I will change the rating, but at this time, I consider red to be the correct rating for the reasons I provided with that rating.

Or play full Wizard with concentration and movement advantages.
God Wizard should be red or brown. This is about the worst use of Bladesinger possible. If you want God Wizard, take a Diviner or Evoker like a sensible person.

I've deliberately cut off the last part of your previous point and lumped it with this point. As you point out, if you cast spells with a bladesinger rather than swing a sword, those concentration and movement advantages are pretty good (the AC advantage is too). So why would I rate a Bladesinger played that way brown? Maybe I misunderstood what "Or play full Wizard with concentration and movement advantages." meant, but it seems to me like you rebutted your own point, so I won't bother piling on.

Bladesinger (kind of) should be orange or red. Giving up a Wizard level for abilities you can do without. Warcaster is used by Bladesinger to abuse GFB and BB. You can't TWF with the cantrips.

We have a difference of opinion on the value of GFB and BB, which I will get to. This is the reason (I think) for our disagreement here.

Bladesinger as a two level dip should be green. Not as good as traditional, but decent for some gishes.

What you are missing here is support for your opinion, so I really don't know what to do with it. I can't rebutt a point that isn't provided. IMO, 2 levels of Bladesinger is a fantastic dip for melee rogues in particular. I'm comfortable with the blue rating unless some evidence is provided to make me consider otherwise.

Paladin as a two level dip should be red or brown. Smite is good. Access to some of the buffs is good. Two levels of Wizard is better.

Again you are missing support for your position. Paladin as a multiclass specifically patches the primary problem with a melee Bladesinger. 2 more levels of Wizard does nothing to fix the problem.

Cantrips

Booming Blade should be blue for Bladesingers. Think about how it works with Warcaster (which should be your second or third feat). And it enables Bladesinger with Blur to tank better than most martials (yes, better than plate and shield martials).

One of us is missing something here. Are you talking about the Warcaster ability to cast a spell at someone who provokes an opportunity attack? How are you getting them to do that? I've heard of all kinds of strategies to "force" a provoke, but all of them I've seen involve a misunderstanding of the rules (usually a mistaken belief that standing up counts as movement, or that forced movement provokes attacks of opportunity). There is also a common misconception that forcing a move triggers the booming blade, although the spell specifically says the secondary damage only occurs if the target moves willingly.

As for Tanking, again, as I mention in my original assessment, and in this post, defensively the bladesinger is fine. Blur seems redundant to me, you aren't getting hit anyways. It's offensively where the Bladesinger stinks, and makes them a poor tank. WAY worse than a plate and shield martial.

So, if I understand your comments correctly, you have some method to ensure that the enemy willingly moves (and provokes an attack of opportunity) after you hit them with booming blade. Unless you share that method, we don't really have much to discuss as I don't know what that method is. To be honest, at this point I'm suspicious that it is based on a misunderstanding of how these abilities are triggered, as I've had that come up before.

The review feels like attachment to the concept of God Wizard has gotten in the way of appreciating what Bladesinger is good at. It should be straight forward: don't choose Bladesinger if you want to play a God Wizard. Choose Diviner. If you want to approach wizardry a different (but equally powerful) way, take Bladesinger.

If it has gotten in the way, it hasn't intentionally. Broken down, my assessment is that the Bladesinger is great defensively, but bad offensively. Booming Blade and GFB are not good damage dealers on their own (unless mixed with something like sneak attack, even then, they are a minor boost), and Wizards don't really have any spells or abilities that enhance them. You have discussed the value of Blur and improved movement to this build, but I fail to see how those help with the primary problem.