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

krunchyfrogg · Oct 30, 2017

NADRIGOL said:
Same for me. If that's Google, it's awfully presumptuous... If that's WotC, it's a shity move. I think most likely some random person reported it and it got auto shutdown by a Google algorithm. Definitely unfair given there were no word-for-word copies of anything from the rulebooks in this guide.

Would love to hear from TreantMonk whether he still has access to it since it's his Doc. Also whether there are options to have the takeown reviewed. If not, we should all be making local backup copies of our guides!

If there are any local guides that can be emailed offline, I'll take one at krunchyfrogg@gmail.com please!

NADRIGOL · Oct 30, 2017

krunchyfrogg said:
If there are any local guides that can be emailed offline, I'll take one at krunchyfrogg@gmail.com please!

If there's an author accessible copy, it can just be put in a new google doc and the OP link changed. No emails should be necessary.

Paladin1379 · Oct 30, 2017

Fulgetra said:
Is anyone else having issues with the spell guide? It is currently saying that it is in violation of Google's TOS for me.

I'm getting the same notice when I try to access it. It was definitely working just this past Friday.

jgsugden · Oct 30, 2017

I feel like we're overthinking a lot of details here - No model will accurately reflect an adventuring career, so it is best to think in more generalized terms. Otherwise you'll end up posting long diatribe posts that bicker over minute details that are not always applicable or accurate.

Offense almost always is more important in 5E than defense. The best way to avoid damage from an attack is to kill the enemy before they attack. So, yes, the damage dealt differential is more important than the AC, generally speaking. Per the above, this is not always going to be true, but it is most often true.

Regarding the 'good' bard: Any character that gets Multi-attack, can have GWM, and has access to Haste or 'some per strike damage boosts' is at least good. Good is not great, afterall. If you rank the expected damage of all of the melee classes, there is generally a gap between big weapon fighters and one handed weapon melee characters - and the valor bard sits above that gap when using a big weapon, and thus is at least good. That is all good means.

EK, Valor Bard and Bladelock: All can have GWM and Multiattack by 5th (or 6th level). So can paladin, but it has no Arcane elements at that point, so not a Gish. All also do a bit better at damage dealing the valor bard, so I put all of them a bit above the valor bard in offensive melee.

Mooseberg0620 · Oct 31, 2017

I dont suppose anyone has the part 2?

Treantmonklvl20 · Oct 31, 2017

Hey Everyone - quick update for Oct 30th.

Apparently part 2 of my guide has been "flagged as inappropriate" on google docs and I am no longer able to share it.

I've requested a review as I'm not sure why it would have been flagged.

I've copied it to a new doc, here's a link.

P.S. - anyone who would like to cut-and-paste the document to have their own copy is welcome to do so.

Treantmonklvl20 · Oct 31, 2017

vonklaude said:
First, I definitely acknowledge that BS can't compete with martial melee damage at most levels. Prima facie they do a third to half of what a martial does.

Here's the thing, no matter how good every other aspect of BS is, this is an absolute deal-breaker. You have basically just said that a Bladesinger can either cast spells in combat as a full wizard, or pull a rapier and do 1/3-1/2 the damage that a melee character would normally be expected to do instead. Why would anyone choose the latter option?

It doesn't matter if AC is very good, or if movement is very good. That's like trying to sell a car with no engine by trying to convince the buyer it's worth it because of the new brakes and great sound system. Sorry, the car needs an engine or those other things don't matter.

vonklaude said:
Another poster however got me thinking about Haste (instead of Blur), however. In many scenarios, Haste is defensively sufficient. It allows the BS at say 6th level to cast a cantrip, and then take an Attack action for an attack and an off-hand attack. That yields damage close to non-GWM martials, but with considerably better AC.

First thing I would mention is that I don't understand your facination with blur for BS. The BS already has a good AC, and can use mirror image and shield to become exceedingly difficult to hit without use of concentration. Remember that car with no engine? Blur is like upgrading the speakers. Engine! You need a working engine! The sound system is fine.

As for comparison, I don't think it's fair to compare the BS to martials (assuming by martials you mean paladins, fighters or barbarians) as they are not primary casters. Much more fair to compare it to a melee cleric for example. Trust me though, a detailed damage comparison between a melee cleric and a BS will be just embarassing for the BS. Haste will help, but not nearly enough. This is true at low, mid and high levels. Due to time constraints, I don't see doing a mathematical comparison tonight or tomorrow, but perhaps on Thursday, I'm confident my assumptions are reasonably accurate based on previous mathematical comparisons done, but we shall see.

vonklaude said:
To put it really frankly, the evaluation seemed so off-the-mark that I was grasping for an explanation. Particularly on the build options. Take the Paladin-dip as an example. I agree that on the surface Fighting Style + Smite looks good, but two Wizard levels means more casts, and at every other level access to higher-level spells!

Except you aren't primarily casting spells in combat, you are swinging a rapier, and you are bad at it, really bad. Paladin gives the car an engine. That isn't a luxury, it's a must-have if you want to use that rapier instead of casting spells.

vonklaude said:
A 4th level BS/2nd Paladin is neat. I rate access to 3 more casts, all 3rd level Wizard spells, better than that. What do you think?

I'll take the 3rd level spells, unless of course I want to use a weapon in combat instead of spells, then I NEED the Paladin levels. Poking someone with a rapier and doing a fraction of the damage that a party member using a weapon should be expected to do isn't OK when you proclaim, "But I have 3rd level spells! I just don't cast them because I'm busy using this sword really poorly."

vonklaude said:
Apologies, I forgot that while some readers know the thread in question, others wouldn't. It is here http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?588010-Bladesinger-a-criticism-of-its-design/page35. Regarding my opening post, my understanding became better and more nuanced as the thread evolved. I still feel BS is from a technical point of view, incorrect game design. That not because of "OMG levels of OP" as some posters put it (a view I never held), but because of what it is intended to do and how it goes about doing that.

I will maybe take a look when I have more time.

vonklaude said:
Bladesinger gives a nod to the traditions, but what they were making with the sub-class is a uniquely 5th-edition fighting wizard.

They succeeded in making an excellent defensive wizard, but not a fighting wizard. "Fighting" would suggest that it would not be a terrible tactical option for a straight BS to pull out their rapier and attack with it, but currently, that is the case. There are fixes, which I've discussed in my review, but they involve multiclassing.

CapnZapp · Oct 31, 2017

Treantmonklvl20 said:
Here's the thing, no matter how good every other aspect of BS is, this is an absolute deal-breaker. You have basically just said that a Bladesinger can either cast spells in combat as a full wizard, or pull a rapier and do 1/3-1/2 the damage that a melee character would normally be expected to do instead. Why would anyone choose the latter option?

It doesn't matter if AC is very good, or if movement is very good. That's like trying to sell a car with no engine by trying to convince the buyer it's worth it because of the new brakes and great sound system. Sorry, the car needs an engine or those other things don't matter.

This is what we told vonklaude repeatedly, to no avail. He persisted past every way we presented this fundamental argument, and that other thread is hundreds of posts long.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

clearstream · Oct 31, 2017

jgsugden said:
Offense almost always is more important in 5E than defense. The best way to avoid damage from an attack is to kill the enemy before they attack. So, yes, the damage dealt differential is more important than the AC, generally speaking. Per the above, this is not always going to be true, but it is most often true.

I'm wavering in my agreement with this. Say at level 6 our foes have between them 300 HP? If the party deals 50 per round: the combat is over in 5 rounds. Traditionally, we want to reduce the number of attacks back to the minimum so we focus on damage to reduce the number of rounds. But... what if the attacks back don't matter? Concretely, what if forcing defenses pays off more in declining the consequence of attacks back, than forcing damage to reduce rounds does?

jgsugden said:
Regarding the 'good' bard: Any character that gets Multi-attack, can have GWM, and has access to Haste or 'some per strike damage boosts' is at least good. Good is not great, afterall. If you rank the expected damage of all of the melee classes, there is generally a gap between big weapon fighters and one handed weapon melee characters - and the valor bard sits above that gap when using a big weapon, and thus is at least good. That is all good means.

Okay. I guess I never thought about Valor Bard that way because I dislike the idea of going toe-to-toe in AC 15 (due to needing Strength for the heavy weapon). With Haste running, it approaches GWM Battlemaster damage and AC goes to 17 so that could work. It'll fall behind again at level 11, but that is after 2/3rds of its probable career after all.

jgsugden said:
EK, Valor Bard and Bladelock: All can have GWM and Multiattack by 5th (or 6th level). So can paladin, but it has no Arcane elements at that point, so not a Gish. All also do a bit better at damage dealing the valor bard, so I put all of them a bit above the valor bard in offensive melee.

I think gishes are my favourite "class"

Although I believe a Bladelock who goes GWM is asking to die a lot, given they're using Light Armor and a Strength weapon! Maybe with the right ability array (and TBH it's a general feature of gishes that they need at least two solid ability scores).

clearstream · Oct 31, 2017

Treantmonklvl20 said:
Here's the thing, no matter how good every other aspect of BS is, this is an absolute deal-breaker. You have basically just said that a Bladesinger can either cast spells in combat as a full wizard, or pull a rapier and do 1/3-1/2 the damage that a melee character would normally be expected to do instead. Why would anyone choose the latter option?

It doesn't matter if AC is very good, or if movement is very good. That's like trying to sell a car with no engine by trying to convince the buyer it's worth it because of the new brakes and great sound system. Sorry, the car needs an engine or those other things don't matter.

Definitely the low damage is a fact. The PCs would like to limit the consequence of attacks back, and traditionally we've understood forcing damage to be the route to that. A typical encounter at say level 6 will have foes with about 300 HP. Any two members of a party of four probably deal out 50 damage, so if they are the only damage dealers the combat will go 6 rounds. So long as we're agnostic on matters of style, if defenses can decline the consequence of attacks back sufficiently, the importance of one more character dealing damage becomes minimal.

Or to put it another way, damage has a diminishing return in 5e. Above a threshold, the PCs are winning anyway. So the question becomes, how efficiently did we decline any consequences in return? I accept that isn't the traditional way of looking at things, and I've had to accept some blinkered input from some posters due to that.

Treantmonklvl20 said:
First thing I would mention is that I don't understand your facination with blur for BS. The BS already has a good AC, and can use mirror image and shield to become exceedingly difficult to hit without use of concentration. Remember that car with no engine? Blur is like upgrading the speakers. Engine! You need a working engine! The sound system is fine.

When we do the maths using probability density functions, we find Blur is simply far above everything else for defensive value conditioned upon how good your AC is to start with. Mirror Image is perfect if we don't anticipate too many incoming attacks per day. The low AC of the images makes it less efficient if we do, and doubly so if we need to stack it with something else which could also take two rounds out of combat (I assume an average of one for BS). Cantrips like Booming Blade and Lightning Lash tip BS toward a tanking role, not damage dealing role, in melee. Blur powerfully enables that.

Is it right that a key lense for your analysis is damage dealing? Mine is efficiency irrespective of how we get there, which is broad and time-consuming to understand and resolve. I think BS is more efficient as a tank rather than a damage dealer, and I think most parties can put out enough damage among the other members that if BS can tank successfully that's melee-mission accomplished.

Here I feel we could both be right because for me it's the flexible role of gishes that makes them most appealing. As BS I can switch to full caster and buff, debuff, AoE and CC, I can switch to reasonable damage dealer with Haste, I can switch to fantastic tank with Blur.

Treantmonklvl20 said:
I'll take the 3rd level spells, unless of course I want to use a weapon in combat instead of spells, then I NEED the Paladin levels. Poking someone with a rapier and doing a fraction of the damage that a party member using a weapon should be expected to do isn't OK when you proclaim, "But I have 3rd level spells! I just don't cast them because I'm busy using this sword really poorly."

Through tanking rather than damage dealing, BS can serve the party very efficiently. So much so that it ends up with high-level casts free to do whatever is needed with. Hmm... it's almost like there is a paradox here. You're saying - BS is bad at damage. We can make BS better at damage by throwing away our 3rd level casts. But what if we reject the paradox and say BS is great at tanking. So great, that we get to keep those 3rd level casts and use them for whatever we like!

Again, the lense we choose informs the analysis. If my yardstick is - be good at melee damage or go home - then BS is a bad choice. If it's - be good at efficiently winning encounters or go home - BS is top-tier.

They succeeded in making an excellent defensive wizard, but not a fighting wizard. "Fighting" would suggest that it would not be a terrible tactical option for a straight BS to pull out their rapier and attack with it, but currently, that is the case. There are fixes, which I've discussed in my review, but they involve multiclassing.

Agreed that this is what they did. I don't think it needs fixing. Or more emphatically, I think fixing it could raise the question - why bother with other martials?! If BS could tank as well as it can now and deal effective melee damage and keep its wizard caster levels... !?

We could contemplate a fix that went - BS converts spell slots into melee damage. That seems fine because it means the more we care about melee damage, the less other stuff we do. But this ignores players as creative, intelligent beings. They'll pay out those slots when it is ideal to do so, and keep them for wizardry when it is better to do that. So we'd need to lock it in somehow by taking those slots away from casting in advance, rather than allowing it to be on the fly.