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

Treantmonklvl20 · Oct 29, 2017

Continued....

vonklaude said:
This review covers Bladesinger. Therefore talking about that is appropriate for the thread.

I agree. My initial post links my Bladesinger evaluation. It is definitely "on-topic" for this thread.

vonklaude said:
@Treantmonklvl20 makes their analysis using "God-Wizard" as its yardstick.

This is false. Furthermore, I suspect by making this statement, you either didn't read the analysis of the Bladesinger (past the ratings themselves), or you are unfamiliar with what a "god wizard" is.

Simply stated, my analysis of the Bladesinger notes it's lack of damage potential as its chief flaw. No reasonable person would think I'm using the "god wizard" (which does little to no damage at all) as a yardstick.

vonklaude said:
Unsurprisingly, that leads to mistaken evaluations. It's like judging Black-forest Gateaux for it's qualities as a Cheesecake.

Again, really wondering how anyone with any reason could come to the conclusion I used the god wizard as a standard for damage-dealing of a melee build. Again, I'm suspicious you didn't actually read the evaluation.

vonklaude said:
[*]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.

Obviously you are not referring to this thread, as page 35 is talking about spell DC's. You need to provide a link if you make references to other threads, otherwise, we have to take you on faith (which I am not prepared to do)

vonklaude said:
I like the Bladesinger sub-class. It's mechanical balancing issues are a disappointment to me.

Yep

vonklaude said:
However, the in-depth analysis I've made of it can shed light on the assessments here.

OK, your in-depth analysis was not presented HERE, nor did you link to it HERE, nor did you even mention where I might find this analysis (page 35 of some thread you don't mention), but you left a post suggesting I should change my review because...trust you?

Treantmonklvl20 · Oct 29, 2017

vonklaude said:
It is good that [MENTION=55582]Treantmonklvl20[/MENTION] was forthright about their analytical approach at the outset.

I did indeed intend to be forthright about my analytical approach from the outset. This is how I open my review of the Bladesinger:

vonklaude said:
The elven bladesinger is an iconic concept for D&D. We first saw the bladesinger in 2e as a kit for Fighter/Wizard multiclassed elves, but we had seen interpretations of fighting/casting/armor wearing elves before, such as with the Basic D&D elf.

For me, the bladesinger is an elf with a sword in one hand, spells casting from the other, all while wearing some cool elven chain. The closest 5e interpretation I had seen was the Eldritch Knight, but with Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide did we get the Bladesinger we remember?

Sadly not.

In other words - I'm comparing this to the 2e bladesinger, the basic D&D elf, or other melee builds remincient of those iconic character types.

vonklaude said:
To paraphrase Goethe, we could ask of a game design -

What was the designer trying to do?

Was he/she successful in doing it?

Was it worth doing?

"What was the designer trying to do?" - My opinion was they were trying to recreate the iconic Bladesinger, a class that was decent at spells, melee combat and defense, if not the best at any.
"Was he/she successful in doing it?" - To this I would say no. You may say 2 out of 3 aint bad, but in this case, I think you really needed 3/3, and they didn't accomplish this.
"Was it worth doing?" - If done well, yes. If done unsuccessfully, maybe still yes, as there are ways to use multiclassing to achieve the more iconic character type, but on it's own, unfortunately, a trap.

vonklaude said:
If our only answer to 3. is "If it is not a God-Wizard, then it is not worth doing"

Very clearly if you read my review it wasn't

vonklaude said:
then that is going to make our analysis less useful for players who want to take another approach...

The Bladesinger can skirmish just fine, as long as you aren't hoping to do damage comparable to other melee classes.
The Bladesinger can tank just fine, as long as by Tank you mean a Matilda 1 Tank.

CapnZapp · Oct 29, 2017

Never mind; what Phazonfish said.

clearstream · Oct 30, 2017

Treantmonklvl20 said:
This is false. Furthermore, I suspect by making this statement, you either didn't read the analysis of the Bladesinger (past the ratings themselves), or you are unfamiliar with what a "god wizard" is.

Ah, sorry about that then. I've read all of your documents and find many of your assessments insightful. I feel like the general framing might make people think (in a good way), too. So I feel familiar with what a god wizard is.

Treantmonklvl20 said:
Simply stated, my analysis of the Bladesinger notes it's lack of damage potential as its chief flaw. No reasonable person would think I'm using the "god wizard" (which does little to no damage at all) as a yardstick.

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. That's due to a combination of fewer turns attacking (casting buffs), and fewer attacks with each Attack action (or uses a cantrip). Against that, BS more easily stays up in combat against almost any foe appropriate for level and this sustain is... incredible, is probably the right word here. (I generally agree Blur is green, but for BS, it's blue.)

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. Against some foes means BS will even out-damage GWM martials (by staying standing). Of course, one could object: why not have the party Wizard buff the existing party martial? The obvious flaw in that reasoning is that BS can do this taking up one slot in the party, instead of two. Leaving a slot for whatever seems favoured.

Treantmonklvl20 said:
Again, really wondering how anyone with any reason could come to the conclusion I used the god wizard as a standard for damage-dealing of a melee build. Again, I'm suspicious you didn't actually read the evaluation.

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! 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?

Treantmonklvl20 said:
Obviously you are not referring to this thread, as page 35 is talking about spell DC's. You need to provide a link if you make references to other threads, otherwise, we have to take you on faith (which I am not prepared to do)

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.

clearstream · Oct 30, 2017

Treantmonklvl20 said:
"What was the designer trying to do?" - My opinion was they were trying to recreate the iconic Bladesinger, a class that was decent at spells, melee combat and defense, if not the best at any.

Here I take a different view, based on looking at how BS is structured and what was published alongside BS (namely GFB, BB and LL). These are mechanically neat designs, with touches such as increasing power with level (opened them to broader use) and skillful play aspects (conditional extra damage). Bladesinger gives a nod to the traditions, but what they were making with the sub-class is a uniquely 5th-edition fighting wizard.

The central ability is Bladesong. This is what the class is about. The mechanical problem they had to solve was - how to make a Wizard survive in melee? Their solution was four-fold.

Adding Int to AC is straightforward, but it creates a knock-on problem: how to stop BS overshadowing martials?!
Extra speed, and not just any type of speed, but walking: can't be abused with Fly, but does help BS get into or stay out of melee. Opens up interesting options (e.g. stack it with Mobility) and synergises with Haste.
Protection against special melee attacks: an important, but subtle flourish. Bladesinger can make their AC incredible (Shield, Haste, friendly buffs) and/or use Blur to become next to unhittable and uncrittable. What could take them down? Special melee attacks, of course. Advantage on Acrobatics pretty much guarantees BS will not suffer advantage on attacks against them (prone) or quickly end such conditions.
Adding Int to Concentration is straightforward, and plays nicely with Warcaster: BS can keep buffs up while in melee. This for me was a massive clue that BS was intended to be running buffs (or debuffs) while in melee!

I looked at Training in War and Song. What could this feature possibly give to an Elf with Elf Weapon Training? Light armor is worse than Mage Armor (until it is magical), and BS seemingly has the weapons they need. The answer has to be Rapier and this must have been an attempt to add a couple of points of damage to the average Attack action. It's a possible pointer to an intent that BS adopt two weapon fighting (without the fighting style). But... doesn't that conflict with the cantrips?

With more digging (more play alongside a BS in our TotYP campaign, more mathematical modelling and playtesting in stress scenarios) I started to see BS as a fully contemporary design. With hooks to all kinds of interesting parts of the updated game system. Only the fluff hearkens back to days of yore. Each part looks deliberate and clever - create interesting balance through melding unhittable with low damage - but overlooked a more fundamental question (which I will not expand upon here, save to say that it's success is its biggest failing).

So maybe that points to a big difference in our analysis? I'm not looking at BS and seeing a weak attempt to recreate a traditional archetype.

jgsugden · Oct 30, 2017

As there is a separate guide for BS, this discussion might be better there, but:

Let's say that I wanted to rank the gish style classes on three criteria: Spellcasting power, Offensive Melee Power, Defensive Melee Power

* BS: Top spellcasting power and defensive melee power, but getting only one handed weapons and no significant bonus damage built into the class keeps them very low on offensive power.
* EK: Poor spellcasting, solid offensive melee power (especially after level 11), quality defensive power.
* Valor Bard: Medium spellcasting, good offensive melee power, ok defensive power.
* Bladelock: Good spellcasting, good offensive melee power, ok defensive power (not enough slots to cast a lot of shields, etc...)
* Paladin/[sorcerer and/or warlock]: Good spellcasting, Amazing Offense, Great defense - however, you're not really a gish until you get those arcane spellcaster levels and it is hard to take them before 6th level...

Fulgetra · Oct 30, 2017

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

NADRIGOL · 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.

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!

clearstream · Oct 30, 2017

jgsugden said:
* BS: Top spellcasting power and defensive melee power, but getting only one handed weapons and no significant bonus damage built into the class keeps them very low on offensive power.

I've created some estimates for damage over an adventuring "day" in Excel. Using a day let's you compare with allowance for limited resources. I'm defining a day as 6 medium to hard encounters broken evenly by 2 short rests although there is a case to be made for 4 hard encounters broken by 1 short rest as more representative. There's a few ratios that one needs to make assumptions about (e.g. how often for cleave? how often for neighbours? etc...), and these estimates are constantly improving. Some current estimates at level 6

GWM/GWF Battlemaster = deals 919, has AC 18
GWF Battlemaster = deals 727, has AC 18
TWF/DW Battlemaster = deals 649, has AC 19
Dueling Battlemaster = deals 618, has AC 20
SS/CEx/Archery Battlemaster = deals 908, has AC 18
Archery Battlemaster = deals 419, has AC 18
GFB/Blur Bladesinger = deals 346, has AC 20 (25 with Shield) and foes get Disadvantage
GFB/Haste Bladesinger = deals 560, has AC 22 (27 with Shield)

That is with going full melee mode and it's possibly often better to simply play Wizard. Looking at Hasted Bladesinger (which is probably fine except against giants!) one question is whether +15 damage per encounter beats out +2 AC +Shield? And whether +60 damage per encounter will beat out +4 AC +Shield? In terms of being able to keep contact with a foe and continue attacks against them.

jgsugden said:
* EK: Poor spellcasting, solid offensive melee power (especially after level 11), quality defensive power.

I feel like EK comes online pretty late. Not as late as Bladelock, but a good 2/3rds through the average character's career (assuming campaign end at about level 15). The small number of casting slots really hinders the theoretical defensive power.

jgsugden said:
* Valor Bard: Medium spellcasting, good offensive melee power, ok defensive power.

Can you say more about how Valor Bard is getting its good offensive melee power? It looks similar to Bladesinger to me, but Bladesong at level 2 beats anything Bard gets until level 14.

jgsugden said:
* Bladelock: Good spellcasting, good offensive melee power, ok defensive power (not enough slots to cast a lot of shields, etc...)

For me, one of the biggest flaws with Bladelock is how late it comes online in a character's career.

jgsugden said:
* Paladin/[sorcerer and/or warlock]: Good spellcasting, Amazing Offense, Great defense - however, you're not really a gish until you get those arcane spellcaster levels and it is hard to take them before 6th level...

What level do things start to come online? Paladins can sure spike damage, albeit their offense strength relies a lot on the tempo of the campaign. More frequent long rests makes them stronger, less frequent means they need to be more measured.

Erik Blessman · Oct 30, 2017

I'm seeing the same thing...

Google Drive
We're sorry. You can't access this item because it is in violation of our Terms of Service.

Find out more about this topic at the Google Drive Help Center.