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

[CapnZapp]

The divide in melee offensive capability should exist, I just think it's too wide a gap.

I think I see a possible reason for your evaluation.

Could it be that you would be satisfied by a symbolic change? That you're irked because the class didn't even get "that" much offense.

Because I have now made quite a few posts where I alternate between asking you to explain what is missing and discussing how there are fundamental problems with the urge to have the Bladesinger enter melee.

What I mean is that the only way I manage to understand your position is if you're not really looking for the kind of offense that would make a minmaxer's Bladesinger enter melee; you're only looking for the kind of offense "bone" that would remove any lingering sense of being ridiculous for thinking to enter melee. perhaps you're not actually planning to build your Bladesinger around melee offense. Perhaps you only want to look good when circumstances force you to take the melee attack action?

Not saying you are, of course.

Just trying to express my frustration: I can't get a grip of what state that would make you enter melee that would still be balanced, so one option is that none exist. I can't seem to get you to discuss my stance that any offense that's balanced for a full spellcaster wouldn't be used.

Of course, it would be perfectly balanced to add offense to a class where it is suboptimal to use said offensive in the first place.

I guess I just don't see the reason for bringing up the grade if that were to happen, since the slightly-better offense would still not be used?

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

I think I see a possible reason for your evaluation.

Could it be that you would be satisfied by a symbolic change? That you're irked because the class didn't even get "that" much offense.

I think you are equating my advice not to expect the Bladesinger to be effective in melee with me not being satisfied. I'm not upset or anything, nor do I think the Bladesinger is a weak choice. I don't recommend making a Wizard with a sword and throwing Bladesinger on and thinking you won't be ineffective though. A symbolic change wouldn't change that.

Because I have now made quite a few posts where I alternate between asking you to explain what is missing and discussing how there are fundamental problems with the urge to have the Bladesinger enter melee.

Yes, I notice you keep suggesting I'm not answering your question, but I honestly don't see what's missing from my answers. I will try again.

What is missing from the Bladesinger is a balance between offensive and defensive abilities. An effective melee class has a decent offensive and defensive capability. This does not change at all if the melee class happens to also be a primary spellcaster. Look at the abilities granted to a War or Tempest Cleric, there is a mix of offensive and defensive abilities. The addition of full spellcasting doesn't change that balance, and as such, both options work quite well as melee characters. The Bladesinger gets a whole bunch of abilities at level 2, and there are multiple defensive abilities and no offensive ones.

If the Wizard had a bunch of good melee offensive boosting spells, they could easily take the place of any subclass specific abilities, but unfortunately, the Wizard list isn't really intended to do that (unsurprisingly), unlike spell lists like the Paladin or Cleric for example.

When the Bladesinger actually gets an offensive ability (first one at 6th level), it is incompatible with the Cantrips that were introduced to multiple classes (including the Wizard) to enhance melee capability. The first offensive ability that the Bladesinger gets that actually works with the cantrips is gained at level 14, after adding even more defensive abilities to the class option.

So to frame this specifically to your inquiry:
1) What is missing: A balance between offensive and defensive abilities
2) How there are fundamental problems with the urge to have the Bladesinger enter melee: There is no problem (fundamental or otherwise) with the urge to have your Bladesinger enter melee. That's what a Bladesinger is supposed to do thematically. The problem isn't with the urge, it would be with the expectation that you will be reasonably effective doing so. That expectation will not be met unless you play with the build to make it work.

I'm OK doing that. If I want to play a Bladesinger who enters melee, don't worry about me, I can make it work and be effective. However, anyone who just gives their wizard a melee weapon and takes the Bladesinger option may find themselves with a character that doesn't do what they were hoping.

What I mean is that the only way I manage to understand your position is if you're not really looking for the kind of offense that would make a minmaxer's Bladesinger enter melee; you're only looking for the kind of offense "bone" that would remove any lingering sense of being ridiculous for thinking to enter melee.

If you're having trouble understanding my position, let's avoid speaking in metaphors. I think characters who are made as "melee" characters should have comparable offense and defensive abilities. They don't need to be equal, but if one character class is reliably doing significantly more damage consistently than another, to the point where the damage the other is inflicting becomes largely irrelevant, that's a problem, because (at least in my experience), part of the fun of roleplaying is the feeling of being part of a team and contributing to it's successes.

Let me give you another example. The Blade Pact Warlock is absolutely fine if you take a level of fighter as your first level. Once you do that it performs well and a player will likely be satisfied with the results. However, why is a trick (the one level fighter dip) necessary? Because the base class fails to achieve what it should in regards to a Blade Pact Warlock. A Fighter 1/Warlock 9 should be no better than a Warlock 10, but if you are going the Blade Pact Warlock route, it is, and significantly so.

The issue with the Bladesinger is similar. Like the Blade Pact Warlock it's absolutely fine if you take the appropriate multiclass. The problem is that many players won't know to do that, and it could lead to disappointment.

perhaps you're not actually planning to build your Bladesinger around melee offense.

If I do play a Bladesinger, just like any other melee character, I will be looking for a character that is passable in offensive and defensive capabilities. I don't really concern myself with optimizing one over the other, I want them both to be good enough to be effective.

Perhaps you only want to look good when circumstances force you to take the melee attack action?

If I make a character that is going to use a melee weapon as its primary attack form, yes, that's when I want to look good, or at least look OK.

Just trying to express my frustration:

I still honestly can't understand why you are frustrated. I've attempted to answer your questions as honestly as I can.

I can't get a grip of what state that would make you enter melee that would still be balanced

I would enter melee with any character that is supposed to be a melee character that is decent at it. By "decent" I mean comparable with other melee characters. If you are doing less than 1/2 the damage, you aren't comparable. 70% as good? 80% as good? These are reasonable expectations IMO.

so one option is that none exist.

If you go over my past replies as well as this one, I've given many examples of things that would work. So where is this coming from?

I can't seem to get you to discuss my stance that any offense that's balanced for a full spellcaster wouldn't be used.

We can discuss it, but your stance is wrong. Full casters go into melee all the time. Clerics and Druids are both full casters, and they are often mixing it up face to face. The idea of playing a spellcaster that goes into melee combat is you want to prepare spells that enhance your melee capabilities. This is what a Paladin who casts Branding Smite is doing. This is what a Cleric who casts Spirit guardians is doing. This is what a Blade Pact Warlock who casts Hex is doing.

This isn't 3rd edition anymore when spellcasting is objectively better than swinging a weapon. Spellcasting has been tempered. The idea of playing a spellcaster who goes into melee is to have a melee character with some tricks up their sleeve. It's a concept, and maybe it's not the most powerful concept for that class, but as long as it's still reasonably effective, a lot of people will want to play it because they like that concept. My concern is that a Bladesinger without preplanning isn't going to be reasonably effective in melee.

Of course, it would be perfectly balanced to add offense to a class where it is suboptimal to use said offensive in the first place.

There's nothing wrong with suboptimal. There's something wrong with ineffective. These are not the same things.

Look at all the Blade Pact Warlocks out there. I've seen several played, and lots of testimonials of people who've played and enjoyed them (after taking 1 level of fighter). It is a perfectly reasonable optimization point to show that the same character could do more damage if it concentrated on Eldritch Blast instead, yet there are all kinds of Blade Pact Warlocks out there swinging weapons in gameplay, why do you think that is?

I guess I just don't see the reason for bringing up the grade if that were to happen, since the slightly-better offense would still not be used?

I can't speak for you, and maybe you will never use a character with a weapon if you have spells at your disposal. Speaking for myself, if I play a Bladesinger, I will be swinging a weapon (probably two, but the point stands). I will play with the build to make it effective, and likely dip fighter or paladin to give it that "slightly better offense", but a weapon I will surely use.

I'm hoping that answers your questions. I keep thinking I've answered them to get responses that you aren't satisfied that I've answered them. If the above is also insufficient, maybe we should just chalk it up to inability to communicate.

 

[Huntsman57]

At the end of the day a Bladesinger in melee offers perhaps 70% of the offensive capability of a fighter and probably 130% of the defensive capabilities of a fighter with a full 9 levels of spells thrown in for kicks.

I feel like there's a bit too much focus on the fact that the Spellsinger's melee damage output. The damage output is respectable. Just because you play second fiddle in damage to the DPR kings doesn't make you a slouch in this department anyway.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I also see it differently. The cleric spells are not comparable to wizard spells. This a cleric may be better at melee as a bladesinger.

The bladesinger extra attack can be used with a longbow, so it is not wasted. And the Longbow is surely better than a firebolt if you favor DEX over INT. It is also often better in Melee than greenflame blade, but it is a hard choice. Some levels of fighter help the bladesinger being a better melee character for sure. This is a way to reduce the spell Max spell level a bladesinger can cast and thus spellcasting is better balanced with melee.
Still the point stands:
Innefective in melee is totally wrong. Our Archer eldritch knight finds himself a lot in melee, as does our defensive fighting style ranger and they are doing fine.
Are they optimized? No. But built well enough. If a non optimized bladesinger is doing 80% of the unoptimized fighter, the goal is achieved.
Remember that bladesingers were traditionally fighter/wizards

 

[Celtavian]

I also see it differently. The cleric spells are not comparable to wizard spells. This a cleric may be better at melee as a bladesinger.

The bladesinger extra attack can be used with a longbow, so it is not wasted. And the Longbow is surely better than a firebolt if you favor DEX over INT. It is also often better in Melee than greenflame blade, but it is a hard choice. Some levels of fighter help the bladesinger being a better melee character for sure. This is a way to reduce the spell Max spell level a bladesinger can cast and thus spellcasting is better balanced with melee.
Still the point stands:
Innefective in melee is totally wrong. Our Archer eldritch knight finds himself a lot in melee, as does our defensive fighting style ranger and they are doing fine.
Are they optimized? No. But built well enough. If a non optimized bladesinger is doing 80% of the unoptimized fighter, the goal is achieved.
Remember that bladesingers were traditionally fighter/wizards

130% of the defensive abilities? How do you figure? AC is lower. Hit points are lower. No good con saves for concentration. You can get the shield spell as an eldritch knight. Using spell slots to avoid damage is pretty pointless. Better to use spells like absorb elements for energy damage and shield for AC. You really going to blow a 5th level slot to absorb 25 damage because you made a foolish choice to enter melee?

The problem with the bladesinger is that it is a suboptimal play-style. It looks cool on paper, but will prove suboptimal in play. Wizards aren't meant to enter melee. The Bladesinger to take full advantage of his abilities must have a very good dex, intelligence, and con. When you lack hit points, you take a beating.

I've played a gnome wizard and a dwarf wizard. Even with a focus on Con, it's hard to stay alive with d6 hit points and no heavy armor when you get targeted by the monsters. It's just a bad idea. The Bladesinger is meant to be viable in melee combat. That's why the Eldritch Knight with maybe a few level dip of Bladesinger is likely a better option to create the old style Bladesinger from previous editions. Maybe that is as intended. A 16 wizard and 4 ftr or 14 wizard and 6 ftr would likely be a much better way to emulate the bladesinger give or take some fighter or wizard levels to get abilities that allow you to cast and hit with a melee weapon. I'm beginning to think the designers know that the Bladesinger as written is a better multiclass than single class.

 

[Huntsman57]

For the sake of being apples to apples, using point buy a SS's AC will be just about as good as a fighter with a shield at inception. Con will only be your 3rd stat. However, our con bonus plus warcaster plus our SS bonus to concentration saves will make it rather difficult to fail a concentration saving throw.

Shield, absorb elements, blur, mirror image, haste, improved invisibility, and the SS's ability to convert spell slots to hitpoints are what will keep you alive, and do a far better job of it than anything the fighter can conjure.

I would say that the SS starts out rather vulnerable, but once it starts to get some of its capabilities under its belt, it starts looking pretty good.

Other feats for the SS in addition to warcaster? I see no reason not to dual wield so maybe that feat which also improves AC in addition to the damage boost. Resilient dex, resilient con would round out the selection nicely.

 

[Arial Black]

The problem with the 5E Bladesinger is not the comparison between it and other classes. The problem is that, when you compare your Bladesinger in melee with the very same Bladesinger out of melee, then avoiding melee is a sounder choice. It would be foolish for that Bladesinger to enter melee instead of...not entering melee!

This is a problem when the raison d'etre of the Bladesinger is to...enter melee!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

130% of the defensive abilities? How do you figure? AC is lower. Hzit points are lower. No good con saves for concentration. You can get the shield spell as an eldritch knight. Using spell slots to avoid damage is pretty pointless. Better to use spells like absorb elements for energy damage and shield for AC. You really going to blow a 5th level slot to absorb 25 damage because you made a foolish choice to enter melee?

The problem with the bladesinger is that it is a suboptimal play-style. It looks cool on paper, but will prove suboptimal in play. Wizards aren't meant to enter melee. The Bladesinger to take full advantage of his abilities must have a very good dex, intelligence, and con. When you lack hit points, you take a beating.

I've played a gnome wizard and a dwarf wizard. Even with a focus on Con, it's hard to stay alive with d6 hit points and no heavy armor when you get targeted by the monsters. It's just a bad idea. The Bladesinger is meant to be viable in melee combat. That's why the Eldritch Knight with maybe a few level dip of Bladesinger is likely a better option to create the old style Bladesinger from previous editions. Maybe that is as intended. A 16 wizard and 4 ftr or 14 wizard and 6 ftr would likely be a much better way to emulate the bladesinger give or take some fighter or wizard levels to get abilities that allow you to cast and hit with a melee weapon. I'm beginning to think the designers know that the Bladesinger as written is a better multiclass than single class.

Are you sure you quoted the right person? Nowhere have I stated that the bladesinger has better defense than a fighter eldritch knight.

 

[Nagol]

At the end of the day a Bladesinger in melee offers perhaps 70% of the offensive capability of a fighter and probably 130% of the defensive capabilities of a fighter with a full 9 levels of spells thrown in for kicks.

I feel like there's a bit too much focus on the fact that the Spellsinger's melee damage output. The damage output is respectable. Just because you play second fiddle in damage to the DPR kings doesn't make you a slouch in this department anyway.

I'd be more concerned about reduced effectiveness in combat compared to acting more typically like a Wizard than comparing to a Fighter.

You accept more multiple attribute dependency since your default combat is now driven by Dex for melee attacks vs. Int for cantrips. Your default strategy requires entering melee range although are compensated somewhat by both light armour and adding Int bonus to AC while bladesong is active. The big disadvantage of the MAD is you can either improve your melee capability by raising Dex to affect to-hit and damage or you can raise Int to affect ranged combat and saving throws. Bladesong slightly reduces the dependency on Con while it is active (you get a boost to Concentration saves and AC but not to hp or Con saving throws) and substantially increases the value of Dex to the character.

Your default damage effectively stagnates compared to a base Wizard using cantrips despite focusing the character's activities on a more dangerous activity subset -- melee combat.

At 4th level, you can strike once in melee with a finesse weapon for 1d8 + Dex mod or cast firebolt at range for 1d10 -- pretty much a wash except your to-hit is based on Dex rather than Int.
At 5th level, you are comparing 1d8 + Dex mod melee to 2d10 damage ranged -- ouch.
At 6th level, at least it moves to 2 attacks of 1d8 + Dex mod vs. 2d10 firebolt damage -- back to being a wash.
At 11th level you are still 2x(1d8 + Dex mod) melee vs. 3d10 ranged -- if you are Dex 16 then you have dropped behind in damage and even you have raised Dex to 20 this is close to a wash. And if you have raised Dex preferentially over Int, your saving throws are suffering compared to a default Wizard.

As noted, a character's ability to augment melee capability with spellcasting is limited for wizards compared to the other melee spellcasters. So you end up acting like a dilettante -- playing at melee until you need to revert to more wizardly actions.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The problem with the 5E Bladesinger is not the comparison between it and other classes. The problem is that, when you compare your Bladesinger in melee with the very same Bladesinger out of melee, then avoiding melee is a sounder choice. It would be foolish for that Bladesinger to enter melee instead of...not entering melee!

This is a problem when the raison d'etre of the Bladesinger is to...enter melee!

That is another thing. The bladesinger as presented is indeed a better ranged than melee character. As a full wizard its no wonder.
I had made bladesinging just a fighting style for fighters and used the new cantrips and eldritch knight.
Like the warlock, a multiclass fighter wizard bladesinger will be quite capable. And when you are coming from 3e or before, bladesingers have always been fighter/wizards.

What is to consider: in a small party, it is not always a choice to be in melee or not. Even in big parties you sometimes find yourself in melee more often than you wish.

And once again we are back to the question how much you value versatility over specialization.

TLDR do you want to be in melee as bladesinger... no thanks. Can you hold your own. Absolutely yes.
Are you as good in melee as a fighter or other dedicated weapon user? No. They need to be better. Otherwise being a fighter would be incredibly dumb.