D&D 5E Totally underwhelmed by 5e bladesinger, am I missing something?

[Chaosmancer]

The blindfighting reference for Rangers is the Feral Senses ability, which while I can't remember the exact language, removes the penalty for attacking creatures you can't see within 30 ft

 

[neogod22]

The blindfighting reference for Rangers is the Feral Senses ability, which while I can't remember the exact language, removes the penalty for attacking creatures you can't see within 30 ft

I was thinking of that, but I see it's limited. You don't get it if you're blinded or deafened, so closing your eyes won't work in this case.

Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk

 

[Helldritch]

Let us make a small comparison to who gains what at which level (spell talking)
Eldritch Knigth gains 1st level spell at level 3. At that level, our Blade singer has access to mirror image and blur.
Elditch knight gains 2nd level spell at level 7 but will gain either mirror image or blur, not both and only at level 8. At this level, our blade singer has access to haste, Fire Shield, Polymorph and Stone skin to help him out in melee.

At level 13 our Eldritch Knight will have access to 3rd level spells but he will only have haste at level 14. At this level, our Blade singer will be on his 7th level slots.

At level 19th, the Eldritch knight will finaly get his 4th level slot. But will be able to get Stone skin or Fire shield only at level 20. By that time our Blade singer will have his 9th level spells and will cast shield and mirror image at will.

The Eldritch Knight is strong, really strong has he will get extra attacks, have access to fighting style, will be able to use a two handed weapon for the dreaded GWM and many more ASI or Feats than our Blade singer will ever get (multiclassing not counting). Both characters have their pros and cons. I think it is useless to argue which one is the strongest as their role is not the same. The Eldritch Knight is a front line combatant. The Blade singer is more of a "don't mind me, I can manage on my own if a baddy comes to get me" character type. A standard wizard would be toast if a brute could get to him. Not the blade singer.

The blade singer is a wizard for all intent and purpose. But that wizard can actually do some decent melee combat. If you are looking for a fighter/mage as we had in 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition. Go for the Eldritch knight or a multiclassed Fighter EK 12 (or 8)/ Wizard 8 (12) (for a 12th or 14th level caster).

 

[Flamestrike]

Closing eyes to defeat Mirror Image is pretty similar to closing eyes to defeat a Medusa's stare; in the latter case, they explicitly word it so that you can do so, but gaming it by 'opening your eyes after taking your turn' instantly slaps the penalty back on. It seems like saying 'I close my eyes' is such an easy counter to the spell that it is unlikely you're meant to be able to do it.

You have two options:

1) Attack and defend normally, with a chance of hitting the images.

2) Close your eyes, giving yourself the blinded condition for one round (your attacks have disadvantage, all attacks on you have advantage, and you cant make AoO's or cast any targetted spells for a round; also your target can freely take the hide action)

It aint broken to close your eyes. Its just arguably a bad idea.

 

[Flamestrike]

The ruling seems pretty clear to me. The only potential problem is the way 5e deals with attacking invisible targets (which is effectively what the person would be with your eyes closed). The default rules have the player "guess" where they are attacking, and the GM has them roll (even if the target isn't there). That particular rule is one that is mechanically useless, and requires the usage of a combat grid, or some on-the-fly ruling.

Thats only if they're invisible and hidden (via the Hide action).

If you're 'only' invisible (but not hidden), it just imposes disadvantage on attacks against you, makes you immune to AoOs, and renders you immune to most targetted spells. You get advantage on your attacks, and can take the Hide action at will.

 

[neogod22]

Thats only if they're invisible and hidden (via the Hide action).

If you're 'only' invisible (but not hidden), it just imposes disadvantage on attacks against you, makes you immune to AoOs, and renders you immune to most targetted spells. You get advantage on your attacks, and can take the Hide action at will.

And they still have to guess where you are, because if you can hide as a free action, why wouldn't you? Seeing that since sight is the primary sense for most humanoids, not being able to see is a huge disadvantage.

Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk

 

[Flamestrike]

And they still have to guess where you are, because if you can hide as a free action, why wouldn't you?

You cant hide as a free action. Its an action (a bonus action for Rogues). And wizards generally suck at it (not being proficient in Stealth, and not having great Dex scores).

Being invisible simply lets you attempt the hide action whenever you want. It 'counts as' heavy obscurement and negates the 'you can only attempt to become hidden when a creature cant see you clearly enough' rule.

Nothing stopping you casting invisibilty and then (on your next turn) using your action to Hide. As long as you roll higher than your opponents passive perception, you're hidden until you give yourself away or he succesfully uses the Search action to find you.

As long as you remain invisible and hidden, he has to randomly pick what square to target (he doesnt know where you are). If you're only invisible the game assumes he knows roughly where you are (from sound, smell, traces of your passage such as footprints, compressed carpet or grass, swirls of smoke or debris in the air etc) with enough precision he can attack you (at disadvantage).

Seeing that since sight is the primary sense for most humanoids, not being able to see is a huge disadvantage.

It most certainly is. If youre blinded (or have your eyes closed):

1) You cant make AoO's
2) All attacks on you have advantage
3) All attacks you make have disadvantage
4) You cant cast most spells (hold person, power word kill, charm person etc all require 'a target you can see')
5) Creatures can attempt the Hide action at will, and if succesful you will need to guess where they are before you can even attempt to attack them.

Its a hefty list of disadvantages.

 

[discosoc]

Thats only if they're invisible and hidden (via the Hide action).

If you're 'only' invisible (but not hidden), it just imposes disadvantage on attacks against you, makes you immune to AoOs, and renders you immune to most targetted spells. You get advantage on your attacks, and can take the Hide action at will.

Umm, no. If you are attacking an unseen target (regardless of the person having taken the "hide" action or not), you have disadvantage to hit and can still miss if the target isn't in the location you just targeted. Invisible creatures can still make sound, but the disadvantage to attack them handles that. If they take the "hide" action, they gain the same mechanical benefits: attacks against them are at a disadvantage, and their location is essentially guessed.

 

[Flamestrike]

Umm, no. If you are attacking an unseen target (regardless of the person having taken the "hide" action or not), you have disadvantage to hit and can still miss if the target isn't in the location you just targeted.

You dont have to guess the location of an invisible target that isnt also hidden.

If a mage casts invisibility on his turn, and you want to attack him, you dont have to guess his location when your turn comes up next. The game assumes you still know (roughly) where he is and can attack him (at disadvantage) unless and until he takes the Hide action.

If the mage was also a Rogue 2, he could [cast invisiblity] and then [hide as bonus action] all on his turn. Assuming he beats your passive perception score with his stealth check, you can only attack him if you can correctly guess his location first.

 

[discosoc]

You dont have to guess the location of an invisible target that isnt also hidden.

If a mage casts invisibility on his turn, you dont have to guess his location when your turn comes up next if you want to attack the invisible mage. The game assumes you still know (roughly) where he is and can attack him (at disadvantage) unless and until he takes the Hide action.

Quote me the rule, because all I see I'm seeing is your personal interpretation of it. I can see a ton ways where the mechanics break down here as well. For example, mage casts invisibility and uses the dash action to run into a different room. By your opinion, it makes sense for someone else to simply run in the room after them on the next turn and know where to go attack.

To me, that sounds like the very definition of having to guess where the person is located.