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

[dagger]

If Flamestrike is correct about the hide/invisibility thing, then I think we will keep running Mirror Image, Invisibility, and stealthy stuff the way we have since 1e. I don't like pc/monsters being able to just follow (without some ability like tremor sense) invisible pcs/monsters and the folks at the table would not go for it. 5e seems kind of fiddly on this...

 

[Flamestrike]

If Flamestrike is correct about the hide/invisibility thing, then I think we will keep running Mirror Image, Invisibility, and stealthy stuff the way we have since 1e. I don't like pc/monsters being able to just follow (without some ability like tremor sense) invisible pcs/monsters and the folks at the table would not go for it. 5e seems kind of fiddly on this...

They cant follow them if they're being stealthy.

If you're invisible and want to lose your opponent, use the Hide action (which you can do at any time while invisible seeing as youre always counted as being in heavy obscurement), beat your opponents passive perception score, and slink off.

Heck, even if you flub your Stealth check, you can try again the following round.

Sooner or later you're going to roll over your targets passive perception, and become silent (and mask other signs of your passage) in addition to being invisible. This remains the case until and unless he uses the Search action and rolls higher than your Stealth result on his Perception score and finds you (assuming you're still around to be found).

In 5E invisibility works best on the party Rogue (he has expertise in Stealth and cunning action so can Hide each round as a bonus action while attacking or doing something else) just like Charm person works best on the party Bard (he has a high Charisma and expertise in Persuasion allowing him to really max out the advantage he gets to social skills from charm person).

This is a feature of 5E and not a bug. A wizard cant just click his fingers and make the party face or rogue obsolete. He is best served buffing these guys enabling them to do thier job better. In a pinch he can use these spells to make himself as good as those PCs.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If Flamestrike is correct about the hide/invisibility thing, then I think we will keep running Mirror Image, Invisibility, and stealthy stuff the way we have since 1e. I don't like pc/monsters being able to just follow (without some ability like tremor sense) invisible pcs/monsters and the folks at the table would not go for it. 5e seems kind of fiddly on this...

Strong opinions of Internet posters notwithstanding, 5E is perfectly cool with your DM running things the way that makes sense to you as a group. (That's why the stealth rules are so vague--it's explicitly up to the DM's judgment.) Go for it the way you like it, and enjoy!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Seems like a feylock with tome and reflavored shillelagh, and the mage armor cantrip makes a better bladesinger. Or if that doesn't fly, feylock/swashbucklerogue, or /paladin, even.


Anyway, no race restrictions at my table. Period. Any race can be any class or subclass. A dwarf might call herself a Forgedancer, or something, but mechanically, bladesinger is allowed for anyone.

 

[Helldritch]

If Flamestrike is correct about the hide/invisibility thing, then I think we will keep running Mirror Image, Invisibility, and stealthy stuff the way we have since 1e. I don't like pc/monsters being able to just follow (without some ability like tremor sense) invisible pcs/monsters and the folks at the table would not go for it. 5e seems kind of fiddly on this...

Whole heatedly agree with you on that. That rule is simply very badly written. The intent was to allow someone to guess where the invisible one was, with a check. Not to know at all times where the invisible one is if he does not use stealth. Fortunately for us, 5ed is about the DM and not rule lawyers.

With invisibility and hide rules logic is not always there.

 

[Prism]

If Flamestrike is correct about the hide/invisibility thing, then I think we will keep running Mirror Image, Invisibility, and stealthy stuff the way we have since 1e. I don't like pc/monsters being able to just follow (without some ability like tremor sense) invisible pcs/monsters and the folks at the table would not go for it. 5e seems kind of fiddly on this...

I agree. If you always force the requirement of a hide action it creates some pretty odd situations. For example

Pixie goes invisible and then sneaks away with its awesome stealth (move action). I would definitely require a perception check to know where it was even though it technically didn't hide.

Wizard cast a dimension door and leaves the room down one of the side corridors, out of vision. They do not use the hide action but I still require a perception check to see if they can be heard.

Hiding is only one reason why an opponent might not know where you are or if you are even there. I think people over think that hiding sidebar as the only possible way of using stealth and lack of vision in combat

 

[Flamestrike]

Pixie goes invisible and then sneaks away with its awesome stealth (move action). I would definitely require a perception check to know where it was even though it technically didn't hide.

In turn based combat it doesnt 'go' anywhere.

It looks like it moves 30' while I sit there, but the reality is (assuming I follow it up) I'm chasing it right on its tail (following the sound of its buzzing wings) - and it all happens simultaneously.

A few seconds after it turns invisible (on its next turn in fact) it can attempt to Hide as an action. If it has a high Stealth score, its all but assured of hiding succesfully.

Wizard cast a dimension door and leaves the room down one of the side corridors, out of vision. They do not use the hide action but I still require a perception check to see if they can be heard.

And who is to say the destination of the spell isnt lit up with a sizzling in the air, and flash of light?

Hiding is only one reason why an opponent might not know where you are or if you are even there. I think people over think that hiding sidebar as the only possible way of using stealth and lack of vision in combat

I'd certainly consider not requiring the Hide action to Hide in some extreme circumstances (outliers). I just dont call a Wizard casting invisibility one of them. Its pretty clearly covered by the rules ('invisible' is a condition, and Hide is an action).

 

[Prism]

In turn based combat it doesnt 'go' anywhere.

It looks like it moves 30' while I sit there, but the reality is (assuming I follow it up) I'm chasing it right on its tail (following the sound of its buzzing wings) - and it all happens simultaneously.

A few seconds after it turns invisible (on its next turn in fact) it can attempt to Hide as an action. If it has a high Stealth score, its all but assured of hiding succesfully.

Well you can't follow the sound of its buzzing wings if you can't hear them. Moving silently using a stealth check is a valid use of a dex (stealth) check. What if there were several pixies all at range, invisible and moving quietly? Can a character track them all even if they don't use the hide action?

And who is to say the destination of the spell isnt lit up with a sizzling in the air, and flash of light?

Maybe there is but it seems like an unnecessary addition to a spell just to preserve the must hide as an action rule.

I'd certainly consider not requiring the Hide action to Hide in some extreme circumstances (outliers). I just dont call a Wizard casting invisibility one of them. Its pretty clearly covered by the rules ('invisible' is a condition, and Hide is an action).

We are in agreement here except for the extreme circumstances part and how often we would apply it. The description of stealth in the PHB gives several examples of use. 'Conceal yourself from enemies' seems to lend it self well to a standard hide check requiring an action in combat. 'Slip away without being noticed' and 'sneak up on someone without being heard' for me are both move based checks and are entirely suitable for someone already unseen (invisible, in darkness, out of the room).

I guess I am coming at this more from the DM side where I would want to create an encounter with pixies, drow etc that rely heavily on their stealth abilities without me having to force the must hide action to make use of them each round. I would be perfectly happy for the party wizard to do the same though. For the amount of times it happens it shouldn't step on the toes of the rogue. Besides, it also free's the rogue of for some more movement if they also don't need to hide when invisible.

 

[dagger]

They cant follow them if they're being stealthy.

If you're invisible and want to lose your opponent, use the Hide action (which you can do at any time while invisible seeing as youre always counted as being in heavy obscurement), beat your opponents passive perception score, and slink off.

Heck, even if you flub your Stealth check, you can try again the following round.



This is a feature of 5E and not a bug. A wizard cant just click his fingers and make the party face or rogue obsolete. He is best served buffing these guys enabling them to do thier job better. In a pinch he can use these spells to make himself as good as those PCs.

It being a 'feature' is debatable and so I wont clutter up this thread after this since I don't like arguing subjectivity. Its extra dice rolling that we don't need and we are not used to playing like this. So we will stick with the tried and true we have used since at least 1993. Not sure what it has to do with anything, but making people obsolete is not an issue at our table, and has never been.

The only time this might come into play is when its not in combat or its really quite for some reason? Anyway, back to the bladesinger! Which I like for even a wizard who sits in the back and never even enters melee. Great for panic button moments when you have no way to escape.

 

[Helldritch]

I've been playing D&D in all its incarnations since 1980. I will not let a bad written rule clutter my games and bother both of my groups with endless arguing over it. Nor will I let logic be over written by such a rule either. Call it house rule or whatever you like, but on that one, the invisible character will be considered hidden.

If you want to be sure where the invisible one stands, roll perception with either a set difficulty that will depend on circumstances or guess. But you will not know immediately where the invisible foe is. That is how invisibility has played out for over forty years, I see no need to change a tried and true mechanic for something as sloppy as that rule.