D&D 5E Bladesinger - a criticism of its design

[clearstream]

As for Blur- it's not the spell's fault. Consider that a Paladin or Cleric can get similar results in battle with Protection from Good and Evil in many fights. Indeed, with more hit dice, armor, self healing, and other goodies, the Paladin and the Cleric can outperform the Bladesinger in the tank role...

The strong thing about Protection E/G is that it can be cast on others. The less strong thing is it does nothing against humanoids...

Well they could, if they could reliably maintain concentration while being the target of the bulk of enemy attacks. Neither class gets proficiency in Constitution saves, and the Paladin doesn't get their aura until level 6. This, I feel, is the issue with the Bladesinger.

Being able to add a primary attribute bonus to their concentration checks is better than anything any other caster gets. Even the Paladin only adds a secondary attribute (Charisma does a lot, but it doesn't affect your attacks) to their concentration checks. If you removed this aspect of Bladedance, then the Bladesinger wouldn't be able to "tank" effectively.

Absolutely agree with you: adding Int to AC and Concentration!?

Of course, by removing that aspect, you make it very hard for the Bladesinger to actually enter melee combat at all while using spells, but that's already a position other classes are in. The Bladesinger needs the ability to protect themselves in melee, but they shouldn't be receiving more than other casters get.

It would pressure them to take Warcaster early, which could push the ASI that makes their AC egregious later. Trouble is, Warcaster makes BB/GFB even more good.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Bladesong:

1 minute, 2/short or long rest
INT to AC
Add proficiency to concentration checks

At 6th level, add 10' movement and advantage to DEX ability checks made as part of movement.

Subtle change there, but think it goes a long way towards adding risk back into the subclass.

 

[clearstream]

Bladesong:

1 minute, 2/short or long rest
INT to AC
Add proficiency to concentration checks

At 6th level, add 10' movement and advantage to DEX ability checks made as part of movement.

Subtle change there, but think it goes a long way towards adding risk back into the subclass.

So... the Concentration bonus scales slowly with level and can't benefit so easily from above average ability arrays. In consequence, spells cast to stay in melee get disrupted more frequently. Additionally, the Dexterity advantage won't apply to Acrobatics to resist being knocked prone (which itself counters Blur), but only to things such as tumbling through an opponent's space.

Actually, that all looks extremely good. Better than my thought of nerfing Blur. I might quibble the level to bring in the movement elements, but that's about it. Nice work!

 

[Mephista]

Greater possible relative strength is not the same as strength experienced at the table. Some players never pick Blur, as @Mephista attested to. Some parties won't have a Cleric, or the Cleric will refuse to cast proactive buffs. I'm confident that Bladesong is not correctly balanced. That doesn't have to impact you at all. For my campaign, it means the sub-class can't be used without revision. I'm not sure what the revision is: maybe Blur is what really needs a nerf?

If you're going to use my name, at least run numbers with my character using my tactics. Or, even better, use flexible tactics that change depending on the enemy.

Its like... there's this idea that there's just one possible outcome or way to fight. And that' boggles my mind.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So... the Concentration bonus scales slowly with level and can't benefit so easily from above average ability arrays. In consequence, spells cast to stay in melee get disrupted more frequently. Additionally, the Dexterity advantage won't apply to Acrobatics to resist being knocked prone (which itself counters Blur), but only to things such as tumbling through an opponent's space.

Actually, that all looks extremely good. Better than my thought of nerfing Blur. I might quibble the level to bring in the movement elements, but that's about it. Nice work!

Holding the movement abilities was mostly so that bladesingers have something to look forward to from their tradition at 6th level. Also, i dislike such heavy frontloading and would rather not offer that as dippable. Not that dipping wizard is exactly common, of course.

 

[clearstream]

If you're going to use my name, at least run numbers with my character using my tactics. Or, even better, use flexible tactics that change depending on the enemy.

Its like... there's this idea that there's just one possible outcome or way to fight. And that' boggles my mind.

That's not the intent at all. Let's take a look at Haste + divine buff in the same encounter. BS can use the doubled speed to kite in and out, still landing Booming Blade, so at first glance it's all rocks. That greatly reduces the number of attacks, and at the same time our AC is 2 better.



As you can see, with Haste we need far fewer casts of Shield because it's very unlikely we ever go over our sustainable damage limit. 6th level BS can cast Haste in all four encounters (using AR for a 3rd level slot). The downside of Haste is that we have to be more mindful of the chance of a critical: Warding Bond is essential otherwise we have about a 58% chance each day (in the scenario analysed) of falling to a one-shot. So that is where Haste could be worse than Blur, which reduces that to about 15%.

 

[Ovinomancer]

much snippage...
Average 4d6 drop worst is 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9.
... more much snippage

I wanted to come back to this point because it bothered me at the time but I didn't have time to look into it. I took that time just now, and, as I suspected, this isn't exactly true at all, it's more a shade of a possible true but mostly not.

The average array for 6 rolls of 4d6 drop lowest isn't functionally possible to find without error bars so large as to render the result meaningless. What's been done, and reasonably so, is to determine what the expected average roll of 4d6k3, and that's between 12 and 13. This is better than the expected 11.5 of 3d6 by 1 point. But the ends of the PDF for 4d6k3 are still bell shaped, if distorted towards the higher values. You have a higher chance to roll an 18, for instance, but only by 1.2% (0.46% for 3d6 to 1.62% for 4d6k3). Nice, but not huge.

So, most of the discussion I've been able to find translates this 12-13 into a +1 mod, and then assumes the average across the array and says that you should expect to get a +6 total mod out of 4d6k3. (This compares to a +5 total mod from point buy, for reference.) And this is also reasonable, you should expect an average of a +6 total mod from 4d6k3.

The problem is that this is then extrapolated into a 'rolled standard array' with numbers like what you give. This is bad, no go, shouldn't do. You should not expect that array from rolling -- in fact, what you get from rolling will likely not be that at all. What you will normally get from rolling is an array that has a total mod of +6 - and even that should be taken with a big grain of salt given the variance involved. What this does is create a 2 step conversion where you take an average expected value with a high variance and convert it into a system with half of the resolution and a lower variance (going from a rolled stat average to a bonus mod average on a smaller scale). Then the second step hits where you go from the lower resolution mod numbers back into specific stats, but add in a bit of arbitrary choice because you have to pick between two non-equal values to represent the mod in a stat. This loses information twice AND adds an arbitrary element.

For instance, for the +6 mod I could pick: 17, 15, 13, 13, 11, 9 or I could pick: 16, 14, 12, 12, 10, 8. Both are valid transpositions using this method, but I'm pretty sure no one will agree these are remotely similar sets of stats, especially with how racial modifiers and ASIs can interact with stats at the +1 level (if all ASIs and racial bonuses were +2, it wouldn't matter).

So, to wrap back to the point of the thread, the "average" array you selected for the example bladesinger on 4d6k3 is anything but -- it's a good bit of arbitrary choice lying on top of a method that loses information about what 4d6k3 actually rolls. You MAY roll that set, but you probably won't -- it'll be different numbers. All that can be said is that, on average (and that's doing a lot of work here), you'll get a +6 total mod bonus.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The average array for 6 rolls of 4d6 drop lowest isn't functionally possible to find without error bars so large as to render the result meaningless. What's been done, and reasonably so, is to determine what the expected average roll of 4d6k3, and that's between 12 and 13.

In another thread someone calculated a ranked average. (Psuedo-)Randomly generate a huge number of 6-stat arrays, sort them descending, then take the average each element. So, the average highest score of 6 4d6k3 turned out to be a bit under 16.
FWIW.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In another thread someone calculated a ranked average. (Psuedo-)Randomly generate a huge number of 6-stat arrays, sort them descending, then take the average each element. So, the average highest score of 6 4d6k3 turned out to be a bit under 16.
FWIW.

Not sure I follow this. What I assume you mean is that the poster generated a LOT of arrays, then pulled the highest roll from each, then averaged the highest rolls and got slightly less than 16? Because the method you presented would return the average roll (lots of elements, average them all), which is between 12 and 13 (12.24).

If it's my assumption, then that tracks pretty well with my estimate of the probabilities. I say estimate because working out the math is tediously hard -- the monte carlo simulation is much easier to build.

For example, the odds of rolling at least 1 18 is pretty easy to establish. it's the odds I roll 1 18 in 6 rolls, plus the odds I roll 2 18's in six rolls, plus... the odds I roll 6 18's in 6 rolls (turns out you can pretty much ignore everything after 2 18's, which is a 0.37% chance) -- this is 9.34% chance for at least 1 18.

But to figure out if your highest roll is 17, you have to figure the odds for 1 17 in 6 rolls minus the odds of rolling an 18 in the other 5 rolls (so 1-5 18's on 5 rolls), then the chance to roll 2 17's minus the chance to roll any 18's on the other 4 rolls, etc. 16's means you're figuring the odds of 1 16 minus the odds of 17 or 18 on the other rolls, and so on. U. G. L. Y. There's not a good shortcut to this kind of probability, at least not that I've been able to find or have ever been aware of. In school, this is when we simulated.

Much easier to generate a LOT of sets, pull the highest in each, and then average. If I get the time, I might recreate.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not sure I follow this. What I assume you mean is that the poster generated a LOT of arrays, then pulled the highest roll from each, then averaged the highest rolls and got slightly less than 16?

Had a computer do it, yes: then averaged the second-highest roll from each, on down to the lowest. The result, a ranked average, was surprisingly close to the standard array, just a tad higher on a score or two.