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

[clearstream]

You keep using these words. They do not mean what you think they mean.

The words you are looking for are: "lumping", "disgraceful", "impotent", and "laughable"

Hehe! Maybe. Come back to me about how many encounters we want to use for an adventuring day, and let's work out the sustained averages. That's much lower for expendable resources like Rage and Frenzy.

Also, for foes, at level 5 do you agree with AC 15? Multiattack back at +6? Dealing 10 per attack? For the purposes of cleave and attacks back, one foe engaged with the character, with 100 HP? Or two with 50?

What for level 10? Also what saving throws in each case?

 

[clearstream]

Oh yeah, I'm aware that their vulnerability is to saves, but my point was that you can't see high AC as invulnarebility, there is always a 5% chance you will get hit....

I think BS is definitely switching to full Wizard mode when against an enemy caster (hmm, but could Counterspell change that?) Against melee foes, Blur means 0.25% of being critical hit.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

We say "maybe if opponent moves" but then do not add the AoO damage for opponent moving. Foe is either not moving and being tanked successfully, or they are moving? If they are moving, why are we ignoring the AoO?

I actually addressed this in 2 of my 3 posts. Please read my posts before responding. If you have an issue with my response, please address the response rather than just repeat the original claim.

but recall that my claim is that if foe is moving then BB is dealing damage comparable to sword-and-board Battlemaster.

I addressed this too. Please read my posts before responding.

How many times are we saying Frenzy BB is Raging, Reckless Attacking, and using Frenzy per "adventuring day"?

You have missed the point of including the BB at all. I am not comparing the BS to the BB, I am comparing the BS to the CL (for which it compares poorly).

I mentioned this too. Again, please read my entire post before responding.

I have no interest in answering the same questions mutliple times only to have the responses ignored. I have already explained to you why I did not include AoO in the examples, I have already explained to you why comparison to a sword-and-board battlemaster is a poor comparison (for multiple reasons). I explained that the comparison was between the Bladesinger and the Cleric, and the Barbarian was being included merely to show a max damage potential.

If you have comments on my responses to these questions, please make them. If you have comments on my comparison to the BS and the CL, please make them, we can have a discussion.

However, it is frusturating to read your responses only to see you ask questions that I clearly gave the answer to earlier. Here are those answers (copied from my earlier posts)

Movement of an enemy may not be overly unusual, but movement alone does not provoke an attack of opportunity. You are describing a situation where an opponent chooses to provoke an attack of opportunity in addition to moving by moving away from the Bladesinger without disengaging. You are describing a situation which simply doesn't happen except in unusual circumstances.... (and from following post)... Now the opponent could move and provoke an attack of opportunity, I just don't think that's going to happen frequently enough to do all the math (would need to do for all 3 characters)

I reject comparison with a Sword and Board Battlemaster for two reasons. First reason is that comparing a BS to a non-caster isn't really fair, as the BS ability to tap the versitility and power of spellcasting is not accounted for. Secondly, a Battlemaster using sword and board is only partially a damage dealer, it is also knocking over opponents with shield, frightening them with menacing strike

I will also set a baseline. This will be done by statting out a REAL damage dealer - a character focused on doing damage, just to see what the upper ceiling is.

 

[Bolares]

I think BS is definitely switching to full Wizard mode when against an enemy caster (hmm, but could Counterspell change that?) Against melee foes, Blur means 0.25% of being critical hit.

The problem is that normally the enemy caster will be acompained by some tanks of his own... then what you do? Because if you are using all your slots on your own defense, as shield + blur + counterspell, how do you expect to kill the caster, or help your party doing so? and what if you have already cast blur, before noticing the caster in the enemy's back row, you give up on your concentration?

Surelly Blur helps your defense a lot, but our questioning is... Is it really the best use of an wizards concentration? Your AC is already enourmous, changing a 5% to a 0,25% chance to hit isn't better than ensuring some critical hits to your heavy hitters for an exemple...

The point I don't see you making, and I'm sorry if I miss it is why it's better for an BS to be in melee VS being in "full Wizard mode" all the time?

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

Hehe! Maybe. Come back to me about how many encounters we want to use for an adventuring day, and let's work out the sustained averages. That's much lower for expendable resources like Rage and Frenzy.

Also, for foes, at level 5 do you agree with AC 15? Multiattack back at +6? Dealing 10 per attack? For the purposes of cleave and attacks back, one foe engaged with the character, with 100 HP? Or two with 50?

What for level 10? Also what saving throws in each case?

Addressed in first of the 3 posts. Really, read my posts and you will find answers to your questions.

 

[clearstream]

I actually addressed this in 2 of my 3 posts. Please read my posts before responding. If you have an issue with my response, please address the response rather than just repeat the original claim.

Okay, so we will say that foe always chooses Disengage. The effect of that will be fewer attacks back against Bladesinger or its allies. I'll be able to show you how that looks in the probability density function.

Given you allow BS no Attacks of Opportunity, taking Warcaster at level 4 is perverse. At level 4, BS should take Dexterity.

You have missed the point of including the BB at all. I am not comparing the BS to the BB, I am comparing the BS to the CL (for which it compares poorly).

Okay, I will focus on this comparison.

If you have comments on my responses to these questions, please make them. If you have comments on my comparison to the BS and the CL, please make them, we can have a discussion.

Spirit Guardians is a 3rd-level cast. Spiritual Weapon is a 2nd-level cast. 5th level Cleric has 4/3/2 casts.

Before I can provide you my estimates which take into account expendable resources, can you answer my question about number of encounters per "adventuring day"? Do you accept 6 encounters broken by 2 short rests? Or something else?

 

[Rofel Wodring]

The point I don't see you making, and I'm sorry if I miss it is why it's better for an BS to be in melee VS being in "full Wizard mode" all the time?

I am one of those melee Bladesingers. And due to Adventurer's League magical item drops, I can do it better than the default Bladesinger. I have a Flametongue shortsword and an Ild Rune'd shortsword in my offhand, and with that haste nonsense I can do 11d6+12 damage. In two levels, that'll go up to 11d6+32.

However, even so:
1.) My buffs are better spent on someone else. My defense is top-notch even without disadvantage-on-demand. Between Shield, Absorb Elements, and Song of Defense along with a Bladesinging AC of 24 I just don't get hit unless we're facing Fire Giants or something. There's an Eldritch Knight in the party, throwing a Greater Invis on him reduces the total damage taken and also causes his offense to skyrocket. Even with an offense that I'd never get to see in non-AL play, he just completely destroys me in offense. I'm talking 120 damage a round not being unusual for them.

2.) I generally only go into melee for two purposes: to conserve spell slots (and Blur and Protection from Good and Evil are good for that) for easy/medium but not throwaway battles and to take advantage of spells. I traded for a Ring of Free Action and holy cow does that open up so many more options. I can go right in the middle of my Transmute Rock (I have another AL wizard that I copy spells from) or Black Tentacles or Web and do hard control that traditional wizards can't really do.

Before I can provide you my estimates which take into account expendable resources,

I don't really care what the DMG has to say on this subject. While I'm careful to lay out the difference between AL play and home games, one thing that is consistent between both is that it's more like 1-4 encounters a day, not 6-8. About half of my workday are single-encounters, and I've almost never had more than four.

 

[clearstream]

Addressed in first of the 3 posts. Really, read my posts and you will find answers to your questions.

We need attacks back, because I am putting forward an argument that it is only by ignoring resource expenditure and attacks back that the claimed comparatives appear to make sense. Can Cleric cast the claimed spells in every encounter? That doesn't seem possible. With what probability do they survive the attacks back.

The prediction is that when we expend resources and have attacks back, the picture changes.

 

[clearstream]

I don't really care what the DMG has to say on this subject. While I'm careful to lay out the difference between AL play and home games, one thing that is consistent between both is that it's more like 1-4 encounters a day, not 6-8. About half of my workday are single-encounters, and I've almost never had more than four. [/FONT][/COLOR]

My feeling from the two campaigns I'm involved with, in conjunction with the values used in the adventuring day XP table, is that four encounters per day is (or should be) typical.

If a DM is allowing a single-encounter work-day they're distorting the game balance. That is fine for their campaign: I am not making any argument about one-encounter adventuring days.

 

[Rofel Wodring]

We need attacks back,

No, you don't. Unless the Bladesinger has a way of specifically funneling attacks towards them (like with the Sentinel feat) what's more important is how much damage the party is taking. It doesn't particularly matter if you're invincible to attacks if the rest of the party goes down before you do, which has happened to me a couple of times. No one applauds the Wizard for his invincible l33tness if he uses Fly to get himself (and only himself) above some Yetis and Firebolts/Fireballs them to death while the rest of the party dies.