D&D 5E New D&D WotC survey! On classes.

[Faolyn]

Effectiveness, mostly. The class all but requires a maxed-out Charisma and Dexterity, or patches from other sourcebooks, to be able to keep up with other classes.

But I'm not giving up just yet.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure all classes are like that. You're not an effective warrior if your Strength or Dex is low, because you rely on that stat to hit. You're not (as) an affective spellcaster if your spellcasting attribute is low, because your spell attack and save DCs are calculated based on that stat. You can get around it with focusing on buffs or divinations and things like that, but that's fairly atypical.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Could we have a summary? What’s wrong with it?

This applies to both EK and Bladesinger, as they are two sides of the same coin.

Essentially they're both less fun, less unique versions of the 3e duskblade, 4e swordmage, and pathfinder magus, with what made those classes interesting removed. We had a great half caster template for 5e classes, and instead what could have been a fun class got relegated to a pair of subclasses. Which in turn prevents a proper class for it existing.

Both paladin and ranger get unique spell lists designed around their playstyle. Meanwhile the EK is glued to the wizard list, which isn't designed around hitting things with weapons at all apart from two cantrips. Paladin and Ranger are getting tons of levelled spells like searing smite and ensnaring strike to set their sword on fire/ice/thunder and smack things. Which basically emulates the spellstrike ability which duskblade/magus/swordmage were known for.

The result is that if you want to play an arcane swordmage from prior editions, you're better off asking your DM to reflavour a paladin, ranger, or hexblade, than to actually play the arcane swordmage subclasses in 5e. Their thematics are utterly wrong, but at least they play very slightly more like those classes once did.

If 5e is your first edition of DnD and you don't have the others are a comparison point, EK is a perfectly good subclass without many issues. If you've played those prior edition/pathfinder classes and want something like them, then EK is worse than useless for it.

Honestly just adding searing smite, thunderous smite, ensnaring strike, and the other similar spells to EK would partially fix it for me.

 

[Bolares]

Yep, these questions (and more) are at the heart of this experiment. But I want to take my time and do this right, make sure I'm not just slapping something together and saying "Good enough. See? I told you so." I want to give it proper care and attention, and that involves comparison with other popular character builds.

Pass or fail, I want to be able to say that I gave this my best effort. I'm sure there will be plenty of discussion later about how I "did it wrong," but that's the Internet for ya.

The only way to do it wrong is to not have a rapier and not having a smarmy personality...

 

[Bolares]

Honestly, I'm pretty sure all classes are like that. You're not an effective warrior if your Strength or Dex is low, because you rely on that stat to hit. You're not (as) an affective spellcaster if your spellcasting attribute is low, because your spell attack and save DCs are calculated based on that stat. You can get around it with focusing on buffs or divinations and things like that, but that's fairly atypical.

I think the heart of this specific problem is that the Bard is a full caster with a naughty word damaging cantrip. So if you want to do ok damage you must relly on some weapon. That makes you feel like your dex has to be high. Where I disagree is with this last notion. If you use a crosbow, even with low dex, you will be on par with the wizard's firebolts on damage (more or less).

I think it's more of a "feel bad" problem than a "play bad" one

 

[Neonchameleon]

Honestly, I'm pretty sure all classes are like that. You're not an effective warrior if your Strength or Dex is low, because you rely on that stat to hit. You're not (as) an affective spellcaster if your spellcasting attribute is low, because your spell attack and save DCs are calculated based on that stat. You can get around it with focusing on buffs or divinations and things like that, but that's fairly atypical.

There are a couple of exceptions here in the Hexblade and a couple of the Artificer subclasses that get to make weapon attacks with Cha or Int, and Druids always have Shillealeagh and Magic stone as cantrips. But it's all exceptions rather than the general rule

 

[Yaarel]

Agreed. There are half a dozen combat cantrips I'd add to the bard list starting with Poison Spray and Mind Sliver.

Dexterity in general is far too good, affecting initiative, AC, attacks, and damage rolls, and a wide range of skills. The rapier is the best dex melee weapon. This is the sort of thing weapon tables do and is especially glaring with the rapier wielded by anyone with martial weapons and dex, plus rogues and bards.

It is easy to create a new weapons table. Each regional setting does well to have its own list of common and prestigious weapons.

The greatsword should have reach.

The longsword (such as a claymore) should deal 1d8 or versatile 1d12. That way it becomes more viable for alternating grip. Possibly with reach.

There needs to be the "normal" sword (knightly, viking, spatha, etcetera), that deals 1d8 finesse, with choice of slash or pierce. THIS is the sword that Bards and Dex elves should be wielding.

The shortsword (Saxon seax, gladius, etcetera) seems fine.

The Renaissance rapier with Medieval experimental precedents is really a very thin longsword with about a meter blade, and should be finesse 1d6 pierce possibly with reach.



In any case, fixing the weapons table solves the monotony of the mostly anachronistic rapier.

 

[Bolares]

There are a couple of exceptions here in the Hexblade and a couple of the Artificer subclasses that get to make weapon attacks with Cha or Int, and Druids always have Shillealeagh and Magic stone as cantrips. But it's all exceptions rather than the general rule

Now rangers also have access to shillelahg (I hate the name of this spell, so tough to spell...) at the cost of their combat style

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think the heart of this specific problem is that the Bard is a full caster with a naughty word damaging cantrip. So if you want to do ok damage you must relly on some weapon. That makes you feel like your dex has to be high. Where I disagree is with this last notion. If you use a crosbow, even with low dex, you will be on par with the wizard's firebolts on damage (more or less).

Not really? I mean you're going to be less accurate from first level and your damage with the crossbow is never going to scale unlike the wizard at 5th and 11th

The other thing is the armour rules and bards getting only light and medium armour which means they want Dex 14 for AC reasons.

 

[Bolares]

your damage with the crossbow is never going to scale unlike the wizard at 5th and 11th

I don't know, but in later levels, I'm rarelly using my damaging cantrips, either as a bard or as a wizard. I almost always have a better option than dealing mediocre amounts of (steady) damage.

But you are correct about precision... at least as far as bounded accuracy makes it matter.

About Dex 14... well that's not that hard to come by is it? I've never said to dump Dex. Just that you don't really need it to be as high as charisma.

 

[DEFCON 1]

More than barking at the moon, you’re lecturing grown adults on how they’re wrong about what they enjoy and how they’d be happier if they just did what you told them to do.

No, I'm telling them that because what they want they can't actually get... they are going to be endlessly miserable. WotC cannot give them what they want.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to build a game of D&D that is balanced for every single player. Balance it for the way one table plays the game... it becomes unbalanced for 99 others. Because everyone's focus... even in just the board game itself... is different. So no one is EVER going to be happy under this way of thinking. And I'm just reiterating that to everyone.

So I'll say it again and again and again, every time someone complains how WotC screwed up and didn't balance the game. If you put "balanced game mechanics" as the most important thing to your D&D experience... you will never be happy. And if you want to be happy at some point in time... you're going to need to change your way of thinking and not keep trying to get WotC to cater the game to you. Cause it ain't gonna happen.