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

[clearstream]

I'm not trying to set a goal, so much as trying to understand the set of assumptions under which the OP's assessment makes sense vs the set of assumptions under which the Bladesinger could be deemed reasonable.

I think the key difference is in respective assumptions about how the wizard & fighter stack up.

So yes, in part it's egregious because caster already trumps fighter, and BS is a better fighter than EK is a caster. BS is reasonable when it doesn't get more than about a +7 bonus to AC. Above that, it's unreasonable. Could've added half-Int, and that might have nailed it. (Champion and Bard both have half-ability modifier features. So there's a precedent.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

So yes, in part it's egregious because caster already trumps fighter, and BS is a better fighter than EK is a caster.

Sounds like that's exactly why it's not egregious, because cribbing from the fighter is a waste for the BS.

BS is reasonable when it doesn't get more than about a +7 bonus to AC. Above that, it's unreasonable. Could've added half-Int, and that might have nailed it. (Champion and Bard both have half-ability modifier features. So there's a precedent.)

+7 still seems pretty high.

What if it's feature replaced DEX bonus to AC with INT bonus?

I disagree that's the correct assumption. Both [MENTION=71699]vonklaude[/MENTION] and I agree that wizards overshadow fighters as a general point of principle.... Vonklaude is looking at it from a point of view that assumes all of the Bladesinger abilities are at least additive, whereas I see those abilities as not additive but rather either or.

What about Capp's assertion that the best way to play the Bladesinger is as a regular ranged-casting wizard, with Bladesong invoked for the superior AC &c?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sounds like that's exactly why it's not egregious, because cribbing from the fighter is a waste for the BS.
+7 still seems pretty high.

What if it's feature replaced DEX bonus to AC with INT bonus?

What about Capp's assertion that the best way to play the Bladesinger is as a regular ranged-casting wizard, with Bladesong invoked for the superior AC &c?

At that point, it's pretty much not that different from other traditions in usefulness. The other traditions have things they can do to others, bladesinger has an ability that lets them have a high AC when being attacked. Not that impressive.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So yes, in part it's egregious because caster already trumps fighter, and BS is a better fighter than EK is a caster. BS is reasonable when it doesn't get more than about a +7 bonus to AC. Above that, it's unreasonable. Could've added half-Int, and that might have nailed it. (Champion and Bard both have half-ability modifier features. So there's a precedent.)

The bladesinger, though, if doing the tanking role, is subjecting itself to more attacks over time due to it's lower damage output compared to the fighter. The fighter might not get the stellar AC of a high stat bladesinger (although it's respectable) but probably has way more hitpoints (STR and CON at 20 vice INT and DEX at 20) so his staying power is roughly the same and he'll eliminate enemies more efficiently, reducing overall attacks against him. The bladesinger is far weaker to multiple foes with multi attack than the fighter due to the higher chance of crits and the bladesinger's shallow hitipoint pool. Plus, you should add an archetype to the fighter for comparison against the bladesinger tradition -- and all of the archetypes increase proficiency in the combat pillar above what a bladesinger can do.

I believe you're still considering the bladesinger abilities as additive and not exclusive use (any round the bladesinger makes a melee attack is a round he's not otherwise casting) and further making a comparison of the bladesinger tradition against a sub-classless fighter. The sub-classes of fighter dramatically improve damage output and defensive survivabilitiy. EK get shield and a few other tricks while battlemaster gets maneuvers that allow battlefield control and increased damage output. Champion gets improved crit range, and all fighters get more ASI/feats which significantly alter melee capability. A GMW, for instance, destroys GFB damage output from a bladesinger AND can still function as a tank with the deep hitpoint pool and hitpoint recovery options of a fighter.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A GMW, for instance, destroys GFB damage output from a bladesinger AND can still function as a tank with the deep hitpoint pool and hitpoint recovery options of a fighter.

And, to be fair, GMW is a feat, and therefore /optional/, and, the Bladesinger is in a non-core supplement and therefor even more optional - so for once that's a perfectly fair point.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And, to be fair, GMW is a feat, and therefore /optional/, and, the Bladesinger is in a non-core supplement and therefor even more optional - so for once that's a perfectly fair point.

For once? Has anyone ever told you that you can manage to be incredibly smug even when you're agreeing with a point, Tony?

 

[Tony Vargas]

For once?

Yes. Normally the idea that you 'need' a feat to balance one class against another suffers from the fact that feats are nominally optional.

Has anyone ever told you that you can manage to be incredibly smug even when you're agreeing with a point, Tony?

Yes.

Well, something less polite than 'smug.'

 

[clearstream]

The bladesinger, though, if doing the tanking role, is subjecting itself to more attacks over time due to it's lower damage output compared to the fighter. The fighter might not get the stellar AC of a high stat bladesinger (although it's respectable) but probably has way more hitpoints (STR and CON at 20 vice INT and DEX at 20) so his staying power is roughly the same and he'll eliminate enemies more efficiently, reducing overall attacks against him.

I think your theory works while the Bladesinger has the expected array 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9. However, they're going to mitigate a high percentage of the damage whenever above that.

First-pass analysis - they're in combat for 5 rounds - they're tanking while their allies deliver lethal. One CR 4 creature +5 attack, 27-32 damage per round (usually a Multiattack for call it 15 damage per).
BS L4 with AC 22, HP 22 +5 (Shield)
Ch L4 with AC 18, HP 36 (GWM, GWF)

BS is struck at 10 times, is hit twice, and Shields once. Takes 15 damage. Lives.
Ch is struck at 10 times, is hit four times. Takes 60 damage. Second Wind. Dies.

I know you know this, but at first-glance it is easy to assume that an AC difference of +4 is a constant 20% advantage. We need to focus on the amount it changes the hit percentage: in this case it halves it, and with Shield, quarters it.

BS L4 with AC 22, HP 22 +5 (Shield)
Ch L4 with AC 21, HP 36 (Defense, shield) and no GWM

BS is struck at 10 times, is hit twice, and Shields once. Takes 15 damage. Lives.
Ch is struck at 10 times, is hit 2-3 times. Takes about 38 damage. Second Wind. Lives.
EK fares better as they can have Shield. Takes about 23 damage. Lives.

BS is so well rewarded by ASIs that chances are they take one at 4th and one at 8th. So this sort of AC is only 1 point off the expected array. Dexterity 20 (starts at 16+2), Intelligence 18 (starts at 15+1).

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think your theory works while the Bladesinger has the expected array 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9. However, they're going to mitigate a high percentage of the damage whenever above that.

First-pass analysis - they're in combat for 5 rounds - they're tanking while their allies deliver lethal. One CR 4 creature +5 attack, 27-32 damage per round (usually a Multiattack for call it 15 damage per).
BS L4 with AC 22, HP 22 +5 (Shield)
Ch L4 with AC 18, HP 36 (GWM, GWF)

BS is struck at 10 times, is hit twice, and Shields once. Takes 15 damage. Lives.
Ch is struck at 10 times, is hit four times. Takes 60 damage. Second Wind. Dies.

I know you know this, but at first-glance it is easy to assume that an AC difference of +4 is a constant 20% advantage. We need to focus on the amount it changes the hit percentage: in this case it halves it, and with Shield, quarters it.

BS L4 with AC 22, HP 22 +5 (Shield)
Ch L4 with AC 21, HP 36 (Defense, shield) and no GWM

BS is struck at 10 times, is hit twice, and Shields once. Takes 15 damage. Lives.
Ch is struck at 10 times, is hit 2-3 times. Takes about 38 damage. Second Wind. Lives.
EK fares better as they can have Shield. Takes about 23 damage. Lives.

BS is so well rewarded by ASIs that chances are they take one at 4th and one at 8th. So this sort of AC is only 1 point off the expected array. Dexterity 20 (starts at 16+2), Intelligence 18 (starts at 15+1).

For someone that usually does excellent numerical comparisons, this is pretty shoddy. You've totally ignored that a single critical hit on the bladesinger is instant death for the bladesinger, so, after the second of these combats, the bladesinger is dead, not dying, dead.

Second, you completely ignored the crux of my argument, which is that the GWM fighter is killing his foes more quickly and reducing the number of incoming attacks.

So, same CR 4 creature as the first example (ACs 22 (+5) and 18), the creature has an AC of 14 and an average of 125 hitpoints. Same +5 to attack.

The Bladesinger is +6 to hit with his rapier, and will deal, with GFB, 2d8+4 damage (average of 13), crit of 4d8+4 (22). So a hit percentage of 65% for a per round damage of 8.9 with crits. Add in crit chance and it's That's 14 rounds of fighting -- the Bladesinger is dead in 5.

The Fighter is +7 to hit with his greatsword for 2d6+5 (with reroll) for an average of ~15 damage, crit for ~21, or +2 to hit for ~25 damage, crit for ~32 (the style bonus is about 1.3 damage per hit). That's a hit percentage of 70% for a per round damage of 10.8, or a hit percentage of 45% for a per round damage of 11.6, so let's go with power attacking. That's 11 rounds of combat. Fighter is also dead, in fewer rounds -- 4 rounds to be precise.

It appears your example kills both of them.

But, make them 5th level, and the math changes a lot.

Bladesinger gets +1 to hit and +d8 damage, for a revised hit per round damage of 12.6. He's down to 10 rounds of combat -- but dead in 6.
The fighter gets +1 to hit and an extra attack, for a revised damage per round of ~25.2. His fight lasts 5 rounds, but if he uses his action surge (or shields a hit or two from being an EK or uses maneuvers from BM) he lives to tell about it (the fighter dies in 4 rounds (almost 5), but can end the fight in in fewer rounds with more damage).

Odd what one level does.

Now, if the Bladesinger uses two shields in a fight and doesn't get critted, he can last a few rounds longer, but still dies before he kills the monster. The fighter doesn't really change much by archetype - he still loses at level 4 and has to action surge at level 5 to live.

Changing the monster to a +4 to hit doesn't change the outcome except that the double shield using 5th level bladesinger has a chance to survive if she wins initiative.

Of course, these are statistically averaged fights, so this is the converging outcome. Individual fights will vary, especially given some of the other options available. But a crit from the CR4 will likely end the bladesinger in a single blow by dealing his max hitpoint total in damage in a single hit.

 

[cbwjm]

A level 4 bladesinger with a rapier using GFB will only be dealing 1d8+4 to the primary target (I'm assuming that this example has them with an 18 Dex) and their Intelligence bonus to a single creature adjacent to the target. They will deal an additional d8 to the primary target at level 5 (2d8+4 total to the primary target).