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

[Ancalagon]

Oh, she's not hindered at all. No problem at all! Wizarding duties involve looking down on others and trampling over them, right? Because that's totally in the bag.

*cough*

I'm guessing, by "duties" you're referring to the role of being a controller or AoE artillery? In which case, its not hindered, its outright impossible. There's not enough spell slots to do both. Furthermore, most wizards who focus on doing that kind of thing also get wands and a staff that extends their ability, while bladesingers tend to get magical weapons and armors and not the staves and rods.

As for the Magus? It would be possible with a Sorcerer plus some new metamagics.

"duties" - yeah, sorry, that was vague. I meant more the utility a wizard can bring outside of combat, or "pre-combat" (arranging events to your advantage kinda deal).

If I were to build a magus custom class, I would use the paladin as a starting point then go from there.

 

[clearstream]

I'm guessing, by "duties" you're referring to the role of being a controller or AoE artillery? In which case, its not hindered, its outright impossible. There's not enough spell slots to do both.

There are, but not if you're burning your 3rd level spell slots on Haste. That said, when we argue means to the same ends we're essentially splitting hairs. And it's straightforward within the standard Wizard spells known to set up to switch roles as the encounter requires.

Furthermore, most wizards who focus on doing that kind of thing also get wands and a staff that extends their ability, while bladesingers tend to get magical weapons and armors and not the staves and rods.

Did your party contain multiple arcane casters? Would your GM have added more staves and rods if you'd been another Arcane Tradition? How did the other martials feel about the Wizard taking magic armor and weapons that could have improved them?

 

[clearstream]

Eh, I don't really think it is better. About this time is when I got my +1 weapon and the elven chain. Raising my dex would have just equaled out to the armor, and my weapon gave me an extra +1 damage/hit. I could have gotten more +1 hit/damage, but at this point, I was hitting with enough frequency that it wasn't that big of a deal. Don't forget that we had a lore bard in the party who could buff us. In the end, raising Dex would have just been +1 damage and +1 Initiative. Meanwhile, as a scout, I could usually arrange to go first by virtue of finding the enemy first. So, ultimately, I felt that I was just passing up on +1 damage, in exchange for some hefty increase in tactics and potential damage output.

It's more relevant if you are using Blur, as the +1 AC really helps. By level 5 you are expecting foes with +3 to +6. With 19 AC they hit with 1:4 to 2:5 of their attacks. With 20 they hit with 1:5 to 7:20 of their attacks. That is magnified by Shield of Faith and Disadvantage, so that they start hitting with only 1:100 to 1:16 of their attacks. In conjunction with the relatively low number of attacks that each foe is likely to get per combat, forcing* that one value tails incoming hits off dramatically. I like your use of Warcaster a great deal - it looks very satisfying! Taking the Feat instead of the ASI means committing to a high resource-use character, so there's the downside.

My principle critique could be restated as "don't make casters that overshadow martials". Strongest defensive toe-to-toe character should be the one with plate, shield and Defense fighting style. Wizard already has the most toys: they don't need this. Some commentators have focused on a single dimension of that critique, to suggest that if BS can't also do wizardry then there is no problem. That single dimension isn't the only dimension of the critique, which is more concerned about Wizards stretching out to overshadow martials than whether BS is the strongest Arcane Tradition (I believe BS is top-two, that said). However, even looking at that one dimension, the framing under which it could make sense requires us to ignore the efficiency of Blur + very high AC. Proactively using Mage Armor (runs 8 hours, no Concentration) + Blur (Concentration, 1 minute) + Shield of Faith (bonus action to cast, Concentration, 10 minutes) with Bladesong ends up saving resources over the course of the combat.

Then, because we spent 1/6th of a 1st level slot + a 2nd level slot + a 1st level slot, with likely 1-2 heals and 0-1 Shields on top, most of our 3rd level slots (and higher) wind up free for all the wizardry our hearts could desire. Worst case, BS simply switches roles. Other Arcane Traditions don't do better than this, because they still need to cast something each combat. So even though I don't believe my critique can be rebuked solely on that single dimension (it's wizard overshadowing martials that I excoriate) I also don't believe that a very strong case has been made to show that BS can't do wizardry. Sitting at the table next to our guy in TotYP, I'm seeing plenty of CC and AoE output on top of his BSing. Still, we're only a few sessions in.



*A feature of the mechanics of RPGs is that balancing faults often arise from forcing a value. From a professional expertise perspective, that is part of what makes adding Int to AC egregious, because the designer should have looked at that forcing with concern. Overshadow and power-creep then rear their ugly heads. I should add that averaging damage instead of playing out scenarios might fail to explicate such a forcing because it is representing damage as coming in constantly, when really that damage is arriving infrequently and in parcels.

 

[Mephista]

"duties" - yeah, sorry, that was vague. I meant more the utility a wizard can bring outside of combat, or "pre-combat" (arranging events to your advantage kinda deal).

Well, I did use some spells on exploration abilities, as I mentioned before. Not much; I had invested in thief tools and could stealth, so there was some used on helping in being a scout. Actually, less than you'd think - the decent dex and training meant that I could handle most situations well enough that I didn't need more than the occasional Invisibility spell.

If I were to build a magus custom class, I would use the paladin as a starting point then go from there.

Paladin could work too, that was my initial thought too. But then I noticed that a good chunk of the magus revolved around using something similar to sorcery points, which is why I thought we could do sorcerer as well. Just slip in the smite spells into the sorcerer, and some armor, and I think it has potential.

I definitely think that it would be some combination of sorcerer/paladin, though.

Did your party contain multiple arcane casters? Would your GM have added more staves and rods if you'd been another Arcane Tradition? How did the other martials feel about the Wizard taking magic armor and weapons that could have improved them?

No one cared about anything other than having fun. And, yes, we all had fun.

In fact, I'd like to point out my magic items I did have. They all revolve around Elf themes. A faux moonblade. Elven chain. Elven boots. Elven cloak. It wasn't random - I traded my share of items away in the elven kingdom to get these items specifically, because it fit my character idea. Well, it was more along the lines of be rewarded to my character for their efforts in recovering other items and giviing them to the elven nation, but that's really just splitting hairs.

It's more relevant

And that's the crux. I played my bladesinger differently than you did. Or, if I'm reading your early posts right, a fellow player of yours did.

Here's something that many people forget about games when talking in threads like this. All games are different. Or, at least, different enough. The tactics you proposed would have been at my table. Different playstyles meshing with different plots and different party compositions. I worked my character to fill in a need of our group. Your group does, well, whatever they're doing; I don't know, I'm not there.

In the end, everyone had fun and that's all that matters in the end.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's more relevant if you are using Blur, as the +1 AC really helps. By level 5 you are expecting foes with +3 to +6. With 19 AC they hit with 1:4 to 2:5 of their attacks. With 20 they hit with 1:5 to 7:20 of their attacks. That is magnified by Shield of Faith and Disadvantage, so that they start hitting with only 1:100 to 1:16 of their attacks. In conjunction with the relatively low number of attacks that each foe is likely to get per combat, forcing* that one value tails incoming hits off dramatically. I like your use of Warcaster a great deal - it looks very satisfying! Taking the Feat instead of the ASI means committing to a high resource-use character, so there's the downside.

My principle critique could be restated as "don't make casters that overshadow martials". Strongest defensive toe-to-toe character should be the one with plate, shield and Defense fighting style. Wizard already has the most toys: they don't need this. Some commentators have focused on a single dimension of that critique, to suggest that if BS can't also do wizardry then there is no problem. That single dimension isn't the only dimension of the critique, which is more concerned about Wizards stretching out to overshadow martials than whether BS is the strongest Arcane Tradition (I believe BS is top-two, that said). However, even looking at that one dimension, the framing under which it could make sense requires us to ignore the efficiency of Blur + very high AC. Proactively using Mage Armor (runs 8 hours, no Concentration) + Blur (Concentration, 1 minute) + Shield of Faith (bonus action to cast, Concentration, 10 minutes) with Bladesong ends up saving resources over the course of the combat.

Then, because we spent 1/6th of a 1st level slot + a 2nd level slot + a 1st level slot, with likely 1-2 heals and 0-1 Shields on top, most of our 3rd level slots (and higher) wind up free for all the wizardry our hearts could desire. Worst case, BS simply switches roles. Other Arcane Traditions don't do better than this, because they still need to cast something each combat. So even though I don't believe my critique can be rebuked solely on that single dimension (it's wizard overshadowing martials that I excoriate) I also don't believe that a very strong case has been made to show that BS can't do wizardry. Sitting at the table next to our guy in TotYP, I'm seeing plenty of CC and AoE output on top of his BSing. Still, we're only a few sessions in.



*A feature of the mechanics of RPGs is that balancing faults often arise from forcing a value. From a professional expertise perspective, that is part of what makes adding Int to AC egregious, because the designer should have looked at that forcing with concern. Overshadow and power-creep then rear their ugly heads. I should add that averaging damage instead of playing out scenarios might fail to explicate such a forcing because it is representing damage as coming in constantly, when really that damage is arriving infrequently and in parcels.

Right, you're using 1 first to set up your day, and then 1-2 firsts and a second from the bladesinger and a 1st from another caster (potentially a 2nd if you're using warding bond) for each fight. At 4 fights a day, you're now using higher level slots to fuel shields and blurs, and you've tapped your cleric of all first level slots just to enable your melee actions.

Let me put that another way: in a 4 fight day, you're burning 4 2nd level slots and potentially 1-8 slots on shield, and the cleric is burning 4 1st slots on shield of faith. NONE of these spells are draining resources from your foes -- no damage, no lockdown, no area denial -- they're ALL just to enable a wizard to have a high survivability in melee. And you claim this isn't a huge investment just to enable a wizard to not be hit and doesn't affect that wizard's ability (or their party's) to accomplish things? If you're using your much rarely 3rd+ slots for exploration and social encounters then you've already sacrificed a huge amount of the wizard's versatility because a lot of obstacle removal/bypassing is in those 1st to 2nd level spells.

And, further, I did my math wrong. In your Hill Giant fight you presented eariler, you took 8 rounds to kill the hill giants. If one (and only one) is attacking you every round (as tank) in melee, then the chances to be hit are:

Not hit at all: 22%
Hit at least once: 78%
Hit at least twice: 43%
Hit at least three times: 17%
Hit at least four times: 5%

Crit at least once: 4%

This is assuming usage of blur as per the scenario. That's 2 attacks a round by 1 giant for 8 rounds for 3d8+5 damage against a hit point pool of 36 hp. It's very likely you will use 1 shield, and pretty likely you will use 2. So, even if you look at discrete chances and don't average, the bladesinger actually comes off worse, not better.

If you'd rather an easier fight, say where the bladesinger is tanking 2 giants for 2 rounds, the numbers aren't that much better:
53% chance to be hit at least once
17% chance to be hit at least twice

And that's out of only 8 attacks. Again, assuming AC 23 and blur.

You're burning a huge amount of resources to enable your trick of having a high AC. And the comment that the casters will be casting spells in combat anyway is ignoring that they'll be casting spells to harm/delay/remove opponents, not enable the bladesinger to act the tank. The spells being cast will be directly contributing to ending the encounter, not to let the bladesinger stand in the way of melee.

So, yeah, you can burn a heap of resources and be less hittable than a fighter. That's not overshadowing, it's burning a huge amount of resources to be a bit better at not getting hit. When you are hit, it doesn't help at all.

 

[clearstream]

And that's the crux. I played my bladesinger differently than you did. Or, if I'm reading your early posts right, a fellow player of yours did.

Can you recollect what the other PCs were?

Ours are a Life Cleric (excellent class!), an Archer (strong, but sometimes vexing), and a Fighter (decent, but we'd be better off with something else).

 

[clearstream]

Right, you're using 1 first to set up your day, and then 1-2 firsts and a second from the bladesinger and a 1st from another caster (potentially a 2nd if you're using warding bond) for each fight. At 4 fights a day, you're now using higher level slots to fuel shields and blurs, and you've tapped your cleric of all first level slots just to enable your melee actions.

Arcane Recover at 6th level for +3x 2nd level slots. Leaves all 3rd level slots unused.

Let me put that another way: in a 4 fight day, you're burning 4 2nd level slots and potentially 1-8 slots on shield, and the cleric is burning 4 1st slots on shield of faith. NONE of these spells are draining resources from your foes -- no damage, no lockdown, no area denial -- they're ALL just to enable a wizard to have a high survivability in melee.

1-8 Shields is... it simply doesn't work out that way. Yes, the Cleric is burning slots proactively instead of reactively. Play it out. You'll see that the non-BS parties use more resources.

At 6th, with Booming Blade, you land 2d8+4 on your attack, and another 2d8 + an attack for 1d8+4 again if they choose to move away from you. It's nearly Fireball damage on any creature that tries to ignore you.

And, further, I did my math wrong. In your Hill Giant fight you presented eariler, you took 8 rounds to kill the hill giants. If one (and only one) is attacking you every round (as tank) in melee, then the chances to be hit are:

Not hit at all: 22%
Hit at least once: 78%
Hit at least twice: 43%
Hit at least three times: 17%
Hit at least four times: 5%

Crit at least once: 4%

This is assuming usage of blur as per the scenario. That's 2 attacks a round by 1 giant for 8 rounds for 3d8+5 damage against a hit point pool of 36 hp. It's very likely you will use 1 shield, and pretty likely you will use 2. So, even if you look at discrete chances and don't average, the bladesinger actually comes off worse, not better.

No, that doesn't happen. In played encounters, it is rare for foes to stand toe-to-toe and swing every round non-stop. For one thing, they need to close (getting one rock throw instead of a swing). And the situation is not - all giants alive for rounds 1-7, all giants dead in round 8. They die at various times over the course of the combat. I've run this encounter several times now with each group, and the BS has not seen a single critical. Across several combats the BS has been hit a few times, splitting the damage with the Cleric. Each hit was at the BS' discretion: a Shield cast would have stopped it. The Diviner has been downed twice and died once. Just to stray rocks.

Until you run the encounter there isn't too much value in continuing this. Your averaging assumptions are good starting points, but in the end they can't capture an encounter as it plays out.


[Edit: I ran the "hard" two-giant version once more out of curiousity to see whether they could focus-down the BS. Combat was over in 3 rounds. BS got in 57 damage (with no move triggers on BB). BS did not get hit and never needed to Shield. Spells used = 1x 1st and 2x 2nd level slots (Mage Armor, Blur, Warding Bond). Mage Armor runs another several hours and Warding Bond about another hour. Neither takes Concentration. This is typical for these combats. Giants, with +8 attack, cannot hit BS.]

 

[Ovinomancer]

Arcane Recover at 6th level for +3x 2nd level slots. Leaves all 3rd level slots unused.


1-8 Shields is... it simply doesn't work out that way. Yes, the Cleric is burning slots proactively instead of reactively. Play it out. You'll see that the non-BS parties use more resources.

At 6th, with Booming Blade, you land 2d8+4 on your attack, and another 2d8 + an attack for 1d8+4 again if they choose to move away from you. It's nearly Fireball damage on any creature that tries to ignore you.


No, that doesn't happen. In played encounters, it is rare for foes to stand toe-to-toe and swing every round non-stop. For one thing, they need to close (getting one rock throw instead of a swing). And the situation is not - all giants alive for rounds 1-7, all giants dead in round 8. They die at various times over the course of the combat. I've run this encounter several times now with each group, and the BS has not seen a single critical. Across several combats the BS has been hit a few times, splitting the damage with the Cleric. Each hit was at the BS' discretion: a Shield cast would have stopped it. The Diviner has been downed twice and died once. Just to stray rocks.

Until you run the encounter there isn't too much value in continuing this. Your averaging assumptions are good starting points, but in the end they can't capture an encounter as it plays out.


[Edit: I ran the "hard" two-giant version once more out of curiousity to see whether they could focus-down the BS. Combat was over in 3 rounds. BS got in 57 damage (with no move triggers on BB). BS did not get hit and never needed to Shield. Spells used = 1x 1st and 2x 2nd level slots (Mage Armor, Blur, Warding Bond). Mage Armor runs another several hours and Warding Bond about another hour. Neither takes Concentration. This is typical for these combats. Giants, with +8 attack, cannot hit BS.]

You're now arguing for anecdote over data. Your encounters didn't turn it that way, but over all similar encounters it turns out the probability density function holds. That you've been lucky, or engineered your encounters so that the tank isn't taking melee attacks every round (and I'm I bit flabbergasted at the idea that the tank doesn't, you know, tank) doesn't mean that the numbers aren't valid. I also provide the numbers for taking 8 attacks in total, and that's still high chance the bladesinger is hit. But you tell me what your AC is, what the attack bonus is, and how many attacks you take and I can give you the PDF for that.

And PDFs aren't averages.

 

[clearstream]

You're now arguing for anecdote over data. Your encounters didn't turn it that way, but over all similar encounters it turns out the probability density function holds. That you've been lucky, or engineered your encounters so that the tank isn't taking melee attacks every round (and I'm I bit flabbergasted at the idea that the tank doesn't, you know, tank) doesn't mean that the numbers aren't valid. I also provide the numbers for taking 8 attacks in total, and that's still high chance the bladesinger is hit. But you tell me what your AC is, what the attack bonus is, and how many attacks you take and I can give you the PDF for that.

Heh You're mixing up estimating for data. What I am doing is generating live data by playtesting encounters. What you are doing (and I do as well) is estimating. An upside of estimating is that it can indicate expectations over a larger (even the full) set of cases. A downside is that the devil is in the detail: one often doesn't notice what is omitted until live data has been generated and compared. For instance, the assumption that over an 8 round combat for a foe with Multiattack, there will be 8*2 attacks. Playtesting proves that doesn't always happen.

I haven't been lucky at all. That is easy to see because of the tolerances involved. There have been zero close-shaves, no could-have-gone-either-ways, etc, for the BS party. Shield use hasn't been swingy or volatile, it has been 0-1 for the two giant group, 1-2 for the three giant group. What I think would be more telling would be to get some casters in on the side of the foes. Maybe a Hold Person or two...

To answer your request

6th level BS
Starting ability scores (rolled 1 point better than average) = 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 9 + High Elf, + ASI = 9, 18, 13, 18, 12, 10
For estimating resources, day is 2 encounters, short rest, 2 encounters, short rest, 2 encounters, long rest
Mage Armor at start of day = 17 AC
Bladesong = 21 AC
Blur = most attackers have Disadvantage
Shield if needed = 26 AC
Depending on encounter, Shield of Faith and/or Warding Bond (it varies which is better, and both is an option) = 22 AC + resistance, or 23 AC, or 24 AC + resistance

 

[clearstream]

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] I realised also that you might be discounting the odd use of superiority dice and so on to control the encounter, than a party will reasonably use. Sometimes, a giant is Frightened, that sort of thing. (Yes, I am carefully staying within a 2.5 dice per encounter limit for that!)