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

[Rofel Wodring]

Because the comparison isn't to your game, where apparently you can take a staff of the archmage from a respected figure without consequence and 12th level fighters have legendary armor, but to all games, where the core design of the class and not Monty haul shines through.

"Not Monty Haul" is doing a lot of work there, considering that pretty much no 1-10/11/12 HC doesn't think that +2/+3 armor of whatever isn't an inappropriate or even rare drop.

The staff of the Magi and Tome of the Stilled Tongue examples were intentionally dramatic. It's generally not that exaggerated, especially if you play one book cover-to-cover and start with new characters (or, like most games, you just don't get past level 8 or so), but it can get pretty profound. There was a cleric with a level of sorcerer who showed up for some SKT games who had a Staff of Power and +3 armor from Curse of Strahd.

Seriously, if you can bother to spoil yourself that much, check out the treasure lists in the actual hardcovers of Princes of the Apocalypse or Storm King's Thunder or Tales of the Yawning Portal or Tomb of Annihilation (the four major games I've played/been playing). They drop some serious loot. When I say that the adventures in those games award much more treasure than typical discussions like these go, I mean it.

And while you can't expect a Bladesinger or Abjurer/Fighter or whatever to walk out of one with a Robe of the Archmagi / Staff of Power / Ioun Stone of Expertise Combo (I'm only aware of how/where to get one of those) you generally can expect to have +2/3 armor and shields of any type after fully going through one of those books.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If how D&D is played on these forums is unrepresentative how most gamers play, then why should they care about any discussions of balance forged on a forum?

/They/ shouldn't. But, then, they're not here to listen....

 

[Ovinomancer]

"Not Monty Haul" is doing a lot of work there, considering that pretty much no 1-10/11/12 HC doesn't think that +2/+3 armor of whatever isn't an inappropriate or even rare drop.

The staff of the Magi and Tome of the Stilled Tongue examples were intentionally dramatic. It's generally not that exaggerated, especially if you play one book cover-to-cover and start with new characters (or, like most games, you just don't get past level 8 or so), but it can get pretty profound. There was a cleric with a level of sorcerer who showed up for some SKT games who had a Staff of Power and +3 armor from Curse of Strahd.

Seriously, if you can bother to spoil yourself that much, check out the treasure lists in the actual hardcovers of Princes of the Apocalypse or Storm King's Thunder or Tales of the Yawning Portal or Tomb of Annihilation (the four major games I've played/been playing). They drop some serious loot. When I say that the adventures in those games award much more treasure than typical discussions like these go, I mean it.

And while you can't expect a Bladesinger or Abjurer/Fighter or whatever to walk out of one with a Robe of the Archmagi / Staff of Power / Ioun Stone of Expertise Combo (I'm only aware of how/where to get one of those) you generally can expect to have +2/3 armor and shields of any type after fully going through one of those books.

I just wrapped up SKT. Not a +3 anything in sight. +3 armor is legendary. +3 shields are very rare. I have no idea what you think those words bean, but "common by 10th level" isn't my or the DMG's definitions.

 

[James Gasik]

Huh, when I played SKT in AL, there ended up being two Brooms of Flying, a Staff of Power, a Robe of Eyes, and a Luck Blade (with at least one Wish!). But I guess random magic item tables can do that...

 

[clearstream]

Seriously, if you can bother to spoil yourself that much, check out the treasure lists in the actual hardcovers of Princes of the Apocalypse or Storm King's Thunder or Tales of the Yawning Portal or Tomb of Annihilation (the four major games I've played/been playing). They drop some serious loot. When I say that the adventures in those games award much more treasure than typical discussions like these go, I mean it.

Iymrith's Trove in SKT's final chapter is a good example. It gives 4 rolls on table F, 3 on table G, 2 on H and 1 on I. I think it is the only place in SKT where we can find the +2 Plate that we need for Abjurer... by rolling 76 on table I and then 3-4 or 12 on a d12. The Shield +2 is on table G, rolling 79, and on Shield +3 on table H rolling 37-38. Earlier, the +2 Shield, but not the armor, is available in the Cloud Giants Castle with 2 rolls on F and 1 on G: a 2% chance. Or in the Maelstrom (at level 9) they get a few rolls on tables B, D, F and G, and 2 on H.*

So the line of argument might be that Abjurer, when it completes SKT at level 10, has had a 0.25% chance (a quarter of a percent) of finding the plate armor they want. And overall perhaps a 25% chance to have found a +2 or +3 Shield. Combined about 1 in 1,600 chance of having both.

And while you can't expect a Bladesinger or Abjurer/Fighter or whatever to walk out of one with a Robe of the Archmagi / Staff of Power / Ioun Stone of Expertise Combo (I'm only aware of how/where to get one of those) you generally can expect to have +2/3 armor and shields of any type after fully going through one of those books.

"Generally expect" feels quite different from a 1 in 1,600 chance. But that is only SKT. OOTA seems light on treasure. I haven't spotted +2 Shield or Plate anywhere, but there is a +2 Studded Leather and a Blessing of Protection both before the half-way mark. @Rofel Wodring makes an appeal to the "typical campaign". In at least two published adventures, it is unlikely Abjurer will have both items**, but there is also the question of time at the table. Following the DMG guidelines, half of a character's career (in sessions and in adventuring days) takes place between levels 1-10. But that is hypothetical. Few characters are played at the table above level 15, which means that for 2/3rds of Abjurer's career they do not have the items needed to (come close to) competing with BS.

Thus for me, where @Rofel Wodring's argument most falls down is on three points

• BS can also roll (or find) helpful magic items, but doesn't need to, to function as strongly as it does.
• In the typical campaign, after playing at least 10 levels and as much as 2/3rds of their play at the table without equalling BS, Abjurer might reach a point where (chances are) they have only 1 worse AC, and 1 fewer Wizard levels.
• To make a cogent rebuttal, we would need to be able to argue that a commonly found item makes Abjurer better than BS and that no commonly found other item allows BS to skip ahead again!

I regret being dismissive earlier and will try to explain my point better: the burden is on @Rofel Wodring to show that there are common items found early in their career, that improve Abjurer, and no similar items that allow BS to skip ahead again. If that can't be shown, then the argument becomes one of "I pick a big number!" "I pick an even bigger one!" and so on. @Rofel Wodring argues for relevance to the typical campaign: accepting that, show that it is typical - most of their career, commonly found - for Abjurer to have advantages that BS can't access.


*A caveat here is that to my understanding, characters shouldn't be looting the Maelstrom. However, it would feel fair for the Princess to offer them each an item or two for their aid.
**And that concords with the guidelines in DMG 135, which published adventures probably seek to follow.

 

[James Gasik]

For example, sure, a +3 shield gives the same +5 to AC the Bladesinger gets from bladesong...oh but here's a Tome of Intellect to give the Bladesinger Int 22 and +6 to AC!

 

[CapnZapp]

This last line of discussion makes me want to ask myself again: why are we even talking about this for 300+ posts?!

It's one poster that absolutely refuses to let his misgivings die down. How can this even be a thing still?

Yes, of course you can create scenarios where Bladesingers excel. But since dozens of posters reply back it's much more of a theoretical problem than one that occurs in practice, why isn't that the end of it?

There are many other niggles and wonky design decisions in 5th edition that need discussing in length much more urgently... since they manifest much more directly and impact our actual games. Kind of what the thread has started to discuss lately.

I have a hard time believing the Bladesinger is such an easy ticket to spotlight dominance, or my players would surely have picked up on it already. I read all the OP's arguments - at least initially - and considered them. If there's been an actual development since I've missed it.

All I saw was the thread devolving into the age-old fight where we throw numbers at each other, losing touch of the greater picture.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[clearstream]

This last line of discussion makes me want to ask myself again: why are we even talking about this for 300+ posts?!

Every so often you chime in here as the thought police: honestly, if you dislike talking about BS, stay away.

It's one poster that absolutely refuses to let his misgivings die down. How can this even be a thing still?

Have you been paying attention? So far those misgivings have been sustained. Concretely -

1. BS is a better tank than the heaviest fighter in plate and shield, with defensive style
2. BS does that while keep their 3rd level and higher spells free for all the wizardry their hearts desire: in fact, martial tanks are less efficient on spell slots overall (they require a lot more healing)
3. BS is egregious with ability scores only 1 point better than average for the standard character generation method: hardly an edge case

Yes, of course you can create scenarios where Bladesingers excel. But since dozens of posters reply back it's much more of a theoretical problem than one that occurs in practice, why isn't that the end of it?

Your statement here inverts the reality, there are more scenarios where BS excels than ones where BS doesn't excel.

BS is a top-tier wizard that gives up nothing to also be a top-tier martial tank... while wildly outstripping martials for damage if BS bothers to cast a few higher level spells. Wizards are already the strongest class: they don't need this.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Every so often you chime in here as the thought police: honestly, if you dislike talking about BS, stay away.


Have you been paying attention? So far those misgivings have been sustained. Concretely -

1. BS is a better tank than the heaviest fighter in plate and shield, with defensive style

No. Better than a champion in plate and shield with style, yes. On par with champion with platemail and greatsword. No comparisons to EK or BM were made.

2. BS does that while keep their 3rd level and higher spells free for all the wizardry their hearts desire: in fact, martial tanks are less efficient on spell slots overall (they require a lot more healing)

Not quite, they keep their 3rd slots in half the cases, but they aren't free to use unless the bladesinger is anticipating never having a below average day.

The play comments have been that thers a constant worry about being in fights with low resouces, and this analysis bears that out. A CON save of +2, even with advantage, means the bladesinger will fail thar check when hit 20% of the time. That's blur needing to be recast, slowing damage out and burning more resources, and with 4 hits accepted, that's a nontrivial chance.

3. BS is egregious with ability scores only 1 point better than average for the standard character generation method: hardly an edge case

Hmm. Our sample bladesinger is 20 INT, 18 DEX, 14 CON @ 6th level. 1 ASI so 18, 18, 14 as the high stats. High elf neans a start of 17, 16, 14. We can't get this with any generation method other than rolling, as it has 2 scores over 15. So, I'm not following thus argument at all.

With point buy we can get a 15, 15, 14 start at the expense of -1 in 2 other stats. High elf gets 17I, 16D, 14C, and 1 ASI is 19I, 16D, 14C. That's a bladesong AC of 19, which us far, far less egregious than 21 due to how disadvantage works. This bladesinger has serious issues.

Your statement here inverts the reality, there are more scenarios where BS excels than ones where BS doesn't excel.

BS is a top-tier wizard that gives up nothing to also be a top-tier martial tank... while wildly outstripping martials for damage if BS bothers to cast a few higher level spells. Wizards are already the strongest class: they don't need this.

Not in your scenarios, it's not. It's a wizard, with high rolled stats, that is on par with a champion wuth greatsword, and who dedicates pretty much all of their wizarding to do so.

At higher levels, their trick isn't as good, and they can do more wizarding, but they can't do both at once. The bladesinger can be a wizard OR a tank, but not both at the same time. Again, I reference the mystic theurge. As with the MT, action economy acts as a strong break to the bladesinger.

What we've shown, really, is that the champion makes for a poor tank if focused on defense. This is a low hanging fruit, really.

 

[clearstream]

No. Better than a champion in plate and shield with style, yes. On par with champion with platemail and greatsword. No comparisons to EK or BM were made.

I thought about EK. At 7th level they can cast Blur twice per day...

Not quite, they keep their 3rd slots in half the cases, but they aren't free to use unless the bladesinger is anticipating never having a below average day.

We keep coming back to this: BS casts their spells when it is favoured to do so, and not when it isn't. And they keep their 3rd slots in most cases. We demonstrated that. And I believe you know that the Hill Giants - with +8 attack - are above the usual foe at their CR. Usually at that level BS will face +6. Take a look at the PDF for +6 - even with twice as many attackers BS 90% likely only gets hit 3 times per day.

The play comments have been that thers a constant worry about being in fights with low resouces, and this analysis bears that out. A CON save of +2, even with advantage, means the bladesinger will fail thar check when hit 20% of the time. That's blur needing to be recast, slowing damage out and burning more resources, and with 4 hits accepted, that's a nontrivial chance.

They add their Intelligence bonus to their Concentration save. And lest we ignore it, the scenario we're using assumes all foes spend their whole time pounding solely on BS, for the entire day. Against most foes, Cleric can cast Shield of Faith instead of Warding Bond. Pushing BS' AC a point higher meaning likely 1 hit per day.

Hmm. Our sample bladesinger is 20 INT, 18 DEX, 14 CON @ 6th level. 1 ASI so 18, 18, 14 as the high stats. High elf neans a start of 17, 16, 14. We can't get this with any generation method other than rolling, as it has 2 scores over 15. So, I'm not following thus argument at all.

+1 Con, not +2. Average 4d6 drop worst is 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9. BS starts with 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 9. Point buy is optional, not standard: game needs to be balanced around standard. If I have the odds right, most groups that use the standard method will contain a character or two that qualifies.

Not in your scenarios, it's not. It's a wizard, with high rolled stats, that is on par with a champion wuth greatsword, and who dedicates pretty much all of their wizarding to do so.

At this point that is an outright falsehood: we have repeatedly demonstrated that BS has all of their 3rd level casts available. If you don't think so the burden is now on you to prove that the cases where BS doesn't are more than infrequent. And what do you think other Wizards do? Sit on their spell slots? We showed that Champion is requiring Cleric to burn their 3rd level slots to keep them alive!

At higher levels, their trick isn't as good, and they can do more wizarding, but they can't do both at once. The bladesinger can be a wizard OR a tank, but not both at the same time. Again, I reference the mystic theurge. As with the MT, action economy acts as a strong break to the bladesinger.

I also ran playtests with a Diviner and consistently team-BS died less, and consumed less resources. BS has all the options Diviner has, but far more efficiency.

Suggest another scenario - not cherry-picked but typical - and we can run it.

Additionally, the heaviest armoured fighter with defense fighting style should be the best tank, not a Wizard sub-class. Call me old-fashioned, but when Wizards​ make the best melee tanks I think something is wrong...