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

[clearstream]

Your player rolled not only an 18, but also a 17. That is a pretty edge case.

That's incorrect. The player rolled two 17s. That occurs about 1:25.

 

[clearstream]

At this point I really don't know what you want out of the thread, vonklaude.

I was perfectly clear in my title: I'm criticising a design decision that I don't agree with.

We are not failing to understand you, we are just trying to help you understand why not more people are as bothered by the Bladesinger as you seem to be.

Is the Bladesinger design theoretically overpowered? Yes.

So far I've read the following

1. The problem is that you are using the standard character generation rules. It's fine if you use the optional character generation rules. Correct balance should be defined by the standard rules, not the optional rules.
2. It's fine so long as your ability scores are moderate. Correct balance should consider reasonable extremes - both high and low. By level four Bladesong's AC is equal to the heaviest melee if you roll a 16 and a 17. About 1:6 characters.
3. It's fine so long as you have more than two combats per short rest. Ignoring literally months of discussion about how rare and problematic more combats per short rest is. What was it Tweet suggested - can't long rest until you've had two short rests, can't short rest until you've had two combats. Correct balance at the very least works with the typical game in mind. Just because some groups will have four combats a short rest doesn't mean it shouldn't be balanced for those who have two.
4. It's fine because the best way to use it is to hang back, protected by your AC. This is a separate argument/problem. Bladesong can be over-powered and it can be best used by hanging back, at the same time.
5. It's fine because you're only moderately good at melee. Correct balance doesn't make the strongest class also moderately good at melee. And that isn't the only way to benefit from Bladesong.
6. It's fine because there are bigger problems elsewhere. This is a logical fallacy. There can be bigger problems elsewhere and Bladesong can be poorly designed. Nowhere am I extending any argument about the prioritisation of problems with 5e for fixing. I'm talking here only about Bladesong.
7. It's fine because I play one and I don't feel OP. I don't believe I've ever heard a player complain when their class was strong. It is helpful to have anecdotes, but a designer's job is to look at the overall balance of the game.
8. It's fine because Wizards don't have many hit points. This is a decent argument, and one I considered before making this thread. The ability later in their career to trade spell slots for HP is pretty neat, and I wish had been made more basic to the class. But until you get there the high AC actually exacerbates your problem because creatures get down to only hitting on critical hits (natural 20s) at which point the class becomes too volatile. This low HP aspect of the class is a problem, not a solution. One very large issue with the high AC arrangement is how it can be combined with other abilities, such as Shield of Faith or Warding Bond with narrative warping effect.

My claim is that Bladesinger has a problem in a reasonably common situation using standard rules. I believe the class could easily have been designed without that problem. If it was intentional, and represents the sort of splatbook power-creep we saw in 3rd edition, then I want to put up a red flag and say that as a player and DM, that power-creep sucked. It confronted DMs with a choice: use the new content, and overshadow existing content, or avoid it and lose the option to expand your game. Or do a lot of work and fix things yourself.

With the benefit of hindsight, I'd like the 5e designers to avoid doing that. I don't expect them to get it right every time, but I hold them to a high standard.

 

[jaelis]

I believe the class could easily have been designed without that problem.

If you have what you think is an objectively better design, why not just share that? I think it would be easier to convince someone that your design is better than it is to convince someone that the existing design doesn't work.

For instance, I don't think rolling stats is broken, but I agree that point buy is objectively better

 

[CapnZapp]

[*]The problem is that you are using the standard character generation rules. It's fine if you use the optional character generation rules. Correct balance should be defined by the standard rules, not the optional rules.

You make it sound like random roll is established orthodoxy while point buy is some kind of suspicious splatbook addition.

Don't expect balance when using random roll.

I don't think this subject should be restrained to a Battlesinger thread, though.

[*]It's fine so long as your ability scores are moderate. Correct balance should consider reasonable extremes - both high and low. By level four Bladesong's AC is equal to the heaviest melee if you roll a 16 and a 17. About 1:6 characters.

Now you're just reiterating #1. And nobod has said it's only fine as long as your ability scores are moderate. It's at low level its broken with high (nay, maximized) ability scores.

[*]It's fine so long as you have more than two combats per short rest.

This can't be directed at me - I'm one of the most vocal people for dispelling the "6-8 encounters easy" myth

[*]It's fine because the best way to use it is to hang back, protected by your AC. This is a separate argument/problem. Bladesong can be over-powered and it can be best used by hanging back, at the same time.

No, this is at the core of the issue. You are severely overestimating the value and OP:ness of a Wizard's melee abilities. This is because you for some reason refuse to see the opportunity cost.

Compare to the Bard. In 3rd edition it came across as the designers going "okay, so if we make the class 50% as good in three areas that's balanced right since 150% is pretty good right". It turns out that 50% is worthless and could just be 0%.

What a jack-of-all-trades feature needs to lie at is a topic for another discussion, but it's closer to 80-90% than 50%.

Back to the Wizard: the simple fact it isn't a better Wizard than other Wizard severely crimps your OP argument. Yes, other wizards are jelous of the Bladesingers AC, but that's it. Fighters aren't jeoulus of Bladesingers.

Wizards aren't overshadowed by Bladesingers. Fighters aren't overshadowed by Bladesingers (any more than they're overshadowed by other wizards, at least).

Since nobody is overshadowed, what's the problem?



[*]It's fine because you're only moderately good at melee. Correct balance doesn't make the strongest class also moderately good at melee. And that isn't the only way to benefit from Bladesong.

Not sure if there's a point here...?

[*]It's fine because there are bigger problems elsewhere. This is a logical fallacy. There can be bigger problems elsewhere and Bladesong can be poorly designed. Nowhere am I extending any argument about the prioritisation of problems with 5e for fixing. I'm talking here only about Bladesong.

Actually none of the rest of us are talking about the Bladesinger, since only you have such big issues with them. The rest of us are talking about you and your big issues with Bladesingers

Humor aside - if you didn't come on so strong you could have had a more nuanced discussion. It doesn't sound like you truly believe there ARE bigger problems elsewhere... which is about the only thing that draws replies to your posts, to be honest.

[*]It's fine because I play one and I don't feel OP. I don't believe I've ever heard a player complain when their class was strong. It is helpful to have anecdotes, but a designer's job is to look at the overall balance of the game.

Correct.

[*]It's fine because Wizards don't have many hit points. This is a decent argument, and one I considered before making this thread. The ability later in their career to trade spell slots for HP is pretty neat, and I wish had been made more basic to the class. But until you get there the high AC actually exacerbates your problem because creatures get down to only hitting on critical hits (natural 20s) at which point the class becomes too volatile. This low HP aspect of the class is a problem, not a solution. One very large issue with the high AC arrangement is how it can be combined with other abilities, such as Shield of Faith or Warding Bond with narrative warping effect.

Don't think I understand "low HP is a problem not a solution". Being "too volatile" (I guess you mean "either well, or dead") is life as normal for a Wizard. Not sure why this should be fixed here, especially since it's a good check against any "melee OP:ness" of Bladesingers...?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Isn't the answer here simply that the Bladesinger has been published? Thus it isn't going to be changed?

You either choose to play with it or you don't. And if you feel it is overpowered... well, that's a shame. You either play with a subclass you feel is overpowered, or you don't.

What else is there to say?

Sent from my SM-J320V using EN World mobile app

 

[Mort]

Isn't the answer her simply that the Bladesinger has been published? Thus it isn't going to be changed?

You either choose to play with it or you don't. And if you feel it is overpowered... well, that's a shame. You either play with a subclass you feel is overpowered, or you don't.

What else is there to say?

Sent from my SM-J320V using EN World mobile app

Just because something is published, doesn't mean it's set in stone for your game.

One of the great things about boards like this one is bouncing around ideas to see if the gameplay can be improved at your table.



Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app

 

[Jester David]

I was perfectly clear in my title: I'm criticising a design decision that I don't agree with.


So far I've read the following

1. The problem is that you are using the standard character generation rules. It's fine if you use the optional character generation rules. Correct balance should be defined by the standard rules, not the optional rules.
2. It's fine so long as your ability scores are moderate. Correct balance should consider reasonable extremes - both high and low. By level four Bladesong's AC is equal to the heaviest melee if you roll a 16 and a 17. About 1:6 characters.
3. It's fine so long as you have more than two combats per short rest. Ignoring literally months of discussion about how rare and problematic more combats per short rest is. What was it Tweet suggested - can't long rest until you've had two short rests, can't short rest until you've had two combats. Correct balance at the very least works with the typical game in mind. Just because some groups will have four combats a short rest doesn't mean it shouldn't be balanced for those who have two.
4. It's fine because the best way to use it is to hang back, protected by your AC. This is a separate argument/problem. Bladesong can be over-powered and it can be best used by hanging back, at the same time.
5. It's fine because you're only moderately good at melee. Correct balance doesn't make the strongest class also moderately good at melee. And that isn't the only way to benefit from Bladesong.
6. It's fine because there are bigger problems elsewhere. This is a logical fallacy. There can be bigger problems elsewhere and Bladesong can be poorly designed. Nowhere am I extending any argument about the prioritisation of problems with 5e for fixing. I'm talking here only about Bladesong.
7. It's fine because I play one and I don't feel OP. I don't believe I've ever heard a player complain when their class was strong. It is helpful to have anecdotes, but a designer's job is to look at the overall balance of the game.
8. It's fine because Wizards don't have many hit points. This is a decent argument, and one I considered before making this thread. The ability later in their career to trade spell slots for HP is pretty neat, and I wish had been made more basic to the class. But until you get there the high AC actually exacerbates your problem because creatures get down to only hitting on critical hits (natural 20s) at which point the class becomes too volatile. This low HP aspect of the class is a problem, not a solution. One very large issue with the high AC arrangement is how it can be combined with other abilities, such as Shield of Faith or Warding Bond with narrative warping effect.

My claim is that Bladesinger has a problem in a reasonably common situation using standard rules. I believe the class could easily have been designed without that problem. If it was intentional, and represents the sort of splatbook power-creep we saw in 3rd edition, then I want to put up a red flag and say that as a player and DM, that power-creep sucked. It confronted DMs with a choice: use the new content, and overshadow existing content, or avoid it and lose the option to expand your game. Or do a lot of work and fix things yourself.

With the benefit of hindsight, I'd like the 5e designers to avoid doing that. I don't expect them to get it right every time, but I hold them to a high standard.

That's some okay theory reading. How did you find the bladesinger performing during actual play? Did the rest of the table have fun?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

That's incorrect. The player rolled two 17s. That occurs about 1:25.

How does that work out? High Elf gives Dex to 19 and Int to 18. Level 4 ASI only gives 2 ability points. Where are they getting that additional ability point from to get to both stats at 20/+5?

Do you believe that a player who was so lucky in rolling such high numbers in their required ability scores is inherently balanced against a player who rolled similarly unlucky low scores? Simply by virtue of rolling being the 'standard method'?
Do you believe that if that unlucky player made a Bladesinger character, that it would still be too powerful and trivialise the martial classes?

Bladesingers still have weaknesses: They have a high AC if they are willing to burn their resources to achieve it, but they are likely to be shoved around, grappled or knocked over easily. They get a single extra attack, but don't get the other abilities that boost those attacks or grant additional ones like the real martials. GFB can keep them close to level in ideal conditions, but is only really a single-trick pony, and less useful than the same amount of damage dealt in a more controlled fashion as a martial would. In many situations the Bladesinger would do better to make both their attacks instead.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Just because something is published, doesn't mean it's set in stone for your game.

One of the great things about boards like this one is bouncing around ideas to see if the gameplay can be improved at your table.



Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app

If this thread was about asking for ways to tone down the Bladesinger for an individual table, I wouldn't have written anything. But thus far it hasn't been, it's been to merely just complain about how it's supposedly overpowered. Which is pointless, because there's nothing that can be done-- the subclass has been published. So if someone wants to complain for the sake of complaining they can go right ahead... but the rest of us will just look at them funny when they do because it seems like a pointless waste of energy.

 

[Mistwell]

That's incorrect. The player rolled two 17s. That occurs about 1:25.

AND has a high Constitution you said.

My claim is that Bladesinger has a problem in a reasonably common situation using standard rules.

Three years, literally only you in all that time has made this complaint about this subclass. I even checked other sites like Reddit, and I can find NOBODY ever making this argument that you claim comes up as a "reasonably common situation".

I asked you how long you have played with this PC to see if it's really representative of even a full array of levels, and all we got was crickets in response from you.