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

[cbwjm]

I do recall other threads about a bladesinger's high AC but I think once people realised that targeting saves instead of AC can quickly bring one down they calmed down.

It should also be noted that bladesong has to be activated, an ambush against a bladesinger is just as likely to hit them as any other wizard. Bladesingers, though they can be quite effective are definitely not as unstoppable as some think.

 

[clearstream]

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?

Show me where I say both stats are 20s? The character is 20 Dex, 14 Con, 18 (or maybe 19) Int. AC 22. Better than a plate armored fighter with shield and defense fighting style. Maybe later the stats will go to both 20, for AC 23.

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'?

Most archetypes are fine with even two 20s. I can't think right now of another archetype that gets something as strong as a possible AC 23 caster. Can you think of one?

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.

Bladesinger can fight, or they can sit there and cast like any other Wizard, behind their fantastic AC, Concentration bonus, Acrobatics bonus, and extra speed.

 

[Immoralkickass]

Oh please, don't just do white room theory. Bring it to the table and see if anyone thinks its OP. Do it.

 

[clearstream]

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

Actually, that's probably the nub of it for me. Fighters are already overshadowed by Wizards. It's indefensible to make a Wizard also able to take up effective melee on the side, and oh by the way have an AC better than the best fighter can muster.

That's probably why it vexes me so much: it points at a deeper and more concerning design failure. 5e shows glimmers of establishing really great game balance, and then undermines it with elements of feats like SS and CEx, and archetypes like Bladesinger. Truly great game design is powerfully informed by what you might call pillar-values. Statements like "ranged is disadvantaged in melee", "melee attacks do the most one target damage", "the skillful classes (currently Rogue and Bard) are always best at skills", casters aren't good at melee... that sort of thing. What those pillars do is broaden choice (multiple strategies are valid), allow players to shine (prevent over-shadowing) and avoid warping the narrative (no one game feature bends the world around it).

When I hear - Bladesinger is only moderately good at melee - that's already a long way across the line. Fighters are already overshadowed by Wizards. People talk about it being only problematic if you run two encounters per short rest (like most people) or roll stats that 1:6 characters will have using the standard character generation system. Or give examples of their characters that are fine, because they don't have those stats. (Unlucky for them, but it makes their example irrelevant to this discussion.)

Or is it an inevitability of commercial game design: the designers will always be pushed to ramp up power in expansions?

 

[clearstream]

Oh please, don't just do white room theory. Bring it to the table and see if anyone thinks its OP. Do it.

The DM of the game I'm playing in, and both of the other players, and I, find that Bladesinger is OP when you have high stats. Which our Bladesinger does. (The campaign is TotYP.)

 

[cbwjm]

You just need to learn how to deal with them. Even with high stats the DM should be able to wear them down. Even something as simple as now allowing a short rest until after 3 encounters can weaken them.

 

[clearstream]

You just need to learn how to deal with them. Even with high stats the DM should be able to wear them down. Even something as simple as now allowing a short rest until after 3 encounters can weaken them.

That's what I call - warping the narrative.

Yes, the DM can stop targeting AC and start targeting say Strength or Charisma saves. For the sake of one archetype... !?

 

[cbwjm]

That's what I call - warping the narrative.

Yes, the DM can stop targeting AC and start targeting say Strength or Charisma saves. For the sake of one archetype... !?

You should be doing this anyway, bladesinger or not.

 

[Shiroiken]

Interesting. We have just had months discussing elephants in the room, where the consensus appeared to be that combats per rest is usually on the low side. But you've changed the rest system (probably a good idea) which reduces this examples relevance to balance in the context of the standard game.

I generally avoid the discussions of resting rules, because many look upon it from a gamist perspective, rather than simulationist. Our games are more story based, and since you can only long rest every 24 hours, the world doesn't stop just because you want to take a rest. Even an hour short rest may put you in a bad situation, where the enemy can put up defenses against your next incursion (or even seek you out in force, putting the PCs at a serious tactical disadvantage).

 

[CapnZapp]

It's indefensible to make a Wizard also able to take up effective melee on the side, and oh by the way have an AC better than the best fighter can muster.

That's probably why it vexes me so much: it points at a deeper and more concerning design failure.

I'm sorry to hear that, but the truth is that I could give a class probably 80-90% of another class while it keeps most or all its own tricks, and it would still not be (much of) a problem.

I brought up the Bard as an example of this, but you must have glossed over that part.

But the main point is this: we're not actually defending the Bladesinger. We're just contesting your view as rather extreme.

Is the Bladesinger's AC powerful? Yes?
Should that mean it should enter melee? No.

Therefore it doesn't warp the game, at least not as much as if the feature was given to a true martial.

Even if it could do top-notch melee there still is the small matter of the opportunity cost. Yes, by that time it would probably overshadow bards and warlocks, but it would still not overshadow wizards, including other Bladesingers that cast spells.

Therefore I don't view it as a catastrophic mistake, on the level of, say, Crossbow Expert that do warp the game.

And that is the answer to the vexation you're experiencing.