Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7239838" data-attributes="member: 71699">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<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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.</li> </ol>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.</blockquote>

Verification