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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rhenny" data-source="post: 7246118" data-attributes="member: 18333">If you play the Bladesinger, you'll feel how vulnerable it is.  It is not tanky at all.  It feels different than a fighter and a wizard.  To be a Bladesinger means sacrificing a number of spells prepared and even spell slots for Mage Armor and some contingency spells like shield, absorb elements, feather fall, etc, because it is more squishy than a fighter.My Bladesinger will be 4th level pretty soon and I feel as if I need to take Mobility as a feat so that I don't get caught in melee (and also to give me more tactical speed and to make the character seem more like I envision the agile sword/spellslinger).   If a person plays a Bladesinger, but doesn't engage in melee combat, it defeats the purpose of playing the character.  That character is better off being a pure wizard.  If the character dives into combat too recklessly and relies too heavily on pure melee without tactical consideration, that character is better off being a pure fighter.I don't know where the Eldritch Knight plays in all of this since I've never played one, but I will say that when I had the choice to play Bladesinger or Eldritch Knight, I liked the Bladesinger concept better.  That may be mechanics or just playstyle.Maybe the problem isn't that the Bladesinger is both wizardly and fighterly, maybe the problem is that the Eldritch Knight isn't as wizardly and fighterly.  Again, I can't say until I play the Eldritch Knight.</blockquote>

Verification