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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 7253387" data-attributes="member: 6877472">It's not that the Bladesinger was "designed wrong".  It was designed to do exactly what it does- give the Wizard greater ability to function in close combat.  The problem is that the designer didn't compare and contrast how the Bladesinger functions in close combat vs. how other classes function in close combat.Compare it to other classes that are intended to be able to use magic in melee- Cleric, Paladin, Eldritch Knight Fighters, Draconic Sorcerers- when Bladesong is up, strictly superior.Everything else is comparing Wizards vs. Fighters- and that was a problem long before the Sword Coast book came out.*I mean, what's the justification for the Wizard again?  "Oh sure, he has powerful magic, but without a Fighter to protect his squishy behind, he's useless".Enter the Bladesinger.Arguing about whether or not the Bladesinger can take on the role of the Fighter, which, again, is impossible to discern until we somehow figure out what an "average D&D campaign" looks like, since everyone's anecdotal evidence is going to be different, is completely secondary.The primary question, which I believe has really been answered without much question is, does the Bladesinger remove the main weakness of the Wizard class?In a previous post, I pointed out that this really isn't a weakness anyways- the Wizard already has the ability to defend themselves quite readily against enemies.  The Bladesinger just gives them an option that doesn't involve spell slots.  And it's a damn fine option too- at least equal to a 2nd-level spell buff, for free, TWICE, recharged on a short rest.  The only reason it's not overpowered is because the Wizard didn't really need it.*I hate bringing the Wizard v. Fighter debate into this, but really, looking at the thread, we're pretty much grandfathered on this point.</blockquote>

Verification