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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7258644" data-attributes="member: 16814">1. you use only Champion plate+shield, defensive style as your stand in for all martial, and that's not warranted as the champion is the absolute worst of the martial classes in tanking ability.  They have no abilities that improve defense except defensive style as part of their class design.  However, this isn't the thread to litigate the failings of the Champion, still, comparing only to the champion is a poor choice if you wish to make this comparison.Secondary to this point is the issue of what 'tanking' means.  The tank holds the line and prevents the attackers from getting to squishier targets.  Not being hit is a part of this, but also, as others have noted, being an attractive target is also part of it.  And a large part of that is being a threat.  So, when looking at tanking, you have to consider that the Champion can do the job much better if considered offensively, and this is born out by the example that shows a modestly built Champion is roughly on par with the bladesinger in party resources expended in the test case.2. To get at 1 at least 16 and 1 at least 15 on 4d6DL is 15% of all 6 roll sets.  That's not common at 1:7, but it's not rare, either.  That's counting all cases of 1 16 or better and 1 15 or better.  The test case bladesinger had 20I, 18D, 14C and so had starting scores of either 16, 17, 14 or 18,15,14.  Those sets are rare, at less than 5% for the first and about 1.5% for the second.And, again, high stats improve many cases, not just bladesinger.And, finally, calling a very common stat generation not standard because it's offered as an option is misleading.3.  This is highly misleading.  Yes, in 1:2 days the bladesinger  with 20I, 18D is more efficient, but in 1:4 days they burn all of their slots or cost the same in party resources.  If you only plan for the median, you'll end up with a dead bladesinger.Further, since you've change from the 20I, 18D bladesinger as your case for common to the 18 INT, 18 DEX in the example above, the math changes and the 1:2 day for that bladesinger is 8 hits with the 1:4 being 10 hits.  You can't hold one case forth and then change your parameters for a related argument so that argument holds.  Either we're examining the corner 5% case or the more common 15% case, but you can't flip between them on different points.4. no argument with the summation, but the issue doesn't hold.  Only if the moving entails doing both jobs simultaneously does that hold.  Again, Mystic Theurge - a class that could do both the wizard and cleric roles -- both Tier I roles, mind -- but, in practice could only do one or the other due to action economy.  Forcing the bladesinger to choose between being effective in melee or effective as a caster, but not both, means that it doesn't rise to egregious.5.I fundamentally disagree that BB and GFB aren't horribly written and broken cantrips.  They scale better than any other cantrip by an order of magnitude, and that's a serious problem.  At 17th level, a BB does [W]+stat+3d8 on primary and 4d8 on movement proc.  GFB does [W]+3d6+stat on primary and 3d8+stat on secondary.  That's insanely broken compared to 4d12 for poison spray and much better than 4d8 and loss of reaction for shocking grasp (the other melee cantrips).  It's these spell and their functionality that render the bladesinger even remotely close to other melee classes in damage output, and the riders are highly effective at recreating feat level abilities (booming blade vs sentinel, for instance) in 'stickiness'.  Absent these cantrips, this entire discussion about bladesingers is effectively moot, because doing 2d8+8 max out for the example bladesinger with no stickiness at all is obviously a bad trade for a normal wizard.It's the existence of these two cantrips and their broken nature that allows the concept at all, honestly.Now, they aren't broken except in narrow cases where you build around the cantrip, but, come on, isn't that exactly the kind of player that's going to make these cantrips a pain in the butt?  They're so good that you want to build around them.  Melee clerics, for instance, benefit strongly from taking magic initiate and one of these cantrips.As for the comparison, the giants do see a 5th round for the bladesinger party in 1:2 encounters if you have the archer as a champion instead of a battlemaster, using the precision strike offset for the sharpshooter feat.  The DPR drop is significant enough that the giants can often last into the 5th round.  I pointed this out earlier, and it seems to have been ignored.Secondly, using the numbers for the new bladesinger baseline (18I, 18D), you've increased the number of hits the bladesinger takes significantly (the math of disadvantage has big swings for even a 1 point change when high rolls are needed).  Further, you've introduced a confound that the giants hit outright on a 19 even with shield (3 mage armor, 4 dex, 4 int, 1 warding bond is 22 AC, 27 with shield, and giants hit 27 on 19+8).  That increases hits taken (a 'hit' that can't be obviated with shield goes from 1:400 to 1:100, or 4 times greater).  On a probable day that doesn't add much, but over time it does, plus we have to consider the first 4 levels of only AC 20 max, same as the fighter, with much lower hit point pool and much lower blur usage.Overall, your choice of the 50% break is useful as a comparison point, but you're not planning your bladesinger days and necessary resources on hand on the 1:2 chance, are you?  If you aren't working off of 1:4 at least, you have an issue.So, in the bladesinger party, the bladesinger has to plan on using all of their resources (especially the 18I bladesinger) on any given day.  That severely limits using spells for anything other than role assumption.  Meanwhile, if you take the restrictions off of the mage in the champion party to not match the bladesinger in resource expenditure and only on direct damage spells, the use of hypnotic pattern or fireball in 3 fights strongly reduces the number of attacks the champion faces, or, for second and first level, use of tasha's, fog cloud, darkness, and the like to carve up the battlefield and control the pacing of the fight so that the champion receives fewer hits is wide open.  The bladesinger can do similar things, though, but then isn't tanking and adding damage that round (not tanking as many of the better area denial spells are concentration, and she has blur to maintain else she's in trouble).Bladesinger requires the wizard's concentration slot.  Further, they require the cleric to buff the bladesinger so that the bladesinger can do her job as tank (the numbers for 21 AC with blur are rough on the bladesinger's hit point pool, especially without half damage, and then there's the now 1:50 chance you can't shield out and the static chance of a crit dropping you outright).  Essentially, your designed bladesinger MUST have high stats (20I, 18D at 6th), MUST have blur running, and MUST have a cleric cast warding bond or shield of faith (although this latter is the worse choice because of crits).  That's a lot of resource stacking to get to where you're exceeding not being hit on a subclass that offers zero extra benefit for defense outside of defensive style.  I mean, if your goal is to say, "I can beat out a sword and board champion at not getting hit if I only roll great stats and have a cleric as my personal buffer!", then, I guess, you win.  Assertion 1 (amended to sword and board champion only) sustained.</blockquote>

Verification