DracoSuave
First Post
Okay, that'd make a hybrid Sorcerer/Bladesinger pretty potent then.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Bladesinger Preview!
- Thread starter ForeverSlayer
- Start date
Okay, that'd make a hybrid Sorcerer/Bladesinger pretty potent then.
DracoSuave
First Post
What EXACT part of 'elven' gives them the monopoly on combining swordsmanship with magic again? In 4e, that's also a specialty of genasi, tieflings, many other races as well.
And as for 'Munchkin Power Builds'... um... that WOULD be eladrin and elf, sunshine.
WalterKovacs
First Post
In terms of full blown hybrid, it depends on if there is a bladesinger hybrid, and how it works.
A hybrid with executioner assassin would be interesting, since it uses Dex for it's MBA's with one handed weapons ...
A warlock hybrid would be fun (you'd probably need to also pick up a class that uses holy symbols or ki foci in order to be able to wield a pact blade in one hand and nothing in the other.
If nothing else, a bladesinger multiclassed into rogue would be an interesting spellthief type, running around with a rapier, and casting limited magic.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
If this is true, I want to make a small arcane swordsman group...
A valors Bard (leader)
A Hexblade warlock (striker)
A swordmage (defender)
A bladesinger (controler)
it seams like a great theme for a group...
A valors Bard (leader)
A Hexblade warlock (striker)
A swordmage (defender)
A bladesinger (controler)
it seams like a great theme for a group...
WalterKovacs
First Post
You can even throw in the eldritch knight variant as a fifth member.
Walking Dad
First Post
You are right. That also makes them impossible to take with the wizard multiclass feat
As much as I love Eladrin, I was never a fan of Dex/Int builds do to poor defenses. I hope the class gets +1 Fort/Will (I am haven't looked over the sheet myself). Other than that, I don't have anything against it particularly. Just concerned that WotC is going back and forth between extremes of "this is your 1 roles" and "these are your many roles", because we tend to end up with poorly written entries into 4E like Heroes of Shadow or the Assassin class as a whole.
Though the build/sub-class model is probably for the better, no matter how many of you call it lazy. Half the people complain of bloat, then when something isn't added, WotC is being lazy for not adding it.
Though the build/sub-class model is probably for the better, no matter how many of you call it lazy. Half the people complain of bloat, then when something isn't added, WotC is being lazy for not adding it.
Pentius
First Post
I care about fluff, too. That doesn't make it crunch, though.
I don't understand the part where I'm supposed to play the norm, and not the exception. I don't RP to play John the Totally Average and Uninteresting Swordsman. I do it to play John, the Guy Who Is Much More Interesting Than I Am In Real Life.
"Almost" in this case gives the GM effectively nothing. The Gm could ALWAYS allow whatever the heck he wanted to allow. May as well dump a glass of water in the ocean and tell the fish you gave them a present. What the "Almost" does in this case, is to give the Players a written backup to the idea of playing a non-elven bladesinger, which will really only be useful in games where they have to convince the GM to let them play what they want.
Saying NO still exists. There is a marked trend in recent years, though, to find out whether you're saying "No" because you have a good reason to, or whether the only real justification behind "No" is "because they're just the players, screw those guys." and then to not do the latter.
I'll let someone play a human dwarven defender if they can sell me on a reskin of the mechanics or a good backstory about how a human came to be that trusted in dwarven society. The amount of stupid and/or 80's I associate with the idea of racial restrictions has nothing to do with it.
Well, the troll in me says, "Yes, just because it bothers you, and now I shall gleefully create a half-orc bladesinger with that in mind." However, in practice I usually just don't consider "the legacy of D&D" when making my "MUNCHKIN POWER BUILDS"(that may or may not be overpowered, or based on cheating or loopholes). I care about the fluff. However, when it comes down to it, I only really care about the fluff I and my group want at the table. If I want to make, say, a Tiefling who has mixed magic with swordplay, and I decide Bladesinger mechanics are more fitting for my purposes than Swordmage or Hexblade ones, I'm not going to give even one crap about what 30 year old sourcebooks I'm not using that were written for a game I'm not playing have to say on the issue.
Just something to note, the exact wording for Bladesinger is that it can't have a shield or weapon in its other hand, you're perfectly allowed to have an implement (i.e Rod) in your off hand to have your pact blade as your weapon and have all your Bladesinger stuff available.
Terramotus
First Post
First thoughts:
1) Agree with the OP that this class is a mess. Not much of a controller, and wizard encounters as dailies seems like an absolutely horrible idea. For that to be ok, their at-wills better be ridiculously OP compared to other at-wills, and that doesn't appear to be the case.
2) Did they have to make it a wizard and thus eliminate the possibility of multiclassing to be more Wizardy? First they steal the name from the original class and now everything's a damn wizard.
3) Man, I hate Essentials so much. Where O4E was exception-based game design, I think the newer Essentials classes are more along the lines of "random-ass" game design. It shares few design or play elements with other classes save for the way it's printed in the book.
4) Regardless of how they want to much with attacks working and the formatting, would it kill them to make a class with At-Wills, Encounters, and Dailies that you can choose from? Is that somehow now bad game design? I guess in Essentials you have to choose from two of those for some reason.
5E can't come fast enough. The lack of good content coming out has got me on the edge of cancelling my DDI account. Their horrible web tools are not worth that money alone.
1) Agree with the OP that this class is a mess. Not much of a controller, and wizard encounters as dailies seems like an absolutely horrible idea. For that to be ok, their at-wills better be ridiculously OP compared to other at-wills, and that doesn't appear to be the case.
2) Did they have to make it a wizard and thus eliminate the possibility of multiclassing to be more Wizardy? First they steal the name from the original class and now everything's a damn wizard.
3) Man, I hate Essentials so much. Where O4E was exception-based game design, I think the newer Essentials classes are more along the lines of "random-ass" game design. It shares few design or play elements with other classes save for the way it's printed in the book.
4) Regardless of how they want to much with attacks working and the formatting, would it kill them to make a class with At-Wills, Encounters, and Dailies that you can choose from? Is that somehow now bad game design? I guess in Essentials you have to choose from two of those for some reason.
5E can't come fast enough. The lack of good content coming out has got me on the edge of cancelling my DDI account. Their horrible web tools are not worth that money alone.
