D&D 5E Bladesinger with a staff

[MikalC]

This kind of gatekeeping is pretty gross and very narrow-minded.

Spare me. “Gate keeping”? Because I want my players to have to make choices if they want to play concepts?
That I don’t rewrite my campaign for the merest whim of my players?
You might need to actually look up what gatekeeping is. I’m allowed to run my games as I want. And you know what? Except for very rare circumstances, every person who’s played in them, whether friends, or at cons, online and in person enjoy my game.
I’ve had men, women, non binary, children, senior citizens, strangers, family members all in my games. I’ve had religious conservatives, liberal atheists, and most sexual orientation that I know of in my games. Everyone is welcome as long as they agree to the rules.
So before you call out “gatekeeping” you should actually know what you’re talking about.

there’s a difference between “having an opinion and using those opinions to run a game I spend hours on each week to give my players the best experience I can” and actual gatekeeping.

 

[Zsong]

One handed attacks and nothing heavier than light armor are basically the only limitations of bladesong. Might as well let them use a glaive while you are at it.

I don’t think a glance would break the game.

 

[Zsong]

Spare me. “Gate keeping”? Because I want my players to have to make choices if they want to play concepts?
That I don’t rewrite my campaign for the merest whim of my players?
You might need to actually look up what gatekeeping is. I’m allowed to run my games as I want. And you know what? Except for very rare circumstances, every person who’s played in them, whether friends, or at cons, online and in person enjoy my game.
I’ve had men, women, non binary, children, senior citizens, strangers, family members all in my games. I’ve had religious conservatives, liberal atheists, and most sexual orientation that I know of in my games. Everyone is welcome as long as they agree to the rules.
So before you call out “gatekeeping” you should actually know what you’re talking about.

there’s a difference between “having an opinion and using those opinions to run a game I spend hours on each week to give my players the best experience I can” and actual gatekeeping.

100%

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It’s the bonus action attack, which as a bladesinger gets interesting with song of victory.

It’s not unlike why blade warlocks get interesting with life drinker, and tend to rush for PAM. Although wizards as a base class are much stronger than warlocks (well, more flexibile, anyway).

This coupled with the cantrips puts the BS on top for at-will damage with no setup.

Yeah... But you can easily achieve tha with two short swords... The saved feat nets you +1 int or dex which in return more or less negates the extra damage from the staff but.
The reaction attack might be the one tipping tge favour towards the PAM. But it only gets effective with war caster on top to make the reaction with booming blade. Then misty step at will after atracking three times and now the enemy is punished for approaching again...

 

[jgsugden]

Yeah I’ve been playing since the late 80s.
Most of the “distinct and unique” crap you’re talking about is almost always either a) an attempt to bypass in game restrictions or b) just a blatant rip off of some flavor of the week or meme.

True creativity isn’t just making something up, it’s done by making your concept work within the framework of rules already available. Anyone can say “you have a quarter staff that is now dex based because well, you’re just you”

that’s not original, nor creative. It’s lazy.

#1: If you're going to play the old fogey card, don't do it to someone that has been playing since the 70s. Hold my beer.
#2: Bypassing restrictions and/or playing the flavor of the week is NOT INHERENTLY BAD. It is what the PLAYER WANTS. When people get to do what they want, it makes them happy. As a DM, your job is to create a fun experience for your players.
#3: You should look up the definition of creativity. It pretty much is just making stuff up. 100%. Using your imagination is the definition of creativity.
#4: If a player came to me and asked to use dexterity for their PC with a quarterstaff, I'd say, "Cool. Tell me why." Once they told me why, I'd work with them, to figure out what rule modification to use. I might make a finesse quarterstaff that anyone could learn to use as a martial weapon. I might give them a magical quarterstaff at the start of their adventuring that allows it to be used as a finesse weapon as the only magical property. I might make a "monastic training feat" that their human variant can take that gives them the Martial Arts ability of a first level monk. I'd definitely allow them to do it and we'd work out the best way to work it into the game in a way that serves the story they tell me.

The DM's job is to create a fun experience for the players. Telling them no when they want to do something, just because a rule happens to say they can't, despite the fact that breaking the rule in question does not damage the game in any way, is restrictive and constraining for no reason.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Spare me. “Gate keeping”? Because I want my players to have to make choices if they want to play concepts?
That I don’t rewrite my campaign for the merest whim of my players?
You might need to actually look up what gatekeeping is. I’m allowed to run my games as I want. And you know what? Except for very rare circumstances, every person who’s played in them, whether friends, or at cons, online and in person enjoy my game.
I’ve had men, women, non binary, children, senior citizens, strangers, family members all in my games. I’ve had religious conservatives, liberal atheists, and most sexual orientation that I know of in my games. Everyone is welcome as long as they agree to the rules.
So before you call out “gatekeeping” you should actually know what you’re talking about.

there’s a difference between “having an opinion and using those opinions to run a game I spend hours on each week to give my players the best experience I can” and actual gatekeeping.

Your overly defensive rant doesn’t change that your other comment was narrow-minded gatekeeping. You spoke as though the other person’s way of running the game was wrong and inferior to your preferences.

What sort of diverse roll call of players you’ve had in your games is completely irrelevant.

 

[Maxperson]

Your overly defensive rant doesn’t change that your other comment was narrow-minded gatekeeping. You spoke as though the other person’s way of running the game was wrong and inferior to your preferences.

What sort of diverse roll call of players you’ve had in your games is completely irrelevant.

What he said wasn't gatekeeping. He was just responding in kind to what Twosix said. I mean, if you're going to incorrectly attack one, you should incorrectly attack Twosix as well. Calling sticking to the rules "no virtue" is every bit as much gatekeeping as saying homebrewing everything is "boring." Both are opinions that have gone to one extreme or the other.

I reside in the middle. I'll homebrew some stuff, but I do have limits. Would I allow this "Blade"singer? Sure. It doesn't break anything to have a blunt d6/d8 instead of a sharp d8. I'd want a name change, though, since a staff is not a blade. Perhaps we could call the new subclass a...........Poledancer

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What he said wasn't gatekeeping. He was just responding in kind to what Twosix said. I mean, if you're going to incorrectly attack one, you should incorrectly attack Twosix as well. Calling sticking to the rules "no virtue" is every bit as much gatekeeping as saying homebrewing everything is "boring." Both are opinions that have gone to one extreme or the other.

I reside in the middle. I'll homebrew some stuff, but I do have limits. Would I allow this "Blade"singer? Sure. It doesn't break anything to have a blunt d6/d8 instead of a sharp d8. I'd want a name change, though, since a staff is not a blade. Perhaps we could call the new subclass a...........Poledancer

This is ridiculous, Max. Saying that it’s no virtue to never homebrew to make concepts work is not even remotely the same sort of thing as the narrow minded derision of the post I responded to.

“It’s no virtue” isn’t a negative statement about the other persons preference, it’s just a statement that the other persons preference isn’t superior, it’s just a preference.

The post I responded to, however, was very much an assertion of (false) superiority of their approach to such questions. Acting like people who homebrew and houserule to accommodate odd character concepts are lesser is absolutely gatekeeping.

 

[Maxperson]

This is ridiculous, Max. Saying that it’s no virtue to never homebrew to make concepts work is not even remotely the same sort of thing as the narrow minded derision of the post I responded to.

“It’s no virtue” isn’t a negative statement about the other persons preference, it’s just a statement that the other persons preference isn’t superior, it’s just a preference.

No, it's not just a preference. Virtue is literally a synonym of good. Saying it's no virtue is saying it's not good. In other words, it's saying that your way is better. No different than saying that the other way is boring(ie bad). Both are expressions of superiority and neither is gatekeeping.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, it's not just a preference. Virtue is literally a synonym of good. Saying it's no virtue is saying it's not good. In other words, it's saying that your way is better. No different than saying that the other way is boring(ie bad). Both are expressions of superiority and neither is gatekeeping.

No, saying “your preference is no virtue” is simply saying that it isn’t superior. That’s it.