Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 8329539" data-attributes="member: 7030563">I really only think you should look at mechanics.&nbsp; In 5E thematics are not really part of the class beyond the basic mechanics IMO, themeatics are built by the player into his character based largely on background and other choices.&nbsp; The class may provide some loose bounds on what you can do, but the sandbox is, and should be, large for the player here.One reason I think this concept has so much trouble is people are trying to role this type of thematic into a class instead of letting the player define his character and keeping the class about mechanics.In this respect, I think the premise is a bit faulty as you can build a bladesinger to be more fighter-y than normal through his feats and abilities and you can similarly build an EK to be&nbsp; more magic-y by doing the same in reverse.&nbsp; By doing this, I think you can more than eliminate the middle ground that exists between them.For example you can build an EK at 12th level that has 6 cantrips, 14 known spells and 13 total daily spell castings (7 slots, 6 once-a-days).&nbsp; That is the same number of cantrips, 1 more known spell and 3 less casts than a full blown sorcerer.&nbsp;&nbsp; That is without tapping any racial abilities at all.Similarly you can build a bladesinger with feats like weapon master, GWM, fighting adept or tavern brawler to bring more martial to the character while having a lot of spell slots.&nbsp; It is even viable to dump intelligence, buff strength and constitution and pick up medium armor. You would have weak spell saves but a ton of spells to cast in combat on buffs, while still having the bladesinger extra attack for combining melee and magic as well as song of defense.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ECMO3, post: 8329539, member: 7030563"] I really only think you should look at mechanics. In 5E thematics are not really part of the class beyond the basic mechanics IMO, themeatics are built by the player into his character based largely on background and other choices. The class may provide some loose bounds on what you can do, but the sandbox is, and should be, large for the player here. One reason I think this concept has so much trouble is people are trying to role this type of thematic into a class instead of letting the player define his character and keeping the class about mechanics. In this respect, I think the premise is a bit faulty as you can build a bladesinger to be more fighter-y than normal through his feats and abilities and you can similarly build an EK to be more magic-y by doing the same in reverse. By doing this, I think you can more than eliminate the middle ground that exists between them. For example you can build an EK at 12th level that has 6 cantrips, 14 known spells and 13 total daily spell castings (7 slots, 6 once-a-days). That is the same number of cantrips, 1 more known spell and 3 less casts than a full blown sorcerer. That is without tapping any racial abilities at all. Similarly you can build a bladesinger with feats like weapon master, GWM, fighting adept or tavern brawler to bring more martial to the character while having a lot of spell slots. It is even viable to dump intelligence, buff strength and constitution and pick up medium armor. You would have weak spell saves but a ton of spells to cast in combat on buffs, while still having the bladesinger extra attack for combining melee and magic as well as song of defense. [/QUOTE]

Verification