D&D 5E Need a better houserule to fix Bladesinger's mechanics not supporting lore issue

[Tony Vargas]

But the main reason why it doesn't, or can't, or shouldn't, do the job of a fighter is that is 100% the best spellcaster in the game.

The job of the fighter is 'best at fighting' (with weapons; without magic), and the mechanical expression of that is high DPR and good toughness. A Wizard should be able come up with some adequate melee competence/toughness without rivaling fighter DPR & toughness, especially while using magic (and thus not technically horning in on the fighter's shtick).

I would still want you to discuss the question of how martial a character can be allowed to be (assuming full spellcaster) and still not break the game.

What's to break?

If your party doesn't feel like its composition matters for what areas it excels or suffers in, then it's a rather bland world.

Bland or not has more to do with what your character does, how he does it, and how that paints a picture of who he is - than it has to do with when he applies what mechanic or exactly how big the numbers are.

That's why I think bladesinger is fine for balance, it just needs those tweaks for feel.

As far as the general concept of a better fighter/wizard blend, I think the easiest solution is some sort of balanced hybrid or gestalt

So, outside the hobby, it's fair game to call something a 'unicorn' to get across the idea that it sounds great, but you're never going to find one. Obviously that'd be ironic in this context. But, yeah, "balanced hybrid or gestalt?" Who are we trying to kid? Those para-3.x gestalts were broken as all heck, and hybrids (assuming were talking 4e) tended towards underwhelming. There's really no balance point for best-of-both worlds - it ends up better than each world, or not as good as either.

So you do think that the Bladesinger is overpowered then?

Well, it is a neo-Vancian caster. So, you're talking the perks of 3.x prepped casting, plus those of 3.x spontaneous casting, plus 4e unlimited at-wills in the 'plus column' and fewer restrictions than casting has ever faced in the history of the game in the other 'plus column.'

Aside from that, though? Compared to other wizards, say?
Meh. Probably. But not so's it'd matter.

However, setting that aside for a moment, we can look at the rest of the bard. One problem is that they come loaded with stuff that is really bardy.

In context, that sounds like 'bardy' is a synonym for 'quixotic' or 'spoony.'

Since we're just theorizing, how much of that would have to be dropped to justify giving them wizard spellcasting? Or to take it in the other direction, if you gave a wizard the Valor college as its subclass, would it be balanced? With other wizard traditions; with the Valor bard?

It wouldn't be any more balanced than the Wizard & Bard already are, probably a little less. If the Valor Wizard in question gained known spells like a Bard, it might well be 'balanced' with the Bard & other Traditions. Well, maybe between the Bard & Wizard...

From class design, it looks to me like WotC agrees with you that the wizard spell list is supreme and justifies giving a whole lot of stuff to bards to make up for it. Or it could just be that they were more concerned with making bards rock this edition than making sure wizards stayed magically on top. They certainly did a great job with the bards.

It's not just the spell list, it's the casting method.

First, there is the question of whether wizard casting is overall better than bard casting at all, given Magical Secrets.

Bards have fixed known spells and cast spontaneously. Wizards have theoretically unlimited known spells (and by default know more spells than the bard), prep as many spells as the bard knows, and cast spontaneously. The Wizard's casting is strictly superior, even if the lists were identical.

 

[cbwjm]

Just a query, have you seen the Magus class on the DMsGuild? I like it as a fighter/mage class and it might work well for what you want or at the very least provide some ideas.

http://www.dmsguild.com/product/200237/the-Magus-Class

 

[Valetudo]

Lore means nothing for classes. Make up what you need.

 

[almcalmcal]

Really late to the party on this one, but wanted to contribute as this was my big beef with the Bladesinger as well - the lore didn't match the mechanics. Anyway, I wrote up a whole thing (before reading this thread) and decided the simplest fix is a simple phrase in the (now updated in Tasha's) rules - "this weapon gains the finesse property for you."

All the detail/thought on the blog here: as well as a new bladesong school of the shadar kai

Didn't think about the armor issue with Elven Chain, but certainly would allow at my table with even a sniff of story justification if a player wanted to wear it; the whole (mechanical) point of the BS is they don't get hit much, and are pretty screwed if they do, so adding a point or two to an already bananas AC won't change the feel/play of a battle all that much for the table.

 

[Weiley31]

Honestly the 5E Elven Chain should pretty much be a Medium Armor that lets you use the Light Armor's +DEX Modifier for AC mechanics. Adventures In Middle-Earth 5E pretty much has an Armor enchantment/trait that does the same thing for Medium Armors basically so it wouldn't super break anything. It also has the Broadsword, which is a Longsword with the Finesse trait.

For me personally that's a simple enough fix, at least in regard to the Elven Chain. The way it's currently done is a tad bit strange and feels like something that was just "whatever" thrown in to make up for the once important gimmick of Elven Chain.

As for the 5E Bladesinger? Eh honestly I'd be more incline to have a Bard and refluff its class name as "Bladesinger," especially if I was playing a Valor/Sword Bard. Although the Eldritch Knight is the Duskblade, which is the bastardized version of Bladesinging technically. Everyone's mileage with the Bladesinger seems to vary this edition.

 

[ECMO3]

Traditionally, the bladesinger wields a longsword, wears chainmail (best represented as a chain shirt for 5e), and aspires to wear the coveted elven chain, which is designed with them in mind more than any other archetype.

I am not sure I agree with this thematically. When I think of bladesinger I think of being unarmored. I think that is more Eldritch Knigt territory or the multiclass Fighter-Magic User of 1E.

I think Geran Hulmaster was a bladesinger and he used mage armor. Taegan from year of Rogue Dragons went unarmored too if I remember correctly. I don't remember what armor Taenaran from the fighters novel wore. Those are the only 3 bladesingers I know of from D&D fiction.

 

[cbwjm]

I've always thought of bladesingers as being in elven chain, it's what every elven fighter/mage aimed to get and the bladesingers were the ultimate elven knights in shining elven chainmail.

 

[Pauln6]

If it's lore you want just give them a Mithral Shirt and a long, delicate weapon that is functionally a short, since elves traditionally were trained in both long and short swords.

 

[Weiley31]

I was gonna say that you could also have a Bladesinger use an Elven Thin Blade, but that would technically be a refluffed Rapier for 5E.

 

[TheOneGargoyle]

Really late to the party on this one

I love me some epic necromancy but 5 yrs is worth bonus credit

I was gonna say that you could also have a Bladesinger use an Elven Thin Blade, but that would tech

This has been my solution in the past too. It kind of works ok, except that there's lots of magic longswords out there, not so many magic elven thin blades ....

Anyway, I wrote up a whole thing (before reading this thread) and decided the simplest fix is a simple phrase in the (now updated in Tasha's) rules - "this weapon gains the finesse property for you."

Now that I've read this, I love it. It's elegant (one might say it has a certain .... finesse .... ahem ... sorry .... I'll see myself out ....), easy to implement, easy to remember, preserves the lore, and it's just all round a better solution. Well done.

Didn't think about the armor issue with Elven Chain, but certainly would allow at my table with even a sniff of story justification if a player wanted to wear it; the whole (mechanical) point of the BS is they don't get hit much, and are pretty screwed if they do, so adding a point or two to an already bananas AC won't change the feel/play of a battle all that much for the table.

I've always just ruled it was light armour, in my opinion it should always have been this way anyway. I get that they probably wanted to move away from previous editions where it was maybe just too much the goto, but still, as written in 5e it's crap and that feels really disappointing coming from previous editions.