Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 9571943" data-attributes="member: 6750235">If you're going to make house rules to "fix" what you don't like why wouldn't you just allow valor bards to use Bardic Inspiration on themselves while you're at it?"I don't like this about bladesingers so I'm going to house rule" and "I don't like this about valor bards so it's an excuse to house rule bladesingers" seems a bit inconsistent.This is something that falls under <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman" target="_blank">No True Scotsman Fallacy.</a>  What constitutes a "real" wizard spell or needing these spells to be wizard spells at all is something I would argue does not define what a gish is.  A character isn't "not a gish" because of some spells on the wizard list.Every bard cantrip is on the wizard cantrip list except for Starry Wisp and Vicious Mockery under 2024 rules.  It's not like both concepts wouldn't go for True Strike as a typical choice.If my initial choices at 1st level are True Strike and Blade Ward as cantrips; and Thunder Wave, Sleep, Dissonant Whispers, and Cure Wounds as spells I think those are suitable.  If we compare that to a wizard who takes True Strike and Blade Ward as cantrips (because they are trying to be gish) plus Minor Illusion; and Thunder Wave, Sleep, Mage Armor, and Shield I think those spells are also suitable.This gets back to which spells you think you need to be a gish.  I think casting Slow instead of Haste or Hypnotic Pattern instead of Fireball doesn't mean much.I know.  I get that a lot.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />I wasn't going to continue this discussion because I'm obviously no one to tell you what you like or don't like about you choice of DnD classes when building a character.  But I think that when discussing the UA bladesinger a comparison to valor bards helps with that discusssion.One of those is Extra Attack, which is a common ability among many classes.  EK's, valor bards, and UA bladesingers already have special versions of that ability.  The UA bladesinger version is more like the EK version: "...you can cast one of your Wizard cantrips..." and the valor bard version is "...you can cast one of your cantrips..." and a slightly superior version in that valor bards don't have that class restriction listed.Out over over 24 class / subclass options very few can use Extra Attack in this way.  It's hard to apply a sameness argument here when these are the exceptions to that sameness.Song of Victory and Battle Magic are the same mechanic but since these are the only two options for this feature it seems to imply that these are the full caster gish options and part of why we would make this comparison.Which begs the question of why WotC chose to make that change.INT for combat all the time looks like an "eat your cake and have it too" desire.  Valor bards don't get CHA to their weapons.  EK's don't get INT to their weapons.  Paladin's and Ranger's don't get their casting stat to their weapons.  UA Armorer artificers do but only with special armor attacks, and UA Battle Smiths do but only with magic weapons; and either of those are not full spell casters.  Pact of the Blade does with the pact weapon only and investing multiple invocations into weapon attacks, and warlocks spellcasting structure and list isn't as versatile as a wizard.INT for weapon attacks is more versatile than those other options when it's up, and it's annoying when it's not.  If a person builds for when it's not (like one would with a valor bard) then that bonus becomes superfluous.  If a person does not then the class plays differently with and without bladesong being up and that's what I don't like about it.I think they should take the same method as dance bards, draconic sorcerers, barbarians, and monks where it's an alternative to armor.  This prevents people trying to stack extreme AC's.Any wizard who wants a better AC can spend a feat for lightly armored because that grants light armor and shield training.  The TCoE bladesinger only gave light armor so this isn't a poor choice for wizards who want to improve AC and wear armor.  Or a single level multiclass can add armor.Here's the differences:TCoE gave bladesingers proficiency in light armor (extremely minor IMO) and proficiency in one weapon.  The UA gives multiple weapons.Bladesong gave:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">an AC bonus equal to INT bonus</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">+10 ft movement</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">advantage on acrobatics checks</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">a bonus to concentration saves equal to INT bonus</li> </ul>Bladesong did not give INT bonus for attacks and damage.  The UA blade song give the same AC bonus to INT and concentration saves.  The movement and acrobatics benefits are lost and using INT for attacks is gained.  WotC also changed uses for INT instead of proficiency bonus.Extra Attack is almost exactly the same except it now specifies your wizard cantrip instead of just your cantrip.Song of Defense is exactly the same.  It's worth reminding people reading this that it could only be used while bladesong is active in either version.Song of Victory in TCoE only allowed INT bonus as a damage bonus to weapon attacks while bladesong was active.  Adopting the valor bard's battle magic ability as a replacement is much better, and using INT for attacks and damage from 3rd level is better.I think Tasha's bladesinger was worse.  The UA blade singer rolls Tasha's 14th level ability into the 3rd level abilities and grants a bonus action attack for casting a spell on a gish.  Losing light armor proficiency, movement, and advantage on acrobatics checks is a smaller loss than gaining INT bonus on attacks and replicating battle magic is a gain.</blockquote>

Verification