D&D 5E Revision for the Blur spell

[Blue]

The cast in round one is well worth the protection and efficiency it yields. The game's maths makes it overly-favoured. It distorts the game at ACs above 20.

The opportunity costs are:
1. 1/3 to 1/4 of your total actions in your average combat.
2. Precludes other Concentration spells.
3. A 2nd level spell slot.

Please show how you valued these and compared them to the protection of Blur gives.

I think you'll find that giving up 25%-33% of your Actions has a huge affect on your efficiency in combat.

 

[Blue]

For background - this discussion stems from the bladesinger thread, where a high rolled stat bladesinger can have AC's in the low 20's pretty much from the start.

That's true of all of the Unarmed Defense classes as well. As much as I *really love* rolling stats, over time I've really come to appreciate that the standard array and point buy is what was used as the balance point. It approximates rolling*, but never has to deal with the outliers.

Something which is only unbalanced when you roll well, nerfing it means you really mess with all of the people who roll average or use point buy. In other words, making changes based on balance only with outlier rolls ACTIVELY HURTS those who roll normal or use standard array/point buy.

(*"approximates rolling" - on 4d6 drop the lowest, a 16 is more likely than an 8, but you can pick an 8 but not a 16 in both standard array and point buy. There is some shaping going on, not just approximating the distribution.)

 

[CapnZapp]

While analysing Bladesinger ad-nauseum, we found that the exacerbating factor - that pushes BS over the edge power-wise - is the Blur spell. Without Blur, factors like low hit points, and spell slot use, becoming limiting. Bladesinger isn't the only character that can benefit from Blur and therefore I'd love to hear feedback on the following revision -

Blur
Your body becomes blurred, shifting and wavering to all who can see you. For the duration, any creature that attempts to attack you must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or have disadvantage on attack rolls against you until the end of the turn. An attacker is immune to this effect if it doesn't rely on sight, as with blindsight, or can see through illusions, as with truesight.

The change is to offer a per turn of attacks save against the effect. Chances are the creature will have about a 40% chance to save. That should have two consequences. The obvious mathematical consequence is that the save % will interact with the hit and critical hit %ages to yield more average damage taken. The predicted behavioural consequence is that the volatility of Blur (the luck factor) will make it feel less desirable than the mathematical consequences would suggest. That should make reliable defenses - like shields and Defense fighting style - feel more attractive.

For us lazy ones, please specify what changed, how it changed and exactly why. Otherwise its very hard to have an opinion

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's true of all of the Unarmed Defense classes as well. As much as I *really love* rolling stats, over time I've really come to appreciate that the standard array and point buy is what was used as the balance point. It approximates rolling*, but never has to deal with the outliers.

Something which is only unbalanced when you roll well, nerfing it means you really mess with all of the people who roll average or use point buy. In other words, making changes based on balance only with outlier rolls ACTIVELY HURTS those who roll normal or use standard array/point buy.

(*"approximates rolling" - on 4d6 drop the lowest, a 16 is more likely than an 8, but you can pick an 8 but not a 16 in both standard array and point buy. There is some shaping going on, not just approximating the distribution.)

Not really, as it's the conjunction of being able to use the light armor formula AND get INT added in. If Bladesinger used the alternate formula of INT+DEX, it wouldn't be nearly as bad. As it is, they can start with a 13 (mage armor) and still add INT+DEX, giving them 3 points higher AC for the same stats than the unarmored defense classes.

But, yeah, overall I agree with your points.

 

[Mistwell]

Not really, as it's the conjunction of being able to use the light armor formula AND get INT added in. If Bladesinger used the alternate formula of INT+DEX, it wouldn't be nearly as bad. As it is, they can start with a 13 (mage armor) and still add INT+DEX, giving them 3 points higher AC for the same stats than the unarmored defense classes.

But, yeah, overall I agree with your points.

Wait we're talking the Bladesinger ability? But that's only twice per short rest, and requires a bonus action to trigger. So you're talking about Mage Armor spell slot and bonus action, a Bladesong slot, and a Blur spell slot and action, and 20s in both Int and Dex (and you will also need a high Con for the concentration saves) all just to get to the basic combo before you make your first attack for one battle? Silliness. Plus you're going to get smacked in surprise rounds often as you had to have dumped your Wis, given you needed THREE high stats pull this off.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Blade singer stacks an extra number on top of your ac. One of the major design points of 5e was supposed to be 'no more ludicrous numbers'. Bladesinging makes a ludicrous number while adding little else of value to the game. Ditch it.

 

[clearstream]

The opportunity costs are:
1. 1/3 to 1/4 of your total actions in your average combat.
2. Precludes other Concentration spells.
3. A 2nd level spell slot.

Please show how you valued these and compared them to the protection of Blur gives.

I think you'll find that giving up 25%-33% of your Actions has a huge affect on your efficiency in combat.

Easiest to refer you here - http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?588010-Bladesinger-a-criticism-of-its-design/page35 and in particular my post #349.

I no longer think Blur needs a nerf, but I strongly believe it is worth casting. I need to write a post on buff spells for people as I sense they're widely underrated. What happens is yes, you do give up one round. You then go on to save inefficient turns casting heals, dodging or falling down: you're overall more effective. The Concentration slot could go on something else, and that something else could easily turn out to be less effective. One advantage of buffs is that foes usually don't get a saving throw against them.

Blur is a solid spell, probably one of the strongest defensive buffs in the game. A small set containing - Blur, Haste, Protection from Evil and Good (conditionally), Shield, Shield of Faith, Warding Bond.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Wait we're talking the Bladesinger ability? But that's only twice per short rest, and requires a bonus action to trigger. So you're talking about Mage Armor spell slot and bonus action, a Bladesong slot, and a Blur spell slot and action, and 20s in both Int and Dex (and you will also need a high Con for the concentration saves) all just to get to the basic combo before you make your first attack for one battle? Silliness. Plus you're going to get smacked in surprise rounds often as you had to have dumped your Wis, given you needed THREE high stats pull this off.

Points of disagreement:
1) 2/short rest means available for almost all encounters.
2) wizards don't exactly have a lot of competition for their bonus actions
3) mage armor, at 8 hours a cast, isn't exactly something that wizards in general don't do
4) INT and DEX can be as low as a total +6 to cause problems for CR appropriate foes (at level six, for instance, 18/16 isn't outlandishly high and CR 6 is a +6 attack bonus. +6 to hit AC 20 goes from 35% to 12% with blur. That's reducing your incoming successful hits by 1/3. It's non-trivial
5) the specific case is discussing rolled stats, which mean that your points about dumping other stats isn't necessarily correct

Points of agreement:
1) yes, it's a lot of resources to pull off the trick of not being hit much
2) the loss of the 1st round does have a large impact on damage out
3) unspoken, but if the wizard is burning so many resources (both slots and actions) on this, are they failing to contribute effectively?

Between these two, there's both a reason to look at blur and a good reason to not worry about it. Individuals can have differing opinions. Mine is mostly the latter.

 

[Blue]

Blur is a solid spell, probably one of the strongest defensive buffs in the game. A small set containing - Blur, Haste, Protection from Evil and Good (conditionally), Shield, Shield of Faith, Warding Bond.

I see your point. The effects of Blur are very useful. Consistently the amount of attack rolls are much higher then the saves needed. A 2nd level slot is not a high cost, and it pairs well with Shield because if you are hit it will likely be a lower attack roll. I am not arguing that it is not a fantastic personal defensive buff. I agree with you that it is.

But where I disagree is that the casting of it adds more the success of the party then other spells.

For my own usage, the concentration slot of the caster once you get past 5th is my #1 limitation, greater then spell slots, spells known, etc. This precludes the most potent spells in my arsenal to help the party succeed.

The action cost is also high considering how few rounds are in a 5e combat and with a 1 minute duration pre-casting isn't very likely. So even if you are a blaster who relies purely on non-concentration spells, you are missing 25% to 33% of those actions every combat. Also, it has the most effect from casting early, but that first round is when area-of-effect is most likely to catch foes bunches and without allies mingled in them.

 

[clearstream]

I see your point. The effects of Blur are very useful. Consistently the amount of attack rolls are much higher then the saves needed. A 2nd level slot is not a high cost, and it pairs well with Shield because if you are hit it will likely be a lower attack roll. I am not arguing that it is not a fantastic personal defensive buff. I agree with you that it is.

But where I disagree is that the casting of it adds more the success of the party then other spells.

For my own usage, the concentration slot of the caster once you get past 5th is my #1 limitation, greater then spell slots, spells known, etc. This precludes the most potent spells in my arsenal to help the party succeed.

The action cost is also high considering how few rounds are in a 5e combat and with a 1 minute duration pre-casting isn't very likely. So even if you are a blaster who relies purely on non-concentration spells, you are missing 25% to 33% of those actions every combat. Also, it has the most effect from casting early, but that first round is when area-of-effect is most likely to catch foes bunches and without allies mingled in them.

That's where I've landed, too. Blur is strong: in my opinion well worth using a turn to cast for characters set up to benefit from it.

On balance though, I accept (as I did at bottom of page one) that it doesn't need a nerf.