D&D 5E Revision for the Blur spell

[Mephista]

The blur'd bladesinger is only as overpowered as the enemy's tactics. If its a party wipe except for the bladesinger, that doesn't make things better. The damage output of a bladesinger is small enough that they don't really qualify as a large threat, and if you're in close, the bladesinger can't be firing off fireballs like an Evoker could, or function as a good tank.

Every game is different, and every GM has situations they have trouble coping with. My GM wouldn't have an issue dealing with this kind of issue. This idea that people are throwing around, where you casually have the ability to calmly cast a spell with enemies that for some reason or another always start far away is mind boggling to me. In fact, I find it extraordinary. Dungeons tend to have rooms, corridors that take a single turn to traverse with a charge, or obstacles like trees or some other terrain features in the way. And don't forget traps! Open fields are the exception in my games, not the rule.

 

[clearstream]

The blur'd bladesinger is only as overpowered as the enemy's tactics. If its a party wipe except for the bladesinger, that doesn't make things better. The damage output of a bladesinger is small enough that they don't really qualify as a large threat, and if you're in close, the bladesinger can't be firing off fireballs like an Evoker could, or function as a good tank.

My party is adroit at landing Fireballs so that they hit the bad guys and miss the good guys, even without Sculpt. BB makes BS an excellent tank, although it is true that in most cases foes that can should ignore tanks and focus down the damage dealers. (From a strictly best-tactics point of view, sometimes foes have other things on their minds.)

Every game is different, and every GM has situations they have trouble coping with. My GM wouldn't have an issue dealing with this kind of issue. This idea that people are throwing around, where you casually have the ability to calmly cast a spell with enemies that for some reason or another always start far away is mind boggling to me. In fact, I find it extraordinary. Dungeons tend to have rooms, corridors that take a single turn to traverse with a charge, or obstacles like trees or some other terrain features in the way. And don't forget traps! Open fields are the exception in my games, not the rule.

When a character's turn in the initiative order comes around for the first time, no matter how close the foes, unless they are surprised they can cast a spell, right?

 

[Ovinomancer]

The blur'd bladesinger is only as overpowered as the enemy's tactics. If its a party wipe except for the bladesinger, that doesn't make things better. The damage output of a bladesinger is small enough that they don't really qualify as a large threat, and if you're in close, the bladesinger can't be firing off fireballs like an Evoker could, or function as a good tank.

Every game is different, and every GM has situations they have trouble coping with. My GM wouldn't have an issue dealing with this kind of issue. This idea that people are throwing around, where you casually have the ability to calmly cast a spell with enemies that for some reason or another always start far away is mind boggling to me. In fact, I find it extraordinary. Dungeons tend to have rooms, corridors that take a single turn to traverse with a charge, or obstacles like trees or some other terrain features in the way. And don't forget traps! Open fields are the exception in my games, not the rule.

I agree on the open fields, but the number of encounters in my games that take the first turn to engage in melee is much, much higher than the number of open fields.

Secondly, it's worth noting that with greenflame blade and booming blade, the bladesinger's damage output in melee is equal or exceeds what a martial can do without GWM. Booming blade at 5th is a d8+stat weapon+d8 thunder with another potential 2d8 thunder on proc. It makes a bladesinger pretty sticky with damage output only slightly behind a non-smite martial for a round without a proc, and better with. And with warcaster, the bladesinger is very sticky.

I overall agree that bladesinger is much less of a problem than [MENTION=71699]vonklaude[/MENTION] insists, mostly due to action opportunity costs, but it's worthwhile to acknowledge that the combination of the bladesinger with the melee cantrips can do some impressive things, especially in Tiers I and II. After that, not as much.

 

[Mephista]

My party is adroit at landing Fireballs so that they hit the bad guys and miss the good guys, even without Sculpt.

Yeah, see, that's the problem; your GM is allowing that kind of tactic. Its clear from your discussion that you get plenty of room to do those kinds of things, while I'm finding it to be a bit more on the rare side. A fireball in a dungeon when people are fighting in melee means you're going to be hitting all those people in my games, including fellow PCs. If yours doesn't? That's awesome for your table. I just don't expect to see it at mine. Friendly fire is a danger of most evocation spells.

Secondly, it's worth noting that with greenflame blade and booming blade, the bladesinger's damage output in melee is equal or exceeds what a martial can do without GWM.

No, it really doesn't. At best, we're looking at 2d8+stat, potentially up to 4d8+stat, per turn, assuming a hit, for a total of 18+stat damage. Meanwhile, a great sword barbarian is doing 4d6+stat*2+4, while attacking with advantage; this not only drastically increases chance of hitting for damage as well as landing a crit, but our potential dpr is 18+stat*2. That's entirely without feats or any racial bonuses. The bladesinger pretty much needs everything to go perfectly for them in order to pull similar damage off, while for the barbarian? Its the baseline.

And here's the part where the bladesinger gets tricky - unless you take War Caster, you can't OA with booming blade, so monsters, during their movement, can easy just run over to the others without minding the cantrips. Once the monsters are in melee, you can boom blade all you want, and they're not going to care about moving; they're were they want to be. These attack cantrips are nice, but they require things to line up correctly for them to be effective. Because you really need WarCaster to make them effective, its only fair to compare the feat-based bladesinger to a martial character with a weapon mastery feat as well.

I've played a bladesinger, so I'm well aware of how the damage can stack up. I'm also well aware of how things don't line up perfectly most of the time, so most of these cantrips aren't nearly able to show their full potential. I'm also aware that this idea that the melee martials are being outdamaged by a bladesinger to be a bit questionable. Battlemasters especially show some rather staggering potential in both damage and controlling the battlefield, or outright damage potential with one of those -5/+10 power attacks. In my game, the Polearm Battlemaster did a more damage than my bladesinger.

Interestingly, vanklaude insists that Warcaster is actually less useful than +Dex or +Int for tanking as a bladesinger, so his/her/zir character doesn't include booming blade's stickiness even. Which is why I'm going to keep by my statement; its better to just ignore such a bladesinger and fight the rest of the party. The bladesinger in this discussion is playing well to the tactics of van's GM, but outside of that particular table, I think that things would be vastly different.

 

[Satyrn]

What I'm after here is feedback to help understand whether this is likely to be a good change, and if there could be a better direction to take it in.

Then why did you argue with the feedback Horwath gave you instead of thanking him for it?

 

[clearstream]

Yeah, see, that's the problem; your GM is allowing that kind of tactic. Its clear from your discussion that you get plenty of room to do those kinds of things, while I'm finding it to be a bit more on the rare side. A fireball in a dungeon when people are fighting in melee means you're going to be hitting all those people in my games, including fellow PCs. If yours doesn't? That's awesome for your table. I just don't expect to see it at mine. Friendly fire is a danger of most evocation spells.

On the one hand, I feel like it is not up to the DM what a spell template covers on a battle map: it covers what it covers. On the other hand, there are certainly situations and spaces in the published adventures we're playing that Sculpt spells would be handy. In my assessment, those cases are not as frequent as those other cases where the Bladesong advantages are solid.

And here's the part where the bladesinger gets tricky - unless you take War Caster, you can't OA with booming blade, so monsters, during their movement, can easy just run over to the others without minding the cantrips. Once the monsters are in melee, you can boom blade all you want, and they're not going to care about moving; they're were they want to be. These attack cantrips are nice, but they require things to line up correctly for them to be effective. Because you really need WarCaster to make them effective, its only fair to compare the feat-based bladesinger to a martial character with a weapon mastery feat as well.

I think you drew Warcaster with BB to my attention, it's pretty powerful. In our combats we see participants shifting a great deal to gain the upper hand, even without leaving reach. BB punishes them for doing that. In particular, they won't reach the kiting characters without taking the extra damage. A key problem is that - like Sentinel - BB's secondary is DM fiat.

Another factor that this depends on is whether your DM applies the core rule that intervening creatures count as half cover. If they do, anything that quells repositioning has better value.

Interestingly, vanklaude insists that Warcaster is actually less useful than +Dex or +Int for tanking as a bladesinger, so his/her/zir character doesn't include booming blade's stickiness even. Which is why I'm going to keep by my statement; its better to just ignore such a bladesinger and fight the rest of the party.

For the first ASI - at level 4 - it is best to take +Dex or +Int because that will push your AC up the curve. It's close which is better, but I believe +1 initiative, attack and damage marginally beats out higher DC and better Concentration save. At the same time, the cantrip damage hasn't ramped much yet. With my minimaxing hat on, it looks to me favoured to prioritise the ASI.

At 8th, your second ASI depends on your exact ability scores and other factors. Warcaster could be okay here. But the ASI could also be better. However, by 12th I believe Warcaster is a solid pick for a Bladesinger. Advantage on your already high Concentration will make it nigh unbreakable, and the AoO will ramp your damage greatly (depending on your DM's ability to remain stoic in the face of cheese). It's worth stressing that the cantrips ramp at 5th, 11th and 17th. I think it is that double boost at 11th that most argues for Warcaster at 12th.

I agree that a foes best option often becomes - let the BS do what it wants - focus on other characters. I don't feel that to be a particularly great outcome for enjoyable gameplay. A DM can of course switch to more foes casting spells like Hold Person. For me, warping scenarios around one ability is often a hint that the ability could be better designed.

The bladesinger in this discussion is playing well to the tactics of van's GM, but outside of that particular table, I think that things would be vastly different.

Certainly each group plays only a small slice of the total game space. That's why mathematical models and playtesting scenarios becomes important to more broadly inform insights. At the tables I've been playing and DMing at, we've been using published adventures. So in terms of the battlemaps and foe choices it is difficult to assign our experiences to our own idiosyncratic predilections. I have worked for decades as a professional game designer, and finding ways to achieve some objectivity is an essential skill. Another is listening to what players say, so I certainly take your strong feelings and reporting of your own experiences very much into account. For one thing, Warcaster and Sculpt spells have both moved up in my esteem!

 

[clearstream]

Then why did you argue with the feedback Horwath gave you instead of thanking him for it?

Because I'm human