The Nerfing of the Bladesinger

[Celtavian]

re

I like the new Bladesinger. It is closer to the flavor of the old 2nd edition version of the class. The fact that they give you a Quickened Spell even once per day is an improvement over the 2nd edition version. The versatility gained with five more levels of Wizard casting will make the class more powerful at high level. The new Bladesinger also better simulates the Bladesingers portrayed in WotC novels. I definitely like the new Bladesinger best.

 

[Ranger REG]

I agree, one of the few good things (actually less than a handful) about The Complete Warrior is the revision of the Bladesinger prestige class. I like the gradual AC increase, which is akin to the 3.5e Duelist prestige class, for the same reason mentioned above (front-loading). I also like the benefit it offers in increasing the level of existing spellcasting class.

As for the song of celerity, I think it is too restrictive. Of course, I don't want it to be too lax as RoF version, so increase it to level 3 spells and level 6 spells maximum.

You do that and you get the real adaptation of the original 2nd edition version.

Otherwise, if you're happy with the RoF version, use it. I personally won't.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

On the subject of "class cherry-picking". I see the concern, but it seems such a rare type of munchkinism that it doesn't make sense to re-engineer a class to account for it.

Couldn't disagree more. You can see for yourself that a number of 3.5 core classes were re-engineered to tone down the frontloading. IMHO frontloading is a huge problem in 3.0, made worse by the introduction of PrCs. It is still a minor problem in 3.5.

 

[Remus Lupin]

Couldn't disagree more. You can see for yourself that a number of 3.5 core classes were re-engineered to tone down the frontloading. IMHO frontloading is a huge problem in 3.0, made worse by the introduction of PrCs. It is still a minor problem in 3.5.

Well, the Ranger is the example that leaps right to my mind as an example of 3.0 frontloading. But it seems to me that the problem there was less the cool skills that you got at 1st level than the absence of anything particularly cool at subsequent levels. I can't think of other classes for which that was such a big problem.

It is clear that the prestige classes in 3.5 are more designed to avoid that. So, maybe it's a bigger problem than I realized, but I still think it's a mistake to reengineer a class to account for the proportion that abuse it. abusus non tollit uses

 

[Darklone]

Hmm. I really dislike the new Complete Warrior classes with spellcasting progression in the first level and full BAB. You are often better of to take a combination of EK, Spellsword and Bladesinger instead of one of them... and the DM has to look after it. Poor.

In this case.... I don't see why the Bladesinger should be weak. He can Quicken one spell without increasing the spell level? That's weak, even if limited? Not in my games.

 

[Ranger REG]

I disagree. When you use any one of the metamagic feats to enhance the spell, it cost a higher spell level slot, with no change to the spell's itself, except the benefit of metamagic. To offer Quicken for free makes it easier to pay for other metamagic feat(s) with lesser higher spell level slot than you would normally if you HAVE to pay for Quicken.

 

[James McMurray]

I too dislike the classes that grant spellcasting, BAB, and special abilities all at first level. In my campaign I'll be delaying caster level increase until the second level of the class, that way it isn't a no brainer to take the classes as a sorceer, and an almost no brainer to take them as a wizard.

 

[Epinephrine]

Well, to be fair, the prerequisites are probably too steep for either of the +1 BAB, +1 caster level classes to be no-brainers if you're just a pure spellcaster. Spellsword requires martial weapon and all armor proficiencies, which is a lot of feats for a character who doesn't want to lose a caster level, and bladesinger requires a race, a number of probably cross-class skills, and four feats, two of which (Combat Expertise and Weapon Focus) are pretty useless to the devoted spellslinger.

That said, I do think that combining the spellslinging warrior prestige classes with each other is a bit more powerful than it should be. If you already have even a single level in fighter, perhaps for eldritch knight or some such, there's no reason not to take the first level of spellsword, especially when you throw in the 10% spell failure reduction.

Back on topic though, the new bladesinger looks a bit on the weak end of balanced to me, though certainly still viable, so I don't see allowing the cheesy dip into spellsword to be too unbalancing. The eldritch knight has that balance-aiding bonus feat instead of spellcasting at 1st level, and the bladesinger has steep enough prerequisites that it probably isn't worth it to just dabble in it.

 

[pawsplay]

I'll go so far as to say the Bladesinger is a compensation for a necessarily sub-optimal advancement path. It's a fighter-mage with required skills that are not class skills for Fighters or Wizards. Swashbucklers have some of the right skills, but don't get bonus Feats. Rogues, likewise. While it is possible to enter Bladesinger as early as a 7th level character, it's usually better to wait, either to load up either magic or BAB, or to dip into other PrC's.

 

[LordAO]

Now that the Bladesinger gets +1 Caster Level/2 Class Levels, I must ask the obvious. Why doesn't the Arcane Archer get any spell advancement?