WanderingMystic
Hero
Once your 11th level or around their using your action to attack isn't worth it but honestly that is only your 6th level ability and a ribbon on your 3rd level. You don't loose all of your subclass.
I would offer a slight correction: This "have to be top-tier" thing only applies in one direction, namely, the spellcaster picking up martial ability. Even then, different implementations handle it differently. The Blade Warlock basically has to invest half their character resources into it, a significant opportunity cost relative to what they could get (e.g. investing into Chain for an actually fairly powerful pet, or having to pass/delay on Devil's Sight or similar useful and uniquely Warlock features). The Bladesinger? Gives up the mostly-pretty-weak subclass features of other alternative Wizard subclasses (Diviner being a meaningful but complicated exception), in order to get very powerful Fighter(-like) features.I feel like the best way to encapsulate the issue with "gish" design is to compare the Bladesinger to the Eldritch Knight.
The Eldritch Knight gets one-third of the spellcasting that a Wizard gets.
The Bladesinger gets better AC and a better Extra Attack in tier 2 than what other martials get.
Which sums up the issue with "gish" subclasses and player expectations: rather than these subclasses being made as "something the character can do in addition to their core competencies", they have to be not just a primary fixture of the playstyle but top-tier in that area in order to be worthwhile. You have to have that element of "they do [martial thing] better than actual martials" or they get dismissed as useless.
Well sure. It's a Wizard subclass. It has to be the best, by demand.Which is where Bladesinger falters for me, especially the 2024 incarnation: they haven't fixed the needlessly overpowered aspects of the subclass, nor have they worked what the subclass does into something that feels like a natural but balanced option for the player rather than "you get better Extra Attack than martials themselves get".
That said, a one-level Fighter dip has always been useful for "gish" classes/subclasses, so that's not really much of a change. It just makes more pointedly clear what the impact is. Cards on the table, I can't be TOO mad about this myself, because I literally have a Fighter 1/Warlock 4 character I'm playing on Saturdays now. I do in fact have skin in the game, so I can't really judge folks too harshly without being a hypocrite myself.(It also suffers from the usual 2024 problem of "gish" classes/subclasses that omit Weapon Mastery and thus become significantly empowered by a one-level dip for such and other features.)
I would offer a slight correction: This "have to be top-tier" thing only applies in one direction, namely, the spellcaster picking up martial ability. Even then, different implementations handle it differently. The Blade Warlock basically has to invest half their character resources into it, a significant opportunity cost relative to what they could get (e.g. investing into Chain for an actually fairly powerful pet, or having to pass/delay on Devil's Sight or similar useful and uniquely Warlock features). The Bladesinger? Gives up the mostly-pretty-weak subclass features of other alternative Wizard subclasses (Diviner being a meaningful but complicated exception), in order to get very powerful Fighter(-like) features.
Blade Warlocks are not top-tier for martial capability, even when they invest everything they can into it. They're more or less a weaker, less-versatile Paladin when they do so. Getting the best martial capability as a Warlock requires functionally building yourself like a Fighter with good Charisma. By comparison, Bladesinger Wizards out-tank tanky Fighters, and with even a modicum of investment can begin to outpace in damage too. Faster than Zardnaar gives credit for, but, I admit, not as fast as it sometimes seems.
Conversely, a Fighter choosing to pick up spellcasting? Absolutely cannot be very good at spells. Hard-capped to being only one third as effective as a Wizard at spellcasting. So....the Wizard-who-studies-Fighting gets to be at least half as good, usually much more, as the Fighter--but the Fighter-who-studies-Wizardry doesn't get to be more than one-third as good as the Wizard. Because that's totally fair and reasonable and not at all clearly biased toward one class over the other!
Well sure. It's a Wizard subclass. It has to be the best, by demand.
I'm not even joking here. That was openly and explicitly the reason folks gave for things like killing certain proposed Sorcerer and Warlock features in UA, back before TCoE was published: an Illusionist Wizard needs to not just be very, very good at illusions, they need to be the BEST at illusions, better than any other spellcaster; an Evoker Wizard needs to not just be very good at evocation, they need to be the BEST at evocation; etc. (That first one, illusions, was openly said on this very forum, as I recall.)
Spellcasters generally, and Wizards very specifically, need to be the best at what they choose to specialize in. That's what the vocal minority demands. And what the Wizard fanboys want, the Wizard fanboys get, because their voice was one of the engines that drove the edition war.
That said, a one-level Fighter dip has always been useful for "gish" classes/subclasses, so that's not really much of a change. It just makes more pointedly clear what the impact is. Cards on the table, I can't be TOO mad about this myself, because I literally have a Fighter 1/Warlock 4 character I'm playing on Saturdays now. I do in fact have skin in the game, so I can't really judge folks too harshly without being a hypocrite myself.
This is true, but folks underestimate the loss of spell casting damage progress with the level dip. Comparing a single-classed 10th level Wizard vs. the Fighter 2/Wizard 8 build I just gave, the latter multi-classed build misses out on two 5th level spell slots and one 4th level spell slot. That's two castings of Hold Monster and one of Polymorph - very effective nerfs on monsters, which is often much more effective than just trying to inflict raw damage.(It also suffers from the usual 2024 problem of "gish" classes/subclasses that omit Weapon Mastery and thus become significantly empowered by a one-level dip for such and other features.)
This is true, but folks underestimate the loss of spell casting damage progress with the level dip. Comparing a single-classed 10th level Wizard vs. the Fighter 2/Wizard 8 build I just gave, the latter multi-classed build misses out on two 5th level spell slots and one 4th level spell slot. That's two castings of Hold Monster and one of Polymorph - very effective nerfs on monsters, which is often much more effective than just trying to inflict raw damage.
I did say ‘a bit’ redundant. By which I mean completely redundant until level 5 and then it’s only doing 1d6 extra damage with all the penalties using a spell comes with.Until lvl 6 yes.
Bladesingers get Int bonus uses per day not proficiency now. So they are likely to be using 3-4 times a day. If you’re not bladesinging in every fight that matters then you’re not doing it right.Only when they are in Bladesong, which is a boost, but is not all the time especially in tier 1-2.
I did say ‘a bit’ redundant. By which I mean completely redundant until level 5 and then it’s only doing 1d6 extra damage with all the penalties using a spell comes with.
Bladesingers get Int bonus uses per day not proficiency now. So they are likely to be using 3-4 times a day. If you’re not bladesinging in every fight that matters then you’re not doing it right.
Sure have the cantrip for when you’re fighting giant rats etc but it’s not going to meaningfully solve the problem of what do bladesingers attack with.
Booming blade seems most promising.
Especially now that bladesingers can entirely focus on int.Truestrike is a pretty good substitute.
No. It adds damage after level 5.I mean the biggest change is the new blade singer gets Int to attack and damage straight away.
So true strike is actually a bit redundant for the most part.