D&D 5E (2024) Thoughts on New Bladesinger?

[FrogReaver]

You would usually have Warcaster and even without it you can stow your main weapon after you make your second attack with it. This is only going to be an issue if you use 3 different weapons for your 3 attacks.

That’s an every other turn solution, right? You draw the weapon on turn 1. So you can’t stow it after the attack. Then next turn after the attack you can’t stow stow it. Repeat the process. Or am I mistaken on how weapon drawing/stowing works?

 

[FrogReaver]

Which is fine, if you're just touching a material component and waving somatic components. If you need to juggle multiple material components, and/or focus, it can become a problem. And it definitely doesn't work well with two-weapon fighting or one-handed weapon + shield, unless you're using a smaller hand-free shield (e.g., buckler).

Browsing through D&D 2024 spells, almost all of those with an action casting time have only one material component. So that makes it easier ahead of time, providing you don't need to be opening and closing a bad of material components to select which one, while holding your two-handed weapon one-handed in the middle of combat with an opponent.

In general, I think the D&D 2014 and 2024 rules on spell focii and material component handling are excessively complicated. Just allow spell casters to cast their spells, and don't disallow different weapon/shield options, require special focii (Ruby of the Warmage), etc.

I don’t think the rules require more than a single free hand for every material component and the same free hand for somatic components. Am I mistaken?

 

[FrogReaver]

You are really gimped if you do this because you can only use Intelligence while in Bladesong, this makes Dexterity a better choice than Intelligence if you are playing a melee-focused character. If you want magic initiate and Con then Guide is the way to go, giving you Con, Dex and Shillelagh.

Int and con is a lot better than Dex and con for a bladesinger. Like that’s really your recommendation???

If we are going to assume Sage Background we should do it for both and that would mean the Fighter would start with a lower strength.

I don’t agree. If there was a magic initiate background that could take strength without dex or con I’d have happily chosen it.

But since that doesn’t exist I take a background that gives strength.

I assumed it to zero-base the characters. Regardless of how many it is and what they are used for, the Bladesinger can cast the same 6 spells as the Eldritch Knight (whatever those spells are) and then has more spell slots on top of that for another 50 or so temporary hit points available from other slots after both of them have used those first 6 spells.

But that ignores 2 critical aspects - action economy and buffs really matters.

1. Giving up actions during combat to cast false life isn’t good solution. I’m confident saying any EK actually attacking is vastly superior to the Bkadesinger that uses combat actions for false life.

2. Extending the adventuring day causes other offensive problems for the bladesinger as he has limited slots to keep his strong buff spells going.

Essentially to do as you suggest you end up tanking your dpr for more survivability. That’s just not a good tradeoff.

You only have 1 slot for it and CME is highly situational.

As I said, I structured the adventuring day to be in the bladesingers favor. Things only get worse for him if we extend it.

I was just pointing out if you do use it that it is a lot more damage. Regardless of how you slice the onion though, the Bladesinger has many more spell slots and more spell slots means more hit points. There is no way an EK is keeping up with a Bladesinger in terms of hit points at level 7.

To justify using them you need to make assumptions that hurt him in the comparison even worse.

Like if your proposal is the bladesinger stops attacking and casts false life a bunch, we can say he’s 50% more survivable (or whatever the number comes out to) but the EK does 400% more damage or whatever the number comes out to.

There’s just no way to maintain the originally calculated damage I gave with any assumptions that allow the extra slots to be used for false life.

You would usually have Warcaster and even without it you can stow your main weapon after you make your second attack with it. This is only going to be an issue if you use 3 different weapons for your 3 attacks.

Sure. I think it’s fair to assume he has warcaster.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yeah play a cleric or druid instead.

CME abuse changes the equation even the nerfed version. That's a later problem.

Shadowblade+true strike is best you can do. Spirit shroud maybe. Then youre out of spells in 2-3 combats.

Comes back to my earlier statement about wizards. How does your DM run the game. That leans into situationally good. Hence my "low" rating.

Wizards are solid. They are still full casters. Still have very powerful nova options. Are very versatile due to their ritual casting ability and their high intelligence brings something to the table not a lot other casters do.

Seems your play style just does not fit to the wizard. That is OK. But neither the wizard nor any of their subclasses are in any way bad.

Blade singers are very good at what they do: being a caster that can concentrate well and have some defenses and offense after their spells run out.

 

[Weiley31]

My fave 5E Gish is the Warlock.

Yes, I like the Hex blade, why do you ask?

 

[Kurotowa]

My fave 5E Gish is the Warlock.

Yes, I like the Hex blade, why do you ask?

Have you tried one post-revision? Because I played a Hexblade Warlock in my first 5e campaign and found it somewhat unsatisfying. My hope was that 5.24 would improve things, but I keep struggling to visualize how a Revised Bladelock is supposed to fit together. As much as I'm reluctant to indulge in multiclass dips, Fighter 1 for Heavy armor and weapon mastery and a Fighting Style just seems too good to pass up. And that annoys me on an aesthetic level.

 

[Tessarael]

I don’t think the rules require more than a single free hand for every material component and the same free hand for somatic components. Am I mistaken?

You are correct by the rules as written. If you think about what is needed, you're fishing for components with one hand, while your other hand is full. Then waving the component through the air, performing the somatic portion of the spell. Followed by putting away the material component you just used, again with one hand.

For me at least, this breaks the number of free object interactions that you have on one turn: swap two hands to one-handed hold on your weapon; open component pouch; grab component; put component back in pouch; swap back to two-handed hold on your weapon. At the least, maybe you'd need to drop the component, rather than stash it away again.

I have less issues in this scenario when there's a spell focus on a chain around your neck. In that case, when you "drop" the focus, as it is on the chain, you retain it without needing the additional free object interaction to stash it.

Can compare this juggling of components or focus with two-weapon fighting. If a spell caster can do this much object interaction while spell casting, why can't a two-weapon fighter draw two weapons on the same turn without having the Dual Wielder feat to quick draw both?

In my opinion, D&D rules over-complicate this. I would allow relatively straightforward mechanisms (say 200gp additional cost maximum for the construction or enchantment) to have a spell casting focus as a weapon or shield that you are wielding, without requiring the attunement of the Ruby of the Warmage. Likewise, I would permit the dual wielder to draw both weapons without the feat, just as a longbow user can draw multiple arrows from a quiver when using extra attack without having a feat to enable it.

To put it differently, does D&D really intend to game-balance combat mechanics for spell casters to have a hand free to cast a spell? I don't think they do, at least not any more, because there are so many ways around this, e.g., holy symbol emblazoned on shield for Paladins and Clerics to use as a divine focus, various ways of having a weapon as a spell casting focus, etc.

The complication of V,S components (i.e., when there is no material component) requiring a hand free unless you have the War Caster feat is also an unnecessarily complicated game mechanic. It's not that the spells with V,S components are significantly more powerful than those with V,S,M components; on the contrary, as the majority of spells have V,S,M components, the more powerful spells number among them.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

You can't do it 6 times a day as a single class Wizard until quite a while after level 20. That requires a 22 Intelligence, which would mean 2 Epic Boons.

For most of tier 1 and tier 2 on point buy you will be at 3 or 4 uses on a point buy Wizard.

You . . . may wish to read up on the 5e24 Bladesong ability. It is not the same as the 2014 version.

For most Bladesingers, on most days, you will have 4-6 uses of Bladesong.

Here is the verbiage from FR:HOF

"You can invoke the Bladesong a number of times equal to your Intelligence modifier (minimum of once), and you regain all expended uses when you finish a Long Rest. You regain one expended use when you use Arcane Recovery."

So you are not going to typically have 6 uses on point buy in most of tier 1 and tier 2.

No, you start having 4 uses assuming a 16+ Intelligence score, which I think is reasonable for the way that most people will make their Bladesinger. (Yes, we know that you personally might to do it differently.)
That is three initial uses, and then one back in a short rest. In a day with 4 combat encounters in, I think at least one short rest is likely.
Then more bladesong uses as the character increases Intelligence, maxing out at 6 with Int 20. I think that increasing this score is likely for most people given it now affects weapon attacks as well as spell DCs.
So: 4-6 uses in most cases. I'm sure you can get more post-20 but I'm not considering that.

 

[TheSword]

It really feels like we're overthinking this.

Surely if you want more spell slots you play a Bladesinger and if you don't want more do EK.

Bladesinger 1:3 Fighter-Wizard while Eldritch Knight is 1:3 Wizard-Fighter

 

[Zardnaar]

Wizards are solid. They are still full casters. Still have very powerful nova options. Are very versatile due to their ritual casting ability and their high intelligence brings something to the table not a lot other casters do.

Seems your play style just does not fit to the wizard. That is OK. But neither the wizard nor any of their subclasses are in any way bad.

Blade singers are very good at what they do: being a caster that can concentrate well and have some defenses and offense after their spells run out.

What's a worse cass than wizard at level 2?

The usual bad classes Rogue and Ranger are decent tier 1 if not good. All the martial classes are better than them. All the other spellcasers are better.
Your not going to have many rituals or cash in most games at level 2.

Theyre the worst class imho hence D rating. Its comparative. Theyre not in D for long and by level 6 are probably B depending on subclass.

It depends on the campaign and DM how good rituals are and how accessible they are. Sane with number of spells.