D&D 5E Totally underwhelmed by 5e bladesinger, am I missing something?

[Flamestrike]

Quote me the rule, because all I see I'm seeing is your personal interpretation of it.

Dude, you're the one trying to argue that simply making yourself [unseen] via invisibility means I have to suddenly start guessing your square.

The rules for invisibility are clear. You gain the [invisible] condition and all the pros and cons it carries. You are not hidden but 'for the purposes of hiding you are treated as if you are in heavy obscurement' (in other words, you can attempt the Hide action pretty much at will as an action)

I can see a ton ways where the mechanics break down here as well. For example, mage casts invisibility and uses the dash action to run into a different room. By your opinion, it makes sense for someone else to simply run in the room after them on the next turn and know where to go attack.

No, the Mage cant take the dash action on the same turn the mage casts invisibility (unless he was also a Rogue 2 and had cunning action, or was a Sorcerer 3+ and cast quickened invisibility as a bonus action, and then used the dash action as his action or similar).

But otherwise yes, you are correct. A Mage can cast invisibility and move away on his turn. His opponent can follow him on his turn, ending up in an adjacent square, and then attack the mage (at disadvantage) without having to guess where the Mage is.

Turns are simultaneous - both guys are actually moving at the same time, with the dude following up the mage and swinging like mad.

After this attack, the mage is free to attempt the Hide action. He could have done it immediately after becoming invisible (should he have 2 levels of Rogue, or have cast Invisibility with quicken spell).

 

[discosoc]

But otherwise yes, you are correct. A Mage can cast invisibility and move away on his turn. His opponent can follow him on his turn, ending up in an adjacent square, and then attack the mage (at disadvantage) without having to guess where the Mage is.

I'm sorry, but if a DM ruled that way with invisibility, it's basically rendered useless for the purpose of avoiding getting attacked. Not to mention it simply doesn't make sense. If that's all it does in your mind, the mage was better off just going full defense and saving themselves a spell slot.

Yeah, I'd probably walk out of your game.

 

[Flamestrike]

I'm sorry, but if a DM ruled that way with invisibility, it's basically rendered useless for the purpose of avoiding getting attacked.

They're the rules mate. Read the invisible condition. Read the forums. This is established RAW and RAI.

And as for 'useless to avoid getting attacked' the spell:

1) Grants you advantage on attacks
2) Grants attack rolls against you disadvantage
3) Enables you to take the Hide action on your turn at will (as an action unless you have cunning action or the equivalent)
4) Renders you immune to Attacks of Opportunity (which require a target 'you can see')
5) Renders you immune to most spells (charm person, hold person, power word kill etc all require 'a target you can see')

For a second level spell, those are some impressive defensive benefits (plus offense, plus utility).

If you want to be invisible and be hidden all on the same turn (forcing your opponent to guess your location in addition to the above benefits) either dip Rogue for 2 levels for cunning action (as a bonus you can also gain expertise in Stealth) or be a Sorcerer and learn Quicken spell (so you can become invisible as a bonus action and then Hide as your action).

Otherwise you need to wait a turn. Cast invisiblity on yourself on turn one. Your opponent now gets one round to attack you at disadvantage. Then next turn, take the Hide action. Assuming you roll well on your Stealth check (over your opponents passive perception score), you are now hidden and he cant attack you at all unless;

1) He wastes an action on the Search action, or
2) He makes a lucky guess.

And in any event, he still does so at disadvantage, and is unable to make AoO against you, or to target you with most SoS spells.

Not to mention it simply doesn't make sense.

Yes it does make sense. You and I are engaged in a battle to the death with me waving a sword at you in your face. Youre ducking and weaving and backing off, and become invisible as you do so. I continue advancing forwards swinging my sword. I get to attack you (at disadvantage) after you become invisible.

From there you can either continue to make noise and do other stuff (and I can continue to swing at you with disadvantage) or you can take some effort to conceal your location, keep quiet and stealthy and Hide (take the Hide action).

If that's all it does in your mind, the mage was better off just going full defense and saving themselves a spell slot.

You take the Dodge action and walk away and I get an attack of opportunity as you walk away (at disadvantage) and then I get another one on my turn (at disadvantage) when I follow you up and swing again. Now its your turn again, and you cant Hide.

So Dodging is in every way worse than becoming invisible.

Yeah, I'd probably walk out of your game.

With my absolute blessing and the cheers of the other players at the table.

 

[Prism]

But otherwise yes, you are correct. A Mage can cast invisibility and move away on his turn. His opponent can follow him on his turn, ending up in an adjacent square, and then attack the mage (at disadvantage) without having to guess where the Mage is.

I agree that the mage couldn't hide (as in the sidebar) but it could be argued that you could use a stealth check while moving away, as under stealth it states you can 'slip away without being noticed'. General skill use doesn't require a specific form of action so this could be ruled to work during a move.

The key point really is 'hiding' the only way in combat of not being seen and your opponents not knowing where you are? It doesn't have to be the only way.

 

[neogod22]

A rogue can attempt to hide from sight, that's their bonus action, if you are hidden from sight anyway (invisible) you can move stealthily by making a stealth check when you move and make no sound. They have disadvantage on their perception check, so there's a good chance you will go undetected, unless of course you're fighting a wisdom based creature.

Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk

 

[Chaosmancer]

yeah, there are a lot of scene specific things that change how this could work in play.

For example, if this happened in the middle of a bell tower and everyone is effectively deafened by the bells, do you need to stealth? They clearly cannot hear you so why would you?

What if you were fighting a whole squadron of invisible beings, you know the location of six different invisible things but could you honestly target one in particular even as they are moving about the room and changing location?

 

[ThePolarBear]

Most of the bladesinger melee options being discussed in this thread (shield, mirror image, blur for example) are all things a low to mid level eldritch knight can also easily do.

What are some mid-high level melee options the bladesinger has, not available to the eldritch knight?

I'm asking about melee options, obviously the bladesinger can just revert to standard caster tactics too.

One obvious one, access to contingency - which can significantly reduce buffing time or greatly enhance exit strategies.

Things that are more useful but EK has access to too:
Levitate - probably better save numbers/earlier access/short range so better suited for the fray than distance (other wizards comparison - this is going to be used a lot -)
Counterspell(other "low" level spells) - Earlier access/better spellcasting check/short range/will take it anyway since spells are the bane
Greater Invisibility - Better all around defense/higher con checks/EK lvl20
Polymorph - Not good to be used on oneself - losing access to all abilities will hurt - but helpful to save frontliner. Ek can have it too, but at lvl 20.
Fire Shield/Stoneskin - Both great, Stoneskin is better than on other casters if self cast due to higher con checks
Stone Shape - Last minute cover, pit under the enemy, difficult terrain...

Every upscaled version over 4th level spell slot: EK can't do it. So mass hold person or things like that.

Now in random order: Foresight/Shapechange and on a lesser scale True Polimorph/Last minute True sight, Mind Blank, Teleport on frontliners/Globe of invulnerability and Antimagic Shield covering frontliners without losing abilities to fight effectively/Eyebite?/Little houserule to mordekainen sword to be able to be used as an weapon, picked up and dropped as a bonus action, since imho the spell is very lacking?/Bigby Hand for cover - grapple - push - more damage.

I'm sure i'm missing something obvious.

Blindsight is on page 8 in the monster manual, the first under special senses, tremorsense is on page 9.

I already aknowledged my error on Tremorsense before you posted. I have no idea where i asked you about Blindsight. I know what Blindsight is. I did not know what the blindifghting you told me the ranger had was. Other people already have answered for you, thanks.

It's been decades, but the Blindfighting I'm familiar with was a nonweapon proficiency which halved the penalty for fighting in darkness. 5E has a way to sort of halve the penalty for fighting in darkness--it's the Alert feat. It eliminates the defensive penalty which retaining the offensive penalty.

I never tought about Alert that way. But with the new errata you are 100% correct sir

The blindfighting reference for Rangers is the Feral Senses ability, which while I can't remember the exact language, removes the penalty for attacking creatures you can't see within 30 ft

Ooooh thank you.

A lot of people, me included

I guess i'll just stop derailing the thread unilaterally It's strangely difficult.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You cant hide as a free action. Its an action (a bonus action for Rogues). And wizards generally suck at it (not being proficient in Stealth, and not having great Dex scores).

What's wrong with your wizards?

I don't think I've ever rolled up a PC in 5E without wanting to make him proficient in Stealth and Perception. There may or may not have been times when I've resisted the temptation because it didn't fit the RP concept; but it's incredibly useful to have the whole party be Stealth-proficient, and it's useful for solo wizards too.

It's not like there's a whole ton of other attractive skills to distract you from Stealth, and bounded accuracy means that even +4 or +5 to Stealth (e.g. Dex 11 plus proficiency) is quite good. Seriously, why would you ever assume that a wizard isn't Stealth-proficient? If you've never seen or played a Stealth-proficient wizard, something very odd is going on.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Besides, after Int, what is the wizard taking besides Dex? Con is in a dead heat I guess, but otherwise that's where I'd be putting my next highest score.

 

[Flamestrike]

What's wrong with your wizards?

I don't think I've ever rolled up a PC in 5E without wanting to make him proficient in Stealth and Perception. There may or may not have been times when I've resisted the temptation because it didn't fit the RP concept; but it's incredibly useful to have the whole party be Stealth-proficient, and it's useful for solo wizards too.

It's not like there's a whole ton of other attractive skills to distract you from Stealth, and bounded accuracy means that even +4 or +5 to Stealth (e.g. Dex 11 plus proficiency) is quite good. Seriously, why would you ever assume that a wizard isn't Stealth-proficient? If you've never seen or played a Stealth-proficient wizard, something very odd is going on.

There is nothing 'wrong' with my Wizards.

'My Wizards' select skills that make sense to the character. As do my Fighters and Clerics and everyone else man.

I pick skills for very different reasons to you.