D&D 5E Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards 5e

[Huntsman57]

I don't get your dislike of a bladesinger as a bladesinger. It's only going to be short 1 attack compared to a traditional fighter until 20th level, and while it may not get a fighter's special abilities, it makes up for this with a full 9 levels of spells.

Sure, the Bladesinger will be a bit squishy at lower levels given the d6 hitpoints, but his 1st through 4th level gish spells like shield, blur, haste, and improved invisibility should keep him safe. Of course most 5th-8th level spells suck for a gish, but not only do they add versatility, but at 10th level the spell slots can be converted into a significant hitpoint buff, ending any concerns regarding squishiness. At higher levels, while we may be down an attack, we now make up for that at least a bit by adding our intelligence modifier to damage, and at 17th level our not inconsiderable capstone in Foresight.

Will the damage be quite as strong as a pure fighter? Maybe not, but this class has a very good balance of offense and staying power with a ton of versatility.

 

[CapnZapp]

The question boils down to: what kind of weapons offensive do the game need to offer a Wizard in order to incentivize her to forego the safety of back rank spellcasting to join in melee?

And I think the answer is: much too much for the Wizard to be allowed to retain full wizardly spellcasting. You simply can't offer the kind of melee damage output that compares favorably with Fireball or Wish.

In other words: I think Treeant want a build that makes it rational to go all fighter on your foes, rather than one that merely makes it possible and plausible (but not necessarily optimal).

In that case, the Wizard is the wrong chassi. You can't just give the Bladesinger fighter-level martial prowess without also taking away best-in-game spellcasting prowess. Not if you want to make melee the rational choice.

Let us view the SCAG Bladesinger as the best martial capability you can get without sacrificing full Wizard spellcasting.

If you want a Bladesinger that's focused on the martial side, look at the Arcane Knight or Trickster for how much (how little) spellcasting power you can retain.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

I don't get your dislike of a bladesinger as a bladesinger. It's only going to be short 1 attack compared to a traditional fighter until 20th level, and while it may not get a fighter's special abilities, it makes up for this with a full 9 levels of spells.

The spells are fantastic, and mix well with the abilities (which is why I rated a pure Bladesinger green when played as a primary spellcaster instead of a melee character).

However, the spells, for the most part, don't increase offensive abilities (haste or magic weapon are probably your best bets, but neither bring the Bladesinger into the realm of offensive capability of other melee characters when using a weapon)

Sure, the Bladesinger will be a bit squishy at lower levels given the d6 hitpoints, but his 1st through 4th level gish spells like shield, blur, haste, and improved invisibility should keep him safe.

I was impressed with the Bladesingers defensive abilities, just not the offensive ones.

At higher levels, while we may be down an attack, we now make up for that at least a bit by adding our intelligence modifier to damage, and at 17th level our not inconsiderable capstone in Foresight.

I acknowledge that at level 14 the Bladesinger has an improvement in offensive ability. My concern is the lack of offensive melee capability from levels 2-13.

Will the damage be quite as strong as a pure fighter? Maybe not,

I think having fighter comparable damage is a pretty high bar to set. I think the Bladesinger should have similar damage to a War Cleric or a Valor Bard. It does not (in either case) until level 14, and that's problematic since campaigns tend to take place primarily below that level.

With a well designed melee class option, I would expect ability in both defense and offense that scales with level similarly to other classes that do the same thing.

but this class has a very good balance of offense and staying power with a ton of versatility.

I will give you both the staying power and the versatility. I'll even give you offense (because of offensive spells), just not good melee offense, which is a problem if you want to use a sword instead of a spell when attacking.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

The question boils down to: what kind of weapons offensive do the game need to offer a Wizard in order to incentivize her to forego the safety of back rank spellcasting to join in melee?

And I think the answer is: much too much for the Wizard to be allowed to retain full wizardly spellcasting. You simply can't offer the kind of melee damage output that compares favorably with Fireball or Wish.

In other words: I think Treeant want a build that makes it rational to go all fighter on your foes, rather than one that merely makes it possible and plausible (but not necessarily optimal).

In that case, the Wizard is the wrong chassi. You can't just give the Bladesinger fighter-level martial prowess without also taking away best-in-game spellcasting prowess. Not if you want to make melee the rational choice.

Let us view the SCAG Bladesinger as the best martial capability you can get without sacrificing full Wizard spellcasting.

If you want a Bladesinger that's focused on the martial side, look at the Arcane Knight or Trickster for how much (how little) spellcasting power you can retain.

Agreed, I would add that Bladesinger is a very good multiclass option for either of those choices mentioned. This gives each choice more spellcasting, without sacrificing the ability to do reasonable damage with a weapon.

 

[mellored]

The question boils down to: what kind of weapons offensive do the game need to offer a Wizard in order to incentivize her to forego the safety of back rank spellcasting to join in melee?

And I think the answer is: much too much for the Wizard to be allowed to retain full wizardly spellcasting. You simply can't offer the kind of melee damage output that compares favorably with Fireball or Wish.

You can if it cost you your spell slots.

IMO, i would of given bladesingers an elemental smite ability.

 

[CapnZapp]

Agreed, I would add that Bladesinger is a very good multiclass option for either of those choices mentioned. This gives each choice more spellcasting, without sacrificing the ability to do reasonable damage with a weapon.

Back to what I really want to know:

Your evaluation seems disappointed the Bladesinger can't emulate your image of an "elf with a sword in one hand, spells casting from the other, all while wearing some cool elven chain".

But what do you really feel is missing? What martial offense would you give the class?

I'm asking because you never discuss why it might be that the SCAG class can't fulfil your Bladesinger hopes.

You say the traditional Bladesinger is "Bad or nearly useless", which is somewhat strong to say about a full spellcasting class with access to level 9 spells and the full Wizard spell list.

Is it the cantrips? Would your evaluation of the traditional Bladesinger be better if the new cantrips simply didn't exist?

You say "this is a decent tradition for Wizards who have no intention of ever using a weapon" as if that's a bad thing.

But how do you incentivize the Wizard to ever use a weapon, given all her spells?

And again I ask your comment on the argument the Bladesinger turns the blade-wielding Wizard from terrible to not-an-embarrasment-to-yourself which might be good enough.

If anything, your assessment of the God Wizard build makes me weep for the Sorcerer. One of the last small reasons to ever play a Sorcerer was the extra sturdiness of the Draconic subclass. Not any more.

 

[CapnZapp]

You can if it cost you your spell slots.

IMO, i would of given bladesingers an elemental smite ability.

Interesting. Tell me more.

 

[mellored]

Interesting. Tell me more.

I would of had thunderous/wrathful/branding/blinding/staggering/banishing smite onto the bladesingers spell list.
Possibly spend a slot to deal 2d8+1/spell level damage of either lighting, fire, or cold damage.


Though for legal play, bladesinger X / paladin 2.

 

[Celtavian]

The Bladesinger used to be able to cast and attack with a blade at the same time similar to an Eldritch Knight. That's kind of the whole point of bladesinging. This Bladesinger can't do that, at least without multiclassing.

Then again, now that I like at it, this Bladesinger might be very good for multiclassing. Maybe that was the intent. If you multiclass bladesinger with Eldritch Knight, you bladesong, pure caster levels, and additional bolstering of cantrips you can focus on the sword with. So it may not be that bad. I'll have to see what kind of multiclass I could make with this.

 

[Blue]

You can if it cost you your spell slots.

IMO, i would of given bladesingers an elemental smite ability.

I agree with your concept, but finding the right balance might be hard.

One one side we have "last all combat or longer" of Hex or Hunter's Mark that takes up your concentration slot. That adds 1d6 damage for a 1st level slot. On the other side you have Divine Smite, for 1d8 + 1d8/level.

Divine Smite on a full caster is probably too much. But a 3rd level slot for 4d8 guaranteed to a single target vs. 8d6 save for 4d6 vs. multiple opponents from Fireball or Lightning Bolt isn't an efficient use. Heck, a single target fireball that they save against does the same as the divine smite. (Yes, more likely to resist Fire or Lightning, but still, that's worse case without also hitting friends.)

Too bad paladin multiclass is Str/Chr, neither of which you likely need. Divine Smite + paladin smite spells would work well with the concept. Heck, just give bladesinger paladin smite spells - they aren't much use to standard wizards so it's not a lot of power creep, but it allows them to use their slots for more offensive push.