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

Oh no, that makes perfect sense. I stand corrected in my weighting of the value of the Elemental Affinity (fire) feat. That may edge me closer towards Warcaster. Thank you for the clarification. I'll rerun my numbers and adjust the values in my initial post.
Kudos, then. Always glad to be of help for picayune math issues. :)

That being said, I do like Elemental Affinity (fire) for any build which is heavily reliant on fire damage, considering the dual fact of:

1) So many of the best damaging spells being fire (greenflame blade, fire bolt, fireball, flaming sphere).
2) Fire-resistant being so common.

Considering that one of my current characters is a (fire) dragon sorcerer, I'm quite sensitive as to how frustrating fire-resistant enemies can be. It can be worth the feat merely to avoid the hassle.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm not by any means saying the Bladesinger is equivalent to a paladin overall. I more mean to say if you need a full wizard in your party and want to melee you can do so successfully and that Bladesinger itself doesn't really make any gains by dipping into other classes. Granted, I'm not a fan of 5th multiclassing overall. My party will already have a Paladin (vengeance specifically), so my Bladesinger will also have that aura. I'll keep notes and see how they perform near each other. I don't really buy that other Wizard types are stronger or can do more, different sure, but I don't quite agree with more. Diviners replacing two rolls per day is nice, but hardly game breaking, and Evokers kind of bore me. I wanted Conjurer to rock, but there just aren't a lot of great conjuration options IMO.

And again, Paladins can do crazy spike damage for a few rounds. My proposed build is conservative base using 1 spell slot per encounter. There's the potential for absorb elements spike damage (which you could push yourself by standing near your orb if you're crazy).

Also assuming similar build priorities (STR>CHA>CON) for a Paladin the paladin will have 4+level*2 more hp than the wizard (unless hill dwarf, or dumping cha for con). It's definitely a difference, especially at early levels, but it normalizes over time to being basically irrelevant. And hopefully if there's both a paladin and a weird looking Wizard in melee the paladin will eat attacks first.

One of my players is trying a Bladesinger. I'll post how it goes at some point. It should be interesting. Since he isn't expected to be either the tank or the main caster, he should be ok. I think a GISH role is best for a player of a Bladesinger. Then he can experiment with mixing it up in melee or with spells to see how the class works in the damage dealer/GISH role.
 

I agree that bladesingers are ok (orange).

Not good, not bad. You just need to remember to mix it up. Jump into melee now and then, but you need to cast spells too.

And yea, multi-attack is basically useless.
 

Kudos, then. Always glad to be of help for picayune math issues. :)

That being said, I do like Elemental Affinity (fire) for any build which is heavily reliant on fire damage, considering the dual fact of:

1) So many of the best damaging spells being fire (greenflame blade, fire bolt, fireball, flaming sphere).
2) Fire-resistant being so common.

Considering that one of my current characters is a (fire) dragon sorcerer, I'm quite sensitive as to how frustrating fire-resistant enemies can be. It can be worth the feat merely to avoid the hassle.

Yeah, quite frankly I was never interested in Elemental Affinity overall. I recently built a Sorcerer (Dragon) 11 (Bronze I think? Lightning) and tossed in Elemental Affinity to keep him effective while sticking to zap spells. In play I was super impressed by its function in increasing the application of his spell selections.

With GFB alone I feel like its pretty worth it, tacking on flaming sphere I feel like its hyper viable.

I want to like Eldritch Knights but I just can't get over the reduced spell progression. I've seen them work really way in play, but I like more than a dabble of spellcasting potential (and this build was prior to GFB). A duelist EK with GFB would be pretty boss.

I even considered taking a dip in Monk so I could make quarterstaffs use dex and bladesinger with a q-staff (c'mon staff of striking), but I just don't like taking the dip.

Moreover mathematically as far as stats go the only real viable dips for a Bladesinger (unless you're entirely min-maxing by starting at paladin1 [which I'd veto out of principle]) are rogue and fighter.
 

Moreover mathematically as far as stats go the only real viable dips for a Bladesinger (unless you're entirely min-maxing by starting at paladin1 [which I'd veto out of principle]) are rogue and fighter.
Pretty much any wizard gish is partially hamstrung by the dearth of Int-oriented classes. Imagine how many more gish ideas would be viable if there was a way to get an Int-based shillelagh, as an easy example. Charisma casters have it much easier.
 

Hi Treantmonk,

I this is the right place to ask questions about your guide. If there is a better/more active place please point me to it.

I got a question regarding Dust Devil (second level EE spell):
The spell description makes very little sense to me, it almost seems like it is missing some sort of paragraph watery sphere has.
Aside from that, I do not think Dust Devil is that much worse then Flaming Sphere. It seems like you trade 2.5 average damage for 10 ft push back and the ability to obscure an area (which seems to be in addition to it's other abilities). Triple threads are nice.
I generally do not get both spells though because the need for creatures to end their turn near them seems like a real killer to me. Movement is so liberal in 5th edition, the kind of setups where this can't be avoided seems very limited.
Watery Sphere is a different beast entirely and has a much more sound wording.

Thanks in advance on any input!
 


UPDATE 2: I have evaluated the SCAG Bladesinger and cantrips, find them in the link below:

Bladesinger/Cantrips from SCAG[/B]
After reading through this again, I really must say how regrettable your hang-up on Bladesingers is.

Your Wizard guide, I think, got a lot of attention because of a positive and self-assured attitude, almost cocky even.

A lot of this credibility is unfortunately lost when the Bladesinger issue turns your tone into a mopey whiney voice.

Regardless, what is below is what we’ve got, and although, by and large, I think these are decent to good cantrips, I don’t think the bladesinger necessarily gets the greatest mileage from them, which is unfortunate.
I really would wish that you reevaluate your stance on the SCAG additions. You would win so much by embracing what's actually there and how beneficial the options are for your God Wizard concept, instead of playing a Champion of Lost Causes.

I can't get around the fact that you need to consider hard whether your wishes for the Bladesinger are even justifiable. I could be wrong, but it sure reads as if you expect a class to have both fighter-class melee damage output AND 9th level spells, and when SCAG doesn't give you this, you need to be dragged screaming and kicking into giving the individual options the good ratings they deserve, but always with negative baggage attached.

As a single example, you give the “Traditional” Bladesinger (Wizard X) a red rating. Red. For a class with full spellcasting options and access to level 9 wizard spells. Red meaning "bad or nearly useless". To me, that tells me you wrote that in an emotional state. And it clashes bad with the rational and analytical tone of the rest of your guide.

Therefore I would wish that you take a happy moment to completely rewrite your SCAG addendum, when you're able to find that self-assured God Wizard voice again :)

Regards,
Zapp
 

After reading through this again, I really must say how regrettable your hang-up on Bladesingers is.
I don't have a hang-up on the Bladesinger, I think it's pretty good. I'm playing one in a campaign right now and am pretty happy with it. I say that I think the Bladesinger is "pretty good" in the document, and rate it's abilities highly.

I'm assuming you are specifically referring to my point that a straight-classed bladesinger isn't going to be a particularly good melee combatant, and from a thematic standpoint, if I play a bladesinger, I want to fight in melee, but if that is the case, you will note that the document makes several suggestions regarding how you can use multiclass to make it work. My bladesinger is going to multiclass 2 levels of pally, that should work nicely.

Your Wizard guide, I think, got a lot of attention because of a positive and self-assured attitude, almost cocky even.

A lot of this credibility is unfortunately lost when the Bladesinger issue turns your tone into a mopey whiney voice.
Is this sentence deliberately ironic :hmm:

Honestly, I don't consider criticism and whining to be synonymous.

I really would wish that you reevaluate your stance on the SCAG additions.
I don't remember making "a stance" on the SCAG additions. Generally I thought they were the best part of the book. The setting information was way too short and largely redundant with more detailed FR publications I already possessed from previous editions.

I like the Bladesinger too, but I have criticisms as well. Extra attack at level 6 seems like a cut-and-paste from the Valor Bard rather than an ability that adds flavor and uniqueness to this option, it also conflicts with the cantrips created for the class as they can't be used together. The abilities focus overly on the defensive, which can be a problem if you intend to use a weapon rather than spells in combat.

None of these things are deal-breakers, any more than "Durable summons" is a deal-breaker for conjurer's or "Minor Alchemy" is a deal-breaker for Transmuters.

It's not really of any value to say, "Everything is wonderful! There's no weaknesses you need to work-around! You're doing less than 1/2 the damage of the fighter? At least you look great doing it!"

You would win so much by embracing what's actually there
I do, that's why there's a list of options to make the concept work well at the end. It requires some multiclassing.

and how beneficial the options are for your God Wizard concept,
I think Bladesingers make very effective God Wizards, I also think it's thematically weird to have a bladesinger not use a weapon. I bring up both these points in the doc.

instead of playing a Champion of Lost Causes.
What lost cause? I want my Bladesinger to be as effective with a weapon as he is with spells. This is perfectly achievable with some thoughtful multiclass options. This is what I'm doing with my current Bladesinger character.

I do expect some players are going to think that selecting the Bladesinger school and grabbing a weapon is going to make them effective in melee, and they will be disappointed. My assessment attempts to provide advice to make the tradition fit the concept. This requires some multiclassing.

I can't get around the fact that you need to consider hard whether your wishes for the Bladesinger are even justifiable.
My wishes for a Bladesinger are that instead of being a full-caster, it was a wizard/warrior hybrid that is an effective melee combatant with some neat magical tricks. Honestly, a Wizard/Fighter mutliclass already achieves that, so I would expect a Bladesinger to be similar in power to that combination but be unique enough to warrant it's existence.

In this regard, I think the balance of the Bladesinger is off. I think it is overly weighted towards spellcasting/defense and not weighted enough on offense. Furthermore, I think the Bladesong ability (defense) is unique and interesting, while I think extra attack and adding Int to damage (offense) is bland and just copied from other abilities that already exist to other classes in the game.

I could be wrong,
I'm about to read something really, really, really dead wrong now aren't I?

but it sure reads as if you expect a class to have both fighter-class melee damage output AND 9th level spells,
Yep. If I expected full casting, why did I make all the multiclass suggestions?

and when SCAG doesn't give you this, you need to be dragged screaming and kicking into giving the individual options the good ratings they deserve, but always with negative baggage attached.
There is negative baggage, I'm acknowledging it.

Let me try an analogy. I'm going to deliberately exaggerate to make the point.

Let's say the designers released a "Ninja" class. You like ninjas, so are excited to see how your new ninja is going to work. Reading the class, you see it gets:
- Adds wisdom damage to heavy weapon attacks
- Can wear plate mail
- Gains full casting of necromancy spells
- Gets lay on hands
- Has the "Rage" ability
- Can fly at will

You would probably recognize that this as a very powerful class, but it's not how you envisioned a ninja.

My issue with the Bladesinger, is that without multiclassing, it's not how I envision a Bladesinger. Not that I don't recognize the abilities are good, or that I think it should retain 9th level casting if given more martial ability.

As a single example, you give the “Traditional” Bladesinger (Wizard X) a red rating. Red. For a class with full spellcasting options and access to level 9 wizard spells. Red meaning "bad or nearly useless". To me, that tells me you wrote that in an emotional state. And it clashes bad with the rational and analytical tone of the rest of your guide.
I also clarify what I mean by "traditional bladesinger". 9th level spells don't mean much when you are swinging a longsword. The ability is there, but if you are using a weapon instead, you aren't accessing that ability.

I give a green rating to a straight bladesinger that casts spells instead of using a weapon (God Wizard) I give a blue rating to a bladesinger that multiclasses with paladin. (providing the required shift in weight to offense). The latter is the Bladesinger character I've chosen to play. Smite + Wizard casting progression + Bladesong + Weapon style? Yes please.
 

What you seem to be saying is that the traditional Bladesinger should not have been a Wizard subclass, as that way it is doomed to have 9th level spells.

So assuming they did not want to introduce a full class gish half caster fighter, maybe it's intended that you multiclass to get the feel of the 2e kit?

Or maybe since that was OP as hell it should just be full fighter with level 9 spells :p
 

Remove ads

Top