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

clearstream

(He, Him)
On a per turn basis, BS are usually pretty good on AC defense and fairly weak on offense. They also tend to be vulnerable to damage that does can require an attack roll. I think we all agree on these points. All of the rest of the discussion extolling the virtues of the bladesinger or condemning the limitations of the class are minutiae.
The author rates "Traditional" Bladesinger (Wizard X) as red (bad or nearly useless), while rating 2-level dips as blue (great ability or option). Other guides take a different view. It seems like whatever the author is doing to work out his ratings, it is overlooking something.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...adesinger-and-Wizard-Guide-Xanathar-s-Edition (contains a guide, and a link to another)
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I can’t be the only one who’s disappointed that this amazing guide has degenerated into a discussion about only one of the (currently nine) wizard subclasses.

Bladesingers should have their own conversation. Diviners and Illusionists have already won the discussion as the best wizards.

Bladesingers finally have a guide that I think is top notch. It really answers the isssues I had with the subclass:

Inquisitor Lim's Bladesinger and Wizard Guide


I will be redirecting further Bladesinger comments and questions there, as it very thouroughly answers them.

My question from many pages ago was why should a Bladesinger use a rapier in combat rather than casting spells? I couldn't get an answer. Then right at the beginning of this guide:

The best way to play a Bladesinger in my opinion is to view your melee capabilities as A) a way to stretch out your spell slots, B) take pressure off of the frontline and C) get the most out of spells wizards would struggle to use.

It really made me evaluate the subclass an entirely different way. I linked the guide to the beginning of my Bladesinger review yesterday morning. I agree about Diviners and Illusionists personally, but I may play a Bladesinger in this style with my next opportunity.

As for this thread, I get Xanathar's on Nov 21, and will be reviewing, and I bet I'll have some opinions to share.
 

Hopefully this is the last word on the subject, but if there's one thing I want people to take away from playing Bladesinger: you still mainly cast spells like a traditional wizard. Your melee is a backup. Think of the class like you would view and Illusionist or a Necromancer. Both of those classes have features that would make spells most PCs underestimate or overlook into liquid awesomeness. For example, Creation and upcasted Major Image are kind of a 'meh' spells in most wizards' hands, but in an Illusionist's hands they become soul-crushingly good.

You are in the same category of them. Your job as a Bladesinger is to find spells that most wizards would overlook or not use to their full potential (Transmute Rock, Web, Fear, Investiture of Stone, Globe of Invulnerability, Wall of Force/Stone/Ice, multi-day Simulacrum, Anti-Magic Field, etc.) and use them to bring the pain. The Bladesinger does not have a bad offense, but slapping a Blur or a Haste onto yourself when you're not concerned about spell slots and wading into melee isn't the best use of your abilities outside of the low levels.

If you want to be a gish and do megadamage, you'd be much better off as a Sorceradin or a pure Hexblade or even a Melee Cleric.
 



clearstream

(He, Him)
Would you kindly stop undermining your fellow posters' guides? Your last few posts here have come across as more than a little passive-aggressive.

Time to accept that Treeantmonk's views differ from yours!

Thanks.
Didn't you notice that before you posted, I redacted mine?

Regarding accepting other views and not undermining fellow posters: why behold the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in thine own?
 
Last edited:

Hey, maybe I misunderstood but Fog Cloud and Darkness are both Heavy Obscurement right? So unless your DM rules that natural Darkness blocks line of sight(i.e. you can't see a bonfire in the distance because there is Heavy Obscurement between you and it) then Fog Cloud doesn't either. If someone inside a Fog Cloud can see people outside of it without problem then it becomes way more potent right?
Althought that is a question of something not in the rules-do you see INTO every space along your line of sight-at my table I've ruled the Darkness spell and natural darkness are not Heavy Obscurement, but work similarly. While actual Heavy Obscurement blocks line of sight.
 
Last edited:

jgsugden

Legend
Hey, maybe I misunderstood but Fog Cloud and Darkness are both Heavy Obscurement right? So unless your DM rules that natural Darkness blocks line of sight(i.e. you can't see a bonfire in the distance because there is Heavy Obscurement between you and it) then Fog Cloud doesn't either. ...
Sharing a feature (being heavy obscurement) does not mean they are identical. They have similar impacts in certain situations, but fog cloud is different than darkness in other ways. A DM can, and *should* say that vision is blocked a patch of fog being between the viewer and the viewee while darkness being between the viewer and the (lighted) viewee should not block vision. I think most people would see the logic in that approach.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Sharing a feature (being heavy obscurement) does not mean they are identical. They have similar impacts in certain situations, but fog cloud is different than darkness in other ways. A DM can, and *should* say that vision is blocked a patch of fog being between the viewer and the viewee while darkness being between the viewer and the (lighted) viewee should not block vision. I think most people would see the logic in that approach.
Magical Darkness blocks vision.

If you could look out from darkness, but couldn't look in, the spell a) becomes way too strong, and b) makes no sense whatsoever.

The alternative is if you can both look out of the darkness, and look in, just like regular darkness. Then the spell should be renamed since what it now does is "kill light sources within range".

The key is that if you don't allow an external light source to light up the darknessed area, all vision (in AND out) needs to be blocked.

Otherwise, to repeat: the spell a) becomes way too strong, and b) makes no sense whatsoever.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
 

Hey, maybe I misunderstood but Fog Cloud and Darkness are both Heavy Obscurement right? So unless your DM rules that natural Darkness blocks line of sight(i.e. you can't see a bonfire in the distance because there is Heavy Obscurement between you and it) then Fog Cloud doesn't either. If someone inside a Fog Cloud can see people outside of it without problem then it becomes way more potent right?
Althought that is a question of something not in the rules-do you see INTO every space along your line of sight-at my table I've ruled the Darkness spell and natural darkness are not Heavy Obscurement, but work similarly. While actual Heavy Obscurement blocks line of sight.

I would rule that heavy obscurement blocks line of sight regardless of the cause. Keep in mind that magical darkness isn't regular darkness. If it's dark and you light a fire, of course you can see it, but fire doesn't shed light in magical darkness, if you could see it, that would require light.
 

Remove ads

Top