Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7263958" data-attributes="member: 71699">This review covers Bladesinger. Therefore talking about that is appropriate for the thread. @Treantmonklvl20 makes their analysis using "God-Wizard" as its yardstick. Unsurprisingly, that leads to mistaken evaluations. It's like judging Black-forest Gateaux for it's qualities as a Cheesecake.In the longer thread the arguments made have mattered where they could be carried: on many points forcing me to shift my position.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I asserted that Bladesinger could tank better than most martials. It was robustly shown (page 35 of the thread) that at the point where a Battlemaster or Champion is pushed past its sustainable limit 67% of the time (making generous assumptions about their damage dealing advantages*) Bladesinger is pushed past its limit only 25% of the time. *I conceded that martials deal more damage, given few triggers of the BB secondary.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I asserted that the ability array that makes it tank better than most martials by level 4 would be frequent**. It was robustly shown (page 39 of the thread) that the array occurs about 87% of the time in a 4 PC adventuring party. **I ignored arguments that the analysis should be made using the optional character generation method: as you have argued many times, the game should be balanced around the standard rules.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I asserted that Bladesinger could do this so efficiently that it would still have spare high-level spell slots for wizardry. Once we ignore matters of style (e.g. resolving the encounter with an AoE versus a cantrip) it was demonstrated that Bladesinger, and Bladesinger's party, frequently*** has more resources left over for wizardry each day than the alternatives (due to the efficiency of Bladesong and the cantrips). ***This isn't a fully settled question, but I believe the counter-case cannot be proved.</li> </ul>Although those analyses focussed on specific scenarios, they were generalisable (we chose foes with high, not low, attack values for their CR, and I tried a range of values in our probability density functions).In closing, you might mistake the purpose of my criticism. It was a technical criticism of the mechanics design, in part motivated by a desire to avoid a return to the splatbook power-creep of 3rd edition. I'm confident of the assessment. On a group by group basis that might not be a problem. They might never include one in their game, or if they do, theirs might have lower ability scores, or might skip over the choices that push it up the power curve. A group with a Bladesinger might not include any of the classes it potentially overshadows. And even if it does, the player running the character might still be contributing to the overall fun at the table. I like the Bladesinger sub-class. It's mechanical balancing issues are a disappointment to me. However, the in-depth analysis I've made of it can shed light on the assessments here.</blockquote>

Verification