Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards 5e
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Treantmonklvl20" data-source="post: 7264027" data-attributes="member: 55582"><p>Actually, I was not rating the Bladesinger on those criteria, which is why (partially) my Bladesinger assessment isn't included in my guide. My Bladesinger review states my problem with the build (when used as a straight-wizard melee build), which is simply that defensively it is good, but offensively it is not. Melee builds (IMO) should either be:</p><p>1) Really good at dealing damage</p><p>or</p><p>2) pretty good at damage and good at taking hits</p><p></p><p>The Bladesinger doesn't fit either criteria (unless you multiclass, which I mention in the review).</p><p></p><p>Actually, and counter-intuitively, Bladesingers make not bad "god wizards", because those defensive boosts are actually quite good for a god wizard to have. I mention this in the review as well. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Using a rapier over a shortsword (which elves will have proficiency in automatically), yeilds 1 additional point of damage. That one point might be relevant if bladesingers did OK damage, or even slightly struggled with damage, but since their damage is bad, one extra point is just bad+1. To get decent damage with a bladesinger, you need to multiclass, and that multiclass is going to get you rapier proficiency anyways. Based on that, this remains orange.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think the various components of Bladesong provide a different level of value. I figure that rating them separately provides a bit more detail in regards to my overall outlook on the ability. It also makes it more useful here as we debate the value of a few specific features.</p><p></p><p></p><p>If I'm playing a gish with a great Dex, and (assumably) Acrobatics proficiency, I fail to see a vulnerability here (unlike previous D&D editions). In fact, resistance to shoves and grapples is one of the areas where we can expect this character (even without this ability) to perform comparably to a full melee build. This ends up buffing up something that is already something you are likely not to be targeted for, making it highly circumstantial (and primarily a "flavor" ability). These kinds of abilities should be rated orange (which I did). </p><p></p><p></p><p>I disagree. In fact, I would say that a Bladesinger build has far less need to stay at close range than other melee builds, because of the versatility spells provide. Furthermore, again because of the versatility spells provide, we have (multiple) other means to stay in close range in those few cases where it is really important. That said, I always find extra speed useful in any build, so I ranked it green. If my 2H Paladin got this ability, THEN it would be blue.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Bow? Yeah, probably not.</p><p></p><p>I disagree with you regarding the cantrips, in fact, I think this is the primary point of our disagreement on the Bladesinger. I will detail that more when we get to them.</p><p></p><p><strong>Build Options</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>To those not referencing my review, by "traditional bladesinger" we are referring to a straight class wizard bladesinger who takes a rapier (other hand free) and wades into melee using bladesong and BB or GFB.</p><p></p><p>I rated this option red because it turns a wizard into an offensively hopeless melee build. Not just worse than other melee builds, but WAY worse. This was explained in my red rating, and I don't see how your addition of "take blur" helps that at all (As I mention in the rating, defensively the build is already great. You can totally wade into melee and not get hit, and not contribute in any meaningful way, I just don't think that's effective). Tanks should be able to take hits and provide decent hits. </p><p></p><p>As I clearly explained why it was rated red in conjunction with the rating, you need to provide me with some counterpoint, either demonstrating how this build can be offensively capable, or explaining why I'm overvaluing offensive capability in a melee character. You have done neither here. If you can do so, and persuade me, then I will change the rating, but at this time, I consider red to be the correct rating for the reasons I provided with that rating.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I've deliberately cut off the last part of your previous point and lumped it with this point. As you point out, if you cast spells with a bladesinger rather than swing a sword, those concentration and movement advantages are pretty good (the AC advantage is too). So why would I rate a Bladesinger played that way brown? Maybe I misunderstood what "Or play full Wizard with concentration and movement advantages." meant, but it seems to me like you rebutted your own point, so I won't bother piling on.</p><p></p><p></p><p>We have a difference of opinion on the value of GFB and BB, which I will get to. This is the reason (I think) for our disagreement here.</p><p></p><p></p><p>What you are missing here is support for your opinion, so I really don't know what to do with it. I can't rebutt a point that isn't provided. IMO, 2 levels of Bladesinger is a fantastic dip for melee rogues in particular. I'm comfortable with the blue rating unless some evidence is provided to make me consider otherwise.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again you are missing support for your position. Paladin as a multiclass specifically patches the primary problem with a melee Bladesinger. 2 more levels of Wizard does nothing to fix the problem.</p><p></p><p><strong>Cantrips</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>One of us is missing something here. Are you talking about the Warcaster ability to cast a spell at someone who provokes an opportunity attack? How are you getting them to do that? I've heard of all kinds of strategies to "force" a provoke, but all of them I've seen involve a misunderstanding of the rules (usually a mistaken belief that standing up counts as movement, or that forced movement provokes attacks of opportunity). There is also a common misconception that forcing a move triggers the booming blade, although the spell specifically says the secondary damage only occurs if the target moves willingly.</p><p></p><p>As for Tanking, again, as I mention in my original assessment, and in this post, defensively the bladesinger is fine. Blur seems redundant to me, you aren't getting hit anyways. It's offensively where the Bladesinger stinks, and makes them a poor tank. WAY worse than a plate and shield martial.</p><p></p><p>So, if I understand your comments correctly, you have some method to ensure that the enemy willingly moves (and provokes an attack of opportunity) after you hit them with booming blade. Unless you share that method, we don't really have much to discuss as I don't know what that method is. To be honest, at this point I'm suspicious that it is based on a misunderstanding of how these abilities are triggered, as I've had that come up before.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If it has gotten in the way, it hasn't intentionally. Broken down, my assessment is that the Bladesinger is great defensively, but bad offensively. Booming Blade and GFB are not good damage dealers on their own (unless mixed with something like sneak attack, even then, they are a minor boost), and Wizards don't really have any spells or abilities that enhance them. You have discussed the value of Blur and improved movement to this build, but I fail to see how those help with the primary problem.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Treantmonklvl20, post: 7264027, member: 55582"] Actually, I was not rating the Bladesinger on those criteria, which is why (partially) my Bladesinger assessment isn't included in my guide. My Bladesinger review states my problem with the build (when used as a straight-wizard melee build), which is simply that defensively it is good, but offensively it is not. Melee builds (IMO) should either be: 1) Really good at dealing damage or 2) pretty good at damage and good at taking hits The Bladesinger doesn't fit either criteria (unless you multiclass, which I mention in the review). Actually, and counter-intuitively, Bladesingers make not bad "god wizards", because those defensive boosts are actually quite good for a god wizard to have. I mention this in the review as well. Using a rapier over a shortsword (which elves will have proficiency in automatically), yeilds 1 additional point of damage. That one point might be relevant if bladesingers did OK damage, or even slightly struggled with damage, but since their damage is bad, one extra point is just bad+1. To get decent damage with a bladesinger, you need to multiclass, and that multiclass is going to get you rapier proficiency anyways. Based on that, this remains orange. I think the various components of Bladesong provide a different level of value. I figure that rating them separately provides a bit more detail in regards to my overall outlook on the ability. It also makes it more useful here as we debate the value of a few specific features. If I'm playing a gish with a great Dex, and (assumably) Acrobatics proficiency, I fail to see a vulnerability here (unlike previous D&D editions). In fact, resistance to shoves and grapples is one of the areas where we can expect this character (even without this ability) to perform comparably to a full melee build. This ends up buffing up something that is already something you are likely not to be targeted for, making it highly circumstantial (and primarily a "flavor" ability). These kinds of abilities should be rated orange (which I did). I disagree. In fact, I would say that a Bladesinger build has far less need to stay at close range than other melee builds, because of the versatility spells provide. Furthermore, again because of the versatility spells provide, we have (multiple) other means to stay in close range in those few cases where it is really important. That said, I always find extra speed useful in any build, so I ranked it green. If my 2H Paladin got this ability, THEN it would be blue. Bow? Yeah, probably not. I disagree with you regarding the cantrips, in fact, I think this is the primary point of our disagreement on the Bladesinger. I will detail that more when we get to them. [B]Build Options[/B] To those not referencing my review, by "traditional bladesinger" we are referring to a straight class wizard bladesinger who takes a rapier (other hand free) and wades into melee using bladesong and BB or GFB. I rated this option red because it turns a wizard into an offensively hopeless melee build. Not just worse than other melee builds, but WAY worse. This was explained in my red rating, and I don't see how your addition of "take blur" helps that at all (As I mention in the rating, defensively the build is already great. You can totally wade into melee and not get hit, and not contribute in any meaningful way, I just don't think that's effective). Tanks should be able to take hits and provide decent hits. As I clearly explained why it was rated red in conjunction with the rating, you need to provide me with some counterpoint, either demonstrating how this build can be offensively capable, or explaining why I'm overvaluing offensive capability in a melee character. You have done neither here. If you can do so, and persuade me, then I will change the rating, but at this time, I consider red to be the correct rating for the reasons I provided with that rating. I've deliberately cut off the last part of your previous point and lumped it with this point. As you point out, if you cast spells with a bladesinger rather than swing a sword, those concentration and movement advantages are pretty good (the AC advantage is too). So why would I rate a Bladesinger played that way brown? Maybe I misunderstood what "Or play full Wizard with concentration and movement advantages." meant, but it seems to me like you rebutted your own point, so I won't bother piling on. We have a difference of opinion on the value of GFB and BB, which I will get to. This is the reason (I think) for our disagreement here. What you are missing here is support for your opinion, so I really don't know what to do with it. I can't rebutt a point that isn't provided. IMO, 2 levels of Bladesinger is a fantastic dip for melee rogues in particular. I'm comfortable with the blue rating unless some evidence is provided to make me consider otherwise. Again you are missing support for your position. Paladin as a multiclass specifically patches the primary problem with a melee Bladesinger. 2 more levels of Wizard does nothing to fix the problem. [B]Cantrips[/B] One of us is missing something here. Are you talking about the Warcaster ability to cast a spell at someone who provokes an opportunity attack? How are you getting them to do that? I've heard of all kinds of strategies to "force" a provoke, but all of them I've seen involve a misunderstanding of the rules (usually a mistaken belief that standing up counts as movement, or that forced movement provokes attacks of opportunity). There is also a common misconception that forcing a move triggers the booming blade, although the spell specifically says the secondary damage only occurs if the target moves willingly. As for Tanking, again, as I mention in my original assessment, and in this post, defensively the bladesinger is fine. Blur seems redundant to me, you aren't getting hit anyways. It's offensively where the Bladesinger stinks, and makes them a poor tank. WAY worse than a plate and shield martial. So, if I understand your comments correctly, you have some method to ensure that the enemy willingly moves (and provokes an attack of opportunity) after you hit them with booming blade. Unless you share that method, we don't really have much to discuss as I don't know what that method is. To be honest, at this point I'm suspicious that it is based on a misunderstanding of how these abilities are triggered, as I've had that come up before. If it has gotten in the way, it hasn't intentionally. Broken down, my assessment is that the Bladesinger is great defensively, but bad offensively. Booming Blade and GFB are not good damage dealers on their own (unless mixed with something like sneak attack, even then, they are a minor boost), and Wizards don't really have any spells or abilities that enhance them. You have discussed the value of Blur and improved movement to this build, but I fail to see how those help with the primary problem. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards 5e
Top