Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 8614135" data-attributes="member: 7030563">No 2 different targets trigger an AOO so you hit both of them with a powerful spell on separate turns.Shield and AE are huge because with the right build shield can make a wizard extremely difficult to hit for an entire round.&nbsp; The only real negative to shield is the spell uses your reaction and some you tubers have suggested it should be banned.&nbsp; So it is already problematic and you are taking away the only cost of using it.In specific, when a bladesinger dies in combat in tier 2 it is usually one of 2 things - they are hit with a save attack (often elemental) after they already used shield or they are hit with a crit after they already used shield.&nbsp; Having extra reactions would take care of either of those&nbsp; or even both of them (absorb elements for the elemental damage, silvery barbs form the crit).With the rules the way they are right now an optimized tier-2 bladesinger running a 10 constitution is a full caster who will last longer in direct combat melee than a Paladin, Ranger or Fighter.&nbsp; They will last about as long as a raging Barbarian and won't need to burn through as much healing between battles.&nbsp; Much of their defense comes from reactions and the only real negative here is they can use one reaction a turn.&nbsp; Give her more reactions and this gap will get even bigger.&nbsp; This defense is mostly done on reactions.&nbsp;&nbsp; When they get to level 10 they can flat directly trade spell slots for hps using a reaction.&nbsp;&nbsp; I am playing a level 9 bladesinger right now and the only times the entire campaign she has been downed in combat is when she was out of reactions and did not have one to use on whatever downed her. The most powerful reactions in the game are spells and in the hands of smart players this is going to unbalance the game more in favor wizards than it already is, there is no doubt about it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ECMO3, post: 8614135, member: 7030563"] No 2 different targets trigger an AOO so you hit both of them with a powerful spell on separate turns. Shield and AE are huge because with the right build shield can make a wizard extremely difficult to hit for an entire round. The only real negative to shield is the spell uses your reaction and some you tubers have suggested it should be banned. So it is already problematic and you are taking away the only cost of using it. In specific, when a bladesinger dies in combat in tier 2 it is usually one of 2 things - they are hit with a save attack (often elemental) after they already used shield or they are hit with a crit after they already used shield. Having extra reactions would take care of either of those or even both of them (absorb elements for the elemental damage, silvery barbs form the crit). With the rules the way they are right now an optimized tier-2 bladesinger running a 10 constitution is a full caster who will last longer in direct combat melee than a Paladin, Ranger or Fighter. They will last about as long as a raging Barbarian and won't need to burn through as much healing between battles. Much of their defense comes from reactions and the only real negative here is they can use one reaction a turn. Give her more reactions and this gap will get even bigger. This defense is mostly done on reactions. When they get to level 10 they can flat directly trade spell slots for hps using a reaction. I am playing a level 9 bladesinger right now and the only times the entire campaign she has been downed in combat is when she was out of reactions and did not have one to use on whatever downed her. The most powerful reactions in the game are spells and in the hands of smart players this is going to unbalance the game more in favor wizards than it already is, there is no doubt about it. [/QUOTE]

Verification