Bladesinger leak

[Santra]

Seeing as bladesinger was leaked over on reddit lets have a conversation about this AC powerhouse.

Also how do you feel about the return of racial requirements? Half-Elf and Elf only for bladesinger.

[zylodrizzt]

Can u share a link?

[Santra]

I would but I think it might be against the forum rules to do so...

[woodlandkammao]

I've seen some links put up for other parts, I'm having trouble finding it. If you don't want to link, could you name the general region of the internet you found it on?

[KorvinStarmast]

I've seen some links put up for other parts, I'm having trouble finding it. If you don't want to link, could you name the general region of the internet you found it on?

he said reddit ...

[MaxWilson]

Seeing as bladesinger was leaked over on reddit lets have a conversation about this AC powerhouse.

Also how do you feel about the return of racial requirements? Half-Elf and Elf only for bladesinger.

The DMG has racial requirements in it already. IIRC they give an example of a world where only elves can be bards.

I actually kind of like the idea of restricting Valor Bards to PCs raised in dwarven culture.

[Santra]

Here I will link to the reddit thread if anyone has issue with me posting it feel free to delete it

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/3pot39/call_your_local_stores_scag/cw8wi4m

[woodlandkammao]

Muffled ''yay'' in the distance.

[woodlandkammao]

Update: #*%@, Green flame blade is crazy powerful. It's a CANTRIP, with a melee attack included in the action. That makes it strictly better than a melee attack, 100% of the time, cast it every turn. The only reason not to spam this is if you can make multiple attacks without spell casting. I can see this being to bards what hunter's mark is to rangers, except more so because it doesn't use spell slots.

[Submortimer]

I'm glad to see more weapon-based cantrips than just GFB (though I'm irked they stole my name for the thunder damage based one (see my sig))

[woodlandkammao]

Wait, I didn't see that it said wizards, warlocks and sorcerers spell list. This could change things up a bit. Pact of the blade in particular could get some insane synergy just as a start.

[Shojiteru]

Bladesinger Monk looks great :D
Bonus INT mod to Unarmored Defense (AC=Dex+WIS+INT)
+10 feet to the Monks Unarmored Movement.
INT mod to damage with melee weapon attacks. (I read it as able to stack with unarmed strikes since they count as melee weapons.)

Seeing no capstone and Monks' horrible capstone, Bladesinger 14 Monk 6 anyone? Open Hand for a bit of healing and control with stunning strike or Shadow for some extra spells and teleporting(Shadowdancing Bladesinger. Put that Bard to shame in performing).

[Submortimer]

Wait, I didn't see that it said wizards, warlocks and sorcerers spell list. This could change things up a bit. Pact of the blade in particular could get some insane synergy just as a start.

That's what I thought. I'm guessing the EK 8/ Bladelock 12 build is gonna be rather popular.

2d6+3d8+10+2d6+10 = 47.5 avg DPR.

(assumes 20 str, 20 cha, and greatsword. Higher with GWF/GWM)

[Submortimer]

Update: #*%@, Green flame blade is crazy powerful. It's a CANTRIP, with a melee attack included in the action. That makes it strictly better than a melee attack, 100% of the time, cast it every turn. The only reason not to spam this is if you can make multiple attacks without spell casting. I can see this being to bards what hunter's mark is to rangers, except more so because it doesn't use spell slots.

Booming Blade is even worse, if you consider the fact that it deals thunder damage. Bladelocks can finally get to parity with Paladins for melee damage!

Also, a bunch of Storm Clerics just crapped their collective pants over Lightning Lash and Booming Blade.

[Yorrin]

Back on the topic of Bladesinger, I'm liking it. I'd definitely play one over the other Arcane Traditions. Potentially very tanky, which I enjoy.

[HoarsHalberd]

Booming Blade is even worse, if you consider the fact that it deals thunder damage. Bladelocks can finally get to parity with Paladins for melee damage!

Also, a bunch of Storm Clerics just crapped their collective pants over Lightning Lash and Booming Blade.

Tempest Clerics can't get it without a feat and lightning lash will use either Int or Cha if you steal it with magic initiate. But booming blade for tempest cleric may well be worth the feat. It's a 50% damage increase on their action at higher levels and means that people have to choose between trying to hit the cleric and take the reaction and maybe spirit guardian damage or retreat and take thunder damage. An amazing catch 22.

[Lord_Velysarn]

Interesting.. I love it. Definitely fulfills a great role for Wizards that isn't covered by other Arcane Traditions. I will definitely run this ASAP

[Mando Knight]

I'm glad to see more weapon-based cantrips than just GFB (though I'm irked they stole my name for the thunder damage based one (see my sig))

All of those cantrips are essentially the same as the Swordmage At-Will powers from the 4e Forgotten Realms Player's Guide, both in their basic effect and in their names, so WotC's use of the name dates back to at least September '08. The Bladesinger was part of the basis for the Swordmage, and now the Swordmage has returned the favor by providing Bladesinger spells.

[Submortimer]

Ahh...that would be why I didn't know it. I skipped 4th in favor of Pathfinder.

[Kurald Galain]

Sheathed in booming energy? Wtf does that look like? :smallbiggrin:

[MaxWilson]

Seeing as bladesinger was leaked over on reddit lets have a conversation about this AC powerhouse.

Okay, now that I've actually seen the subclass... I think it's pretty okay. It doesn't twig my powergamer instincts with a "MUST abuse this subclass immediately" nor "shun at all costs!" I think a Bladesinger is likely to be a fun class to play simply because it's a slightly more wizardly fighter-mage than the Eldritch Knight, with all the goodness of full access to the wizard spell list--but it doesn't outweigh other wizardly specialties like Abjurors, Diviners and Necromancers in their own bailiwicks. I foresee single-class Bladesingers being popular though, and taking some mindshare from Fighter/Abjurors who just wanted Abjuror for Arcane Ward rather than Counterspelling.

I like the sidebar on different "schools" of bladesinger like Raven and Lion. It has zero mechanical impact but adds some useful ideas for RP--Bladesinger + school = instant NPC. An excellent use of book space.

I see people suggesting Monk + Bladesinger as a way of abusing Bladesong, but that seems shortsighted to me. Maxing out Wisdom and taking a Monk level leads to only +2 AC over Mage Armor, and frankly the odds that you'll be able to max out Dexterity and Intelligent and Wisdom seem rather low. Bladesinger/Barbarian has more synergies and is far more amusing, but it's really MAD. For the most part, the fact that a starting Bladesinger with Int 16 and Dex 16 can have AC 19 while Bladesinging, +5 for Shield, and then add Blur and Blink on top of that makes the Bladesinger an excellent tank already without needing to blow class levels and ASIs on Monk or Barbarian. Song of Defense is interesting as well, especially for AoE effects.

I like the fact that Bladesong works on ranged attacks--or at least, it works on slings and hand crossbows.

Extra Attack means that Sharpshooter (Bladesinger) wizards could potentially become a thing, which isn't that powerful but is pretty flavorful and provides versatility against e.g. Rakshasa and Tiamat.

BTW, Sword Burst is an extremely interesting spell. Until now, Thunderclap was a top cantrip for melee-focused wizards, but it has the downsides of targetting Constitution saves (which tend to be better than Dex saves) and making lots of noise. Sword Burst does Force damage, doesn't make noise, and has only Verbal components for some reason. I'm going to call this an example of power creep in action. It is clearly better in its niche than anything that has come before, unless the book is also stuffed full of monsters that are immune to Force damage. That said, it would be an extremely fun spell for a Bladesinger to cast when surrounded by orc hordes.

The things that excite me most about Bladesingers are the AC boost and the concentration bonus, which lets you play (suboptimal but very fun) melee-oriented wizards who specialize in Vampiric Touch, Sword Burst, grappling, etc. Overall I think I'd rather play a necrotank (Fighter 1/Necromancer X) and be less MAD, more SAD, with a better AC and equally-good concentration plus Grim Harvest and hordes of undead skeletons as backup... but a single-classed Bladesinger would also be perfectly viable, and that's great!
Blur

[Dimolyth]

Well I noticed it only now.
It is marked "you must make a mellee attack at with a weapon" and not strict "mellee weapon attack". That is enough to make anything applied to weapon attacks (styles, manneuvres, sneak attacks, feats) not aplicable to a cantrip.
So casters get their freaking good way to use weapons, but martials are still their flavor and all martial exclusive mechanic support. So weapon cantrips are not always better than extra attacks. And there no crazy synergy in multiclassing gishes, who could outdone singleclass in what it was designed to do.

Bladesong twice per rest mean "always on since first turn of combat". That means DM can surprise those bladesingers (they usially will want to max their Int & Dex before taking Alert). Then, Mage Armor+Dex+Int+(Shield) is an enourmus number of resources for maxing AC... being a wizard. Yeah, HD is still d6, but mellee wizard who have superior AC than a paladin... I`m worried a little.

[treecko]

BTW, Sword Burst is an extremely interesting spell. Until now, Thunderclap was a top cantrip for melee-focused wizards, but it has the downsides of targetting Constitution saves (which tend to be better than Dex saves) and making lots of noise. Sword Burst does Force damage, doesn't make noise, and has only Verbal components for some reason. I'm going to call this an example of power creep in action. It is clearly better in its niche than anything that has come before, unless the book is also stuffed full of monsters that are immune to Force damage. That said, it would be an extremely fun spell for a Bladesinger to cast when surrounded by orc hordes.

Well first of all, bards and druids get thunderclap and not sword burst, and mob minions(the kind of enemies that would be swarming a wizard in the 1st place) tend to have higher dex than con. Thunder damage is about as good as force damage. The big noise is it's only real downside, but 100 feet isn't very far.

[Mr.Moron]

Also how do you feel about the return of racial requirements? Half-Elf and Elf only for bladesinger.

Roughly this (https://d.maxfile.ro/nrxmyleagr.webm)way.

[treecko]

Where's the race requirement? I didn't see it (and as a DM, ignoring it)

[MaxWilson]

Well first of all, bards and druids get thunderclap and not sword burst, and mob minions(the kind of enemies that would be swarming a wizard in the 1st place) tend to have higher dex than con. Thunder damage is about as good as force damage. The big noise is it's only real downside, but 100 feet isn't very far.

Hmmm, you might be right. I checked a half-dozen low-CR monsters at random. About 2/3 had higher Dex than Con. Orcs and Thugs were the exceptions.

[Santra]

Where's the race requirement? I didn't see it (and as a DM, ignoring it)

Its on the page prior to the bladesinger stats. The person who scanned them mentioned the requirement.

[DivisibleByZero]

Well I noticed it only now.
It is marked "you must make a mellee attack at with a weapon" and not strict "mellee weapon attack". That is enough to make anything applied to weapon attacks (styles, manneuvres, sneak attacks, feats) not aplicable to a cantrip.

And I read it the exact OPPOSITE way.
While an unarmed strike is indeed a melee weapon attack, it is absolutely, most certainly, 100% surely NOT a melee attack with a weapon[ in any sense. The Sage has even clarified that an unarmed strike is not a weapon, and should not be on the weapon table.
Also, the cantrips in question specifically call out that the melee attack in question uses its "normal effects," which says that sneak attacks, smites, maneuvers, etc, are all fair game.

[DracoKnight]

Then, Mage Armor+Dex+Int+(Shield) is an enourmus number of resources for maxing AC... being a wizard. Yeah, HD is still d6, but mellee wizard who have superior AC than a paladin... I`m worried a little.

Take the Dual-Wielder feat to grab another +1 AC and dual-wield rapiers. Also, you can go with a 1 level Fighter dip to get the Defense fighting style.

[Strill]

This class is absolutely deplorable. The devs should feel ashamed. It breaks Bounded Accuracy over its knee with the amount of AC you can get. For example, a level 1 Wizard with 16 DEX and 16 INT will have 19 AC to start, going up to 28 AC at 17th level when you max out DEX and INT and get Shield at will! This class gets an absolutely ludicrous amount of AC. No class should be able to get 28 AC without magic items.

Even worse, there's barely any other reason to choose this class. The concentration bonus and move speed are ok, but spending a spell slot as a reaction to block 5 damage per spell level is absolutely worthless when the Shield, Counterspell, and Absorb Elements spells exist. Song of Victory is ok, but coming all the way at level 14 is simply too late to matter. That means multiclass rogues and barbarians will be absolutely itching to grab it up.

This is a horrible class that is nothing but power creep and munchkin bait. Literally worse than most of the crappy homebrew I read.

[Nifft]

Booming Blade looks like a neat Defender / lockdown effect. Nice to see some melee movement-restriction abilities, but it's kinda weird that casters get better Defender options than martial characters.



This is a horrible class that is nothing but power creep and munchkin bait. Literally worse than most of the crappy homebrew I read.

Sounds like a perfect tribute to the source material.

[Suteinu]

I'm not yet up on all of the magic ins-and-outs in 5E yet, but I do remember the AD&D 2E bladesinger. I rather hope that they are treated like this, with racial and cultural responsibilities that boarder on a paladin's code, an elf-only (NO HALF-ELVES, NO DROW) requirement, and an emphasis on grace and elvish martial/ magic superiority, with a clear understanding that few elves measure up to the requirements! The beauty of the class was it's singularity; one such warrior was the elvish equivalent of the Man with No Name. They should have some focused superiority about them, one that is earned.

LOOK TO THE PAST TO SEE WHAT THE FUTURE SHOULD BE!!

[Dimolyth]

And I read it the exact OPPOSITE way.
While an unarmed strike is indeed a melee weapon attack, it is absolutely, most certainly, 100% surely NOT a melee attack with a weapon[ in any sense. The Sage has even clarified that an unarmed strike is not a weapon, and should not be on the weapon table.
Also, the cantrips in question specifically call out that the melee attack in question uses its "normal effects," which says that sneak attacks, smites, maneuvers, etc, are all fair game.

So for you - you can use manneuvres with "bladesinger" cantrips and can not - with unarmed strike? You can`t have sneak attacking monk with his fists, because unarmed strike is not a finesse weapon by RAW, this I agree. But no manneuvres? No war cleric feature? That`s illogical by any means for me.
That would mean that cantrip is better than attack action... So we are returning "caster is better fighter than fighter" altitude.
Then I tend to agree - styles work anyway by RAW (written as using weapon). So does feats - Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master (a bit disapointing, as for me). But imroved criticals, manneuvres, reckless attack, smites, sneak attacks and so forth at classes - use "weapon attack" script.
So you can add dueling style into "the target suffers the attack`s normal effects", but not sneak attack.

That is mean a gish rogue is not better than a rogue. And high elves didn`t happended to become the best race for a paladin ever. And lore bards cannot outdone all of the valor archetype by half of their 6th level feature.
If I have no fighter character in the game, who ends encounter by one feature (a.k.a 9th level slot), then I don`t want to see a wizard, who can fight better then fighter without spending his resources.

[Dark Tira]

This class is absolutely deplorable. The devs should feel ashamed. It breaks Bounded Accuracy over its knee with the amount of AC you can get. For example, a level 1 Wizard with 16 DEX and 16 INT will have 19 AC to start, going up to 28 AC at 17th level when you max out DEX and INT and get Shield at will! This class gets an absolutely ludicrous amount of AC. No class should be able to get 28 AC without magic items.



I'm going to say the Shield at will is the culprit there and not Bladesong. Bladesong at it's best is still inferior to a +3 shield and they aren't mutually compatible. Meanwhile, Shield is a huge outlier on the power of Spell Mastery.

[smcmike]

This class is absolutely deplorable. The devs should feel ashamed. It breaks Bounded Accuracy over its knee with the amount of AC you can get. For example, a level 1 Wizard with 16 DEX and 16 INT will have 19 AC to start, going up to 28 AC at 17th level when you max out DEX and INT and get Shield at will! This class gets an absolutely ludicrous amount of AC. No class should be able to get 28 AC without magic items.

Even worse, there's barely any other reason to choose this class. The concentration bonus and move speed are ok, but spending a spell slot as a reaction to block 5 damage per spell level is absolutely worthless when the Shield, Counterspell, and Absorb Elements spells exist. Song of Victory is ok, but coming all the way at level 14 is simply too late to matter. That means multiclass rogues and barbarians will be absolutely itching to grab it up.

This is a horrible class that is nothing but power creep and munchkin bait. Literally worse than most of the crappy homebrew I read.

Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

For real, though, I hear you. At the same time, I love the flavor of an a warrior-mage with a sword and serious arcane defenses. Also, 28 AC is not invulnerable at 17th level, and the class invests pretty serious resources in getting to that number.

[Person_Man]

Booo!

Seems like terrible, terrible power creep. I particularly hate the fact that Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards get new spells. (And Bards who want to spend Lore slots on them). More spells = more options for casters, while non-casters get shafted.

Though at least it appears that they're just adding sub-classes, instead of new classes, which is somewhat positive thing to see.

[SharkForce]

Take the Dual-Wielder feat to grab another +1 AC and dual-wield rapiers. Also, you can go with a 1 level Fighter dip to get the Defense fighting style.

can't. single weapon held in a single hand is the requirement for the +int to AC.

[DracoKnight]

can't. single weapon held in a single hand is the requirement for the +int to AC.

Oh. Right. Darn it :P

[WickerNipple]

can't. single weapon held in a single hand is the requirement for the +int to AC.

I believe you are incorrect. Where does it say that?

[Santra]

I dont think its going to be as big of a problem in play as people think. While yes it is a paladin with full spell progression that wizard is still rocking a d6 hit die. Stuff that would drop a fighter to half HP might just down a bladesinger in one hit. This means that a good portion of your spells we be used for things like Shield, and Absorb Elements. Shield, while good, is not very useful against multiple enemies attacking since it only works on one attack.

Remember that bladesong is gone if the wizard is knocked out.

Personally I would rather take two levels of fighter first and then go wizard 18. You will rarely use your extra attack feature since you will be primarily using cantrips or casting spells. This also lets you have proficiency in con saves (almost as good as advantage) and full plate that works from dawn till dusk as well as that handy little action surge ability.

P.S.
If your DM runs more than 2 encounters between short rests you are out of luck.

[DracoKnight]

I dont think its going to be as big of a problem in play as people think. While yes it is a paladin with full spell progression that wizard is still rocking a d6 hit die. Stuff that would drop a fighter to half HP might just down a bladesinger in one hit. This means that a good portion of your spells we be used for things like Shield, and Absorb Elements. Shield, while good, is not very useful against multiple enemies attacking since it only works on one attack.

Remember that bladesong is gone if the wizard is knocked out.

Personally I would rather take two levels of fighter first and then go wizard 18. You will rarely use your extra attack feature since you will be primarily using cantrips or casting spells. This also lets you have proficiency in con saves (almost as good as advantage) and full plate that works from dawn till dusk as well as that handy little action surge ability.

P.S.
If your DM runs more than 2 encounters between short rests you are out of luck.

Shield lasts for a round.

[Strill]

Does Bladesinger get martial proficiencies?


I'm going to say the Shield at will is the culprit there and not Bladesong. Bladesong at it's best is still inferior to a +3 shield and they aren't mutually compatible. Meanwhile, Shield is a huge outlier on the power of Spell Mastery.

Is Shield really a huge outlier? For example, is Suggestion at-will any less powerful?

[Sception]

The ac seems excessive on the bladesinger, and there doesn't seem to be enough else going for it. The cantrips are... frustrating. Supposedly nice for a bladelock, but as soon as they can attack twice these become pretty meh unless you devote several levels to eldritch knight. Honestly, these spells in general seem to fit eldritch knights better than anything else. And none of them fix the more annoying issue of having multiple attack stats, which just makes bladelocks super frustrating and ends up eating all their feats, which isn't very fun. IMO Bladesinger really would have fit better thematically and mechanically on the bard chassis than the wizard, imo, or as a separate class entirely. Seems like legacy alone has it grafted somewhere it doesn't belong.

Meh. Not a huge fan. Doesn't 'ruin the game' for me, but this is not the level of creativity or quality I had hoped to see in supplemental material to 5e, considering how little of it Wizards has decided to release.

[Dark Tira]

Is Shield really a huge outlier? For example, is Suggestion at-will really less powerful?
Yes. Unless you don't think +5 to AC is particularly valuable, which you obviously do. Can you name another 1st level spell remotely competitive with Shield for spell mastery? Keep in mind that anything that has an action casting time will be competing with your at will 2nd level spell (such as suggestion) as well as the bulk of your normal spells.

[Strill]

Yes. Unless you don't think +5 to AC is particularly valuable, which you obviously do. Can you name another 1st level spell remotely competitive with Shield for spell mastery? Keep in mind that anything that has an action casting time will be competing with your at will 2nd level spell (such as suggestion) as well as the bulk of your normal spells.

Unseen Servant. Getting hundreds of them can break the game in all sorts of ways, like taking up every space on the battlefield until your opponents can't move.

[Dimolyth]

Does Bladesinger get martial proficiencies?
Light armor, 1 one-handed martial weapon, performance skill (all of that instead of "wizard school" savant).

And then, yes, shield adds +5 AC for the whole round, if you use it. And you use it after someone rolls higher than your AC. So, on a character with already high AC it is much more powerfull.

[AmbientRaven]

This class is absolutely deplorable. The devs should feel ashamed. It breaks Bounded Accuracy over its knee with the amount of AC you can get. For example, a level 1 Wizard with 16 DEX and 16 INT will have 19 AC to start, going up to 28 AC at 17th level when you max out DEX and INT and get Shield at will! This class gets an absolutely ludicrous amount of AC. No class should be able to get 28 AC without magic items.

Even worse, there's barely any other reason to choose this class. The concentration bonus and move speed are ok, but spending a spell slot as a reaction to block 5 damage per spell level is absolutely worthless when the Shield, Counterspell, and Absorb Elements spells exist. Song of Victory is ok, but coming all the way at level 14 is simply too late to matter. That means multiclass rogues and barbarians will be absolutely itching to grab it up.

This is a horrible class that is nothing but power creep and munchkin bait. Literally worse than most of the crappy homebrew I read.

1 Fighter/ X Bladesinger

Full plate (18) shield (2) defence style (1) Int (5) = 26ac. Add in reaction: Shield spell, 31 ac

[Dark Tira]

Unseen Servant. Getting hundreds of them can break the game in all sorts of ways, like taking up every space on the battlefield until your opponents can't move.

Aside from being a logistical nightmare to create and command that many servants every hour, they can't move more than 60 ft. from you and thus can't "take up every space in the battlefield". Besides if you want to do these types of shenanigans successfully you might as well just use Animate Dead or Wish/Simulacrum and still grab Shield.

[JAL_1138]

So other than getting some healing spells that wizards don't, and skillmonkeying a bit better (which could also be accomplished with a rogue dip)...what's the point of a Valor Bard now, especially before level 10?

[Sception]

1 Fighter/ X Bladesinger

Full plate (18) shield (2) defence style (1) Int (5) = 26ac. Add in reaction: Shield spell, 31 ac

Bladesinger bonus doesn't apply in heavy armor or with shield. Unless the int is coming from somewhere else?

[lordshadowisle]

I dont think its going to be as big of a problem in play as people think. While yes it is a paladin with full spell progression that wizard is still rocking a d6 hit die. Stuff that would drop a fighter to half HP might just down a bladesinger in one hit. This means that a good portion of your spells we be used for things like Shield, and Absorb Elements. Shield, while good, is not very useful against multiple enemies attacking since it only works on one attack.

Remember that bladesong is gone if the wizard is knocked out.

Agree with you on the AC portion; without their defensive boost, Bladesingers will crumble in melee combat with a D6 die (with a max starting con of 14, assuming point buy and lore restrictions to Elves/Half-Elves are followed). Even with their high AC, they're still quite squishy, and vulnerable to spell attacks and critical hits unless they spend their spell resources.

[DracoKnight]

1 Fighter/ X Bladesinger

Full plate (18) shield (2) defence style (1) Int (5) = 26ac. Add in reaction: Shield spell, 31 ac

You can't wear full plate and use Bladesong :P

The truly scary combo is Bladesinger 2/Monk 18.

Unarmored Defense = 10 + DEX (5) + WIS (5) + Dual Wielder (1) + Bladesong INT (5) = 26 + Shield = 31

[Dark Tira]

You can't wear full plate and use Bladesong :P

The truly scary combo is Bladesinger 2/Monk 18.

Unarmored Defense = 10 + DEX (5) + WIS (5) + Dual Wielder (1) + Bladesong INT (5) = 26 + Shield = 31

My head math might be wrong but I don't think you get enough ASIs to max 3 scores and grab a feat, especially as a multiclass.

[DracoKnight]

My head math might be wrong but I don't think you get enough ASIs to max 3 scores and grab a feat, especially as a multiclass.

Your head math is right. I was going with rolled stats (3 18s) with +2 DEX +1 INT from Elf, +1 WIS & +1 INT, +1 WIS Observant, and then Dual Wielder. So, 3 ASIs/Feats :P

EDIT: I know that having 3 18s is not the normal case, but I wanted to show what is possible :P

[Malifice]

So other than getting some healing spells that wizards don't, and skillmonkeying a bit better (which could also be accomplished with a rogue dip)...what's the point of a Valor Bard now, especially before level 10?

More skills, expertise, bardic inspiration die X times per short rest, synergises with Paladin better.

[JAL_1138]

More skills, expertise, bardic inspiration die X times per short rest, synergises with Paladin better.

Mentioned the skills already. And Lore gets those too. Bardic Inspiration isn't something Lore doesn't get--they get the better one, in fact. And Lore synergizes better with Paladin for MCing since the proficiencies aren't redundant.

Valor, particularly prior to 10th, is the one I'm asking about.

And why not just take Lore instead, now; with good Dex, yoink one of the Bladesinger cantrips and a Smite spell at 6th, cast the Smite as a bonus, cast Greenflame as a cantrip, and outfight the Valor in melee between 6th and 10th. And get Cutting Words out of the deal, and still pick up two more nonclass spells at 10.

I'm also a little irked that a wizard can outdamage a VB with melee weapons until 10th level with cantrips and do it with vastly better AC to boot. VBs are barely worth it in melee until 10th when they can yoink spells even just sticking to the PHB.

[MaxWilson]

This class is absolutely deplorable. The devs should feel ashamed. It breaks Bounded Accuracy over its knee with the amount of AC you can get. For example, a level 1 Wizard with 16 DEX and 16 INT will have 19 AC to start, going up to 28 AC at 17th level when you max out DEX and INT and get Shield at will! This class gets an absolutely ludicrous amount of AC. No class should be able to get 28 AC without magic items.

Er, AC 28 is already in the game. E.g. Paladin/Sorcerer with Defense Style (AC 21), casts Shield of Faith on himself (AC 23) and then uses Shield as needed (AC 28). No Spell Mastery for that build but there are others that would have it, like the classic Fighter 2/Abjuror 18 when he Hastes himself.

What you're overlooking is that the Bladesinger with Dual Wielder feat, plus Haste, can have an AC of 31 for as long as his Bladesong and Haste last (one minute tops), as long as he doesn't need to use his reaction on anything except Shield (and as long as nobody Counterspells or Dispels his Shield and his Mage Armor). Then he drops down to AC 23, or 15 in an antimagic area.

Generally though it would probably be better to use Blur instead of Haste. AC 29 with disadvantage >> AC 31.

So, a very tanky wizard if you spend all your ASIs on Dual Wielder, Dex and Int. Vulnerable to saving throw effects though like Medusas and Basilisks, or Beholders (though Song of Defense helps a little bit), or good old Fireball/Lightning Bolt. Doesn't even have proficiency in any physical saves, and isn't particularly good at Counterspelling. (Imagine: wait until the Bladesinger blows his reaction on Song of Defense, and then wrap him in a Wall of Force.) You're putting all of your eggs in the AC basket, so you better make them count.

A fun subclass, but not overpowered compared to other wizards.

Edit: it just occurred to me that a Bladesinger can initiate Bladesong and then Polymorph himself into a T-Rex without ending the Bladesong, leading to a faster T-Rex with AC 18 and advantage on Concentration checks to keep Polymorph. That's pretty awesome actually.

[DivisibleByZero]

So for you - you can use manneuvres with "bladesinger" cantrips and can not - with unarmed strike? You can`t have sneak attacking monk with his fists, because unarmed strike is not a finesse weapon by RAW, this I agree. But no manneuvres? No war cleric feature? That`s illogical by any means for me.
That would mean that cantrip is better than attack action... So we are returning "caster is better fighter than fighter" altitude.
Then I tend to agree - styles work anyway by RAW (written as using weapon). So does feats - Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master (a bit disapointing, as for me). But imroved criticals, manneuvres, reckless attack, smites, sneak attacks and so forth at classes - use "weapon attack" script.
So you can add dueling style into "the target suffers the attack`s normal effects", but not sneak attack.

That is mean a gish rogue is not better than a rogue. And high elves didn`t happended to become the best race for a paladin ever. And lore bards cannot outdone all of the valor archetype by half of their 6th level feature.
If I have no fighter character in the game, who ends encounter by one feature (a.k.a 9th level slot), then I don`t want to see a wizard, who can fight better then fighter without spending his resources.

I didn't say any of that. None of it. Not one single word.
What I said was that you can't use an unarmed strike with these cantrips (since many people were discussing a possible monk multi). And I said that these cantrips attack applies a normal weapon attack, which includes sneak attack/smites/style/whatever else you have which applies to a melee weapon attack (which you said do NOT apply with these cantrips).
Here's the hang-up that you seem to be missing: It doesn't matter which script they used for any particular feature. An Attack with a weapon is a weapon attack. So any feature that uses that "weapon attack" script, which you seem to care so much about, will ALWAYS apply to these cantrips, as long as the weapon attack actually uses a weapon (which is a requirement of the cantrip's attack).
Basically, all I'm saying is that:
All melee attacks with a weapon ARE melee weapon attacks. But the reverse is not true. All melee weapon attacks ARE NOT in fact melee attacks with a weapon.

Where you got the rest of that, I'll never know.

[Malifice]

Mentioned the skills already. And Lore gets those too. Bardic Inspiration isn't something Lore doesn't get--they get the better one, in fact. And Lore synergizes better with Paladin for MCing since the proficiencies aren't redundant.

Valor, particularly prior to 10th, is the one I'm asking about.

And why not just take Lore instead, now; with good Dex, yoink one of the Bladesinger cantrips and a Smite spell at 6th, cast the Smite as a bonus, cast Greenflame as a cantrip, and outfight the Valor in melee between 6th and 10th. And get Cutting Words out of the deal, and still pick up two more nonclass spells at 10.

I'm also a little irked that a wizard can outdamage a VB with melee weapons until 10th level with cantrips and do it with vastly better AC to boot. VBs are barely worth it in melee until 10th when they can yoink spells even just sticking to the PHB.

We're not comparing Valor bard to lore bard though. We're comparing Valor bard to blade singer.

Go the former if you value skills and party buffing over spell variety.

[Mara]

Isn't a valor bard basically a better designed bladesinger?

Music check
Full casting check
Martial abilities check

[JAL_1138]

We're not comparing Valor bard to lore bard though. We're comparing Valor bard to blade singer.

Go the former if you value skills and party buffing over spell variety.

Except I was talking about them in my initial question, albeit not clearly phrased, admittedly.

It's not Valor vs Bladesinger. It's Valor vs. Lore vs. Bladesinger before 10th level.

There's still a reason to play a bard, but why would that bard be a Valor bard now, before 10th? Lore now has comparable melee damage (better, between levels 6 and 10), isn't that far behind on AC with a Dex build, and is a better buffer/debuffer and skillmonkey.

At 10, the Valor bard can Swift Quiver with a ranged weapon, or take GFB and a Smite instead of SQ and...(other ranger spell I forgot the name of). They're fine after that.

[Malifice]

There's still a reason to play a bard, but why would that bard be a Valor bard now, before 10th? Lore now has comparable melee damage (better, between levels 6 and 10), isn't that far behind on AC with a Dex build, and is a better buffer/debuffer and skillmonkey.

Why is Lore better between 6 and 10?

Leaving aside the fact Valor bards can use the same cantrips as Lore bards.


At 10, the Valor bard can Swift Quiver with a ranged weapon, or take GFB and a Smite instead of SQ and...(other ranger spell I forgot the name of). They're fine after that.

At 14th they get [spell] and [attack as a bonus action].

[MaxWilson]

So other than getting some healing spells that wizards don't, and skillmonkeying a bit better (which could also be accomplished with a rogue dip)...what's the point of a Valor Bard now, especially before level 10?

For me, I'd play a Skald (Valor Bard) if I wanted to:

1.) Help everybody's saves, and
2.) Be a terrific healer/summoner (Magical Secrets: Conjure Animals + Aura of Vitality), while also
3.) Being the Strongest Man in the World.

Point #3 is frankly going to be the most entertaining. Athletics Expertise, Enhance Ability (Strength), two attacks per round, and possibly Shield Master on top will let me shield bash anybody into the ground and hold them there while everybody else in the party (possibly including my conjured Draft Horses or whatever if I'm not using Enhance Ability) pummels them at advantage.

[DivisibleByZero]

can't. single weapon held in a single hand is the requirement for the +int to AC.
I believe you are incorrect. Where does it say that?

It doesn't say that. What it says is that you cannot use two hands to make an attack with a weapon. That disallows two-handed weapons and versatile weapons used two-handed. It does not disallow dual wielding.

[Malifice]

It doesn't say that. What it says is that you cannot use two hands to make a weapon attack. That disallows two handed weapons and versatile weapons used two-handed. It does not disallow dual wielding.

How can you dual wield using only one hand?

[DivisibleByZero]

How can you dual wield using only one hand?

You can't.
That isn't the issue.
How can you use two hands to make A weapon attack if you don't have a hand free to place on the first weapon. Each attack while dual wielding only uses one hand. You do not use two hands to make any of your attacks.
You use both hands, but you use them individually. If you want to rules lawyer it, it's legal.
It may not be what they intended, but it's what they wrote.

[Malifice]

You can't.
That isn't the issue.
How can you use two hands to make A weapon attack if you don't have a hand free to place on the first weapon. Each attack while dual wielding only uses one hand. You do not use two hands to make any of your attacks.
You use both hands, but you use them individually. If you want to rules lawyer it, it's legal.
It may not be what they intended, but it's what they wrote.

The intent is perfectly clear for mine. One hand in an attack = not using a weapon in each hand.

Not that it really matters either way, but I'm certainly going with no TWF for Bladesingers.

[DivisibleByZero]

The intent is perfectly clear for mine. One hand in an attack = not using a weapon in each hand.

Not that it really matters either way, but I'm certainly going with no TWF for Bladesingers.

And you're well within your rights to read the RAI that way. I imagine that many will.
But while that may very well become a common reading of RAI, it is not an accurate reading of RAW.
The wording used is going to create rules interpretation conflicts between tables. That's all I was getting at. Because it doesn't actually say what SharkForce claimed that it said. That was merely his interpretation of what it said. But that's not what it truly said.

By the RAW, a dual wielding Bladesinger (with Warcaster) is perfectly legitimate and legal.
Whether or not it's actually allowed at any given table is going to be determined by how each individual DM interprets the RAI for Bladesong. Some will certainly allow dual wielding. Some will certainly not.
But the RAW most certainly does.

[Malifice]

And you're well within your rights to read the RAI that way. I imagine that many will.
But while that may very well become a common reading of RAI, it is not an accurate reading of RAW.
The wording used is going to create rules interpretation conflicts between tables. That's all I was getting at. Because it doesn't actually say what SharkForce claimed that it said. That was merely his interpretation of what it said. But that's not what it truly said.

By the RAW, a dual wielding Bladesinger (with Warcaster) is perfectly legitimate and legal.
Whether or not it's actually allowed at any given table is going to be determined by how each individual DM interprets the RAI for Bladesong. Some will certainly allow dual wielding. Some will certainly not.
But the RAW most certainly does.

I dont believe in the existence of such a thing as RAW.

Our different reading of the same rule in this case confirms that position.

[Kane0]

Bit of a blunder on the wording by the devs there.

I'd also rule the one free hand thing, since isn't that what bladesong has been about for the last couple editions?

[DivisibleByZero]

Bit of a blunder on the wording by the devs there.

I'd also rule the one free hand thing, since isn't that what bladesong has been about for the last couple editions?

I completely agree on both points.
That is absolutely what Bladesinging was all about, all the way back to AD&D2e.
It was absolutely almost certainly a bit of a blunder on the wording.
None of that changes the fact that by the RAW, dual wielding is now allowed for 5e Bladesingers, and this disparity between what was and what is, and the different ways to read the RAI are both going to create conflicts between different tables' rulings.

[MeeposFire]

The specific wording says that you lose it when you use two hands to make an attack with a weapon.

Back when the rule set first came out I would say that being really pedantic with the rules was not required as the the more vague rules allowed for more interpretations. Alas the Sage rulings have shown that despite the vague writing they insist on either reading the rules very finely OR that you need to know rules that are not written but are sort of understood by some and have to later be added by the designers in a sage decision.

If you read it very finely the rules say when you use two hands to make an attack with a weapon. All of that is singular so unless you attack with both hands as a single attack it would technically not turn of bladesong.

Now if you read it as being implied to using both hands regardless of how many attacks or what not then you need to wait for what some may say is the inevitable sage column.

[Mara]

Why would II, as a DM, allow bladesinger when valor bard covers the same niche while being better designed?

[Tenmujiin]

Why would II, as a DM, allow bladesinger when valor bard covers the same niche while being better designed?

That's like saying, why would I allow a bladelock when valor bard covers the same niche. They have completely different flavor and bladesinger focuses on defense while valor bard is more balanced not to mention vastly different spell lists.

[Strill]

Aside from being a logistical nightmare to create and command that many servants every hour, they can't move more than 60 ft. from you and thus can't "take up every space in the battlefield". Besides if you want to do these types of shenanigans successfully you might as well just use Animate Dead or Wish/Simulacrum and still grab Shield.

They can BE more than 60 ft from you. You just can't COMMAND them to move 60 feet from you. You can tell each one of them to follow you, and no matter how far away from them you move, their command will always direct them to a location within 60 feet of you, so the spell will not end. Animate dead can't make anywhere near as many bodies as unseen servant.

[Mara]

That's like saying, why would I allow a bladelock when valor bard covers the same niche. They have completely different flavor and bladesinger focuses on defense while valor bard is more balanced not to mention vastly different spell lists.

I'm talking about the arcane music Gish niche.

What for bladesinger offer? How many wizard only spells do you need? Valor bard can get a lot.

I'm not seeing what new character concepts this class adds.

[PoeticDwarf]

Update: #*%@, Green flame blade is crazy powerful. It's a CANTRIP, with a melee attack included in the action. That makes it strictly better than a melee attack, 100% of the time, cast it every turn. The only reason not to spam this is if you can make multiple attacks without spell casting. I can see this being to bards what hunter's mark is to rangers, except more so because it doesn't use spell slots.

It is, for EK and AT just too strong.

[Dark Tira]

They can BE more than 60 ft from you. You just can't COMMAND them to move 60 feet from you. You can tell each one of them to follow you, and no matter how far away from them you move, their command will always direct them to a location within 60 feet of you, so the spell will not end. Animate dead can't make anywhere near as many bodies as unseen servant.

No they can't be performing a task that moves them more than 60 ft. of you. If you order them to follow you and they move from 70ft. away from you to 65ft. of you they will disappear. Animate dead can't make as many bodies but it makes useful bodies that doesn't keep you casting 30 minutes every hour and reduce your groups move speed to 15ft. a round. This whole line of thinking is working against your argument. Look at how far you're having to try to twist the rules to show an example of a spell mastery selection even remotely in the same arena as Shield.

[Tenmujiin]

I'm talking about the arcane music Gish niche.

What for bladesinger offer? How many wizard only spells do you need? Valor bard can get a lot.

I'm not seeing what new character concepts this class adds.

The big one is int vs cha. Not such a big deal at my table since I allow my players to pick any casting stat they can convince me makes sense but it is a big deal at other tables.

Valor bards focus on buffing allies while bladesingers focus on fighting and casting.

I'm sure there are other differences but I haven't slept in 48 hours so I cbf looking for them.

[Malifice]

Why would II, as a DM, allow bladesinger when valor bard covers the same niche while being better designed?

Because its RAW.

This is important to you.

[Mara]

Because its RAW.

This is important to you.
It's not PH, DMG, or MM.

[MeeposFire]

It's not PH, DMG, or MM.

That really does not hold water. Even back in the day a book like this would still be RAW but not CORE which is what you listed.

Besides what other class lets you be a warrior wizard that lets you use full wizard spells including spell preparation and wizard ritual use (which is sweet)? If those things are important to a player then this class makes a lot of sense.

A bard is going to lack those abilities and further has its own flavor to boot. It emphasizes different stats and its own style. Valor bards can be like a classic skald and have half plate and a shield. Blade singers cannot and are pushed very much into its own style. A valor bard will almost always be personable (unless you really don't care about your casting). Blade singers get to show off being smart and bookish instead. A bard will dance to impress but the blade singer dances probably does not care because their dance, like their magic, is often not designed to entertain but for other purposes.


Besides turn the question around why would you play as any other wizard if you can play as a lore bard? They are both full casters. The answer would be a little bit of flavor, some mechanical bits, and what stats you want to utilize. The biggest single differences between the two are the spell list and the roguish bits compared to the fully caster based abilities of the wizard. These differences hold true regardless of whether you are a full casting type or a caster/warrior hybrid. Either way you get to choose one or the other and isn't choice on a basic level a good thing?

NOw if you think it is too good or not good enough that is a separate question I think.

[Mara]

Lore bards are music flavored. Standard wizard is not.

I have been very disappointed by post PH, DMG, MM dev work. The errata was bad. Sage advice is terrible. Elemental evil is high quality homebrew and the UA stuff is very hit or miss.

People don't sound too happy by this class either.

[MeeposFire]

Lore bards are music flavored. Standard wizard is not.

Ok so if that is all you need for that I am not seeing how you are having a hard time with the blade singer and the valor bard. The valor bard inspires others the balde singer does not. It would seem that should be enough for you even without the many mechanical differences between the two.

[Mara]

Ok so if that is all you need for that I am not seeing how you are having a hard time with the blade singer and the valor bard. The valor bard inspires others the balde singer does not. It would seem that should be enough for you even without the many mechanical differences between the two.

So blade singer is music themed but lacks team play features?

What do bladesingers do that valor bard does not cover?

[DracoKnight]

So blade singer is music themed but lacks team play features?

What do bladesingers do that valor bard does not cover?

Higher AC. More movement. Advantage on Dex (Acrobatics) checks. + INT to CON saves to maintain concentration. There's other things too.

[Citan]

The intent is perfectly clear for mine. One hand in an attack = not using a weapon in each hand.

Not that it really matters either way, but I'm certainly going with no TWF for Bladesingers.
Hi!
I'm sorry but that's probably another of your fiats. :) The text is very pretty clear if you read it litteraly:
"It ends early if you are incapacited... or if you use two hands to make an attack with a weapon."

You can read it in two ways: the most natural (English-speaking) is that they target the case when you use both hands to make a single attack.
Since TWF is attacking with one hand, two times, it's perfectly compatible, confer PHB, Two-Weapon Fighting:
"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light
melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can
use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee
weap on that you’re holding in the other hand."


The interpretation you favor is "when you use both hands to make weapon attacks". This seems very far-stretched to me, because what is targeted in the text is not the potentiality of making attacks with one hand then the other, but the actual use of both on one attack (otherwise it would not be "to make an attack" but "to make attacks").

To go towards your view though, we could consider that they wrote like this to avoid writing "or if you are wielding a two-handed weapon, or if you are wielding a weapon in both hands".
To go against your view, we could consider that if such was their intent, they could have specified it in a much simpler way, by rather making single-wielding a prealable requirement. "You can use the Bladesong as long as you wield no heavy armor nor shield, and as long as you wield only a single-handed weapon in your main hand".

Also, I guess I understand why you would disallow TWF with Bladesong for fluff reasons: you consider that Bladesinger is reserved to high-breed Elves, nobility, and that TWF is not easily associated with nobility, but instead more with larceny and dirty fighting? Something like that? Have no knowledge of past editions Bladesingers...

After thought, I wonder if they didn't use this formulation on purpose, to allow DMs fiat (even if to me the RAW reading is crystal clear the RAI may be different).

[Strill]

@Strill. It's 23 + 5 from shield. Though maybe you're right and it should be half int. that means starting at 13+3+1 = 17 at best. Maxing out at 20+5 from shield.

What would you do to fix it?

I would give them Unarmored Defense (10 + INT + DEX). Then give a +1 AC while bladesinging. That way other classes can't poach Bladesinger for AC.


So blade singer is music themed but lacks team play features?

What do bladesingers do that valor bard does not cover?

They're not "music" themed. The "music" they play is from their sword slicing the air in a rhythmic manner because the fighting style looks like dancing.

[Kryx]

I would give them Unarmored Defense (10 + INT + DEX). Then give a +1 AC while bladesinging. That way other classes can't poach Bladesinger for AC.
I agree that massive AC is a problem, but this would make a Bladesinger very vulnerable.

Compare to a Monk. d8 HD, the ability to dodge as a BA w/ ki, synergizes with mobile very well (move in, hit, move out of melee range), incredibly good saves (diamond soul), immunity to disease/poison.

The Bladesinger gets spells which are incredibly good, but he'd be very very squishy.

I think 10+Int+Dex is a fine starting point, but it would need at least 1 other defensive thing going on imo.

[Strill]

I agree that massive AC is a problem, but this would make a Bladesinger very vulnerable.

Compare to a Monk. d8 HD, the ability to dodge as a BA w/ ki, synergizes with mobile very well (move in, hit, move out of melee range), incredibly good saves (diamond soul), immunity to disease/poison.

The Bladesinger gets spells which are incredibly good, but he'd be very very squishy.

I think 10+Int+Dex is a fine starting point, but it would need at least 1 other defensive thing going on imo.

It would give 17 AC at level 1. Is that not enough? I suppose it wouldn't be too unreasonable to give +1 HP/level as well.

[Kryx]

It would give 17 AC at level 1. Is that not enough? I suppose it wouldn't be too unreasonable to give +1 HP/level as well.
16 (10+3+3 with Bounded Accuracy). d8 would help, but I'd still feel like they needed something more.

I'm curious to hear what others would do.

[Strill]

16 (10+3+3 with Bounded Accuracy). d8 would help, but I'd still feel like they needed something more.

I'm curious to hear what others would do.

I said to give an extra +1 while bladesinging. That should bring it up to the same as what you suggested.

[Mara]

Higher AC. More movement. Advantage on Dex (Acrobatics) checks. + INT to CON saves to maintain concentration. There's other things too.
Higher AC isn't really a thematic component.

More movement is good.

Advantage is pretty easily mimicked by expertise.

INT to CON saves, A feat fixes that.


Sooo movement right now. How are bladesingers more mobile?

[Strill]

Sooo movement right now. How are bladesingers more mobile?
+10 movement speed while bladesinging.

[Mara]

+10 movement speed while bladesinging.

Oh pfff 2 minutes per short rest in minute increments. Overall worse subclass features than a pact of the blade plus two invocations. But you get to have some martial goodness on your wizard.

Fine yeah whatever. Seems fine and published (Yes, I did avoid looking at the leak for as long as possible)

[Daishain]

I think 10+Int+Dex is a fine starting point, but it would need at least 1 other defensive thing going on imo.
It is an AC bonus, not a new formula like the monk's unarmored defense. You can wear studded leather, making it 12+Int+Dex (can start at 18 probably capping off at 20, absolute max of 22), or use mage armor for 13+ (19, 21, and 23). Hell, if you roll stats and get multiple high scores, you could multiclass with monk for 10+Dex+Int+Wis (or barb for that matter, but monk would be more thematic)

For the squishy wizards used to settling for an AC of 15-16, this is huge, and the only limitation is that it is not always on.

[Submortimer]

You can read it in two ways: the most natural (English-speaking) is that they target the case when you use both hands to make a single attack.


This seems to be the intent. They really should have replaced it with "if you make an attack with a two-handed weapon or a Versatile weapon wielded in two hands."

[Kryx]

It is an AC bonus, not a new formula like the monk's unarmored defense.
Strill and I were discussing an alternate version that doesn't allow 19 AC at 2 and 28 AC at 18+

imo the default hugely breaks bounded accuracy. A Bladesinger would have 28 ac vs Fighter's 20. Even 23 vs 20 without mage armor is a problem imo. It's not some niche thing like Monk + Barb. It's the default.

[JAL_1138]

Why is Lore better between 6 and 10?

Leaving aside the fact Valor bards can use the same cantrips as Lore bards.



At 14th they get [spell] and [attack as a bonus action].

I'm given to understand GFB is not on the bard list. If it is, I retract my complaint.

Say you want to do the one thing Valor currently does better, get in a close-quarters fight.

At 6, Lore takes a Paladin Smite and Greenflame (which scales). They use a rapier (dex). Casts Thunderous Smite as a bonus and Greenflame as a cantrip. 2d8+2d6+mod, plus d8+mod to a second enemy. And that's if you aren't TWFing--which you can do with it, it's an action that includes a melee weapon attack, which seems like it'd qualify one for the bonus action attack. Without the Smite, just TWF, still 3d8+mod + d8+mod to something else. To even get vaguely close to that, Valor builds Str instead of Dex and can do 4d6+mod with a greatsword--half a point of damage ahead on the main enemy, but without the d8+mod to a second enemy.

After 10, the VB's fine, they can steal the same trick and get some nice goodies afterward. Guess how often I've been a player at higher than 10th level. (spoiler: not very.)

[djreynolds]

The build seems pretty cool. But a little MAD if you using a pick for the bird tattoo. Or a long sword for the lion

[MaxWilson]

I agree that massive AC is a problem, but this would make a Bladesinger very vulnerable.

Compare to a Monk. d8 HD, the ability to dodge as a BA w/ ki, synergizes with mobile very well (move in, hit, move out of melee range), incredibly good saves (diamond soul), immunity to disease/poison.

The Bladesinger gets spells which are incredibly good, but he'd be very very squishy.

I think 10+Int+Dex is a fine starting point, but it would need at least 1 other defensive thing going on imo.

Well, it is a wizard after all. Wizards have a ton of good defensive spells. Blur is as good as Patient Defense.

[CNagy]

It's a wizard trying to do what a wizard isn't very good at. Offensively, the Wizard is getting Extra Attack and +Int to weapon damage. Defensively, the wizard gets a graceful version of Rage--instead of taking less damage, they get hit less-- and the ability to soak up damage by expending spell slots (using a reaction, I imagine it's primary use will be in the mitigating of critical hits.)

I would have preferred that Bladesinger be a PrC, accessible by either martial or caster classes. It would have five levels, full spell progression, spells learned from any spellcasting list you have access to of a level for which you have a spell slot (to get around that whole "you gain new slots but fall behind on spells".) Intelligence to damage, fine. Bladesong as a graceful defensive Rage, fine. Sacrificing spell slots to mitigate damage, also fine but possibly subpar in this case. An ASI-alike 4th level ability and a final ability, boom, Bladesinger finished.

[Degwerks]

I've got a question about Booming Blade, if a 7th lvl EK uses his Action Surge & War Magic ability in a nova style, using the cantrip twice, can his booming blade cantrip stack for 4d8 damage if your foe moves?

[DireSickFish]

I've got a question about Booming Blade, if a 7th lvl EK uses his Action Surge & War Magic ability in a nova style, using the cantrip twice, can his booming blade cantrip stack for 4d8 damage if your foe moves?

Yes. None of them eat up concentration.

[DivisibleByZero]

I've got a question about Booming Blade, if a 7th lvl EK uses his Action Surge & War Magic ability in a nova style, using the cantrip twice, can his booming blade cantrip stack for 4d8 damage if your foe moves?
Yes. None of them eat up concentration.

No.
It doesn't matter whether either of them eat up concentration or not. Magical effects do not stack.

Page 205, PHB:
Combining Magical Effects
The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect—such as the highest bonus—from those castings applies while their durations overlap.
For example, if two clerics cast bless on the same target, that character gains the spell’s benefit only once; he or she doesn’t get to roll two bonus dice.

The enemy only gets hit by the damage once. In the example given, he'd get hit with 2d8 damage for moving.
Your DM might be nice and allow you to roll the 2d8 twice and use the higher damage result (following the most potent effect clause), but that would fall under DM Fiat territory. The damage from the attack would hit him twice, but the damage from him moving would only hit him once.

[MeeposFire]

I'm given to understand GFB is not on the bard list. If it is, I retract my complaint.

Say you want to do the one thing Valor currently does better, get in a close-quarters fight.

At 6, Lore takes a Paladin Smite and Greenflame (which scales). They use a rapier (dex). Casts Thunderous Smite as a bonus and Greenflame as a cantrip. 2d8+2d6+mod, plus d8+mod to a second enemy. And that's if you aren't TWFing--which you can do with it, it's an action that includes a melee weapon attack, which seems like it'd qualify one for the bonus action attack. Without the Smite, just TWF, still 3d8+mod + d8+mod to something else. To even get vaguely close to that, Valor builds Str instead of Dex and can do 4d6+mod with a greatsword--half a point of damage ahead on the main enemy, but without the d8+mod to a second enemy.

After 10, the VB's fine, they can steal the same trick and get some nice goodies afterward. Guess how often I've been a player at higher than 10th level. (spoiler: not very.)

Two weapon fighting requires you to use the attack action not making a melee weapon attack so green flame blade would not allow for two weapon fighting by RAW.

[mephnick]

I'm going to need to read some in depth reviews of the stuff coming out before I expand my "CORE ONLY" rule, because I've been pretty uneasy with what I've seen so far.

I really wish they'd stop releasing new spells which introduces inherent power creep.

[MeeposFire]

So blade singer is music themed but lacks team play features?

What do bladesingers do that valor bard does not cover?

1. Full wizard preparation casting. Brads do not get that. There are a lot of minor spells not worth taking as a bard but are fantastic to have in your back pocket as a wizard.

2. Full ritual use of said spells. Bards tend to avoid most ritual spells because they can't afford to use their spells known on them.

3. Bard's get inspiration based abilities that inspire others. If you are not interested in inspiring others playing as a bard does not really fit what you want.

In other words you want to play as a wizard warrior not a bard one. Both are good but you can't fully get the experience of playing either by playing the other.

You can argue about how effective the class features are for the blade singer but I don't think that the valor bard can really do the fighter/wizard if you really want what makes wizards distinctive from other full casters. Valor bards are perfectly fine if what you want is "warrior/caster" but you are not looking for things that are unique to the wizard class or if you want to play the warrior bard type (which is very fun).

[Vogonjeltz]

+10 movement speed while bladesinging.

So, is it literally singing? Is this a feature that gets entirely shut down by a silence spell? I mean, what is bladesinging?

[Yorrin]

So, is it literally singing? Is this a feature that gets entirely shut down by a silence spell? I mean, what is bladesinging?

I haven't read the actual 5e entry, but based on past editions the "singing" is the sound of the blade as it moves through the air. In some traditions there are holes cut into the blade to create an actual musical effect, which a skilled practitioner can use in an actual melodic fashion.

[MaxWilson]

So, is it literally singing? Is this a feature that gets entirely shut down by a silence spell? I mean, what is bladesinging?

In my game, I'd go with the "complex elven magics" fluff mentioned in the doc itself, and just say that there is no literal singing involved. The name "bladesinger" is poetic license by elves who are flattering themselves about the beauty of their technique, which is in actuality the ugly business of killing.

It's not like the idea that a sword might "sing through the air" is exactly an uncommon metaphor in real life.

[JAL_1138]

Two weapon fighting requires you to use the attack action not making a melee weapon attack so green flame blade would not allow for two weapon fighting by RAW.

I thought it just said "when you make a melee weapon attack," but you are correct. They don't work together. Still, 2d8+mod to one enemy and d8+mod to another enemy is still absurdly good. Assuming a mod of 3, it's 12 to one and 7.5 to another on one attack roll, compared to a Str VB doing 2d6+mod to one and 2d6+mod to either the same one or a different one. Assuming +3 again, it's 10 to one enemy and 10 to another, but the second attack has a miss chance that the Greenflame cantrip's extra damage doesn't.

And that still doesn't rectify the Smite issue--Lore can still poach a Smite spell at 6 (Thunderous Smite, for example) for 2d6. 2d8+2d6+mod, and d8+mod to another enemy. 19 to one enemy and 7.5 (guaranteed, no miss chance) to another. Costs a spell slot, but stealing Smites is how the VB holds up in melee later on anyway.

[MeeposFire]

I thought it just said "when you make a melee weapon attack," but you are correct. They don't work together. Still, 2d8+mod to one enemy and d8+mod to another enemy is still absurdly good. Assuming a mod of 3, it's 12 to one and 7.5 to another on one attack roll, compared to a Str VB doing 2d6+mod to one and 2d6+mod to either the same one or a different one. Assuming +3 again, it's 10 to one enemy and 10 to another, but the second attack has a miss chance that the Greenflame cantrip's extra damage doesn't.

And that still doesn't rectify the Smite issue--Lore can still poach a Smite spell at 6 (Thunderous Smite, for example) for 2d6. 2d8+2d6+mod, and d8+mod to another enemy. 19 to one enemy and 7.5 (guaranteed, no miss chance) to another. Costs a spell slot, but stealing Smites is how the VB holds up in melee later on anyway.

It certainly works with smites but honestly VB tends towards swift quiver or heck other spells like spiritual weapon. Heck that spell does not require concentration, is second level, and quickly surpasses that smite spell in damage while being much more efficient (that smite has an average of 7 damage while spiritual weapon deals on average 6.5-9.5 points of damage per hit once you get your cha up to 20).

[JAL_1138]

It certainly works with smites but honestly VB tends towards swift quiver or heck other spells like spiritual weapon. Heck that spell does not require concentration, is second level, and quickly surpasses that smite spell in damage while being much more efficient (that smite has an average of 7 damage while spiritual weapon deals on average 6.5-9.5 points of damage per hit once you get your cha up to 20).

And they don't get those until Level 10, which has been my point the whole time. VB is now behind Lore (and Bladesinger) until 10th at the one thing they previously did better. That is the entire crux of my complaint.

Edit: Like I said earlier, they're fine after 10th. VB after level 10 is not the issue. VB before level 10 is the issue--since fairly few campaigns get there, and even if they do it takes a long while--particularly in league (which only has a couple of adventures higher than 10th level at all for season 3.)

[bid]

Still, 2d8+mod to one enemy and d8+mod to another enemy is still absurdly good.
Well, most cantrip gain 1d8 per bracket, this one gains 2.:smalleek:

[MeeposFire]

And they don't get those until Level 10, which has been my point the whole time. VB is now behind Lore (and Bladesinger) until 10th at the one thing they previously did better. That is the entire crux of my complaint.

Edit: Like I said earlier, they're fine after 10th. VB after level 10 is not the issue. VB before level 10 is the issue--since fairly few campaigns get there, and even if they do it takes a long while--particularly in league (which only has a couple of adventures higher than 10th level at all for season 3.)

Except a lore bard could already do most of this already at range. Acid splash deals damage to two targets and can be used with spiritual hammer. That is most of the effect you get from green flame blade (trades for extra range for not auto damage).

[Vogonjeltz]

I haven't read the actual 5e entry, but based on past editions the "singing" is the sound of the blade as it moves through the air. In some traditions there are holes cut into the blade to create an actual musical effect, which a skilled practitioner can use in an actual melodic fashion.

Someone mentioned that something happens "while blade singing". So I was wondering what the mechanics were, because that might determine what things could interfere with or stop it.

[HoarsHalberd]

Mechanics are "Ancient elven magic." Stopped by "incapacitation." No V components. No requirements to attack every turn or perform. Bladesinging is just a word for the sword humming through the air basically.

[DracoKnight]

Question: is there anything in the Bladesinger that says you can use your weapon as your Arcane Focus, or do you still need one as a bladesinger?

[MaxWilson]

Well, most cantrip gain 1d8 per bracket, this one gains 2.:smalleek:

Acid Splash already gains 2d6 per bracket, works outside of melee, and doesn't require the enemy to be moving. Thunderclap and Sword Burst gain Nd6 per bracket where N is the number of enemies adjacent to you. The only real thing Booming Blade/Greenflame Blade have going for them is that you get to add your weapon damage (including Dex/Str mod), but that's not a scaling benefit.

[MeeposFire]

Acid Splash already gains 2d6 per bracket, works outside of melee, and doesn't require the enemy to be moving. Thunderclap and Sword Burst gain Nd6 per bracket where N is the number of enemies adjacent to you. The only real thing Booming Blade/Greenflame Blade have going for them is that you get to add your weapon damage (including Dex/Str mod), but that's not a scaling benefit.

Indeed the ones that benefit the most are classes that want to use weapon attacks, get only one attack per round on an action, and get a bonus on that one attack per round (otherwise you are likely to just use other cantrips).

Those classes include weapon clerics unless there is an example of a cleric weapon cantrip the cleric bonus to cantrips would not apply) and rogues who all get direct benefits with no drawbacks for using them (outside of the cost getting the cantrip through the feat or cantrip slot that could have been used on utility).

[Yorrin]

Indeed the ones that benefit the most are classes that want to use weapon attacks, get only one attack per round on an action, and get a bonus on that one attack per round (otherwise you are likely to just use other cantrips).

Those classes include weapon clerics unless there is an example of a cleric weapon cantrip the cleric bonus to cantrips would not apply) and rogues who all get direct benefits with no drawbacks for using them (outside of the cost getting the cantrip through the feat or cantrip slot that could have been used on utility).

The new Arcana Domain gets a couple of Wizard cantrips and gets cantrip damage boost, so that would be the only one where it directly applies.

[MeeposFire]

The new Arcana Domain gets a couple of Wizard cantrips and gets cantrip damage boost, so that would be the only one where it directly applies.

Yes that would work assuming that the wizard cantrips are said to be cleric cantrips (which I am sure they are because that is what they did with the nature cleric).

That would probably be the biggest possible at will cleric damage but it would require getting two instances of applying the spells damage (making the enemy move away with booming blade or having two targets in range with green flame blade) otherwise weapon using clerics come out ahead on average (and have a higher ceiling).

[MaxWilson]

Yes that would work assuming that the wizard cantrips are said to be cleric cantrips (which I am sure they are because that is what they did with the nature cleric).

That would probably be the biggest possible at will cleric damage but it would require getting two instances of applying the spells damage (making the enemy move away with booming blade or having two targets in range with green flame blade) otherwise weapon using clerics come out ahead on average (and have a higher ceiling).

The biggest possible cantrip damage will not be Greenflame/Booming Blade, it will be Thunderclap or Sword Burst.

[MeeposFire]

The biggest possible cantrip damage will not be Greenflame/Booming Blade, it will be Thunderclap or Sword Burst.

Ah yes if it applies to those then yes it would. Except for single target damage which would be blooming blade on one target but for most situations it would be hard to get the enemy to run.

[bid]

Acid Splash already gains 2d6 per bracket, works outside of melee, and doesn't require the enemy to be moving. Thunderclap and Sword Burst gain Nd6 per bracket where N is the number of enemies adjacent to you. The only real thing Booming Blade/Greenflame Blade have going for them is that you get to add your weapon damage (including Dex/Str mod), but that's not a scaling benefit.
True, and it's 2 targets too. OTOH acid splash gets a save (one for each target) while blade gets an attack (single one), and save is +4 vs hit iirc.

[treecko]

I would like to add a quite silly thing you can do with the new booming blade cantrip. Be an arcane trickster, take find familiar and booming blade. Get a familier owl, who sits on your shoulder. In combat, find an enemie who is alone and get you owl to give you the help action, then fly back to you. Then run up, attack with advantage and sneak attack and booming blade, the bonus action disengage and walk away. If they fight you, they take the damage.

Also works with high elf and swashbuckler. Swashbuckler can use their cunning action to dash instead of disengage if they miss, too.

On an unrelated note, what is booming energy and what does it look like?

[MaxWilson]

True, and it's 2 targets too. OTOH acid splash gets a save (one for each target) while blade gets an attack (single one), and save is +4 vs hit iirc.

A saving throw is basically as hard as hitting AC (14+save bonus) with the same attacker bonus, so it's often slightly harder than an attack, but not a difference of +4. More like +1 or +2, but sometimes -1 or less. E.g. goblins have AC 15, +2 to Dex saves, +0 to Con. A wizard with +5 to attacks/DCs will hit the goblins 55% of the time with Greenflame Blade, and they'll fail their Con saves vs. Thunderclap 65% of the time and their Dex saves against Acid Splash or Sword Burst 50% of the time.

The fact that the blade has one attack instead of two is kind of a wash mathematically, since if you miss you do no damage to both targets. The only time it helps is against heterogenous AC.

[MeeposFire]

I would like to add a quite silly thing you can do with the new booming blade cantrip. Be an arcane trickster, take find familiar and booming blade. Get a familier owl, who sits on your shoulder. In combat, find an enemie who is alone and get you owl to give you the help action, then fly back to you. Then run up, attack with advantage and sneak attack and booming blade, the bonus action disengage and walk away. If they fight you, they take the damage.

Also works with high elf and swashbuckler. Swashbuckler can use their cunning action to dash instead of disengage if they miss, too.

On an unrelated note, what is booming energy and what does it look like?

I thought booming blade deals extra damage if the target moves away from you so if they move to engage you they do not take extra damage.

[DracoKnight]

I thought booming blade deals extra damage if the target moves away from you so if they move to engage you they do not take extra damage.

It's if they move freely at all.

[MaxWilson]

It's if they move freely at all.

However, that mostly doesn't matter unless you have the Mobile feat, since the booming energy (sounds ridiculous, huh?) mostly just cancels out the damage you took from their opportunity attack when you moved away from them.

For a Bladesinger though it could be nice. Booming Blade, then move 40' away (thanks to your extra Bladesinging movement; Longstrider works too though), taking an opportunity attack in the process. Now the enemy cannot engage you this turn, so that single opportunity attack was all he got. Rangers are pretty good at this, especially with both Escape the Horde and Longstrider.

[Degwerks]

I really want to try using Booming Blade with my warlock inside my Darkness spell. They'll try moving outside the Darkness anyway, mind as well get them to take damage with it.

Actually if I grab the War Caster feat, I'd cast the Booming Blade cantrip again if he tried leaving the area of the Darkness spell. So cast Darkness on myself, wade into combat, use my next action to attack with Booming Blade, let him try and move away, Booming Blade triggers & he takes damage, I use the War Caster feat to use my reaction to cast Booming Blade again, he takes more damage from the attack and when/if he finishes his move to get away he triggers it a 2nd time. Hopefully this plan works out...

[SharkForce]

Indeed the ones that benefit the most are classes that want to use weapon attacks, get only one attack per round on an action, and get a bonus on that one attack per round (otherwise you are likely to just use other cantrips).

Those classes include weapon clerics unless there is an example of a cleric weapon cantrip the cleric bonus to cantrips would not apply) and rogues who all get direct benefits with no drawbacks for using them (outside of the cost getting the cantrip through the feat or cantrip slot that could have been used on utility).

how do you figure rogues don't get a drawback for using these cantrips?

normally, rogues can get their regular attack and a bonus action attack. while using these spells, they can't, because their bonus action attack revolves around taking the attack action, which casting a spell (even a spell that includes a melee attack) is not.

so the rogue is giving up a second chance to hit in order to deal slightly more damage if they do hit (the extra damage they would deal with their bonus attack is not greater than the added cantrip damage).

still a good idea? situationally, sure (like if you can get a haste spell so that you can use your regular action for the cantrip, the extra action to make an attack action, and your bonus action for your off-hand weapon or hand crossbow). but i really wouldn't describe it as having no drawbacks. you have the drawback of a lower chance to land your sneak attack damage because you didn't get to use your bonus action to make an attack, which is pretty important.

[ronlugge]

normally, rogues can get their regular attack and a bonus action attack. while using these spells, they can't, because their bonus action attack revolves around taking the attack action, which casting a spell (even a spell that includes a melee attack) is not.

Except a typical rogue won't use his bonus action to attack again, he'll use it to disengage and avoid being caught in the melee, where he doesn't belong.

[SharkForce]

Except a typical rogue won't use his bonus action to attack again, he'll use it to disengage and avoid being caught in the melee, where he doesn't belong.

why? they have reasonable AC, a reaction to cut damage by half that is worth at least as much as the increased hit points a fighter has, and for that matter are perfectly capable of not being in melee in the first place once they get crossbow expert.

if the rogue is too squishy for melee, so is the fighter.

[ronlugge]

You're right, their AC is 'close' to a fighter's. But they lack the second wind 'healing surge' feature to absorb bad luck early game, the raw hit points, and ultimately a fighter will (almost always) have a higher AC than they can even without shields. If a fighter picks up a shield, the rogue's AC is simply outclassed. And their reaction to avoid damage, while more than merely decent, is still a reaction -- limited to one use per round. They're better off getting out of the melee and saving it.

[Malifice]

Except a typical rogue won't use his bonus action to attack again, he'll use it to disengage and avoid being caught in the melee, where he doesn't belong.

From 5th they have uncanny dodge. Melee is a good place

[Yorrin]

Rogues can survive just fine in melee. The only thing wrong with a Rogue in melee is that the rogue is not at the maximum range of his crossbow...

[NNescio]

How to piss off your party Cleric/Druid/Bard/Designated Healer: Be a non-Swash melee rogue who insists on 'maximizing his damage' by farming his reactions out to OAs via Sentinel/Polearm Master.

[Kryx]

How to piss off your party Cleric/Druid/Bard/Designated Healer: Be a non-Swash melee rogue who insists on 'maximizing his damage' by farming his reactions out to OAs via Sentinel/Polearm Master.
It still has to be a light weapon. That restriction is not removed.

[SharkForce]

You're right, their AC is 'close' to a fighter's. But they lack the second wind 'healing surge' feature to absorb bad luck early game, the raw hit points, and ultimately a fighter will (almost always) have a higher AC than they can even without shields. If a fighter picks up a shield, the rogue's AC is simply outclassed. And their reaction to avoid damage, while more than merely decent, is still a reaction -- limited to one use per round. They're better off getting out of the melee and saving it.

1 point of difference... yeah, it's a difference. but it's not that far off. 1 average HP per level. again, different. not that far off. cuts damage in half for one attack every round... that *is* quite a difference. worth far more on average than the one extra HP per level and one extra point of AC and the healing from second wind.

and yes, a fighter with a shield does have quite a bit better AC. on the other hand, melee damage builds are considered to be perfectly acceptable for fighters, so quite frankly... if a melee damage fighter can work, so can a melee damage rogue.

it isn't by any means the only way to build a rogue. crossbow expert is a common option as well, for example (and probably the better one if you have a battlemaster in the party feeding you reaction attacks). but it works pretty much just as well in terms of toughness of most other melee damage builds (and by most, i really mean "non-barbarians").

[silveralen]

Isn't a valor bard basically a better designed bladesinger?

Music check
Full casting check
Martial abilities check

This is, by far, the thing that bothers me most about this. It doesn't seem to need to exist. There are many other areas which could be expanded upon which aren't so similar to an existing class, particularly one everyone seems to agree is perfectly functional.

[mephnick]

And you can make an already perfectly viable "swashbuckler" with the core rules.

Where's the engineer, spirit shaman, arcane archer....or you know, something I can't already make without heavily house-ruling.

[silveralen]

And you can make an already perfectly viable "swashbuckler" with the core rules.

Where's the engineer, spirit shaman, arcane archer....or you know, something I can't already make without heavily house-ruling.

I would say the swashbuckler at least offers some things that we were mechanically missing (or missing in particularly well made form).

Also standard ranger is pretty close to arcane archer, with his many magic arrow spells. Perhaps not perfect but to the same degree I'd consider valor bard a stand in for bladesinger tbh.

[Ralanr]

Short rest...it gets stuff back from short rests.

Ok. Ok. I'm just going to hope everything else in the book is awesome/better because that's annoying. Even more frustrating if that's race restricted. My group will probably bypass the race restrictions.

Guess I get to write up that dragonborn gish now. I get to be a powerhouse in melee with my cantrips, attack twice, use my int as my AC bonus in addition to armor and dex for a full minute (while the barbarian rages). And I get access to more spells than any class.

What exactly does this sacrifice? Going High elf just says, "Hi. I'm Mr. Stu, but my friends call me Marty"

[Estrillian]

This is, by far, the thing that bothers me most about this. It doesn't seem to need to exist. There are many other areas which could be expanded upon which aren't so similar to an existing class, particularly one everyone seems to agree is perfectly functional.

I think it is obvious that the 5E design team has no interest in niche protection. This is a fiction-first design. They are producing custom traditions / archetypes that exist in the Forgotten Realms and Sword Coast and a big heap of lore says that Elven Bladesingers are a thing, so here they are. Now you might argue that they could have easily said that while they were Wizards in lore they were Bards in mechanical execution, and that would have been fine, but then I suspect that people would be complaining that they had released a book of fluff (if they had done this for every possible new archetype) when people want rules.

[djreynolds]

I still want a finesse long sword, at least for elves. I find some of the weapons like the war pick will be tough to make the bladesinger optimized because the AC bonus is based on light armor. You would have to forgo some ASI to make it worth playing the "Lion" with a longsword to beef up strength to get something out of bladesinging. Could be a very MAD class, but still a good try.

[Santra]

I still want a finesse long sword, at least for elves. I find some of the weapons like the war pick will be tough to make the bladesinger optimized because the AC bonus is based on light armor. You would have to forgo some ASI to make it worth playing the "Lion" with a longsword to beef up strength to get something out of bladesinging. Could be a very MAD class, but still a good try.

Sunblade. Finesse long sword. There you go.

[Mara]

In my campaigns you can have a finesse slashing 1d8 blade. It's not light and doesn't have the versatile property.

The weapon section suggest expansions.

[Raxxius]

I really like that another int based gish has arrived. While I see some similarities between bard and bladesinger, making the iconic elven fighters/mage into another cha based gish would of upset me.

The problem with longsword in 5th is it takes from the more modern line of thinking, and not from the viking/arming sword. As such, that weapon no longer exists in d&d, replaced by the rapier, which really is the great great grandson of the one handed arming sword.

A d8 finesable one handed slashing weapon doesn't break the game. Rapiers weren't purely thrusting weapons either.

[Ralanr]

I really like that another int based gish has arrived. While I see some similarities between bard and bladesinger, making the iconic elven fighters/mage into another cha based gish would of upset me.

The problem with longsword in 5th is it takes from the more modern line of thinking, and not from the viking/arming sword. As such, that weapon no longer exists in d&d, replaced by the rapier, which really is the great great grandson of the one handed arming sword.

A d8 finesable one handed slashing weapon doesn't break the game. Rapiers weren't purely thrusting weapons either.

Just call it a saber. BOOM. Instant finesse slashing weapon.

[ronlugge]

Just call it a saber. BOOM. Instant finesse slashing weapon.

That isn't AL legal, alas.

[ronlugge]

1 point of difference... yeah, it's a difference. but it's not that far off. 1 average HP per level. again, different. not that far off. cuts damage in half for one attack every round... that *is* quite a difference. worth far more on average than the one extra HP per level and one extra point of AC and the healing from second wind.

and yes, a fighter with a shield does have quite a bit better AC. on the other hand, melee damage builds are considered to be perfectly acceptable for fighters, so quite frankly... if a melee damage fighter can work, so can a melee damage rogue.

it isn't by any means the only way to build a rogue. crossbow expert is a common option as well, for example (and probably the better one if you have a battlemaster in the party feeding you reaction attacks). but it works pretty much just as well in terms of toughness of most other melee damage builds (and by most, i really mean "non-barbarians").
Having thought it through overnight, I realized that my first (emotional) reaction boiled down to two statements:

But <DM> taught me that was wwwwong! And <DM> will punish me if I pway that way! (Adorable kid accent added for effect).

Given that <DM> is also the guy who said you can't trip attack a flying wyvern because how do you trip a flying creature... I apologize for ever stating that a rogue doesn't belong in the melee. Early level they're a bit weak there. Later level they're fine, just a bit squishier than fighters.

[Edgerunner]

I apologize for ever stating that a rogue doesn't belong in the melee. Early level they're a bit weak there. Later level they're fine, just a bit squishier than fighters.

I have just started a Swash /Archfey Bladelock, 3/2 with Magic Initiate V Human feat.

This build is FUN!
I can get in and dust it up with the others hitters while laying out some pretty solid SA damage.
When things get rough for me in melee I can slide out with little to no worry of AoOs and start spamming EB from range all while still holding my Rapier which just so happens to be my magic focus.

I took EB and Minor Illusion with Magic Initiate and then Booming Blade and Sword Burst when I got my Warlock cantrips and both are extremely versatile in melee range.

Sword Burst doesn't hit as well as our Cleric's Thunderwave but it hits pretty good.

Next cantrip will be GFB as it seemed a tad weak to me until you got the 5th lvl extra damage added on.

[silveralen]

I think it is obvious that the 5E design team has no interest in niche protection. This is a fiction-first design. They are producing custom traditions / archetypes that exist in the Forgotten Realms and Sword Coast and a big heap of lore says that Elven Bladesingers are a thing, so here they are. Now you might argue that they could have easily said that while they were Wizards in lore they were Bards in mechanical execution, and that would have been fine, but then I suspect that people would be complaining that they had released a book of fluff (if they had done this for every possible new archetype) when people want rules.

True, but my point was they could've added new, interesting archetypes, rather than ones fairly similar to existing archetypes.

Or at least released new versions of archetypes no one likes. For example: Battlerager is a much improved version of beserker imo. Sun soul easily could've been a version of elemental monk, if not for elemental monk being borderline non functional.

Of course, may they felt a lot of people weren't satisfied with valor bard? I'd say another contender for "is this different enough to justify a sub class" would be purple dragon knigh. Feels a lot like battle master, except with variations on a few of the maneuvers and expertise. His two biggest features are just battle master maneuvers tied to action surge/second wind and slightly improved.

[DracoKnight]

Of course, may they felt a lot of people weren't satisfied with valor bard?

Eh, I think it brings enough that's new in the terms of mechanics, that it doesn't really matter. And to those that seem to be under the misconception that the Bladesinger actually involves singing, then you are wrong. Their magic functions exactly like the Wizard, and Bladesong is actually the name of the dance-like movements that they use in combat. That is my understanding of the differences.

[Raxxius]

Eh, I think it brings enough that's new in the terms of mechanics, that it doesn't really matter. And to those that seem to be under the misconception that the Bladesinger actually involves singing, then you are wrong. Their magic functions exactly like the Wizard, and Bladesong is actually the name of the dance-like movements that they use in combat. That is my understanding of the differences.

I agree that it's a very superficial casting to pair a classical Bladesinger and this interpretation with a Bard. It's a full int based gish caster, which right now doesn't exist, unlike Cha which had a number of options. It also is different to the other frontliners in that it's principally a dodge tank, relying on high AC to reduce incoming damage over soak.

The only thing I don't like is that you can't wear elven chain with it. Not that they need an AC boost here, it's just that elven chainmail was one of the iconic parts of a bladesinger. This captures almost everything else though, so I am happy with the class as it's presented.

[DracoKnight]

The only thing I don't like is that you can't wear elven chain with it. Not that they need an AC boost here, it's just that elven chainmail was one of the iconic parts of a bladesinger. This captures almost everything else though, so I am happy with the class as it's presented.

That is something I noticed too, and it's not even a possibility, since their bladesong ends if they put on heavy armor, but like you said they don't lack in ways to stack up AC.

[DivisibleByZero]

That is something I noticed too, and it's not even a possibility, since their bladesong ends if they put on heavy armor, but like you said they don't lack in ways to stack up AC.

I see it as a non-issue.
DMs in 5e are encouraged to toss out what'sa printed and go with what works for them. So if it's an issue for you, then in your game "Elven Chain Mail" is light armor (just use studded leather stats, and the difference is aesthetic, nothing more).

[DracoKnight]

I see it as a non-issue.
DMs in 5e are encouraged to toss out what'sa printed and go with what works for them. So if it's an issue for you, then in your game "Elven Chain Mail" is light armor (just use studded leather stats, and the difference is aesthetic, nothing more).

Oh, I totally agree. I love the way they have the Bladesinger now. It was just something thematic I noticed I was missing.