Bladesinger Fluff Weirdness

[Gignere]

Does anyone find the side bar of the most popular bladesinger traditions hilarious? Two of three traditions uses strength weapons, not finesse weapons. However nothing in the mechanics makes strength a needed stat. There isn't even a school for rapiers the ideal weapon for bladesinger. If they want the fluff to match the mechanics shouldn't they designed BS to have a use for strength.

[CNagy]

Does anyone find the side bar of the most popular bladesinger traditions hilarious? Two of three traditions uses strength weapons, not finesse weapons. However nothing in the mechanics makes strength a needed stat. There isn't even a school for rapiers the ideal weapon for bladesinger. If they want the fluff to match the mechanics shouldn't they designed BS to have a use for strength.

It's not weird, it's history. You knowing that the mechanically best Bladesingers wield rapiers is game knowledge--the Bladesingers themselves knowing that is metagame knowledge. Bladesingers have a history, and that history is largely tied to the longsword, a weapon of racial significance to elves.

Fluff and optimization aren't necessarily at odds, but they don't have to line up. Game mechanics would suggest that you make your important stats as high as you can and your less important stats as low as you can stomach, but in the narrative world there are far more unoptimized characters than there are optimized. We take for granted the idea that Wizards are going to max their Dexterity when that actually isn't necessarily the case.

[Corran]

There is a difference between optimization and outright failure. To have all this fluff of different playstyles without them even being close in term of supported playstyles is rather silly to be honest. It is like having a fluff text in the barbarian section, detailing fluff about numerous barbarian tribes that rely on fighting with daggers and on being really dexterous instead of using strength. Or have a fluff section of archer paladins, without giving them an oath that would at least give them some specific abilities tied to ranged attacks, or a fluff text about rogues using heavy armors.

Seriously now, I completely agree with the op. No reason to have fluff for choices that wont be made by anyone. Anyone....! Yeah, the longsword is a fine choice thematically, but we both know that in 99 out of 100 tables the DM will allow the BS to use a rapier as a reflavoured longsword, because honestly 99 out of 100 DMs will possess the average intelligence to see that it makes no sense mechnically for a BS to use a longsword. You can go on and have your NPC BSs use morningstars and picks and hammers and what have you, but we know that does not address the issue. And the issue is, that different suggested playstyles should come as equally supported options, or not at all. If not balanced, there is never a real choice to make, it is just the illusion of having more choices. And again, I am not talking about optimization, I am talking about straightforward better and worse options that are supposedly presented as equally playable options.

[Gignere]

The Raven style makes the least sense. These bladesingers uses a pick that use strength as their attack stat but they use spells to buff their agility in combat. WTF?

[CNagy]

There is a difference between optimization and outright failure. To have all this fluff of different playstyles without them even being close in term of supported playstyles is rather silly to be honest. It is like having a fluff text in the barbarian section, detailing fluff about numerous barbarian tribes that rely on fighting with daggers and on being really dexterous instead of using strength. Or have a fluff section of archer paladins, without giving them an oath that would at least give them some specific abilities tied to ranged attacks, or a fluff text about rogues using heavy armors.

Seriously now, I completely agree with the op. No reason to have fluff for choices that wont be made by anyone. Anyone....! Yeah, the longsword is a fine choice thematically, but we both know that in 99 out of 100 tables the DM will allow the BS to use a rapier as a reflavoured longsword, because honestly 99 out of 100 DMs will possess the average intelligence to see that it makes no sense mechnically for a BS to use a longsword. You can go on and have your NPC BSs use morningstars and pikes and hammers and what have you, but we know that does not address the issue. And the issue is, that different suggested playstyles should come as equally supported options, or not at all. If not balanced, there is never a real choice to make, it is just the illusion of having more choices. And again, I am not talking about optimization, I am talking about straightforward better and worse options that are supposedly presented as equally playable options.

I love how "outright failure" is apparently using a less optimal build and "better or worse" options are somehow not talking about optimization.

[Corran]

I love how "outright failure" is apparently using a less optimal build and "better or worse" options are somehow not talking about optimization.
It's like playing a low str high dex barb. Yes, one could do it, and it would not be the end of the world. The build would be worse than any other str barbarin build, just like a str oriented BS build would be worse than any dex oriented BS build. But unless there was a barbarian path that would allow for high dex low str barbarians to actually do sth that would weight around as much in the balance scale to what a str barbarian can do, it would be silly for an entry to appear in the phb giving fluff details about high dex low str barbs, as it is sth that will hardly ever be the case.

[Gignere]

I love how "outright failure" is apparently using a less optimal build and "better or worse" options are somehow not talking about optimization.

I agree with Corran, the less optimal builds shouldn't be the most popular builds in the world. There is a reason why all Tour De France riders ride those sleek and pricey racing bikes and no-one competes with a huffy mountain bike.

If you are seriously dedicated to your martial arts you will find the best weapon for your style and those strength weapon just doesn't match the mechanics at all. Maybe not for everyone but there should have been at least one style that uses the rapier.

[Corran]

To try adding something constructive instead of just arguing about it, I think all this fluff text would make sense, if there was a sentense somewhere in the BS's class traits, saying that the BS can use any (or one if that makes a huge difference) one-handed weapon as a finesse weapon. Wouldn't break anything as far as I can think of and would allow all these different techniques described in the fluff text to come to life.

I believe that flavour is important, and exactly because it is important, I think that it has to be supported mechanically, so that at least it makes sense. So, with that sentense, people who want their BSs to use longswords, picks, etc can have them do so, at the maximum cost of trading one d8 damage by something less than that. And even the worst case scenario mechanically (which would be to trade a d8 with a d4) wouldnt make that much of a difference.

[Gignere]

To try adding something constructive instead of just arguing about it, I think all this fluff text would make sense, if there was a sentense somewhere in the BS's class traits, saying that the BS can use any (or one if that makes a huge difference) one-handed weapon as a finesse weapon. Wouldn't break anything as far as I can think of and would allow all these different techniques described in the fluff text to come to life.

I believe that flavour is important, and exactly because it is important, I think that it has to be supported mechanically, so that at least it makes sense. So, with that sentense, people who want their BSs to use longswords, picks, etc can have them do so, at the maximum cost of trading one d8 damage by something less than that. And even the worst case scenario mechanically (which would be to trade a d8 with a d4) wouldnt make that much of a difference.

I thought of the exact same thing. Maybe that was the original intent but somehow got axed during play test. Even if it was just during blade song that the blade singer can use any one handed weapon as a finesse weapon it would match the fluff much better.

[CNagy]

I agree with Corran, the less optimal builds shouldn't be the most popular builds in the world. There is a reason why all Tour De France riders ride those sleek and pricey racing bikes and no-one competes with a huffy mountain bike.

If you are seriously dedicated to your martial arts you will find the best weapon for your style and those strength weapon just doesn't match the mechanics at all. Maybe not for everyone but there should have been at least one style that uses the rapier.

What part of "new", "small schools", and "weapons not typically favored by elves" suggests that these are the most popular builds in the world? These details flesh out the world, they are not necessarily gracing the cover of Popular Bladesong Mechanics.

Again, this argument boils down to "Dex makes the mechanically strongest Bladesingers and so the fluff shouldn't mention anything but Dex builds." But arguing fluff from a mechanics standpoint is easily the silliest thing in this thread. And if it is really that big of a deal that it doesn't specifically mention a rapier school, here you go: Common Housecat style, the style with the most practitioners and named after the absolute safest choice of cat. Students of Common Housecat use the rapier because duh, and pretty much spam Shield every round.

[Corran]

What part of "new", "small schools", and "weapons not typically favored by elves" suggests that these are the most popular builds in the world? These details flesh out the world, they are not necessarily gracing the cover of Popular Bladesong Mechanics.

Again, this argument boils down to "Dex makes the mechanically strongest Bladesingers and so the fluff shouldn't mention anything but Dex builds." But arguing fluff from a mechanics standpoint is easily the silliest thing in this thread. And if it is really that big of a deal that it doesn't specifically mention a rapier school, here you go: Common Housecat style, the style with the most practitioners and named after the absolute safest choice of cat. Students of Common Housecat use the rapier because duh, and pretty much spam Shield every round.
I guess now we have to start wondering why there is not a fluff text in the rogue section of the PHB telling us more stuff about rogues who fight with melee non-finesse weapons....
I want to know about these guys!!! There are as likely to exist as their BSs counterparts!

[DanyBallon]

The oldest Bladesinger style being the longsword makes perfect sense as elves having longsword proficiency goes back to the early editions, way before finesse was a thing in the game.

[DanyBallon]

I guess now we have to start wondering why there is not a fluff text in the rogue section of the PHB telling us more stuff about rogues who fight with melee non-finesse weapons....
I want to know about these guys!!! There are as likely to exist as their BSs counterparts!

They do exist, they jsut don't sneak attack as much! And it's fine, not every rogue is a death machine either. :smallwink:

[Corran]

They do exist, they jsut don't sneak attack as much! And it's fine, not every rogue is a death machine either. :smallwink:I am sure they do. And if after 2 or 3 levels of rogue they didnt realise they could do the same thing (stabbing) better, by simply picking a different weapon, they either multiclassed, died by a kobold, or retired from their adventuring careers. But the real question is, why dont we get any fluff text regarding them?

[CNagy]

The world is not filled with PCs. Not every "Bladesinger" you come across is going to be an actual Bladesinger. And certainly not every Bladesinger is going to be an adventuring Bladesinger. And not every adventuring Bladesinger is going to be a frontline Bladesinger. It matters almost not at all that the Raven style guy is swinging his pick around with maybe a 14 Strength. This edition's Bladesinger is a Wizard; Raven-dude's mad awesome fightan skillz aren't going to come up except in some pretty rare or pretty safe circumstances--if ever, at all, because he isn't a PC.

[Corran]

Thinking of it in a different direction, the fluff text might just exist so that it allows for room for races other than elves be allowed to play a BS. Meaning that the fluff text could potentially make an initially reluctant DM to allow one of his player play a non-elf BS. And it could potentially make a strict DM allow for non-elf BSs with the tradeoff of being mechanically inferior than an elf BS (with the exception of those races that would qualify for a school that uses finesse weapons (dont have the book in gront of me now).

[Corran]

This edition's Bladesinger is a Wizard; Raven-dude's mad awesome fightan skillz aren't going to come up except in some pretty rare or pretty safe circumstances--if ever, at all, because he isn't a PC.
Based on how irrelevant you claim the BS's fighting technique, and hence his weapon of choice is, why have the fluff text in the first place?

[DanyBallon]

I am sure they do. And if after 2 or 3 levels of rogue they didnt realise they could do the same thing (stabbing) better, by simply picking a different weapon, they either multiclassed, died by a kobold, or retired from their adventuring careers. But the real question is, why dont we get any fluff text regarding them?

Because the PHB is a rule book and SCAG is a setting book, the later focusing mostly on fluff.

And as for the rogue nut using a finesse weapon, as I said, not every rogue needs to backstab everything. Martial rogue are a pretty recent thing in D&D history. In fact they came around 3.0 where the game shifted to a combat focused game. Before that, they could be deadly backstabing, but it was hard to pull, and it wasn't the main aspect of the rogue.

[CNagy]

Based on how irrelevant you claim the BS's fighting technique, and hence his weapon of choice is, why have the fluff text in the first place?

Because the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide is like... 95% fluff, 5% crunch? If that? See, you're focusing on how terribly subpar the various Bladesinger styles are, when the entire point of the fluff is just to tell you that these guys exist and educate you about how the elves structure this entire tradition. You've learned, for example, that broad groupings of weapons are named after a certain type of animal, with specific weapons in the group taking on a related animal name. You've learned that the styles are essentially arbitrary--why does the shortsword style emphasize spells of illusion and stealth while the scimitar emphasizes whirling around and jumping a lot? Just because. Why is there handaxe style? Because reasons. Maybe some retired Housecat dipped Fighter in his wild youth and figured he could make a mint starting up his own school with something martially obscure, and thus the Eagle style of subpar Bladesinging was born.

[Gignere]

Because the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide is like... 95% fluff, 5% crunch? If that? See, you're focusing on how terribly subpar the various Bladesinger styles are, when the entire point of the fluff is just to tell you that these guys exist and educate you about how the elves structure this entire tradition. You've learned, for example, that broad groupings of weapons are named after a certain type of animal, with specific weapons in the group taking on a related animal name. You've learned that the styles are essentially arbitrary--why does the shortsword style emphasize spells of illusion and stealth while the scimitar emphasizes whirling around and jumping a lot? Just because. Why is there handaxe style? Because reasons. Maybe some retired Housecat dipped Fighter in his wild youth and figured he could make a mint starting up his own school with something martially obscure, and thus the Eagle style of subpar Bladesinging was born.

The SCAG also say that bladesingers are elves that bravely defend their people and lands, but only using subpar weapons and fighting style to do so. :smalltongue:

[Corran]

CNagy, my whole argument comes down to why these alterntive schools have to be subpar. I would rather have them as equally supported options, and imo they are not. I am not sure if it was intentional, or if it was just an error in printing, because seriously, the whole balance thing could be simply resolved by adding one sentense of text (ie, treat any one handed weapon as finesse). I can guess at why it was perhaps intentional for those schools to be subpar, as for there to be a tradeoff for playing a non-elf BS, but even if that was the whole point behind it I am not sure I agree with it. 5e is about inclusion, that means as many equally supported playstyles. Remember in the playtest phase how happy we were with the ranger getting all those additional fighting style options, that seemed to eliminate the archery-TWF dilemma?

To examine it the other way around. Would it not be better if all those different bladesinging schools were simply balanced, so that we can get to actually see all these various techniques during actual play?

As for the melee rogue and finesse weapons. DanyBallon, I admit I started playing with 3rd edition, so I have very limited to non-existant knowledge of previous editions. I can see what you are saying. I guess I would have to answer that the way the rogue class is defined mechanically at least at the moment in 5e, it would a bad choice for a melee rogue not to use a finesse weapon. Out of combat he does not suffer for it, and we know that this class has tons of out of combat potential. But during encounters, it would be nearly impossible, as the sneak attack is source of a rogue's damage output. The rogue would eventually have to pick a finesse weapon, if the player would want the character to stay relevant during combat. Otherwise, unless the DM takes heavily into account how subpar this character would be and adjusted the encounters accordingly, the whole table would suffer from the conscequences of such an imbalancing factor. Not to mention, that even if the DM did adjust the encounters accordingly, the game would feel a lot easier for several other characters, and hence possibly less fun. Balance is a crucial factor to the game. It is important for balance to exist, not only out of some idealistic reason, but because it can affect how challenging a game can be, and that influences in turn how much fun a game is.

[CNagy]

The SCAG also say that bladesingers are elves that bravely defend their people and lands, but only using subpar weapons and fighting style to do so. :smalltongue:

It also says they are Wizards, when their original role could essentially be summed up as Arcane Elven Paladins. So clearly, we are already working from a starting point of nonsense.

But in all seriousness, crack open the Monster Manual to Drow Mage, and tell me how optimized a 10th level Bladesinger would have to be to hit that particular threat to his people and homeland. You're missing the forest for the optimized trees; 5E's bounded accuracy is characterized by monsters with generally low ACs and high hit points. It is actually not required that you boost your attack stat to 20, even in the late game. You could make a 20th level default Human Fighter with five 16s, one 14, and one +1 stat feat, and he'd be a viable character because this game does not require you to be optimized. It requires even less from non-PCs, who live and die as the plot demands.

[Coyote81]

Isn't fluff designed to be different and thought provoking, not just mechanically sound? I like the fact that they talked about various styles (Something that a DM could easily run allowed to fit the mechanics), and it even caused me to think of some more awkward styles.

What happens when you get a elven bladesginer apprentice that gets stranded in the wild, or perhaps his master and the community was killed by orcs and no he's in the wild on his own. Maybe he adapts what he has learned and becomes a druids. Perhaps a new style emerges from this blend. Bear Style. (yes a druid in bear form meets all the requirements for bladesinging)

Overall fluff is just there to give you ideas or get you started on your own ideas. This is a huge world and the handbook really just list the most often see aspects of D&D, but it's your character, fluff it the way you want.

[Corran]

Fluff that is not mechanically sound is not fluff at all really. Fluff has to make sense thematically and mechanically. If all a fluff text does is to send you into chasing your own tail, better not have it at all. All it will do is to confuse you. Take notice, there is a difference between optimized and balanced.

[NakkeZan]

I like to think that in the world of Abeir-Toril elves fight with nimblesness and grace (dexterity) no matter what sort of weapon they are using, be it greatsword or the longsword they greatly value culturally. I skimmed through this topic and didin't see anyone mentioning this.

I also think that the fluff and the game mechanics are clearly seperated, whether they should or not is another matter.

[Regitnui]

Fluff that is not mechanically sound is not fluff at all really. Fluff has to make sense thematically and mechanically. If all a fluff text does is to send you into chasing your own tail, better not have it at all. All it will do is to confuse you. Take notice, there is a difference between optimized and balanced.

Sorry, but doesn't the DMG say that fluff, no matter who says it, is easily ignored or adjusted? So you don't like the bladesinger styles. There's nothing forcing you as a player or DM to acknowledge these other styles just because they're mentioned in a sidebar. Actually, come to think of it, there's nothing forcing you to accept that the forgotten realms even exist. They are forgotten, after all.

In fact, let's forget that anything about D&D fluff-wise doesn't exist, because it makes much more mechanical sense to focus on the numbers. Yes, let's leave only the bare minimum of context for the numbers and play Dice & Damage instead of Dungeons and Dragons. Who needs the psuedo-Tolkien fantasy nonsense when we can focus on pure, delicious math?

Seriously, though, if it bothers you people that much that someone in WotC came up with two less-than-optimized styles for a half-martial subclass, ignore them. Say that bladesingers only use rapiers in the "Dungeon-Clearer" style and that other styles were tried, but failed when the proponents of "dungeon-clearer" style duelled and killed them all. The fluff does not need to be locked to mechanics or even mechanically optimized. That's why it's fluff, not crunch.

[Rhaegar14]

I'm kind of with Corran here, but for somewhat different reasons. If Bladesingers had literally anything to support a Strength-based fighting style it might be different, but with a d6 hit die and light armor a Strength Bladesinger is going to be reduced to a red smear on the dungeon wall the first time they see real combat. Now, for NPCs, this is a non-issue; just give them better-than-average ability scores and call it good.

But when the fluff says that the MOST COMMON WEAPON OF CHOICE for a Bladesinger is one that the build does not actually support at all, that's a problem. I can just imagine some newbie going "the book says they use longswords, so it must be viable" and then getting creamed because either their AC or HP is basically nonexistent.

[Raxxius]

I'm kind of with Corran here, but for somewhat different reasons. If Bladesingers had literally anything to support a Strength-based fighting style it might be different, but with a d6 hit die and light armor a Strength Bladesinger is going to be reduced to a red smear on the dungeon wall the first time they see real combat. Now, for NPCs, this is a non-issue; just give them better-than-average ability scores and call it good.

But when the fluff says that the MOST COMMON WEAPON OF CHOICE for a Bladesinger is one that the build does not actually support at all, that's a problem. I can just imagine some newbie going "the book says they use longswords, so it must be viable" and then getting creamed because either their AC or HP is basically nonexistent.

Fundamentaly the problem has come from the origin of bladesinger being from a time before finesse weapons, and the complete lack of the one handed d8 slashing 'long sword' which was the base weapon of all editions prior to 5th.

The signature weapon of the 2nd ed bladesinger doesn't exist anymore, transposing it onto the old Bastard Sword and not the new rapier doesn't make sense.

And yes, 5th Ed should have a D8 finessable slashing blade in the game, that style of sword (one handed slashing) has been in military use across the globe for longer than any other style of sword, is a fantasy stable in literature, and causes problems like this.

[Cybren]

I agree with Corran, the less optimal builds shouldn't be the most popular builds in the world. There is a reason why all Tour De France riders ride those sleek and pricey racing bikes and no-one competes with a huffy mountain bike.

If you are seriously dedicated to your martial arts you will find the best weapon for your style and those strength weapon just doesn't match the mechanics at all. Maybe not for everyone but there should have been at least one style that uses the rapier.
the historical reasons for most armies and most cultures to use a weapon aren't based on the pure military effectiveness of that weapon, but the logistical factors surrounding the culture. The roman legions were the most effective fighting force in the Mediterranean world for over a thousand years, armed with spears and short swords, and while the short sword has some advantages in close order combat, the reason they were outfitted such was because that's way cheaper to equip your army of tens/hundreds of thousands. Within a game world, people have reasons for making decisions besides DPR

[Cybren]

Fundamentaly the problem has come from the origin of bladesinger being from a time before finesse weapons, and the complete lack of the one handed d8 slashing 'long sword' which was the base weapon of all editions prior to 5th.

The signature weapon of the 2nd ed bladesinger doesn't exist anymore, transposing it onto the old Bastard Sword and not the new rapier doesn't make sense.

And yes, 5th Ed should have a D8 finessable slashing blade in the game, that style of sword (one handed slashing) has been in military use across the globe for longer than any other style of sword, is a fantasy stable in literature, and causes problems like this.

The damage types in 5E are all odd. Why can't I stab with a longsword anyway? Early period rapiers were also edged, and those would have been the weapons likely to be contemporary to plate, so there's little reason for rapiers to be piercing only as well. Unfortunately, once you go down this rabbit hole, you wind up with an unwieldy, sprawling weapons table with too many choices, or weapons with too much versatility, as there's not enough to distinguish weapons between each other in 5E, given D&Ds 5ft range increments, 5Es lack of critical threat range/multipliers, and the simplified design philosophy causing there to be a small number of weapon properties to play with.

Honestly, I consider this a flaw of 5E making dexterity too valuable and AC to achievable in dex builds than anything else.

[DanyBallon]

As for the melee rogue and finesse weapons. DanyBallon, I admit I started playing with 3rd edition, so I have very limited to non-existant knowledge of previous editions. I can see what you are saying. I guess I would have to answer that the way the rogue class is defined mechanically at least at the moment in 5e, it would a bad choice for a melee rogue not to use a finesse weapon. Out of combat he does not suffer for it, and we know that this class has tons of out of combat potential. But during encounters, it would be nearly impossible, as the sneak attack is source of a rogue's damage output. The rogue would eventually have to pick a finesse weapon, if the player would want the character to stay relevant during combat. Otherwise, unless the DM takes heavily into account how subpar this character would be and adjusted the encounters accordingly, the whole table would suffer from the conscequences of such an imbalancing factor. Not to mention, that even if the DM did adjust the encounters accordingly, the game would feel a lot easier for several other characters, and hence possibly less fun. Balance is a crucial factor to the game. It is important for balance to exist, not only out of some idealistic reason, but because it can affect how challenging a game can be, and that influences in turn how much fun a game is.

Within 5e bound accuracy, a non-finesse melee rogue will still be able to contribute and be effective in combat. He just won't be as deadly as a finesse melee rogue, but usualy this type of rogue isn't focusing on combat anyway.

Take a step back and try not to see every classes as figthing machine and you'll see that they can still be balanced even if not optimized for combat. They just focus their usefulness for other pillar of the game.

If you want, as an experiment, try playing 3d6 in order or a 15 point buy campaing (it important that all party member use the same method) and you'll be able to experience that within 5e subpar character can still be fun to play but also can pull it off thanks to bounded accuracy.

[Gignere]

If you want, as an experiment, try playing 3d6 in order or a 15 point buy campaing (it important that all party member use the same method) and you'll be able to experience that within 5e subpar character can still be fun to play but also can pull it off thanks to bounded accuracy.

I would agree with your statement for most other subclass but Blade-singer. This is a melee wizard, a 15 point buy is just asking for a re-roll unless you play it like any other wizard. However you're not a gish anymore right, all of your subclass abilities are useless and all the proud history and fluff of fighting with swords should be thrown out.

The problem with BS was alluded to in this thread. This should have been a half caster like the paladin or ranger but with arcane spells. This will give them better hd, maybe better armor options, better weapon options, and can better blend spell and melee. The only problem is that they don't have a 1/2 arcane caster base class and so they shoehorned it into the wizard chassis.

[Rhaegar14]

Fundamentaly the problem has come from the origin of bladesinger being from a time before finesse weapons...

Except it would not have been a problem in the slightest for them to protect this part of the Bladesinger legacy with a ribbon feature that lets them use longswords as finesse weapons.


And yes, 5th Ed should have a D8 finessable slashing blade in the game, that style of sword (one handed slashing) has been in military use across the globe for longer than any other style of sword, is a fantasy stable in literature, and causes problems like this.

My group decided sabers are this. It's a d8 slashing weapon with finesse instead of versatile.

[DanyBallon]

I would agree with your statement for most other subclass but Blade-singer. This is a melee wizard, a 15 point buy is just asking for a re-roll unless you play it like any other wizard. However you're not a gish anymore right, all of your subclass abilities are useless and all the proud history and fluff of fighting with swords should be thrown out.

The problem with BS was alluded to in this thread. This should have been a half caster like the paladin or ranger but with arcane spells. This will give them better hd, maybe better armor options, better weapon options, and can better blend spell and melee. The only problem is that they don't have a 1/2 arcane caster base class and so they shoehorned it into the wizard chassis.

A bladesinger is a wizard that is more effective in melee than traditionnal wizard, it's by no mean a melee first, then wizard type of character. The eldritch kinght fills that role. If by gish you want a character that is at the same time one of the best melee class and be one of the best spellcaster, then this don't exist in D&D 5e for balance issue. You can be good in very one aspect, and potent in a second, but you can't just be verygood in everything.

About the 15 point buy, you need to realise that between having a 10 and a 20 on a given ability score, there's only a +5 difference, and the randomness of a d20 roll will make for most of the difference. So if you bladesinger have 10 Str and 13 Int, he won't be much less effective that an Eldritch knigth with 13 Str and 10 Int. On average the fighter will hit slightly more often than you do with his sword, while on the other hand, your attack spell will land a bit more often than his, but not by much.

Give it a try before theorizing that it won't work, you may be surprised :smallsmile:

[Corran]

Sorry, but doesn't the DMG say that fluff, no matter who says it, is easily ignored or adjusted? So you don't like the bladesinger styles. There's nothing forcing you as a player or DM to acknowledge these other styles just because they're mentioned in a sidebar. Actually, come to think of it, there's nothing forcing you to accept that the forgotten realms even exist. They are forgotten, after all.

In fact, let's forget that anything about D&D fluff-wise doesn't exist, because it makes much more mechanical sense to focus on the numbers. Yes, let's leave only the bare minimum of context for the numbers and play Dice & Damage instead of Dungeons and Dragons. Who needs the psuedo-Tolkien fantasy nonsense when we can focus on pure, delicious math?

Seriously, though, if it bothers you people that much that someone in WotC came up with two less-than-optimized styles for a half-martial subclass, ignore them. Say that bladesingers only use rapiers in the "Dungeon-Clearer" style and that other styles were tried, but failed when the proponents of "dungeon-clearer" style duelled and killed them all. The fluff does not need to be locked to mechanics or even mechanically optimized. That's why it's fluff, not crunch.
Smart.... To add some perspective though...

Sorry, but doesn't the DMG say that fluff, no matter who says it, is easily ignored or adjusted? So you don't like the bladesinger styles. There's nothing forcing you as a player or DM to acknowledge these other styles just because they're mentioned in a sidebar. You are missing the point. I take issue not at the fact that this fluff exists. Nor is it the case that I for some reason dont like this fluff. My whole point (and I dont know a simpler way to put it, so please pay attention) is that since someone took the trouble of writing this fluff, he should also take the trouble to see how it balances into the game and adjust it.


Actually, come to think of it, there's nothing forcing you to accept that the forgotten realms even exist. They are forgotten, after all.

In fact, let's forget that anything about D&D fluff-wise doesn't exist, because it makes much more mechanical sense to focus on the numbers. Yes, let's leave only the bare minimum of context for the numbers and play Dice & Damage instead of Dungeons and Dragons. Who needs the psuedo-Tolkien fantasy nonsense when we can focus on pure, delicious math? Nice....
Well, math is pure and delicious, we can at least agree on that it seems. But to answer you, having to repeat what I said in a previous post (yeah I know, it's boring to read all these posts, it's much more fun just picking one of them and trying really hard to come up with a smartass answer to give), fluff is important, because --> many reasons. And to expand a bit my previous comment because I may have been misunderstood, I wouldnt mind having the fluff for all tiefling barbarians, all goliath wizards, etc, because it makes sense for even the mechanically worst race-class combination to exist. And I wouldnt mind reading some stuff about these guys, in fact, I would welcome it even. Because as I said, fluff is important. You know what doesn't make sense? Fluff that say things about a class, contradicting the class design. So I would argue any time for when a fluff text regarding the naked paladin, the slow wizard or the cross-eyed archer tried to convince me that these are alternative and equally good choices for me to make when selecting this class. Fluff is equally important as mechanics, because for a game to be successful and fun to play, you must both have a vast and well fluffed lore, as well as a good balanced game system to go along with it. I dont care to claim which of two is more important, but that's not the point, the point is that both are needed, and by no way should we put ourselves in a position where we for some weird reason have to choose one and scorn the other. I call it a trap!


Yes, let's leave only the bare minimum of context for the numbers and play Dice & Damage instead of Dungeons and Dragons. You know what the exact opposite is? Getting rid of the game system and sitting around a table talking. I guess you are the kind of DM that throws a lot of cinematics and who can do the funny NPC voices exceptionally. Which is cool. And if that's how you like to play with your friends that is exactly fine with me. Though I take issue in you coming in here and saying that because you like to play the game without any concern for balance, it is wrong for anyone else to argue with pieces of fluff text that were clearly written in a haste and without putting a lot of effort and thinking into them.
Now I will try to be funny. ''Yes, let's roll a die only once per session, or better, let's not roll at all. Instead, the one who will pull off the best Cornwall accent for his dwarf pc will win today's session.'' But this is no dnd either mate.


Seriously, though, if it bothers you people that much that someone in WotC came up with two less-than-optimized styles for a half-martial subclass, ignore them. Great logic. I guess that's the kind of logic that apologizes for all the inconsistencies and mistakes in the PHB. For example, why should we mind that beastmaster ranger is underpowered? If you want to play a ranger you can always select that other archetype, why mind if WotC decided to throw in a less optimized subclass? What? There are people who want it balanced? Why? It makes sense thematically, so why does it need to be balanced and about equally as good as the rest of the options for a player? I wont give you the answer to that, but the real question is ''why it shouldn't be'' (reasons that sum up to, it would be too much trouble for the devs to come up with a way to make that happen and instead left it as it is dont really count, y'know).

Say that bladesingers only use rapiers in the "Dungeon-Clearer" style and that other styles were tried, but failed when the proponents of "dungeon-clearer" style duelled and killed them all. The fluff does not need to be locked to mechanics or even mechanically optimized. That's why it's fluff, not crunch.
Let bladesinging be the equivalent of mopping the floor. Then finesse weapons can be represented as a mop (admittedly the right tool for the job), and non-finesse 1-handed weapons can be represented by a toothbrush. I can understand a bad combination of race and class, as it is logical for it to exist. What I however cannot understand, is why in god's name I would ever use a toothbrush to mop the floor, instead of using the mop which is designed for that very purpose. To suggest that someone would do that intentionally is at best funny. So that fluff text is a joke really.

[DanyBallon]

Great logic. I guess that's the kind of logic that apologizes for all the inconsistencies and mistakes in the PHB. For example, why should we mind that beastmaster ranger is underpowered? If you want to play a ranger you can always select that other archetype, why mind if WotC decided to throw in a less optimized subclass? What? There are people who want it balanced? Why? It makes sense thematically, so why does it need to be balanced and about equally as good as the rest of the options for a player? I wont give you the answer to that, but the real question is what it shouldn't be (reasons that sum up to, it would be too much trouble for the devs to come up with a way to make that happen and instead left it as it is dont really count, y'know).

Beastmaster isn't underpowered, mechanically it can be competitive we most of the martial, except maybe with the PM/GWM build. The reason people don't like BM is that in order to keed balance they had to use action economy and now the companion act like an automaton. But, I repeat, even with such limitation the BM keep up with other martial.


Let bladesinging be the equivalent of mopping the floor. Then finesse weapons can be represented as a mop (admittedly the right tool for the job), and non-finesse 1-handed weapons can be represented by a toothbrush. I can understand a bad combination of race and class, as it is logical for it to exist. What I however cannot understand, is why in god's name I would ever use a toothbrush to mop the floor, instead of using the mop which is designed for that very purpose. To suggest that someone would do that intentionally is at best funny.

Your example would be more apropriate if the finesse BS was using the new mop Ultra 2000TM and the longsword BS, using the old traditionnal mop we all know :smalltongue:

[Corran]

Beastmaster isn't underpowered, mechanically it can be competitive we most of the martial, except maybe with the PM/GWM build. The reason people don't like BM is that in order to keed balance they had to use action economy and now the companion act like an automaton. But, I repeat, even with such limitation the BM keep up with other martial.



Your example would be more apropriate if the finesse BS was using the new mop Ultra 2000TM and the longsword BS, using the old traditionnal mop we all know :smalltongue:
Yeah, I guess you are right in both of these. I stand by my point though, all additional schools of bladesinging should be as close as possible in term of balance. Either by allowing all those weapons be used as finesse, or by providing the equivalent str version of the bladesinging, or by some other way. Imo there should only be either Ultra2000s or old traditional mops, but not both.

[DanyBallon]

Yeah, I guess you are right in both of these. I stand by my point though, all additional schools of bladesinging should be as close as possible in term of balance. Either by allowing all those weapons be used as finesse, or by providing the equivalent str version of the bladesinging, or by some other way. Imo there should only be either Ultra2000s or old traditional mops, but not both.

Some weirder variant may have been developped in specific conditions (where the traditionnal longsword and more usefull finesse weapon weren't available) and is still practiced by a few for tradition.
And also, it's not because Ultra 2000 is now on the market that everyone will adopt it, some won't being traditionnalist, other because they don't like the way it feels in hand, or because it cost more. That's the beauty of fluff, you can make up any excuse you need to justify you mechanical choice. What SCAG offer is only hints of different BS style that you can encounter and it's up to the DM to create more fluff if needed. If you don't like the non-finesse BS style, just ignore it. No one forces you to use it, but it's there for people who would like to have non-finesse BS. They just associated some thematic animal name to different style of one-hand weapon, nothing more.

[Corran]

I like the non finesse option for the BS, I just dont like that it is clearly worse than the finesse option. For example, say that after reading the fluff text I am inspired, and I think of playing a BS using, I dont know, say a longsword. Because that's what the fluff inspired me to do. And say I am super excited at the prospect of playing that character. Now I go on and have a look at the class traits and realise that the longsword is actually a bad choice for this class. Aside the confusion of why this is the case (since it contradicts the vibe I got reading the fluff text), I am now presented with a tough choice. Do I proceed with using a longsword as intended, or do I use the type of weapon that is mechanically intended for this class (and maybe reflavour ir to look however I like)? My point is that I should never have that dilemma in the first place. The only reason I have a dilemma of the form ''do I use an admiteddly accepted and logical option lorewise/fluffwise/whathaveyou (could easily concern the BS's weapon of choice, or stuff like a ranger using a two-hander, etc), or I dont because it lacks compared to its counterpart options'', is because the game mechanics were not develpoed enough to accomodate equally supported options. And that is always a weakness in a given game system, and no amount of fluff can cover for it. Fluff inspires, mechanics are there to serve the fluff and make it work. In the BS's case, fluff can inspire me to play a non finesse weapon user, so it makes sense for mechanics to be in place to make it an equally supported option.

And remember, the more balanced the game system is, the more free the players are to make the choices they trully like and not the ones that are clearly better than the others. Additionally, balance in a game system is also what protects the integrity of the fluff. If for example there is fluff suggesting that Goliath wizards are generally the most powerful wizards in the world, and then the mechanics dont support that claim, that is silly.

I understand all the arguments suggesting that with a ''realistic'' approach one could explain the gap in balance between different options or even why should imbalanced options exist when one is clearly better than the others. But frankly, I reject that reasoning completely, because in truth all it does is cover for the weaknesses that a game system shouldnt have. I could find a hundred reasons (all fluff related and reasonably explained) as to why the X sublass of a given class should be more powerful than subclass Y of the same class, and I can find another 100 reasons suggesting that the opposite should hold (ie, subclass Y should be more powerful than subclass X). But the fact is that one subclass would be better than the other, when that should not be the case at all. And that translates to a failure in the game system.

[obeseboywonder]

All this talk of fluff weirdness and no one mentions how you have to become a bladesinger at level 2? You need a proper teacher in a school to learn bladesinging, and yet if you started in a traditional tavern setting with an adventuring group at level 1 you would have no way of justifying that fluff. How would you magically know this art after a little dungeon delving? It almost forces the DM to treat your character as a Mary Sue just to justify your subclass's existence in the game.

I mean you could start at level 2, but like, who does that?

[CNagy]

All this talk of fluff weirdness and no one mentions how you have to become a bladesinger at level 2? You need a proper teacher in a school to learn bladesinging, and yet if you started in a traditional tavern setting with an adventuring group at level 1 you would have no way of justifying that fluff. How would you magically know this art after a little dungeon delving? It almost forces the DM to treat your character as a Mary Sue just to justify your subclass's existence in the game.

I mean you could start at level 2, but like, who does that?

Bladesong is, flavor-wise, a martial art. You could "learn" Bladesong in the decades you spent as an Elven adolescent, long before you ever achieved your first class level. It's not the class feature Bladesong until you reach 2nd level as a Wizard and choose Bladesinger as your tradition, but as a martial art the Bladesong is going to be more common than actual proper Bladesingers. In fact, some characters who are fluffing Bladesinger are actually going to be Eldritch Knights by class.


I like the non finesse option for the BS, I just dont like that it is clearly worse than the finesse option. For example, say that after reading the fluff text I am inspired, and I think of playing a BS using, I dont know, say a longsword. Because that's what the fluff inspired me to do. And say I am super excited at the prospect of playing that character. Now I go on and have a look at the class traits and realise that the longsword is actually a bad choice for this class.

It's not a bad choice; it just isn't optimal. Why is it not optimal? Because you can't get the high AC that other Bladesingers get. Who else gets that high AC? Oh, right--pretty much no one. So what you are competing against is not the AC of the front-liners but the AC of the hypothetically more-optimized you. When you understand that non-Bladesinger Wizard AC hasn't gone up, a funny little thought occurs: a Bladesinger can essentially substitute Intelligence for Dexterity rather than stack them. Two uses of Bladesong per short rest is basically always using Bladesong in combat for the average adventuring day. You end up with the same AC18/23 with Shield of other Wizards, except you only ever had to raise Intelligence instead of both Intelligence and Dexterity. And you have 3 ASIs left instead of normal Wizards who would only have 1. Now you could use those 3 ASIs to get a 20 Str--or a 20 Con. Or 18 Con and the Tough feat. Or Resilient... or any number of options normally not available to a Wizard who goes for max-Wizard AC.

And when if it comes to actual hand-to-hand combat, you are still better than a non-Bladesinger Wizard, with your 2 attacks and your +Int to damage. And upwards of 80 extra HP.

[obeseboywonder]

Bladesong is, flavor-wise, a martial art. You could "learn" Bladesong in the decades you spent as an Elven adolescent, long before you ever achieved your first class level. It's not the class feature Bladesong until you reach 2nd level as a Wizard and choose Bladesinger as your tradition, but as a martial art the Bladesong is going to be more common than actual proper Bladesingers. In fact, some characters who are fluffing Bladesinger are actually going to be Eldritch Knights by class.

I wasn't strictly talking about the Bladesong ability, but also the sudden proficiency in a weapon you gain, which for the more obscure styles, would be the very weapon of the style, because you wouldn't have access to it earlier as an elf or half-elf. The martial art is only learned if you can perform the art, and suddenly gaining proficiency in the weapon and Bladesong ability without a teacher just feels like bad design.

I agree though, that fluff/mechanics ("what is in a name anyway?") are largely irrelevant for an NPC, but a lot of players who want to play a bladesinger, will want to play the bladesinger class, and I think it has some fluff problems in the early levels.

[CNagy]

I wasn't strictly talking about the Bladesong ability, but also the sudden proficiency in a weapon you gain, which for the more obscure styles, would be the very weapon of the style, because you wouldn't have access to it earlier as an elf or half-elf. The martial art is only learned if you can perform the art, and suddenly gaining proficiency in the weapon and Bladesong ability without a teacher just feels like bad design.

I agree though, that fluff/mechanics ("what is in a name anyway?") are largely irrelevant for an NPC, but a lot of players who want to play a bladesinger, will want to play the bladesinger class, and I think it has some fluff problems in the early levels.

I think we get too hung up on bonuses. In earlier editions, non-proficiency carried a hefty penalty. In this edition, it only prevents you from getting the proficiency bonus. Your Elf character can use a whip, for example, with the same ease (or with more ease, depending on stats) that/than they can punch or kick someone--and then once they become a proper Bladesinger, they get better with the weapon (in other words, they get proficiency bonus) and they learn to use the Bladesong like a proper Bladesinger.

Bards have the same fluff issue when it comes to Valor Bards suddenly gaining a bunch of proficiencies. Multiclass characters can face the same.

[Tanarii]

I think we get too hung up on bonuses.For sure. Gaining proficiency at level two or three means you get about 10% better at a challenging tasks. Same for expertise. It's bigger if you MC at higher levels, but even a 20% gain isn't totally crazy. It's not a difference between being able to and not being able to.

Far more weird is Armor prof suddenly giving the ability to cast spells in it. Or suddenly gaining spell casting ability from MC. But even those are okay you just have n your character practicing and failing during rests in-game, until he gains the class features.

[Corran]

It's not a bad choice; it just isn't optimal. Why is it not optimal? Because you can't get the high AC that other Bladesingers get. Who else gets that high AC? Oh, right--pretty much no one. So what you are competing against is not the AC of the front-liners but the AC of the hypothetically more-optimized you. When you understand that non-Bladesinger Wizard AC hasn't gone up, a funny little thought occurs: a Bladesinger can essentially substitute Intelligence for Dexterity rather than stack them. Two uses of Bladesong per short rest is basically always using Bladesong in combat for the average adventuring day. You end up with the same AC18/23 with Shield of other Wizards, except you only ever had to raise Intelligence instead of both Intelligence and Dexterity. And you have 3 ASIs left instead of normal Wizards who would only have 1. Now you could use those 3 ASIs to get a 20 Str--or a 20 Con. Or 18 Con and the Tough feat. Or Resilient... or any number of options normally not available to a Wizard who goes for max-Wizard AC.

And when if it comes to actual hand-to-hand combat, you are still better than a non-Bladesinger Wizard, with your 2 attacks and your +Int to damage. And upwards of 80 extra HP.
To sum it up in a single phrase, non-finesse weapons rend the bladesinger MAD. A single-class mad character. If that doesn't need fixing I dont know what does. So, yeah....

[MaxWilson]

The SCAG also say that bladesingers are elves that bravely defend their people and lands, but only using subpar weapons and fighting style to do so. :smalltongue:

Suppose that this is literally true. What does it say about the Elven culture? Perhaps they're deliberately handicapping themselves in order to gain status, to display individuality, or just for amusement. Like Riddick, who kills people with a teacup, because he can.

See also: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CherryTapping

[goto124]

I love how "outright failure" is apparently using a less optimal build and "better or worse" options are somehow not talking about optimization.

As someone who has never actually played a game of 5e, I can still tell that maxing out Dex but using a Str weapon is really silly.

It's a far cry from digging though obscure splatbooks or fiddling with complex combinations for the absolute best stuff.

[DanyBallon]

To sum it up in a single phrase, non-finesse weapons rend the bladesinger MAD. A single-class mad character. If that doesn't need fixing I dont know what does. So, yeah....

In fact the BS is equally, if not less, MAD as any Wizards, but is also more versatile, because Bladesong let him use is Int (which I remind you is usually the most important ability score for a Wizard), to boost his AC allowing him to put a high ability score elsewhere that in Dex. Not every BS are meant to reach AC 30+.

It seems few see abilities like BS bladesong, Barbarian and Monk unarmored defence allows you to have decent AC without needing to spend as much in Dex, thus allowing you to be less MAD, and opening oportunities to play different type of characters than the, too often, typical maximized build, and still be effective.

[DanyBallon]

As someone who has never actually played a game of 5e, I can still tell that maxing out Dex but using a Str weapon is really silly.

It's a far cry from digging though obscure splatbooks or fiddling with complex combinations for the absolute best stuff.

The point is that you don't need to max out Dex to be an effective Bladesinger. You may not end up with ridiculously high AC but you still have a very good AC for a Wizard.

[CNagy]

To sum it up in a single phrase, non-finesse weapons rend the bladesinger MAD. A single-class mad character. If that doesn't need fixing I dont know what does. So, yeah....

So close... you missed it by one letter. What do you call a class that only requires one high stat, and then is free to decide what to do with the rest of his stat increases?

A normal Wizard has to contend with the power of his spells (Int) and preserving his life (Dex). A Bladesinger gets to roll both of those functions into Int. Merely raising Int to 20 becomes mechanically similar to another Wizard raising Dex and Int to 20. Better, even, because there is no reason he can't also easily have a 12 or 14 in Dex, adding a little extra. But once Dex goes from being the "Survive" stat to the "Survive in melee" stat, it becomes less important. Why? Because Wizards are not fit for melee. Wizards are not fit for melee. Even a Bladesinger optimized for fighting is a fragile thing.

If you play as a normal Wizard, you do not need a 23/28 AC. Therefore, you do not need a maxed Dex. You are not a fighting character, therefore your choice of preferred melee weapon is largely cosmetic. If your Strength is 12 and your Dex is 14, there really isn't a great big difference in choosing to use a Longsword.

But because Int is the only thing you absolutely need to raise to 20 (which isn't even true, more like a truism amongst optimizers), you have many options available to you. You could start with a 15 in Con and a 16 in Int (after racial bonus), then get Resilient Con and Tough to be an exceedingly-harder-to-kill-than-normal Wizard, with 1 ASI still free.

[CNagy]

As someone who has never actually played a game of 5e, I can still tell that maxing out Dex but using a Str weapon is really silly.

It's a far cry from digging though obscure splatbooks or fiddling with complex combinations for the absolute best stuff.

Maybe if you had actually played a game, you'd realize that we're actually talking about not having to max out Dex.

[Corran]

So close... you missed it by one letter. What do you call a class that only requires one high stat, and then is free to decide what to do with the rest of his stat increases?

A normal Wizard has to contend with the power of his spells (Int) and preserving his life (Dex). A Bladesinger gets to roll both of those functions into Int. Merely raising Int to 20 becomes mechanically similar to another Wizard raising Dex and Int to 20. Better, even, because there is no reason he can't also easily have a 12 or 14 in Dex, adding a little extra. But once Dex goes from being the "Survive" stat to the "Survive in melee" stat, it becomes less important. Why? Because Wizards are not fit for melee. Wizards are not fit for melee. Even a Bladesinger optimized for fighting is a fragile thing.

If you play as a normal Wizard, you do not need a 23/28 AC. Therefore, you do not need a maxed Dex. You are not a fighting character, therefore your choice of preferred melee weapon is largely cosmetic. If your Strength is 12 and your Dex is 14, there really isn't a great big difference in choosing to use a Longsword.

But because Int is the only thing you absolutely need to raise to 20 (which isn't even true, more like a truism amongst optimizers), you have many options available to you. You could start with a 15 in Con and a 16 in Int (after racial bonus), then get Resilient Con and Tough to be an exceedingly-harder-to-kill-than-normal Wizard, with 1 ASI still free.
Agreed that the bladesinger's optimal's role is not to be in the frontline. But that is partly the reason of that tradition. So suppose that a poor bugger like me wants to play a bladesinger enganging in melee quite often, despite realising that it is a dangerous thing to do. Afterall, that is partly why I chose bladesinger. I know my hp dont look good, and I know that my BS will be very vulnerble to attacks that dont target AC due to my general lack of hp, so in that respect I am like any other wizard. But... where I should look to be better than any other wizard if I hope to dub in melee, is my AC. Being an AC tank is what will mainly let me swing my melee weapons at enemies without feeling that my character is suicidal. So I think that my BS will need a good AC score. No, in fact I will need a great AC score, since this is almost my only real defensive trait (besides song of defense which is not there to compensate for a mediocre AC score but to provide an additional defensive edge, and that is why it comes into play later in the game). So I think that the BS by default should target at a higer AC score than that of a non-BS wizard. Granted, a dexterity score of 12 still adds +1 to my AC, but is that enough? Letting str be my attack stat for weapon attacks, takes away precious points from dex which would mean additional AC (besides all the other benefits, but that does not matter, I specifically want to make a case of the AC and its importance). How importance is a +3 AC difference? In a bounded accuracy system it's huge! Interchanging a str 8-10 and dex 14-16 for a dex 8-10 and str 14-16 renders my BS almost not viable to engage in melee. Yes, I could aim for more balanced scores between str and dex so that the AC difference is less than +3, but that will hurt me elsewhere (hp, spellcasting, both weapon attacks and AC, according to how I distribue my scores) and it will hurt me in an equivalent way a -3 to AC would hurt me.

A bladesinger (even an optimized one for melee) is indeed a fragile thing as melee combat goes. I am sure a dicrease of his AC score that would come by spending points on str to wield a non finesse weapon is the killing blow to the bladesinger's hopes of dubbing in melee. Can you see my argument? If it is already difficult for the bladesinger to stand in melee, wouldn't sabotaging him even further by making him spend precious points to an otherwise dump stat (str) be a killing blow?

[DanyBallon]

Agreed that the bladesinger's optimal's role is not to be in the frontline. But that is partly the reason of that tradition. So suppose that a poor bugger like me wants to play a bladesinger enganging in melee quite often, despite realising that it is a dangerous thing to do. Afterall, that is partly why I chose bladesinger. I know my hp dont look good, and I know that my BS will be very vulnerble to attacks that dont target AC due to my general lack of hp, so in that respect I am like any other wizard. But... where I should look to be better than any other wizard if I hope to dub in melee, is my AC. Being an AC tank is what will mainly let me swing my melee weapons at enemies without feeling that my character is suicidal. So I think that my BS will need a good AC score. No, in fact I will need a great AC score, since this is almost my only real defensive trait (besides song of defense which is not there to compensate for a mediocre AC score but to provide an additional defensive edge, and that is why it comes into play later in the game). So I think that the BS by default should target at a higer AC score than that of a non-BS wizard. Granted, a dexterity score of 12 still adds +1 to my AC, but is that enough? Letting str be my attack stat for weapon attacks, takes away precious points from dex which would mean additional AC (besides all the other benefits, but that does not matter, I specifically want to make a case of the AC and its importance). How importance is a +3 AC difference? In a bounded accuracy system it's huge! Interchanging a str 8-10 and dex 14-16 for a dex 8-10 and str 14-16 renders my BS almost not viable to engage in melee. Yes, I could aim for more balanced scores between str and dex so that the AC difference is less than +3, but that will hurt me elsewhere (hp, spellcasting, both weapon attacks and AC, according to how I distribue my scores) and it will hurt me in an equivalent way a -3 to AC would hurt me.

A bladesinger (even an optimized one for melee) is indeed a fragile thing as melee combat goes. I am sure a dicrease of his AC score that would come by spending points on str to wield a non finesse weapon is the killing blow to the bladesinger's hopes of dubbing in melee. Can you see my argument? If it is already difficult for the bladesinger to stand in melee, wouldn't sabotaging him even further by making him spend precious points to an otherwise dump stat (str) be a killing blow?

The problem is that you assume that all BS should go into melee, but that's not the case. BS will be more often caught into melee because their role is to be an elite magical defence force, but they are first and foremost wizards. But in the case that fight reach up to them, they are still better at fighter close quarter than other wizards.

Yet by choosing to specialized in finesse weapon (fluff present some school that do so), a BS can become an AC tank, this is a very specific role. But it's in no mean what constitute the core of the BS.

[Raxxius]

The problem is that you assume that all BS should go into melee, but that's not the case. BS will be more often caught into melee because their role is to be an elite magical defence force, but they are first and foremost wizards. But in the case that fight reach up to them, they are still better at fighter close quarter than other wizards.

Yet by choosing to specialized in finesse weapon (fluff present some school that do so), a BS can become an AC tank, this is a very specific role. But it's in no mean what constitute the core of the BS.

It's a fair assumption to think of a class which fluffwise blends sword and sorcery and responds as guardians of their race, to be able to actually blend sword and sorcery as part of their thing - opposed to being a backup. Everything about their kit revolves around being able to fronline. They fill the Int based full caster Gish niche.

Trying to seperate the core class mechanics (Melee dodge tank) as a niche of the niche is just weird. Nothing in the kit is specific for backlining, saying otherwise is opening the fluff weirdness. If the class was a backliner why are all the features in aid of frontlining. It's like slapping heavy armour on a barbarian because barbarians are a front liner and front liners should have high AC. There isn't actually a reason why it doesn't 'work' it just ignores/prevents a bunch of core features of the class.

[DanyBallon]

It's a fair assumption to think of a class which fluffwise blends sword and sorcery and responds as guardians of their race, to be able to actually blend sword and sorcery as part of their thing - opposed to being a backup. Everything about their kit revolves around being able to fronline. They fill the Int based full caster Gish niche.

Trying to seperate the core class mechanics (Melee dodge tank) as a niche of the niche is just weird. Nothing in the kit is specific for backlining, saying otherwise is opening the fluff weirdness. If the class was a backliner why are all the features in aid of frontlining. It's like slapping heavy armour on a barbarian because barbarians are a front liner and front liners should have high AC. There isn't actually a reason why it doesn't 'work' it just ignores/prevents a bunch of core features of the class.

Yes BS can fight in melee, but they are still wizards, and in such they tend to stay on the backline. If you want an arcane magic user that is meant to be on the frontline, its called an Eldritch Knight. As I said before, there's no such thing as a frontline fullspellcaster that is both very good in sword and sorcery, for one simple reason, balance! Their either very good at one and potent in the other. EK is very good in melee and can hold its own on the arcane side, can't rely only on his spells. BS are very good wizards that can hold their own in a fight, but they won't survive long if they focus on that aspect.

A finesse BS is more efficient in close combat, but he's still a wizard and his place ain't in melee all the time. Non-finesse BS are less inclined to rush into melee, but they still better combatant than your standard wizard and that's what Bladesinger are.

[Gignere]

Bladesinger should not have been a subclass of wizard. The paladin/ranger chassis would fit more, but with arcane spells. Bladesingers should be able to "smite" with their spell slots, they shouldn't be given access to spells that are almost always a better option than melee.

[Corran]

The problem is that you assume that all BS should go into melee, but that's not the case. BS will be more often caught into melee because their role is to be an elite magical defence force, but they are first and foremost wizards. But in the case that fight reach up to them, they are still better at fighter close quarter than other wizards.

Yet by choosing to specialized in finesse weapon (fluff present some school that do so), a BS can become an AC tank, this is a very specific role. But it's in no mean what constitute the core of the BS.
I agree that from a mechanical point of view, the bladesinger's optimal role is almost identical to the role of any other wizard. However, fluff-wise they are considered to be gish. That is supported mechanically by allowing them a secondary role as AC tanks (which has its problems, but it is what it is, and honestly I think they got the right balnce otherwise the BS would step into the EK's toes). However, the core of being AC tanks as a secodary role (so that the fluff makes sense), is a good AC score, upon which they can invest using spell slots for defensive buffs. And still, even with an exceptional AC, that has its problems, but at least it is managable. Take away a portion of that AC score and their role as a secondary tank is reduced exponentially (well, not exponentially really, but it is not linear considering how a change in the AC will affect the effect of disadvantage from blur and how often he will have to use shield). A bladesinger who takes away points from dex to put into str, immediatelly starts losing that secondary role since they are restricted to light armor (which is fragily supported either way), so a str BS kind of loses his already shaken ability to be a gish.

[JackPhoenix]

NPC concerns aside, Bladesinger is still a wizard, and thus will most likely improve Intelligence first, and Str/Dex second. There's exactly nothing requiring dexterity amongs its abilities, unlike rogue who can't use sneak attack without finesse weapons at all (and even then it needs finesse weapons, you can still use strength if you want to).
Now, going str-based instead of dex-based is sub-optimal, but still balanced with dex builds from other classes. Int to AC from Bladesong mitigates the need for dexterity (you can have comparable or higher AC then dex-based bladelock, and certainly better then str-bladelock without multiclass or feats for armor proficiency), Song of Victory gives some extra damage (compared to bladelock's Lifedrinker invocation...what a coincidence!), while having better spell list and more spells both known and per day (warlock's short rest recharge non-withstanding). Then you put Shield, Mage Armor, Mirror Image and whatever Concentration buff you want on top, and you're good to go.

You shouldn't compare Bladesinger with Fighters and Paladins, but with bladelocks.

[DanyBallon]

I agree that from a mechanical point of view, the bladesinger's optimal role is almost identical to the role of any other wizard. However, fluff-wise they are considered to be gish. That is supported mechanically by allowing them a secondary role as AC tanks (which has its problems, but it is what it is, and honestly I think they got the right balnce otherwise the BS would step into the EK's toes). However, the core of being AC tanks as a secodary role (so that the fluff makes sense), is a good AC score, upon which they can invest using spell slots for defensive buffs. And still, even with an exceptional AC, that has its problems, but at least it is managable. Take away a portion of that AC score and their role as a secondary tank is reduced exponentially (well, not exponentially actually, but it is not linear considering the effect of disadvantage from blur and how often he will have to use shield). A bladesinger who takes away from dex to put into str, immediatelly starts losing that secondary role (which is fragily supported either way), so a str BS kind of loses his ability to be a gish.

By using Int (their main ability score) for AC, they do have a good AC score. Unless you only consider a max out Dex wizard a good wizard, BS will have better AC than most even without Dex, and in the end will have an AC score close to a fighter with full plate armor (Mage Armor +5 Int mod and maybe a+1 Dex mod being an elf).
They are called "gish" as they can be effective (proficient) in swinging their weapon of choice and have a similiar AC to most fighter. Their lack of hit point remind them that they shouldn't spend all their time in melee. Such a figthing wizard can effectively be describe as a elite force in defence of the elven nation.

[Corran]

NPC concerns aside, Bladesinger is still a wizard, and thus will most likely improve Intelligence first, and Str/Dex second. There's exactly nothing requiring dexterity amongs its abilities, unlike rogue who can't use sneak attack without finesse weapons at all (and even then it needs finesse weapons, you can still use strength if you want to). What requires dex instead of str is that they wear light armors. Simple as that. Bounded accuracy and how spells like blur and shield combine with different AC values, make even the slightest AC difference quite important for the BS with his d6 hit dice.


Now, going str-based instead of dex-based is sub-optimal, but still balanced with dex builds from other classes.You need to check for balance between str and dex bladesingers in this case. That's what we are compairing to see how selecting a different weapon affects the class.


Int to AC from Bladesong mitigates the need for dexterity (you can have comparable or higher AC then dex-based bladelock, and certainly better then str-bladelock without multiclass or feats for armor proficiency), Song of Victory gives some extra damage (compared to bladelock's Lifedrinker invocation...what a coincidence!), while having better spell list and more spells both known and per day (warlock's short rest recharge non-withstanding). Then you put Shield, Mage Armor, Mirror Image and whatever Concentration buff you want on top, and you're good to go.I dont afree that int to AC from bladesong mitigates the need of dex. Being in melee with d6 hit dice and no exceptional saves, means you need more than the average wizard's AC. But that's not even the point. The point is why should a longsword bladesinger be worse than a shortsword bladesinger. And to put it in other words, consider what the bladesinger gains and what the bladesinger loses by selecting str and dex as his attack stat with weapons. Thematically it is supported that it should not make a difference whether a bladesinger uses this weapon or the other (provided they are one handed weapons). So why do the actual mechanics of this class favour finesse weapons to non-finesse weapons? Or better yet, why do the mechanics of the class favor dex as the attack stat over str? This is the case mechanically, no one can dispute that. And on the other hand the fluff suggests that it shouldn't be. Either the fluff is misplaced (and I dont see why this should be the case, since I like the kind of fluff that offers versatility), or the mechanics of this class were not designed carefully enough to allow all aspects of the fluff to be equally supported options.

A quick build for the bladesinger would suggest int as the best score, followed by dex or str according to the weapon of choice. But it would take no desire for optimization to see that this does nt make sense.

Generally dex contributes to more than str (better saves, more skills, initiative, melee range versatility). That said, selecting str as the attack score instead of dex, can balance all the reasons for which dex seems the better choice. Str allows for heavy armors, better weapons and better feats in the case of melee. But the bladesinger is restricted to light armors and one handed weapons, so selecting dex for his attack stat is a no brainer from a balance point of view.

[PoeticDwarf]

It's like playing a low str high dex barb. Yes, one could do it, and it would not be the end of the world. The build would be worse than any other str barbarin build, just like a str oriented BS build would be worse than any dex oriented BS build. But unless there was a barbarian path that would allow for high dex low str barbarians to actually do sth that would weight around as much in the balance scale to what a str barbarian can do, it would be silly for an entry to appear in the phb giving fluff details about high dex low str barbs, as it is sth that will hardly ever be the case.

I think you mean strenght based rogue/monk.

Dex barbarians can be better than str based (before level 20). 2-4 AC extra for 2-4 less damage per attack, IN RAGE. Better initiative AND better skill checks. Dex based barbarians can be better than strenght based.

[CNagy]

I have to note--away from the argument--how absolutely amazing it is that a character option which allows a class to perform a little bit better than the class normally would in an area that it is thoroughly unsuited for has caused some optimizers, of all people, to lose perspective on cost/benefit.

Comparing Bladesinger to Bladesinger is the trap, because in D&D we only very rarely fight our own dopplegangers; we fight NPCs and monsters of the DM's creation or pulled from the Monster Manual. But the actual threats faced by the party did not change when the Bladesinger was released. It wasn't accompanied by monsters all getting a +2 to attack, so a Wizard acting as a Wizard surely shouldn't need increased AC, right?

The Bladesinger trap comes from two features: Extra Attack and Song of Victory, both designed to push you into melee. We have an aversion against useless or redundant abilities (look at how we try to avoid getting multiple instances of Extra Attack on one character, or how many Monk Rogue builds attempt to avoid redundant Evasion features) so merely having these attack capabilities pressures people into wanting to use them. But having a 23 AC and low HP still isn't good enough for the front-line. Sure, you get hit less but those hits that do get through take a larger proportional chunk off of your life. So people talk about using Shield every round to get a truly high AC of 28.

Now, a normal Wizard has Shield as a card in their deck of many reactions. There is also Absorb Elements for when you get hit with an elemental attack. Feather Fall for if something sweeps you off of a cliff (granted, this doesn't happen often). Counterspell for anything an enemy spellcaster does. By tying up your reactions into Shield, you are paying an opportunity cost to go into melee; you can't react to these other situations. And it isn't the only cost.

ASIs are finite and precious resources. A typical Wizard has to choose between spending them on Dex to increase his AC to guard against incidental hits in the backline, or spending them on whatever feats or other stats he likes. Now, the pre-Bladesinger AC ceiling was not, to my knowledge, seen as insufficient. Wizards were not dying left and right from my experience nor from anything I've read online. And, as earlier mentioned, the game didn't become deadlier when the Bladesinger was introduced. What the Bladesinger did was make it easier to get AC; when something becomes easier to obtain, you have to re-evaluate the cost and benefit of the various ways of obtaining it.

The cost of increased Dexterity has not changed; one ASI provides +2 Dex. The benefits, however, have changed. With the Wizard's AC already at a level previously deemed acceptable for being largely out of the heaviest fighting, achieved through spending that is acknowledged to be the most mandatory for the character (Int increases), Dexterity does not fulfill the same function that it used to. No longer providing necessary defense, it provides either largely unnecessary defense (there is no trophy for never getting hit) or it provides necessary melee defense (where being exposed to more attacks means getting hit more often.) It also provides melee offense (bonuses to hit and damage.)

Take a moment to think about that: melee offense and melee defense. On a Wizard. If you had to put a percentage on how important those factors are to the Wizard's survival, how would you rate them? If it isn't close to half, how does it make sense to spend 40% of your limited ASIs on improving those factors? And if you rate "effectiveness in melee" as something low in importance for a Wizard--say 5% or 10%--then how much of a difference does it make when whether you are using the best possible melee weapon you could use or a less optimal choice, it remains a largely cosmetic choice?

I wish the Bladesinger had been made, somehow, as a martial half-caster. But it wasn't. It is not a front-liner, not even a good secondary. Attempting to make it function as one is falling into what amounts to a sunk costs trap; because you have features that are only useful in melee, you unnecessarily spend resources to perform better in melee rather than accept that those features are a distance plan C for the class.

[Vogonjeltz]

Does anyone find the side bar of the most popular bladesinger traditions hilarious? Two of three traditions uses strength weapons, not finesse weapons. However nothing in the mechanics makes strength a needed stat. There isn't even a school for rapiers the ideal weapon for bladesinger. If they want the fluff to match the mechanics shouldn't they designed BS to have a use for strength.

Strictly speaking the sidebar does not say that those are the most popular styles (or even an exhaustive list of styles).

Secondly, Cat has Shortsword and Scimitar (both finesse) and Snake has the whip (finesse), so that's actually 2/3 styles that employ weapons with dexterity as a useful stat for attacking.

Third, Cat is all about using swords, it just doesn't denote rapiers, specifically.


What requires dex instead of str is that they wear light armors. Simple as that. Bounded accuracy and how spells like blur and shield combine with different AC values, make even the slightest AC difference quite important for the BS with his d6 hit dice.

This is not really any different than the Barbarian benefitting from Strength, but also wanted Dex for AC. It's just a (slightly) reversed prioritization.


The point is why should a longsword bladesinger be worse than a shortsword bladesinger.

They aren't. The long sword does more damage AND a bladesinger who prioritizes strength will be able to use combat options to impose status effects on enemies. A bladesinger who goes the finesse route, ignoring strength for dexterity, will deal less damage and not be able to impose status effects on enemies via combat options. Oh, one other thing, Moonblades are longswords, not shortswords.

There are benefits to choosing either method.

[Gignere]

Strictly speaking the sidebar does not say that those are the most popular styles (or even an exhaustive list of styles).

Secondly, Cat has Shortsword and Scimitar (both finesse) and Snake has the whip (finesse), so that's actually 2/3 styles that employ weapons with dexterity as a useful stat for attacking.

Third, Cat is all about using swords, it just doesn't denote rapiers, specifically.



This is not really any different than the Barbarian benefitting from Strength, but also wanted Dex for AC. It's just a (slightly) reversed prioritization.



They aren't. The long sword does more damage AND a bladesinger who prioritizes strength will be able to use combat options to impose status effects on enemies. A bladesinger who goes the finesse route, ignoring strength for dexterity, will deal less damage and not be able to impose status effects on enemies via combat options. Oh, one other thing, Moonblades are longswords, not shortswords.

There are benefits to choosing either method.

How will a finesse BS deal less damage? Last I looked a rapier is d8 same as longsword. In fact due to elves having +2 Dex it is actually easier to cap Dex, than Str for elves. A strength BS is likely to end at 18 strength because they still need some Dex and need to cap int.

[Tanarii]

A strength BS is likely to end at 18 strength because they still need some Dex and need to cap int.Why does a Bladesigner need Dex? They add their Int to AC already. That frees them up from needing Dex. Just as adding Int to concentration saves frees them up from needing Warcaster or Resilient (Con).

You *can* stack Dex or Con or Feats on top for even better than normal for wizards AC or concentration. But it's not required. That's just choosing to focus on one option (defense) more than another (offensive athletics).

[Corran]

Why does a Bladesigner need Dex? They add their Int to AC already. That frees them up from needing Dex. That is not true. Adding int to AC does not mitigate the need for dex. With a good AC score the BS can hardly stand in melee for long. With a low dex score the BS cannot stand in melee at all. Low dex bladesingers are not gish at all.

That's just choosing to focus on one option (defense) ......
It's not a choice really. Their good AC is the only reason they would ever melee someone (and still, I think we can agree that even BSs with exceptional AC should not always find themselves in melee and for long). Take away the good AC and they are like any other wizard, just with a better concentration. That is what the role of str bladesingers is reduced to essentially, non-gish wizards with better concentration.

[Tanarii]

Low dex bladesingers are not gish at all.
Who said Bladesingers are GISH? They're Wizards, not GISH. In trying to force them into a specific role, you're making all sorts of unwarranted assumptions about their mechanics and flavor.

[Corran]

Who said Bladesingers are GISH? They're Wizards, not GISH. In trying to force them into a specific role, you're making all sorts of unwarranted assumptions about their mechanics and flavor.
Mechanically they are more wizards than gish. Scratch that, they are wizards. However, the fluff suggests that they are gish. To incorporate their gish-ness mechanically, the bladesinger has a far far secondary role as an AC tank. Yes, he is not an AC tank really, we both know it. But he can cope. And the main reason he can act as a front warrior at times, is because he has a very good AC value. Start subtracting from that AC value and the bladesinger starts losing on his restricted either way secondary function as a gish. So for a str bladesinger with dex 10 for example, why do we even bother talking about what kind of weapon he holds? He holds just a rod, or a staff, or a wand, as he should be. He will find himself in melee as often as an evoker. A dex bladesinger? Yeah, he is better staying at the back, but he has the tools to withstand a couple of rounds up front.

[Gignere]

Who said Bladesingers are GISH? They're Wizards, not GISH. In trying to force them into a specific role, you're making all sorts of unwarranted assumptions about their mechanics and flavor.

They are a gish, clerics with no extra attack is a gish. BS gets the extra attack feature, how can they not be intended to gish.

[Tanarii]

Since when are Clerics GISH? Eldritch Knight is a GISH. Paladin is a GISH.

A GISH is a melee primary character who buffs up their melee capabilities with magic. Not a primary caster that has a feature that allows functional melee attacks.

[Gignere]

Since when are Clerics GISH? Eldritch Knight is a GISH. Paladin is a GISH.

A GISH is a melee primary character who buffs up their melee capabilities with magic. Not a primary caster that has a feature that allows functional melee attacks.

War cleric is not a Gish?

[Tanarii]

War/Tempest Cleric are as close as Clerics come. They're like Valor Bards or Bladelocks or Bladesingers... Primary casters with utility melee capability. Strong utility in the case of War/Tempest Clerics. Weaker in the case of Bladelocks & Bladesingers.

But in all cases melee isn't their primary goal. In the case of bladelocks and Bladesingers it's not even their primary offense.

[DanyBallon]

Mechanically they are more wizards than gish. Scratch that, they are wizards. However, the fluff suggests that they are gish. To incorporate their gish-ness mechanically, the bladesinger has a far far secondary role as an AC tank. Yes, he is not an AC tank really, we both know it. But he can cope. And the main reason he can act as a front warrior at times, is because he has a very good AC value. Start subtracting from that AC value and the bladesinger starts losing on his restricted either way secondary function as a gish. So for a str bladesinger with dex 10 for example, why do we even bother talking about what kind of weapon he holds? He holds just a rod, or a staff, or a wand, as he should be. He will find himself in melee as often as an evoker. A dex bladesinger? Yeah, he is better staying at the back, but he has the tools to withstand a couple of rounds up front.

Here's what fluff says: "Bladesinger are elves who bravely defend their people and lands. They are elf wizards who master a school of swordfighting ground in a tradition of arcane magic. In combat, a bladesinger uses a series of intricate, elegant maneuvers that fend off harm and allows the bladesinger to channel magic into devastating attacks and a cunning defense."

So we have an ability that gives you proficiency with a one0handed weapon of choice, traditionally a sword but not restricted to as shown in the "Bladesinger style" sidebar. You also gain proficiency in light armor. These to combined ability sounds martial enough to me.

Then we have an ability that let you add you Int mod to AC (sounds like a cunning defense, don't you think?) and other abilities that can be seen as intricate, elegant maneuvers.

Then;
- Extra Attack (martial again)

- Song of Defense (using magic to absorb damage, that's a nice illustration of blending magic with martial)

- Song of Victory (I can say it's a martial ability)


In the end, the crunch reflects pretty much what fluff says and as far as I read, nowhere it says that Bladesinger should be AC tank as you keep saying.

[Corran]

The point is that str bladesingers are strictly worse than dex bladesingers. I would be willing to accept that, considering that the fluff of the whole class points to a dex build (elegant maneuvres and the such). But then the fluff tells me the exact opposite, via the description of the different schools, and that is difficult to ignore. Consider I wanna play a paladin. And I wanna play a SnB paladin. Considering the fluff of the paladin class, it would seem very logical and reasonable to play a SnB paladin. Then I go into creating this character, and I find that SnB paladins suck, and they are way worse than archer, 2 handers and twf paladins. That's what's going on with the bladesinger. The fluff tells you of all those options that you can select, when determining in what school your bladesinger belongs to, and then you go on to find out that there is only one true choice.

If we resort into saying that the bladesinger is a wizard, so the AC doesnt really matter, then I guess his weapon of choice doesn't really matter either, so what's the point of the fluff detailing the different choices for weapons, and honestly, why the sublass anyway? (other than providing a bonus to concentration checks)

[CNagy]

The point is that str bladesingers are strictly worse than dex bladesingers. I would be willing to accept that, considering that the fluff of the whole class points to a dex build (elegant maneuvres and the such). But then the fluff tells me the exact opposite, via the description of the different schools, and that is difficult to ignore. Consider I wanna play a paladin. And I wanna play a SnB paladin. Considering the fluff of the paladin class, it would seem very logical and reasonable to play a SnB paladin. Then I go into creating this character, and I find that SnB paladins suck, and they are way worse than archer, 2 handers and twf paladins. That's what's going on with the bladesinger. The fluff tells you of all those options that you can select, when determining in what school your bladesinger belongs to, and then you go on to find out that there is only one true choice.

If we resort into saying that the bladesinger is a wizard, so the AC doesnt really matter, then I guess his weapon of choice doesn't really matter either, so what's the point of the fluff detailing the different choices for weapons, and honestly, why the sublass anyway? (other than providing a bonus to concentration checks)

Yes, why have more choices? Your use of the Paladin does illustrate the disconnect in the argument; the reason why we seem to be talking past one another. You see, whether you choose a sword and board Paladin, a two-weapon Paladin, or a two-handed Paladin, you are still playing the Paladin as intended. It is, in fact, the archer Paladin that is closer to what you are talking about--and not in comparison to other Paladins, but other archer builds.

The Bladesinger is a subpar tank in the way that a Paladin is a subpar archer. Spending ASIs to increase the Bladesinger's dexterity to perform better as a AC tank is akin to spending feats to make the Paladin a better archer. Can you make the Paladin a better archer? Sure. But you are spending a hard won and finite resource to make the Paladin better at something he isn't designed to do. And if the Paladin is spending his time being an archer, the party is sorely missing his burst damage Smiting capability. If the Bladesinger is using any concentration spells on himself (like Haste or Blur), then that is concentration not being used on controlling/debuffing the enemy (a strategically more valuable use of one's concentration.)

So why have the Bladesinger at all? Tell me how, without the Bladesinger, I make a Wizard who has 12 Str, 10 Dex, 16 Con, 20 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha, AC 18 (Mage Armor + Bladesong) 23 (with Shield), HP: 182, ASIs (+2 Int, +2 Int), Feats (Resilient Con, Tough, Warcaster). Longsword +7 Attack 1d8+6 x 2. Just as an example build of the "Str" Bladesinger. Would this character be better with Strength and Dex switched? Absolutely. Would that translate into significantly better performance in play? Not particularly, as it is a small change in capability in an area that the Bladesinger should not see a lot of use in, and a bump in AC that is surely helpful but not necessary if the Bladesinger is spending his time away from the melee.

[Vogonjeltz]

How will a finesse BS deal less damage? Last I looked a rapier is d8 same as longsword. In fact due to elves having +2 Dex it is actually easier to cap Dex, than Str for elves. A strength BS is likely to end at 18 strength because they still need some Dex and need to cap int.

It was a Longsword shortsword comparison, as the section you quoted said.

Again, Moonblades are Longsword only. The Elf could just put their lower stat in Dex, say the 8, and one of their higher stats in Str. As has been mentioned, their melee attack is largely a red herring, as their spellcasting with cantrips is probably better damage.

[Cazero]

frontline
Some people don't understand elvish warfare. The concept of frontline doesn't fit a race with 'nimble' in its description. Elves invented kitting. They don't have frontlines, they have an almost poetically flowing wave of hit-and-runners.

What an elven 'frontline' looks like is a bunch of skirmishers trading two hits before disengaging for the sole purpose of slowing down the enemy lines while the remaining 90% of the elven army is shooting arrows or casting spells.

What magic brings to the table is additional firepower, shutting down the enemy ranged ability, and the possibility to apply the same tactic in a 20 feet long corridor thanks to control spells like Web. Not featured : a frontline. Not because magic can't do it, but because that would defeat the main point of the tactic : the possibility to shoot an indiscriminate rain of arrow in the general direction of the enemy army every six seconds.

You want a bladesinger gish? Take a bladesinger dip for your eldritch knight. Or take a rogue dip to get disengage as a bonus action.
But don't pretend your pure wizard bladesinger is expected to end his turn in melee. He's expected to move and keep moving until everyone is dead, because that's how bladesong is used in warfare.

Hey, bladesingers traditional orders make much more sense now that you're not supposed to be an AC tank with high durability.

[Corran]

CNagy, if I chose to play an archer paladin it would be a poor choice mechanically, as the class is not intended for using bows, and that is the case thematically (that said, I personally like archer paladins and think they should be better supported, by that is just my own personal opinion and I can understand why it is best to leave archery to other classes that fit the concept better).
If I chose to play a bladesinger using a longsword it would be a poor choice mechanically, as the class is not intended for non-finesse weapons, but that is NOT the case thematically.
Can you see the difference?

You downplay how much this asymmetry between theme and mechanics matters, by saying that the bladesinger is not supposed to melee. But that goes against the theme of that subclass. If that was the case, the blaesinger has no reason to exist in the first place.

[DanyBallon]

The reason Bladesinger exist in SCAG is as a mechanical way to represent how, in Fearun, elves are magical in nature, existed for millenia, have fought many wars, how by their specific backstory they manage to form an elite group who blend sword and sorcery. This subclass do just that, nothing more.

Then if you find than by playing a finesse BS you can build up incredibly high AC, then good for you, but that's just one of the possibilities this archetype brings to the table.

[Corran]

The reason Bladesinger exist in SCAG is as a mechanical way to represent how, in Fearun, elves are magical in nature, existed for millenia, have fought many wars, how by their specific backstory they manage to form an elite group who blend sword and sorcery. This subclass do just that, nothing more.

Then if you find than by playing a finesse BS you can build up incredibly high AC, then good for you, but that's just one of the possibilities this archetype brings to the table.
The elves are by nature dexterous, so it makes sense that this fighting style they developed is a dex-based fighting style, hence it greatly favors finesse weapons. That makes sense.
This fighting style was adopted by perhaps members of other races who developed different variations of it (ie the different schools of bladesinging, that use different types of weapons).
If it was thematically intended for some of those other variations of bladesinging to be subpar, then the mechanics did a good job incorporating that.
That however goes against the general nature of this edition.
However. The traditional archetype of a bladesinger is an elf using a longsword, if I am not mistaken. In this case, the mechanics didn't do a good job, as an elf bladesinger using a lonsword is subpar to an elf bladesinger using a rapier.
It is to be expected that the vast majority of people who will play a bladesinger, will choose an elf who will wield a rapier that will be reflavoured as a longsword. Nothing wrong with that. But I would expect something in the mechanics of this class to allow for longswords to work just as well as any other weapon for bladesinging elves. Unless the lore of elves in Faerun has them figthing with rapiers, but last time I checked the drow is proficient with rapiers and the elf is proficient with longswords.

[CNagy]

CNagy, if I chose to play an archer paladin it would be a poor choice mechanically, as the class is not intended for using bows, and that is the case thematically (that said, I personally like archer paladins and think they should be better supported, by that is just my own personal opinion and I can understand why it is best to leave archery to other classes that fit the concept better).
If I chose to play a bladesinger using a longsword it would be a poor choice mechanically, as the class is not intended for non-finesse weapons, but that is NOT the case thematically.
Can you see the difference?

You downplay how much this asymmetry between theme and mechanics matters, by saying that the bladesinger is not supposed to melee. But that goes against the theme of that subclass. If that was the case, the blaesinger has no reason to exist in the first place.

I don't understand how you argue the "intention" of the class and the "reason" for the class to exist when we already know those things and have known those things since the idea of a 5e Bladesinger was first mentioned.

The intention of the class is to recreate a classic Elven character option (it failed.) The reason it exists is not "to use finesse weaponry." It exists because it existed in prior editions. It is a class with history. Attempting to tack on some mechanical-fluff-interaction intentions and reasons that you cannot in any way, shape, or form prove (creator intent) is basically the equivalent of saying "the book is wrong because I think it contradicts itself."

[Corran]

I don't understand how you argue the "intention" of the class and the "reason" for the class to exist when we already know those things and have known those things since the idea of a 5e Bladesinger was first mentioned.

The intention of the class is to recreate a classic Elven character option (it failed.) The reason it exists is not "to use finesse weaponry." It exists because it existed in prior editions. It is a class with history. Attempting to tack on some mechanical-fluff-interaction intentions and reasons that you cannot in any way, shape, or form prove (creator intent) is basically the equivalent of saying "the book is wrong because I think it contradicts itself."
If thematically option A is equally valid to another option B, then the purpose of the mechanics is to make option A and B equally well supported and balanced to one another, to the extent that this is possible. If the mechanics fail to do so, then that is a failure on the designer's part.

Given how the bladesinger subclass is designed to work, fluff text about non-finesse bladesingers is as relevant as fluff text about non-finesse rogues, and greatsword-wielding monks. Which is not relevant at all.

And to repeat myself for the millionth time, if you dont find the fluff text about a BS wielding non-finesse weapons to be out of context, then you really shouldn't find a fluff text about rogues using non-finesse weapons to be out of context and without purpose. Personally I do find the fluff and the mechanics in grave disagreement here, but in the end that is my opinion, and I repeated myself several times over this, so since I am starting going in circles I will gracefully stop now.

[obeseboywonder]

How about we all houserule that Bladesong has Intelligence replace Dexterity for AC instead of adding to AC. Strength and Dexterity builds are now equal, and no one will get the misguided idea that a bladesinger can actually be in melee by more than an accidental turn.

[Regitnui]

I played a 4e bladesinger once. Here's the funny thing; I wasa skirmisher with crowd control, not a tank. I'd expeditious retreat forward, take out an enemy, then spend the rest of the combat taking on enemies with single-target spells or destroying mooks, while the templar (paladin) and barbarian concentrated on the main villain. Was I a melee class? Yes. Did I try and trade blows with the big boys? No.

I say that, despite the optimizers' complaints, this is precisely what 5e's bladesinger is for. It doesn't turn the wizard into an EK. It makes the wizard able to defend itself in melee. So many of the base classes back in 3.5 were just slightly different variations on the core. It makes sense that 5e now reduces them to precisely that. The EK is a fighter with spells. The Oath of the Crown paladin is a Dark Sun Templar. The Swashbuckler is a rogue with more mêlée focus. The bladesinger is a wizard with a sword.

Is a bladesinger unplayable without a finesse weapon? No. Is it a better EK? Why should it be? This might be a long shot, but how many people here arguing the creation of the crunch and fluff were privy to the internal WoTC memos regarding this class? If you were, by all means stand up. The rest of us have no ability to judge whether or not the 5e team failed or succeeded at anything. Perhaps they created something that you didn't like. Act like it's reality and accept it.

D&D is a game. Games are meant to be fun. Does a longsword-using wizard bladesinger have any less fun than a rapier-using wizard bladesinger? If the answer is a consistent yes, then we can complain about fluff. Otherwise, we just note it as odd, and move on like mature fans.

[DracoKnight]

I played a 4e bladesinger once. Here's the funny thing; I wasa skirmisher with crowd control, not a tank. I'd expeditious retreat forward, take out an enemy, then spend the rest of the combat taking on enemies with single-target spells or destroying mooks, while the templar (paladin) and barbarian concentrated on the main villain. Was I a melee class? Yes. Did I try and trade blows with the big boys? No.

I say that, despite the optimizers' complaints, this is precisely what 5e's bladesinger is for. It doesn't turn the wizard into an EK. It makes the wizard able to defend itself in melee. So many of the base classes back in 3.5 were just slightly different variations on the core. It makes sense that 5e now reduces them to precisely that. The EK is a fighter with spells. The Oath of the Crown paladin is a Dark Sun Templar. The Swashbuckler is a rogue with more mêlée focus. The bladesinger is a wizard with a sword.

Is a bladesinger unplayable without a finesse weapon? No. Is it a better EK? Why should it be? This might be a long shot, but how many people here arguing the creation of the crunch and fluff were privy to the internal WoTC memos regarding this class? If you were, by all means stand up. The rest of us have no ability to judge whether or not the 5e team failed or succeeded at anything. Perhaps they created something that you didn't like. Act like it's reality and accept it.

D&D is a game. Games are meant to be fun. Does a longsword-using wizard bladesinger have any less fun than a rapier-using wizard bladesinger? If the answer is a consistent yes, then we can complain about fluff. Otherwise, we just note it as odd, and move on like mature fans.

I like this.