DM Help Bladesinger: what would you change? (3.5) [Archive]

Cosi

2018-10-04, 08:04 AM

The CW Bladesinger already allows you to qualify as an Elf.

I think the class should get full casting. A Gish is already giving up some casting by taking martial levels, there's no need to add more penalty.

As far as specific fixes go, I'm not sure. The class isn't just bad, it's pretty empty. You get some minor defensive buffs (INT to AC in light armor, take 10 on Concentration checks) but you have to fight in a crap style. You get to quicken a 2nd level spell as a character who is at minimum 9th level (at character level 13th, you get to quicken a 4th level spell). Your capstone is basically a worse version of just fighting with two weapons. Oh and you get to cast in light armor after the game is halfway over.

Honestly, you could make the class a Duskblade ACF and it would probably be sub par.

As far a fixes go, I see two possible directions.

First, you play up the "singer" part of the class name and you make it a Bard Gish PrC. Give it a couple of offensive bardic musics, maybe a way to turn spells slots into damage.

Second, you focus on the "empty off hand" aspect of the class and make its default behavior "hit with sword + cast spell with off hand". That's got some potential, but it requires you add more melee survivability and more uses of the Quicken ability (or something similar). Also the Quicken needs to apply to better spells. Maybe like 1 + 1/2 Bladesinger level.

Overall, I would have to ask what you see in the class that you want to fix. There's not a lot there, so a fix would have to write up most of a class.

ExLibrisMortis

2018-10-04, 09:09 AM

Use the one in Races of Faerun and give it 7/10 casting. Lose caster levels at 2, 5 and 8. Note the difference in Song of Celerity.
I think this is all you need to do, but I'd give it 9/10 casting (none at 6), and there's no need to limit the AC bonus. The class still has tough prerequisites, including +5 base attack and five feats, and locks you into a suboptimal combat style--one of the best gish tricks is wraithstrike and PA, and that's severely nerfed if you're one-handing a rapier.

For example, compare Spelldancer to Swiftblade.

Grey elf fighter 1/wizard 6/spellsword 1/bladesinger 2/spelldancer 1/bladesinger +8

Wizard 6/swiftblade 3/spelldancer 1/swiftblade +6/abjurant champion 3

The bladesinger loses two levels of casting and has +15 bab, the swiftblade loses three levels of casting and has +15 bab. (N.B. they're level 19, the next level gets them both +16 bab, and 9ths for the swiftblade.)
The bladesinger has free metamagic, casting in light armour, take 10 on Concentration, Intelligence to AC. The swiftblade has free metamagic, 50% miss chance, freedom of movement, +2 attack/Reflex/AC and +20' speed, Intelligence to Initiative.
The bladesinger can make a full attack of +13/+13/+13/+13/+8/+3 and cast a spell, but the attacks have to be with a one-handed weapon. The swiftblade can make a full attack of +15/+15/+15/+10/+5 with a two-handed weapon and cast a spell, but they can also cast two spells. (N.B. Both are with Persistent sakkratar's triple strike, which requires Ocular Spell.)
The bladesinger spends seven feats qualifying and gets three back (metamagic--also, you arguably don't need to meet prerequisites for these, so free Whirlwind Attack!), the swiftblade spends four and gets two (but they're not feats you really want) and can be a human.

With that comparison, the bladesinger having one more level of casting doesn't seem like a bad thing.

DarkSoul

2018-10-04, 10:16 AM

What about having bladesinger levels count as fighter levels in the same manner as the Warblade?

Telonius

2018-10-04, 10:57 AM

Nifft

2018-10-04, 11:36 AM

Make the prereqs less horrible somehow.

Give it Maneuvers (Diamond Mind and White Raven).

Keep the 5/10 spellcasting progression, but Bladesong Style allows you to use BAB as caster level.

gkathellar

2018-10-04, 02:11 PM

What about having bladesinger levels count as fighter levels in the same manner as the Warblade?

That isn’t really worth anything. Gaining the ability to spend a bunch of feats on mediocre-to-subpar choices is not a meaningful benefit.

ManicOppressive

2018-10-04, 02:51 PM

As for the casting, I want to chime in and say there are a whole heap of theoretically okay gish classes that see little to no use because they miss three or four casting levels and (regardless of whether that's more in line with what a gish does) there are equally available classes that do not. Personally I put classes that Wizards, in their high INT/low WIS build, "forgot" to give casting progression either 9/10 (with the miss on 1 or 10 depending on how good the capstone is) or 8/10 with the miss on 3 and 8.

Bladesinger needs a ground-up rebuild to be worth anything, in my opinion. Anyone who wants its features can get them somewhere else better and earlier. Duskblade 20 is miles better than any build with 10 levels in Bladesinger in nearly every imaginable way, including and especially gish flavor stuff like fighting in armor. None of the class features are notable, interesting, or unique in any way, and they all gimp you into a really sub-par (and frankly kind of boring) fighting style, much like the Duelist.

Oh yeah, and Wizards could've taken a chill pill on the elf requirements in gish classes.

ExLibrisMortis

2018-10-04, 04:35 PM

Bladesinger needs a ground-up rebuild to be worth anything, in my opinion.
I think the Races of Faerûn version is quite usable. We just need to pretend the CW reprint never happened, and add 9/10 casting advancement instead of a dedicated progression.

Lapak

2018-10-04, 10:20 PM

Blue Jay

2018-10-05, 07:40 AM

What if you took the CW version and smashed it down to 5 levels?

OgresAreCute

2018-10-05, 07:54 AM

What if you took the CW version and smashed it down to 5 levels?

You'd likely still want to remove at least some of the feat taxes. Needing 5 feats (4 of which are garbage) is rough.

Nifft

2018-10-05, 10:39 AM

What if you took the CW version and smashed it down to 5 levels?
So just throw out the levels which advance spellcasting, and only keep the ones which grant class features?

That seems a lot more elegant, but some features might need to be modified (i.e. original Bladesong gives up to +10 AC, because it's a 10-level class).

Your version would be solid in Gestalt.

Pleh

2018-10-05, 06:38 PM

I'm not a fan of fluff based alignment or race restrictions on classes of any kind. I'd say making it a class tied to elven culture is enough without making it a prerequisite. The DM can still say, "so how did you make the elves teach you their stuff" without the answer requiring the inheritence of elven blood in the equation.

Other people have handled spells pretty well. I'll focus on the features and prereqs. The main thing that is coming firstly to my mind looking at the variants is that this feels like it should be an arcane caster who picks up a sword, not a fighter that picks up a spell.

I don't see much reason that the AC bonus should depend on having one hand free. It seems forced to work arbitrarily to fit their fluff. Just make it key off light or no armor and be done. That, and forget the gradual leveling AC bonus. Pick a value and stick to it. Int bonus is fine, though that favors wizards over sorcerers and bards, who actually maybe want this class more. Maybe AC bonus should be charisma based.

Lesser Spellsong makes more sense, taking 10 in combat is handy and level appropriate for early PrC. My copy doesn't expressly say, "take 10 Even When Distracted Or Threatened," which it really should be. This looks like it wants to be the class you take when you want to defend yourself with a sword in the offhand and cast spells in your primary.

Greater Spellsong is also nice, but not at the end of the class progression. Honestly, lump it into Lesser Spellsong and just call the combined feature, "Spellsong." Done. You can concentrate taking 10 while threatened and you have no ASF while in light armor. Why? Because you use syncopated rhythms to mitigate the complexities of casting in combat.

Song of Celerity is where keeping one hand free starts making sense. You're not just quickening without increasing spell level or cast time, but you're also doing it with One Freaking Hand. I think picking it up later in the PrC and requiring one hand free should be fine. Note you can still carry a two handed weapon in one hand. I think it'd be fun to switch a la Dark Souls, stepping back and resting the greatsword on your shoulder to cast a quickened buff, then charging back in with a two handed smash.

Song of Fury, see me after class. Why are we taking penalties for using our capstone ability? Stop it. Get some help. [/meme] Instead, let's say bladesingers who use the full attack action get Haste (SLA) for the entire round that they made the full attack. They're probably giving up some levels of spellcaster for this. Why add insult to injury?

I count 4 class features (not that spellcasting needs much help), so if we're keeping 10 levels, we can probably keep most of the spellcasting. Honestly, I don't see why it can't be compressed to 5 levels.

Now for prereqs. Combat casting makes sense, that's pretty much what this class is doing. Combat expertise is fine. Not great, but there ARE more interesting ways to get that feat besides just paying a tax. We can dump dodge. Two feat requirements is enough. You asked for bab +5 (which we'll get back to in a minute). If we ask for more, we're requiring another level to qualify (since humans aren't supposed to be let in the club). Forget weapon focus. Not only does it pidgeon hole character builds, but it's an unnecessary extra feat tax. Two feats is enough when we're asking for Tumble, which isn't easy for (most) arcane casters or fighters to pick up. Remember we DO want players to actually use this class, not to drive them away.

Then BAB. Again, this looks like the party for sorcerers/bards and their ilk when they wanna use a sword, not as much for fighters who wanna use a spell. I say make BAB +3. You can dip fighter to reach it faster if you want a more swordsy caster, or stick it out to level 6 if you want to be more purist sorcerer. Bards might get there earlier than most, but shouldn't we expect that from a class called Bladesinger?

We'll ask for 4 ranks of concentration, tumble, and perform. Add +3 BAB, Combat Casting, Combat Expertise, and Cast Arcane level 1 and it should be accessible and diverse without losing its identity.

Zaq

2018-10-05, 11:28 PM

This class always seems to be a problem for the writers of D&D throughout the years. The 2e version was, as I recall, also horribly unbalanced in that it was strictly superior to a pure wizard in every way and had abilities in melee that no fighter kit could match to boot. They don't seem to be able to find a happy medium!

And the horrible useless unfinished-feeling stub of a class they called the "Bladesinger" (henceforth "BS," intentionally) in 4e is absolutely unusable outside of hardcore shenanigans builds (that still don't actually do anything especially powerful).

I mean seriously, instead of daily powers, they get Wizard encounter powers used on a daily basis? Wizard powers are good, but they ain't that good. And don't get me started on how pathetically little control they have for allegedly being a "controller," or how their intended stat spread is dumb to the point where almost all practical BS optimization involves ignoring the class's alleged primary stat, or how completely afraid they seem to have been of anything about the class actually being optimizable, so they tacked a bunch of unnecessary restrictions on absolutely everything.

The core nugget of an idea is salvageable: basically, the class is intended to make melee attacks and then cast a free-action "bladespell" triggered by making said melee attacks, with the bladespells offering a tiny bit of damage and a minor control effect, but the bladespell doesn't have to target the same critter you whacked in melee. There's some potential to be interesting there: give the class an array of interesting up-close melee control effects and a decent range of far-away control through the bladespells, letting them kind of have a distributed presence on the field. Neat.

But that's not really the BS we got. They were too timid with the bladespell effects, they harshly limited how many different ones you could have access to, and worst of all, the class's melee attacks do nothing! The class doesn't grant any actual melee attacks at all, and the bladespells demand that you make just plain ol' effectless melee basic attacks. The best you can hope for there is to go half-elf and pick up Eldritch Strike for at least a slide effect, but even with all the avenues of optimization that a slide opens up, that's honestly a pretty pathetic frame on which to hang a class. No bueno at all. Best to just scrap it for parts and move on.

Anyway, the CW Bladesinger has a hardcore case of "it's very nice, but what does it DO?" Quickening is a very powerful effect, but just getting it once a day is not worth lighting four feats on fire and losing 2-4 caster levels. The devs seemed to think that a few minor AC bonuses were just ZOMGOP, and then basically a limited version of Flurry of Blows is somehow a capstone or something. There's barely enough flavor there to determine what the class "should" look like. I honestly don't know what you'd want to salvage. You could almost make it just a series of feats rather than an actual class.

martixy

2018-10-06, 05:42 AM

I'm not gonna say anything new here, just compile everything:

1. 9/10 casting (skip L6)
2. Fix feat taxes
3. Races of Faerun advancement
4. Song of Celerity - use the RoF version, but properly update to 3.5 language (e.g. CW wording, except still 1/round).
5. Remove penalty from capstone.

IMO this is enough to fix the class itself.

It isn't the only thing that needs fixing. You can't fix a whole system by messing with just 1 class. So this is a good start, but still just a patchjob over the whole.

Blue Jay

2018-10-06, 06:02 AM

So just throw out the levels which advance spellcasting, and only keep the ones which grant class features?

That seems a lot more elegant, but some features might need to be modified (i.e. original Bladesong gives up to +10 AC, because it's a 10-level class).

Your version would be solid in Gestalt.

I wasn't thinking about throwing out any levels: I was thinking about merging adjacent levels so you have a 5-level class with all the same features. You'd basically get 1 class feature, +1 spellcasting and +1 AC at each level.

Since most posters so far have said that full casting progression is too much, maybe drop it to 4/5 casting.

I guess my question is whether just packing the existing features more densely would make Bladesinger interesting. Or do the features themselves really need to be tweaked?

martixy

2018-10-06, 06:29 AM

I wasn't thinking about throwing out any levels: I was thinking about merging adjacent levels so you have a 5-level class with all the same features. You'd basically get 1 class feature, +1 spellcasting and +1 AC at each level.

Since most posters so far have said that full casting progression is too much, maybe drop it to 4/5 casting.

I guess my question is whether just packing the existing features more densely would make Bladesinger interesting. Or do the features themselves really need to be tweaked?

I actually like this idea.

Here's my take based on that(no formatting, meant to be viewed in a text editor with monospace font, sorry mobile users):

28. Bladesinger [CW/17, RoF/179]

Requirements:
Base Attack Bonus:
+5
Skills:
Balance 2 ranks, Concentration 4 ranks, Perform (Dance) 2 ranks, Perform (Sing) 2 ranks, Tumble 2 ranks
Feats:
Combat Casting, Combat Expertise OR Dodge, Weapon Focus (Longsword or Rapier)
Spells:
Able to cast arcane spells of 1st level.

-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----------------------|----------------------------------------
Level BAB Fort Ref Will Special Spells known/Spells per day
-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----------------------|----------------------------------------
1st +1 +0 +2 +2 Bladesong +1 level of existing class
2nd +2 +1 +3 +3 Spellsong, Lesser +1 level of existing class
3rd +3 +1 +3 +3 Spellsong, Greater +1 level of existing class
4th +4 +1 +4 +4 Song of Fury +1 level of existing class
5th +5 +2 +4 +4 Song of Celerity -
-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----------------------|----------------------------------------

Bladesong Style (Ex):
When wielding a longsword or rapier in one hand (and nothing in the other), a bladesinger gains a dodge bonus to Armor Class equal to his class level. If the bladesinger wears medium or heavy armor, she loses all benefits of the bladesong style.

Lesser Spellsong (Ex):
When wielding a longsword or rapier in one hand (and nothing in the other), a bladesinger of 2nd level or higher can take 10 when making a Concentration check to cast defensively.

Greater Spellsong (Ex):
A bladesinger of 3th level or higher ignores arcane spell failure chances when wearing light armor.

Song of Fury (Ex):
When a 4th-level bladesinger makes a full attack with a longsword or rapier in one hand (and nothing in the other), she can make one extra attack in a round at her highest base attack bonus.

Song of Celerity (Ex):
Once per round, a 5th level bladesinger may quicken a single spell of up to 4th level, as if she had used the Quicken Spell feat, but without any adjustment to the spell's effective level or casting time. She may only use this ability when wielding a longsword or rapier in one hand (and nothing in the other).
Notes: I fix feat taxes in my game by granting bonus feat tax feats, hence. And I do away with alignment and racial requirements.
Goes well with my version of Einhander:

32. Einhander

Swift trick (replaces "Narrow profile"):
You use your free hand to disorient or mislead your opponent. When you successfully attack an opponent you may perform a dirty trick as a swift action.

Lightning riposte (replaces "Off-Hand Balance"):
To use this maneuver you must fight defensively(including using Combat Expertise) or use use the total defense action. Once per round, when an opponent you threaten attacks you with a melee weapon, you may make an opposed attack roll. If this roll succeeds you thwart the opponent's attack and cause him to provoke an Attack of Opportinity.

Off-hand flourish (replaces "Off-Hand Swap"):
You constantly switch your weapon hand and twirl around, preventing your opponent guessing as to where your next attack will come from. When you use this maneuver, you must first take a full attack action to strike an opponent at least twice. On your next turn, you can make a special feint as a free action, using Sleight of Hand rather than Bluff. Your opponent uses the standard rules for resisting a feint.

Pleh

2018-10-06, 09:19 AM

I guess my question is whether just packing the existing features more densely would make Bladesinger interesting. Or do the features themselves really need to be tweaked?

It helps, but I think Greater Spellsong is still a little late to the party for the benefit it provides.

That, and there's about zero reason for Song of Fury to have any penalties at the level it arrives. You're already stuck in a suboptimal build, why make it even harder to be proficient at combat?

ExLibrisMortis

2018-10-06, 09:24 AM

I would personally avoid the CW versions of Bladesong and Song of Celerity altogether. The hard limits on the height of the AC bonus and the level of the Quickened spell prevent scaling and thus optimization, and CW Song of Celerity is not tied to melee combat, only to wielding a rapier, which is boring.

For Bladesong, I'd just make it [casting stat] to AC. It's the equivalent of a monk's belt for Wisdom casters (or Ascetic Mage for Charisma casters), so it's worth about 13k gp or a feat. It's a nice bonus for a spellcaster going into melee, much more so than a +1 bonus per level.

For Song of Celerity, I would use the RoF version, except not limited by spell list: cast a free-action spell when making a (melee) full attack only. That way, it's an ability strongly tied to melee combat, instead of a cheap way to turn a rapier into a lesser metamagic rod of quicken. If you limit it to spells of a level up to your class level (in conjunction with a ten-level class), you can grant the ability somewhat earlier: class entry is quite late, so the ability would be sharply limited until class level catches up to maximum spell level. If you want a much lower power level than Swiftblade, you can even limit it to spells of a level up to ½ class level, but I think that's too strict.

As a point of comparison, arcane spellsurge is a 7th-level spell that grants a very similar effect to Song of Celerity (standard action spells become swifts, not free actions, but it doesn't have a spell level limit), and it's available to anyone casting from the sor/wiz list at level 13. Likely entry into your new Bladesinger--fighter 1/wizard 6/spellsword 1--puts Song of Celerity at level 13, as well. Given that the Bladesinger is throwing somewhat weaker spells, it would not be out of line with a wizard to cancel the spell level limit.

I'm also not sure a five-level class is the right answer. I think it's better to pattern the Bladesinger after the Swiftblade: big power, big commitment. The version you have now is easy to fit into many gish builds, and it's full of abilities, but the abilities don't have the punch of the Swiftblade, or even the arcane spellsurge sorcadin. I would prefer a class I could stay in a little longer, score some more casting on a good chassis, and pick up some really powerful character-defining abilities. (The Combat Casting requirement makes it very easy to jump into Abjurant Champion, of course, but I'd rather have more Bladesinger.)

As a final besides-the-point, I'd also remove the "empty hand" requirement, as it's a ridiculous combat style (you have two hands, hands are for tool use, use a tool dammit!), but that's more of a fluff objection than anything. I just don't like styles that have no reason to work.

Pleh

2018-10-06, 12:20 PM

As a final besides-the-point, I'd also remove the "empty hand" requirement, as it's a ridiculous combat style (you have two hands, hands are for tool use, use a tool dammit!), but that's more of a fluff objection than anything. I just don't like styles that have no reason to work.

It probably doesn't help, but I suggested keeping the one hand limit for metamagic benefits only (not ac bonus or spellsongs) and instead ditching dependency on a particular weapon. I know you were suggesting we keep the quicken as full attack ruling, but (as a player) I'd rather be able to use whatever weapon I want and have to pull back from melee attacks to throw a quickened spell than be forced to full attack with a rapier in order to cast a quickened spell. After all, unless I'm dipping STL barbarian, I can't really be sure I'll get to consistently full attack anyway.

Nifft

2018-10-06, 02:09 PM

ExLibrisMortis

2018-10-06, 03:01 PM

It probably doesn't help, but I suggested keeping the one hand limit for metamagic benefits only (not ac bonus or spellsongs) and instead ditching dependency on a particular weapon. I know you were suggesting we keep the quicken as full attack ruling, but (as a player) I'd rather be able to use whatever weapon I want and have to pull back from melee attacks to throw a quickened spell than be forced to full attack with a rapier in order to cast a quickened spell. After all, unless I'm dipping STL barbarian, I can't really be sure I'll get to consistently full attack anyway.
I don't think Song of Celerity should encourage stepping away from combat, nor should it encourage casting two spells in a round. It should encourage attacking and casting on the same turn. For a gish, as for many melee specialists, full attacking every round is the norm. RoF Song of Celerity rewards you if you full attack, by letting you do something quintessentially gishy: cast a spell in melee combat. CW Song of Celerity doesn't care what you do, and just gives you a Quickened spell. It has absolutely nothing to do with gishing. It just requires a rapier.

If you enforce the weapon limit only for Song of Celerity, and in the style of Complete Warrior (i.e. no attack requirement) here's what I see happening:

Phrasing of the ability says you must have a hand free, and you can take your hand off your weapon as a free action. Result: Song of Celerity works with two-handed weapons as it does with rapiers. Spellcasters thank you for the free Quickened spell every round.
Phrasing of the ability says you must have a hand free, and you can't take your hand off your weapon as a free action. Result: Song of Celerity works normally for rapiers, but for two-handers, it requires you to choose between making a full attack or casting two spells. Spellcasters thank you for the free Quickened spell every round.
Phrasing of the ability says you must have a hand free, and you must be wielding a one-handed weapon. Result: Song of Celerity doesn't work with two-handers. Spellcasters thank you for the free Quickened spell every round.

By removing the full attack-Quickened spell connection, it stops being a gish ability and starts being a pure caster ability. Granted, it's a caster with a weapon in hand, but casters liked smoking eager warning spellblades anyway.

The full attack requirement is what's supposed to make Song of Celerity interesting, from tactical and optimization points of view. It's not a flat free spell per round, it's conditional, which means you have to adjust your build and tactics to maximize the use you get from it. In return for being more difficult to use, it is also more powerful, as it affects all spells, not just low-level spells.

Ramza00

2018-10-06, 09:17 PM

This is a rough idea, but make it into a class similar to Swiftblade but instead of haste you are focusing on blur (2nd, 20% miss chance) and displacement (3rd, 50% miss chance) instead of haste. Allow these spells to be cast as a swift action very early in the class (like level 1 or 2) and as an immediate action later on (allowing you to have a 50 / 50 shot of dodging something as an immediate action.)

Full BAB

Boost to Dodge AC equal to your int modifier at the max of your class level. Only get this bonus when you use a light or one handed weapon (aka no two handed weapon, weapon with reach, double weapon, or if you use a shield).

Ability to quicken spells equal to half your class level. You must have one hand free and can't be using your shield in your off hand to use this ability.

Give an Attack of Opportunity ability where you can make an AoO if someone targets you and misses you, allowing you to do a quick AoO if your attacker is within reach. Remember your flavor [that I have read] is being so hard to hit and unpredictable and you use this effect to capitalize and attack your opponent.

Get extra attacks with your one handed melee weapon similar to TWF but you use your main weapon to do these extra attacks instead of an off handed weapon. You are prevented from using a 2nd weapon or a two handed weapon to use this ability.

At higher levels (6+) treat your one handed or light weapon as a weapon with reach and a weapon without reach. Aka you are cutting the air or something flavor wise with your blade singing dance.

Take 10 on Concentration Checks when you fight defensively.

Remove the Elf Requirement but require MWP of a single one handed or light martial weapon. Elves get this for free without dipping but some wizards will require a feat or dip in a marital class.

Make the feat tax only 3 feats, Combat Expertise, Combat Casting, and Dodge. That and MWP one weapon that is a martial weapon.

Lower the BAB requirement to +3

I do not know how much casting to give but make it 6/10 to 8/10.

---

This above is a rough idea.

Cosi

2018-10-07, 08:37 AM

I still think this doesn't need reduced casting in a high-OP environment. You're already giving up at least one caster level to get in, you don't need to give up more -- you're already giving up access to the class features of other PrCs like Red Wizard, Incantatrix, or Dweomerkeeper.

ExLibrisMortis

2018-10-07, 09:11 AM

This is a rough idea, but make it into a class similar to Swiftblade but instead of haste you are focusing on blur (2nd, 20% miss chance) and displacement (3rd, 50% miss chance) instead of haste.
Note that Swiftblade already grants 50% miss chance against attacks and spells as part of its focus on haste. Bladesinger would overlap in that department.

Give an Attack of Opportunity ability where you can make an AoO if someone targets you and misses you, allowing you to do a quick AoO if your attacker is within reach. Remember your flavor [that I have read] is being so hard to hit and unpredictable and you use this effect to capitalize and attack your opponent.

[...]

At higher levels (6+) treat your one handed or light weapon as a weapon with reach and a weapon without reach. Aka you are cutting the air or something flavor wise with your blade singing dance.
These abilities would take the Bladesinger into a different, but interesting direction, by tying magical defences into fencing skill. If you go this way, you should add Combat Reflexes as feat prerequisite.

gkathellar

2018-10-07, 11:58 AM

As has been observed, most of the obvious fixes to Bladesinger don't really make it attractive in ways that existing gish standbys aren't. It's hard to create a novel gish PrC by strapping some casting and an AC bonus to full BAB in an environment with the Abjurant Champion and Swiftblade exist and are accessible. To that end, maybe it's worth looking at the whole reason that the Bladesinger exists: a hyper-popular 2e fighter/mage kit of the same name.

Conceptually, the Bladesinger kit described a practitioner of a Super Cool Elves Only Magic Martial Art called "bladesong," which was all graceful and intensely trained and highly secret and exclusive and For Cool Kids Only. The Bladesinger had to be a LG or NG elf, and had some pretty formidable stat requirements (two 13s and two 15s). It's specifically mentioned that a Bladesinger is instantly distinguishable, as "Not only are they easily identifiable by their weapon of choice and catlike grace, Bladesingers are decorated with their weapon guild's distinctive tattoo." You can probably see where this is going - a pile of Elves Are The Best tropes, played straight almost to the point of comedy, plus a sweet tattoo. It's understandable that people would be a little nostalgic for that, even if (really, because) it was the character option equivalent of the 90s coolkid.

So what did it actually get?

A small bonus to attack and damage with a specific weapon, chosen at character creation. Since all elves got bonuses with longswords and shortswords, it was specifically mentioned that this stacked (not that you'd have expected otherwise).
A scaling bonus to "unusual maneuvers" with their sword, such as disarm attacks. It's not immediately clear if the writer had anything in mind other than disarms - the phrasing seems to imply that the bonus is ad hoc. Basically, if you wanted to do some cool sword junk, you got +1/4 your level to the dice roll for it.
A strong scaling AC bonus.
They could cast spells one-handed with a slight casting time penalty.
A couple of mostly-irrelevant restrictions and penalties: no shield or two-handed weapon use, for instance, and penalties on attacks with weapons other than the one you specialized in. Wearing armor heavier than chain gave you an attack penalty, but you weren't wearing armor unless you had elven chain anyway, since it turned off your wizard levels. You also had to defend elves in need, which you were probably going to do anyway.

There's not a whole lot here to adapt to 3e, which is much heavier on class features than it's predecessor, but maybe it'll be of use to someone. Focusing on combat manuevers would be one route to go down, I suppose.

Nifft

2018-10-07, 12:16 PM

Focusing on combat manuevers would be one route to go down, I suppose.

Haven't seen anyone else discuss this yet, but that's part of why I think giving them Maneuvers might be a viable avenue.

Zaq

2018-10-07, 12:21 PM

Haven't seen anyone else discuss this yet, but that's part of why I think giving them Maneuvers might be a viable avenue.

Interesting thought. Similar to JPM, then? Two questions, in that case: first, do you think it’s wise to require maneuvers to enter the class? Second, how many CL would you dock them in exchange for a usable (i.e., not horrifically stingy) maneuver progression?

Nifft

2018-10-07, 12:37 PM

Interesting thought. Similar to JPM, then? Two questions, in that case: first, do you think it’s wise to require maneuvers to enter the class? Second, how many CL would you dock them in exchange for a usable (i.e., not horrifically stingy) maneuver progression?

JPM would be a fine starting point, so they can lose 2 caster levels. That puts them squarely behind a full-caster.

Warblade seems very compatible with Bladesinger stuff, so I'd probably start there -- then give Diamond Mind and Iron Heart maneuvers & stances.

Maybe give fewer mystical features and grant a few more Maneuvers instead? Not sure.

Bladesong etc. could be minor features that stack with any other Diamond Mind / Iron Heart stance.

If it does end up being Warblade-specific, it could also change the recovery mechanism -- "When you take a standard action to cast defensively, you can also spend a Swift action to recover your expended maneuvers." That gives an incentive to begin a fight with Maneuvers, and then cast when you need to recover -- it's not identical to the combined full-attack-cast, but it's going to have a similar pacing effect in that you're rewarded for mixing spells with attacks, and not just dumping a bunch of spells ASAP.

Ramza00

2018-10-07, 12:55 PM

Note that Swiftblade already grants 50% miss chance against attacks and spells as part of its focus on haste. Bladesinger would overlap in that department.

Agreed. I remembered Swiftblade got a 50% miss chance but from memory I recalled it getting at level 10 of the prc so I was thinking roughly level 14 to 16 of Swiftblade. Well my memory was wrong. Swiftblade gets a 20% miss chance at level 2, and a 50% miss chance at level 5 of the PRC.

I was thinking in my head this redone Bladesinger would be getting these abilities even sooner than the Swiftblade but I was wrong. But my idea was to give this swift action Displacement very early in the prestige class, like around to ECL 8 or so, and the immediate action casting around ECL 13 or so. I remembered Swiftblade got these abilities as well (well not the immediate action casting.) But I was thinking it was a much higher ECL.

But yeah agreed Bladesinger should be similar but not the same as swiftblade.

These abilities would take the Bladesinger into a different, but interesting direction, by tying magical defences into fencing skill. If you go this way, you should add Combat Reflexes as feat prerequisite.

Combat Reflexes is one option. There may be another mechanics way of doing it though. Like give Int modifier of extra AoO per day as a separate pool from the normal attack of opportunity amounts, and if you have combat reflexes the abilities stack. If I recall psychic weapon master 3.5 gives combat reflexes per free, and if you already have the feat (PWM is such a feat heavy class) you get to add your Wis modifier to your Dex modifier for AoOs you can do per turn.

Note there is also a 1st level spell on the wizard's website (I can't remember the name) that gives you a free attack of opportunity in addition to the normal one you get to do. It is called Kaupers Reflective Strike. It is a standard action to cast and lasts 10 mins / level until discharged, and it is a touch casting so you can buff your allies, or your raven familiar can use a wand and recharge you while it sits on your shoulder, etc. Well if we give a swift action casting of this ability via celerity casting ability of this class this Reflective Strike spell gets better until you get "real combat reflexes at a later level. What I am saying here is Bladesinger in the write up should explain some of the spells that are prefered by this group / organization.

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mb/20050112a

-----

But yeah a Bladesinger with my idea would be a person who dodges attacks, gets into place and then attacks like a twf rogue except you are using one weapon not two (you get extra attacks with your rapier or other one handed weapon, a flash of attacks.) At the same time you are dodging attacks (with miss chance, mirror image and high ac is how you are dodging attacks and surviving) you sometimes can do retributive damage when they missed.

-----

But the whole idea of Bladesinger as I see it is to enter a different style of archetype of the magical warrior. Swiftblade is the super fast "ichigo" type warrior who can run circles around his enemies, cast spells faster, and also do spring attack / blitzreg types attacks where you just slice past your enemy / run past them while still attacking them.

Bladesinger is instead a more defensive, illusionist, make your enemy overreach and follow up with a quick amount of attacks while they are vulnerable. Aka someone similar to FSN's Archer (the red one) except you use one sword instead of two. (I do not care if the weapon is slashing, piercing, bludgeoning, just merely one handed and without reach even if I would in my theoretical makeup eventually give reach via attacking the air between ECL 11 to 15 for fighters / gishes should have nice things / unique things at higher levels besides spells and more attacks based off bab.)

lylsyly

2018-10-31, 10:44 AM

Kinda late to the conversation but the following quote (BOLD comments mine) just screams base class to me.

In the ancient Vyshaanti(Bladesinger) fighting academies, a martial style developed among young elves who were gifted in fighting and magic. This was a divergent path of bladesinging -- a more brutal style that incorporated heavier armor and more deadly spells. Originally known as Nael'kerym (Duskblades), these warriors greatly complemented bladesingers. They were meant to be heavy combat spellblades, while the bladesingers acted as precision skirmishers. Link here (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070228)

Something like this:

: If you find you can't choose between being an arcane spellcaster who zaps your enemies with powerful spells and a nimble, powerful melee character who lays them low with dual rapiers, the Bladesinger is the perfect class for you.

Hit die: d8

Skill points: 6 + Int

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Bladesingers are proficient with rapiers only, as well as light armor only (no shields).

Spells: You cast arcane spells, which are drawn from the bladesinger spell list. You can cast any spell on the bladesinger spell list without preparing it ahead of time.
To learn or cast a spell, you must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Cha 10 for 0-level spells, Cha 11 for 1st-level spells, and so forth). The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against your spell is 10 + the spell level + your Cha modifier.
You can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Your base daily spell allotment is given on the bladesinger Spells per Day Table. In addition, you receive bonus spells per day if you have a high Charisma score.

Spells Known: You begin play knowing every spell of the levels you can cast that is included on the Bladesinger Spell List. You need not prepare spells in advance. You can cast any spell you know at any time, assuming you have not yet used up your spells per day for that spell level.

1st Level: Arcane Attunement (Sp): You can use the spell-like powers detect magic and read magic a combined total of times per day equal to 3 + your CHA modifer. These spell-like powers do not count against your total of spells known or spells per day.

1st Level: Armored Mage (Ex): Normally, armor of any type interferes with an arcane spellcaster’s gestures, which can cause spells to fail if those spells have a somatic component. A bladesinger’s limited focus and specialized training, however, allows you to avoid arcane spell failure so long as you stick to light armor. This ability does not apply to spells gained from a different spellcasting class.

1st Level: Dual Rapier Wielding (Ex): A bladesinger wields dual rapiers as if she had the Two weapon fighting feat with one difference, she suffers only a -2/-2 penalty as if the off-hand weapon was in fact a light weapon. At 6th Level, this penalty reduces to -1/-1. At 11th level this penalty reduces to-0/-0. At 16th level the penalty becomes a bonus of +1/+1. These penalties and Bonus supersede the penalties of the Improved Two weapon and Greater Two Weapon fighting feats. This ability counts as the two weapon fighting feat for the purpose of meeting prerequisites.

1st Level: Rapiercast (Ex): Bladesingers seamlessly blend the use of their twin rapiers with powerful spellcasting abilities. A bladesinger can cast a spell with somatic and material components even when holding a rapier in each hand. If a bladesinger holds anything other than a rapier, he must have at least one hand free to cast a spell with somatic or material components. Casting a spell in this way still provokes attacks of opportunity normally.

In addition, a bladesinger can deliver a touch or ranged touch spell with a rapier attack (either a melee touch attack (touch spell) or a ranged attack (ranged touch spell). Damage from the rapier attack and the spell are resolved separately. This effect only applies to the main hand weapon at this time

At 6th level, you can cast any touch or ranged touch spell you know as part of a full attack action, and the spell affects each target you hit in melee (touch spells) or ranged (ranged touch spells) combat that round. Doing so discharges the spell at the end of the round, in the case of a touch spell that would otherwise last longer than 1 round. This effect only applies to the main hand weapon.

At 11th level the above actions apply to both the main hand and the off-hand weapon as if you had cast the spell with the Twin Spell feat (at no change in spell level).

At 16th level the rapiercast effect operates as if the spell was cast with the maximize spell feat with no change in spell level.

Add Bard stuff to 1st level

Quick Cast: Beginning at 4th level, you can cast one spell each day as a swift action, so long as the casting time of the spell is 1 standard action or less.
You can use this ability twice per day at 8th level, three times per day at 12th level, four times per day at 16th level, and five time per day at 20th.
Spell Power (Ex): Starting at 6th level, you can more easily overcome the spell resistance of any opponent you successfully injure with a melee attack. If you have injured an opponent with a melee attack, you gain a +2 bonus on your caster level check to overcome spell resistance for the remainder of the encounter. This bonus increases to +3 at 11th level, to +4 at 16th level, and to +5 at 18th level

Obviously needs more work but what do you think?

DarkSoul

2018-10-31, 11:12 AM

Vyshaanti doesn't mean bladesinger. They're members of the Vyshaan clan, the ruling family of Aryvandaar during that time period.

I don't like the dedication to charisma, focus on the rapier, or the dual wielding. Then again I'm happy with the Races of Faerun prestige class once it's a 7/10 caster or better.

lylsyly

2018-10-31, 11:58 AM

Vyshaanti doesn't mean bladesinger. They're members of the Vyshaan clan, the ruling family of Aryvandaar during that time period.

Shows you how much I know about FR, we don't use much setting specific ;)

I don't like the dedication to charisma, focus on the rapier, or the dual wielding. Then again I'm happy with the Races of Faerun prestige class once it's a 7/10 caster or better.

Then you really wouldn't like the Inspire Courage, Healing Hymn, Inspire Awe, and Hymns of Fortification and Restoration I'm Going to work up. And I supposed you don't care for the ranged attacks either ;)

“My blades, my song, and my magic are one and the same. Duskblades? I won’t say that they are pretenders but their traditions grew out of our own!”— Sylia Silverhair, Elf Maiden and Bladesinger.

When I get finished with it, it will get a test drive in our group. I'll probably at least have to tone it down some or it will outshine all but the tier ones.

I am open to all comments and suggestions.

An Addendum: I am actually kinda aiming for a tier 2 Gish type

Hiro Quester

2018-11-01, 09:35 AM

+1/level uses of Bardic Music. Does not give you any bardic music you don't already have.

"Lesser Spellsong" gives you the Melodic Casting feat (even if you wouldn't otherwise qualify for it). You must use Dance or Sing as your Perform skill for this purpose.

"Greater Spellsong" gives you Snowflake Wardance (even if you wouldn't otherwise qualify for it).

Move Light-Armor casting to be part of Bladesong Style.

Focused Performance (5th): can take 10 on a Concentration check (or Perform if you're using Melodic Casting).

A Bladesinger may spend a use of Bardic Music to gain an additional use of Song of Celerity.

Remove Dodge and Combat Expertise as prereq feats. Increase skill prereqs to Dance (4) and Sing (4).

7/10 or 8/10 casting.

Changes like these seem to make it ideal for the bard who wants to better use music and magic to enhance melee combat.

I had a lot of fun playing a bard in a large party whose roles were buffer, secondary caster and secondary melee character. I looked at Bladesinger, thinking that from the name this might be a good PrC for a character like that. Then immediately rejected it as non-viable. Straight bard (with snowflake wardance and quicken spell) is better at doing what blade singer seems to want to do.

Giving blade singer a bit more of a bardic flavor, and further push the bard towards melee-music-magic seems like a very good idea.

Though I would require either Combat Casting or Melodic Casting as prerequisites. If you have melodic casting you probably don't need combat casting too.

Maybe rather than using bardic music to use Song of Clarity (seems perhaps too powerful; Bardic music is a rich resource to power quickened spells that don't cost extra spell levels), make Song of Celerity enable starting bardic music to be a part of a move action (like drawing a weapon). This would encourage the bladesinger to use bardic music often when moving into combat, without impeding their melee actions.

IMHO, anyone tempted to take bladesinger probably starts off as a bard anyway. A bard base, augmented with blade singer (redesigned as above) and sublime chord, (blade singer progressing SC casting) could be very fun to play.

Seerow

2018-11-02, 08:55 AM

If nothing else, this thread has made me realize how much I wish more Gish classes were actually viable. I mean at its core for viable classes we have:

Abjurant Champion
Eldritch Knight
Jade Phoenix Mage
Swiftblade

There's a few others out there that will get dipped for a level or two (Dragonslayer comes up pretty frequently for exactly one level to get proficiencies), but basically every gish is picking up one or two of these classes.

I've suddenly got an itch to go homebrew a half dozen Gish Prestige classes with more distinct flavors.

More on topic, I do really like the idea of Bladesinger as a Bard focused gish class, rather than a Wizard one. I'm imagining something along the lines of your fighting style allowing you to use your sword as a musical instrument while fighting, making the blade actually sing in response to your actions. Say depending on what combat options you use, the bardic music effect you get changes. Possibly tie into Tome of Battle and make it based on your martial stance instead. So say you're in a Stone Dragon stance you grant all allies some bonus temp HP each round, but then you switch to a Tiger Claw stance and everyone gets some bonus to attack/damage. This is just kind of off the cuff, but I feel like the general principle has promise... though it is dramatically different from the Bladesinger as presented so maybe it needs a different class.

Raxxius

2018-11-02, 09:20 AM

Im perplexed by the number of people who just want to completely gut the concept.

If I was to do the bladesinger, it'd be more akin to the 5th edition version, which is a good continuation of the 2nd edition one.

I'd start with wizard class, do something like the battle sorcerer buff up. 3/4 Bab, one less spell per level on the daily, buff the hd to d6 or d8. Remove bonus feats for specific bladesinger ones along the lines of the 5th ed class/CW one, emphasis on combat mobility, action economy and being hard to hit over tanky. Remove all weapon proficiency apart from one chosen weapon. Allow for light into medium armour proficiency. Bladesingers were one of the first classes to be able to cast in magic armour that wasn't elven chain.

Nifft

2018-11-02, 10:01 AM

Im perplexed by the number of people who just want to completely gut the concept.

If I was to do the bladesinger, it'd be more akin to the 5th edition version, which is a good continuation of the 2nd edition one.

I suspect the 2e version is the reason why people dislike the concept.

The 2e version was quite bad in terms of design and balance.

Raxxius

2018-11-02, 10:22 AM

I suspect the 2e version is the reason why people dislike the concept.

The 2e version was quite bad in terms of design and balance.

Really wasn't.

Always a level behind one class characters and poor to terrible hp for equivalent characters, extremely MAD.

Bladesingers weren't the solopwn mobile unless you basically cheated/fudged. They were glass cannons with a degree of versatility.

ExLibrisMortis

2018-11-02, 10:44 AM

If nothing else, this thread has made me realize how much I wish more Gish classes were actually viable. I mean at its core for viable classes we have:

Abjurant Champion
Eldritch Knight
Jade Phoenix Mage
Swiftblade

There's a few others out there that will get dipped for a level or two (Dragonslayer comes up pretty frequently for exactly one level to get proficiencies), but basically every gish is picking up one or two of these classes.
Yeah, there aren't many arcane gishes. Knight Phantom is good. Spellsword 1 exists, but it's called AC level 0 for a reason. Sacred Exorcist is useful at times. Unseen Seer is good for rogue gishes (Arcane Trickster is not bad, either). The next gishiest classes are probably Spelldancer and Incantatrix, because Persistomancy is so powerful.
For psionics, you have Sanctified Mind and Slayer, plus the base psywar being fairly gishy to start with (and the War Mind exists).
Divine gishing has Ordained Champion, Knight of the Raven, Bone Knight, Ruby Knight Vindicator, Prestige Paladin (dip), Sacred Fist--plus druids in general, and even just War domain clerics are pretty good 1-20.

But, I think it's worth keeping in mind that 80% of PrCs get ignored for any purpose. Monk-with-a-twist? There are tons of useless ones. Knight-with-a-twist? Yawn. Mystical swordmaster? Toss out and start again. (Complete Warrior has Cavalier, Knight of the Chalice, Knight Protector, Purple Dragon Knight, and Thayan Knight, and they're all pretty mediocre.)

If you're homebrewing, I'm always up for a good Diamond Mind psionic gish.

OgresAreCute

2018-11-02, 11:05 AM

Knight of the Chalice

:smallfurious:

Why does a class that has its own spellcasting track REQUIRE you to be able to cast spells beforehand? Why does it require 8 BAB? First time I saw this class I didn't manage to get past the prereqs before I started hating it.

DarkSoul

2018-11-02, 11:10 AM

ExLibrisMortis

2018-11-02, 11:13 AM

:smallfurious:

Why does a class that has its own spellcasting track REQUIRE you to be able to cast spells beforehand? Why does it require 8 BAB? First time I saw this class I didn't manage to get past the prereqs before I started hating it.
Don't forget it grants +2 CL to overcome the SR of evil outsiders... but doesn't stack your existing CL with your new CL :smallbiggrin:.

SLOTHRPG95

2018-11-02, 01:30 PM

Don't forget it grants +2 CL to overcome the SR of evil outsiders... but doesn't stack your existing CL with your new CL :smallbiggrin:.

Yeah and so you end up with effective CL 12 for overcoming SR, at a level when you're facing Mariliths, Ice Devils, Horned Devils, Balors, Pit Fiends, etc. Also known as, "don't bother." Why waste your action casting a spell that's 60-95% likely to do nothing?

Lapak

2018-11-03, 04:15 PM

Really wasn't.

Always a level behind one class characters and poor to terrible hp for equivalent characters, extremely MAD.

Bladesingers weren't the solopwn mobile unless you basically cheated/fudged. They were glass cannons with a degree of versatility.What are you talking about? I just double-checked from The Complete Book of Elves on my shelf and there's no 'level behind' or anything like it. Unless you're talking about fighter/mages in general, in which case sure, they're a level back - but only one until at least name level, and it's true of all fighter-mages, which the kit is a strictly superior version of. And being a level behind but having the abilities of two classes was rather more effective in 2e, anyway. They had poor hp for fighters, sure, but fantastic HP for mages and better AC on top of that. (They were MAD, but only in the usual 1e/2e sense of requiring multiple above-average stats to enter; the nature of 2e casting and combat made the concept of 'MAD' significantly less daunting and rolled stats made the question irrelevant to balance - either you had the stats, and got to be a better class, or you didn't, but there wasn't the kind of character-building balancing involved.)

They get several advantages over other fighter/mages (all but one of which are bonuses to combat mechanics, including a scaling no-cap bonus to AC), and three drawbacks, one of which is a role-playing code and explicitly calls out that they have wide leeway to be sure of the circumstances before applying it because people have used their code to trick them before.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-03, 06:29 PM

Well, my Bladesinger has:

Bladesong: A bladesinger is trained to focus his attention on his blade and on his opponent. When wielding a longsword, elven thinblade or rapier on one hand and nothing in the other and wearing light armor or no armor, a bladesinger gains both a dodge bonus to Armor Class equal to her Intelligence bonus and a competence bonus to Reflex saving throws equal to her Intelligence bonus.

Expanded Spell List: at each level, pick one spell off another spell list to add to your spellbook.

Dance of Evasion: As a swift action, you may use the results of a Perform(Dance) check as your AC against melee and ranged attacks for one round.

Dance of Motion: When a Balance check or a Tumble check is called for, you may substitute the results of a Perform(Dance) check. You may only attempt one of the two checks.

Song of Distraction: As a move action, you may distract your enemies with in 50 feet. Any melee or ranged attack, including touch spells, is made at a penalty equal to your Intelligence bonus unless each enemy first makes a Will save with a DC equal to your Perform(Sing) check. This is a mind-affecting ability and the affected creatures must be able to hear your voice.

Raxxius

2018-11-03, 06:43 PM

What are you talking about? I just double-checked from The Complete Book of Elves on my shelf and there's no 'level behind' or anything like it. Unless you're talking about fighter/mages in general, in which case sure, they're a level back - but only one until at least name level, and it's true of all fighter-mages, which the kit is a strictly superior version of.

The problem you are running into here is that fighter mages are strictly better as archer/casters than melee combatants. You don't have the hp or ac of the melee classes, if you're hit you lose the spell your casting so it's optimal to be at the back casting or firing arrows.

And being a level behind but having the abilities of two classes was rather more effective in 2e, anyway.

More effective than what? This is too open ended. You're not a more effective caster, you're also not a more effective meat shield etc. More versatile.

They had poor hp for fighters, sure, but fantastic HP for mages and better AC on top of that.

Common misconception, they didn't have many more hp than base mages. Principally because they got an average of 4 hp per level but.

1. They were always at least a level, and therefore a HD behind, compared to the thief they were as many as 2 to 3 levels behind.
2. They more or less were guaranteed to have to sink their two best rolls into Dex and Int, meaning unless they had 2 16s (str/int) and a 15 (dex) or better they wouldn't get the XP bonus and they'd need another high roll to get a con bonus. Compare to a wizard who goes 15 int/con, he nets 3.5 hp per level average (D4 +1 for Con) and stays a HD ahead for most of the game. Net difference is very low. At Wizard level 10 he'd have 35 hp on average (10 HD worth), and the Bladesinger has 36 on average (9 HD worth) unless he's pumping his Con with a third or 4th high dice roll at which point the dice are deciding the strength of the character not the class. For reference a Fighter would have 48 with no con bonus and 56 with a 15 Con.

3. Armour could be better, but also every class benefited from elven chain mail, it wasn't a gimme. Wizards could get Bracers of armour and use magic/terrain/the fighter as a sprung,the Bladesinger needs to be sat on the frontline.

(They were MAD, but only in the usual 1e/2e sense of requiring multiple above-average stats to enter; the nature of 2e casting and combat made the concept of 'MAD' significantly less daunting and rolled stats made the question irrelevant to balance - either you had the stats, and got to be a better class, or you didn't, but there wasn't the kind of character-building balancing involved.)

I mean this is just wrong on so many levels. But just for the sake of the Bladesinger, they need to put a 14 dice roll on a attribute that is principally a benefit to ranged combatants.

If your rolls are 17, 15, 14, 13, 6, 9 Then you can stat a fighter with a bonus to hit and damage and a bonus to HP. a Wizard that has the potential to cast 8th level spells and gets a Bonus to HP both with a 10% XP bonus. If you went Bladesinger you'd have a few options but you'd either sacrifice HP, spells known, have no ability to pump your damage.

They get several advantages over other fighter/mages (all but one of which are bonuses to combat mechanics, including a scaling no-cap bonus to AC)

Scaling bonus is for when casting only, which is still a gambit because if you're hit you lose the spell you're casting. Kit advantages for melee are fine because as I said previously, fighter/mages in 2nd ed were far better suited to being archer/ranged which the Bladesinger cannot do effectively.

and three drawbacks, one of which is a role-playing code and explicitly calls out that they have wide leeway to be sure of the circumstances before applying it because people have used their code to trick them before.

Right, but I had a Bladesinger die because one of the party who was being held hostage in a burning building happened to be an Elf. Code of conduct dictates that the Bladesinger had to enter that building to save his life, and he burned to death pulling him out. The other Elf actually made it because of the 'singer but the 'singer ran out of the aforementioned weak HP pool.

I've also had Paladins die protecting people in positions where they (the paladin) could have saved themselves, but it's kinda the point of playing the classes.

The Bladesinger was a kit done right, it went in with the concept of 'How do you make a fighter/mage viable in melee without resorting to cheating/uberstats/magic item superiority'. It's a design philosophy which was shunned over in 3.0 and 3.5, which is why both games are full of prestige classes that just sacrifice far too much for too little niche gain. It's a philosophy that has been slowly fed into Pathfinder, 4th and 5th ed.

Generally speaking, the only way I can see the 2nd ed kit Bladesinger really run riot is when people have ridiculous stats (base rolls compared to everyone they're playing with, and HD), ignore parts they don't feel like doing - I'll just ignore every Elf in danger as they could just be illusion spells, or are playing around rules they dislike, or they're just actually cheating (seen enough of that).

Lapak

2018-11-03, 07:34 PM

The problem you are running into here is that fighter mages are strictly better as archer/casters than melee combatants. You don't have the hp or ac of the melee classes, if you're hit you lose the spell your casting so it's optimal to be at the back casting or firing arrows.Gonna come back to this in a moment.

More effective than what? This is too open ended. You're not a more effective caster, you're also not a more effective meat shield etc. More versatile. Sorry, that was unclear. More effective than a multi-class gish in 3e who has split their experience half-and-half. It's possible to build an effective gish in 3e, but the optimization floor for the build is significantly higher in 2e than in 3e, where you need to pick your PrCs and manage your caster levels carefully.

Common misconception, they didn't have many more hp than base mages. Principally because they got an average of 4 hp per level but.Which is 160% of what a vanilla mage gets; that's not nothing in an edition with lower hit points across the board.

1. They were always at least a level, and therefore a HD behind, compared to the thief they were as many as 2 to 3 levels behind.
2. They more or less were guaranteed to have to sink their two best rolls into Dex and Int, meaning unless they had 2 16s (str/int) and a 15 (dex) or better they wouldn't get the XP bonus and they'd need another high roll to get a con bonus. Compare to a wizard who goes 15 int/con, he nets 3.5 hp per level average (D4 +1 for Con) and stays a HD ahead for most of the game. Net difference is very low. At Wizard level 10 he'd have 35 hp on average (10 HD worth), and the Bladesinger has 36 on average (9 HD worth) unless he's pumping his Con with a third or 4th high dice roll at which point the dice are deciding the strength of the character not the class. For reference a Fighter would have 48 with no con bonus and 56 with a 15 Con.This is where I come back to your first comment - the other way to think of this is to argue that their higher HP reduces their MAD factor; they have more HP than a mage of equal experience with no CON investment, but they do get the benefit of the higher DEX. Which, given how often you've mentioned it's disaster for a wizard to get hit while casting, is pretty important. Arguably the most important thing that a F/M can look to improve.

I mean this is just wrong on so many levels. But just for the sake of the Bladesinger, they need to put a 14 dice roll on a attribute that is principally a benefit to ranged combatants.

If your rolls are 17, 15, 14, 13, 6, 9 Then you can stat a fighter with a bonus to hit and damage and a bonus to HP. a Wizard that has the potential to cast 8th level spells and gets a Bonus to HP both with a 10% XP bonus. If you went Bladesinger you'd have a few options but you'd either sacrifice HP, spells known, have no ability to pump your damage. Again, a wizard would rather not be hit than lose a spell and lose HP. DEX is not a secondary stat for a mage of any type in 2e; if you can get a bonus in it you want it - and the Bladesinger can afford it by not having to invest in CON.

Remember that I'm also not comparing the kit to pure fighters or pure mages, because it's a fighter/mage kit - and there it's almost 100% upside.

Scaling bonus is for when casting only, which is still a gambit because if you're hit you lose the spell you're casting. Kit advantages for melee are fine because as I said previously, fighter/mages in 2nd ed were far better suited to being archer/ranged which the Bladesinger cannot do effectively.You're not wrong here, but the bonus is outside of almost anything any other kit or even class has to offer. [1/2 level + 1] AC is a monster bonus in 2e.

Right, but I had a Bladesinger die because one of the party who was being held hostage in a burning building happened to be an Elf. Code of conduct dictates that the Bladesinger had to enter that building to save his life, and he burned to death pulling him out. The other Elf actually made it because of the 'singer but the 'singer ran out of the aforementioned weak HP pool.

I've also had Paladins die protecting people in positions where they (the paladin) could have saved themselves, but it's kinda the point of playing the classes.What's funny is that I agree with you almost 100% on this point, yet the book itself goes out of its way to give players an argument to excuse themselves from the limitation. And there isn't a hard-and-fast consequence like a paladin's fall, either; it's purely on the DM to enforce it. Which is fine with a solid DM, but it's not good design to rely on that.

The Bladesinger was a kit done right, it went in with the concept of 'How do you make a fighter/mage viable in melee without resorting to cheating/uberstats/magic item superiority'. It's a design philosophy which was shunned over in 3.0 and 3.5, which is why both games are full of prestige classes that just sacrifice far too much for too little niche gain. It's a philosophy that has been slowly fed into Pathfinder, 4th and 5th ed.I'm sympathetic to this idea, and maybe the issue that I have is more with the basics of how figher/mages operate in 2e than it is with the kit. In the end, the concern I have is more with how much of an improvement over a kitless F/M it is - it's a non-choice, where there's no circumstance where I'd be playing an Elf F/M with the stats to take Bladesinger where I wouldn't want to take it, and that's a red flag. But maybe my issue is more with the base mechanics than the kit; I'll have to think about that.