Optimization D&D 5e Powergamer's Tactics Room Deep Dive Series: Optimized Bladesinger [Archive]

Bilbron

2020-11-28, 11:38 AM

Interesting build, I like the creative thinking with Magic Stone and Tiny Servants.
However, I'm not entirely sure what about this build actually uses the ability of the Bladesinger in particular, it seems as if these are strategies any Wizard can do.
The idea is that, in Tier 1 and 2, he's swinging a sword and supported by spells and Summons, but gradually in Tier 3 and 4 he starts slinging spells more often and just wades into battle for the fun of it, or if he's completely tapped.

I'm trying to do this thematically, so no xbows or playing from the back. I'm doing an Order of Scribes optimization next and he'll be much more of that flavor. This guy looks down on wizards who don't know the feel of taking a critical now and then.

I like it. It's a bit different that what I'd do with the subclass, but it's effective.

My input is that while fireball is strong at lvl 5 and I like that you picked it, past some level, which I'd say is 7 to 9, fireball will start losing steam, so it's a good idea to swap it out. Haste is always a good option and I think that people really underestimate the +2 to AC. I'm a defensive minded player as well, although I kind of like optimizing numbers past a certain level and that +2 AC can be very effective, considering that it's primarily an offensive spell.

Another one that I'm in the process of testing is Summon Fey. Theoretically it can offer very good damage and obscurement so it has a lot of potential, although it is limited by range. It also has a lot of upcasting value if you can make it work.

And of course, sleetstorm or counterspell.Fair about Fireball, maybe drop it for Fire Shield at some point.

I LOVE Haste on my Hide Wizard (extra Hide action every round, and generated by my familiar and his spell gem so outsourced), and thought about it here. I would definitely consider it if I can outsource the Heavy Obscurement... otherwise it has to be Pyrotechnics on Round 1 and Haste on Round 2. Not the best action economy, though the extra Attack on Round 2 from the Haste is really nice. Still, I'm more of a "use my concentration on Summon Greater Demon or Polymorph and not personal buffs" kind of guy.

I love Sleet Storm, would love to work it in if I can get it in the book. Not such a fan of Counterspell since you don't know what you're counterspelling... I prefer to just Dispel Magic on something bad if it's actually somewhat debilitating and not just a Ray of Sickness or something.

The presentation was good, do you think? I tried to present the info in a comprehensible way, even though it was really long by my standards (usually shoot for 10 minutes, but some of these Deep Dives have to go over).

MaxWilson

2020-11-28, 01:54 PM

Bilbron

2020-11-28, 02:00 PM

Some quick thoughts:

You're relying quite a lot on obscurement, and moreover on IMMOBILE heavy obscurement, which means you need a way to ensure that the rest of the party will actively want to be in your obscurement instead of elsewhere. If you're sitting there in your little Pyrotechnics cloud while the Barbarian charges the Mind Flayer on his own it's going to turn out poorly. IMO this aspect needs to be addressed up front when presenting an obscurement-heavy strategy. If the whole party has blindsight and ranged weaponry then you'll be fine; if they have ranged weapons but not blindsight it might be fine, depending on how strictly your DM follows RAW on heavy obscurement and how they inclined they are to let monsters Hide and how many AoEs they use (your party will be in Fireball Formation). If they're a melee heavy party without blindsight you're going to have to switch strategies to Blur or something.

Tiny Servants technically aren't allowed to end their move in your space (unless you are also Tiny), so can't be kept in your backpack.

I feel that you are overrating Spirit Shroud. You'd be better off just sticking to Dragon's Breath and using your 3rd level pick on something else, possibly Hypnotic Pattern (for when other PCs won't stay in obscurement) or Magic Circle (to plug that hole in your demonic Planar Binding strategy: keeping the demon immobilized while you cast the spell) or Phantom Steed.

I also feel that you're overrating Fire Shield. The whole point of your build is trying not to be hit. Fire Shield does minor damage every time you're hit. Clearly there's an antisynergy there--the only time you'll get real use out of Fire Shield is when you're Polymorphed, which you should avoid doing because concentration, and even then you're not going to do enough damage to justify the Fire Shield spell slot and action economy cost. Replace with something else, possibly Glyph of Warding to plug the OTHER hole in your Summon Greater Demon strategy (keeping the demon around for a full hour while you cast the spell). Alternatively get another caster (or your Simulacrum) to cast the spell and hold concentration for you, and then you can spend your pick on something else here like Greater Invisibility (again for the non-obscurement case) or something RP-awesome like Fabricate for the sheer joy of making stuff whenever you want.

"While you were eating lunch I sculpted a fountain in the river in the shape of a dragon spewing water from its mouth." "I made a miniature statue of my mom." "I built a bridge." "I made fifty thousand arrows." "I reforged all the hobgoblin armor into kitchen utensils to sell." "I turned that dead dragon's skin into dragonhide armor for druids." Maybe it's just me but I find Fabricate appealing for its speed and permanency. I suspect it could substitute for Passwall in many cases, despite taking more time to cast. "I turned part of the castle wall into two hundred chess sets." Much depends though on whether the DM interprets "products of the same material" to require only a single object (one chess piece), per the other text in the spell, or if multiple conceptually similar objects are allowed (per example "clothes" in the spell text, not just "an item of clothing") as long as they fit within the required space.
Yes, it's immobile as I didn't want to incorporate items but an Eversmoking Bottle really opens up this build. As it stands, it would require some party assistance with battlefield controls and grappling and such to keep the AOE relevant. I also had in mind that the BS would close the range then pop the obscurement so it's on the line and they'd have to relocate to avoid it, which isn't always situationally possible. With only a couple slots and BS per day, I'd definitely use it opportunistically.

YMMV with party construction. Ideally everyone optimizes for Heavy Obscurement; if someone insists on a Conquest Paladin, I'd go in another direction.

I'm not making my stand on Spirit Shroud, by any means. I just kinda wanted to work in another Tasha's spell. I can see keeping Dragon's Breath; I can see using Shadowblade and a backup sword. This build isn't written in stone!

The Tiny Servant thing not being allowed in the backpack is a new one on me. Does this apply to familiars as well?

I'm not in love with Fire Shield, and though I add it to the book, I don't prep it until 18th level. Definitely some wiggle room there if you want to add Conjure Elemental or something.

I do love Fabricate on Bilbron Bafflestone but I picked it up from a captured spellbook... tough to justify dropping one of the two spells you get per level on it. But if you're really playing that long game, it makes sense!

I also recommend picking up Glyph of Warding on a scroll in the video, but it's just too hard to put it into my 4 3rd level spells gained from levelling. I would definitely recommend cheesin' up GoW as much as possible!

I don't agree, non-concentration AoEs never go out of style. Mobs of foes are always dangerous, even at high level. If you fight only one or two foes at a time you'll beat them via spells like Maze and Forcecage and Summon Greater Demon, but if you fight eight or ten enemies you want AoEs like Fireball and Synaptic Static. In any case you will get more value out of Fireball than Fire Shield.I hear that and still personally prefer Fireball (just tryin' not to be too dogmatic!). I balanced this list very heavily with concentration and non-concentration spells, and Fireball is a really nice one to pop out on occasion, especially since the build doesn't require anything out of the 3rd level slot and you can Fireball away if you like.

Plus I don't have any blasts on Bilbron Bafflestone and it just sounded fun and thematic, lol.

MaxWilson

2020-11-28, 02:11 PM

Yes, it's immobile as I didn't want to incorporate items but an Eversmoking Bottle really opens up this build. As it stands, it would require some party assistance with battlefield controls and grappling and such to keep the AOE relevant.

The Tiny Servant thing not being allowed in the backpack is a new one on me. Does this apply to familiars as well?

Technically as written it applies to every creature in the game, which means humans can't cuddle kittens, which is why "technically as written" is not a compliment. It's a weird restriction--you're literally forbidden from putting four people inside the same normal-sized 5' x 7' elevator. They can move through each other's space as difficult terrain but can't end a move sharing a 5' x 5' space.

As a DM I'd let you squeeze more friendlies into the same space, but I'd impose the same penalties as the PHB's Squeezing Into Smaller Spaces rule, which in this case means combat penalties for you and the Tiny Servants--there's just not enough room for you all to fight without bumping into each other. Ask your DM.

Bilbron

2020-11-28, 02:14 PM

Technically as written it applies to every creature in the game, which means humans can't cuddle kittens, which is why "technically as written" is not a compliment. It's a weird restriction--you're literally forbidden from putting four people inside the same normal-sized 5' x 7' elevator. They can move through each other's space as difficult terrain but can't end a move sharing a 5' x 5' space.

As a DM I'd let you squeeze more friendlies into the same space, but I'd impose the same penalties as the PHB's Squeezing Into Smaller Spaces rule, which in this case means combat penalties for you and the Tiny Servants--there's just not enough room for you all to fight without bumping into each other. Ask your DM.

Gotta love D&D, lol.

Many thanks for your (as always) cogent feedback and comments!

Gignere

2020-11-28, 02:57 PM

Gotta love D&D, lol.

Many thanks for your (as always) cogent feedback and comments!

Tiny creatures can end up in your space they can do it via using you as an intelligent mount. The mounts rule allows two creatures of different sizes to share a space. So if they spend their movement to mount on you they can share the same space.

Corran

2020-11-28, 02:59 PM

I think counterspell deserved a bit more love. I get that it doesn't play well with ending your turn inside a fog cloud/ pyrotechnics (or behind total cover, or too far away; though these last two dont have to be too much of an issue for a bladesinger). But counterspell can also be useful as a reaction during your own turn, because you've got spells that require sight to use (effectively), and if an enemy starts casting simultaneously, even if you are playing with Xanathar rules it's a safe bet to assume it's a counterspell (which you'd want to counterspell if what you are casting is important). Could also be useful whenever you can't rely on breaking line of sight (or when you can't do it fast enough because you cannot use an outside source for it), or if you roll too low on initiative sometimes. You dont get many things that play to its strength (like see invisibility, greater invisibility, true seeing; you do get the opportunity for better positioning though), but you'll at least get subtle (and telepathy, though I suspect this was intended more as an out of combat pick) later on, so at least it's worth considering during the late levels. I'd probably want to have it sooner, but you know, I may have just gotten used to it a bit too much.

I like how you picked alert and prioritized it to stuff like dex bumps that are often advocated as more important. But alert is not only good defensively for a wizard. Going first is a good advantage on its own, and you already have spells that could benefit from going faster than (some of) the enemies, but a particular type of spells that benefit the most in such an occasion are AoE's that inflict friendly damage (damage not necessarily in the literal sense). And you've only got fireball for this. I would add at least one more, probably picked among the likes of hypnotic pattern, fear, sickening radiance, confusion and synaptic static (also web or Evard's black tentacles, which can help utilize better your minions). Have enough enemies bunched up during your first turn, and such spells can be really (cost-) efficient (slot wise, duration wise, or both).

This probably falls in the ''ask your DM territory'', but since you are picking both SGD and planar binding (and at the same time you dont include magic circle as a default option), it's worth checking if the material component of SGD (blood circle) can be used as an improved version of magic circle when it comes to binding SGD creatures.

I love the idea of using magic stone and tiny servants against enemies (inside the fog cloud/pyrotechnics?). Mental prison, telekinesis, bigby's hand, web, Evard's, can all be useful when you are using lots of summons but at the same time you cannot rely on obscurement from one of your spells/items (or you need a demon or two with no blindsight).

Nitpick. Forcecage from a simulacrum slot will start being a thing from level 15 and on. Plane shift and rope trick can be used as an improved teleport, though it wont be as successful as an escape option (especially if your play is happening only in the material plane). Just mentioned it in case you haven't thought or stumbled on it yet (I know I didn't come up with it on my own).

Solid stuff. I may ended up doing these one or two things differently (always regarding optimization and nothing more), but it could always be more due to habit (trust what I am used to doing, or just trust in conventional wisdom). Still, many ideas I hadn't considered, and some stuff I've read before but I had forgotten about.

MaxWilson

2020-11-28, 03:09 PM

Tiny creatures can end up in your space they can do it via using you as an intelligent mount. The mounts rule allows two creatures of different sizes to share a space. So if they spend their movement to mount on you they can share the same space.

The mount also has to have "an appropriate anatomy."

A willing creature that is at least one size larger than you and that has an appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount, using the following rules.

Mounting and Dismounting
Once during your move, you can mount a creature that is within 5 feet of you or dismount. Doing so costs an amount of movement equal to half your speed. For example, if your speed is 30 feet, you must spend 15 feet of movement to mount a horse. Therefore, you can't mount it if you don't have 15 feet of movement left or if your speed is 0.
If an effect moves your mount against its will while you're on it, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or fall off the mount, landing prone in a space within 5 feet of it. If you're knocked prone while mounted, you must make the same saving throw.
If your mount is knocked prone, you can use your reaction to dismount it as it falls and land on your feet. Otherwise, you are dismounted and fall prone in a space within 5 feet it.

Heh. I just noticed that there's no limit given on how many creatures can ride a given mount. Instead of claiming that all the PCs can ride the same Phantom Steed, I guess I'll just say that's a DM judgment call, sort of like what "appropriate anatomy" means.

I like how you picked alert and prioritized it to stuff like dex bumps that are often advocated as more important. But alert is not only good defensively for a wizard. Going first is a good advantage on its own, and you already have spells that could benefit from going faster than (some of) the enemies, but a particular type of spells that benefit the most in such an occasion are AoE's that inflict friendly damage (damage not necessarily in the literal sense). And you've only got fireball for this. I would add at least one more, probably picked among the likes of hypnotic pattern, fear, sickening radiance, confusion and synaptic static. (B) Have enough enemies bunched up during your first turn, and such spells can be really (cost-) efficient (slot wise, duration wise, or both).

This probably falls in the ''ask your DM territory'', but since you are picking both SGD and planar binding (and at the same time you dont include magic circle as a default option), it's worth checking if the material component of SGD can be used as an (A) improved version of magic circle when it comes to binding SGD creatures.

(A) Hmmm, you're right. I was cognizant of the "it can’t target anyone within it" restriction, but I overlooked "can't cross the circle or harm it". The other remaining sticky point is whether you can choose to make the demon appear within the circle, but thematically it seems reasonable. "Ask your DM" indeed but it seems like this ought to work--but you still need someone else to concentrate on Summon Greater Demon for an hour, or the demon will vanish long before you can finish Planar Binding. Unlike Conjure Elemental, Summon Greater Demon does not produce creatures which stick around for a full hour after you lose concentration. Rules reminder: casting a spell that takes more than 1 action to cast, like Planar Binding, requires your concentration for the full casting time.

(B) I see this kind of comment a lot and it makes me wonder how other DMs structure their games. In my games, enemies are actually more likely to be spread out initially doing other things, not bunched up. When they become aware of PCs, they may come running in from other rooms or burrowing up through the floor. In my games, ideally you'd want to Fireball/AoE only AFTER the melee monsters have started ganging up on PCs, if they do.

E.g. there might be three Star Spawn Grues down that hallway a short ways, gyrating insanely, and a Star Spawn Hulk and two more Grues sniffing fungoids in the fungus room you're standing next to, and a Mangler about to turn the corner and notice you and give the shrieking alarm. If you win initiative and Fireball the Mangler immediately you'll hit fewer targets than if you summon a meatshield for the Mangler to mangle and then Fireball on round 2 after the Grues and Hulk show up, gibbering as they do.

Gignere

2020-11-28, 03:14 PM

The mount also has to have "an appropriate anatomy."

A willing creature that is at least one size larger than you and that has an appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount, using the following rules.

Mounting and Dismounting
Once during your move, you can mount a creature that is within 5 feet of you or dismount. Doing so costs an amount of movement equal to half your speed. For example, if your speed is 30 feet, you must spend 15 feet of movement to mount a horse. Therefore, you can't mount it if you don't have 15 feet of movement left or if your speed is 0.
If an effect moves your mount against its will while you're on it, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or fall off the mount, landing prone in a space within 5 feet of it. If you're knocked prone while mounted, you must make the same saving throw.
If your mount is knocked prone, you can use your reaction to dismount it as it falls and land on your feet. Otherwise, you are dismounted and fall prone in a space within 5 feet it.

Heh. I just noticed that there's no limit given on how many creatures can ride a given mount. Instead of claiming that all the PCs can ride the same Phantom Steed, I guess I'll just say that's a DM judgment call, sort of like what "appropriate anatomy" means.

You’re going to argue humanoids don’t have appropriate anatomy to be mounted? So you never seen parents carry their kids on their shoulders to play horsie?

Bilbron

2020-11-28, 03:22 PM

I think counterspell deserved a bit more love. I get that it doesn't play well with ending your turn inside a fog cloud/ pyrotechnics (or behind total cover, or too far away; though these last two dont have to be too much of an issue for a bladesinger). But counterspell can also be useful as a reaction during your own turn, because you've got spells that require sight to use (effectively), and if an enemy starts casting simultaneously, even if you are playing with Xanathar rules it's a safe bet to assume it's a counterspell (which you'd want to counterspell if what you are casting is important). Could also be useful whenever you can't rely on breaking line of sight (or when you can't do it fast enough because you cannot use an outside source for it), or if you roll too low on initiative sometimes. You dont get many things that play to its strength (like see invisibility, greater invisibility, true seeing; you do get the opportunity for better positioning though), but you'll at least get subtle (and telepathy, though I suspect this was intended more as an out of combat pick) later on, so at least it's worth considering during the late levels. I'd probably want to have it sooner, but you know, I may have just gotten used to it a bit too much.

I like how you picked alert and prioritized it to stuff like dex bumps that are often advocated as more important. But alert is not only good defensively for a wizard. Going first is a good advantage on its own, and you already have spells that could benefit from going faster than (some of) the enemies, but a particular type of spells that benefit the most in such an occasion are AoE's that inflict friendly damage (damage not necessarily in the literal sense). And you've only got fireball for this. I would add at least one more, probably picked among the likes of hypnotic pattern, fear, sickening radiance, confusion and synaptic static. Have enough enemies bunched up during your first turn, and such spells can be really (cost-) efficient (slot wise, duration wise, or both).

This probably falls in the ''ask your DM territory'', but since you are picking both SGD and planar binding (and at the same time you dont include magic circle as a default option), it's worth checking if the material component of SGD can be used as an improved version of magic circle when it comes to binding SGD creatures.

I love the idea of using magic stone and tiny servants against enemies (inside the fog cloud/pyrotechnics?). Mental prison, telekinesis, bigby's hand, web, Evard's, can all be useful when you are using lots of summons but at the same time you cannot rely on obscurement from one of your spells/items (or you need a demon or two with no blindsight).

Nitpick. Forcecage from a simulacrum slot will start being a thing from level 15 and on. Plane shift and rope trick can be used as an improved teleport, though it wont be as successful as an escape option (especially if your play is happening only in the material plane). Just mentioned it in case you haven't thought or stumbled on it yet (I know I didn't come up with it on my own).

Solid stuff. I may ended up doing these one or two things differently (always regarding optimization and nothing more), but it could always be more due to habit (trust what I am used to doing, or just trust in conventional wisdom). Still, many ideas I hadn't considered, and some stuff I've read before but I had forgotten about.Great reply, many thanks!

I do like Counterspell for being able to Counterspell a Counterspell. That's it's only reliable use. But you have to make hard decisions as you can't have everything, and like I said, I typically prefer Dispel Magic. But I have prepped Counterspell in the past and even used it once (Ray of Sickness, turns out, lol, which is why I keep bringing that up). A lot depends on preference, playstyle, and campaign. Throw in that Counterspell isn't good from Heavy Obscurement and it's just too high opportunity cost to take, IMO.

I considered another blast, but it just seemed like I had so much offense already and you have to find room for defense and utility. I know that's hard for many offensive-minded players to accept however, lol. Feel free to stack in more offense if you like! Synaptic Static would be tasty for sure, just have to drop something for it... maybe Passwall. That one could get dusty while SS gets used often, for sure. I also considered Otiluke's Freezing Sphere for its massive AOE and stacking ability, but 6th level slots are so premium I passed on it in the end.

Tiny Servant + Magic Stone just seemed too good for a guy working out of Heavy Obscurement most of the time, with their Blindsight and all. I'm a sucker for elegant combos like that.

Point taken on Forcecage, and very nice trick with the Plane Shift! I will use that.

I really do very much appreciate posts like this (and from Max)... this forum has some sharp cookies.

MaxWilson

2020-11-28, 03:30 PM

You’re going to argue humanoids don’t have appropriate anatomy to be mounted? So you never seen parents carry their kids on their shoulders to play horsie?

Have you ever seen a parent fight a fencing match while carrying a kid on their shoulders? For good reason--we really don't have a good anatomy for that style of carrying. It limits your motion too much. You're at least as constrained in your movements as you would be squeezed into an elevator with three other people--disadvantage on attacks and Dex saves and advantage to attacks while mounted like that would totally make sense.

And that style wouldn't work with multiple Tiny Servants anyway.

I really do very much appreciate posts like this (and from Max)... this forum has some sharp cookies.

I agree, always nice to see a post from @Corran.

Bilbron

2020-11-28, 03:37 PM

Have you ever seen a parent fight a fencing match while carrying a kid on their shoulders? For good reason--we really don't have a good anatomy for that style of carrying. It limits your motion too much. You're at least as constrained in your movements as you would be squeezed into an elevator with three other people--disadvantage on attacks and Dex saves and advantage to attacks while mounted like that would totally make sense.

And that style wouldn't work with multiple Tiny Servants anyway.

I agree, always nice to see a post from @Corran.
I make my TS from silver coins and it just seems like common sense that they would EASILY fit into a backpack. But the rules are pretty strict and definitely a DM could make hay about it. Fortunately for me my DM is pretty common sensible.

I should also mention that I liked the idea of 2 weapons in level 1-7 but clearly didn't understand the mechanic well enough and it seems to be more trouble than it's worth. So I won't try to play around with it when I roll this out someday and will just go with a single longsword or something and rely on BB.

Unoriginal

2020-11-28, 04:00 PM

Take a look at Bilbron Bladesinger to find out.

32:08

Well, let's take a look, shall we?

-Booming Blade with bonus action (at ~7:00):

You cannot use the bonus action from Two-Weapons Fighting with Booming Blade, whether you're using rapiers or a short swords, as Booming Blade is not the Attack action (it is the Cast a Spell action, even if it involves making an attack).

Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand

PHB p.195.

You would only be able to use Attack action-Booming (or Green Flame) Blade-TWF bonus action from lvl 6 onward.

-Fog Cloud (at ~8:00):

No mention of the ways Fog Cloud's heavy obscurement *still* affects the caster, even with the Alert feat. Notably, it completely prevents the use of Toll the Dead, Mind Sliver and any of the other spell requiring to see the creature by the PC too. To say nothing of the fact that since the character has both advantage and disadvantage due to not seeing and not being seen by the target of the attacks, it makes the PC unable to gain advantage from any other source.

Also worth mentioning, while Booming Blade may prevent one enemy to move out of the fog:

a) it takes two rounds to set up this combo, meaning it only works in surprise situation or if one of the enemies decide to just stand in the fog where they can't see anything for some reason when it's their turn.

b) if there is more than one enemy, even if the combo does work on one, now you'll have to handle the others, who can just walk out of the fog, after you've loudly declared yourself the caster. Or you can stay in the obscurement and have your teammates face the other monsters without you.

Furthermore, and extremely important: by heavily obscuring the enemies, you're hindering everyone else in your team too. All the enemies in the obscurement can also disengage freely (so goodbye OA-boosting features), all enemies in it can use the Hide action, most PCs relying on attack rolls will have an harder time finding and sometime hitting their target (although this is DM dependent to an extent) and all PCs wanting to use a need-to-see-the-creature effect or spell won't be able to, until the enemies manage to leave the fog.

Meaning you're at minimum hindering everyone whose initiative result is between yours and the enemies', and at best just creating a zone where people won't fight unless forced to (which is Fog Cloud's main purpose, but not one which work with your tactic).

So Fog Cloud (and the other heavy obscurment methods you propose later on) + the tactic you're suggesting is really far from as good as you're painting it to be.

"Can only be hit by a crit" (at ~10.22)

That's not how to-hit modifiers or AC work this edition. Even with a 18 AC from Bladesong and a +5 from Shield, your PC would have 23 AC.

A run-of-the-mill, CR 1/4 goblin has +4 to hit, meaning that your Bladesinger would be hit on a 19+.

A run-of-the-mill, CR 2 ogre has +6 to hit, meaning that your Bladesinger would be hit on a 17+.

Even if you want to argue that it's still really unlikely to hit 23 with disadvantage, that still doesn't make the "crit only" part of statement true, nor does it make the % of chances to hit your character you gave accurate.

And monsters with higher attack mods than +6 are going to keep showing up, while your PC's AC won't increase without magic items.

Pyrotechnics (at ~10:45):

Still no mention of how the Bladesinger is affected by the heavy obscurement as well.

Also no mention of how using Pyrotechnics + Dragon's Breath costs both of the PC's 2nd lvl spell slots for the day, meaning the combo will only be applicable to one fight per long rest. It's a boost in offense and defense certainly (especially compared to before 3rd level where this character relied on trying to melee heavily obscured foes for DPR), but it's an expensive one.

Spirit Shrough (at ~13:50):

Spirit Shroud is a 3rd level spell that gives your Bladesinger +1d8 damage per turn (or twice per turn if you've given up using your melee attack cantrips for Two-Weapon Fighting and if you hit twice). I don't see how it's superior to Dragon's Breath for your PC, at least at lvl 5. At lvl 6 it may be worthwhile.

Shapechange ("can now solo any monster") (at ~26:08):

It's a Concentration spell that requires an action to cast. Try to solo a monster with a decent Multiattack like that and you'll be lucky to get more than two rounds out of your 9th level spell.

Overall Build Review:

I'll grant you that, Bilbron: you have a good grasp of the basics of Wizardry. But that does not translate into mastery or even proficiency in Bladesinging.

You're proposing a build which makes significant uses of its melee attacks, while keeping +3 to its DEX for its entire career. While I'm a fervent advocate that you do not need to start with 16 to be competent, by mid-level you're going to suffer without at least a 18.

And that's not going into the saves. A +3 in DEX from lvl 1 to 20 without any method to mitigate the problems it creates or the HPs to tank is a huge weakness, especially when you take into account AoEs which don't care about obscurement. The same can be said about this Bladesinger's CON saves, until lvl 16. Your build's atrocious STR and CHA saves are going to be a problem less often, but anytime an effect targetting them come up you're going to feel like Glass Joe trying to fight Optimus Prime.

Speaking of Glass Joe, your video is also heavily downplaying how much being squishy will hinder your Bladesinger's performance. 62 HPs at lvl 10 for a melee character means they'll get in the danger zone fast and stay there for the rest of the fight, every fight. The familiar can help some but not enough to compensate all the times you'll have to play it safe just to survive another round.

Another of the obvious weaknesses of this build (although I can't place this one at Bilbron's feet as many supposedly Wizard builds have it): Shield and Absorb Elements. While they're great spells which do increase the survivability of casters tremendously, the fact is that they both use the caster's Reaction for the round, which means you can only use one of them as protection for said round. In other words, this Bladesinger build has an large weakness against any group (or individual monster) which can target both the PC's AC and one of its saves in the same round.

To those weaknesses, we can add what was mentioned above: The Two-Weapon + Booming Blade idea simply does not work by the rules until lvl 6 (at which point it only add a +3+proficiency-to-hit attack which adds +1d6 to the damage if it hits, at the cost of not using a more damaging weapon), and the heavy obscurement zone has all the issues of the well-known Darkness+Devil's Sight Warlock combo for both the PC and their adventuring party, with less benefits for the PC.

Final Judgement:

On paper, the Bilbron Bladesinger Build is not going to be weaker than any other wizard build using the same spell list. In practice, the tactics that are meant to go with it are going to be at best an annoyance and at worse an active hindrance to the rest of the party, for ultimately far too few benefits to the Bladesinger's performance to be worth it.

The BBB takes a class known to be a glass cannon with a versatile toolset, adds to it a subclass that makes it significantly less fragile in some instances, and then laser-focuses on those instances until it becomes a glass one-trick-pony with a not-particularly-effective trick which only shines when the one trick is helped by the circumstances or when it gives up relying on the one trick and re-use the class's versatile toolset.

MaxWilson

2020-11-28, 04:11 PM

-Fog Cloud (at ~8:00):

(A) No mention of the ways Fog Cloud's heavy obscurement *still* affects the caster, even with the Alert feat. Notably, it completely prevents the use of Toll the Dead, Mind Sliver and any of the other spell requiring to see the creature by the PC too. To say nothing of the fact that since the character has both advantage and disadvantage due to not seeing and not being seen by the target of the attacks, it makes the PC unable to gain advantage from any other source.

...

So Fog Cloud (and the other heavy obscurment methods you propose later on) + the tactic you're suggesting is really far from as good as you're painting it to be.

"Can only be hit by a crit" (at ~10.22)

That's not how to-hit modifiers or AC work this edition. Even with a 18 AC from Bladesong and a +5 from Shield, your PC would have 23 AC.

A run-of-the-mill, CR 1/4 goblin has +4 to hit, meaning that your Bladesinger would be hit on a 19+.

A run-of-the-mill, CR 2 ogre has +6 to hit, meaning that your Bladesinger would be hit on a 17+.

Even if you want to argue that it's still really unlikely to hit 23 with disadvantage, (B) that still doesn't make the "crit only" part of statement true, nor does it make the % of chances to hit your character you gave accurate.

(A) It's acknowledged in passing at 6:47ish, when comparing the relative benefits of Alert vs. Blindsight.

(B) It's an example against an enemy with +2 to hit. It's right there on the screen starting at 4:36, and mentioned explicitly at 7:33. Your math corrections don't apply here because that's not the enemy being discussed.

Bilbron

2020-11-28, 04:15 PM

Well, let's take a look, shall we?

-Booming Blade with bonus action (at ~7:00):

You cannot use the bonus action from Two-Weapons Fighting with Booming Blade, whether you're using rapiers or a short swords, as Booming Blade is not the Attack action (it is the Cast a Spell action, even if it involves making an attack).

PHB p.195.

You would only be able to use Attack action-Booming (or Green Flame) Blade-TWF bonus action from lvl 6 onward.

-Fog Cloud (at ~8:00):

No mention of the ways Fog Cloud's heavy obscurement *still* affects the caster, even with the Alert feat. Notably, it completely prevents the use of Toll the Dead, Mind Sliver and any of the other spell requiring to see the creature by the PC too. To say nothing of the fact that since the character has both advantage and disadvantage due to not seeing and not being seen by the target of the attacks, it makes the PC unable to gain advantage from any other source.

Also worth mentioning, while Booming Blade may prevent one enemy to move out of the fog:

a) it takes two rounds to set up this combo, meaning it only works in surprise situation or if one of the enemies decide to just stand in the fog where they can't see anything for some reason when it's their turn.

b) if there is more than one enemy, even if the combo does work on one, now you'll have to handle the others, who can just walk out of the fog, after you've loudly declared yourself the caster. Or you can stay in the obscurement and have your teammates face the other monsters without you.

Furthermore, and extremely important: by heavily obscuring the enemies, you're hindering everyone else in your team too. All the enemies in the obscurement can also disengage freely (so goodbye OA-boosting features), all enemies in it can use the Hide action, most PCs relying on attack rolls will have an harder time finding and sometime hitting their target (although this is DM dependent to an extent) and all PCs wanting to use a need-to-see-the-creature effect or spell won't be able to, until the enemies manage to leave the fog.

Meaning you're at minimum hindering everyone whose initiative result is between yours and the enemies', and at best just creating a zone where people won't fight unless forced to (which is Fog Cloud's main purpose, but not one which work with your tactic).

So Fog Cloud (and the other heavy obscurment methods you propose later on) + the tactic you're suggesting is really far from as good as you're painting it to be.

"Can only be hit by a crit" (at ~10.22)

That's not how to-hit modifiers or AC work this edition. Even with a 18 AC from Bladesong and a +5 from Shield, your PC would have 23 AC.

A run-of-the-mill, CR 1/4 goblin has +4 to hit, meaning that your Bladesinger would be hit on a 19+.

A run-of-the-mill, CR 2 ogre has +6 to hit, meaning that your Bladesinger would be hit on a 17+.

Even if you want to argue that it's still really unlikely to hit 23 with disadvantage, that still doesn't make the "crit only" part of statement true, nor does it make the % of chances to hit your character you gave accurate.

And monsters with higher attack mods than +6 are going to keep showing up, while your PC's AC won't increase without magic items.

Pyrotechnics (at ~10:45):

Still no mention of how the Bladesinger is affected by the heavy obscurement as well.

Also no mention of how using Pyrotechnics + Dragon's Breath costs both of the PC's 2nd lvl spell slots for the day, meaning the combo will only be applicable to one fight per long rest. It's a boost in offense and defense certainly (especially compared to before 3rd level where this character relied on trying to melee heavily obscured foes for DPR), but it's an expensive one.

Spirit Shrough (at ~13:50):

Spirit Shroud is a 3rd level spell that gives your Bladesinger +1d8 damage per turn (or twice per turn if you've given up using your melee attack cantrips for Two-Weapon Fighting and if you hit twice). I don't see how it's superior to Dragon's Breath for your PC, at least at lvl 5. At lvl 6 it may be worthwhile.

Shapechange ("can now solo any monster") (at ~26:08):

It's a Concentration spell that requires an action to cast. Try to solo a monster with a decent Multiattack like that and you'll be lucky to get more than two rounds out of your 9th level spell.

Overall Build Review:

I'll grant you that, Bilbron: you have a good grasp of the basics of Wizardry. But that does not translate into mastery or even proficiency in Bladesinging.

You're proposing a build which makes significant uses of its melee attacks, while keeping +3 to its DEX for its entire career. While I'm a fervent advocate that you do not need to start with 16 to be competent, by mid-level you're going to suffer without at least a 18.

And that's not going into the saves. A +3 in DEX from lvl 1 to 20 without any method to mitigate the problems it creates or the HPs to tank is a huge weakness, especially when you take into account AoEs which don't care about obscurement. The same can be said about this Bladesinger's CON saves, until lvl 16. Your build's atrocious STR and CHA saves are going to be a problem less often, but anytime an effect targetting them come up you're going to feel like Glass Joe trying to fight Optimus Prime.

Speaking of Glass Joe, your video is also heavily downplaying how much being squishy will hinder your Bladesinger's performance. 62 HPs at lvl 10 for a melee character means they'll get in the danger zone fast and stay there for the rest of the fight, every fight. The familiar can help some but not enough to compensate all the times you'll have to play it safe just to survive another round.

Another of the obvious weaknesses of this build (although I can't place this one at Bilbron's feet as many supposedly Wizard builds have it): Shield and Absorb Elements. While they're great spells which do increase the survivability of casters tremendously, the fact is that they both use the caster's Reaction for the round, which means you can only use one of them as protection for said round. In other words, this Bladesinger build has an large weakness against any group (or individual monster) which can target both the PC's AC and one of its saves in the same round.

To those weaknesses, we can add what was mentioned above: The Two-Weapon + Booming Blade idea simply does not work by the rules until lvl 6 (at which point it only add a +3+proficiency-to-hit attack which adds +1d6 to the damage if it hits, at the cost of not using a more damaging weapon), and the heavy obscurement zone has all the issues of the well-known Darkness+Devil's Sight Warlock combo for both the PC and their adventuring party, with less benefits for the PC.

Final Judgement:

On paper, the Bilbron Bladesinger Build is not going to be weaker than any other wizard build using the same spell list. In practice, the tactics that are meant to go with it are going to be at best an annoyance and at worse an active hindrance to the rest of the party, for ultimately far too few benefits to the Bladesinger themselves to be worth it.

The BBB takes a class known to be a glass cannon with a versatile toolset, adds to it a subclass that makes it significantly less fragile in some instances, and then laser-focuses on those instances until it becomes a glass one-trick-pony with a not-particularly-effective trick which only shines when the one trick is helped by the circumstances or when it gives up relying on the one trick and re-use the class's versatile toolset.Wow, I appreciate the lengthy response!

Yes, I realize now the impracticality of trying to use 2 weapons, so I'll just go with a single, heavier one and BB. What can I say, I'm not good with weapons.

Yes, obscurement affects those things, but I also like having options for when I don't have the slots for obscurement or any BS left. Even Bilbron Bafflestone's spell list has 2 cantrips and 2 spells that require sight.

Yes, ideally you'll get an Eversmoking Bottle so you can move the obscurement around (and massive AOE), but I didn't want to assume items for this. Without it, you'll need some help with controls and grapples and such.

It's true that obscurement cancels all advantage and such, except for that conferred by Blindsight. I didn't feel the need to mention every little thing in a video already too long for my tastes.

Yes, your team should also ideally optimize to take advantage of your obscurement; if they resist or complain, I would go in another direction.

I stated that I was using +2 attack in the examples. Yes, higher attack values would hit more often. Sorry I didn't provide a graph, lol.

I didn't mention it, true, I kind of thought people could add up the number of uses and such themselves. I kind of thought it went without saying that this was an opportunistic thing and you didn't always have the juice to do these things over and over. I paid very close attention to slots and such, for example around levels 7 and 8 as I was rolling out SGD, Polymorph, and Tiny Servant for only 1 and then 2 slots.

I am doing a Deep Dive into Heavy Obscurement itself and chose to reserve much of the nuanced discussion for that video. This video is 32 minutes and I shoot for 10. Can't cover everything. I want to cover dips, as well... I have notes, but not the time, so might make for a good followup.

Spirit Shroud could definitely be replaced by Dragon's Breath or Shadow Blade/backup sword. I wanted to get a few Tasha's spells in, so call it a thematic preference.

Shapechange still seems awesome to me with Bladesong buffing your concentration checks, but I admit that my knowledge of how to practically use 9th level spells in actual gameplay is extremely limited. I do appreciate any nuances contributed by players more experienced with high level play.

I don't expect the Bladesinger to challenge other wizard subdomains... I rated it poor for a reason. But I like it thematically, and try to build that way. Being invincible is itself a theme, and I already did that, so with this build I'm trying to make a Bladesinger who WANTS to fight, who enjoys it. So no xbows or fighting from the back, even if that makes more sense if pursuing the Invincible Theme.

Thanks again for the detailed points of discussion!

MaxWilson

2020-11-28, 04:33 PM

Oh! I just noticed this bit: "Shapechange... You can literally solo any monster by yourself at this point because you can just take their shape, and it's going to be a blade-singing shape."

Just want to mention that Shapechange won't let you turn into undead (so no Shapechanging into an Atropal to generate hundreds of Wraiths--you have to use True Polymorph for that), or any monster with a CR greater than your level. And yes, there are plenty of monsters with CR > 20, which means you can never shapechange into them unless you do something crazy to acquire a CR > 20 first. E.g. if you True Polymorph the an Empyrean into a kobold, then Magic Jar into that kobold, then stop concentrating on True Polymorph and then cast Shapechange (Ancient Silver Dragon)... you might succeed in temporarily becoming a dragon. But it might not work, ask your DM.

Unoriginal

2020-11-28, 04:43 PM

Yes, I realize now the impracticality of trying to use 2 weapons, so I'll just go with a single, heavier one and BB. What can I say, I'm not good with weapons.

Probably should add something in your video's description about how BB doesn't work with TWF until lvl 6, to avoid confusing the watcher.

I stated that I was using +2 attack in the examples. Yes, higher attack values would hit more often. Sorry I didn't provide a graph, lol.

Don't need to provide a graph, but given how creatures with +2 to hit are generally non-threats like Commoners, it's not really relevant to mention this particular mod and only result in giving the watcher a false impression of how effective the AC is.

I didn't mention it, true, I kind of thought people could add up the number of uses and such themselves. I kind of thought it went without saying that this was an opportunistic thing and you didn't always have the juice to do these things over and over.

I'd agree with you if not for how you said that Pyrotechnics+Dragon's Breath replaced Fog Cloud and the previous tactic, which you kinda sold as the bread-and-butter of this build's efficiency. So at least to me the message read more as "forget about Fog Cloud, Pyrotechnics is your go-to now".

I don't expect the Bladesinger to challenge other wizard subdomains... I rated it poor for a reason.

The Bladesinger can certainly challenge other wizards. Just not like that.

But I like it thematically, and try to build that way. Being invincible is itself a theme, and I already did that, so with this build I'm trying to make a Bladesinger who WANTS to fight, who enjoys it. So no xbows or fighting from the back, even if that makes more sense if pursuing the Invincible Theme.

Well for what it's worth thematically it gave me less the impression of someone who want to fight and more, for example, a mid-game Metal Gear boss where the gimmick is to stumble in the smoke-filled boss arena and to beat up the various minions hidden there, while the boss takes cheap shots and talk a big game, but when cornered it turns out the boss's HP bar is smaller than the one of the game's first boss.

Corran

2020-11-28, 05:26 PM

(A) Hmmm, you're right. I was cognizant of the "it can’t target anyone within it" restriction, but I overlooked "can't cross the circle or harm it". The other remaining sticky point is whether you can choose to make the demon appear within the circle, but thematically it seems reasonable. "Ask your DM" indeed but it seems like this ought to work--but you still need someone else to concentrate on Summon Greater Demon for an hour, or the demon will vanish long before you can finish Planar Binding. Unlike Conjure Elemental, Summon Greater Demon does not produce creatures which stick around for a full hour after you lose concentration. Rules reminder: casting a spell that takes more than 1 action to cast, like Planar Binding, requires your concentration for the full casting time.
Yeah, I am thinking it should work too. I agree that it's thematically reasonable, because I can totally imagine a demon who understands what's happening to be willing to inflict harm to itself in order to escape being bound (too chaotic and impulsive).

I was thinking glyph of warding for the summoning part (generally, and not specifically for Bilbron's build, which may or may not find it), but I now see that (at least technically) you cannot use the blood circle this way, cause RAW it needs to be used as part of casting the spell. So it will probably have to be through another pc or a simulacrum. Edit: Nope, we are still casting SGD as part of creating the glyph, so there is reason to think that the blood circle can be involved.

(B) I see this kind of comment a lot and it makes me wonder how other DMs structure their games. In my games, enemies are actually more likely to be spread out initially doing other things, not bunched up. When they become aware of PCs, they may come running in from other rooms or burrowing up through the floor. In my games, ideally you'd want to Fireball/AoE only AFTER the melee monsters have started ganging up on PCs, if they do.
Bold: Oh, I've noticed that too, even if dealing with spread out enemies is not as common or to such a high degree as it probably is in your games.

I'd say it's mostly because of map/tile restrictions. We are working with limited space (table usually has lots of things on it during play), and although many times a pc will go outside of the available map (in which case we just note somewhere the distance from the edge of the map), the DM doesn't end up doing the same with the monsters at the start of combat, mostly for convenience. That and using a conveniently small scale in dungeons (though dungeons in modules suffer a bit from that too from what I've seen). If you randomly asked me what I think about a 20 foot radius, I'd instinctively say that it's big enough for spells like fireball and hypnotic pattern. Heck, I wouldn't really think much of starting combat from long distances (or for trying to exploit improved range for vision) if it wasn't for a previous game in roll20. It's an opinion shaped by this specific kind of experience, and I'd guess it's a pretty common experience.

E.g. there might be three Star Spawn Grues down that hallway a short ways, gyrating insanely, and a Star Spawn Hulk and two more Grues sniffing fungoids in the fungus room you're standing next to, and a Mangler about to turn the corner and notice you and give the shrieking alarm. If you win initiative and Fireball the Mangler immediately you'll hit fewer targets than if you summon a meatshield for the Mangler to mangle and then Fireball on round 2 after the Grues and Hulk show up, gibbering as they do.
That too. Only had one DM who ever did combat like that (and that was during 4e), and I dont usually do it myself (which makes me think I should try it, cause I like the idea).

Gtdead

2020-11-28, 05:39 PM

Shapechange ("can now solo any monster") (at ~26:08):

It's a Concentration spell that requires an action to cast. Try to solo a monster with a decent Multiattack like that and you'll be lucky to get more than two rounds out of your 9th level spell.

I'm responding to this because Bilbron probably got the inpsiration from something I wrote in his other bladesinger video.

Almost every good form (Dragons, Balor, Pitfiend, Marilith) have more than 20 CON and some of them have resistances. A Marilith for example, not only deals absolutely ridiculous damage, stacked with song of victory, but besides having 6 resistances and 1 immunity, makes your CON saves +16. So you need an enemy that either ignores resistance and is capable of dealing more than 34 damage per hit, or something that is capable of dealing 68 damage per hit just to have a chance. Not many of them exist.

And if you can secure defensive advantage somehow, the enemy will need a miracle to break your concentration. Good luck breaking the concentration of something that has so many resistances, song of defense/absorb and shield on standby and 23 AC. You can safely spam shield for 28 AC and Marilith can use a reaction in every turn, not once per round.

MaxWilson

2020-11-28, 05:46 PM

Don't need to provide a graph, but given how creatures with +2 to hit are generally non-threats like Commoners, it's not really relevant to mention this particular mod and only result in giving the watcher a false impression of how effective the AC is.

To be completely fair though, if he were using Mage Armor (AC 16, 19 with Bladesong, 24 with Shield) against enemies with +4 to hit (like Goblins), they still would only penetrate the Shield on a crit. The example might be flawed simply because Bilbron is deliberately unfamiliar with MM monster stats (to preserve the feeling of discovery), but the essence of the point if sound: disadvantage is very powerful if you have high AC already.

I'd agree with you if not for how you said that Pyrotechnics+Dragon's Breath replaced Fog Cloud and the previous tactic, which you kinda sold as the bread-and-butter of this build's efficiency. So at least to me the message read more as "forget about Fog Cloud, Pyrotechnics is your go-to now".

Yeah, me too. Turns out the actual hope is for Eversmoking bottle so you can get some mobility. Darkness would work too, but you don't have it. I feel this is an important caveat. Fortunately, Babaus can cast Darkness at will and you are planning to learn Summon Greater Demon and Planar Binding, so the problem eventually solves itself--in the meantime I suspect the PC will just be more fragile than anticipated.

BTW, I think if it were me I'd probably go for Fighting Style: Blindsight instead of Alert, and take a level of Artificer instead of Magic Initiate: Artificer. In half-plate armor and shield that would give me AC 19 all the time (24 when Shielding). I'd also pick up Sanctuary, a nice non-concentration defense spell as a bonus action for when I don't need Magic Stone, and flexible access to spells like Cure Wounds, Disguise Self, Faerie Fire, and Longstrider, plus three "free" rituals for my wizard spell book. (Not free in gp of course, still have to pay to scribe them.) It might feel a little bit like playing an AD&D fighter/mage/cleric.

I'd be getting nothing out of Bladesinging except Extra Attack with cantrip support, but I'd no longer be squishy on round 1, and it would no longer be as vital to win initiative, while at the same time I'd be getting much more benefit out of heavy obscurement (ability to cast spells even within the cloud because I can "see" everyone, advantage on attacks, still get to make opportunity attacks if I want to). I'd acquire higher-level spells slightly slower than a pure Bladesinger but essentially freeing up one and a half feats is worth it, at least to me. It just means that when e.g. a new spell like Wall of Force does come online I have the juice to cast the spell twice before resting, instead of only one. This way I can also afford to boost my Int at level 9 instead of waiting for level 12.

And you can always take your armor off and do Bladesinging when you know you're not going to get ambushed at close range. By level 9 your Bladesinging AC with Mage Armor (or Studded Leather +1) will be 20, which is better than your armored AC anyway, and by level 11-15 your other Bladesinging abilities will be coming online and Bladesinging will be more interesting in certain fights.

How is this build different from Artificer 1/any-other-wizard-subclass X? Mostly just that (1) you get Extra Attack to go with your cantips, which could be especially interesting with nets or poisoned weapons, (2) you get some modest bonuses to high-level Shapeshifting, and (3) your eventual AC is more on par with a Fighter's AC than an Artificer's AC, and you have some ability to negate crits via Song of Defense. In most ways I'd rather play an Artificer 1/War Wizard X for pretty much the same effect, but Bladesingers do have some nifty options for grappling/proning, especially if you take Skilled (Athletics) at some point.

I've always felt that Bladesingers are a waste unless you have a good way to make use of Extra Attack, such as with two levels of Rogue. IMO the 5E equivalent of fighter/mage/thief is Rogue 2/Bladesinger X.

Unoriginal

2020-11-28, 08:43 PM

To be completely fair though, if he were using Mage Armor (AC 16, 19 with Bladesong, 24 with Shield) against enemies with +4 to hit (like Goblins), they still would only penetrate the Shield on a crit. The example might be flawed simply because Bilbron is deliberately unfamiliar with MM monster stats (to preserve the feeling of discovery), but the essence of the point if sound: disadvantage is very powerful if you have high AC already.

Fair, but given Bilbron made a point to note Mage Armor was not worth it for this build, I still feel like it should be clarified that the character is still much more hitable than what saying "if the enemies has +2 to hit only a crit can touch you" implies.

Yeah, me too. Turns out the actual hope is for Eversmoking bottle so you can get some mobility. Darkness would work too, but you don't have it. I feel this is an important caveat. Fortunately, Babaus can cast Darkness at will and you are planning to learn Summon Greater Demon and Planar Binding, so the problem eventually solves itself--in the meantime I suspect the PC will just be more fragile than anticipated.

Babaus can be pretty nice to have in the team, IIRC. Still "more fragile than anticipated" is quite a big deal for a build the video incentivize to go in melee.

BTW, I think if it were me I'd probably go for Fighting Style: Blindsight instead of Alert

I thought about the same, but that does make the PC considerably slower initiative-wise..

I'd be getting nothing out of Bladesinging except Extra Attack with cantrip support, but I'd no longer be squishy on round 1, and it would no longer be as vital to win initiative, while at the same time I'd be getting much more benefit out of heavy obscurement

Fair.

And you can always take your armor off and do Bladesinging when you know you're not going to get ambushed at close range. By level 9 your Bladesinging AC with Mage Armor (or Studded Leather +1) will be 20, which is better than your armored AC anyway, and by level 11-15 your other Bladesinging abilities will be coming online and Bladesinging will be more interesting in certain fights.

How is this build different from Artificer 1/any-other-wizard-subclass X? Mostly just that (1) you get Extra Attack to go with your cantips, which could be especially interesting with nets or poisoned weapons, (2) you get some modest bonuses to high-level Shapeshifting, and (3) your eventual AC is more on par with a Fighter's AC than an Artificer's AC, and you have some ability to negate crits via Song of Defense. In most ways I'd rather play an Artificer 1/War Wizard X for pretty much the same effect, but Bladesingers do have some nifty options for grappling/proning, especially if you take Skilled (Athletics) at some point.

I've always felt that Bladesingers are a waste unless you have a good way to make use of Extra Attack, such as with two levels of Rogue. IMO the 5E equivalent of fighter/mage/thief is Rogue 2/Bladesinger X.

Would Artificier 3 (Battlesmith)/Bladesinger X be worthwhile, in your opinion?

I think it's expensive but on the other hand it helps with the stat issue.

MaxWilson

2020-11-28, 09:28 PM

Fair, but given Bilbron made a point to note Mage Armor was not worth it for this build, I still feel like it should be clarified that the character is still much more hitable than what saying "if the enemies has +2 to hit only a crit can touch you" implies.

...

Would Artificier 3 (Battlesmith)/Bladesinger X be worthwhile, in your opinion?

I think it's expensive but on the other hand it helps with the stat issue.

I think the bigger AC issue is that you're burning Shields instead of HP. That isn't sustainable, especially when you're already burning slots on Fog Cloud/Pyrotechnics. IMO it makes more sense in this case to talk about your un-Shielded AC, and then treat your Shields as effectively a source of extra HP, but only against deadly threats. If you wind up burning a 2nd level slot and two 1st level slots against a mere ten goblins, are you really better off than if you'd just cast a Sleep spell right off the bat?

I don't feel that a three-level dip in Battlesmith is worthwhile, no. Infusions are okay, but attacking with Int is not even a boost until you boost Int past 16. You lose spell slots and delay access to important spells for too long. There's not really any stat issue as far as I'm concerned. Dex 14 or 16 is a perfectly adequate Booming Blade attack stat. Frankly if Tasha's is in play I'd be more likely to go Peace 1 or Twilight 2 than Battlesmith 3. (But I don't actually play with Tasha's rules, except for a Ki-Fueled Strikes for monks and sorcerer domain spells for all sorcs.)

Unoriginal

2020-11-28, 10:38 PM

I think the bigger AC issue is that you're burning Shields instead of HP. That isn't sustainable, especially when you're already burning slots on Fog Cloud/Pyrotechnics. IMO it makes more sense in this case to talk about your un-Shielded AC, and then treat your Shields as effectively a source of extra HP, but only against deadly threats. If you wind up burning a 2nd level slot and two 1st level slots against a mere ten goblins, are you really better off than if you'd just cast a Sleep spell right off the bat?

I agree. This build bleeds spell slots faster than it bleeds HPs, and it bleeds HPs pretty fast.

I don't feel that a three-level dip in Battlesmith is worthwhile, no. Infusions are okay, but attacking with Int is not even a boost until you boost Int past 16. You lose spell slots and delay access to important spells for too long.

Yeah, I had more or less the same feeling, but I thought maybe there was something I was not seeing

There's not really any stat issue as far as I'm concerned. Dex 14 or 16 is a perfectly adequate Booming Blade attack stat.

Fair, but it's really not great for the Extra Attack, which is one of the reasons for Bladesinger.

Bilbron

2020-11-28, 11:24 PM

I agree. This build bleeds spell slots faster than it bleeds HPs, and it bleeds HPs pretty fast.
In fairness, part of the build is the familiar feeding me Potions of Healing every round. To counter my own point, that might be prohibitively expensive, unless the party has a Life Cleric with Goodberry. But the general thought is that I could leverage the familiar to help make up for the lack of HP and the hits that get through (likely when I fight without obscurement).

In regards to dipping and armor, I kind of feel like armor defeats the point of Bladesinger... just pick a different subdomain. At a minimum I want a guy who WANTS to fight... I feel like those who prefer fighting from the back would gravitate to other subdomains. And I wanted to keep it straight wizard here to take advantage of the fact that it can do without a dip better than any other subdomain. I may do a followup about dips, though.

I grant that the obscurement is borderline thematically, but I went through a few iterations trying to leverage other mechanics, and they mostly involved die rolling (or too difficult to reliably release from concentration like with Pyrotechnics at least) and I couldn't bring myself to abandon the automatic application of obscurement + the free disengages it offers for BB.

Final comment - my one campaign has been pretty stingy with loot but apparently way looser with magic items. In big cities, I send word ahead with my criminal network to procure certain items and sometimes they manage to get it done. So I'm surprised that the likes of +1 Studded or the uncommon Eversmoking Bottle seem difficult to acquire.

Thunderous Mojo

2020-11-28, 11:59 PM

Outside of a weasel familiar, most of the base familiars lack the anatomy to open a stoppered flask.

I'm sure some DMs never attack familiars. In play, I think most DMs reach a tipping point when the Familiar has done enough crucial actions that it registers as a foe.

A black widow spider that shoots Lightning like Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars, (via a Dragon's Breath spell), seems like an exigent threat to most creatures.

A 1 HP "Rescue Owl" dropping Goodberries into your mouth, doesn't strike me as the most robust insurance policy.

Since Familiars are not beasts, ethical considerations of animal cruelty don't apply, DMs should kill away. 🃏🖖

Bilbron

2020-11-29, 12:12 AM

MaxWilson

2020-11-29, 12:18 AM

In fairness, part of the build is the familiar feeding me Potions of Healing every round. To counter my own point, that might be prohibitively expensive, unless the party has a Life Cleric with Goodberry. But the general thought is that I could leverage the familiar to help make up for the lack of HP and the hits that get through (likely when I fight without obscurement).

Potions of healing: expensive.

Owls with super-Goodberry: relies three times over on favorable DM ruling: letting you consume Goodberries with someone else's action instead of your own (technically illegal), letting your handless familiar be the one who gives them to you, and letting Disciple of Life work with Goodberry despite the fact that the spell isn't actually the thing that's healing you.

Moreover, if your plan is to just consume Goodberries constantly, why do you even need Alert? You've already got AC 15ish all the time, there's not THAT much difference between 15 and 18. IMO you should take Fighting Style: Blindsight instead to capitalize on the constant heavy obscurement you plan on bringing to bear, and eliminate that whole "can't cast most spells in heavy obscurement" issue.

If you're not willing to wear armor at all then I can see why you'd prefer to do Artificer Initiate instead of dipping Artificer.

Never understood why an owl can grab a branch or a mouse but not a stopper. Even untrained birds build nests, and trained birds can do amazing things.

Obviously YMMV in regards to the DM, of course.

I never thought about it before, but I'm assuming the anatomical issue ThunderousMojo is pointing out is less about grabbing the stopper and more about pulling the stopper out of the bottle. Counterpoint: there's no reason you have to keep healing potions in stoppered bottles as opposed to, say, leather flasks that can be punctured by a beak. Counter-counterpoint: how clever do you really expect an Int 2 owl to be with its talons and beak? Do you really think it can puncture a leather flask and launch it into your mouth while you're busy fighting?

As a DM I'm inclined to cut players some slack so I might allow it anyway if the majority of the players at the table thought it was plausible, but I'd be casting my own personal vote against it. It just doesn't seem believable to me. It would be difficult enough for one human to administer a potion to another human in motion; having a handless bird do it seems implausible.

Thunderous Mojo

2020-11-29, 12:39 AM

Building a nest doesn't take 6 seconds..it takes much, much longer.
Joan Embery was a friend of my mother's, so I agree that trained animals can perform amazing tasks. Trained Animals are typically performing modified versions of natural behavior.

Familiar's are not beasts, so the actions they take are not limited to "natural behaviors", but the anatomy on an owl is not conducive to opening a stoppered flask.

Now if a DM allows you to swap a cat for a raccoon familiar...you are in business....
until the Familiar dies and you can take a hour to cast the spell again.

Bilbron

2020-11-29, 11:24 AM

Owls with super-Goodberry: relies three times over on favorable DM ruling: letting you consume Goodberries with someone else's action instead of your own (technically illegal), letting your handless familiar be the one who gives them to you, and letting Disciple of Life work with Goodberry despite the fact that the spell isn't actually the thing that's healing you.

Moreover, if your plan is to just consume Goodberries constantly, why do you even need Alert? You've already got AC 15ish all the time, there's not THAT much difference between 15 and 18. IMO you should take Fighting Style: Blindsight instead to capitalize on the constant heavy obscurement you plan on bringing to bear, and eliminate that whole "can't cast most spells in heavy obscurement" issue.

I never thought about it before, but I'm assuming the anatomical issue ThunderousMojo is pointing out is less about grabbing the stopper and more about pulling the stopper out of the bottle. Counterpoint: there's no reason you have to keep healing potions in stoppered bottles as opposed to, say, leather flasks that can be punctured by a beak. Counter-counterpoint: how clever do you really expect an Int 2 owl to be with its talons and beak? Do you really think it can puncture a leather flask and launch it into your mouth while you're busy fighting?

As a DM I'm inclined to cut players some slack so I might allow it anyway if the majority of the players at the table thought it was plausible, but I'd be casting my own personal vote against it. It just doesn't seem believable to me. It would be difficult enough for one human to administer a potion to another human in motion; having a handless bird do it seems implausible.

Goodberry only requires one DM ruling (that they can be applied as PoH, not a stretch). Sage Advice/Errata supports Life-powered Goodberries, and RAW creatures can do X with an action and creatures can take actions (except familiar cannot take attack action). So any deviation from "creature can use action to do X" is a homebrew deviation from RAW, mostly because DMs can't wrap their mind around the physics.

I like Alert because you can never be surprised, get the initiative bump, and you're attacked at disadvantage even from range. Blindsight is only good within 10' so no good against range, and you lose the other benefits which are more important to me than attacking at advantage.

Glass vials can have leather sheaths or grips, ala blades.

Owls have beaks, too, but again, this is a protest from a DM who is imagining IRL physics and using it to deviate from RAW. OK, if that's how your DM rolls, but I analyze RAW as much as possible (usually ignorance the reason for deviation). Admittedly this is an issue with familiars in your space as well (as you point out in the discussion about Tiny creatures and mount rules etc.) but I just found out about that, and you are the only person who's brought it up so I'd guess most DMs don't disallow the familiar in the backpack thing.

Klorox

2020-11-29, 11:57 AM

Bilbron

2020-11-29, 12:01 PM

Thank you for posting this. Pre-Tasha, I would choose rapier over dual short swords every time.

Now that I can cast booming blade and still get a bonus action attack, I'm switching to short swords all the time. Besides, it looks cooler.

Having played bladesingers for a while, I think you might be overrating obscurement a little bit though. It's great, but it isn't party friendly. You so rarely get hit as it is, and I've found warcaster a must have feat, even more so now that we'll be using two weapons.

Just my opinion. I kinda get the impression that, while I love your videos, they might be based more on theorycraft than actual play.

Perhaps that might be a better avenue to take than posting advice for others, if it hasn't been tested. Again, JMO.

Yes, it's definitely theorycraft. I'm not uncomfortable saying that I've only 1 character/campaign and a year's experience with D&D 5e.

This build is my optimization, but I'm not saying it's "the best" because I don't think Bladesinger is appropriate if you're shooting for the "invincible" theme. It's like you might want to play a fighter, and you know he'll never the "the best", but you still optimize that theme if you want to play it and don't try to make them "invincible" because if you were going for that you'd play a wizard. I rate Bladesinger "poor" from a powergaming perspective, but seems much fun to play, so this is the optimized version that I'm going to roll out when I play it. If it works, it works. If not, I'll adapt.

Unoriginal

2020-11-29, 12:10 PM

Klorox

2020-11-29, 12:14 PM

Yes, it's definitely theorycraft. I'm not uncomfortable saying that I've only 1 character/campaign and a year's experience with D&D 5e.

This build is my optimization, but I'm not saying it's "the best" because I don't think Bladesinger is appropriate if you're shooting for the "invincible" theme. It's like you might want to play a fighter, and you know he'll never the "the best", but you still optimize that theme if you want to play it and don't try to make them "invincible" because if you were going for that you'd play a wizard. I rate Bladesinger "poor" from a powergaming perspective, but seems much fun to play, so this is the optimized version that I'm going to roll out when I play it. If it works, it works. If not, I'll adapt.

Cool.

Cool-cool-cool.

I just love this class so much. I think it's kinda the best of two worlds: the powergamer side of me knows I'll have the best class (wizard) with a 20 INT by end game. The low level side of me gets to dip into melee from time to time. I actually think from levels 6-10 (now this is theorycrafting as well), post-Tasha's, you have the most damaging melee character out there.

As you alluded to above, after that, you'll just enter melee when you want to anyway. Heck, post-Tasha's, if you're really powergaming, you might want to retrain into a chronorgist or illusionist in tier 3/4.

Bilbron

2020-11-29, 12:23 PM

Cool.

Cool-cool-cool.

I just love this class so much. I think it's kinda the best of two worlds: the powergamer side of me knows I'll have the best class (wizard) with a 20 INT by end game. The low level side of me gets to dip into melee from time to time. I actually think from levels 6-10 (now this is theorycrafting as well), post-Tasha's, you have the most damaging melee character out there.

As you alluded to above, after that, you'll just enter melee when you want to anyway. Heck, post-Tasha's, if you're really powergaming, you might want to retrain into a chronorgist or illusionist in tier 3/4.

Transitioning to Chronurgist for Arcane Abeyance at level 10 and then Illusionist for Illusory Reality at level 14 makes insane sense for any wizard, lol. My DM let me switch to Chronurgy (only level 8, but I wrote a 4 page story explaining the transition so good enough) but it's the only switch I'll get. But I'll still take Convergent Future!

MaxWilson

2020-11-29, 02:49 PM

Goodberry only requires one DM ruling (that they can be applied as PoH, not a stretch). Sage Advice/Errata supports Life-powered Goodberries, and RAW creatures can do X with an action and creatures can take actions (except familiar cannot take attack action). So any deviation from "creature can use action to do X" is a homebrew deviation from RAW, mostly because DMs can't wrap their mind around the physics.

There is no errata supporting Disciple of Life Goodberry.

Sage Advice is an opinion column and explicitly still relies on a DM to make a ruling.

What you're saying here is that you only need one favorable DM ruling, but really you still need three: one with support from Sage Advice (but opposed by the PHB's text), one with support from Crawford's tweets (but illegal according to PHB text--and if just popping a Goodberry in your mouth were enough to trigger the healing, it wouldn't take an action in the first place, just an object interaction, so it's clearly not that easy), and one that's sort of supported by PHB text ("it can take other actions as normal") if you don't think too hard about the ambiguity of "as normal" in this context. That's still three rulings, not one, even if you believe you're likely to get them all the way you like them.

N.b. "can't wrap their mind around" implies something true but hard to understand, like a complicated riddle or quantum physics experimental results. This is not that, it's just something physically implausible. If you want to make it plausible, onus is on you to describe how to plausibly make your owl unstopper and administer healing potions to you while it's flying by every round. Disparaging others for disagreeing with you ("can't wrap their mind around") is not helpful. Please don't.

Owls have beaks, too, but again, this is a protest from a DM who is imagining IRL physics and using it to deviate from RAW. OK, if that's how your DM rolls, but I analyze RAW as much as possible (usually ignorance the reason for deviation). Admittedly this is an issue with familiars in your space as well (as you point out in the discussion about Tiny creatures and mount rules etc.) but I just found out about that, and you are the only person who's brought it up so I'd guess most DMs don't disallow the familiar in the backpack thing.

Filling in gaps in RAW is kind of a DM's job. RAW doesn't say how good an owl's immune system or hearing is (it says they have advantage on checks, but the DM still has to decide when something is close enough for owls to see/hear/smell) or if they can open vials with leather sheaths. The DM has to decide. That's the job.

Bilbron

2020-11-29, 03:00 PM

There is no errata supporting Disciple of Life Goodberry.

Sage Advice is an opinion column and explicitly still relies on a DM to make a ruling.

What you're saying here is that you only need one favorable DM ruling, but really you still need three: one with support from Sage Advice (but opposed by the PHB's text), one with support from Crawford's tweets (but illegal according to PHB text--and if just popping a Goodberry in your mouth were enough to trigger the healing, it wouldn't take an action in the first place, just an object interaction, so it's clearly not that easy), and one that's sort of supported by PHB text ("it can take other actions as normal") if you don't think too hard about the ambiguity of "as normal" in this context. That's still three rulings, not one, even if you believe you're likely to get them all the way you like them.

N.b. "can't wrap their mind around" implies something true but hard to understand, like a complicated riddle or quantum physics experimental results. This is not that, it's just something physically implausible. If you want to make it plausible, onus is on you to describe how to plausibly make your owl unstopper and administer healing potions to you while it's flying by every round. Disparaging others for disagreeing with you ("can't wrap their mind around") is not helpful. Please don't.It wasn't meant that way, I'm simply referring to the phenemonon in D&D where simplified rules come under unwarranted scrutiny because they are perceived to be "unrealistic". I don't think pointing this out is inherently disrespectful, though I will take your advice under consideration going forward.

In this particular case, I agree that you need the one ruling about applying goodberries, and agree that you are correct that even SA support isn't a final ruling, so that's two. But I stand my ground on the view that RAW creatures can take actions to do X, and lacking text saying otherwise (and in the face of what I consider quite plausible explanations like that a trained owl seems clearly capable of grasping a vial in the same claw capable of grabbing branches, and pulling a stopper out with its beak), the DM has to deviate from RAW to rule against you here.

Filling in gaps in RAW is kind of a DM's job. RAW doesn't say how good an owl's immune system or hearing is (it says they have advantage on checks, but the DM still has to decide when something is close enough for owls to see/hear/smell) or if they can open vials with leather sheaths. The DM has to decide. That's the job.Yes, of course. I'm simply making my case here. I think the most common sensical ruling is that creatures can take actions to do X and that this seems reasonable IMO regarding IRL physics; that goodberries are quite similar to Potions of Healing so this is most likely a case of failed exhaustiveness and not an explicit difference in RAI; and that SA supporting Life-powered goodberries is quite sufficient. But obviously this argument is up to the DM's final discretion, and I will of course adapt my strategies to whatever he rules. In discussing this issue going forward, I will attempt to include all of these nuanced caveats, however, as they should certainly be brought up for discussion prior to rolling out a character or implementing a particular tactic.

MaxWilson

2020-11-29, 03:18 PM

In this particular case, I agree that you need the one ruling about applying goodberries, and agree that you are correct that even SA support isn't a final ruling, so that's two. But I stand my ground on the view that RAW creatures can take actions to do X, and lacking text saying otherwise (and in the face of what I consider quite plausible explanations like that a trained owl seems clearly capable of (A) grasping a vial in the same claw capable of grabbing branches, and pulling a stopper out with its beak), the DM has to deviate from RAW to rule against you here.

Yes, of course. I'm simply making my case here. I think the most common sensical ruling is that creatures can take actions to do X and that this seems reasonable IMO regarding IRL physics, that (B) goodberries are quite similar to Potions of Healing so this is most likely a case of failed exhaustiveness and not an explicit difference in RAI, and that SA supporting Life-powered goodberries is quite sufficient. But obviously this argument is up to the DM's final discretion, and I will of course adapt my strategies to whatever he rules. In discussing this issue going forward, I will attempt to include all of these nuanced caveats, however, as they should certainly be brought up for discussion prior to rolling out a character or implementing a particular tactic.

(A) I don't think that would be reasonable for a normal cork stopper, but it might be reasonable for a cork stopper with leather straps attached to vial and stopper. (Do owls have neck muscles that can pull? In the absence of info from ThunderousMojo I'll say yes, and I assume most other DMs would too. We're not owl experts.) Altering vials this way is a technique that I believe is worth calling out as powergaming advice.

(B) ARE they really that similar to healing potions? It's already difficult to justify why healing potions take an action to consume, but maybe that could be because you have to unstopper a bottle and let it air for a few seconds before drinking. But why does a berry require a full action to benefit from? Do you have to chew it 17 times or something? What happens if you just eat the berry as an object interaction WITHOUT doing the thing that takes an action? Whatever it is, is it something someone else can do for you and you still get the benefit? It's totally reasonable for a DM to stick to RAW and say no here.

I bet your Goodberry thing would work at at least half of all tables, but there's are several potential failure points.

BTW you should check out LudicSavant's writings, like this: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?583957-An-Eclectic-Collection-of-Fun-and-Effective-Builds

You remind me of each other in some ways, like your approaches to RAW, desire to help others, and fondness for intricate builds. You might enjoy the read.

Bilbron

2020-11-29, 03:23 PM

(A) I don't think that would be reasonable for a normal cork stopper, but it might be reasonable for a cork stopper with leather straps attached to vial and stopper. (Do owls have neck muscles that can pull? In the absence of info from ThunderousMojo I'll say yes, and I assume most other DMs would too. We're not owl experts.) Altering vials this way is a technique that I believe is worth calling out as powergaming advice.

(B) ARE they really that similar to healing potions? It's already difficult to justify why healing potions take an action to consume, but maybe that could be because you have to unstopper a bottle and let it air for a few seconds before drinking. But why does a berry require a full action to benefit from? Do you have to chew it 17 times or something? What happens if you just eat the berry as an object interaction WITHOUT doing the thing that takes an action? Whatever it is, is it something someone else can do for you and you still get the benefit? It's totally reasonable for a DM to say no here.

I bet your Goodberry thing would work at at least half of all tables, but there's are several potential failure points.Ultimately, I think if a player is imaginative enough, they can find ways to justify such things. Then the question becomes, do you really want to play the game at such a granular level? My DM and I had a talk about this because I'm perfectly capable of drawing him a diagram of my backpack and explaining how all this is done just to justify the RAW, but we decided that was kind of boring. But of course YMMV in that regard.

I am happy to make a case for goodberry, but I also feel compelled to mention that I feel like I've been pretty good about qualifying the need for DM interpretation in regards to it. I do try to qualify as much as possible without being pedantic, but there is a lot of room for style choices and mistakes that may lead to confusion. Such is the imperfection of language, unfortunately.

BTW you should check out LudicSavant's writings, like this: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?583957-An-Eclectic-Collection-of-Fun-and-Effective-Builds

You remind me of each other in some ways, like your approaches to RAW, desire to help others, and fondness for intricate builds. You might enjoy the read.I will do so, thanks for the tip!

Unoriginal

2020-11-29, 03:30 PM

(A) I don't think that would be reasonable for a normal cork stopper, but it might be reasonable for a cork stopper with leather straps attached to vial and stopper. (Do owls have neck muscles that can pull? In the absence of info from ThunderousMojo I'll say yes, and I assume most other DMs would too. We're not owl experts.) Altering vials this way is a technique that I believe is worth calling out as powergaming advice.

(B) ARE they really that similar to healing potions? It's already difficult to justify why healing potions take an action to consume, but maybe that could be because you have to unstopper a bottle and let it air for a few seconds before drinking. But why does a berry require a full action to benefit from? Do you have to chew it 17 times or something? What happens if you just eat the berry as an object interaction WITHOUT doing the thing that takes an action? Whatever it is, is it something someone else can do for you and you still get the benefit? It's totally reasonable for a DM to stick to RAW and say no here.

I bet your Goodberry thing would work at at least half of all tables, but there's are several potential failure points.

I don't think how much Action those actions cost has anything to do with simulationist concerns and think it has everything to do with how valuable the design team thought each of said actions are.

Ultimately, I think if a player is imaginative enough, they can find ways to justify such things.

A player's imagination when justifying anything has no real impact on the ruling. A player can suggest a reasoning, but it's up to the DM to agree if it works or not.

MaxWilson

2020-11-29, 03:38 PM

Ultimately, I think if a player is imaginative enough, they can find ways to justify such things. Then the question becomes, (A) do you really want to play the game at such a granular level? My DM and I had a talk about this because I'm perfectly capable of drawing him a diagram of my backpack and explaining how all this is done just to justify the RAW, but we decided that was kind of boring. But of course YMMV in that regard.

I am happy to make a case for goodberry, but I also feel compelled to mention that (B) I feel like I've been pretty good about qualifying the need for DM interpretation in regards to it. I do try to qualify as much as possible without being pedantic, but there is a lot of room for style choices and mistakes that may lead to confusion. Such is the imperfection of language, unfortunately.

(A) Me personally? Yes. That's the whole point of having a human DM in TTRPG party: getting to drill down in arbitrary detail and having things still make sense! Unfortunately 5E isn't a great game for this because often things don't make sense when you look hard at how they operate (looking at you, Bardic Inspiration and Cutting Words), but I wish it did and I do enjoy that playstyle.

(B) I agree, you have been good about calling out DM dependencies in your videos and I appreciate that. In this context we're discussing a build which relies implicitly on potions of healing and/or Goodberries to eke out its HP and spell slots. I don't think Goodberries or familiars were explicitly mentioned in the video at all. The takeaway here should be: this build as described burns a lot of resources on defense. Consider burning resources on offense instead, depending on the situation. Against a squad of eight goblins at 2nd level, consider Sleep x2 instead of Fog Cloud + Shield.

Bilbron

2020-11-29, 03:43 PM

I don't think Goodberries or familiars were explicitly mentioned in the video at all. The takeaway here should be: this build as described burns a lot of resources on defense. Consider burning resources on offense instead, depending on the situation. Against a squad of eight goblins at 2nd level, consider Sleep x2 instead of Fog Cloud + Shield.

In regards to what to cast and when, it's tough to justify getting so granular in a video already 30 minutes long. I tried to cover this topic in my video on Resource Management, and if someone believes I advocate that you should burn all your resources in one battle and be totally unprepared without a plan B, I can only feel like that's a pretty uncharitable interpretation.

Finally, one of the things about the nitty gritty of video production is, how much time can you invest in each video? Do you script everything, or just outline and go on the fly?

I have chosen the latter so that I can maintain my production schedule of 1 video every 2 days. But on especially long videos that are complex, even with several practice iterations as I tend to do, I can make mistakes in the sense of failing to address every important nuance. The perfectionist in me is then appalled upon rewatching, but I have to decide if it's worth cutting another 30 minute video to add another 30 seconds of necessary qualification. Usually the answer is no. But then I sometimes regret it if these errors or omissions are seized on and then dominate the discussion instead of the other 99% of the video, lol.

I'm still figuring this out though, and am adjusting as I go forward.

Note: I guess I could just splice in edits and such, but the point of the high transaction costs of constantly seeking perfection stands

MaxWilson

2020-11-29, 04:11 PM

In regards to what to cast and when, it's tough to justify getting so granular in a video already 30 minutes long. I tried to cover this topic in my video on Resource Management, and if someone believes I advocate that you should burn all your resources in one battle and be totally unprepared without a plan B, I can only feel like that's a pretty uncharitable interpretation.

Finally, one of the things about the nitty gritty of video production is, how much time can you invest in each video? Do you script everything, or just outline and go on the fly?

I have chosen the latter so that I can maintain my production schedule of 1 video every 2 days. But on especially long videos that are complex, even with several practice iterations as I tend to do, I can make mistakes in the sense of failing to address every important nuance. The perfectionist in me is then appalled upon rewatching, but I have to decide if it's worth cutting another 30 minute video to add another 30 seconds of necessary qualification. Usually the answer is no. But then I sometimes regret it if these errors or omissions are seized on and then dominate the discussion instead of the other 99% of the video, lol.

I'm still figuring this out though, and am adjusting as I go forward.

Note: I guess I could just splice in edits and such, but the point of the high transaction costs of constantly seeking perfection stands

Sure. I think at this point we're not criticizing the video or expecting you to change it, we're discussing the ramifications in a discussion thread reacting to the video. It's an interesting discussion which we wouldn't be having if your video hadn't catalyzed it, so thank you.

I don't agree that this is covered by the Resource Management video though, because this isn't about how many resources to spend how quickly, it's making a point that defense can be more expensive than offense. (BTW that's one regard in which you resemble me more than LudicSavant. He is very offense-minded and I'm habitually defense-minded, which means I'm aware of its shortcomings too.) Remember Lanchester's Square Law: enemy power scales as the square of the number of enemies. Always be looking for a better move on round 1 than your default Fog Cloud/Pyrotechnics, even if it leaves you personally more vulnerable against a reduced number of enemies. It's fine as a baseline/default but it will often be possible to beat it.

Maybe that's already obvious to you but I just said it anyway, am happy to discuss in more detail about tradeoffs and example scenarios.

Bilbron

2020-11-29, 04:18 PM

I don't agree that this is covered by the Resource Management video though, because this isn't about how many resources to spend how quickly, it's making a point that defense can be more expensive than offense. (BTW that's one regard in which you resemble me more than LudicSavant. He is very offense-minded and I'm habitually defense-minded, which means I'm aware of its shortcomings too.) Remember Lanchester's Square Law: enemy power scales as the square of the number of enemies. Always be looking for a better move on round 1 than your default Fog Cloud/Pyrotechnics, even if it leaves you personally more vulnerable against a reduced number of enemies. It's fine as a baseline/default but it will often be possible to beat it.

Sorry, I misspoke and actually meant my video on Efficiency.

But in any case, I agree and think combat situations are so fluid that it's often difficult to talk about all of them when discussing general tactics. Generally I believe in being opportunistic... I have X instances of this power so I will use it when conditions are favorable, so I will use obscurement against this constrained enemy who can't readily escape it, and I will reserve it in open scenarios. These enemies are grouped so I do Y, those enemies lack flight so I will do Z, always seeking the lowest opportunity cost. That's why I believe in and tend to have a wide variety of both magical and non-magical options to deploy depending on scenario.

Unoriginal

2020-11-29, 04:20 PM

I have chosen the latter so that I can maintain my production schedule of 1 video every 2 days.

That schedule is insane if you want to produce content with any kind of decent research or new reasoning.

But on especially long videos that are complex, even with several practice iterations as I tend to do, I can make mistakes in the sense of failing to address every important nuance.

If they're important, then cutting them off makes your video a disservice. I'm sure it'd have been more important for someone looking for new ways to use the Bladesinger to have you talk about the pros and cons of the obscurement methods suggested, rather than spending 10+ mins talking about how the spells typically selected for level 14+ wizards are great (which is a topic quite covered already).

But then I sometimes regret it if these errors or omissions are seized on and then dominate the discussion instead of the other 99% of the video, lol.

When someone creates a new explicative work about the DnD, the only things it can be judged for are the presentation and the new content.

In the case of this video, the only new content are the rule errors and the omissions of well-known issues that you've made.

Note: I guess I could just splice in edits and such, but the point of the high transaction costs of constantly seeking perfection stands

Perfection is not needed, but the work should still hold water. If edits are needed for that then it's better than not do them.

Sorry, I misspoke and actually meant my video on Efficiency.

But in any case, I agree and think combat situations are so fluid that it's often difficult to talk about all of them when discussing general tactics. Generally I believe in being opportunistic... I have X instances of this power so I will use it when conditions are favorable, so I will use obscurement against this constrained enemy who can't readily escape it, and I will reserve it in open scenarios. These enemies are grouped so I do Y, those enemies lack flight so I will do Z, always seeking the lowest opportunity cost. That's why I believe in and tend to have a wide variety of both magical and non-magical options to deploy depending on scenario.

Opportunism is very useful in actual fights, but the fact is you're selling your videos as guides, and guides carry an inherent assumption that whatever it presents is applicable in a general, will-always-work way unless stated otherwise.

Bilbron

2020-11-29, 04:27 PM

That schedule is insane if you want to produce content with any kind of decent research or new reasoning.

If they're important, then cutting them off makes your video a disservice. I'm sure it'd have been more important for someone looking for new ways to use the Bladesinger to have you talk about the pros and cons of the obscurement methods suggested, rather than spending 10+ mins talking about how the spells typically selected for level 14+ wizards are great (which is a topic quite covered already).

When someone creates a new explicative work about the DnD, the only things it can be judged for are the presentation and the new content.

In the case of this video, the only new content are the rule errors and the omissions of well-known issues that you've made.

Perfection is not needed, but the work should still hold water. If edits are needed for that then it's better than not do them.
I'm currently unemployed so have a lot of time on my hands. And I've been making the production process as efficient as I can, while alternating between videos that require a lot of work and others that aren't so difficult (it will be a while before I attempt another level 1-20 subdomain optimization, for example).

I am preparing a Deep Dive on Obscurement, so will cover such things heavily in that video. I can't help it if topics are heavily discussed already... I do a lot of research for each video, but mostly by scouring forums and I don't really know what others are producing or have already discussed. I choose topics based on personal interest... I hope people want to come along for the ride, but I'm not interested in pleasing everybody.

On the contrary, just as products are judged by sales and not perceived qualities (e.g. VHS vs. Betamax), the final arbiter of youtube interest is views and subscribers. I'm doing the best I can... if you don't like it, you will judge me by your failure to watch. So it goes.

Opportunism is very useful in actual fights, but the fact is you're selling your videos as guides, and guides carry an inherent assumption that whatever it presents is applicable in a general, will-always-work way unless stated otherwise.If you consider them guides, you're mistaken. I consider myself a very good theorycrafter who is sharing his thoughts about various game mechanics and tactics in regards to them. My videos are Deep Dives and Showdowns (ratings) and optimizing various mechanics as I see appropriate and possible. They are intended as launching points for discussion and certainly not lessons or guides.

MaxWilson

2020-11-29, 04:28 PM

Sorry, I misspoke and actually meant my video on Efficiency.

But in any case, I agree and think combat situations are so fluid that it's often difficult to talk about all of them when discussing general tactics. Generally I believe in being opportunistic... I have X instances of this power so I will use it when conditions are favorable, so I will use obscurement against this constrained enemy who can't readily escape it, and I will reserve it in open scenarios. These enemies are grouped so I do Y, those enemies lack flight so I will do Z, always seeking the lowest opportunity cost. That's why I believe in and tend to have a wide variety of both magical and non-magical options to deploy depending on scenario.

Agreed. It is very hard to talk tactics in generalities, and even harder to make casual readers (or viewers) on the Internet appreciate the value of deep contingency planning. I have no solutions to this problem, although I do think tactical contests are super-fun, and wish there were an easy way to post tactical puzzles as whole CRPG adventures that could still be played in a matter of minutes, so everyone could see what builds and tactics are most successful. Creating such a web-based tool is one of my longstanding hobbies, and maybe I should be working on that right now instead of posting here. :)

Bilbron

2020-11-29, 04:32 PM

Agreed. It is very hard to talk tactics in generalities, and even harder to make casual readers (or viewers) on the Internet appreciate the value of deep contingency planning. I have no solutions to this problem, although I do think tactical contests are super-fun, and wish there were an easy way to post tactical puzzles as whole CRPG adventures that could still be played in a matter of minutes, so everyone could see what builds and tactics are most successful. Creating such a web-based tool is one of my longstanding hobbies, and maybe I should be working on that right now instead of posting here. :)

After that Bladesinger optimization, I need an "easy" vid for tomorrow, and I think I will do a Metagaming Series to talk about this. Theorycrafting vs. Playtesting. Obviously the latter is better, but has massive transaction costs, and are playtesting theorized builds in any case. I can probably get 5 minutes out of it, lol.

MaxWilson

2020-11-29, 04:32 PM

Opportunism is very useful in actual fights, but the fact is you're selling your videos as guides, and guides carry an inherent assumption that whatever it presents is applicable in a general, will-always-work way unless stated otherwise.

One reason I dislike and avoid writing "guides". They're fine as a source of possible ideas but people want to trust them way too much. It's a promise that cannot be kept.

If you consider them guides, you're mistaken. I consider myself a very good theorycrafter who is sharing his thoughts about various game mechanics and tactics in regards to them. My videos are Deep Dives and Showdowns (ratings) and optimizing various mechanics as I see appropriate and possible. They are intended as launching points for discussion and certainly not lessons or guides.

Yes, I appreciate that about your videos. Thank you for starting an interesting discussion in this thread.

After that Bladesinger optimization, I need an "easy" vid for tomorrow, and I think I will do a Metagaming Series to talk about this. Theorycrafting vs. Playtesting. Obviously the latter is better, but has massive transaction costs, and are playtesting theorized builds in any case. I can probably get 5 minutes out of it, lol.

I think people are unnecessarily down on Theory. You do learn some things from actual play that you probably wouldn't realize from pure theory, but it's equally possible to miss important things while actually playing for years at a time. Playtesting won't correct errors that you don't know you're making. It will SOMETIMES show you opportunities you might otherwise have missed*, for you or for your opposition, but IMO people tend to exaggerate its necessity. Good ideas work. *E.g. when I first read Blink it sounded awesome, half damage right? But thinking through an enemy turn from an enemy perspective showed me that an enemy could just Dodge, or potentially even Ready a Multiattack (depends on reach and placement). Like actually making a move in chess, playtesting helps you see things from a perspective which may be psychologically or cognitively difficult to see beforehand. But there's no reason in principle why you couldn't see it before.

"I have found that plans are useless but planning is indispensable."

Unoriginal

2020-11-29, 04:50 PM

On the contrary, just as products are judged by sales and not perceived qualities (e.g. VHS vs. Betamax), the final arbiter of youtube interest is views and subscribers. I'm doing the best I can.. if you don't like it, you will judge me by your failure to watch. So it goes.

A product is judged both by its perceived quality and by its popularity. Not by the same persons, usually, but both judgments exist.

Just remember that perceived quality is a much more powerful metric relatively to how memorable and relevant the work ends up being.

If you consider them guides, you're mistaken. I consider myself a very good theorycrafter who is sharing his thoughts about various game mechanics and tactics in regards to them. My videos are Deep Dives and Showdowns (ratings) and optimizing various mechanics as I see appropriate and possible. They are intended as launching points for discussion and certainly not lessons or guides.

In that case, my bad.

I consider myself a very good theorycrafter

I must say I don't know by which metric you consider yourself very good at theorycrafting.

Also, maybe there was confusion, but "theorycrafting" is almost always a derogatory qualifier. It is applied to instances where the author of the post is presenting a situation that is technically possible but factually has little to no chance to happen in-game due to how removed from what happens around the table it is.

Examples of such include the old "hundreds of peasants with crossbows vs a dragon in a featureless white void", "if I have 3 legendary items and one rare my build is completely overpowered", and all the variations of "applying game rules then real life logic then game rules again to get more powerful results", like the peasant railgun.

One reason I dislike and avoid writing "guides". They're fine as a source of possible ideas but people want to trust them way too much. It's a promise that cannot be kept.

Amen to that.

I've been struggling to write something for this forum for a while due to how hard it is to not imply that promise (among other issues, like having difficulties figuring out how to present enough new things to make the effort relevant).

MaxWilson

2020-11-29, 04:54 PM

I must say I don't know by which metric you consider yourself very good at theorycrafting.

Tactical success in actual play? I know enough from what I've seen that I'd want Bilbron on my fantasy SWAT team a.k.a. party. He's good at seeing opportunities.

If a new situation arises and you turn out to be already well-prepared for it due to planning, you were successful at theorycrafting a solution to a problem before you had it.

Unoriginal

2020-11-29, 04:56 PM

Tactical success in actual play? I know enough from what I've seen that I'd want Bilbron in my fantasy SWAT team a.k.a. party. He's good at seeing opportunities.

That's no theorycrafting, though.

Bilbron

2020-11-29, 04:56 PM

Just remember that perceived quality is a much more powerful metric relatively to how memorable and relevant the work ends up being.

I must say I don't know by which metric you consider yourself very good at theorycrafting.

Also, maybe there was confusion, but "theorycrafting" is almost always a derogatory qualifier. It is applied to instances where the author of the post is presenting a situation that is technically possible but factually has little to no chance to happen in-game due to how removed from what happens around the table it is.

Examples of such include the old "hundreds of peasants with crossbows vs a dragon in a featureless white void", "if I have 3 legendary items and one rare my build is completely overpowered", and all the variations of "applying game rules then real life logic then game rules again to get more powerful results", like the peasant railgun.This is a good point. I am fairly proud of my body of work so far, but I do hope to get better and build a library that is perennially useful to new players and viewers.

Yes, to find out I would have to brag, which I find guache. I'm more of a "when you're done trash talking, I'm still here in the paint so show me what you've got" sort of guy. Ultimately, I will continue to gain viewers if I offer value, and otherwise I will fail.

Good to know, I'm surprised that the word carries this connotation.

If a new situation arises and you turn out to be already well-prepared for it due to planning, you were successful at theorycrafting a solution to a problem before you had it.My other game is Kids on Bikes, and we ran into some werewolves. So I started carrying around wooden stakes and garlic and stealing holy water from the church, and everyone was all "but we encountered werewolves, not vampires". And of course when we encountered vampires I was prepared, lol.

MaxWilson

2020-11-29, 04:58 PM

That's no theorycrafting, though.

If a new situation arises and you turn out to be already well-prepared for it due to planning, you were successful at theorycrafting a solution to a problem before you had it.

Or at least, people often call that theorycrafting, including on these forums.

E.g. I'm pretty sure that Bilbron hasn't ever actually (in 5e) countered a beholder's antimagic zone by blowing Essence of Ether on it, but it's still a good plan. And I'm sure he would also have backup doses prepared for his familiar and maybe another PC to attempt too, in case the first one failed, and would probably also be sensitive to opportunities to move laterally out of the antimagic zone.

My other game is Kids on Bikes, and we ran into some werewolves. So I started carrying around wooden stakes and garlic and stealing holy water from the church, and everyone was all "but we encountered werewolves, not vampires". And of course when we encountered vampires I was prepared, lol.

Heh. Too many people needlessly restrict themselves to first-order thinking. Good on you for thinking ahead.

Good story.

Bilbron

2020-11-29, 05:05 PM

E.g. I'm pretty sure that Bilbron hasn't ever actually (in 5e) countered a beholder's antimagic zone by blowing Essence of Ether on it, but it's still a good plan. And I'm sure he would also have backup doses prepared for his familiar and maybe another PC to attempt too, in case the first one failed, and would probably also be sensitive to opportunities to move laterally out of the antimagic zone.
True, but we did encounter a beholder and I was unprepared and that only ever happens to me once, lol. So I started preparing countermeasures.

Unoriginal

2020-11-29, 05:08 PM

If a new situation arises and you turn out to be already well-prepared for it due to planning, you were successful at theorycrafting a solution to a problem before you had it.

Or at least, people often call that theorycrafting, including on these forums.

If a new situation arises and you turn out to be already well-prepared for it due to planning, you were successful at theorycrafting a solution to a problem before you had it.

Planning and theorycrafting are not the same.

I'm not saying that Bilbron isn't cunning enough to adapt to a new situation, and also to plan accordingly with what he can see or guess coming.

But even without taking the derogatory meaning of theorycrafting into account, do you really consider Bilbron's theoretical work (like the Bladesinger he started this thread around) to be "very good"?

E.g. I'm pretty sure that Bilbron hasn't ever actually (in 5e) countered a beholder's antimagic zone by blowing Essence of Ether on it, but it's still a good plan. And I'm sure he would also have backup doses prepared for his familiar and maybe another PC to attempt too, in case the first one failed, and would probably also be sensitive to opportunities to move laterally out of the antimagic zone.

Blowing Essence of Ether on a beholder is a good plan... if you have Essence of Ether with you or have a way to get it in the relevant timeline.

Plans aren't theories, plans are what you can do with what you have, including what you can acquire.

Saying "I can beat a Beholder if I have enough Essence of Ether" when there is no guarantee of having said ressource in enough quantity is going to war with the army you want, not the army you have.

Unrelatedly, the best way to be prepared against a Beholder is to have a Monk who's not afraid to get in the Aberration's face with you.

Bilbron

2020-11-29, 05:15 PM

But even without taking the derogatory meaning of theorycrafting into account, do you really consider Bilbron's theoretical work (like the Bladesinger he started this thread around) to be "very good"?Aside from my tenuous grasp of weapons rules leading to issues with the 2-weapon thing, and Max's nuanced criticisms surrounding rules minutia, the reception has been very good. It (and the preceding Bladesinger review) have been among my most popular videos. My channel itself is doing very well for 6 weeks old, so I believe I'm doing more right than wrong. But it's early yet and I understand that leading at the end of the 1st is desireable but ultimately meaningless.

Unoriginal

2020-11-29, 05:26 PM

Aside from my tenuous grasp of weapons rules leading to issues with the 2-weapon thing, and Max's nuanced criticisms surrounding rules minutia, the reception has been very good. It (and the preceding Bladesinger review) have been among my most popular videos. My channel itself is doing very well for 6 weeks old, so I believe I'm doing more right than wrong. But it's early yet and understand that leading at the end of the 1st is desireable but ultimately meaningless.

You're a charismatic guy presenting your datas with utmost confidence and a convincing level of rhetorical skills, most people aren't going to question the assertions you make. See how many people who've played the game for years did not catch nor question your mistake on Two-Weapon Fighting, despite how much better it makes the early-levels use of attack cantrips if it worked.

I'm not harsh with my criticism to be a jerk, but I stand my point: trying the tactics you've proposed in this video when the DM has any desire to challenge their players would likely result in the death of either the Bladesinger or of one/several of the teammates, way before you can reach the level for fun stuff like Summon Greater Demon.

Bilbron

2020-11-29, 05:32 PM

I'm not harsh with my criticism to be a jerk, but I stand my point: trying the tactics you've proposed in this video when the DM has any desire to challenge their players would likely result in the death of either the Bladesinger or of one/several of the teammates, way before you can reach the level for fun stuff like Summon Greater Demon.
Yes, some people have taken that position, and I guess I'll find out. Projecting a development from 1-20 from the armchair is always a hazardous undertaking... I didn't even try at like levels 19 and 20 on the Bladesinger optimization.

Also, and this isn't directed at anyone in particular but is just a general rumination/observation, I recently quit a Facebook game that I broke (I often break games) because when I became the #1 ranked player as a free player in a pay-to-play game, defeating toons that cost thousands of dollars, I saw no point in continuing. And one thing I noticed in that game... no matter how often I proved that players couldn't beat me, they would nonetheless argue with me all day long about tactics. And, on reflection, that wasn't the first time.

It's fun, and maybe you're right, maybe my build sucks. I have heard this often.

Unoriginal

2020-11-29, 05:37 PM

Yes, some people have taken that position, and I guess I'll find out. Projecting a development from 1-20 from the armchair is always a hazardous undertaking...

Indeed, hence my warnings about theorycrafting.

Also, and this isn't directed at anyone in particular but is just a general rumination/observation, I recently quit a Facebook game that I broke (I often break games) because when I became the #1 ranked player as a free player in a pay-to-play game, defeating toons that cost thousands of dollars, I saw no point in continuing. And one thing I noticed in that game... no matter how often I proved that players couldn't beat me, they would nonetheless argue with me all day long about tactics. And, on reflection, that wasn't the first time.

It's fun, and maybe you're right, maybe my build sucks. I have heard this often.

Well I've mentioned a DM who wants to challenge their players for a reason. Video games are much more exploitable as they have finite rules and finite contexts in which they can be applied.

Out of curiosity, what's the name of this Facebook game, if you don't mind saying it?

Bilbron

2020-11-29, 05:43 PM

Out of curiosity, what's the name of this Facebook game, if you don't mind saying it?It was Superhero City, since gone defunct and now restarted as Heroes Rising. I'm not into video games with lots of button pushing and timing and such, mostly preferring sports for that sort of engagement. But I do like tactical games and games that are primarily about creating and optimizing builds.

MaxWilson

2020-11-29, 05:56 PM

But even without taking the derogatory meaning of theorycrafting into account, do you really consider Bilbron's theoretical work (like the Bladesinger he started this thread around) to be "very good"?

There's enough good stuff there to give me basic confidence. He's also receptive to constructive criticism, which is another useful trait in a teammate. Even the Bladesinger video you're disparaging has some good insights and synergies (the Magic Stone/Tiny Servant/Heavy obscurement combo is a good use of a bonus action). I'd let him on my fantasy SWAT team, along with others, and expect good long-term results.

Everybody makes mistakes, including communication mistakes and rules mistakes, sometimes even logical mistakes. I don't know why you're picking on Bilbron.

You're a charismatic guy presenting your datas with utmost confidence and a convincing level of rhetorical skills, most people aren't going to question the assertions you make. See how many people who've played the game for years did not catch nor question your mistake on Two-Weapon Fighting, despite how much better it makes the early-levels use of attack cantrips if it worked.

I'm not harsh with my criticism to be a jerk, but I stand my point: trying the tactics you've proposed in this video when the DM has any desire to challenge their players would likely result in the death of either the Bladesinger or of one/several of the teammates, way before you can reach the level for fun stuff like Summon Greater Demon.

It's not about charisma. It's about being organized and respectful of the viewer's time (timeline breakpoints and textual summaries are helping) and having enough useful insights often enough to justify watching/engaging.

IMO the essence of tactics is not in rules minutiae, it's in seeing and seizing opportunities. The TWF rules error is not a tactical error and while it was worth correcting, it doesn't worry me the same way it does when someone fails to understand e.g. the inherent downsides of paladin Divine Smite and auras.

Also, and this isn't directed at anyone in particular but is just a general rumination/observation, I recently quit a Facebook game that I broke (I often break games) because when I became the #1 ranked player as a free player in a pay-to-play game, defeating toons that cost thousands of dollars, I saw no point in continuing. And one thing I noticed in that game... no matter how often I proved that players couldn't beat me, they would nonetheless argue with me all day long about tactics. And, on reflection, that wasn't the first time.

My brother in law is kind of like that too. I've never reliably beat him in any kind of game, whether it's about hand-eye coordination or optimizing purchases of a unique subset of Dominion card stacks. It's simultaneously impressive to see and frustrating to watch, because even the strategies I expect to beat him turn out to be worse than what he does. It's very impressive, and might be educational if I thought harder about why I lost those games. I've never played an RPG with him, wonder how he would do.

Bilbron

2020-11-29, 09:47 PM

My brother in law is kind of like that too. I've never reliably beat him in any kind of game, whether it's about hand-eye coordination or optimizing purchases of a unique subset of Dominion card stacks. It's simultaneously impressive to see and frustrating to watch, because even the strategies I expect to beat him turn out to be worse than what he does. It's very impressive, and might be educational if I thought harder about why I lost those games. I've never played an RPG with him, wonder how he would do.I love that D&D is a cooperative game, and really am committed to party success and an equal distribution of fun. I do however, sometimes wish it had a mechanic like competitive games where you can just throw the ball at someone and say "enough talk, let's run," lol.

Gtdead

2020-11-29, 10:25 PM

Also, and this isn't directed at anyone in particular but is just a general rumination/observation, I recently quit a Facebook game that I broke (I often break games) because when I became the #1 ranked player as a free player in a pay-to-play game, defeating toons that cost thousands of dollars, I saw no point in continuing. And one thing I noticed in that game... no matter how often I proved that players couldn't beat me, they would nonetheless argue with me all day long about tactics. And, on reflection, that wasn't the first time.

This brings back World of Warcraft memories and I kind of need to vent...

I used to go to an internet cafe in my neighborhood to play World of Warcraft because playing from home can get boring some times and I like the noise. When then next expansion was revealed I knew I would never be able to be competitive cause I'm a laggard and I decided to leave my PvP guild and join my friend's PvE guild, where most guild members used to play from the same internet cafe. PvE is generally less stressful (wasn't always but Blizzard made it that way with subsequent expansions) and I could take my time when the next expansion would get released. I was getting requests all the time to play 2v2 arena with them, mostly for fun, so I carried most of them to higher ratings that they would never be able to reach on their own.

Man.. it's the Dunning-Kruger in all it's glory. It was always the same story, eventually we would reach a ceiling and they would argue with me on things like tactics and theory. Mechanical ability is the base of every real time game, not theory. So eventually I stopped playing with them. I found a random guy in the chat and reached my old rating in a couple of days. I hope they learned something watching me play with a guy that could barely speak english, although I wouldn't count on it. At least we had some fun doing PvE.

----

Btw Bilbron, I just saw that you asked earlier about the pacing of your video. Your signal to noise ratio is fairly good. One thing I wouldn't mind personally would be to reduce the explanations in the level by level analysis, and instead highlight the important choices and talk about them as a "tactics" segment. You can do low-mid-end game tactics segments for example while you present a "spellbook by level" spread in the background. Personally I'm more interest to understand your goal with the build rather than have to listen to explanations for each of the spells. The nuanced ones warrant an explanation, but a lot of them don't.

Secondary spells (for example Dragon's Breath and Fireball that aren't core to the philosophy of the build) can be summarized in text too. At some point I thought that you were adding filler descriptions just to justify your level by level approach. I could be wrong though.

Also don't feel the need to explain something that is already written, especially if you are just going to read it out loud. This is more about the AC calculations and the AoO interaction under obscurement. When I saw them written, I already got all the information I needed and your voiced explanation was redundant.

Bilbron

2020-11-29, 11:03 PM

Btw Bilbron, I just saw that you asked earlier about the pacing of your video. Your signal to noise ratio is fairly good. One thing I wouldn't mind personally would be to reduce the explanations in the level by level analysis, and instead highlight the important choices and talk about them as a "tactics" segment. Thanks for checking it out, and providing feedback! Very kind of you.

I agree with you. I'm my own worst critic, and there is plenty of room for improvement here. Definitely need to better integrate voice and text because 30 minutes is unacceptable. And the ensuing discussion has made me think that being so granular was a mistake, especially since most of it is really applicable to any wizard. Really only broad strokes are necessary to communicate the intent of the playstyle, and more value can be found in calling those out and pointing to specific combos and spell synergies that can be leveraged given the subdomain abilities.

I know I said I probably wouldn't do an optimization vid for a while since this one was a lot of work, but I realize much of that work was self-inflicted. With more focus, I can reduce the work on my end and, more importantly, bring these things in in under 10 minutes. So I think I will do Order of Scribes next, and just keep tightening and reshooting until it's short enough and still cogent.

Thunderous Mojo

2020-11-30, 01:34 AM

Ultimately, I think if a player is imaginative enough, they can find ways to justify such things. Then the question becomes, do you really want to play the game at such a granular level?

I agree an imaginative player can find a way to accomplish many things, but to bring imagination to life requires effort. I'm not an avian expert, but I do hold degrees in Anthropology, so I have a passing familiarity with anatomy, and many encounters with owls in my life.

An owl as a Familiar is a tiny creature. An owl familiar likely has a 1/4 inch curved beak that might possibly be serrated to facilitate tearing flesh, as an owl is a bird of prey.

I have never tried to open a bottle of wine with a curved, 1/4 inch wine opener, but other experiences tells me, you would probably be better served pushing the cork in, because the Owl beak is going to shred it.

An owl's claws are even more of a challenge. Owls swoop and stun their prey with their claws...they stunning strike their prey. The claws are designed to grasp and then lock into place. This conserves energy as the owls claw muscles are no longer engaged...like a parking brake.

So the actual pulling strength of an owl's claws, might be quite feeble. The next issue is how does the owl grasp the potion flask? Given avian bones are light and hollow, and owls are designed for dive bomb impacts, I doubt an owl could even rotate their claws to grasp the flask from the side.
(Again, I am no expert in owls, but the principles of earth anatomy apply)

So a creative player is going to need to design a custom delivery system for the Rescue Owl. This will probably require consulting experts, and craftsmen, and/or using spell to create the system. The Familiar and PC are also most likely going to have to practice, which means a possible reduction in downtime activities.

As a player and a DM, I love these types of details...so when it comes to players adding to the shared, inter-subjective experience that is the campaign...I absolutely want to play at a granular level.

Now when a situation has no challenge involved, I have no problem moving on, without granularity. If a 5 person 8th level party has taken out the most dangerous enemies, and all is left are 10 ghouls under the effects of a Hypnotic Pattern...we can dispense with dice and just Q.E.D. that encounter.

No meaningful opposition remains.

Unoriginal

2020-11-30, 02:44 AM

I agree an imaginative player can find a way to accomplish many things, but to bring imagination to life requires effort. I'm not an avian expert, but I do hold degrees in Anthropology, so I have a passing familiarity with anatomy, and many encounters with owls in my life.

An owl as a Familiar is a tiny creature. An owl familiar likely has a 1/4 inch curved beak that might possibly be serrated to facilitate tearing flesh, as an owl is a bird of prey.

I have never tried to open a bottle of wine with a curved, 1/4 inch wine opener, but other experiences tells me, you would probably be better served pushing the cork in, because the Owl beak is going to shred it.

An owl's claws are even more of a challenge. Owls swoop and stun their prey with their claws...they stunning strike their prey. The claws are designed to grasp and then lock into place. This conserves energy as the owls claw muscles are no longer engaged...like a parking brake.

So the actual pulling strength of an owl's claws, might be quite feeble. The next issue is how does the owl grasp the potion flask? Given avian bones are light and hollow, and owls are designed for dive bomb impacts, I doubt an owl could even rotate their claws to grasp the flask from the side.
(Again, I am no expert in owls, but the principles of earth anatomy apply)

So a creative player is going to need to design a custom delivery system for the Rescue Owl. This will probably require consulting experts, and craftsmen, and/or using spell to create the system. The Familiar and PC are also most likely going to have to practice, which means a possible reduction in downtime activities.

As a player and a DM, I love these types of details...so when it comes to players adding to the shared, inter-subjective experience that is the campaign...I absolutely want to play at a granular level.

Now when a situation has no challenge involved, I have no problem moving on, without granularity. If a 5 person 8th level party has taken out the most dangerous enemies, and all is left are 10 ghouls under the effects of a Hypnotic Pattern...we can dispense with dice and just Q.E.D. that encounter.

No meaningful opposition remains.

I mean, if you want a container for liquid with a way for an animal to control the flow, a faucet/tap that can work just by pulling/pushing while the container is tied to the animal's limb (or body in some cases) is probably one's best bet.

Think the Saint-Bernard's keg, but actually functioning.

Thunderous Mojo

2020-11-30, 03:06 AM

Think the Saint-Bernard's keg, but actually functioning.
🤩

The idea of a tiny owl flying around with a little keg of Greater Pabst Blue Ribbon, seems infeasible from an aerodynamic standpoint.
🦉+🧉=🛩 (crash)

Now, that is stated; the idea is so cute, charming, and pleasingly ridiculous to me, I'd probably go with it.

Darzil

2020-11-30, 04:35 AM

As a DM, I'd certainly allow a familiar to deliver a potion etc once, if entertainingly described.

As an every round action, not a hope in hell, too crazily unbalanced, and the familiar would almost certainly become a prime target.

Gignere

2020-11-30, 07:26 AM

I’d probably allow a goodberry but not a potion to be delivered by an owl familiar. However the way the owl would deliver the goodberry is the same way the owl would feed their young. It would basically regurgitate the goodberry into the unconscious individual.

I think there is an alternative familiar that is a flying monkey, you can select that instead. It’s from one of the books outside of PHB, but I don’t remember which one. The flying monkey definitely would have the correct anatomy to deliver the potions.

Unoriginal

2020-11-30, 08:04 AM

I think there is an alternative familiar that is a flying monkey, you can select that instead. It’s from one of the books outside of PHB, but I don’t remember which one. The flying monkey definitely would have the correct anatomy to deliver the potions.

The Flying Monkey is from Tomb of Annihilation. Quite a nice familiar, IIRC.

Bilbron

2020-11-30, 08:49 PM

The Flying Monkey is from Tomb of Annihilation. Quite a nice familiar, IIRC.
My only problem with FM is that it's S and not T so not appropriate for backpack hiding and will be exposed more often. But would definitely take this if my DM insisted on hands!

BTW, I took the video down. Just didn't fit into my library being so long, and the format just wasn't good... too much building my own character level by level and not enough focused look at how to leverage the Bladesinger powers. I'll roll out the new format in my next vid on Order of Scribes and revisit Bladesinger some other day, try to get it right.

Many thanks for all of the engagement!

RingoBongo

2020-12-02, 02:59 PM

Bilbron

2020-12-03, 12:36 AM

I missed watching the video (probably put it off because of length). But I have been following the discussion here. I was inspired by a peace cleric 1 dip that someone said, and I was also keen on your way of analyzing and communicating your ideas, Bilbron.

If you don't mind, could you please post spell list from the video so I can have a place to start working on my peaceful Bladesinger? Thanks.
Sure, here are my notes from that video.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G3JSUOvUOCDz94Eb-z6Hm-JHD3M3pL0sG5UhZ3v_xuA/edit?usp=sharing

I will also soon be releasing a new Bladesinger Optimization video with the new format and focusing entirely on Bladesinger options.

BamBam

2020-12-03, 04:02 AM

RingoBongo

2020-12-03, 05:48 AM

Sure, here are my notes from that video.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G3JSUOvUOCDz94Eb-z6Hm-JHD3M3pL0sG5UhZ3v_xuA/edit?usp=sharing

I will also soon be releasing a new Bladesinger Optimization video with the new format and focusing entirely on Bladesinger options.

Thanks! This is exactly what I was looking for. Nice detail. I do a similar thing with prepping my characters.

Did you also consider the cantrips shocking grasp? Swing of the sword and the cantrip the other way would get free disadvantage. And you'd still have your bonus action left. Additionally, shocking grasp works with spirit shroud, which is pretty neat imo.

As a side note, my peaceful bladesinger starts human variant with new telekinetic feat and very similar starting stats. I know alert is great overall, but I just couldn't pass up the opportunity for nearly free, bonus action jedi tricks. Check it out; could be worth an addition for your next video.

Keep up the good work! Even though there's a lot of nitpicky critics, there is an underground following just sitting back and enjoying the view.

Best regards.

Bilbron

2020-12-03, 10:48 AM

Thanks! This is exactly what I was looking for. Nice detail. I do a similar thing with prepping my characters.

Did you also consider the cantrips shocking grasp? Swing of the sword and the cantrip the other way would get free disadvantage. And you'd still have your bonus action left. Additionally, shocking grasp works with spirit shroud, which is pretty neat imo.

As a side note, my peaceful bladesinger starts human variant with new telekinetic feat and very similar starting stats. I know alert is great overall, but I just couldn't pass up the opportunity for nearly free, bonus action jedi tricks. Check it out; could be worth an addition for your next video.

Keep up the good work! Even though there's a lot of nitpicky critics, there is an underground following just sitting back and enjoying the view.

Best regards.That's pretty solid... my first impression of Shocking Grasp wasn't high, but on reflection causing them to lose their reaction is pretty nice in some cases (as is attacking at advantage vs. metal armor), so I could see it working well for BS.

Telekinetic is interesting thematically, and I can see that 5' push being useful in melee to get that space you want instead of disengaging yourself (and as Grapple defense since moving your attacker will break the Grapple), plus marginal situational usage with AOE effects. I wouldn't take it over Lucky or Alert/Blindfighting personally, but very cool Feat and I get wanting to try it out. I tend to forget about Lucky because I think it's OP and my own campaign has banned it on those grounds, but really great for BS as it can gain them attacked at disadvantage (critical) and rerolls on concentration saves (critical), plus better save options are just generally amazing for any class but particularly good if BS has dumped Wisdom.

RingoBongo

2020-12-03, 11:56 AM

Telekinetic is interesting thematically, and I can see that 5' push being useful in melee to get that space you want instead of disengaging yourself (and as Grapple defense since moving your attacker will break the Grapple), plus marginal situational usage with AOE effects.

You can also help other squishy characters disengage from one enemy for free if you are not exactly being threatened.

Or, if you got two guys near you-- shocking grasp one and use telekinetic to push the other one.

Also, combine with booming blade sequence and move out of range... Will they follow and take extra damage on their turn?

I can't think of another class/subclass that would benefit from this more than the bladesinging wizard.

Klorox

2020-12-07, 02:25 PM

This straight up does not work before lvl 6.

True.

You can also help other squishy characters disengage from one enemy for free if you are not exactly being threatened.

Or, if you got two guys near you-- shocking grasp one and use telekinetic to push the other one.

Also, combine with booming blade sequence and move out of range... Will they follow and take extra damage on their turn?

I can't think of another class/subclass that would benefit from this more than the bladesinging wizard.
I agree that it's really cool, but the problem with the bladesinger is that it's EXTREMELY ASI starved. Assuming point buy, you need 4 ASI's to get DEX/INT to 20 each, which needs to be your goal.

That means you have one feat. I think warcaster helps more than telekinesis.

Gignere

2020-12-07, 04:52 PM

RingoBongo

2020-12-07, 04:58 PM

True.

I agree that it's really cool, but the problem with the bladesinger is that it's EXTREMELY ASI starved. Assuming point buy, you need 4 ASI's to get DEX/INT to 20 each, which needs to be your goal.

That means you have one feat. I think warcaster helps more than telekinesis.

Granted warcaster is cool. I do think that in general both of these are tier one depending on flavor. Not only that, but mechanical flavor; they're both quite favorable and in par depending on play style/build. +1 Int can round out some stats too. I could see taking an 18 in both dex and int to take both of these feats.

I am attempting to suppose that a control/positioning play style of this sort allows you to utilize movement and really get in the mix and reposition yourself every turn, and perhaps save teammates in a way too. This tactical movement is a great defense for a low hp character.

Warcaster also opens up some really interesting options that I would consider, though mainly focused on other types of defenses. It also frees up the character from making any confusing iwo sequences.

Now you make me want both. Thanks!

BamBam

2020-12-07, 07:01 PM

The key to optimizing a Bladesinger is taking advantage of every means at your disposal to minimize ASI hunger. This means seeking out certain magic items.

Tortle Battlesmith 3 / Bladesinger 17 is an optimal build if you cannot reliably secure specific magic items since you can get SAD on Int at level 3 and can free up your ASIs for PAM, Sentinel feats without relying on magic items.

If you can reliably get specific magic items then another way to free up ASIs for feats is to get a Headband of Intellect and keep Int at 13 and focus on Dex and go for feats once Dex is 18 or 20. You can go pure Bladesinger 20 this way. You can't get PAM or GWM this way since you are Dex but you could go Elvish Accuracy provided you are an elf. If you can also get a Belt of Giant Strength then you could go for a dart Sharpshooter build.

MaxWilson

2020-12-08, 01:18 PM

The key to optimizing a Bladesinger is taking advantage of every means at your disposal to minimize ASI hunger. This means seeking out certain magic items.

Or just, y'know, not worrying about boosting Dex past 16ish, since you can get to-hit bonuses through other means like invisibility, and in the late game when you Shapechange while Bladesinging your original form's Dex won't even be relevant.

It could also help if there's a party synergy--if you take Fighting Style: Blindsight and there's at least one other person in the party who loves to create heavy obscurement (warlock, Alert Shadow Monk, etc.).

BamBam

2020-12-08, 10:00 PM

Or just, y'know, not worrying about boosting Dex past 16ish, since you can get to-hit bonuses through other means like invisibility, and in the late game when you Shapechange while Bladesinging your original form's Dex won't even be relevant.

It could also help if there's a party synergy--if you take Fighting Style: Blindsight and there's at least one other person in the party who loves to create heavy obscurement (warlock, Alert Shadow Monk, etc.).

These are excellent suggestions and I am glad you bring them up for the benefit of the thread. However, I already implement what you are suggesting in my builds.

The larger point is that we can combine the smart play you are talking about here with a Headband of Intellect. They are not mutually exclusive.

A Headband of Intellect is just a massive power up for a Bladesinger. If you can get one then you can capitalize more on feats. The Headband unlocks enormous potential.

An 8 Int Bladesinger is practically as effective as a 13 Int Bladesinger once you learn how to play a Wizard with low Int.

MaxWilson

2020-12-08, 10:32 PM

These are excellent suggestions and I am glad you bring them up for the benefit of the thread. However, I already implement what you are suggesting in my builds.

The larger point is that we can combine the smart play you are talking about here with a Headband of Intellect. They are not mutually exclusive.

A Headband of Intellect is just a massive power up for a Bladesinger. If you can get one then you can capitalize more on feats. The Headband unlocks enormous potential.

An 8 Int Bladesinger is practically as effective as a 13 Int Bladesinger once you learn how to play a Wizard with low Int.

You're not wrong. Personally I would hate relying on a destructible magic item for core class features (what if it gets broken?) but in terms of mechanical effectiveness, yes, Int 18-19 is fine, especially if you're playing more of a combat wizard than a binder/mind-controller.

BamBam

2020-12-08, 10:47 PM

You're not wrong. Personally I would hate relying on a destructible magic item for core class features (what if it gets broken?) but in terms of mechanical effectiveness, yes, Int 18-19 is fine, especially if you're playing more of a combat wizard than a binder/mind-controller.

If you mostly build the Wizard to work just fine at 8 Int then you really can cope fine if you lose the Headband or bump into an Anti Magic Field. In fact Anti Magic Field becomes a huge spell for you to use against spellcasters.

Have you ever run a low Int Wizard? It's a remarkably solid design path. Walls, Summons, and Buffs.

MaxWilson

2020-12-08, 10:49 PM

If you mostly build the Wizard to work just fine at 8 Int then you really can cope fine if you lose the Headband or bump into an Anti Magic Field. In fact Anti Magic Field becomes a huge spell for you to use against spellcasters.

Have you ever run a low Int Wizard? It's a remarkably solid design path. Walls, Summons, and Buffs.

Yes, but my favorite tricks such as Planar Binding are less efficient with Int 8, unless you go Diviner. And for a Bladesinger it's an even bigger waste, since Bladesong becomes a net negative. Also, for Int under 13, losing the ability to multiclass is a huge pain, mostly because it makes getting armor/shield proficiency more expensive.

Gignere

2020-12-08, 10:54 PM

Yes, but my favorite tricks such as Planar Binding are less efficient with Int 8, unless you go Diviner.

Int 8 wizard is not even realistic. You don’t even get 2 spells prepared until level 3? For most of the game you will be 3-4 spells prepared less than a wizard with a 16 - 18 int.

His talk of designing an 8 int wizard is {scrubbed}. At early levels you are basically dead weight if you don’t die.

You will need the rest of your party to carry you because you have only one or two options to cast per day. Honestly if someone rolled an 8 int wizard I will just PK that player because he’s just being disruptive and unserious.

I can appreciate a 12 or 14 int wizard but an 8 int one is just trying to troll the table so you should just PK that player.

Valmark

2020-12-08, 11:09 PM

His talk of designing an 8 int wizard is {scrub the post, scrub the quote. At early levels you are basically dead weight if you don’t die.

Does this mean you carry your weight if you die?

MaxWilson

2020-12-08, 11:29 PM

Int 8 wizard is not even realistic. You don’t even get 2 spells prepared until level 3? For most of the game you will be 3-4 spells prepared less than a wizard with a 16 - 18 int.

His talk of designing an 8 int wizard is ---------. At early levels you are basically dead weight if you don’t die.

That isn't true. At early levels, Sleep is awesome, and it ignores Int. You can also shoot a crossbow pretty well, if your Dex isn't also 8ish. And you can give Mage Armor to someone who can leverage it, like a Moon Druid, or buff with Longstrider, as well as using rituals. (Unseen Servant even has some combat applications.) You don't have to be dead weight. By level 3 you'll be contributing valuable crowd control (Web), or Darkvision, or safe places for the party to rest (Rope Trick). Fireballs are still pretty good even with Int 8 due to save-for-half.

You will need the rest of your party to carry you because you have only one or two options to cast per day. Honestly if someone rolled an 8 int wizard I will just PK that player because he’s just being disruptive and unserious.

I can appreciate a 12 or 14 int wizard but an 8 int one is just trying to troll the table so you should just PK that player.

What if the highest stat you rolled was 8? Moon Druid is the obvious path to go in that case, but Necromancer is justifiable too--the early levels will be rough but not impossible, and by level 6 you'll be well-armored and contributing some valuable minions. Challenging, but not dead weight.

Valmark

2020-12-08, 11:39 PM

What if the highest stat you rolled was 8? Moon Druid is the obvious path to go in that case, but Necromancer is justifiable too--the early levels will be rough but not impossible, and by level 6 you'll be well-armored and contributing some valuable minions. Challenging, but not dead weight.

With a necromancer everybody else is dead weight.

(I'll stop now).

BamBam

2020-12-08, 11:49 PM

Int 8 wizard is not even realistic. You don’t even get 2 spells prepared until level 3? For most of the game you will be 3-4 spells prepared less than a wizard with a 16 - 18 int.

His talk of designing an 8 int wizard is {scrub the post, scrub the quote. At early levels you are basically dead weight if you don’t die.

You will need the rest of your party to carry you because you have only one or two options to cast per day. Honestly if someone rolled an 8 int wizard I will just PK that player because he’s just being disruptive and unserious.

I can appreciate a 12 or 14 int wizard but an 8 int one is just trying to troll the table so you should just PK that player.

You aren't speaking from experience. There are plenty of people besides me who have succeeded with a low Int Wizard.

MaxWilson

2020-12-09, 01:46 AM

You aren't speaking from experience. There are plenty of people besides me who have succeeded with a low Int Wizard.

It is definitely not a case of "playing the game on easy mode" though, especially in Tier 1. The restrictions on spell prep alone are challenging.

BamBam

2020-12-09, 02:30 AM

It is definitely not a case of "playing the game on easy mode" though, especially in Tier 1. The restrictions on spell prep alone are challenging.

Level 1 is a challenge for sure. But if you are going for a mobility bladesinger then by level 2 you are cooking with gas.

By the way, Bladesong is locked to +1 minimum. So no penalty to going into negative modifier.

Sleep is a solid level 1 pick. My next favorite is Expeditious Retreat. Whip is a good pick for level 2 weapon.

MaxWilson

2020-12-09, 03:33 AM

BamBam

2020-12-09, 03:45 AM

When I can only learn one spell it is always, always Expeditious Retreat, because of bad experiences that turned out non-catastrophic due to that spell.

Expeditious Retreat is so good. Of course it does not compete with Cunning Action but that is costly to get for a Spellcaster. But it is so much better than what Monk's pay.

Orc's Aggressive racial trait catches my eye. What do you think?

MaxWilson

2020-12-09, 03:51 AM

Expeditious Retreat is so good. Of course it does not compete with Cunning Action but that is costly to get for a Spellcaster. But it is so much better than what Monk's pay.

Orc's Aggressive racial trait catches my eye. What do you think?

Good as a DM for letting orcs melee kite (30' in with Aggressive, attack, 30' out), okay-ish for letting melee PCs engage, but tactically inflexible compared to Expeditious Retreat. It doesn't let you solve nearly as many types of encounters.

BamBam

2020-12-09, 03:57 AM

Good as a DM for letting orcs melee kite (30' in with Aggressive, attack, 30' out), okay-ish for letting melee PCs engage, but tactically inflexible compared to Expeditious Retreat. It doesn't let you solve nearly as many types of encounters.

But if you start an Orc you free up that ability from concentration. You could then use concentration on Enlarge/Reduce or Spider Climb. Other abilities of the Orc are also interesting (boost to strength, skills). We can unlock a grappling mode of attack with a racial dip into Orc.

If we can build more speed then Orc becomes equivalent to Expeditious Retreat in most situations. We can keep Expeditious Retreat prepared for the remaining cases. What we gain here is now a channel for Haste.

MaxWilson

2020-12-09, 04:05 AM

But if you start an Orc you free up that ability from concentration. You could then use concentration on Enlarge/Reduce or Spider Climb. Other abilities of the Orc are also interesting (boost to strength, skills). We can unlock a grappling mode of attack with a racial dip into Orc.

Not interested. Mobile vhuman is more interesting than Orc, and combines better with Expeditious Retreat. The extra +1 to Strength from orc isn't interesting to me.

BamBam

2020-12-09, 04:12 AM

Not interested. Mobile vhuman is more interesting than Orc, and combines better with Expeditious Retreat. The extra +1 to Strength from orc isn't interesting to me.

I was more looking at the Orc's boost to carrying capacity. You know, open up something that leads ultimately to a grapple and move enemies into hazards and/or power suplex type strategy. Jump is just one of my favorite spells. Jump is super cheap psychic flight. By the way, Psychic knight seems overcosted to me.

Grapple jump free action release imposes prone condition plus whatever fall damage your jump grants. Nice cantrip.

Spike Growth shenanigans is ideal but Wall of Fire is good too.

Ir0ns0ul

2020-12-09, 06:29 AM

Level 1 is a challenge for sure. But if you are going for a mobility bladesinger then by level 2 you are cooking with gas.

By the way, Bladesong is locked to +1 minimum. So no penalty to going into negative modifier.

Sleep is a solid level 1 pick. My next favorite is Expeditious Retreat. Whip is a good pick for level 2 weapon.

Let’s not forget about Magic Missile, Fog Cloud, Shield and Absorb Elements that are often considered prime choice spells and don’t rely at all about your INT mod.

I think shipiaozi have a strong opinion about INT 8 Wizards, but as Max pointed out, it’s perfect viable.

I would rather get at least INT 16 as a Bladesinger, however, because of Bladesong. But I’m seeing a lot of value in a DEX 16, CON 16, INT 14 gish-bruiser as well.

Gignere

2020-12-09, 07:02 AM

Let’s not forget about Magic Missile, Fog Cloud, Shield and Absorb Elements that are often considered prime choice spells and don’t rely at all about your INT mod.

I think shipiaozi have a strong opinion about INT 8 Wizards, but as Max pointed out, it’s perfect viable.

I would rather get at least INT 16 as a Bladesinger, however, because of Bladesong. But I’m seeing a lot of value in a DEX 16, CON 16, INT 14 gish-bruiser as well.

Yes none of which you can prepare because you can only prepare 1 spell until level 3. At level 3 you can prepare 2 spells. He is saying running in and out pinging for 1d4 + dex or 1d8 + dex is contributing and it is basically this one trick pony until at minimum deep into T2 is contributing is BS. Either he has a permissible DM or a DM that doesn’t challenge the table.

Currently playing in OotA if you bought a 8 int wizard you’d be dead already and useless. Because you don’t have a spell book in the beginning at all and you have to get to almost level 4 to be able to buy a replacement.

When you don’t have a spell book all you can prepare each day is the spell you had prepared. So starting with 8 int means you’d have to live until nearly level 4 to even get any access to any other spell.

Throughout the whole time the only weapon you’d be able to use unless you start out as a specific race will be a dagger, maybe a quarterstaff if you luck out with survival checks.

Tell me how is this a viable and even contributing member of the party. Given the skills a typical wizard has access to this player can’t even contribute outside of combat either.

Klorox

2020-12-09, 11:39 AM

You don’t need 20/20 in dex and int unless you are going full melee with BS. If you’re just a striker or more casting focused type of BS 16 dex is plenty, and would allow you to take other interesting feats.

I disagree. If you're trying to max out your bladesinger, at least a traditional one, you want to maximize both DEX and INT.

The key to optimizing a Bladesinger is taking advantage of every means at your disposal to minimize ASI hunger. This means seeking out certain magic items.

Tortle Battlesmith 3 / Bladesinger 17 is an optimal build if you cannot reliably secure specific magic items since you can get SAD on Int at level 3 and can free up your ASIs for PAM, Sentinel feats without relying on magic items.

If you can reliably get specific magic items then another way to free up ASIs for feats is to get a Headband of Intellect and keep Int at 13 and focus on Dex and go for feats once Dex is 18 or 20. You can go pure Bladesinger 20 this way. You can't get PAM or GWM this way since you are Dex but you could go Elvish Accuracy provided you are an elf. If you can also get a Belt of Giant Strength then you could go for a dart Sharpshooter build.

I proposed this tortle battle smith/bladesinger over on r/powergamermunchkin and got a lot of positive feedback on there (as well as on facebook). I really do this it's the best gish in the game, and my biggest issue with it is deciding where to take the levels. I think starting off with the artificer levels is optimal; you don't have to worry about the limited amount of bladesongs initially available, since you can equip a shield and still have a very good AC with the limited number of bladesongs (based on proficiency bonus) now. You can craft your own magic sword if your DM is stingy too.

This means you significantly delay your awesome bladesinger extra attack, but it's still damn good, especially when you remember that booming blade and green flame blade scale and are comparable to a regular extra attack.

BamBam

2020-12-09, 01:52 PM

Yes none of which you can prepare because you can only prepare 1 spell until level 3. At level 3 you can prepare 2 spells. He is saying running in and out pinging for 1d4 + dex or 1d8 + dex is contributing and it is basically this one trick pony until at minimum deep into T2 is contributing is BS. Either he has a permissible DM or a DM that doesn’t challenge the table.

Currently playing in OotA if you bought a 8 int wizard you’d be dead already and useless. Because you don’t have a spell book in the beginning at all and you have to get to almost level 4 to be able to buy a replacement.

When you don’t have a spell book all you can prepare each day is the spell you had prepared. So starting with 8 int means you’d have to live until nearly level 4 to even get any access to any other spell.

Throughout the whole time the only weapon you’d be able to use unless you start out as a specific race will be a dagger, maybe a quarterstaff if you luck out with survival checks.

Tell me how is this a viable and even contributing member of the party. Given the skills a typical wizard has access to this player can’t even contribute outside of combat either.

You overlooked that the character is melee kiting with GFB or BB by level 2 and gets a grapple power bomb. The low Int BS design path is solid. I am sorry if the idea of a low Int wizard offends you.

Valmark

2020-12-09, 02:29 PM

You overlooked that the character is melee kiting with GFB or BB by level 2 and gets a grapple power bomb. The low Int BS design path is solid. I am sorry if the idea of a low Int wizard offends you.

How are you kiting? Or getting the grapple bomb for the matter. From what I understood Strenght isn't going to be great either way.

Gignere

2020-12-09, 03:07 PM

How are you kiting? Or getting the grapple bomb for the matter. From what I understood Strenght isn't going to be great either way.

It’s all generalities he has never put down a 1 - 20 build of the 8 int Bladesinger. It is literally the most amazing build ever because it can’t be proven that it sucks.

Valmark

2020-12-09, 04:06 PM

It’s all generalities he has never put down a 1 - 20 build of the 8 int Bladesinger. It is literally the most amazing build ever because it can’t be proven that it sucks.

Yes and no- you can definitely make a character with a low spellcasting stat, but out of all of the possibilities I wouldn't make the Bladesinger one of them.

Bilbron

2020-12-09, 04:17 PM

Yes and no- you can definitely make a character with a low spellcasting stat, but out of all of the possibilities I wouldn't make the Bladesinger one of them.I have to say, I'm very intrigued by the idea of a low Int wizard and may devote a video to this concept.

It would have to be based on bad rolls, though... it's hard for me to imagine not at least devoting 2 points to make it a 10 if you're using point buy, and why not 12 since points don't start scaling back in value until you get past 13?

But even a 12 Int wizard would be a challenge to optimize, and my first instinct is that it could possibly be very strong.

Gignere

2020-12-09, 04:21 PM

Valmark

2020-12-09, 04:57 PM

MaxWilson

2020-12-09, 06:18 PM

I have to say, I'm very intrigued by the idea of a low Int wizard and may devote a video to this concept.

It would have to be based on bad rolls, though... it's hard for me to imagine not at least devoting 2 points to make it a 10 if you're using point buy, and why not 12 since points don't start scaling back in value until you get past 13?

But even a 12 Int wizard would be a challenge to optimize, and my first instinct is that it could possibly be very strong.

Yes, wizards work fine when you roll crummy stat arrays like 8, 4, 9, 7, 8, 6 (and in that case I'd probably put the 9 in Con and play a hobgoblin so I get some saving throw bonuses and light armor, which I'd upgrade via Moderately Armored ASAP and then to Heavily Armored at level 8). You won't be as powerful as a normal wizard in some ways, but the opportunity cost of doing certain things is lower for you so you can still contribute to the party, especially if you play a Necromancer or a Diviner (or a Chronurgist I guess, although I don't allow Chronurgists in play since I don't run Exandria). Haste or Polymorph from an Int 7 wizard is just as good as Haste or Polymorph from an Int 20 wizard, and Summon Greater Demon isn't all that much worse either as long as you place the demon correctly. (Although, WOULD an Int 7 wizard place the demon correctly every time? RP dilemma there.)

But if you were playing point buy, the only reason to leave Int at 8 would be purely because your character concept requires a dimwitted or weak wizard. I guess "I'm going to play Rincewind purely for the challenge" is a valid concept though. Maybe you negotiate with your DM that you pay for Int 12 but for purposes of spellcasting your Int only counts as 8...

You can roll up perfectly fine 12 -14 int wizards. But dumping int and never increasing it unless you get a band of intellect is not going to be a good wizard, and I will assert pretty much dead weight, because any other class that they could have rolled up would have done better as a party member.

I don't share this opinion. A Str 14 Dex 13 Con 14 Int 8 Wis 12 Cha 12 (plus racials) array makes a pretty bad wizard, but IMO not a wizard so bad that the wizard couldn't be more valuable to the party than e.g. a Thief or a Berserker or an Open Hand Monk with the same stat array. Partly it depends on choices made in play (you can play poorly with any class), but the wizard still has lots of options that Thieves/Berserkers/Open Hand Monks/etc. don't, despite Int 8.

I'm starting to feel that Rincewind would be a fun character to play...

Unoriginal

2020-12-09, 07:02 PM

I'm starting to feel that Rincewind would be a fun character to play...

Rincewind would be, but he's actually pretty smart and knows his magic stuff. It's just memorizing spells he has a problem with (worth noting that in Discworld, you can use magic without spells, spells just make it much, much easier to do big effects).

Gignere

2020-12-09, 07:05 PM

Rincewind would be, but he's actually pretty smart and knows his magic stuff. It's just memorizing spells he has a problem with (worth noting that in Discworld, you can use magic without spells, spells just make it much, much easier to do big effects).

His one level 10 spell took all of his spell prep.

Unoriginal

2020-12-09, 07:09 PM

His one level 10 spell took all of his spell prep.

Well, yes and no, he himself said he was inept at memorizing spells even before that.

BamBam

2020-12-09, 08:56 PM

How are you kiting? Or getting the grapple bomb for the matter. From what I understood Strenght isn't going to be great either way.

Depends on the path you take with the build. The build could have Strength 16.

The low Int Wizard is a design space. By dumping Int you have the ability to boost other stats.

So assuming you are playing a vHuman then you can have two 16s, a 15, and the rest 8s. Or you could do Custom Lineage for one 17, and two 15s.

One build puts those high stats all in the physical stats and grabs Mobility. This build can use the Jump spell to weaponize a grapple with a 2d6 auto inflict prone condition maneuver. Later levels you can use Spider Climb to run up walls with your grappled foe. This build feels like a Monk, except your Monk uses spells instead of ki points for better magic versions of Monk abilities.

Another build dumps Strength and instead puts a 16 in Wisdom and gets Magic Initiate (Druid) for Goodberry (or Entangle), Shillelagh, and Thorn Whip. Wisdom is a great stat for a 16. At level 4 you can grab PAM and can now do a reaction attack when an enemy gets into the reach of your Quarterstaff (and add BB/GFB to it later when Warcaster is picked up). This build gets boosted by a Gauntlet of Giant Strength and so would be ideal for AL play where you can get specific magic items via trade. When you get a Belt you can then jump over opponents heads and Thorn Whip them upward to do Thorn Whip+ 1d6 fall + Wis + auto prone. Spider Climb allows you to make really good use of Jump. You will be super jumping around like a Jedi/Spider Man/Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon while being a PAM fighter that can also Shadow Blade. Fully optimized this build is going to have a 29, 16, 16, 19, 16, 8 stat line. The 29 and 19 coming from magic items you can easily pick up in AL. Your 3rd attunement item is ideally a Staff of Power but any magic staff is great for your PAM.

Dork_Forge

2020-12-10, 09:50 PM

Depends on the path you take with the build. The build could have Strength 16.

The low Int Wizard is a design space. By dumping Int you have the ability to boost other stats.

So assuming you are playing a vHuman then you can have two 16s, a 15, and the rest 8s. Or you could do Custom Lineage for one 17, and two 15s.

One build puts those high stats all in the physical stats and grabs Mobility. This build can use the Jump spell to weaponize a grapple with a 2d6 auto inflict prone condition maneuver. Later levels you can use Spider Climb to run up walls with your grappled foe. This build feels like a Monk, except your Monk uses spells instead of ki points for better magic versions of Monk abilities.

Another build dumps Strength and instead puts a 16 in Wisdom and gets Magic Initiate (Druid) for Goodberry (or Entangle), Shillelagh, and Thorn Whip. Wisdom is a great stat for a 16. At level 4 you can grab PAM and can now do a reaction attack when an enemy gets into the reach of your Quarterstaff (and add BB/GFB to it later when Warcaster is picked up). This build gets boosted by a Gauntlet of Giant Strength and so would be ideal for AL play where you can get specific magic items via trade. When you get a Belt you can then jump over opponents heads and Thorn Whip them upward to do Thorn Whip+ 1d6 fall + Wis + auto prone. Spider Climb allows you to make really good use of Jump. You will be super jumping around like a Jedi/Spider Man/Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon while being a PAM fighter that can also Shadow Blade. Fully optimized this build is going to have a 29, 16, 16, 19, 16, 8 stat line. The 29 and 19 coming from magic items you can easily pick up in AL. Your 3rd attunement item is ideally a Staff of Power but any magic staff is great for your PAM.

If you're multiclassing, the lowest you're dumping Int is 13, but if you want to hard dump Int on a BS... I guess you can do that? You're doubling down on the disadvantages since Bladesong will have far less value to you, you'll have far less spells to prepare and you may as well just expect anything that uses a spell attack or DC to not exist.

Do AL DMs allow MCing with a magically enhanced stat? Never played AL

MaxWilson

2020-12-10, 10:11 PM

you may as well just expect anything that uses a spell attack or DC to not exist.

Nitpick: Fireballs are still good due to save-for- half, and crowd control spells like Web can still be good with DC 13ish too since they target a weak save. In fact, low DC can make it more attractive for the party to fight inside the Webbed area, sometimes, especially when outnumbered. There's less chance per round that you'll have to drop concentration on the spell to save an ally's bacon, but you may still catch enough bad guys to have plenty of advantaged attacks aquarist restrained targets.

BamBam

2020-12-10, 10:32 PM

If you're multiclassing, the lowest you're dumping Int is 13, but if you want to hard dump Int on a BS... I guess you can do that? You're doubling down on the disadvantages since Bladesong will have far less value to you, you'll have far less spells to prepare and you may as well just expect anything that uses a spell attack or DC to not exist.

Do AL DMs allow MCing with a magically enhanced stat? Never played AL

You give up entirely on MCing.

Instead this build represents a maximum optimization of the AL capacity to trade for magic items. By ditching strength and intelligence you maximize the return on a Belt of Storm Giant Strength and Headband of Intellect. Staff of Power provides a suite of spells all on its own that you could even use your wisdom stat for if you were missing the Headband of Intellect or if the Headband was on loan to your familiar (for concentration spells).

Feats (in no particular order except the first one):
Magic Initiate (Druid) for Goodberry, Shillelagh, Thorn Whip
Mobility
Polearm Master
Resilient Con
Warcaster
Fighting Initiate (blind sight) or Alert

Sailor background (Athletics, Perception)

Skills: vHuman (Stealth), Arcana, Insight
Level 2 Bladesinger gets you Performance and Light Armor proficiency

Dork_Forge

2020-12-10, 11:10 PM

Nitpick: Fireballs are still good due to save-for- half, and crowd control spells like Web can still be good with DC 13ish too since they target a weak save. In fact, low DC can make it more attractive for the party to fight inside the Webbed area, sometimes, especially when outnumbered. There's less chance per round that you'll have to drop concentration on the spell to save an ally's bacon, but you may still catch enough bad guys to have plenty of advantaged attacks aquarist restrained targets.

Fireball: Do you mean good in general, or good for this kind of Int dumped Wizard because their options are limited? It's very likely you'll do half damage and it's fire so pretty commonly resisted and immune. I can see not bad for a dumped Wizards damage, but if you've got physcial stats you're probably better off with Spirit Shroud or Shadow Blade etc. If you want ranged damage Magic Missile is a good bet.

Web: I think that's a stretch to be honest, Dex isn't that bad a save and with such a low DC (he's talking hard dump so 13 is ambitious unless very late on) they're likely to save unless bad rolls. At that point you're using it as difficult terrain and a potential fire hazard, and it can be a major hindrance for your party.

A Wizard with an Int of 8 using DC and attack based spells is basically putting their effectiveness entirely in the dice god's hands.

You give up entirely on MCing.

Instead this build represents a maximum optimization of the AL capacity to trade for magic items. By ditching strength and intelligence you maximize the return on a Belt of Storm Giant Strength and Headband of Intellect. Staff of Power provides a suite of spells all on its own that you could even use your wisdom stat for if you were missing the Headband of Intellect or if the Headband was on loan to your familiar (for concentration spells).

Feats (in no particular order except the first one):
Magic Initiate (Druid) for Goodberry, Shillelagh, Thorn Whip
Mobility
Polearm Master
Resilient Con
Warcaster
Fighting Initiate (blind sight) or Alert

Sailor background (Athletics, Perception)

Skills: vHuman (Stealth), Arcana, Insight
Level 2 Bladesinger gets you Performance and Light Armor proficiency

So... what are you without magic items and how are you living long enough to get them? Are you playing something else up until 5th then switching this character in? Are you relying on someone else giving you items?

At this point the build isn't good, the magic items are, you could thorw those kinds of items at literally anything and have it be effective in some way.

Gignere

2020-12-10, 11:31 PM

Fireball: Do you mean good in general, or good for this kind of Int dumped Wizard because their options are limited? It's very likely you'll do half damage and it's fire so pretty commonly resisted and immune. I can see not bad for a dumped Wizards damage, but if you've got physcial stats you're probably better off with Spirit Shroud or Shadow Blade etc. If you want ranged damage Magic Missile is a good bet.

Web: I think that's a stretch to be honest, Dex isn't that bad a save and with such a low DC (he's talking hard dump so 13 is ambitious unless very late on) they're likely to save unless bad rolls. At that point you're using it as difficult terrain and a potential fire hazard, and it can be a major hindrance for your party.

A Wizard with an Int of 8 using DC and attack based spells is basically putting their effectiveness entirely in the dice god's hands.

So... what are you without magic items and how are you living long enough to get them? Are you playing something else up until 5th then switching this character in? Are you relying on someone else giving you items?

At this point the build isn't good, the magic items are, you could thorw those kinds of items at literally anything and have it be effective in some way.

I don’t play AL but is it normal for the table to carry a character to high levels? I mean how in the world would anyone agree to give the belt of giant strength to a dumped int wizard unless the player was just buying off the DM.

His other build of grappling and using jump is even more laughable because I guess he forgot that his character also take falling damage. He would do 2d6 on the enemy and himself and since his wizard only has at most 9 hps in the first level there is a good chance he kills himself.

It’s why that kind of suplex character are almost always monk or barbarian because monk can fall and not take damage and barbarian takes half damage and usually don’t even come online fully until t2.

BamBam

2020-12-10, 11:49 PM

Fireball: Do you mean good in general, or good for this kind of Int dumped Wizard because their options are limited? It's very likely you'll do half damage and it's fire so pretty commonly resisted and immune. I can see not bad for a dumped Wizards damage, but if you've got physcial stats you're probably better off with Spirit Shroud or Shadow Blade etc. If you want ranged damage Magic Missile is a good bet.

Web: I think that's a stretch to be honest, Dex isn't that bad a save and with such a low DC (he's talking hard dump so 13 is ambitious unless very late on) they're likely to save unless bad rolls. At that point you're using it as difficult terrain and a potential fire hazard, and it can be a major hindrance for your party.

A Wizard with an Int of 8 using DC and attack based spells is basically putting their effectiveness entirely in the dice god's hands.

So... what are you without magic items and how are you living long enough to get them? Are you playing something else up until 5th then switching this character in? Are you relying on someone else giving you items?

At this point the build isn't good, the magic items are, you could thorw those kinds of items at literally anything and have it be effective in some way.

This build is very strong without magic items. You pick spells that are not stat dependent, utility, mobility, summons, walls, buffs and play jedi/monk striker style while being flat out better than a monk. Your delay in spells prepared is patched nicely by Magic Initiate (Druid) at 1st level. Thorn Whip, Shillelagh, and Goodberry complement your Find Familiar, Unseen Servant, Detect Magic, and <campaign specific> ritual, and your Expeditious Retreat/Sleep solo prep until level 3.

This build focuses on Feats so in an Anti Magic Field you beat up other spell casters with PAM and Mobility. In fact, AMF is an 8th level spell pick for you.

Wall of Force, Animate Objects, Wish is just as effective for you as any other Wizard.

Shapechange is godly for you.

Other magic items of consideration are Boots of Speed, Boots of Striding and Jumping.

The thing is in AL you can exactly acquire the magic items you want and this build leverages that to this maximum optimized build.

MaxWilson

2020-12-10, 11:51 PM

Fireball: Do you mean good in general, or good for this kind of Int dumped Wizard because their options are limited? It's very likely you'll do half damage and it's fire so pretty commonly resisted and immune. I can see not bad for a dumped Wizards damage, but if you've got physcial stats you're probably better off with Spirit Shroud or Shadow Blade etc. If you want ranged damage Magic Missile is a good bet.

Web: I think that's a stretch to be honest, Dex isn't that bad a save and with such a low DC (he's talking hard dump so 13 is ambitious unless very late on) they're likely to save unless bad rolls. At that point you're using it as difficult terrain and a potential fire hazard, and it can be a major hindrance for your party.

A Wizard with an Int of 8 using DC and attack based spells is basically putting their effectiveness entirely in the dice god's hands.

Fireball: good in that you lose only 4.2 points of damage going from Int 20 to Int 8. Instead of losing 30% of absolute (not relative) effectiveness like you would with a save-negates spell like Fear, you only lose 15%, and you'll still kill plenty of orcs and hobgoblins with it, maybe even some githyanki with repeat castings.

Your effectiveness is always, and never, in the dice gods' hands. Not really. Even with DC 11 (Int 8 level 9 caster), know the odds and choose the right spells in the right circumstance and you'll be fine. Maybe you wind up casting Tasha's Mind Whip or Phantasmal Force or Major Image in a scenario where an Int 20 wizard would have bet on Suggestion instead, but IME good decisions have a much larger impact on play than die rolls do. For example, your Spike Growth + Darkness plan to take out the Star Spawns in Tactical Challenge #5 is really solid. An Int 8 wizard in that chokepoint could chuck a DC 11 Web on top of Spike Growth and get good value out of it. DC 17 Web would of course be better, but 11 is still an extra layer of defense.

BamBam

2020-12-10, 11:53 PM

I don’t play AL but is it normal for the table to carry a character to high levels? I mean how in the world would anyone agree to give the belt of giant strength to a dumped int wizard unless the player was just buying off the DM.

His other build of grappling and using jump is even more laughable because I guess he forgot that his character also take falling damage. He would do 2d6 on the enemy and himself and since his wizard only has at most 9 hps in the first level there is a good chance he kills himself.

It’s why that kind of suplex character are almost always monk or barbarian because monk can fall and not take damage and barbarian takes half damage and usually don’t even come online fully until t2.

Jump doesn't cause falling damage. You aren't falling when you are jumping. Its only if you fall further than your initial position.

Gignere

2020-12-11, 12:01 AM

Jump doesn't cause falling damage. You aren't falling when you are jumping. Its only if you fall further than your initial position.

How do you think your grapple target takes damage and you don’t? Like what in the game rules makes you exempt from falling damage without a class ability to do so.

BamBam

2020-12-11, 12:09 AM

How do you think your grapple target takes damage and you don’t? Like what in the game rules makes you exempt from falling damage without a class ability to do so.

Jump in this case is voluntary movement controlled by Magic Spell. The same magic that propels you up controls your land or it would indicate it did not in the spell description.

Falling is involuntary movement not controlled by magic at all.

And even in the case of normal jumping the mechanics governing jump make no mention of falling in the performance of a jump so there is simply no falling. You are 100% inserting your own assumption about falling into a rule for jump that you simply resolve as a game mechanic. The game is not a representation of real world physics.

The reason your foe takes damage is because you free action let go of him or her.

Valmark

2020-12-11, 02:49 AM

BamBam

2020-12-11, 04:46 AM

Even with 29 strenght you maximum jump is going to be 10 feet if you spend 20 to move the first 10, 18 otherwise. 10 feet because that's all the left-over movement you got, 18 because halved jump.

Spider Walk seems like it would have a better use, though then you ran the risk of getting grappled yourself (and you don't walk very far anyway).

Oh and btw, as far as I can see jumping rules don't say anything about being exempt from fall damage if you jump too high- I would let it work, but I'm hardly indicative. While my approach is generally that spells don't do more then what they say, I'm all for cool things- even if it had been something that worked well (look, spending a round to maybe deal 1d6 damage and a weak condition more often then not is underwhelming to me if I want to damage others).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying melee fighting won't work, just that the using fall damage part seems to me to be much worst then it looks.

Where in the rules does it say that Jump involves falling? It is a special type of movement that you carry out with the instructions provided. You only fall if you go below your starting vertical level.

FWIW, Jeremy Crawford has Sage Advice that shares my exact view. Do you consider his Sage Advice definitive of RAI? For me the RAW is clear and I just happen to share his view on the matter.

You are wrongly inserting physics into a game that is not physics based. We aren't calculating gravitational acceleration or force of impact. If the rules describe jumping with no mention of falling and give us instructions for resolving jumps complete unto themselves then jumping is not falling. The rules do what they say they do.

Gignere

2020-12-11, 06:55 AM

Where in the rules does it say that Jump involves falling? It is a special type of movement that you carry out with the instructions provided. You only fall if you go below your starting vertical level.

FWIW, Jeremy Crawford has Sage Advice that shares my exact view. Do you consider his Sage Advice definitive of RAI? For me the RAW is clear and I just happen to share his view on the matter.

You are wrongly inserting physics into a game that is not physics based. We aren't calculating gravitational acceleration or force of impact. If the rules describe jumping with no mention of falling and give us instructions for resolving jumps complete unto themselves then jumping is not falling. The rules do what they say they do.

No where does it say only force movement causes damage. So you’re saying that if you jumped off a cliff voluntarily you’ll take no damage because it wasn’t forced movement? Or are you going to add it a lot of rules that say you go up 50 feet and come back down 50 feet you don’t take any damage? There is no RAW to support that if you vertical 100 feet and come back down you take no damage it is non existent.

I can tell you Jeremy Crawford is wrong here if he rules otherwise and you need to reread that sage advice and make sure he doesn’t say he would allow it. He sometimes say things like he would allow it but it isn’t RAW like Shadowblade.

However this is why in the optimize grappler guides the authors do find a way to address this type of falling damage through class abilities. It’s obviously something people who stick to RAW follows.

BamBam

2020-12-11, 07:21 AM

No where does it say only force movement causes damage. So you’re saying that if you jumped off a cliff voluntarily you’ll take no damage because it wasn’t forced movement? Or are you going to add it a lot of rules that say you go up 50 feet and come back down 50 feet you don’t take any damage? There is no RAW to support that if you vertical 100 feet and come back down you take no damage it is non existent.

I can tell you Jeremy Crawford is wrong here if he rules otherwise and you need to reread that sage advice and make sure he doesn’t say he would allow it. He sometimes say things like he would allow it but it isn’t RAW like Shadowblade.

However this is why in the optimize grappler guides the authors do find a way to address this type of falling damage through class abilities. It’s obviously something people who stick to RAW follows.

Where in the rules is Jump described as falling? It is a type of movement just like any other movement that is subject to the rules as presented. The burden of proof is on you to present some rule in the PHB that indicates jump movement causes a fall. You can house rule as you wish but I will stick to the Rules As Written. Per the rules all that is required in some instances is a DC 10 Acrobatics/Athletics roll.

Moreover, your physics isn't correct.

Technically the amount of force that initiates the jump is exactly equivalent to the force that one receives on landing since gravity is a constant and all. So if one's body is capable of generating the force for the jump without self-injury then one's body is perfectly capable of receiving that force without self-injury provided it is a jump executed with control (land on one's feet).

So not only are you wrong in physics you are wrong as pertains to the rules of the game.

Again show me the rules where Jump movement induces mandatory fall damage. House rules introduced by some grappling guides are just that -- house rules. It is cool that you play by those house rules but I don't play by house rules.

For your reference . . .

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/16/falling-damage-from-jump/

Of course he doesn't have to point that out. The rules are already exceedingly clear that Jumping does not cause fall damage. If it did, the rules would indicate such.

Unoriginal

2020-12-11, 07:33 AM

Where in the rules is Jump described as falling? It is a type of movement just like any other movement that is subject to the rules as presented. The burden of proof is on you to present some rule in the PHB that indicates jump movement causes a fall. You can house rule as you wish but I will stick to the Rules As Written. Per the rules all that is required in some instances is a DC 10 Acrobatics/Athletics roll.

Moreover, your physics isn't correct.

Technically the amount of force that initiates the jump is exactly equivalent to the force that one receives on landing since gravity is a constant and all. So if one's body is capable of generating the force for the jump without self-injury then one's body is perfectly capable of receiving that force without self-injury provided it is a jump executed with control.

So not only are you wrong in physics you are wrong as pertains to the rules of the game.

Again show me the rules where Jump movement induces mandatory fall damage. House rules introduced by some grappling guides are just that -- house rules. It is cool that you play by those rules but I don't play by house rules.

For your reference . . .

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/16/falling-damage-from-jump/

Of course he doesn't have to point that out. The rules are already exceedingly clear that Jumping does not cause fall damage. If it did, the rules would indicate such.

The rules are exceedingly clear that falling causes fall damage. Getting more than 10ft in the air and then getting back on the ground is falling, unless the effect specifically says it's too slow to cause fall damage (like Levitation). If you jump 20ft in a straight vertical line, without a way to stay up there, the rules for falling applies. There's a reason why most jumps PCs do are mostly horizontal.

Also, Crawford's tweets have no bearing on the rules.

Gignere

2020-12-11, 07:35 AM

Where in the rules is Jump described as falling? It is a type of movement just like any other movement that is subject to the rules as presented. The burden of proof is on you to present some rule in the PHB that indicates jump movement causes a fall. You can house rule as you wish but I will stick to the Rules As Written. Per the rules all that is required in some instances is a DC 10 Acrobatics/Athletics roll.

Moreover, your physics isn't correct.

Technically the amount of force that initiates the jump is exactly equivalent to the force that one receives on landing since gravity is a constant and all. So if one's body is capable of generating the force for the jump without self-injury then one's body is perfectly capable of receiving that force without self-injury provided it is a jump executed with control.

So not only are you wrong in physics you are wrong as pertains to the rules of the game.

Again show me the rules where Jump movement induces mandatory fall damage. House rules introduced by some grappling guides are just that -- house rules. It is cool that you play by those house rules but I don't play by house rules.

For your reference . . .

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/16/falling-damage-from-jump/

Of course he doesn't have to point that out. The rules are already exceedingly clear that Jumping does not cause fall damage. If it did, the rules would indicate such.

If what you said was true than why would there be a mat in high jumping event for the Olympics? All the Olympian high jumpers should be fine falling on concrete. Or are you saying these people can’t control their jumps?

Hey it’s your game and obviously we play very different style games if in your game you can vertical 100 feet and fall down similarly and not take any damage more power to you.

The example was 10 feet and it was what Jeremy Crawford would consider and it isn’t actually RAW. Like I said Jeremy Crawford may rule differently if you asked him if my character has a 30 feet vertical would you rule he takes falling damage?

BamBam

2020-12-11, 07:37 AM

The rules are exceedingly clear that falling causes fall damage. Getting more than 10ft in the air and then getting back on the ground is falling, unless the effect specifically says it's too slow to cause fall damage (like Telekinesis). If you jump 20ft in a straight vertical line, without a way to stay up there, the rules for falling applies.

Also, Crawford's tweets have no bearing on the rules.

Nope. According to the rules when you are Jumping you are Jumping and not Falling. Examine the rules for Jumping. Point out where in the rules that Jumping causes falling damage. Citation please.

Unoriginal

2020-12-11, 07:43 AM

BamBam

2020-12-11, 07:45 AM

If what you said was true than why would there be a mat in high jumping event for the Olympics? All the Olympian high jumpers should be fine falling on concrete. Or are you saying these people can’t control their jumps?

Hey it’s your game and obviously we play very different style games if in your game you can vertical 100 feet and fall down similarly and not take any damage more power to you.

The physics is clear. If a person can jump 100 feet with their powerful legs those same powerful legs can absorb the impact. It is EXACTLY the same force imparted by the legs as to the legs.

Again, you are inserting your own bad understanding of physics with a house rule here. The actual rules in the book are correct in their physics that jumping does not cause falling damage unless something is completely botched in the jump. A body that can generate the force required to jump high can also land on one's feet and absorb that force. The force is exactly the same.

Gignere

2020-12-11, 07:49 AM

Nope. According to the rules when you are Jumping you are Jumping and not Falling. Examine the rules for Jumping. Point out where in the rules that Jumping causes falling damage. Citation please.

Let’s come at it from another angle you used up your movement going up. So you have no movement left for the round how does your character come back down? Note you don’t get to have double movement with jump you don’t go up 30 feet and get another 30 feet to come back down.

It isn’t part of the jump rules anymore so we have to look for another rule to see how your character doesn’t stay hovering. We look to the falling rules, and it said that if you fall more than 10 feet you take damage.

That’s the RAW jump doesn’t double your speed so if you spent your movement going vertical you have nothing left to as you say control your descent.

BamBam

2020-12-11, 07:52 AM

Do you deny the fact that jumping 20ft up the air and then going back on the ground involves falling?

The rules consider it Jumping. Do you see mention of falling in the Jump rules?

The rules are clear and the physics is clear. Jumping does not cause damage unless something is botched. The same legs that generated the force absorb the force on landing.

Basketball players simply jump and land on their feet. They do not jump and fall on the ground unless something went wrong with the jump.

{Scrubbed}

BamBam

2020-12-11, 07:53 AM

Let’s come at it from another angle you used up your movement going up. So you have no movement left for the round how does your character come back down? Note you don’t get to have double movement with jump you don’t go up 30 feet and get another 30 feet to come back down.

It isn’t part of the jump rules anymore so we have to look for another rule to see how your character doesn’t stay hovering. We look to the falling rules, and it said that if you fall more than 10 feet you take damage.

That’s the RAW jump doesn’t double your speed so if you spent your movement going vertical you have nothing left to as you say control your descent.

{Scrubbed}

The rules specify that in the case of high jump you only spend double movement to clear the height ("each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement").

Valmark

2020-12-11, 09:15 AM

The point is that the RAW is ambiguous- it's fair to consider jumping as not giving fall damage, but nothing states it does or doesn't. For that reason I wouldn't count on said fall damage from Jumping with people- it's on the whim of the DM.

(Btw JC is the same person that also rules that if you consume all your movement while jumping you start falling, so with the math I used earlier you'd be taking fall damage according to him. If anything this proves the point).

BamBam

2020-12-11, 03:16 PM

Dork_Forge

2020-12-11, 09:03 PM

Fireball: good in that you lose only 4.2 points of damage going from Int 20 to Int 8. Instead of losing 30% of absolute (not relative) effectiveness like you would with a save-negates spell like Fear, you only lose 15%, and you'll still kill plenty of orcs and hobgoblins with it, maybe even some githyanki with repeat castings.

Sorry, what's the maths for only losing 4.2 points of damage?

Your effectiveness is always, and never, in the dice gods' hands. Not really. Even with DC 11 (Int 8 level 9 caster), know the odds and choose the right spells in the right circumstance and you'll be fine. Maybe you wind up casting Tasha's Mind Whip or Phantasmal Force or Major Image in a scenario where an Int 20 wizard would have bet on Suggestion instead, but IME good decisions have a much larger impact on play than die rolls do. For example, your Spike Growth + Darkness plan to take out the Star Spawns in Tactical Challenge #5 is really solid. An Int 8 wizard in that chokepoint could chuck a DC 11 Web on top of Spike Growth and get good value out of it. DC 17 Web would of course be better, but 11 is still an extra layer of defense.

Web on a low Int Wizard would be a terrible contribution to that combo, the Star Spawn aren't likely to fail and the ground is already difficult terrain from the Spike Growth, meaning you're quite likely to get no benefit from it at all. The Wizard would be better off throwing a buff out like Haste on someone (upping DPR and opening up things like ready action shove back 5ft for more cheese gratering) or throwing straight damage out.

You can certainly make some contributions as a low Int Wizard, it's very difficult not to contribute in 5e no matter what your stats are. However if you're playing an Int 8 Wizard then your contribution and effectiveness are significantly below that of a stat appropriate character and everyhting will be more difficult as a result.

MaxWilson

2020-12-11, 09:58 PM

Sorry, what's the maths for only losing 4.2 points of damage?

8d6 (28) * 0.30/2.

0.30 because you're losing +6 of DC on a d20.

Web on a low Int Wizard would be a terrible contribution to that combo, the Star Spawn aren't likely to fail and the ground is already difficult terrain from the Spike Growth, meaning you're quite likely to get no benefit from it at all. The Wizard would be better off throwing a buff out like Haste on someone (upping DPR and opening up things like ready action shove back 5ft for more cheese gratering) or throwing straight damage out.

You get to make EVEN MORE difficult terrain, and about 45% of the grues in our moving through the area will fail each round, and 30% of the Hulks, potentially blocking movement of others. It reduces the pressure on your front lines even more, giving you more time to Repelling Blast. I haven't run the numbers but based on past experience with e.g. DC 10 ball bearings, that extra 30-45% seems likely to have more impact than an extra action/movement/AC from Haste would.

Dork_Forge

2020-12-12, 03:52 AM

8d6 (28) * 0.30/2.

0.30 because you're losing +6 of DC on a d20.

I'm completely fine admitting that this kind of maths is not my wheelhouse, it does seem like a time that abstracting things out like this makes them meaningless in actual play though. If they save in the 6 range difference, the difference isn't 4.2, it's half of whatever was rolled or 14 on average. Over the lifetime of a character or in endless simulations that might be what it'd average too, but it doesn't reflect the actual table difference.

You get to make EVEN MORE difficult terrain, and about 45% of the grues in our moving through the area will fail each round, and 30% of the Hulks, potentially blocking movement of others. It reduces the pressure on your front lines even more, giving you more time to Repelling Blast. I haven't run the numbers but based on past experience with e.g. DC 10 ball bearings, that extra 30-45% seems likely to have more impact than an extra action/movement/AC from Haste would.

What? Difficult terrain doesn't stack, the second source is just wasted so you're reduced to whether they fail it or not. You're holding concentration on an option that is more likely to not do anything than it is to succeed. A Wizard like that would be better off spending their concentration on buffing or summons, taking their Int out of it altogether. There's also the opportunity cost, your spells prepared are greatly kneecapped by that -1, after you take into account the needed staple spells (Mage Armor, Shield, Absorb Elements) you're left with 6 spells, some of which you may want to be more comprehensive defenses than what 1st level spells offer you. If you're so limited, do you want to take a spell that has such a high failure chance?

Heck the Wizard could be the one concentrating on Darkness and just peppering the Starspawn with auto hit Magic Missiles and would be contributing more to things (freeing up the Warlock's concentration and opening action).

If you're looking to add things to the field in that specific scenario, you'd probably be better off lining the entire area you're casting Spike Growth on with caltrops: DC 15 Dex, 1 damage to the 2d4, stops them in their tracks and imposes a speed penalty.

MaxWilson

2020-12-12, 04:34 AM

I'm completely fine admitting that this kind of maths is not my wheelhouse, it does seem like a time that abstracting things out like this makes them meaningless in actual play though. If they save in the 6 range difference, the difference isn't 4.2, it's half of whatever was rolled or 14 on average. Over the lifetime of a character or in endless simulations that might be what it'd average too, but it doesn't reflect the actual table difference.

I guess we all experience the game differently. For me the game is about decisions, and die rolls just feel like meaningless noise because good and bad luck tend to cancel out over time. I don't feel emotionally good or bad from dice coming up a certain way, I feel emotionally good or bad from making decisions that make favorable outcomes more likely than they would have been otherwise. For me, averages are an excellent proxy for an actual play experience, e.g. Fireball really is a good spell against hobgoblins and orcs no matter what your Int is, and that one time when you roll only 18 on damage and all of the hobgoblins roll high and you wind up doing only 9 damage to all eight hobgoblins and killing no one doesn't feel bad to me--it was a good decision, you just got unlucky. For people like me, Savage Attacker and Great Weapon fighting really are terrible, because the impact on your expected damage is really tiny.

But if you're different, if you experience individual die rolls more than expected values, that's okay. I can see how that would make you make different decisions. Hopefully you can see why it would make a difference too.

What? Difficult terrain doesn't stack, the second source is just wasted so you're reduced to whether they fail it or not.

60' of difficult terrain takes more time to traverse than 40' of difficult terrain, especially when 20' of that terrain is restraining 30-45% of the creatures interacting with it each round. (Although the details depend upon where you place what and who is standing where.)

You're holding concentration on an option that is more likely to not do anything than it is to succeed. A Wizard like that would be better off spending their concentration on buffing or summons, taking their Int out of it altogether.

Summons yes. Buffing, well, depends on what the buff is. Haste, no. Polymorph, maybe.