Bladesinger vs. Eldritch Knight: what's in a Gish?

[Segev]

Eldritch Knight was, when 5e came out, the "fighter/mage" choice. The archetype that would let you do the multiclass without having to actually multiclass. As a fighter archetype, it's obviously less focused on "mage" than on "fighter," but it has the boom magic and it has decent access to buffs. Not sure it has enough buff access to really Gish properly, but I invite others to discuss that more thoroughly.

Bladesinger is based on the old Elf kit for wizards, which is interesting because fighter/mage was a not-quite-uniquely elf multiclass in the same edition, which is clearly where Eldritch Knight's inspiration's inspiration came from (the Eldritch Knight archetype is named after the 3e Wizard( or Sorcerer)/Fighter hybridizing PrC. (It was generally not considered a very good PrC.)

Bladesinger's level 6 extra attack feature seems just plain better than Eldritch Knight's level 7 archetype feature. The EK gets Extra Attack at level 5, like any fighter, and at level 7 gains the ability to, when he casts a cantrip as his action, make an attack as a bonus action. The Bladesinger, at level 6, gets both Extra Attack and the ability to attack once with it and substitute the other attack with a cantrip. The Bladesinger thus gets an attack, cantrip, and bonus action, while the Eldritch Knight gets only a spell and an attack (using his bonus action for the attack).

I'm not sure how useful the Eldritch Knight's sword-summoning power is. I think Bladesinging is probably better, but the Eldritch Knight's armor access is certainly superior to the Bladesinger's.

Bladesingers, as full wizards, get all the wizard buff spells. Because proficiency is not class-based, the accuracy to hit with proficient weapons is the same on both classes. EKs get more feats, which can be significant.

I'm trying to figure out if straight EK, straight Bladesinger, EK with six levels of Bladesinger, or Bladesinger with 2 levels of Fighter is better for "a true gish."

Straight EK is a fighter with slightly...asynergistic subclass features. Unless I'm underestimating how many buff spells it can have.

Straight Bladesinger is squishy for a gish, but can do the job with buffing his own fighting ability, and can do the spell/weapon combo effectively thanks to their level 6 feature.

EK with six levels of Bladesinger is sort-of wasting his 5th level extra attack feature, but will, by level 17, be a 9th level caster with access to 3rd level wizard spells (and the full array of wizard buffs if he wants them), and three attacks per round (one of which he can give up for a cantrip). His level 7 feature is also kind-of wasted, though, since it's always worse to spend the action on a cantrip and a bonus action attacking than to spend an action attacking twice and cantrip-casting once, leaving the bonus action free for misty step or some other bonus action spell. Maybe it's actively better to be any other fighter archetype if multiclassing with Bladesinger? Only a 6th level caster by level 17, but you've still got the ability to mix in a cantrip with your attacks and a reasonable array of spells.

Bladesinger dipping two levels of Fighter gains all the armor it could want, plus Action Surge. Plus some extra hp (taking Fighter 1 first would likely make the tier 1 survival rate comparable to straight Fighter).

Is there anything that EK really does better than Bladesinger or Bladesinger with a Fighter dip?

[Xetheral]

EK with six levels of Bladesinger is sort-of wasting his 5th level extra attack feature, but will, by level 17, be a 9th level caster with access to 3rd level wizard spells (and the full array of wizard buffs if he wants them), and three attacks per round (one of which he can give up for a cantrip). His level 7 feature is also kind-of wasted, though, since it's always worse to spend the action on a cantrip and a bonus action attacking than to spend an action attacking twice and cantrip-casting once, leaving the bonus action free for misty step or some other bonus action spell. Maybe it's actively better to be any other fighter archetype if multiclassing with Bladesinger? Only a 6th level caster by level 17, but you've still got the ability to mix in a cantrip with your attacks and a reasonable array of spells.

(Emphasis added.) Two comments on the bolded parts:

First, are you sure that Fighter 11 Extra Attack and Bladesinger Extra Attack can be used together? I was under the impression that one would have to choose between 3 attacks or 1 attack and 1 cantrip?

Second it looks to me like War Magic and Bladesinger Extra Attack can be used together. The Bladesinger uses his action to make an attack and cast a cantrip, which satisfies the War Magic requirement of using an action to cast a cantrip, enabling the bonus action attack. Mostly this is useless, since Bladesinger Extra Attack already enables most bonus action attacks, like TWF. But the War Magic bonus action attack could be used with a wider range of weapons, including potentially GWM. (Of course, that rules out using Bladesong due to the weapon restrictions, so it's of dubious value.)

Putting the two comments above together, it's hard to see a niche for the EK/Bladesinger multiclass. The best appears to be ignoring Bladesinging altogether with heavy armor and a greatsword. An EK7/BS6 would be able to make two attacks plus a SCAG cantrip at the cost of an action and bonus action, each of what can use GWM. That's only slightly better than an EK11 that can make three GWM attacks and still have an available bonus action, but the multiclass does get much better spellcasting. (Note however, that the advantage of using a SCAG cantrip with GWM over a regular GWM attack is reduced because the bonus damage from the cantrip makes the GWM accuracy penalty more costly.)

So, an EK7/BS6 with GWM has a higher resource-free damage output and better resource-free AC than a different wizard subclass would. And it has slightly more spells and spellslots than a different fighter subclass would. I could see that being appealing for some character concepts. But a Battlemaster 6/Bladesinger 7 using TWF is only one level behind on spellslots, gets 4th level wizard spells instead of 3rd, can make full use of the Bladesinging abilities and Battlemaster maneuvers, and isn't that far behind on resource-free damage potential or AC. On the other hand, the Battlemaster version is far more dependent on limited-use abilities.

So I guess I'd say EK/BS is viable, particularly at tables with many encounters between rests, but the opportunity cost of getting its high resource-free combat ability is steep.

[Tanarii]

Bladesinger isn't a GISH though, any more than a Bladelock is a GISH. They're full casters with splash of melee as backup.

Also Bladesinger extra attack doesn't allow use of a cantrip.

The most accurate to being a GiSH you can really do in 5e is if your DM allows Multiclassing, EK 7 --> Wizard.

[Gignere]

Bladesinger isn't a GISH though, any more than a Bladelock is a GISH. They're full casters with splash of melee as backup.

Also Bladesinger extra attack doesn't allow use of a cantrip.

The most accurate to being a GiSH you can really do in 5e is if your DM allows Multiclassing, EK 7 --> Wizard.

Tasha changed Bladesinger extra attack to allow BS’s to change one of their attacks to a cantrip when they take the attack action.

[Tanarii]

Tasha changed Bladesinger extra attack to allow BS’s to change one of their attacks to a cantrip when they take the attack action.
Ah. Meh. Optional rules for tweaking classes shouldn't be part of baseline assumptions.

[Gignere]

Ah. Meh. Optional rules for tweaking classes shouldn't be part of baseline assumptions.

They also errata SCAG to match Tasha’s so it is the official version now.

[Tanarii]

They also errata SCAG to match Tasha’s so it is the official version now.
Ah. Thats a shame. They said that kind of thing wasnt going to happen in this edition.

[Witty Username]

Gish is just mixing a martial with a caster (well arcane caster but they don't really exist anymore). You could measure it by effectiveness of martial, effectiveness of caster ratio, but that is a lot of semantics for little benefit.
All I can really say is I like bladesinger better, and EK feels like a fighter that is a bad spellcaster.

[Unoriginal]

The Bladesinger thus gets an attack, cantrip, and bonus action, while the Eldritch Knight gets only a spell and an attack (using his bonus action for the attack).

The Bladesinger does not get a bonus action unless they use the specific features that give a bonus action. It certainly possible and even likely that the Bladesinger has those, but that does not mean most of those bonus action options are worthwhile compared to the EK's spell + attack.


Because proficiency is not class-based, the accuracy to hit with proficient weapons is the same on both classes. EKs get more feats, which can be significant.

That is misleading. Yes, proficiency is not class based, but ASIs are, and the EK doesn't just get "more feats", so saying that the accuracy to hit with proficient weapons is the same is inaccurate. An Eldritch Knight can have their main weapon attack stat maxxed out at lvl 6, at a point where the Bladesinger most likely doesn't have their main spellcasting stat maxxed.



I'm trying to figure out if straight EK, straight Bladesinger, EK with six levels of Bladesinger, or Bladesinger with 2 levels of Fighter is better for "a true gish."

Defining a "true gish" is an hard task.



Straight EK is a fighter with slightly...asynergistic subclass features. Unless I'm underestimating how many buff spells it can have.

It's more that you are overestimating how important/useful buffs are.


Straight Bladesinger is squishy for a gish, but can do the job with buffing his own fighting ability,

You can only buff so much, and it's going to have a harsh price if you try to be a melee combatant with no CON save proficiency, no DEX save proficiency, nor any way to mitigate damages from AoE.



Is there anything that EK really does better than Bladesinger or Bladesinger with a Fighter dip?

A level-by-level analysis would be long and tedious (I can do it if you want, though), but to summarize my general analysis on the question (from this thread and others):

the Eldritch Knight, at equal level, is a *much* greater melee combatant than the Bladesinger, with some nice magic to back them up. While the Bladesinger can compete or even win in term of AC, in term of stats, HPs and saves they just can't, meaning it's unlikely to have melee combat turn better for them than for the EK. The Bladesinger is still a Wizard, though, so they can still do the usual Wizard fare and use their Bladesinging when needed, for good results.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I think synergy and level of play is massive when making this decision.
Bladesinger (maybe with a level or 2 of Fighter) looks awesome for mid game. Being able to cantrip, attack and still have a bonus action left is great. On the other hand it looks a bit MAD/ feat heavy to me. In order to get use out of the bonus action you probably need a feat. To me the obvious would be to pick up a second weapon and grab Warcaster, but there are other options. Regardless, in order to stand on the front lines you need Dex, Con, and Int as well. Then by late game you've invested all this and the whole thing isn't synergistic with the action you'll be taking most of the time, Cast a Spell. Yes, you'll have good armor and hp compared to other wizards, but in terms of most of the other schools you will be lacking the features to make your spells stand out.
EK, to me, looks more synergistic in the sense that the features tend to support each other throughout the game. You have buffs, good reaction spells (Shield + AE), and at least one good bonus action spell (Misty Step) when you need it, all of which will help you continue to do what you are supposed to be doing as a fighter. You can action surge and use both the Cast a Spell and Attack action in the same round, for some extra punch when you need it. The downside is that War Magic, particularly compared to the Bladesinger ability, is dependent on level, fighting style, and situation as to whether or not it's actually an upgrade. If this was meant to be a key feature, sometimes it just isn't.

So for me if I was playing to mid-game, both are viable. Late game EK is probably the most versatile Fighter class, but there's no way I'd touch a Bladesinger with the other Wizard subclasses available.

[Xetheral]

Following up on my comparison of EK7/BS6 vs BM6/BS 7 above, I went ahead and ran the DPR numbers. The Eldritch Knight version's increase in resourceless damage is significantly higher than I expected, being 36.11% higher vs AC 22, and even more at all other ACs. Here are the builds I used for the analysis:



Build
EK7/BS6
BM6/BS7


Race
Variant Human
Variant Human


Weapon
Greatsword
Dual Rapiers


Armor
Full Plate
Mage Armor


STR
20
8


DEX
8
20


CON
14
14


INT
16
16


WIS
10
10


CHA
8
8


ASIs
Great Weapon Master
War Caster
STR+2
STR+2
Dual Wielder
War Caster
DEX +2
DEX +2


Style
Great Weapon Fighting
Two-Weapon Fighting


Attacks
Booming Blade: +10, 2d8+2d6+5 (27.83) OR +5, 2d8+2d6+15 (37.83)
Greatsword: +10, 2d6+5 (13.33) OR +5, 2d6+15 (23.33)
(War Magic) Greatsword: +10, 2d6+5 (13.33) OR +5, 2d6+15 (23.33)
Booming Blade: +10, 3d8+5 (18.5)
Rapier: +10, 1d8+5 (9.5)
(TWF) Rapier: +10, 1d8+5 (9.5)


Casting
2x 4th level slots, 3rd level spells
1x 4th level slot, 4th level spells


Abilties
Spells
Spells
Manuevers
Bladesong



And here is the DPR comparison, including crits. (Note that the multiple inflection points in the EK data stem from the optimal use of GWM, only using it on an attack if it is beneficial to do so vs a given AC. The breakpoints for BB and regular attacks are different due to BB's bonus damage.)

https://i.ibb.co/qRpXW8y/EK-BS-vs-BM-BS-DPR-Comparison.png

And here is the DPR gain of the EK over the BM, in percentage terms:

https://i.ibb.co/tqXBtx0/EK-BS-over-BM-BS-DPR-Gain.png

Remember that this is a comparison of resourceless damage. The BM6/BS7 will have higher damage than listed above when spending limited-use resources like Battlemaster maneuvers, and higher AC when using Bladesong. Also note that the percentage DPR gain is overstated if the bonus Booming Blade damage can be triggered reliably (both builds benefit equally in DPR terms from triggering Booming Blade, but an equal increase in absolute terms will decrease the percentage gain of going with the EK build.)

Based on the above analysis, I think the EK7/BS6 multiclass is a strong competitor to the BM6/BS7 alternative, particularly if a reliable source of advantage is available. However, this analysis is specific to level 13 and higher--the BM build will be much more competitive in DPR terms at lower levels until War Magic becomes available (although the EK build still has a slight DPR edge, even before it gets its reliable bonus action attack). In both cases, I would recommend starting with Fighter 1, taking Wizard up to 6 or 7, then filling out fighter. Levels after 13 don't affect melee damage much (other than a big boost to the BM build at BM6/BS14), and can be taken in whatever classes are desired.

[RSP]

First, are you sure that Fighter 11 Extra Attack and Bladesinger Extra Attack can be used together? I was under the impression that one would have to choose between 3 attacks or 1 attack and 1 cantrip?

That’s my understanding of it as well, based off the rules of multiclass which state: “If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don't add together.”

[Segev]

That’s my understanding of it as well, based off the rules of multiclass which state: “If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don't add together.”

Addressing this, let me just look at the three features in question:

Fighter Extra Attack at level 5 says, "Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. The number of attacks increases to three when you reach 11th level in this class and to four when you reach 20th level in this class."

Bladesinger Extra Attack at level 6 says, "Starting at 6th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks."

Fighter Extra Attack at level 11 says, "At 11th level, you can attack three times whenever you take the Attack action on your turn."

The multiclassing rules do, indeed, say that they don't "stack," but that's fairly clearly referring to not being able to go Fighter 5/Ranger 5 and get three attacks at level 10. Now, we could argue that the Extra Attack features are actually distinct abilities, but that Fighter's is one ability despite having two (actually three, but we aren't worrying about the ones above level 11) listings.

The reading I was using was that you get Extra Attack from Fighter and Bladesinger, and Bladesinger adds the ability (whether you have Fighter 5's or not) to replace an attack with a cantrip. Fighter 11 gives you a second extra attack; it does not overwrite Bladesinger's ability to replace one with a cantrip.

It seems the opposing reading (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that Bladesinger Extra Attack feature has to be "activated" independently of the level 11 Fighter Extra Attack (2) feature, and means you can't activate it. I think this is actually inaccurate. Allow me to explain:

"Starting at 11th level, you can attack three times whenever you take the attack action on your turn," triggers as long as you take the attack action. Extra Attack is never worded such that stacking them would be an issue, but they call it out because they wanted to be 100% clear on the stacking not happening.

Extra Attack at level 5 for Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, and Ranger all say, "you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." You could have every version of this, and all of them would only permit you to attack twice, instead of once, when you take the attack action on your turn.

Fighter 11 says, "you can attack three times whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." This is what actually lets you attack three times (I know that sounds tautological when written out this way).

Bladesinger 6 says, "you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks."

If you have Bladesinger 6 and Fighter 11, you now have the ability to attack three times when you take the attack action on your turn. You also have the ability to cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks [that you can make when you take the attack action on your turn].

Put another way, the ability to attack three times when you take the attack action on your turn and the ability to attack twice when you take the attack action on your turn aren't contradictory. They're redundant, with the three-attack version ALSO permitting you to attack twice. The triggering works like this: "I take the attack action on my turn. I now may attack twice, and substitute one of those attacks with a cantrip. I also may attack three times. Since I can substitute one of my two attacks with a cantrip, I still can attack three times, but one of those attacks was substituted for a cantrip." Both abilities trigger on taking the attack action on your turn, and neither precludes the elements of the other. You are attacking twice and three times (because you can't attack three times if you don't attack twice), and you're replacing one of those attacks with a cantrip.

That said, this is very rules-lawyery (but so is the "you can't do it" interpretation). And it will come down to individual DMs to rule whether they like the idea of an EK 11/BS 6 attacking twice and cantripping without spending a bonus action.

[Tanarii]

I thought if you already had Extra attack feature from one class, you just flat didn't get it from the second class?

As in, it already impacted against deciding to go to Paladin 5 (for example) if you were ever going to go to Fighter 11.

[Valmark]

I thought if you already had Extra attack feature from one class, you just flat didn't get it from the second class?

As in, it already impacted against deciding to go to Paladin 5 (for example) if you were ever going to go to Fighter 11.

That's for something like Unarmored Defense, the wording for the limitation on Extra Attack is different.

[J.C.]

Addressing this, let me just look at the three features in question:

Fighter Extra Attack at level 5 says, "Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. The number of attacks increases to three when you reach 11th level in this class and to four when you reach 20th level in this class."

Bladesinger Extra Attack at level 6 says, "Starting at 6th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks."

Fighter Extra Attack at level 11 says, "At 11th level, you can attack three times whenever you take the Attack action on your turn."

The multiclassing rules do, indeed, say that they don't "stack," but that's fairly clearly referring to not being able to go Fighter 5/Ranger 5 and get three attacks at level 10. Now, we could argue that the Extra Attack features are actually distinct abilities, but that Fighter's is one ability despite having two (actually three, but we aren't worrying about the ones above level 11) listings.

The reading I was using was that you get Extra Attack from Fighter and Bladesinger, and Bladesinger adds the ability (whether you have Fighter 5's or not) to replace an attack with a cantrip. Fighter 11 gives you a second extra attack; it does not overwrite Bladesinger's ability to replace one with a cantrip.

It seems the opposing reading (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that Bladesinger Extra Attack feature has to be "activated" independently of the level 11 Fighter Extra Attack (2) feature, and means you can't activate it. I think this is actually inaccurate. Allow me to explain:

"Starting at 11th level, you can attack three times whenever you take the attack action on your turn," triggers as long as you take the attack action. Extra Attack is never worded such that stacking them would be an issue, but they call it out because they wanted to be 100% clear on the stacking not happening.

Extra Attack at level 5 for Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, and Ranger all say, "you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." You could have every version of this, and all of them would only permit you to attack twice, instead of once, when you take the attack action on your turn.

Fighter 11 says, "you can attack three times whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." This is what actually lets you attack three times (I know that sounds tautological when written out this way).

Bladesinger 6 says, "you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks."

If you have Bladesinger 6 and Fighter 11, you now have the ability to attack three times when you take the attack action on your turn. You also have the ability to cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks [that you can make when you take the attack action on your turn].

Put another way, the ability to attack three times when you take the attack action on your turn and the ability to attack twice when you take the attack action on your turn aren't contradictory. They're redundant, with the three-attack version ALSO permitting you to attack twice. The triggering works like this: "I take the attack action on my turn. I now may attack twice, and substitute one of those attacks with a cantrip. I also may attack three times. Since I can substitute one of my two attacks with a cantrip, I still can attack three times, but one of those attacks was substituted for a cantrip." Both abilities trigger on taking the attack action on your turn, and neither precludes the elements of the other. You are attacking twice and three times (because you can't attack three times if you don't attack twice), and you're replacing one of those attacks with a cantrip.

That said, this is very rules-lawyery (but so is the "you can't do it" interpretation). And it will come down to individual DMs to rule whether they like the idea of an EK 11/BS 6 attacking twice and cantripping without spending a bonus action.

The rule in the PHB is that the Extra Attack features don't add together. Period. The Bladesinger cantrip replacement is unequivocally part of the Bladesinger Extra Attack feature. Therefore, RAW clearly disallows adding the cantrip replacement to the Fighter's Extra Attack feature.

If the rule said 'the number of attacks don't add together' then your argument would be correct. But the rules on the page indicate your argument is wrong. You could of course house rule to play it however which way. I don't really see an issue with a RAF argument as long as you don't pretend you have a RAW argument.

[Segev]

I thought if you already had Extra attack feature from one class, you just flat didn't get it from the second class?

As in, it already impacted against deciding to go to Paladin 5 (for example) if you were ever going to go to Fighter 11.

Maybe. But Fighter 11 still has "Extra Attack (2)" listed, with its own entry, even though Fighter 5's Extra Attack entry does mention the upgrade at level 11. So even if you had Paladin 5 before Fighter 5, Fighter 11 would still give you "Extra Attack (2)."

You could argue back and forth over whether it actively means you just don't get any of them, but all this would mean if you strictly treated "same name" as a barrier to entry is that you MUST get Bladesinger 6 before Fighter 5 to avoid losing out the Bladesinger's special clause.

In practice, I can't see a DM deliberately ruling such that you screw yourself over by going Fighter 5 before Bladesinger 6, unless he's just going to ban the multiclass in the first place. 5e is about rulings, not rules, and DMs thus shouldn't be playing rules lawyer games, themselves: they should be simply stating what they want to permit, and be unafraid of it being a "house rule" if they must make it so.

[Tanarii]

Turns out I was confusing it with Unarmored Defense. That's the one where order matters.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

Is there anything that EK really does better than Bladesinger or Bladesinger with a Fighter dip?

You are forgetting that at level 18 the EK gets Improved War Magic slamming two hits with a weapon on the bonus action. Also Arcane Charge is teleport with Action Surge while Eldritch Strike forces automatic disadvantage on spells cast by you requiring save throws.

In the end I would rather go full EK as your are still going to be cranking out more chances to hit and rack up the damage in the long haul. Also remember the EK was not meant to be the balanced gish build of murdering everything in both melee and spellcasting. Its spellcasting is more to assist it becoming better at melee.

[Valmark]

You are forgetting that at level 18 the EK gets Improved War Magic slamming two hits with a weapon on the bonus action. Also Arcane Charge is teleport with Action Surge while Eldritch Strike forces automatic disadvantage on spells cast by you requiring save throws.

In the end I would rather go full EK as your are still going to be cranking out more chances to hit and rack up the damage in the long haul. Also remember the EK was not meant to be the balanced gish build of murdering everything in both melee and spellcasting. Its spellcasting is more to assist it becoming better at melee.

Improved War Magic doesn't double the attacks, it let's you attack as a bonus action when you use the action to cast a spell (War Magic only works on cantrips).

As the subclass' last feature it's... Not very impressive, given the level it is unlocked at.

[RSP]

The multiclassing rules do, indeed, say that they don't "stack," but that's fairly clearly referring to not being able to go Fighter 5/Ranger 5 and get three attacks at level 10.

Nothing about “stack” in the rule; it actually says “If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don't add together.”

I don’t know how anyone can say taking the cantrip ability from BS EA, and adding it to Fighters EA, isn’t adding the features; which, of course, is very clearly not allowed, RAW.

[Segev]

Nothing about “stack” in the rule; it actually says “If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don't add together.”

I don’t know how anyone can say taking the cantrip ability from BS EA, and adding it to Fighters EA, isn’t adding the features; which, of course, is very clearly not allowed, RAW.

"Addition" usually involves number + number, and makes perfect sense in context of "extra attacks" which do not, in fact, add one extra attack to another. Using both features, however, in ways that do not cause them to add their extra attacks to each other, but overlaps them, is perfectly viable.

[RSP]

"Addition" usually involves number + number, and makes perfect sense in context of "extra attacks" which do not, in fact, add one extra attack to another. Using both features, however, in ways that do not cause them to add their extra attacks to each other, but overlaps them, is perfectly viable.

So, just to be clear, you think adding the feature of Bladesinger Extra Attack to Fighters Extra Attack, is not adding those features together? I whole heartily disagree and see no way that can logically work.

To be clear, here’s the wording of BS EA: “Starting at 6th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.”

So are you also saying that “in place of one of [b]those attacks[\b]” is referencing the Fighters Extra Attacks ability for some reason?

I see no way to make that work, RAW.

[Segev]

So, just to be clear, you think adding the feature of Bladesinger Extra Attack to Fighters Extra Attack, is not adding those features together? I whole heartily disagree and see no way that can logically work.

To be clear, here’s the wording of BS EA: “Starting at 6th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.”

So are you also saying that “in place of one of [b]those attacks[\b]” is referencing the Fighters Extra Attacks ability for some reason?

I see no way to make that work, RAW.

There isn't "fighter's extra attacks" and "bladesinger's extra attacks." There's the number of attacks you're allowed. That's why they don't stack.

[RSP]

There isn't "fighter's extra attacks" and "bladesinger's extra attacks." There's the number of attacks you're allowed. That's why they don't stack.

There is the ability Extra Attack granted by the Fighter class, and an ability Extra Attack granted by the Bladesinger class. Per the rules on multiclass, the features don’t get added together.

You are saying “yes, you can add them together” and I’m wondering what you’re basing this on as the RAW is very clear they don’t add together.

So how do you take the BS ability, which clearly states you can use one of the attacks granted by that specific ability and cast a cantrip, and add that property to the Fighter ability; without adding those features together?

[Segev]

There is the ability Extra Attack granted by the Fighter class, and an ability Extra Attack granted by the Bladesinger class. Per the rules on multiclass, the features don’t get added together.

You are saying “yes, you can add them together” and I’m wondering what you’re basing this on as the RAW is very clear they don’t add together.

So how do you take the BS ability, which clearly states you can use one of the attacks granted by that specific ability and cast a cantrip, and add that property to the Fighter ability; without adding those features together?

Look, I'm not going to argue the point with you. A DM will rule on it how he wants to, and is probably not going to base it on fine parsing of the RAW more than on what he feels like it should be, possibly for particular characters. If he wants to allow EK/BS multiclass that goes 6 levels into BS and 11 levels into EK, he's almost certainly ruling that it works. If he's not interested in allowing that, he'll rule against it.

Edit: That sounds* ruder than I meant it to, and i apopglogize. I still don?t think the argument is fruitful to continue, but i appreciate the explanations on why it might be interpreted not to work. I do think DMs are liable to call it either way, however.

*new edit: Really, autocorrect? "Spuds?"

[shipiaozi]

Eldritch Knight should MC into sorcerer, by lv12 the subclass provide +4lv spell slots, equals to more quicken metamagic. In addition, lv10 trait is quite useful when you attack 3 times with action and cast a spell with bonus action.

Bladesinger is not a capable gish, only wizard with slightly better cantrip. The only way caster being viable gish in 5e is to multiclass Paladin 2 and spend most spell slots on divine smite.

EK/Wizard is a horrible build with no advantage.

[RSP]

Look, I'm not going to argue the point with you. A DM will rule on it how he wants to, and is probably not going to base it on fine parsing of the RAW more than on what he feels like it should be, possibly for particular characters. If he wants to allow EK/BS multiclass that goes 6 levels into BS and 11 levels into EK, he's almost certainly ruling that it works. If he's not interested in allowing that, he'll rule against it.

Edit: That spuds ruder than I meant it to, and i apopglogize. I still don?t think the argument is fruitful to continue, but i appreciate the explanations on why it might be interpreted not to work. I do think DMs are liable to call it either way, however.

No worries on the post “sound”; though I appreciate the apology.

And, obviously, we don’t need to continue this discourse; I’m just pointing out the RAW, which is very clear. If others want to play what they think is RAI (side note: I don’t think there’s any evidence allowing the ability to travel with multiclassing is RAI), or RAF, well that’s the beauty of the game: each table can decide what’s best for them.

I was just pointing out that the RAW is clearly against it, and was wondering what was making you think it wasn’t.

[Segev]

No worries on the post “sound”; though I appreciate the apology.

And, obviously, we don’t need to continue this discourse; I’m just pointing out the RAW, which is very clear. If others want to play what they think is RAI (side note: I don’t think there’s any evidence allowing the ability to travel with multiclassing is RAI), or RAF, well that’s the beauty of the game: each table can decide what’s best for them.

I was just pointing out that the RAW is clearly against it, and was wondering what was making you think it wasn’t.

I continue to disagree with your reading of the RAW, which is why I am not saying "you're right, but RAI" or something like that. I just also don't think arguing the RAW is fruitful, and having both (or all) interpretations of it available for DMs to examine the reasoning behind is useful to DMs who want help making a ruling. But I think we've both articulated our positions as clearly as possible and aren't likely to persuade with more discussion in the issue.

[DarknessEternal]

Following up on my comparison of EK7/BS6 vs BM6/BS 7 above, I went ahead and ran the DPR numbers. The Eldritch Knight version's increase in resourceless damage is significantly higher than I expected, being 36.11% higher vs AC 22, and even more at all other ACs. Here are the builds I used for the analysis:


Why are you deliberately choosing an objectively worse damage vector for BS in TWF?

[RSP]

I continue to disagree with your reading of the RAW, which is why I am not saying "you're right, but RAI" or something like that. I just also don't think arguing the RAW is fruitful, and having both (or all) interpretations of it available for DMs to examine the reasoning behind is useful to DMs who want help making a ruling. But I think we've both articulated our positions as clearly as possible and aren't likely to persuade with more discussion in the issue.

The reason I keep asking is I don’t actually know what you’re basing your “interpretation” on. I’ve stated it a few times, because I literally cannot see any way that “the features don't add together” can be read to allow adding the features together. If I missed it, I apologize, but I don’t think I’ve actually seen any argument showing how “the features don't add together” is able to be interpreted as “you can add the features together.”

I understand someone saying RAI is different (though I don’t think there’s enough evidence for that conclusion: using the following sentence stating the extra attacks don’t add together isn’t good evidence as they were 6 years or so away from any other features in Extra Attack, so assuming they intended the BS EA to work with other EA features based on that isn’t logical: there were no other features. Also, if they wanted the BS ability to work with other EA abilities, they very easily could have made it its own feature when they rewrote the BS in Tashas, which would have separated it from the EA multiclass rule. Again, it’s possible the developers do intend to have the cantrip swap apply to other EA abilities, but we don’t have any evidence to know that at this point, from the RAW [unless there’s some tweet by Crawford or something else I’m not aware of].), but, RAW, it’s very clear.

[Segev]

The reason I keep asking is I don’t actually know what you’re basing your “interpretation” on. I’ve stated it a few times, because I literally cannot see any way that “the features don't add together” can be read to allow adding the features together. If I missed it, I apologize, but I don’t think I’ve actually seen any argument showing how “the features don't add together” is able to be interpreted as “you can add the features together.”

I understand someone saying RAI is different (though I don’t think there’s enough evidence for that conclusion: using the following sentence stating the extra attacks don’t add together isn’t good evidence as they were 6 years or so away from any other features in Extra Attack, so assuming they intended the BS EA to work with other EA features based on that isn’t logical: there were no other features. Also, if they wanted the BS ability to work with other EA abilities, they very easily could have made it its own feature when they rewrote the BS in Tashas, which would have separated it from the EA multiclass rule. Again, it’s possible the developers do intend to have the cantrip swap apply to other EA abilities, but we don’t have any evidence to know that at this point, from the RAW [unless there’s some tweet by Crawford or something else I’m not aware of].), but, RAW, it’s very clear.

I'll attempt one more time, but if I can't get where I'm coming from across, I apologize. I don't expect you to agree with me, but I appreciate and sympathize with a desire to see where others are coming from.

"Doesn't stack," to me, means you can't take "Your AC is equal to Wis + Dex + 10" and "You're AC is equal to Con + Dex + 10" and say "So, that means my AC is 10 + Dex + Con + Wis." That's what you'd be doing for "adding together." The text forbidding the stacking of those via multiclassing strikes me as a "for clarity" thing, because the rules themselves are written in such a way that addition is impossible. Even if there wasn't the Unarmored Defense-specific clause that said you only get the first one you get, all having both the Monk and Barbarian versions of them would mean is that you have three choices while wearing no armor: 10 + Dex, 10 + Dex + Con, or 10 + Dex + Wis. Pick one to calculate your AC with.

Similarly, Extra Attack is worded such that it triggers off of taking the attack action. It specifies you can make two, rather than one, attack. It doesn't stack, so "you can make two" doesn't become "you can make three" just by having two instances of it.

However, if you have a Barbarian 5 / Fighter 11, you aren't choosing to use the Fighter's Extra Attack (2) and leaving behind the Barbarian's Extra Attack; you're technically using both. They don't STACK, but they do OVERLAP. Both trigger when you make an attack. You do, in fact, make two attacks instead of one. And then you make three attacks. Not "three more attacks," but three, total.

Bladesinger 6 / Fighter 11 triggers, "You make two attacks instead of one...[and] you can substitute one of those attacks for a cantrip," AND it triggers, "You make three attacks when you take the attack action." They do not stack, so you don't get 4 or 5 attacks (however you choose to try to read "stacking" into them), but they do overlap. When you take the attack action, you can make two attacks instead of one, and replace one with a cantrip. You can also make three attacks. That one of the first two attacks was replaced with a cantrip doesn't change that you can make three, total. (I could further see this read as allowing three ATTACKS, so replacing one of the first two with a cantrip means you didn't make two, yet, but that's definitely twisting the wording in a way that doesn't match what I believe to be the intent. Admittedly, a level 17 Fighter/Bladesinger getting three attacks and a cantrip is probably not broken, but still, I think that is clearly twisting the wording, whereas straightforwardly reading Extra Attack (2) as granting three attacks and BS Extra Attack permitting one of the attacks to be replaced by a cantrip is not.)

[Unoriginal]

Bladesinger 6 / Fighter 11 triggers, "You make two attacks instead of one...[and] you can substitute one of those attacks for a cantrip," AND it triggers, "You make three attacks when you take the attack action." They do not stack, so you don't get 4 or 5 attacks (however you choose to try to read "stacking" into them), but they do overlap. When you take the attack action, you can make two attacks instead of one, and replace one with a cantrip. You can also make three attacks. That one of the first two attacks was replaced with a cantrip doesn't change that you can make three, total.

My reading of this is that you can *either* use the "when you use the Attack action, you can make two attacks and replace one with a cantrip if you want" ability of the Bladesinger or the "when you use the Attack action, you make three attacks" ability of the Fighter.

In other words, both of those features are modifications you *can* apply to the Attack action, but they cannot be both used on the same Attack action.

[Xetheral]

Why are you deliberately choosing an objectively worse damage vector for BS in TWF?

A non-EK Bladesinger has no way to get a reliable bonus action attack that is eligible for GWM. The best bonus action attacks available to non-EK Bladesingers are TWF and PAM. Dual Wielder+TWF style gives d8+DEX damage on all three attacks. PAM+Dueling gives 1d6+STR+2 for two attacks, and 1d4+STR+2 for the third attack. Unless you're running a high-strength non-EK Bladesinger (and why would you?), the ability to use DEX makes TWF the optimal option for resourceless DPR for the BM6/BS7 build.

[RSP]

"Doesn't stack," to me, means you can't take "Your AC is equal to Wis + Dex + 10" and "You're AC is equal to Con + Dex + 10" and say "So, that means my AC is 10 + Dex + Con + Wis." That's what you'd be doing for "adding together." The text forbidding the stacking of those via multiclassing strikes me as a "for clarity" thing, because the rules themselves are written in such a way that addition is impossible. Even if there wasn't the Unarmored Defense-specific clause that said you only get the first one you get, all having both the Monk and Barbarian versions of them would mean is that you have three choices while wearing no armor: 10 + Dex, 10 + Dex + Con, or 10 + Dex + Wis. Pick one to calculate your AC with.

Similarly, Extra Attack is worded such that it triggers off of taking the attack action. It specifies you can make two, rather than one, attack. It doesn't stack, so "you can make two" doesn't become "you can make three" just by having two instances of it...

Bladesinger 6 / Fighter 11 triggers, "You make two attacks instead of one...[and] you can substitute one of those attacks for a cantrip," AND it triggers, "You make three attacks when you take the attack action." They do not stack, so you don't get 4 or 5 attacks (however you choose to try to read "stacking" into them), but they do overlap. When you take the attack action, you can make two attacks instead of one, and replace one with a cantrip. You can also make three attacks.

To eliminate confusion, nothing in the Multiclass rules says anything about “stacking” or “doesn’t stack” or whatnot. Part of what I’m confused about is why you refer to stacking at all in these rules.

Now, the BS EA specifically states the it’s the attacks provided by the Bladesinger EA that can be traded out: “Starting at 6th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.” “Those attacks” are the two that are provided from the BS EA. Note: your idea of “I’m using both EA options overlapping” doesn’t work, in part because if you’re choosing to use the (2) extra attacks from Fighter 11, then you are definitely not using the attacks provided by the BS EA feature. As you would now not be using “those attacks” - that is, the BS attacks - you have no means to swap out an attack, as the feature states it specifically applies to the attacks provided by BS EA. It’s not that the BS feature lets you swap out one of any attacks for a cantrip, but specifically states it allows one of the two provided from the BS EA ability.

Further, even if you accept both abilities triggering off of the Attack Action and running concurrently every time the Attack Action is used, you’d still have to choose the Fighter ability to be the one that takes effect. Now once the Fighter EA takes effect, you can’t choose to add the BS EA feature of the cantrip swap, because that would be adding two instances of EA together, which is expressly against the Multiclass rules.

The fact that there’s two parts to the BS EA ability, doesn’t mean they’re separate abilities: they are both still part of the BS EA. Likewise, the two aspects of the Fighter EA - one extra attack at 5, and an additional one at 11 - aren’t separate abilities, but are both part of the Fighter EA ability. To mix and match different parts of these abilities is still to add them together, which isn’t allowed, RAW.

To put it another way, if you tell your DM that for your Attack Action you’re using your (3) attacks from the Fighter 11 feature and swapping out one attack using the feature of BS 6 feature; you’d be combing those two aspects of different features together, no? I see no way, logically, around this being the case: you have to add features of two different abilities in order for this to work, and adding those features together is expressly prohibited.

Apologies if I’m mistaken, but I really get the feeling you’re trying to say “the intention of the Multiclass rule on EA is to only not allow the stacking of attacks from multiple instances of EA, and not to prevent the combining of any other aspects of any EA.” If this is so, we can move this to a RAI discussion, if we so desire to continue it.

[DarknessEternal]

Unless you're running a high-strength non-EK Bladesinger (and why would you?),

Because you have created a discussion point in which only pure damage per round matters, that's why.

[Unoriginal]

Because you have created a discussion point in which only pure damage per round matters, that's why.

If the goal is damage-per-round, I don't see how the BladeSTR is competitive.

[Xetheral]

Because you have created a discussion point in which only pure damage per round matters, that's why.

To clarify, my intent was to compare the resourceless DPR of two otherwise-acceptable Fighter/Bladesinger multiclass builds. Going STR instead of DEX on the BM6/BS7 multiclass would make the overall build much worse while only squeezing out an extra point or two of DPR.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

A non-EK Bladesinger has no way to get a reliable bonus action attack that is eligible for GWM. The best bonus action attacks available to non-EK Bladesingers are TWF and PAM. Dual Wielder+TWF style gives d8+DEX damage on all three attacks. PAM+Dueling gives 1d6+STR+2 for two attacks, and 1d4+STR+2 for the third attack. Unless you're running a high-strength non-EK Bladesinger (and why would you?), the ability to use DEX makes TWF the optimal option for resourceless DPR for the BM6/BS7 build.

I'd like to explore this: Is a strength based bladesinger viable? Basically you'd be getting nothing out of the 2nd level Bladesinger ability, but with a level of fighter you could take Plate Armor, Defense Fighting Style, and a Feat that substantially increases your damage output, PAM or GWM. You'd have AC 19, a reliable bonus action, and attacks that are going to dwarf the damage of the Dex based Bladesinger.
The Dex based bladesinger, as you say probably needs to pick up a weapon in the other hand to get a reliable bonus action. This means that Warcaster is a need, so Dual Wielder will have to wait (if be taken at all). With the same 1 level Fighter dip they could take TWF to get the bonus damage with the off hand, but will still be doing 1-6 base damage with every hit.
For a non VHuman this means at level 1/11 they've still had the opportunity for 1ASI (intelligence) meaning their AC will also be 19 (Dex 16, Int 18), but with far less damage output. Obviously there are other benefits of Bladesinging, like movement and Con Saves, but once you get the 6th level ability I'd argue the damage output is a reasonable trade. Mostly this has to do with how poor fighting with 2 weapons is in 5e, and how much investment there needs to be to make it viable, particularly for most casters. Would I want to play through 6 levels and get nothing out of my subclass? Maybe not, but for a campaign that went through tier 2 + 3 it's worth a thought.

[mistajames]

As classes, they are very different because of their mechanics.

Bladesinger is a full-caster. They have access to competent defences when they use Bladesong, but they only get [ProfMod] Bladesong uses per day. That means 2 uses in T1, and 3 uses in T2 play. Assuming that each Bladesong use lasts for 1 combat, and assuming 6 combats you're only going to be able to use Bladesong in either 1/2 or 1/3 of combats.

Bladesong also has some downsides, namely:

It takes a bonus action to use
It is only useable in light armor
It doesn't allow you to use two-handed heavy weapons (meaning no GWM).


The other issue with Bladesinger is that it is MAD. You can make a perfectly serviceable Eldritch Knight who takes GWM/PAM, straps on full plate, and pumps strength, and only taking buff spells. In fact, I would call this an optimized EK. Bladesinger needs to choose between pumping Dexterity (and thus putting off War Caster/Intelligence boosts) or pumping Intelligence (and thus putting off Dexterity boosts).

A Bladesinger with 20 Dex is actually quite strong. You're probably sitting on 18 base AC, which is workable. You have access to defensive spells to shore this up, and actually casting these spells is pretty much required if you don't want to die a horrible death. That said, 20 AC at level 4 with all attacks against you at disadvantage is very, very good. False Life bridges a lot of the gap between Fighter and Wizard HP (but again, costs another spell slot). Throwing out 2 L3 Shadow Blade attacks/turn with a Booming Blade and Elven Accuracy actually does a lot of single-target damage at level 6. The trick is managing how many spells you allocate to each fight. A L6 Bladesinger can probably afford to have SB up every fight, but if they do so they can't regularly cast other spells. They still have ritual casting, so they're still useful, but there is a cost.

In terms of damage output, the EK is probably coming ahead, but the optimized builds are comparable in terms of damage output. Calcs:


VH Greatsword (20 STR, AC = 18) EK 6: +3 to-hit, 2*(2d6+5+10+1[GWF Adjustment])*1.22[adjustment for Action Surge]=[avg 56.12]
High Elf Bladesinger 6, Elven Accuracy (18 Dex, AC = 17): +7 to-hit, (3d8+4)+(3d8+1d8+4)=[avg 39.5]
Bladesinger has a 20% (+4) higher hit chance, actual damage adjustment will depend on target AC and advantage/disadvantage. No adjustment for advantage/disadvantage or crit chance (which both favor the BS due to Elven Accuracy and easy advantage on Shadow Blade). No adjustment for BA attack on GWM, which favors EK.

IMO, a VH PAM/GWM EK is going to out-damage the BS by a slightly higher margin.

Your EK is basically a fighter in full plate who can cast Shield 3x/day. If we assume that each fight lasts 3 rounds and 6 fights/day, Action Surge gives an additional 4 attacks/day in T2 play, or a 22.2% increase in your total damage output for the day. Again, a sizeable increase, when you factor in feats.

Thing is, as a Bladesinger you actually need to commit to casting buffs to go in melee, which means that your other casting will suffer. If you focus on casting and Crowd Control, your melee will suffer. Basically, something's gotta give.

In T3 play, the Bladesinger doesn't get anything that buffs their melee damage output close to what Extra Attack (2) does. Action Surge (2) also gives another (+22% additive) damage bonus in favor of the Fighter. Also, due to 5e's wonky caster spell slot progression, EK also gains more spell slots faster as they level up to certain break-points, while Wizard's overall slot growth slows (but in exchange they get access to much more powerful spells). They double their total spell slots at L7 (going from 3x L1 slots to 4x L1 and 2x L2), and gain another massive boost at L13 with L3 slots. IMO, EK is one of the strongest fighter subclasses at higher levels, and one of the weaker ones at lower levels (due to their wonky spell slot progression).

[Xetheral]

I'd like to explore this: Is a strength based bladesinger viable? Basically you'd be getting nothing out of the 2nd level Bladesinger ability, but with a level of fighter you could take Plate Armor, Defense Fighting Style, and a Feat that substantially increases your damage output, PAM or GWM. You'd have AC 19, a reliable bonus action, and attacks that are going to dwarf the damage of the Dex based Bladesinger.
The Dex based bladesinger, as you say probably needs to pick up a weapon in the other hand to get a reliable bonus action. This means that Warcaster is a need, so Dual Wielder will have to wait (if be taken at all). With the same 1 level Fighter dip they could take TWF to get the bonus damage with the off hand, but will still be doing 1-6 base damage with every hit.
For a non VHuman this means at level 1/11 they've still had the opportunity for 1ASI (intelligence) meaning their AC will also be 19 (Dex 16, Int 18), but with far less damage output. Obviously there are other benefits of Bladesinging, like movement and Con Saves, but once you get the 6th level ability I'd argue the damage output is a reasonable trade. Mostly this has to do with how poor fighting with 2 weapons is in 5e, and how much investment there needs to be to make it viable, particularly for most casters. Would I want to play through 6 levels and get nothing out of my subclass? Maybe not, but for a campaign that went through tier 2 + 3 it's worth a thought.

Personally if I wanted to go with a STR-based Bladesinger I think the EK7/BS6 multiclass analyzed above would be the way to do it. The synergy between BS Extra Attack and War Magic with GWM gives it a niche to fill (resourceless DPR) that a STR-based FTR1/BS12 can't match at an equivalent level. Sure, the latter has a lot more spellcasting, but a DEX-based FTR1/BS12 has the same spellcasting and has many more defensive options at the cost of only marginally less damage than the STR-based version.

[mistajames]

Personally if I wanted to go with a STR-based Bladesinger I think the EK7/BS6 multiclass analyzed above would be the way to do it. The synergy between BS Extra Attack and War Magic with GWM gives it a niche to fill (resourceless DPR) that a STR-based FTR1/BS12 can't match at an equivalent level. Sure, the latter has a lot more spellcasting, but a DEX-based FTR1/BS12 has the same spellcasting and has many more defensive options at the cost of only marginally less damage than the STR-based version.

EK7/BS6 has slots as a BS8 (4/3/3/2), 3 ASIs, but only has access to L3 spells. EK 13 has (4/3/3/3/2/1) slots and has L4, L5, L6, and L7 spells and 3 ASIs. Even the BS13 is casting Summon Fiend with their L6-7 slots for a 60ft fly speed and 3 BA attacks at 2d6+9, the BS13 is going to orders of magnitude more effective in actual play.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Personally if I wanted to go with a STR-based Bladesinger I think the EK7/BS6 multiclass analyzed above would be the way to do it. The synergy between BS Extra Attack and War Magic with GWM gives it a niche to fill (resourceless DPR) that a STR-based FTR1/BS12 can't match at an equivalent level. Sure, the latter has a lot more spellcasting, but a DEX-based FTR1/BS12 has the same spellcasting and has many more defensive options at the cost of only marginally less damage than the STR-based version.

I'm a bit lost at what you think you get out of Fighter levels 3-7 with that build. Clearly Fighter 1 is key, and Fighter 2 gives you action surge. EK 3 does make your Fighter levels a full spell level for determining caster level, but the BS also gets a full caster level and higher level spells in some levels. I'd consider Battlemaster if I was going to add a 3rd fighter level.
The EK's 5th level Extra Attack and 7th EK War Magic are totally wasted with that build since Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack is superior to both.

So far as fighter levels go I'd say 1 and 2 are good. EK 3 might give you something (a couple of hp and cantrips), but I don't think it's worth the trade. 5-7 are horrible and close to empty levels compared to extra BS levels.

[Witty Username]

In T3 play, the Bladesinger doesn't get anything that buffs their melee damage output close to what Extra Attack (2) does. Action Surge (2) also gives another (+22% additive) damage bonus in favor of the Fighter.
In T3 Bladesinger can cast animate objects to add 10d4+40 melee damage as a bonus action while they have the spell active. At 11th they can do this 3 times per long rest. By 13th level they will have access to simulacrum doubling their no resources damage output.

Edit: Also, 13th level is where they get their 5th bladesong meaning it will be up essentially every combat.

[mistajames]

In T3 Bladesinger can cast animate objects to add 10d4+40 melee damage as a bonus action while they have the spell active. At 11th they can do this 3 times per long rest. By 13th level they will have access to simulacrum doubling their no resources damage output.

Edit: Also, 13th level is where they get their 5th bladesong meaning it will be up essentially every combat.

Well, a T3 or T4 wizard played as a primary caster will certainly be more powerful than any gish, but we're talking about mixing it up in melee, and how Bladesinger compares to EK.

A necromancer sporting Danse Macabre is going to do even more damage than the Animated Objects (1d6+9), and the resulting 5 skeletons last even longer (1 hour) and attack at range. A L14 Illusionist can create real objects at-will. A diviner can just "no-save-banish you to the Elemental Plane of Fire". Mixing it up in melee ain't really cutting it.

[Valmark]

Well, a T3 or T4 wizard played as a primary caster will certainly be more powerful than any gish, but we're talking about mixing it up in melee, and how Bladesinger compares to EK.

A necromancer sporting Danse Macabre is going to do even more damage than the Animated Objects (1d6+9), and the resulting 5 skeletons last even longer (1 hour) and attack at range. A L14 Illusionist can create real objects at-will. A diviner can just "no-save-banish you to the Elemental Plane of Fire". Mixing it up in melee ain't really cutting it.

I'm not sure comparing a wizard with other wizards makes sense if you want to compare a wizard with a fighter. Or did I misunderstand what you meant?

[mistajames]

I'm not sure comparing a wizard with other wizards makes sense if you want to compare a wizard with a fighter. Or did I misunderstand what you meant?

Well, I'm explaining why I'm not comparing Animate Objects to using Shadow Blade. There are better ways of doing damage than mixing it up in melee, but I'm trying to see how well the Bladesinger mixes it up in melee compared to the Fighter.

[Valmark]

Well, I'm explaining why I'm not comparing Animate Objects to using Shadow Blade. There are better ways of doing damage than mixing it up in melee, but I'm trying to see how well the Bladesinger mixes it up in melee compared to the Fighter.

Oh, I understand now.

Speaking of which, I'm not sure it's true that Bladesingers don't get anything comparable to Fighters' extra attack (2).

Don't get me wrong, it would be completely fair since the EK is more fight-y while the BS is more cast-y, but still, a BS can upcast Shadow Blade to higher damage then an EK or use Tenser's Transformation (Although I don't think TT deals more damage then a level 5 Shadow Blade). And they add Int to all attacks' damage with Bladesong starting from level 14 which I think is late tier 3.

How does that work out math-wise?

[Samayu]

I'm not sure how useful the Eldritch Knight's sword-summoning power is.

It's certainly not going to come up much. the most likely scenario is when your weapons have been taken from you, and a fight begins. Not common. I used the ability once. BBeG was trying to take my sword. He dropped me, picked up the weapon and ran. I was healed, and without even sitting up I returned the sword to my hand. BBeG fled without the sword that was designed to kill him. It was pretty key, but so niche that it borders on coincidental.

[Unoriginal]

a BS can upcast Shadow Blade to higher damage then an EK or use Tenser's Transformation (Although I don't think TT deals more damage then a level 5 Shadow Blade). And they add Int to all attacks' damage with Bladesong starting from level 14 which I think is late tier 3.


And if the Bladesinger gets damaged once, they're at the mercy of the dice to maintain Concentration due to not having the ASI to invest in decent CON nor proficiency in CON saves unless they sacrifice something else (so still impacting their performance heavily).

And the Bladesinger won't get damaged only once.

[Valmark]

And if the Bladesinger gets damaged once, they're at the mercy of the dice to maintain Concentration due to not having the ASI to invest in decent CON nor proficiency in CON saves unless they sacrifice something else (so still impacting their performance heavily).

And the Bladesinger won't get damaged only once.

Tbf until high levels their Int will offset the lack of a Con save proficiency (because they get Int added to the save for Concentration). And assuming 20 int even at high levels they'll be just a +1 behind (this is with Bladesong. Without it it's a non-issue since they don't even boost their damage, of course they'll be behind when compared to an EK).

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Ok, I'm coining a term that I don't think has been used before: STRadesinger. A strength based Bladesinger that dips fighter. Feel free to tell me if someone has used the term before, but for now I'm claiming it.
Basically is it's a Bladesinger that doesn't Bladesing. Yes, it's pretty mediocre until F1/BS6, but at that point you have gish in heavy armor with a good fighting feat, PAM or GWM, that can Multi-attack with one of those being a blade cantrip, and (likely) trigger a bonus attack. Cast Haste and you've got a 4th attack. With PAM you might get a 5th on reaction. Take Fighter 2 and you action surge for a spell or a 2 more attacks. You can keep taking BS levels for more spells or take (for example) Battlemaster 3 for a dozen BM maneuvers per day. Throw in Warcaster at some point and all reactions from say PAM or Brace are going to be Blade cantrips as well.

[Witty Username]

Well, I'm explaining why I'm not comparing Animate Objects to using Shadow Blade. There are better ways of doing damage than mixing it up in melee, but I'm trying to see how well the Bladesinger mixes it up in melee compared to the Fighter.

Animate objects can be combined with attacks because it only requires a bonus action to use(past the first round, you do need to take a prep turn or cast it pre-combat). So a bladesinger can use it to augment combat.
A necromancer could do the same with danse macabre is true, ish. They don't have the defense/weapon use of a bladesinger so they are likely to not engage the enemy like a gish would.

Which I think speaks to the thread topic, Bladesinger can output more as a martial by mixing martial prowess with spells, spells are a more significant part of what they do but they still use the rapier, still wear armor and still engage. Meanwhile an EK can make a third attack if they sacrifice casting a cantrip, which being able to cast a cantrip and attack is their gish maneuver. Even if they are more effective it is by being less of a gish.


And if the Bladesinger gets damaged once, they're at the mercy of the dice to maintain Concentration due to not having the ASI to invest in decent CON nor proficiency in CON saves unless they sacrifice something else (so still impacting their performance heavily).

And the Bladesinger won't get damaged only once.

In addition to bladesong, it is not much investment to take warcaster or resilient(con) since nearly every character that concentrates on spells will take at least one. And you will still get to dex 20/ int 20 dex 20 or int 20 by level 12. and shield/Absorb elements/song of defense are all things that negate hits/reduce damage.

[Tanarii]

And you will still get to dex 20/ int 20 by level 12.Hows that work?

[Witty Username]

Hows that work?
Sorry I fumbled my short hand, I meant Dex 20 or Int 20, Not Dex 20 and Int 20.

[Xetheral]

EK7/BS6 has slots as a BS8 (4/3/3/2), 3 ASIs, but only has access to L3 spells. EK 13 has (4/3/3/3/2/1) slots and has L4, L5, L6, and L7 spells and 3 ASIs. Even the BS13 is casting Summon Fiend with their L6-7 slots for a 60ft fly speed and 3 BA attacks at 2d6+9, the BS13 is going to orders of magnitude more effective in actual play.

EK13 is also limited to 3rd level spells, and unlike the EK7/BS6 doesn't have 4th level slots. The EK7/BS6 also does more damage than the EK13, since it gets the same three attacks (albeit at the cost of both the action and bonus action) but one of them can be Booming Blade.

I entirely agree that the BS 13 with summoned demons will likely be more effective. But this thread is about being a Gish, not a demon summoner.


I'm a bit lost at what you think you get out of Fighter levels 3-7 with that build. Clearly Fighter 1 is key, and Fighter 2 gives you action surge. EK 3 does make your Fighter levels a full spell level for determining caster level, but the BS also gets a full caster level and higher level spells in some levels. I'd consider Battlemaster if I was going to add a 3rd fighter level.
The EK's 5th level Extra Attack and 7th EK War Magic are totally wasted with that build since Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack is superior to both.

So far as fighter levels go I'd say 1 and 2 are good. EK 3 might give you something (a couple of hp and cantrips), but I don't think it's worth the trade. 5-7 are horrible and close to empty levels compared to extra BS levels.

EK7 is key, since War Magic stacks with Bladesinger Extra Attack. (War Magic requires using your action to cast a cantrip, which is satisfied by using your action to cast a cantrip and attack with BS Extra Attack.) That gives a reliable bonus action attack with GWM, something that otherwise is extremely hard to get. (I think Frenzy Barbarians are the only other ones who can do it? But they can't take advantage of BS Extra Attack at the same time.) That's what makes the multiclass's resourceless damage so high.

Of course, resourceless damage is a narrow niche in which to build a character, but it's not a bad one, especially at tables with exceptionally long adventuring days.


Ok, I'm coining a term that I don't think has been used before: STRadesinger. A strength based Bladesinger that dips fighter. Feel free to tell me if someone has used the term before, but for now I'm claiming it.
Basically is it's a Bladesinger that doesn't Bladesing. Yes, it's pretty mediocre until F1/BS6, but at that point you have gish in heavy armor with a good fighting feat, PAM or GWM, that can Multi-attack with one of those being a blade cantrip, and (likely) trigger a bonus attack. Cast Haste and you've got a 4th attack. With PAM you might get a 5th on reaction. Take Fighter 2 and you action surge for a spell or a 2 more attacks. You can keep taking BS levels for more spells or take (for example) Battlemaster 3 for a dozen BM maneuvers per day. Throw in Warcaster at some point and all reactions from say PAM or Brace are going to be Blade cantrips as well.

That's basically what the EK7/BS6 multiclass discussed above does, but it leverages War Magic for a more reliable bonus action GWM attack than the one occasionally provided by GWM itself. PAM's bonus action attack is similarly reliable, but of course does far less damage.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

EK13 is also limited to 3rd level spells, and unlike the EK7/BS6 doesn't have 4th level slots. The EK7/BS6 also does more damage than the EK13, since it gets the same three attacks (albeit at the cost of both the action and bonus action) but one of them can be Booming Blade.

I entirely agree that the BS 13 with summoned demons will likely be more effective. But this thread is about being a Gish, not a demon summoner.



EK7 is key, since War Magic stacks with Bladesinger Extra Attack. (War Magic requires using your action to cast a cantrip, which is satisfied by using your action to cast a cantrip and attack with BS Extra Attack.) That gives a reliable bonus action attack with GWM, something that otherwise is extremely hard to get. (I think Frenzy Barbarians are the only other ones who can do it? But they can't take advantage of BS Extra Attack at the same time.) That's what makes the multiclass's resourceless damage so high.

Of course, resourceless damage is a narrow niche in which to build a character, but it's not a bad one, especially at tables with exceptionally long adventuring days.



That's basically what the EK7/BS6 multiclass discussed above does, but it leverages War Magic for a more reliable bonus action GWM attack than the one occasionally provided by GWM itself. PAM's bonus action attack is similarly reliable, but of course does far less damage.

OK, now I get what you are trying to do. I still think that's a heck of an investment. Obviously it depends on a lot on the situation, but with the amount of damage say a F2/ BS 11 or Battlemaster 3/ BS 10 could dish out I think you are likely to kill something or crit most of the time and trigger the bonus action. But fair enough; for resourceless damage you have it. I'd still rather play the character with the smaller fighter dip.

[Tanarii]

Sorry I fumbled my short hand, I meant Dex 20 or Int 20, Not Dex 20 and Int 20.
Oh good. I was hurting my head trying to figure out what race and how many fighter levels were needed for that. :smallamused:

[Xetheral]

OK, now I get what you are trying to do. I still think that's a heck of an investment. Obviously it depends on a lot on the situation, but with the amount of damage say a F2/ BS 11 or Battlemaster 3/ BS 10 could dish out I think you are likely to kill something or crit most of the time and trigger the bonus action. But fair enough; for resourceless damage you have it. I'd still rather play the character with the smaller fighter dip.

I probably would too. I'd be more likely to consider the multiclass as an alternative to straight EK, rather than as a replacement for a straight Bladesinger or a Bladesinger with a dip.

[DarknessEternal]

Throw in Warcaster at some point and all reactions from say PAM or Brace are going to be Blade cantrips as well.

This no longer works.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

This no longer works.

I just watched a vid on bladesinger update from Treantmonk that explicitly said it did post Tasha's.

[Xetheral]

This no longer works.

Crawford has confirmed that it still works. (https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1326596181560942593?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1326596181560942593%7Ctwgr% 5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-42454640163020840145.ampproject.net%2F201230172200 1%2Fframe.htm)

[Valmark]

This no longer works.


Crawford has confirmed that it still works. (https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1326596181560942593?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1326596181560942593%7Ctwgr% 5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-42454640163020840145.ampproject.net%2F201230172200 1%2Fframe.htm)

Why wouldn't it work anyway? I'm not seeing something that stops Booming Blade from working with Warcaster.

[Kane0]

For the real 50/50 gish experience i’ve always preferred hacking Paladin into whatever shape suits. Swap spell lists and casting stat, change some of the diviney features for arcaney ones, change around the smite damage/creature types and thats pretty much it.

Otherwise i would probably be looking at War Wizard rather than bladesinger when MCing EK

Edit: or just go artificer i guess

[Tanarii]

I just watched a vid on bladesinger update from Treantmonk that explicitly said it did post Tasha's.
That's not a trustworthy source for whether or not something works.


Crawford has confirmed that it still works. (https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1326596181560942593?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1326596181560942593%7Ctwgr% 5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-42454640163020840145.ampproject.net%2F201230172200 1%2Fframe.htm)
Slightly more trustworthy. :smallamused:

[Unoriginal]

That's not a trustworthy source for whether or not something works.


Slightly more trustworthy. :smallamused:

Have to agree.

[Xetheral]

Why wouldn't it work anyway? I'm not seeing something that stops Booming Blade from working with Warcaster.

The range was errataed from 5' to Self (5' radius). Some people originally interpreted that to mean that Booming Blade now targets the caster, but Crawford has clarified that the spell still targets the target of the attack. The new range entry instead indicates that the effect originates in the caster's space ala Cone of Cold, and matters mostly for limiting how the spell interacts with Reach weapons and Extend Spell.

[Valmark]

The range was errataed from 5' to Self (5' radius). Some people originally interpreted that to mean that Booming Blade now targets the caster, but Crawford has clarified that the spell still targets the target of the attack. The new range entry instead indicates that the effect originates in the caster's space ala Cone of Cold, and matters mostly for limiting how the spell interacts with Reach weapons and Extend Spell.

Oh, I see how it could have been interpreted the other way yeah.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

That's not a trustworthy source for whether or not something works.


Slightly more trustworthy. :smallamused:

Cited Crawford with video. Should have mentioned that.

[DarknessEternal]

Oh, I see how it could have been interpreted the other way yeah.

You mean the only way? Unless errata is issued, there's no other way to read it. It targets self, Warcaster can't make it's pseudo-AOO with a target of Self.

Goofball can make whatever video he wants, but until there's errata there's only RAW.

[Valmark]

You mean the only way? Unless errata is issued, there's no other way to read it. It targets self, Warcaster can't make it's pseudo-AOO with a target of Self.

Goofball can make whatever video he wants, but until there's errata there's only RAW.

That would be true if it had a range of "Self", but it has a range of "Self (5 feet)" which brings it in line with stuff like Cone of Cold where the Self half indicates the point of origin and the point of origin is not included in the effect.

While you're free to rule it the other way, Self alone doesn't forbid it.

[Witty Username]

You mean the only way? Unless errata is issued, there's no other way to read it. It targets self, Warcaster can't make it's pseudo-AOO with a target of Self.

Goofball can make whatever video he wants, but until there's errata there's only RAW.
A note about D&D spells with a range of "Self (XYZ)": the parenthetical—which says "5-foot radius," "15-foot cone," or something else—means you are the spell's point of origin, but you aren't necessarily its target. You're creating an effect that originates in your space. #DnD (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1326595384790056960?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1326595384790056960%7Ctwgr% 5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2020%2F1 1%2F16%2Fthe-booming-blade-spell-continues-to-work-with-the-war-caster-feat%2F) This is supported by the text under Range in the Spell casting chapter of the PHB.
Fun fact the rule changes in fact mean you can use green-flame blade with warcaster, as warcaster works with spells that have the option of targeting only one creature.