-Primal implement striker (I'm working on this one myself)
-Psionic implement leader
-melee controller (is the blade singer our "melee controller"?)
-Beast ranger that actually works
Essentials seems to flop back and forth between calling the new builds builds and classes. Likely due to for new players, they are the classes. They only really try to call them builds when they talk to us people already playing 4th ed.
I'm gonna guess its simply an essentials swordmage, or a subclass that diverts from role like the slayer fighter.
Btw, we already have a melee controler, its called the druid.
For some reason, I totally think that the bladesinger is going to end up being an "Essentials style" swordmage build.
it might be... if not though I will again share my home brew idea in hopes it is how WotC went:
Striker (off Leader)
Dex prime, cha or Con secondard
Weapon as implment
all attack rolls are Dex based, with a cha or con rider depending on build for some encounter powers...
at wills that have riders if you use light blades or heavy blades (diffrent rider for each, but can be used with any weapon)
Daily's I call Dances, and they are a rage/stance like set up.
each one is shift before the attack Y spaces Att for X[w] damage that lets you enter Dance of _______ witch grants a bonus to all allies within Y of you.
Example:
Daily:
Dance of the Dusk Lords
You may shift up to 4 sqs before or after the attack
Dex Vs AC
3[w]+Dex and you may assume the dance of the dusk lords
when in the dance of the dusk lords you and all allies within 4 have concelment from all enimies.
Encounter:
Magic of the Motion
Dex Vs AC
2[w]+dex and the target takes a -2 to his AC and ref until the end of your next turn
special: If you are the Seduction build the penilty to AC and Ref is equal to your Cha mod
Magic in the moves
Dex Vs Fort
2[W}+dex and you slide the target up to 4 sqs and shift to follow him
special: If you are a hearty build you slide him up to 2+Con modfire, and knock them prone at the end of the slide
Atwill:
Blade Slash
Dex Vs AC
1[w]+Dex
special: If you are useing a light blade and you hit, you make a second attack: dex Vs ref if it hit you deal +1[w] damage
If you are useing a heavy blade and you hit, you make a second attack: Dex Vs fort if hit you push the target 1sq
It's always seemed to me that Bladesingers had, or at least should have, more in common with bards. Also, after the core four, bards are certainly one of the foundational classes of D&D (probably being the most well known "5th class"), so it would make sense for them to be represented in the Essentials line.
By comparison, the Swordmage is more like an idealized fighter/wizard multiclass, rather than a fundamental D&D archetype (original basic set elf class/race aside).
In 2e AD&D (when the bard did exist as its own class) the bladesinger was a kit for elven fighter/mages, not bards.
Maybe that's how things used to be, but it seems incongruous to me to have a build/class called bladeSINGER be more related to the Swordmage when Bards both sing and use baldes. Yes I get that names aren't everything, but other than legacy reasons the name would seem misplaced on the swordmage.
The bladesinger is going to be released in a new FR campaign product (giving that line of books 4 products released instead of 3).
That's a little different. If the Bladesinge is part of a Realms, not an actual Essentials, product then a purely legacy based name would be more forgivable.
logic would indicate your logic is flawed
Sure it does. That is why you were able to defend that statement with anything more than... well... you didn't really defend that statement, did you.
In fact, considering how much their recent products are catering to legacy, I doubt we will see much legacy breaching in 2011...
Yeah the future is the past.
Their new marketing strategy (Evergreen Essentials) prettymuch requires that anything new that sees print refer back almost exclusively to Essentials. So the Bladesigner was going to have to be a Mage or a Hexblade. If it were a Swordmage, customers who bought the book at a store with just the Evergreen Essentials line alongside it would be all "what the heck's a 'Swordmage?' there's nothing on the shelf with 'swordmage' in it!?!"
Good point.
True, that IS a good point. That's probably the motivation. Swordmage is too obscure to build off of.
A counter-argument might be that it didn't keep them from releasing the Executioner in Heroes of Shadow, which is a sub-class for the Assassin. But the differenc is that the Executioner is not designed to cross-polinate very much with the Original Assassin, so folks don't really need to know about it at all. That's not the case with the Bladesinger and the Wizard (Mage).
Still, I wish they HAD made the Bladesinger a Swordmage sub-class and made it more like the Executioner (in that it is a fairly independant sub-class to an obscure original class). Ah well.
space there?
Archavist: can take cleric or invoker encounters... then
have there own at will and daily powers...
or maybe a class that at level
1 chooses a path...
Samari: there own at wills, and choose at 1st level
eaither fighter or warlord and can take those encounter powers
heck, how about a psionic class that can take any psionic at will power...
On top of everything else, the class looks like a mess, yet another controller miles behind the mage in effectiveness, in no small part because it doesn't seem to know if it's a controller or a striker. I thought after HoS, WotC would be out of ways to tick me off, but I guess not.
On top of everything else, the class looks like a mess, yet another controller miles behind the mage in effectiveness, in no small part because it doesn't seem to know if it's a controller or a striker. I thought after HoS, WotC would be out of ways to tick me off, but I guess not.
I am not sure why you call it a mess...
It appears to me (imho) that it is a melee controler off striker... it can with it's at wills choose round by round to be a striker or a controler...then it's 1st encounter is a striker one... it's dailys (wizard encounters) are control.
I could make a decent striker out of this (not as well as I can a PHB fighter) or a decent controler (not the best, but a good one)
I said on enworld this allows an entire group of 5 to be arcane swordsmen
Valor Bard (leader)
Hexblade warlock (striker)
Sheildswordmage (defender)
Bladesinger mage (Controler)
Eldrin knight teleport build (defender)
You have a leader that gives some control, a striker that can control a little, a defender with a little control, a controler that can strike pretty hard, and a defender that can be a back up striker...
I said on enworld this allows an entire group of 5 to be arcane swordsmen
Yes because that is what's missing from 4.0? Really this is your thought as to why something that looks as gimped as BS does is a good build?
wow...did you miss the part where I said:
[qoute]It appears to me (imho) that it is a melee controler off striker... it can with it's at wills choose round by round to be a striker or a controler...then it's 1st encounter is a striker one... it's dailys (wizard encounters) are control.
I could make a decent striker out of this (not as well as I can a PHB fighter) or a decent controler (not the best, but a good one)[/qoute]
Once again each round you get to pick between striker and controler... and you are ok at both, but not the best at eaither (I don't ecpect a run of power gamers needing to play one) but it is a decent look so far.
lets look at a longsword weilding 16 dex and 16 int bladesinger with non combat feat...
+6 vs AC, hit for 1d8+3 damage to target A (Who must be in melee) and 3 more to any target in 10 (even the orginal) and a control effect...
lets look at when damage really matters and I am useing my secondary striker...
So round 1 I feel I need to hit the skimesher and slow the soldier... I do 7.5 damage to one and 3 to the other.
round 2 me and this skimisher are going toe to toe and I need to drop him... so I minor blade dance then standard basic attack and drop the extra to the same target... so 15.5 to that skimisher, then action point and do it again... then if I have all 3 times I then have done about 38.5 damage to the skimisher and 3 to that soldier...
meanwhile a slayer (good but not great striker) has a 16 str and dex, and a excution axe, he sees a skimisher and a soldier comeing for the party, he takes the skimisher... he has +6 Vs AC and hit for 1d12 (brutal 2)+6 he round one comes in and hits for 13.5 damage...round 2 like above the skimisher needs to go...so action point and power strike for 13.5 and 21... so the slayer did 48 damage...
so the one level we know everything for the striker did 10 pts more...both would most likly drop ther target, but the bladesinger still has a daily (ok it is only an encounter but it is still over the slayer)...and I didn't use the lighting extra damage atwill
now when I need the control I have mostly my at wills... slow, slide, and others to choose from...and the ability to pop 2 minions per basic is not bad (not great but not bad)
Now I hope the powers we don't know are better, but it atleast will be a middle of the rd class.
now that we have a class poatching other classes powers...can we see new design
space there?
Archavist: can take cleric or invoker encounters... then
have there own at will and daily powers...
*snip*
I think some folks misunderstand. Bladesinger is a subclass, just like Hexblade or Blackguard or basically everything starting from Essentials. There's nothing new about it. The model is praise-worthy in how it lets different subclasses share powers, just like Arcanist and Mage already can, but its's not an example of crumbling walls between old classes.
It could be argued that this subclass is more different from the original incarnation (the Arcanist) than any previous subclasses, but I would disagree. Blackguard and a few others are quite distinct as well.
It could be argued that this subclass is more different from the original incarnation (the Arcanist) than any previous subclasses, but I would disagree. Blackguard and a few others are quite distinct as well.
I would agree with your disagreement. The Bladesinger can choose a variety of Wizard powers, even if he has to use daily slots for encounters to do it. The Slayer or Knight, for instance, can at most pick up one Fighter attack power, and that at the cost of a feat tax. The Bladesinger is a lot more different from the Wizard than the Mage is, but other cub-class stray even further.
The whole sub-class thing is ultimately just a way of conserving design resources. By making choiceless classes (Vampire, Slayer, etc), or by letting sub-classes draw on pools of existing powers (Mage, Bladesinger), the need to create a reasonable number of new, viable choices for new classes is eliminated.
The whole sub-class thing is ultimately just a way of conserving design resources. By making choiceless classes (Vampire, Slayer, etc), or by letting sub-classes draw on pools of existing powers (Mage, Bladesinger), the need to create a reasonable number of new, viable choices for new classes is eliminated.
I agree with this, I'm certain WotC is trying to do more with less. Given the number of layoffs we've seen in the last 2 years it's not surprising they're adapting this approach.
However, there may be a silver lining in here. A lot of people I know have been complaining that 4e has been suffering from bloat. It appears that there is a group of D&D fans who prefer a game that does not have huge amounts of new options every year. Some of the DM's I know, especially those who prefer 1e and 2e (a highly sought after demographic for WotC), complain that there are too many things for the DM to learn and remember. The move to subclasses like the bladesinger and blackguard is a way to increase the number of classes without adding a huge amount of new powers, feats, etc. There are a lot of people who won't like this, but I would guess there are many who would applaud this efficiency.
It's not what I prefer, but I do think it will resonate with a certain group of gamers.
I'm sad to see further erosion of the roles system, sad to see a return to the days when everything just used the wizards spell list, sad to see a cool class abandoned in favor of yet another wizard subclass. This wasn't necessary, there's no reason why it couldn't have been a subclass of swordmage, after all HoS printed the executioner as a subclass of Assassin, and that class is way more obscure than swordmage, not nearly as popular, and also not in the essentials line. As long as the subclass they printed was usable as printed, it doesn't need to refer to anything else, and furthermore, a Forgotten Realms expansion referring players to the Forgotten Realms Players Guide isn't at all unreasonable, rather it should be encouraged.
On top of everything else, the class looks like a mess, yet another controller miles behind the mage in effectiveness, in no small part because it doesn't seem to know if it's a controller or a striker. I thought after HoS, WotC would be out of ways to tick me off, but I guess not.
Nods, Nods, Nods, This and Yup... can I add a me too except this HoS flavor is not really my cuppa so I wasnt that po'd by it....
The Binder gets two at-will powers, Shadow Claws and a Pact-specific power.
Shadow Claws is single target, Impl. vs Fort, "don't move or take [who cares] damage"
Echoing Dirge (Gloom)'s is a 1-2 creatures in blast 5, Impl vs. Will. Damage and push 3 on hit.
Mind Shadows (Star) is a 1 creature, ranged 10, Impl vs. Will. Target can't see far-away targets.
So, as a binder, you can either have
- Shadow Claws & Echoing Dirge.
- Shadow Claws & Mind Shadows.
While Mind Shadows could be considered a decent control effect, despite being single target (it really hoses far off artillery. Except that you've got to hope they're between 4 and 10 squares), the other choice is still shadow claws, which has no control at all.
Echoing Dirge is decent, in as far as push-3 is useful.
The Bladesinger gets to choose 3 powers. One of which is a slide 3. One of which is an identically stupid "don't move or take [who cares] damage", or you could take the one that knocks prone. A third imposes a -2 penalty to hit to all attacks, not just ranged ones at distance greater than 3. Between those choices, you can cover both binder pacts functioning, before stupid keyword stunts come into play.
Further, your control effects automatically hit if your MBA does. And as we know, MBAs can become silly accurate by paragon. Much more accurate than Impl vs. Will. Further, you can hit someone handy that's easy to hit, and apply the control to the create who needs control: your targeting is extremely open.
As far as minion sweeping, the Bladesinger can kill two minions with one hit at will. The Binder can't, unless he's a Gloom pact, and the minions line up nicely in a blast-5.
No, the bladesinger is a better controller than the binder.
Bladesinger at-wills are better, sure. But they have no encounter control, and their daily control is just encounter control 1/2/3 times per day.
The problem is, I'm not comparing a controller to a controller, I'm comparing a striker to a non-reled class. I suppose the Bladesinger is superior for at least having a combat role, even if it had been mislabeled as having another.
Interesting thought: I bet a Warlock (Warlock) can out-control a Bladesiner, while a Bladesinger can out-damage a Warlock (Warlock).
Doesn't CharOp positively drool over minor-action attacks?
Minor action attacks are good at boosting your DPR and are therefore awesome on strikers. Nobody is arguing that the Bladesinger isn't a good striker. But it's supposed to be a controller.
Also, this minor action encounter power isn't actually usable every encounter. The Rogue's Low Slash power is really good, but would it still be considered gold (i.e. "Every single Rogue ever should take this") if it had a line saying "Special: You can only use this power on a turn in which you used your standard action to use a Rogue daily power" and Rogue daily powers were as weak as an encounter power of two levels lower?
So the design philosophy here is what? Lovingly build up the mechanics of a class to fit a classic concept, then roll a d4 to determine a nominal role label to slap on it?
This may be the answer. It fits better than anything else at the moment. This class was poorly thought out but really what else can you expect with MM in charge?
You know your mike bashing is totaly uncalled for. He is a good guy (I have meet hime twice, once before 4e and once since) and alot of eople like his work...even if you do not.
Just becuse I dont like white castle doesn't give me the right to bash there r&d guy...
now back to the bladesinger- It was really well thought out. it is balanced on an edge, and is what ALOT of people including mysellf called for. An arcane class (and alot of those people said wizard) that was like the knight and slayer... it is a primary controler with a strong secondary striker mech...it feels like the fighter/mage of old (a popular 2 and 3e archtype that many did not feel the swordmag coveered).
You know your mike bashing is totaly uncalled for. He is a good guy (I have meet hime twice, once before 4e and once since) and alot of eople like his work...even if you do not.
Just becuse I dont like white castle doesn't give me the right to bash there r&d guy...
+1
Alot of people do not like his designs either so do they not get a chance to voice their feelings. I liked the pre Mike Mearls D&D much better. I have never met Mike and he may be a great guy in real life but his designes leave alot to be desired.
+1
Alot of people do not like his designs either so do they not get a chance to voice their feelings. I liked the pre Mike Mearls D&D much better. I have never met Mike and he may be a great guy in real life but his designes leave alot to be desired.
I don't even have anything against him as a game designer, really. I think he's doing the best he can with a seriously limited budget. I think the recent design failures we've seen have been the result of simply not having the man-hours to thoroughly test the stuff they put out. The entire design of Essentials, classes with very few powers, or with powers reprinted from other sources, is designed so that books can continue to be published with a fraction of the staff, but it's pretty clear they're still biting off much more than they can chew.
Alot of people do not like his designs either so do they not get a chance to voice their feelings. I liked the pre Mike Mearls D&D much better. I have never met Mike and he may be a great guy in real life but his designes leave alot to be desired.
I don't even have anything against him as a game designer, really. I think he's doing the best he can with a seriously limited budget. I think the recent design failures we've seen have been the result of simply not having the man-hours to thoroughly test the stuff they put out. The entire design of Essentials, classes with very few powers, or with powers reprinted from other sources, is designed so that books can continue to be published with a fraction of the staff, but it's pretty clear they're still biting off much more than they can chew.
I think that's one of the two problems (and I'll admit it's a very good excuse). The other is that he's having 3.5 nostalgia, and he's trying to reintroduce the "sacred cows" to an edition that specifically made sure they didn't exist in the basic framework. Things like the bladesinger getting encounters as dailies at a slower rate - it's a very clear analog to how old editions handled gish classes. It may have worked in previous editions, but 4e changed some basic premises, and you can't undo a change just by ignoring it. And I think that's the core of Essentials vs O4e debates - the fans of Essentials find in it something that was lost in 4e. The haters, meanwhile, either don't miss what didn't carry through, or they see that attempts to reintroduce it have had a perhaps naive approach.
Alot of people do not like his designs either so do they not get a chance to voice their feelings. I liked the pre Mike Mearls D&D much better. I have never met Mike and he may be a great guy in real life but his designes leave alot to be desired.
there is a diffrence between him and his work... I do not like the new avenger, I got very board with ultimate spiderman, I thought civil war was not well thought out or implment, and I HATE almost every x men story for going on 5 or 6 years now... to the point where I joke wanda really should have said "No more character growth" instead of "No more mutants"
there are some people that say bendis can't write, and millar is a tool, and that quasada is a plant from DC... and if I am at the comic store and hear it enough, I say the same thing I did above "Knock it off..these guys are just doing there job, one I bet most of you wish you had... dont rip them apart, critque the work"
Mike Mearls get alot of flack. Even from people who play an edtion he had his fingers in from day one. AND none of us know for sure who says what at wotc...
example: A few years ago at a call center I was working for, the company we answered for had some lame rule that no one be given a supervisor on there first call. We would claim to take a message, note the acct, then no one call them back. If they called back we were to try to not give our super the phone, if we had to we had to... then if you wanted corprate the supervisor would note the acct, and no one would call you back... only on a 3rd call could we try to esculate to corp head quaters...
I thought this was stupid so when I got the chance I told the company this...and the corp office was shocked and appauled. So between us and another call center we did some digging. back in the 90's when they first out sourced a manajor on his last week or so (having already given notice) wrote this memo and sent it out to the call centers. for 10 years (4 of witch I worked at a call center) everyone thought it was someone elses fault, but it was a guy who was long gone.
Did Mike himself desgin the bladesinger? I don't know, he may not have even playtested it himself... heck henso (the old r&d guy) may have had the slayer hanging around for months before mike got promoted... Did mike OK it...yes, but based on others, or himself. No one knows what each person is responcable for.
would I have made the bladesinger diffrent...yes we all know I would, infact I pitched an idea for one on these boards... if I was given this class as a play tester I already know how I would recomend changeing it. BUT likeing it or not likeing it, dont bash mearls... talk about the work...
if anyone cares about how I would change it
I would give them 2 daily's per day per slot. SO they could prep both of there spells once, or one twice, but keep them as the encounters.
but really what else can you expect with MM in charge?
Please, please stop doing this. We all know you hate Mike Mearls with the passion of a thousand burning suns. But it does absolutely no good at all to those of us who have substantive criticisms of the "new design" to have our side of the argument associated with this sort of tiresome personal animosity.
Bad design is bad design. And even good designers can screw up sometimes. Criticism of particular design elements does not have to manifest as personal insults hurled at the designer(s). If we're criticising the bad design, then let's just criticise the bad design. Let's not descend into calling the designers horrible names. All that does is make us look like ****s with a childish grudge against people we've never even met, allowing our more substantive complaints to be (quite understandably) dismissed as products of that irrational hatred.
Compare yourself to Foxface, who is every bit as critical of post-Essentials D&D as you are, but is well-liked and well-respected by the community, and AFAIK never gets his posts deleted and has never been temp-banned.
but really what else can you expect with MM in charge?
Please, please stop doing this. We all know you hate Mike Mearls with the passion of a thousand burning suns. But it does absolutely no good at all to those of us who have substantive criticisms of the "new design" to have our side of the argument associated with this sort of tiresome personal animosity.
Bad design is bad design. And even good designers can screw up sometimes. Criticism of particular design elements does not have to manifest as personal insults hurled at the designer(s). If we're criticising the bad design, then let's just criticise the bad design. Let's not descend into calling the designers horrible names. All that does is make us look like ****s with a childish grudge against people we've never even met, allowing our more substantive complaints to be (quite understandably) dismissed as products of that irrational hatred.
Compare yourself to Foxface, who is every bit as critical of post-Essentials D&D as you are, but is well-liked and well-respected by the community, and AFAIK never gets his posts deleted and has never been temp-banned.
+1
So the design philosophy here is what? Lovingly build up the mechanics of a class to fit a classic concept, then roll a d4 to determine a nominal role label to slap on it?
This may be the answer. It fits better than anything else at the moment. This class was poorly thought out but really what else can you expect with MM in charge?
You know your mike bashing is totaly uncalled for. He is a good guy (I have meet hime twice, once before 4e and once since).
He may nominally be in the driver's seat, but there's still an 'up stairs' he has to answer to, and there's still other folks doing the rubber-meets-the-road design (which he was doing more of when 4e was still /good/, BTW). There's not much basis for making the recent issues 'his fault,' and nothing much to be gained in doing so.
Interesting thought: I bet a Warlock (Warlock) can out-control a Bladesiner, while a Bladesinger can out-damage a Warlock (Warlock).
Yeah, that one I can't argue. Warlock dailys are almost as awesome as Wizard dailies when it comes to "oh, I dropped a daily. This encounter's over."
(I think the bladesinger will be able to compete against a warlock's encounter control by carefull application of their at-will control. But they lose BADLY at daily control.)
That said, the bladespells are FANTASTIC. Because unlike many other class features that only trigger once per turn or once per round, bladespells can trigger once per ATTACK. During the session, I made opportunity attacks that slide enemies away, preventing them from charging. As well, there was a bard in the party with "Staggering Note", which granted me additional melee basic attacks off-turn. The end result was that in the encounter fought, I constantly slide two of the three plaugechanged drakes in the fight off of the pier, forcing them to waste their actions attempting to climb back up.
Also in the party was a swarm druid. He kept the minions in the fight suitable distracted, but I'm not sure exactly what control effects he was laying down. (I recall one zone that made enemies in it grant combat advantage, and also he used grasping tides a few times).
In terms of who provided more control, I would probably say that my bladesinger did more in that encounter than the druid. The druid had better minion clearing AoE powers, but in terms of locking down non-minion enemies and preventing them from operating, my bladesinger did the brunt of that work.
And as the party didn't have a defender (the 4 man party consisted of a druid, a bard, a slayer, and my bladesinger), I was also filling in as a tank.
So in conclusion, after an initial playtest... the bladesinger lacks in AoE, but is good at single target control, has defender level AC and has near-striker damage output. It seems like it's a very versatile class. So it may not be as good a dedicated aoe controller as a wizard might be, but is that so bad?
The caveat is of course this is all low level play. While bladespells do scale per tier the lack of encounter powers and subpar daily powers may be much more noticable later on.
That said, the bladespells are FANTASTIC. Because unlike many other class features that only trigger once per turn or once per round, bladespells can trigger once per ATTACK. During the session, I made opportunity attacks that slide enemies away, preventing them from charging. As well, there was a bard in the party with "Staggering Note", which granted me additional melee basic attacks off-turn.
You need to re-read the first three words in the "trigger" section of your Bladespells.
That said, the bladespells are FANTASTIC. Because unlike many other class features that only trigger once per turn or once per round, bladespells can trigger once per ATTACK. During the session, I made opportunity attacks that slide enemies away, preventing them from charging. As well, there was a bard in the party with "Staggering Note", which granted me additional melee basic attacks off-turn.
You need to re-read the first three words in the "trigger" section of your Bladespells.
Indeed, Damon_Tor delivers the sobering bubble-bursting facts on this one: "During Your Turn..."
To be fair, the lack of encounter powers wasn't really noticable given that at this level you normally only have just the one encounter anyhow.
What's Bladesong? The bladesinger sheet I saw had it, and it was an Encounter power.
I want to love the bladesinger, but reading the preview, I am concerned if it won't fall rather flat. The pathetic excuse for a daily and no proper encounter powers worry me.
Still, the moment I get the book I will build one, I just have to know how well they work as controllers. It feels like the guy I pretended I was playing back in AD&D 2E in the mysts of history, and that is a strong nostalgia pull to resist.
1 - Swordmage is the parent class.
2 - They use Dailies as dailies.
A quick perusal of Arcane Power (FRPG is less handy at the moment) shows how many powers per level would be useable for a Bladesinger that would not mention other Swordmage abilities (so no Aegis riders), no CON or STR used, and no marking.
D1 - 2/4
U2 - 2/5
D5 - 5/5
U6 - 2/4
D9 - 2/4
U10 - 3/4
D15 - 3/5
U16 - 4/5
D19 - 2/4
U22 - 4/4
D25 - 4/5
D29 - 2/4
Point being, there are plenty of decent powers that would complement the Bladesinger nicely without being overly defenderish.
Still mulling over the E-as-D junk, and while rolling with swordmage dailies sounds like a nice start, I'm not certain yet.
My standing house rules start with Bladesong. Dump the +5 damage, and replace it with making bladespells a burst 1 for the same duration. BOOM no more striker damage, and control credit restored.
Really nice fix, actually.
Man, we've got to houserule for playability again. It really is like 2e!
My standing house rules start with Bladesong. Dump the +5 damage, and replace it with making bladespells a burst 1 for the same duration. BOOM no more striker damage, and control credit restored.
Really nice fix, actually.
Man, we've got to houserule for playability again. It really is like 2e!
Yeah, a veritable paroxysm of nostalgia.
Is this not 4th edition whats with all the people having to houserule. I thought those days were behind us. So much for progress.
With NWCG in hand, I still think this class could be easily salvaged by a few fixes that could easily be in an update.
Simple matter of deleting some books and removing a few people in favor of the people they had removed first.
My ninja's are still partying from the "heinsoo coup!"
Sorry if that was not your favorite coup, but my ninjas got payed entirely in shuriken and smoke bombs, and sake, so you know... enterprising individuals take the contracts they're offerred. ;)
The fact the the control of the Bladesinger doesn't really scale all that well isn't so obvious when you never play above level 3.
edit: although i guess you did specifically say the "control effects" dont scale up well which i can sorta see. one could say that being able to kill several enemies at once is a form of control but other controllers dont have to try at it as much as the bladesinger does. but im not playing one for the control im playing to be a strike-troller
when i hit lvl 11 i can spend an action point to make a melee basic attack against each adjacent enemy and activate a blade spell for each success. thats pretty cool imo. and blade spells do increase in damage at lvl 11 and 21.
Except you can use your bladespell whether your attack hits or misses, by that point.
Yeah, real cool, becaus being able to deal (70+15XDex Mod) to a single moster in addition to the melee basic attack is such a great controller feature.
consider this, i'm lvl 11 and surrounded by minions and there's an elite leader lording over them sending his support from afar. i get adjacent to as many of them as posible, spend an action point and swipe at all of them then send all my blade spells at the elite. all at once i got rid of a bunch of minions and did a decent amount of damage to the elite and layered on some small control effects. push 3, push 3, push3, and lightning damage if he moves. that sounds fun and controllery to me and all i did was spend an action point. maybe my standard action should be magic missile the elite.
i'm not arguing that its "good" control. i'm arguing that it is still useful but not optimal and more importantly it's fun!
edit: the action point thing only works while bladesong is active which im hesitant to use on minions but eh i still think that would be a fun turn. the ability to use your bladespells even if your melee attack misses also only works when bladesong is active. you gain that ability at lvl 13
consider this, i'm lvl 11 and surrounded by minions and there's an elite leader lording over them sending his support from afar. i get adjacent to as many of them as posible, spend an action point and swipe at all of them then send all my blade spells at the elite. all at once i got rid of a bunch of minions and bloodied the elite with auto-damage via as many lightning rings as possible and a single unseen hand to trigger all the lightning rings' extra damage at once. that sounds like a striker to me and all i did was spend an action point.
Just fixed that for you. The longer we maintain the delusion that the Bladesinger is anything but a striker the longer people are going to to play him as a controller.
I disagree. I still think with some minor tweaks, the bladesinger can function as a fine controller, but right out of the box, absolutely not. It does have one thing going for it: It applies all of it's control without having to hit that target. Spike a minion, control the boss, which is not a bad thing.
It's not weaker, folks. It's just a different path to excellence.
consider this, i'm lvl 11 and surrounded by minions and there's an elite leader lording over them sending his support from afar. i get adjacent to as many of them as posible, spend an action point and swipe at all of them then send all my blade spells at the elite. all at once i got rid of a bunch of minions and bloodied the elite with auto-damage via as many lightning rings as possible and a single unseen hand to trigger all the lightning rings' extra damage at once. that sounds like a striker to me and all i did was spend an action point.
Just fixed that for you. The longer we maintain the delusion that the Bladesinger is anything but a striker the longer people are going to to play him as a controller.
i did not think lightning ring stacked? isnt there some rule about separate effects with the same name dont stack? but if it does i suppose that is way better and L ring then Unseen hand push is even more brilliant. thank you... however i was never concerned with whether or not the bladesinger is a controler or a striker call it what you like it feels more like a fun to play hybrid to me.
. however i was never concerned with whether or not the bladesinger is a controler or a striker call it what you like it feels more like a fun to play hybrid to me.
And hybrids (those created by phb3 rules) are normally hung with a not for newbies warning sign - in part I thought due to "role ambiguity", shrug
Calling something role X is likely to result in disatisfaction especially when they drip with Role Y from anyone who has expecations based on the designated roles.
consider this, i'm lvl 11 and surrounded by minions and there's an elite leader lording over them sending his support from afar. i get adjacent to as many of them as posible, spend an action point and swipe at all of them then send all my blade spells at the elite. all at once i got rid of a bunch of minions and bloodied the elite with auto-damage via as many lightning rings as possible and a single unseen hand to trigger all the lightning rings' extra damage at once. that sounds like a striker to me and all i did was spend an action point.
Just fixed that for you. The longer we maintain the delusion that the Bladesinger is anything but a striker the longer people are going to to play him as a controller.
i did not think lightning ring stacked? isnt there some rule about separate effects with the same name dont stack? but if it does i suppose that is way better and L ring then Unseen hand push is even more brilliant. thank you... however i was never concerned with whether or not the bladesinger is a controler or a striker call it what you like it feels more like a fun to play hybrid to me.
ok so i'm a lil disappointed to report your plan does not work at all... i spoke with a more experienced game master and he did indeed say that separate effects with the same name do not stack furthermore forced movement does not trigger lightning ring. it's sad cuz i thought it was a cool tactic.
Their Controller credentials are sorely lacking, and in need of a lot of help.
furthermore forced movement does not trigger lightning ring.
This is not correct. Forced movement is still movement.
I dont have any experience with Bladesinger Binders but if a Bladesinger Binder uses Wizard Warlock spells then how is a Bladesinger Binder any more or less of a striker than a normal Wizard Warlock or Mage Hexblade thats built for damage?
Because a character's role is not all about the powers. Class features also play a significant part.
furthermore forced movement does not trigger lightning ring.
This is not correct. Forced movement is still movement.
In PHB1 under pull, push, slide on pg 285 at the bottom of the box it says "Not a Move" it then however goes on to say that it doesnt count against the target's ability to move on its turn so that could be interpreted differently. The heading says "not a move" but does it mean that aswell as the monster can still move on its turn. I'll have to borrow my friend's rules compendium and see what it says there but I believe my game master when he says forced movement does not count as a move. this is basically what he says,
"if the power says (the next time the target moves) it means when it makes a move action. you could use unseen hand to trigger a zone that says (when a creature enters the zone)"
Forced movement is not concidered a move and does not cause abilities to proc as such.
Incorrect. A move is defined as "Any instance of movement, whether it is done willingly or unwillingly. Whenever a creature, and object, or an effect leaves a square to enter another, it is moving. Shifting, teleporting, and being pushed are all examples of moves."
In other words, forced movement triggers Lightning Ring's extra damage.
Never mind. Just started checking out the bladesinger in compendium. Gets that at 3rd level, effectively. I feel foolish.
Whether or not forced movement triggers lightning ring, lightning ring still doesn't stack.
There's no reason it wouldn't. You're probably thinking of moving into a zone: damage from multiple zones don't stack, but only because the rules for zones specifically say they don't.
Since Lightning Ring is technically not ongoing damage, I can see your point from a RAW perspective, but I'm an RAI guy and because it would be multiple abilities of the same name, with the same damage type, that resolve at the same time, I would rule that it does not stack.
I'm just basing my reasoning on the fact that ongoing damage doesn't stack if its the same type of damage. If you get hit with 10 ongoing lightning damage and 5 ongoing lightning damage, you would only be hit with 10 lightning damage, not 15.
Since Lightning Ring is technically not ongoing damage, I can see your point from a RAW perspective, but I'm an RAI guy and because it would be multiple abilities of the same name, with the same damage type, that resolve at the same time, I would rule that it does not stack.
Just as long as you're clear that what you're citing is your own houserule, you're free to say whatever you like. Plenty of DMs are houseruling that Bladespells have to target a different creature than their triggering melee basic, but that doesn't mean they can use that houserule to discuss the viability of the class as it's written.
When in fact I actually believe that I'm correct in my interpretation.
Lightning Ring does not stack.
effects by two spells with the same name do not stack.
Not taking a position here on which side is actually correct, but [citation needed]. Seriously.
Since Lightning Ring is technically not ongoing damage, I can see your point from a RAW perspective, but I'm an RAI guy and because it would be multiple abilities of the same name, with the same damage type, that resolve at the same time, I would rule that it does not stack.
...
Houserule would mean that I am using a rule that I know is incorrect but which I think is preferable.
When in fact I actually believe that I'm correct in my interpretation.
Lightning Ring does not stack.
You're inventing a rule: you've decided that Lightning Ring's damage should be treated as ongoing damage, when it is not. This is not an interpretation of a rule, this is a houserule. If you really don't see the difference, then I don't know what to tell you.
effects by two spells with the same name do not stack.
No.
The rule you are thinking of reads "Untyped bonuses from the same named game element are not cumulative." This has no bearing on damage dealt by attacks.
Ongoing damage does not stack, because a rule specifically prohibits ongoing damage of the same type from stacking. Damage from zones does not stack because a rule specifically prohibits damage from overlapping zones from stacking. Lighting Ring is neither a zone nor ongoing damage. Further, powers like this are not new: The fact that multiple instances of Hellish Rebuke can "stack" on a single target is well established and non-controversial.
You can both continue to run your games however you like: I won't argue that the Bladesinger probably needs some houseruling. However, presenting your houserules as actual rules undermines any useful discussion of this class.