# Bladesinger Preview!



## ForeverSlayer (Jul 16, 2011)

Here is the Bladesinger preview. Wow what a mess!!


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 16, 2011)

I'm confused. Whose preview? In what context?

The link seems to lead to some community page and some fan upload. Do we know this guy? Why are we supposed to care what he posts?


----------



## Thistonius (Jul 16, 2011)

Interesting concept, it looks like a variant on the Swordmage.

The Bladespell mechanics is an interesting concept for a any type of character, basic attacks with powers attached to them.  I think it brings something different to the table.

[MENTION=91812]ForeverSlayer[/MENTION]

How do you mean it's a mess?  because the mechanics are different?  It brings a new and, dare I say, fresh twist on the powers.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Jul 16, 2011)

Thistonius said:


> Interesting concept, it looks like a variant on the Swordmage.
> 
> The Bladespell mechanics is an interesting concept for a any type of character, basic attacks with powers attached to them.  I think it brings something different to the table.
> 
> ...




Well first off it is supposed to be a controller and yet it is missing most controllerish powers.  Second, there is too much going on at one time in this class.  I love complexity but I don't like clutter and this class feels a bit too cluttered to me.


----------



## Walking Dad (Jul 16, 2011)

Oldtimer said:


> I'm confused. Whose preview? In what context?
> 
> The link seems to lead to some community page and some fan upload. Do we know this guy? Why are we supposed to care what he posts?



Saw the same thing on RPG.net.

But I don't follow abbreviated links (follow on your own risk):



> criticalhits Gato, CH News Robot
> by Wizards_DnD
> 
> A preview of the Bladesinger class coming in the Neverwinter Campaign Setting by @Gen_Con Bladesinger preview content - Gen Con LLC Community


----------



## FireLance (Jul 16, 2011)

Well, I think I "got" it almost immediately.

It's basically a melee class using Intelligence in place of Strength for attack rolls and damage rolls. The control effect comes from at-will powers that trigger every time the character hits with a melee attack. These automatically affect an enemy - no need for an attack roll, and not necessary the one they hit - and deal a small amount (Dexterity modifier) of damage plus some small effect (target grants combat advantage, target takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls, target is slowed, target takes damage if it moves, target is prone, target is slid 3 squares). It can thus function as a once per hit minion killer, or the bladesinger could be attacking one enemy in melee and messing with another within 10 squares. (The bladesinger also doesn't provoke AOs for using ranged powers when fighting with a one-handed weapon and nothing in the other hand.)

The encounter power grants it a bonues to attack rolls and defenses, and a larger bonus to damage rolls. Based on the preview, it gets other encounter powers as it levels up.

It also gets three cantrips (chosen from _ghost sound_, _light_, _mage hand_, _prestidigitation_, and _suggestion_) and the _magic missile_ spell.

The only questionable design decision that I can see is that it uses wizard encounter spells as its dailies. I'm guessing that the somewhat more powerful and flexible at-will abilities are supposed to compensate for that.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 16, 2011)

hm, looks quite well if you as me. A quite resilent controller, beeing well abe to hold its own in combat.
Also the concept is very fitting, if you consider its history. That of a fighter wizard hybrid.
Also, 3 at-wills, that constantly add damage, a useful base attack and encounter powers that are good enough as dailes... it should be doing well enough.


----------



## Kzach (Jul 16, 2011)

Int/Dex so it's already fail right from the start.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 16, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> Saw the same thing on RPG.net.



OK, so the first nine pages of this PDF is an actual excerpt from the new campaign book from Wizards?

What confuses me is why this is not on the WotC website rather than posted all over the Internet?


----------



## FireLance (Jul 16, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Int/Dex so it's already fail right from the start.



Well, _so far_ the only use for Dexterity that I can see is to determine the extra damage from the at-will powers that trigger when the bladesinger hits with a melee basic attack. I suppose it might also give the bladesigner a decent ranged attack, but _magic missile_ already takes care of that.

If you are more interested in the control elements than the extra damage, then it is entirely feasible to put a medium-high score in Dexterity (say 14, especially if your race already grants a bonus to that ability score) and pump an ability score that grants you a bonus to Fortitude or Will instead. Of course, maybe Dexterity will be important to higher-level utility powers or class features.


----------



## SPECTRE666 (Jul 16, 2011)

The Bladesinger is Eladrin & Elf & Drow only...


----------



## Moon_Goddess (Jul 16, 2011)

Why is this a build for Wizard? why isn't it a build for swordmage that makes no sense.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jul 16, 2011)

It's the Pregen character info from the D&D Game Day module


----------



## Klaus (Jul 16, 2011)

SPECTRE666 said:


> The Bladesinger is Eladrin & Elf & Drow only...



No, it is not.

Fluff-wise, it mentions eladrins, elves and half-elves, and the sample character is a drow.
Mechanically, though, there's no racial restrictions.

The class seems to be a "dual-target" controller. You damage one creature and inflicts lesser damage + condition to another creature. You can also affect more targets via your daily powers.

As a wizard build, the bladesinger gets immediate support through the hundreds of wizard spells available, which is a good thing.

I wonder how it compares to a hybrid Swordmage/Wizard, though.


----------



## Spatula (Jul 16, 2011)

DarwinofMind said:


> Why is this a build for Wizard? why isn't it a build for swordmage that makes no sense.



I am guessing that...

(a) so that it can steal the wizard's spell list, for that "classic" feel.

(b) there's no essentials swordmage yet (well, I guess there is now, and this is it)

The only bit that I didn't like is that the class has to choose 1 particular blade to use as a focus. Looks pretty interesting, otherwise.


----------



## Spatula (Jul 16, 2011)

I wonder if this means we will finally see a dual-use weapon/implement expertise and focus feats in the Neverwinter book... Or if the bladesinger has to take 4 feats to cover its melee and implement attacks.

Why does the blade count as a wand, in addition to being usable as an implement?


----------



## Drakhar (Jul 16, 2011)

Spatula said:


> I wonder if this means we will finally see a dual-use weapon/implement expertise and focus feats in the Neverwinter book... Or if the bladesinger has to take 4 feats to cover its melee and implement attacks.
> 
> Why does the blade count as a wand, in addition to being usable as an implement?



Wand Expertise.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 16, 2011)

I'd be more concerned why it isn't a bard.  That's its pedigree after all.



...fighter mage indeed....


----------



## frogged (Jul 16, 2011)

I, for one, will be disappointed if the Bladesinger at higher levels doesn't gain a power or class feature to be able to cast their dailies as if they had the bladespell keyword (No action, triggered on hit with melee basic).


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 16, 2011)

frogged said:


> I, for one, will be disappointed if the Bladesinger at higher levels doesn't gain a power or class feature to be able to cast their dailies as if they had the bladespell keyword (No action, triggered on hit with melee basic).




Look at the wizard encounter powers that exist in the game.

Now think about this.


----------



## Zaphling (Jul 16, 2011)

FireLance said:


> Well, I think I "got" it almost immediately.
> 
> It's basically a melee class using Intelligence in place of Strength for attack rolls and damage rolls. The control effect comes from at-will powers that trigger every time the character hits with a melee attack. These automatically affect an enemy - no need for an attack roll, and not necessary the one they hit - and deal a small amount (Dexterity modifier) of damage plus some small effect (target grants combat advantage, target takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls, target is slowed, target takes damage if it moves, target is prone, target is slid 3 squares). It can thus function as a once per hit minion killer, or the bladesinger could be attacking one enemy in melee and messing with another within 10 squares. (The bladesinger also doesn't provoke AOs for using ranged powers when fighting with a one-handed weapon and nothing in the other hand.)
> 
> ...




Well, it uses Wizard dailies since it is a subclass of Wizard. Wizard, Bladesinger.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 16, 2011)

Zaphling said:


> Well, it uses Wizard dailies since it is a subclass of Wizard. Wizard, Bladesinger.




Actually it doesn't.  It uses wizard encounter powers as dailies.


----------



## Zaphling (Jul 16, 2011)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Well first off it is supposed to be a controller and yet it is missing most controllerish powers.  Second, there is too much going on at one time in this class.  I love complexity but I don't like clutter and this class feels a bit too cluttered to me.




I can help you about the controllerish powers. The at-wills alone are controller powers, you can hit your current target a second time for free, or target another one and auto-hit with little damage. auto-miinion killer. and the effects are actually the useful ones. very useful to assist alllies who are far away. 
For example, your ally rogue 5 squares away needs that CA to SA his opponent and he has no flanking buddy, immediately assist him with Dancing Fire. right?


----------



## Zaphling (Jul 16, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Int/Dex so it's already fail right from the start.




It doesn't mean since you don't have a boost to two other NADs means it's a fail. They use Int/Dex because it is the most logical abilities for the subclass. You slice an enemy with basic attack using ur Int, then 'quickly' fire a secondary free attack which is Dex. I put emphasis on QUICKLY. Dex also since it explains why they don't provoke OA's whenever they use ranged and area attacks in melee. They're just very quick enough to react or somthing.


----------



## Zaphling (Jul 16, 2011)

DarwinofMind said:


> Why is this a build for Wizard? why isn't it a build for swordmage that makes no sense.




Since this will be the very first, melee oriented controller. Iknow there is already the warlock, but it was too few. And swordmages are actually a different training style, since they have to master the Aegis which is their bread and butter.

Bladesingers are just another or a special group of wizards who still use their wizard attacks but with a dip in swordplay. 

Although i am quite bothered why they have proficiencies in nearly all weapons, even military ranged? swordmages didnt get this even. they only get BLADES. do you think we can't make a SPEARMAGE? Hammermage? axemage?


----------



## Zaphling (Jul 16, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> Actually it doesn't.  It uses wizard encounter powers as dailies.



Oh, That I didn't notice. My mistake. I wonder and think their encounter powers will be a bladesinger versions then.


----------



## Kzach (Jul 16, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> I'd be more concerned why it isn't a bard.  That's its pedigree after all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...fighter mage indeed....




It should be a paragon path for arcane classes, period. Trying to shoe-horn the concept into the wizard as a sub-class is all sorts of fail.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 16, 2011)

Kzach said:


> It should be a paragon path for arcane classes, period. Trying to shoe-horn the concept into the wizard as a sub-class is all sorts of fail.




It's a full class.  There's a lot of room for design in bladespells, and something that a paragon path can't do.  So... that's not gonna work.


The thing is, the original bladesinger was a kit for the 'demibard' in the Complete Book of Bards... demibards being 'How to get around barding racial restrictions.'

It was also considered broken as hell.

Besides... look at the name itself.  Blade*singer*.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 16, 2011)

Kzach said:


> It should be a paragon path for arcane classes, period. Trying to shoe-horn the concept into the wizard as a sub-class is all sorts of fail.




Except that this would be a fun and cool fighting style to have. I love it when people can have cool fighting styles at 1st level.


----------



## fba827 (Jul 16, 2011)

** never mind what I had originally written here, I misread something **


----------



## Journeymanmage (Jul 16, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Int/Dex so it's already fail right from the start.




Don't boost Dex then ....

Buy up to a 12 or use a racial +2.  Never boost.  The "2ndary" at-will, no action effect does "dex damage and a carrier".  If you use the 2ndary on a minion, 1 or 100 points of damage, it doesn't matter, the minion is gone.  If you use the 2ndary on a non-minion, the carrier (-x to hit, slowed, combat advantage) can be more important than the extra damage.

Story-wise, Dex/Int makes sense.  They're a Bladesinger.  Elven agility and grace (dex) combined with their ancient knowledge of the Arcane (int).


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 16, 2011)

Kzach said:


> It should be a paragon path for arcane classes, period. Trying to shoe-horn the concept into the wizard as a sub-class is all sorts of fail.




You mean like the way that the Hexblade was shoe-horned into the Warlock? Seems to work OK and I'm liking this one, too. It's built sort of like an extended Paragon Multi-classed character.


----------



## Mummolus (Jul 16, 2011)

Mmmm, wizard utilities...


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 16, 2011)

I think its a neat blend of concepts:

1) I really enjoy the at-wills. Firstly, they don't replace my basic attacks. I can buff my basics and still use them in conjuction with my at-wills.

Further, they are flexible. I can compound damage on a single target or spread it to two.

2) I think using wizard spells is a great idea. This way we don't have to write huge new lists of powers for each and every class. The wizard list has had a lot of time to gain polish with erratas, so putting it to use for new classes seems fine to me.

3) The lack of dailies is a good think imo. Wizard Dailies would be too good with all the other advantages this class gets. However, getting more flexibility in encounter powers is a good thing imo.


----------



## shamsael (Jul 16, 2011)

has anyone checked to see where that patch code leads?

Personally, I don't see why I should trust the authenticity of this.


----------



## Spatula (Jul 16, 2011)

Drakhar said:


> Wand Expertise.



Hmm, I suppose that means that we aren't getting all-purpose expertise/focus feats. Bummer for the bladesinger, who has to choose between boosting the at-will melee attacks or the daily implement attacks. Too bad for them that they can't use staves.

I really don't understand WotC's reluctance on this front. Before Essentials, the only real issue was that there was no implement focus feat, making weapon implements a superior choice. Now... bleh.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 16, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> The thing is, the original bladesinger was a kit for the 'demibard' in the Complete Book of Bards... demibards being 'How to get around barding racial restrictions.'
> 
> It was also considered broken as hell.
> 
> Besides... look at the name itself.  Blade*singer*.




The iconic bladesinger was in the Complete Elves' Handbook, and every iteration thereafter (3.0 bladesinger, 3.5 bladesinger, 4.0 Swordmage) has been based on that one, which was a fighter/mage.

I can't even find a reference to bladesinger in the Bard's Handbook, and it explicitly lists 4 bard kits for races (Dwarven Chanter, Elven Minstrel, Gnome Professor, and Halfling Whistler), as well as giving a table of bard kits that demihumans can take w/level limits.

And the bladesinging refers to the sound the sword makes when you are wielding it, with the implication that your smooth and constant motions with it make it sing.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 16, 2011)

Stalker0 said:


> I think its a neat blend of concepts:
> 
> 1) I really enjoy the at-wills. Firstly, they don't replace my basic attacks. I can buff my basics and still use them in conjuction with my at-wills.
> 
> ...



I agree 100% with all of the above.

Judging the class on its own, I think it will work.  I mean, yeah, it's not necessarily a perfect controller.  And making it a Wizard is weird.  But when you look at how it works with the other stuff it's trying to do, it basically looks like it will work.

I'm a lot more interested in neat stuff that works than in preserving some sense of unnecessary symmetry or illusory sensibility.

I may be a minority here, but much as I love the Swordmage, giving this guy Swordmage powers would give it a wildly inappropriate flavor.

-O


----------



## Obryn (Jul 16, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> I'd be more concerned why it isn't a bard.  That's its pedigree after all.
> 
> ...fighter mage indeed....



Nope.  It was a Fighter/Wizard kit under 2e.  And their shtick was ... hitting things with swords and casting Wizard spells.

Bards in 2e kinda did that, too, mind you, but they weren't Bladesingers.

There were no Bladesingers in 1e, and 1e bards cast Druid spells, not Magic-User spells.  Now, Rangers on the other hand, cast both Magic-User and Druid spells.

-O


----------



## Walking Dad (Jul 16, 2011)

Maybe this is the reason why they gave the wizard miss effects for their encounter powers in the last class playtest -> so the bladesinger isn't the only class with dailies that are neither reliable, nor have a miss effect


----------



## Don Incognito (Jul 16, 2011)

A few things.

1. As written, _this is a terrible controller_. It lacks an at-will AoE, and while "hit dude A and dude B gets a debuff" is neat, it lacks the sheer power of what ever other non-Binder controller can do with their at-will powers. Moreover, Bladesong, their level 1 encounter power, _does not do anything that controllers care about_. It's not your job to deal damage or take hits, it's your job to control the goddamn battlefield.

2. That said, the Bladesinger actually looks to be a very flavorful and fun _striker_. Bladesong sets them up for one hell of a nova round, and they can pick up MBA cheese / charge cheese for some serious damage potential

3. Encounter powers as Daily Powers is something that I'm sure sounds a lot more mechanically viable on paper than it is in practice. Think about it: it's a big fight, so the party's bringing out the big guns. The Sorcerer is using Dazzling Ray. The Wizard drops a Flaming Sphere. The Fighter unloads a Lasting Threat. The Bladesinger? The best he's got is Ray of Enfeeblement. From what I see, the Bladesinger is actually better served by ignoring that feature entirely and focusing only on his at-wills.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 16, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> Maybe this is the reason why they gave the wizard miss effects for their encounter powers in the last class playtest -> so the bladesinger isn't the only class with dailies that are neither reliable, nor have a miss effect



Naah, that's been in the pipe since HotFL.

-O


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 16, 2011)

The bladesinger uses his dailies when ar wills are not enough. Same boat as the hunter. High damage low number of targets controller. Pretty effective at least at low level.


----------



## Zaran (Jul 17, 2011)

Anyone notice that it uses the old character sheet? Wonder if that means we are seeing it's return or that it could be they have to use the old builder to make their playtest characters.


----------



## Marshall (Jul 17, 2011)

Ah, I love the new essentials direction! 

Class Repeat after me....

_There is no Swordmage, only Wizard
There is no Sorcerer, only Wizard

There is no Swordmage, only Wizard
There is no Sorcerer, only Wizard

There is no Swordmage, only Wizard
There is no Sorcerer, only Wizard

There is no...._

Gee, i cant wait for the Abjurer Mage so I can replace my Bard with a Wizard too!

Really?!? Why after going out of your way to make all the powers and class abilities say "one-handed melee weapon" to you go and make Bladespell a *SINGLE* type of ONLY light/heavy blades? If you want it all to be light/heavy blades then say light/heavy blades, if you want to leave the class open to Dwarven HammerRythms than leave it open to that skin. For gods sake, pick a direction and stick with it! 
BTW, which is it? Is this class so overpowered that its Dailys are only as good as wizard encounters or are wizard encounters so broken that they are better than other class dailys?


----------



## FireLance (Jul 17, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Ah, I love the new essentials direction!
> 
> Class Repeat after me....
> 
> ...



Eh. I don't think any of the wizard variants can actually replace a defender, a leader or a striker. 



> Which is it? Is this class so overpowered that its Dailys are only as good as wizard encounters or are wizard encounters so broken that they are better than other class dailys?



I think the former is closer. Not that the class as a whole is overpowered, but its at-will abilities are better than normal to balance its less powerful dailies.


----------



## SPECTRE666 (Jul 17, 2011)

Klaus said:


> No, it is not.
> 
> Fluff-wise, it mentions eladrins, elves and half-elves, and the sample character is a drow.
> Mechanically, though, there's no racial restrictions.





I guess only in 4E the classic racial restrictions will not apply. 

I guess I will shut up now and let the D&D know it all's talk.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Jul 17, 2011)

Here's an idea:

Str + Dex Bladesinger (or X + Dex Half-Elf with an out of class MBA replacer)

Use the no attack roll encounter powers as dailies (i.e. Phantom Foes, Mass Charm, Arcane Bolt). You'll miss out on some damage from stuff like Arcane Bolt and Magic Missle, and there is a chance that some of the higher level encounter powers (it looks like 3 and 7 give different powers) use Int, but if not, the class doesn't actually require Int.

It's an interesting idea ... it trades some of the wizards control for durability (you basically have about leader AC/hp because you have effectively a heavy shield and chain/scale equivalent depending on if you go with 18 or 20 for Int or Dex. And with 5hp per level, you are going to be much sturdier than the normal wizard. And being free from OAs for your attacks is nice as well.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 17, 2011)

I called this as being a Swordmage or Wizard build so long ago it isn't funny, so in many ways I am pleased to see that I was right. It's interesting mechanically at least, but I'm not sure how well it will do as a controller based on what I've seen. At least it gets some of the nice wizard encounters.

But then again, YAFW.

Why is every bloody build devolving into "LOOK, WE CAN MAKE ANOTHER WIZARD?".

At this point why bother having other classes outside of the Wizard?

Edit: Class racial restrictions are so dumb, I'm actually surprised they didn't get put back in with the current direction. Some common sense at last?


----------



## Walking Dad (Jul 17, 2011)

Obryn said:


> Naah, that's been in the pipe since HotFL.
> 
> -O



You are sure they had no idea for a bladesinger then? It is all a big conspiracy 

With all their powers wizard powers, can a Wizard/Mage choose them?

Can they take a wizard multi-class feat?


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jul 17, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> With all their powers wizard powers, can a Wizard/Mage choose them?




This sounds like one of the oddest questions ever. 



> Can they take a wizard multi-class feat?




Good question. If so, what do they give up?

I will say that since essentials, multi-classing has been getting trivialized.


----------



## Xris Robin (Jul 17, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> With all their powers wizard powers, can a Wizard/Mage choose them?



Do they have levels?  The at-wills don't, for instance.  So, no.


Walking Dad said:


> Can they take a wizard multi-class feat?



No, because they ARE wizards.  You can't multiclass into your own class.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 17, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> You are sure they had no idea for a bladesinger then? It is all a big conspiracy
> 
> With all their powers wizard powers, can a Wizard/Mage choose them?
> 
> Can they take a wizard multi-class feat?



hmh,

actually it could be interesting if a standard mage choses those powers. With staff focus you don´t have to worry about OAs.

Only sad thing: Attributes of a staff wizard usually don´t focus too much on DEX... but 13 is affordable which should suffice...

If you hybridize a wizard with an executioner however, you could make great use of those powers... (Fokus on DEX, dump int as much as possible)

edit: ok, no levels... so no 
Good catch Mr. Robin


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 17, 2011)

Don Incognito said:


> A few things.
> 
> 1. As written, _this is a terrible controller_. It lacks an at-will AoE, and while "hit dude A and dude B gets a debuff" is neat, it lacks the sheer power of what ever other non-Binder controller can do with their at-will powers. Moreover, Bladesong, their level 1 encounter power, _does not do anything that controllers care about_. It's not your job to deal damage or take hits, it's your job to control the goddamn battlefield.




'The Avenger isn't a defender, why is it getting defender levels of AC?'

The answer there is the same.  The Bladesinger is a melee class.  Melee classes require higher defensive capabilities than ranged classes.  'Controller' is less relevant to that discussion.



> 2. That said, the Bladesinger actually looks to be a very flavorful and fun _striker_. Bladesong sets them up for one hell of a nova round, and they can pick up MBA cheese / charge cheese for some serious damage potential



[/quote]

Agreed.  I see the bladesinger as more of a striker/controller hybrid than a straight controller.  



> 3. Encounter powers as Daily Powers is something that I'm sure sounds a lot more mechanically viable on paper than it is in practice. Think about it: it's a big fight, so the party's bringing out the big guns. The Sorcerer is using Dazzling Ray. The Wizard drops a Flaming Sphere. The Fighter unloads a Lasting Threat. The Bladesinger? The best he's got is Ray of Enfeeblement. From what I see, the Bladesinger is actually better served by ignoring that feature entirely and focusing only on his at-wills.




I dunno there's some fairly decent encounter powers... knocking a bunch of guys prone before action point and charging in DOES sound pretty sweet, actually.


----------



## SPECTRE666 (Jul 17, 2011)

PG 67 in the Race section "Almost without exception, a bladesinger is either an Eladrin or an Elf."

So there still are "dumb" class racial restrictions...


----------



## MrBeens (Jul 17, 2011)

SPECTRE666 said:


> PG 67 in the Race section "Almost without exception, a bladesinger is either an Eladrin or an Elf."
> 
> So there still are "dumb" class racial restrictions...




That is just fluff, there is nothing mechanically restricting the race. Even then the line says "almost without exception".


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 17, 2011)

SPECTRE666 said:


> PG 67 in the Race section "Almost without exception, a bladesinger is either an Eladrin or an Elf."




Fluff = Who the hell cares?

Fluff _is not_ rules. Unless there is an actual mechanical rule in there, the fluff is irrelevant and there isn't a racial restriction. This is so why I hate excessive fluff: People think they are magically rules when they are not.


----------



## Phaezen (Jul 17, 2011)

Interesting class, a melee based controller, so higher (striker) hp and defences than a standard controller.

Bladespells make an interesting striker or control choice depending on the situation - extra damage and a condition to your current target or to another creature within range 10

The only problem may be the use Wizard encounter powers as dailies, but then again being able to use them in melee and given that many wizard encounter powers now have miss effects could be interesting.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 17, 2011)

Christopher Robin said:


> No, because they ARE wizards.  You can't multiclass into your own class.



However, they could multiclass into swordmage. I wonder how their daily swapping would work: would they get a swordmage encounter, or a swordmage daily?


----------



## herrozerro (Jul 17, 2011)

SPECTRE666 said:


> PG 67 in the Race section "Almost without exception, a bladesinger is either an Eladrin or an Elf."
> 
> So there still are "dumb" class racial restrictions...




No there are not, for an example look at the feywild guardian options for the knight, that has the restriction of you must be an eladrin.  no such thing with the bladesinger.


----------



## SPECTRE666 (Jul 17, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> Fluff = Who the hell cares?



I do!


herrozerro said:


> No there are not, for an example look at the feywild guardian options for the knight, that has the restriction of you must be an eladrin.  no such thing with the bladesinger.



What part of: "Almost without exception" do you not understand? 

I understand that Almost gives the DM the ability to allow say a human baldesinger. Better have a really great backstory. 

What ever happened to saying NO to a player, or does the sense of entitlement of players today trump that?

Do you guys let people play a human dwarven defender? Because racial restrictions are so stupid and 1980. 

Do you guys enjoy CRAPPING on the legacy of D&D FOR YOUR MUNCHKIN POWER BUILDS?
All of these armchair designers really piss me off...


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 17, 2011)

SPECTRE666 said:


> I do!




That's not the point... there's no reason that, for example, a genesi could not have a martial style combining weapons with spell casting.  The fluff can be rewritten, and classes' 'fluff' can be used for multiple things.

Caring about fluff is fine, but fluff is arbitrary.  If you're in the FR, a DM can require justification for a bladesinger that isn't an elven race... but such justifications can include 'He's not bladesinging, but using a different form of sorcery his people use that is mechanically identical to the bladesinger class.'


----------



## FireLance (Jul 17, 2011)

SPECTRE666 said:


> Do you guys enjoy CRAPPING on the legacy of D&D FOR YOUR MUNCHKIN POWER BUILDS?
> All of these armchair designers really piss me off...



1e: Dwarves can be thieves!?

3e: Dwarves can be wizards!?

4e: Dwarves can be bladesingers!?

Where do you draw the line?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 17, 2011)

SPECTRE666 said:


> What part of: "Almost without exception" do you not understand?



Player characters are exceptional. Therefore fluff like this doesn't apply to them.



SPECTRE666 said:


> What ever happened to saying NO to a player, ...



It went the way of the dodo - killed by evolution. 

Sure, a DM can have a campaign where all bladesingers are eladrin. And all wizards are halflings. But the rules here are quite clear - bladesingers can be of any race.


----------



## herrozerro (Jul 17, 2011)

SPECTRE666 said:


> I do!
> 
> What part of: "Almost without exception" do you not understand?




PCs are exceptional, therefore they are the exception.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 17, 2011)

SPECTRE666 said:


> I do!
> 
> What part of: "Almost without exception" do you not understand?
> 
> ...



Chill, man. Does the fact that someone, on some campaign, somewhere in the world is playing a gnoll bladesinger offends your sensibilities?

As for "munchkin power builds", the best races for bladesingers are still Eladrins and Elves (two races with +Dex/Int).


----------



## Mirtek (Jul 17, 2011)

FireLance said:


> 1e: Dwarves can be thieves!?
> 
> 3e: Dwarves can be wizards!?
> 
> ...



Let's wait to see if there is a moonblade magic item in the Neverwinter book which then can be wielded by the dwarven bladesinger


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 17, 2011)

SPECTRE666 said:


> PG 67 in the Race section "Almost without exception, a bladesinger is either an Eladrin or an Elf."
> 
> So there still are "dumb" class racial restrictions...




Which from my experience tells me that, almost without exception, the first Bladesinger in my campaign will be anything _*BUT *_an Elf or Eladrin


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 17, 2011)

Ryujin said:


> Which from my experience tells me that, almost without exception, the first Bladesinger in my campaign will be anything _*BUT *_an Elf or Eladrin




And in my experience, a DM who doesn't ask for players to justify their characters gets what he gets.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 17, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> And in my experience, a DM who doesn't ask for players to justify their characters gets what he gets.




And I do ask for justification, by way of backstory, then use it for role playing hooks throughout the campaign. I'm pretty sure that one particular player will build a rather extensive character background, in order to justify a Human Bladesinger. He'll likely give himself a mechanically supported background, that supposrts having been raised by Elves or Eladrin, for example.


----------



## Marshall (Jul 17, 2011)

FireLance said:


> Eh. I don't think any of the wizard variants can actually replace a defender, a leader or a striker.




This one can be decent Defender even without the mark mechanic, a little low on HP/Surges for it, but the defenses(AC and Ref at least) are insane. It also does striker amazingly well with the only real disadvantage being stuck with one-handed [W]'s. +DEX to damage and insane accuracy for a couple turns an encounter is nothing to sneeze at.



> I think the former is closer. Not that the class as a whole is overpowered, but its at-will abilities are better than normal to balance its less powerful dailies.




HAH. Several Sorcerer builds would kill to have _Burning Hands_ as a level 1 Daily. No, adding miss effects to Wizard encounters just blew the curve on a lot of those powers.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 17, 2011)

Marshall said:


> This one can be decent Defender even without the mark mechanic, a little low on HP/Surges for it, but the defenses(AC and Ref at least) are insane.




If by insane, you mean 'equivalent to Scale mail' with an 18 in Int, and a feat then you'd have a point.

By that standard, Clerics have insane AC.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 17, 2011)

Klaus said:


> Chill, man. Does the fact that someone, on some campaign, somewhere in the world is playing a gnoll bladesinger offends your sensibilities?
> 
> As for "munchkin power builds", the best races for bladesingers are still Eladrins and Elves (two races with +Dex/Int).



You cearly forgot the famous gnomish bladesinger! He also Has int/dex and perfect racial abilities fo this kind of character...

hmmh... I KNOW hat my next character will be!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 17, 2011)

Marshall said:


> This one can be decent Defender even without the mark mechanic, a little low on HP/Surges for it, but the defenses(AC and Ref at least) are insane. It also does striker amazingly well with the only real disadvantage being stuck with one-handed [W]'s. +DEX to damage and insane accuracy for a couple turns an encounter is nothing to sneeze at.
> 
> 
> 
> HAH. Several Sorcerer builds would kill to have _Burning Hands_ as a level 1 Daily. No, adding miss effects to Wizard encounters just blew the curve on a lot of those powers.



bladesong + burnig hands = the sorcerer will desperately trying to kill for this combo...


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 17, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> bladesong + burnig hands = the sorcerer will desperately trying to kill for this combo...




The problem is sorcerers don't jive well with bladespells, or the melee basic attacks that trigger them.  Warlock'd be a better choice, as it, at least, has a power that can actually work with bladespells.

And, sorcerers would rather have sorcerer dailies as dailies than a wizard encounter power.


----------



## Kzach (Jul 17, 2011)

SPECTRE666 said:


> I understand that Almost gives the DM the ability to allow say a human baldesinger.




OMG! I *SO* want to see Baldsinger become a human-only primary class now!


----------



## Incenjucar (Jul 17, 2011)

SPECTRE666 said:


> Do you guys enjoy CRAPPING on the legacy of D&D FOR YOUR MUNCHKIN POWER BUILDS?
> All of these armchair designers really piss me off...




Allowing the legacy of the game to overshadow the future of the game is to doom it to a slow death. Tradition is no excuse to continue a harmful action. Limiting a class to a tiny fraction of the available races has no real benefit and only undermines the openness of the game. You can continue to limit it in your game, and it can continue to be assumed the default situation, but the rules should never outright stop a race from adopting a class.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 17, 2011)

Nice class design. I like the reuse of existing elements. Notice reused but also recontextualized so they will work in a different enough way to keep things from seeming like you're just another wizard, and yet you definitely ARE a wizard.

Mechanically this should be pretty solid. You've got a few choices, go for charge optimization ALA Slayer, go for high mobility skirmisher like tactics, possibly with say a Drow Knife and picking up a rogue power somewhere, or almost defender-like maxing out defenses and taking feats that amplify stickiness. Picking up a daily power swap to another class would probably make good sense as well, it is a feat but in this case since you're 'trading up' from an encounter power to a true daily it may actually make sense.

Seems like Frostcheese would work pretty well with this guy too. 

I think the wizard utility powers are actually going to be a pretty key piece of this class. having Shield or Expeditious Retreat on a melee character should be pretty handy. 

Overall it is a pretty elegant design, probably the best we've seen from WotC in a while. It will almost certainly perform better than the last few.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 17, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> The problem is sorcerers don't jive well with bladespells, or the melee basic attacks that trigger them.  Warlock'd be a better choice, as it, at least, has a power that can actually work with bladespells.
> 
> And, sorcerers would rather have sorcerer dailies as dailies than a wizard encounter power.



A sorcerer can take Ensorcelled Blade, which counts as a basic melee attack.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 17, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> You cearly forgot the famous gnomish bladesinger! He also Has int/dex and perfect racial abilities fo this kind of character...
> 
> hmmh... I KNOW hat my next character will be!



Aw yeah! Yoinked!


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 17, 2011)

Klaus said:


> A sorcerer can take Ensorcelled Blade, which counts as a basic melee attack.




Okay, that'd make a hybrid Sorcerer/Bladesinger pretty potent then.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 17, 2011)

SPECTRE666 said:


> Do you guys enjoy CRAPPING on the legacy of D&D FOR YOUR MUNCHKIN POWER BUILDS?
> All of these armchair designers really piss me off...




What EXACT part of 'elven' gives them the monopoly on combining swordsmanship with magic again?  In 4e, that's also a specialty of genasi, tieflings, many other races as well.

And as for 'Munchkin Power Builds'... um... that WOULD be eladrin and elf, sunshine.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Jul 18, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> Okay, that'd make a hybrid Sorcerer/Bladesinger pretty potent then.




In terms of full blown hybrid, it depends on if there is a bladesinger hybrid, and how it works.

A hybrid with executioner assassin would be interesting, since it uses Dex for it's MBA's with one handed weapons ...

A warlock hybrid would be fun (you'd probably need to also pick up a class that uses holy symbols or ki foci in order to be able to wield a pact blade in one hand and nothing in the other.

If nothing else, a bladesinger multiclassed into rogue would be an interesting spellthief type, running around with a rapier, and casting limited magic.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 18, 2011)

If this is true, I want to make a small arcane swordsman group...

A valors Bard (leader)
A Hexblade warlock (striker)
A swordmage (defender)
A bladesinger (controler)

it seams like a great theme for a group...


----------



## WalterKovacs (Jul 18, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> If this is true, I want to make a small arcane swordsman group...
> 
> A valors Bard (leader)
> A Hexblade warlock (striker)
> ...




You can even throw in the eldritch knight variant as a fifth member.


----------



## Walking Dad (Jul 18, 2011)

Christopher Robin said:


> Do they have levels?  The at-wills don't, for instance.  So, no.
> 
> ...



You are right. That also makes them impossible to take with the wizard multiclass feat


----------



## Neverfate (Jul 18, 2011)

As much as I love Eladrin, I was never a fan of Dex/Int builds do to poor defenses. I hope the class gets +1 Fort/Will (I am haven't looked over the sheet myself). Other than that, I don't have anything against it particularly. Just concerned that WotC is going back and forth between extremes of "this is your 1 roles" and "these are your many roles", because we tend to end up with poorly written entries into 4E like Heroes of Shadow or the Assassin class as a whole.

Though the build/sub-class model is probably for the better, no matter how many of you call it lazy. Half the people complain of bloat, then when something isn't added, WotC is being lazy for not adding it.


----------



## Pentius (Jul 18, 2011)

SPECTRE666 said:


> I do!



I care about fluff, too.  That doesn't make it crunch, though.  


> What part of: "Almost without exception" do you not understand?



I don't understand the part where I'm supposed to play the norm, and not the exception.  I don't RP to play John the Totally Average and Uninteresting Swordsman.  I do it to play John, the Guy Who Is Much More Interesting Than I Am In Real Life.



> I understand that Almost gives the DM the ability to allow say a human baldesinger. Better have a really great backstory.



 "Almost" in this case gives the GM effectively nothing.  The Gm could ALWAYS allow whatever the heck he wanted to allow.  May as well dump a glass of water in the ocean and tell the fish you gave them a present.  What the "Almost" does in this case, is to give the Players a written backup to the idea of playing a non-elven bladesinger, which will really only be useful in games where they have to convince the GM to let them play what they want.



> What ever happened to saying NO to a player, or does the sense of entitlement of players today trump that?



Saying NO still exists.  There is a marked trend in recent years, though, to find out whether you're saying "No" because you have a good reason to, or whether the only real justification behind "No" is "because they're just the players, screw those guys." and then to not do the latter.



> Do you guys let people play a human dwarven defender? Because racial restrictions are so stupid and 1980.



I'll let someone play a human dwarven defender if they can sell me on a reskin of the mechanics or a good backstory about how a human came to be that trusted in dwarven society.  The amount of stupid and/or 80's I associate with the idea of racial restrictions has nothing to do with it.



> Do you guys enjoy CRAPPING on the legacy of D&D FOR YOUR MUNCHKIN POWER BUILDS?
> All of these armchair designers really piss me off...



Well, the troll in me says, "Yes, just because it bothers you, and now I shall gleefully create a half-orc bladesinger with that in mind."  However, in practice I usually just don't consider "the legacy of D&D" when making my "MUNCHKIN POWER BUILDS"(that may or may not be overpowered, or based on cheating or loopholes).  I care about the fluff.  However, when it comes down to it, I only really care about the fluff I and my group want at the table.  If I want to make, say, a Tiefling who has mixed magic with swordplay, and I decide Bladesinger mechanics are more fitting for my purposes than Swordmage or Hexblade ones, I'm not going to give even one crap about what 30 year old sourcebooks I'm not using that were written for a game I'm not playing have to say on the issue.


----------



## Drakhar (Jul 18, 2011)

WalterKovacs said:


> In terms of full blown hybrid, it depends on if there is a bladesinger hybrid, and how it works.
> 
> A hybrid with executioner assassin would be interesting, since it uses Dex for it's MBA's with one handed weapons ...
> 
> ...



Just something to note, the exact wording for Bladesinger is that it can't have a shield or weapon in its other hand, you're perfectly allowed to have an implement (i.e Rod) in your off hand to have your pact blade as your weapon and have all your Bladesinger stuff available.


----------



## Terramotus (Jul 18, 2011)

First thoughts:
1) Agree with the OP that this class is a mess.  Not much of a controller, and wizard encounters as dailies seems like an absolutely horrible idea.  For that to be ok, their at-wills better be ridiculously OP compared to other at-wills, and that doesn't appear to be the case.

2) Did they have to make it a wizard and thus eliminate the possibility of multiclassing to be more Wizardy?  First they steal the name from the original class and now everything's a damn wizard.

3) Man, I hate Essentials so much.  Where O4E was exception-based game design, I think the newer Essentials classes are more along the lines of "random-ass" game design.  It shares few design or play elements with other classes save for the way it's printed in the book.

4) Regardless of how they want to much with attacks working and the formatting, would it kill them to make a class with At-Wills, Encounters, and Dailies that you can choose from?  Is that somehow now bad game design?  I guess in Essentials you have to choose from two of those for some reason.

5E can't come fast enough.  The lack of good content coming out has got me on the edge of cancelling my DDI account.  Their horrible web tools are not worth that money alone.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 18, 2011)

Terramotus said:


> 4) Regardless of how they want to much with attacks working and the formatting, would it kill them to make a class with At-Wills, Encounters, and Dailies that you can choose from?  Is that somehow now bad game design?  I guess in Essentials you have to choose from two of those for some reason.




The Mage.


And besides, the game has 18 of those pre-essentials.  19 now.  Does the game really need another right now, or can we let them explore some design space they've openned up?


----------



## BobTheNob (Jul 18, 2011)

Terramotus said:


> 3) Man, I hate Essentials so much.  Where O4E was exception-based game design, I think the newer Essentials classes are more along the lines of "random-ass" game design.  It shares few design or play elements with other classes save for the way it's printed in the book.




Man, I love essentials so much. I am personally SO bored with the same-sameness of AEDU design, and so glad that some people agreed with how I was feeling.

Where some hate where 4e is going, some love it.

Why do you assume 5e will go the way you want?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 18, 2011)

I wonder what the level 3 arcane strike is like...

is it the ability to cast your encounter/daily wizard spells through a strike, or is it a just a damage buff???


----------



## FireLance (Jul 18, 2011)

Terramotus said:


> 1) Agree with the OP that this class is a mess.  Not much of a controller, and wizard encounters as dailies seems like an absolutely horrible idea.  For that to be ok, their at-wills better be ridiculously OP compared to other at-wills, and that doesn't appear to be the case.



Their at-wills are certainly better, but probably not ridiculously so. If they _were_ ridiculously overpowered, we would be left wondering why they would ever use encounters or dailies.

Melee basic attack plus secondary ability score damage already puts it on par with many at-will abilities. It is effectively the same as the fighter's _cleave_, except that the enemy that takes the automatic extra damage can be anywhere within 10 squares, or the rogue's _sly flourish_, except that the bladesinger is not restricted to dealing the extra damage to the same target. All that _plus_ he can apply a control effect in addition to the extra damage. 

Frankly, I see this as similar to the fighter vs. the paladin. They are both defenders, but fighter is better at managing crowds, but the paladin is better at locking down a single target. Similarly, all the wizards we have seen so far are controllers. However, the arcanist and mage are better at multiple-target control, while the bladesinger is better at single-target control.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 18, 2011)

Pentius said:


> I'll let someone play a human dwarven defender if they can sell me on a reskin of the mechanics or a good backstory about how a human came to be that trusted in dwarven society.  The amount of stupid and/or 80's I associate with the idea of racial restrictions has nothing to do with it.



That jogged my memory. There was actually a prestige class in Races of Stone that allowed a PC to count as a dwarf, gnome or goliath (pick one) for most game purposes. Hence, in 3e, you could have a rules-legal human dwarven defender.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 18, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> And, sorcerers would rather have sorcerer dailies as dailies than a wizard encounter power.




Yes.  But throw in the Bladesinger's encounter power - +2 to hit and +5 damage until EoNT.  Once you've added that in, if you build for damage your dailies are outdamaging the sorceror's.  And if you aren't exploiting that encounter to get off your dailies, you've ed up.

Tha said, the daily power swap feat is a good investment for a bladesinger IMO.


----------



## BobTheNob (Jul 18, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Yes.  But throw in the Bladesinger's encounter power - +2 to hit and +5 damage until EoNT.  Once you've added that in, if you build for damage your dailies are outdamaging the sorceror's.  And if you aren't exploiting that encounter to get off your dailies, you've ed up.
> 
> Tha said, the daily power swap feat is a good investment for a bladesinger IMO.



This is something I have found very funny in this whole discussion. So much focus, yet so little of it on the encounter power...and its a KILLER. +2 to hit and defences and +5 damage till end next turn, activate as a minor?

Go combine that the dailies (/wizard encounters) you have, attack multiple targets with a +2/+5...why not spend an action point and do it again? You could crank out some serious damage in a round


----------



## Osgood (Jul 18, 2011)

I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem to me like the modest at-will powers will cover the power gap of having encounters as daily powers.  I have yet to see one of these new essentials style subclasses that I actually like as well as one of the classic characters.


----------



## Zaran (Jul 18, 2011)

Does anyone else feel like that they have created these repeatable encounter powers and are using the Wizard power list so that they do not have to do any more development on additional support afterwards?  They basically designed 5 powers for the Bladesinger and have to not add another power.  

It feels kind of lazy to me.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jul 18, 2011)

Ryujin said:


> Which from my experience tells me that, almost without exception, the first Bladesinger in my campaign will be anything _*BUT *_an Elf or Eladrin




How often in D&D history have 4 of the 7 archmages in the entire world all been in the same adventuring party?

Gary was the first to be guilty of that!!!!!


----------



## Klaus (Jul 18, 2011)

BobTheNob said:


> This is something I have found very funny in this whole discussion. So much focus, yet so little of it on the encounter power...and its a KILLER. +2 to hit and defences and +5 damage till end next turn, activate as a minor?
> 
> Go combine that the dailies (/wizard encounters) you have, attack multiple targets with a +2/+5...why not spend an action point and do it again? You could crank out some serious damage in a round



Yep.

Minor -> Bladesong, Standard -> At-Will+5 damage, Action Point -> Daily+5 damage, next round Standard -> At-Will +5 damage.

Being a wizard subclass, the bladesinger is open to some great, thematic spells, like Guardian Blades, Fire Shield, Glowering Wrath, etc.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 18, 2011)

Osgood said:


> I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem to me like the modest at-will powers will cover the power gap of having encounters as daily powers.  I have yet to see one of these new essentials style subclasses that I actually like as well as one of the classic characters.



Look carefully at that level 1 encounter power that BobTheNob and I have pointed out.  Minor action, +2 to hit, +5 damage, +2 defences until the end of next turn.  Encounter-as-daily works when given that buff (look at Colour Spray - Close Blast 5, +2 to hit vs will, d6+5+int damage + daze is absolutely the power level of a daily, especially from someone who lives on the front line).

The way a bladesinger works is that with that encounter power they get two turns of being a combat monster before running out of stamina and dropping down to a solid baseline power level.


----------



## TwoSix (Jul 18, 2011)

Zaran said:


> Does anyone else feel like that they have created these repeatable encounter powers and are using the Wizard power list so that they do not have to do any more development on additional support afterwards?  They basically designed 5 powers for the Bladesinger and have to not add another power.
> 
> It feels kind of lazy to me.




Some say lazy, I say smart recycling.

It's why I was an immediate fan of the class/subclass idea that Essentials introduced.  It lowers the bar for creating new classes by allowing the designer to not have to make 80 new powers every time a new class comes out.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 18, 2011)

I think when dwarves take this class, they should be required to rename it 'braidsinger'.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 18, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> How often in D&D history have 4 of the 7 archmages in the entire world all been in the same adventuring party?
> 
> Gary was the first to be guilty of that!!!!!




I always wanted to DM a 1e party with 2 Druids in it, just to see which one would win the inevitable fight


----------



## Zaran (Jul 18, 2011)

Ryujin said:


> I always wanted to DM a 1e party with 2 Druids in it, just to see which one would win the inevitable fight




What would they fight over?  Whose Neutrality is more True?


----------



## bargle0 (Jul 18, 2011)

Zaran said:


> What would they fight over?  Whose Neutrality is more True?




IIRC, you had to start beating other druids in single combat at some point in order to advance your level.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 18, 2011)

Zaran said:


> What would they fight over?  Whose Neutrality is more True?



From a certain level on, there could be only a few druids of that level in the same region, to the point where only one Archdruid could exist.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 18, 2011)

Exactly. Once you attained a certain level, you had to fight one of the Druids who occupied the name/council space/etc.. There were only so many available slots. You could always presume that the character was filling a spot opened up by attrition, but where's the fun in _THAT_?

Besides, it brought into play the "There can be only one!" battle cry.


----------



## Mengu (Jul 18, 2011)

Jumping in a bit late here, but I like the Bladesinger (or Bladeslinger as the pdf file name says) quite a bit. It solves many problems with the typical controller.

The blade singer, for all intents and purposes is a striker. They have a good basic attack, which means they can abuse charging, they have an at-will striker mechanic, adding a well scaling second stat to damage against a target, allowing single target striking, and they have a level 1 encounter power that's basically a striker mechanic for increased accuracy and damage for two rounds. All of this adds up to, striker. In a radiant group or against undead, they become even better by double dipping into radiant vulnerability with Dazzling Sunray.

Looking at their control, they basically can have 3 at-will options from some great choices like prone, -2 attack, slide 3, etc. The main problem of a controller in exerting control, is that the thing you want to control is not always the thing your party is focusing fire on. So, while your allies are daling with front line brutes, as controller, you might feel it's a good idea to slow the skirmisher that's about to charge into your flank, or give the AoE artillery a -2 penalty to hit. This usually takes away from focused fire. But in the Case of the Bladesinger, he can focus most of his fire on the target his allies are beating on, and send an off-shoot attack for control where it's needed. This is almost like the Monk's flexibility with Flurry of Blows.

Using AoE's for minion clearing has a similar problem, you might find a decent grouping to blast, but there is maybe one standard creature and two minions in there. You may have no interest on starting damage on that one standard creature. It is again much better to focus your damage on the priority target for the party, and send a backhand slap to kill a minion elsewhere. This works even better on bigger maps where AoE's fail. It's maybe not quite as good as the Invoker's Hand of Radiance, but that's perfectly fine.

The survival tools are just right for a melee class. I see nothing wrong with any of that. The class will still have a weakness in two defenses (except some of the stranger builds that ignore Int), which I see as a good thing.

And there are plenty of wizard encounter powers I wouldn't mind having as a daily on a Bladesinger. I see these as more part of a tool box to deal with various situations. Some examples would be Icy Rays, Color Spray, Fire Sea Travel, Twist of Space, etc. Being able to boost the accuracy and damage of these daily powers with your encounter power is just gravy.

This is the first class where it seems someone paid attention to make sure a melee class has a decent melee basic and a ranged at-will, without having to resort to an item choice like farbond spellblade or dwarven thrower weapons, or give up one of two at-will slots like many avengers have to do. and Many builds like charisma paladins and the like are just out of luck when it comes to ranged at-will attacks.

I'm not really sure if the class needed a spell book per se, I rarely see wizards making any use of that, but I might just be a corner case. I find it's more complications than it's worth, but whatever, I'm not fretting over it. Overall, I think it's a well thought out class.

Much like this class, I think the controller role needs to be demoted from primary to secondary role. There shouldn't be a class that has controller as a primary role. There is no reason why you couldn't give preserving invokers a once per encounter healing word, and call them leader/controller. You could give swarm or guardian druids a boost to defenses and a marking mechanic, and call them defender/controller. You could give Wrathful Invokers and Predator Druids +secondary stat to damage or some other striker mechanic, and call them striker/controller. I think pure controller is just a hard to grasp role.


----------



## Estlor (Jul 18, 2011)

I'll reserve judgement on the class until I see it in play at the table (which I will, since I've played an elven fighter/mage in every edition so I see an eldarin bladesinger in my future), but I have some thoughts about this I haven't seen come up yet.

*It's a bird!  It's a plane!  It's a... monk?*
Honestly, that's what I see here.  Non-defender with solid, melee AC?  Check.  Bonus damage effect that can be spread to different targets at the PC's whim?  Check.  Special keyword invented to handle a unique aspect of the class?  Check.  So a monk is a striker with a controller aspect and a bladesinger is a controller with a striker aspect.

*Another BECMI class gets created for Essentials.*
This is totally the BECMI elf.  Decent melee-er that's eventually outclassed by the fighter.  Decent spellcaster that's eventually outclassed by the magic-user.  Ladies and gentlemen, no reason to keep using the fey hexblade in your deliberately old-school Known World campaign.

*Speaking of the Known World, Forester, yo.*
There's your human bladesinger.  The Known World had a group of humans in Thyatis that lived alongside the elves and often would be adopted into the elven clans.  Those humans could be the Forester class, which was kind of an elf-light human.

Which brings up a point - IMHO, humans are the strongest bladesingers out of the box.  Trade a point of bladesong damage for a Fort and Ref are 1 higher than eladrins and elves and a Will is 1 higher than elves.  On top of that, you've got a wizard at-will too.  Beguiling Strands, Winged Horde, Frost Burst... that's a nice bonus.


----------



## Kzach (Jul 18, 2011)

It just occurred to me that messing with the power structure (intentionally) of the at-will/encounter/daily paradigm is a huge mistake. I think this is one of those areas in 4e where exception based design is a bad idea. The immediate stand-out example is Versatile Master, but I'm sure there will be others.


----------



## Terramotus (Jul 18, 2011)

BobTheNob said:


> Man, I love essentials so much. I am personally SO bored with the same-sameness of AEDU design, and so glad that some people agreed with how I was feeling.
> 
> Where some hate where 4e is going, some love it.
> 
> Why do you assume 5e will go the way you want?




I'm a gearhead - I like rules, I like playing with the rules, I like building characters.  I want a unified, coherent design.  I'm going to assume anyone playing 4E wants a good rules-heavy system.  If you don't you're doing it wrong - there are many other better systems out there for rules-lite play, such as Castles and Crusades, OSRIC, etc.

Essentials isn't the worst design ever (though I don't think it has anything actually GOING for it either - it's poorly implemented), but it REALLY doesn't go with 4E.  4E is the most schizophrenic edition ever.  Even when you "break the rules" and push the design further, you need to keep some elements the same, so it feels familiar.  Essentials throws out everything but the basic math on the explicit rules, and ALL of the implied rules.  Random-ass game design.

And it doesn't create any new and interesting foundation of its own.  Each class uses different ways of doing things.  It's just weird, randomly built classes mutated out of 4E like some cancerous growth, where it uses familiar elements but everything is put together all wrong.

At least if Essentials IS 5E they'll have to come up with some sort of consistent design and I can then decide if I want to buy in, instead of it de-facto replacing the existing design without even any admission that it's going to be doing so.

4E was something interesting and its own.  Some people want to make it into 1E or 2E or 3E, rather than just playing those games.  Whatever.  Essentials isn't its own thing - it's just a bizarre mutation.  At least if WotC admitted 4E was done and that Essentials was 4.5, they would have had to express a coherent design for it, and I could have bowed out of the new product without watching for each new release, hoping that it was something for the game I actually played rather than this strange new game.

Does that explain it?  I don't care how 5E goes, but I suspect, at least, that it'll be coherent.



Kzach said:


> It just occurred to me that messing with the power structure (intentionally) of the at-will/encounter/daily paradigm is a huge mistake. I think this is one of those areas in 4e where exception based design is a bad idea. The immediate stand-out example is Versatile Master, but I'm sure there will be others.



Yeah, I agree.  Without that, WTH is left?  If there are no rules, you're not using exception-based design, you're using random design.


----------



## BobTheNob (Jul 18, 2011)

[MENTION=25807]Terra[/MENTION]mortus

Fair Enough. I was only trying to make clear that not everyone out there agrees with the anti-essentials stance. I do disagree with your interpretation of it as "some cancerous growth" to the degree that I actually find it far cleverer than O4e ever was, but thats my opinion.

Many have said that O4e and essentials walk hand in hand and thats our groups experience as well, so you dont have to be that down-hearted, O4e still works.

But as for the future, I am glad to be on the essentials train and NOT the O4e train, cause really, essentials is where the growth is and its a bright shiny future for us. Whilst I think the Bladesinger will need some refinement, I like where its going as much as I have liked everything essentials class.

(Dislcaimer : Except maybe heroes of shadow...Vampires and Binders, didnt like em one little bit. But again, the great bit is no-one is forcing you to play them)


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 18, 2011)

Kzach said:


> It just occurred to me that messing with the power structure (intentionally) of the at-will/encounter/daily paradigm is a huge mistake. I think this is one of those areas in 4e where exception based design is a bad idea. The immediate stand-out example is Versatile Master, but I'm sure there will be others.



How?  Versatile Master can't take bladesong powers as they are At Will Attacks rather than Level 1 At Will Attacks.

Although it does mean there are a few paragon Half Elf builds that allow you to spread your stats - taking e.g. Eldritch Strike with Versatile Master to allow you your MBA off Charisma.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 19, 2011)

In my view, the AEDU power structure delivered a very balanced game, and it was good.

Now that we _have_ a balanced game, pushing the boundaries of the game by playing around with the AEDU power structure is also good.

I can only speak from my own parenting experience. When your kids are very young, they need to be protected. However, when they are older, you need to scale back your protection and allow them to take some risks so that they can learn and grow.

Of course, this is not a perfect analogy when applied to a gaming system. Nonetheless, if you favor balance, the balanced game already exists.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 19, 2011)

Yeah, I pretty much agree with FireLance. If you like 4e classic design, why do you want it to keep changing? I mean seriously there is just not a lot it needs. Some little things can be fixed, but whatever, more classes is the last thing needed. Leave the regular classes to what you use to get exactly what you want, and the more niche classes are great for people who want to play them.


----------



## ceiling90 (Jul 19, 2011)

I think the designers realized that somewhere in their quest for balance, in a list based RPG, they hit a wall. There wasn't anything that you build for a new class that didn't already have better analogs, and certainly can't make corner case classes or niche classes, and still follow the same structure.

They also have a policy of fixing by addition (save for the class compendium entries); so this is their solution. I'm okay with it. It makes for easy blueprints, a focused design philosophy, and more importantly expansion to the game. 

The Bladesinger is an interesting exercise to bringing back niche classes; where fluff dictates mechanics. The Swordmage is the 4e re-take on the bladesinger and the archetypes behind it, but I'm sure many players didn't quite take to it as the same Bladesinger that was present in the annuls of DnD history (note: I only started in 3.5, and really have no real feeling for the history of the game). This could also be their (the designers) re-imagining of the Swordmage -more hit-y with swords and more spells that go boom. 

As for being a Wizard? Maybe a throwback to fluff? or a more reasonable use of an already massive resource of the mage spells in about 6 different books. 

I like the new direction, mostly. It certainly makes the classes feel more classy, and reinforces that fact that you're play a class and level based game. Which I think may be the root problem from the design paradigm shift from the earlier paradigm. 

(Note: For a while, I didn't like Essentials; but reading through the books and playing a game or two with the new class structures, it struck me as a brilliant solution to analysis paralysis, focused role/character purpose; and ease of play.)

After all, in the early days, it was stated that you could make a classless DnD, with the new edition; some people rejoiced, and I'm sure some people worried. 

You know, I think was little more than little tangent. I'll stop here.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jul 19, 2011)

FireLance said:


> In my view, the AEDU power structure delivered a very balanced game, and it was good.
> 
> Now that we _have_ a balanced game, pushing the boundaries of the game by playing around with the AEDU power structure is also good.




I would be a lot happier if the new design philosophy were not pushing people into playing a single class with no hybrid or multiclassing going on. Or at least a lot less of it. 

About the only multiclassing possible with HoS and the Bladesinger is take a multi feat, and an off-class PP. I see no or little way to switch encounters, dailies or the like. 

Of course, maybe they are moving multi-classing, or that basic concept tothe themes and such. That might work, but I do not think it will work well.

Maybe the designers consider multiclassing a failed experiment? I do not think it was ever good, but it was possible, for a great cost. I could live with that.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 19, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> I would be a lot happier if the new design philosophy were not pushing people into playing a single class with no hybrid or multiclassing going on. Or at least a lot less of it.
> 
> About the only multiclassing possible with HoS and the Bladesinger is take a multi feat, and an off-class PP. I see no or little way to switch encounters, dailies or the like.
> 
> ...




Except that some of the new classes are very much like multiclassing, as they stand. I did some multiclassing gymnastics, to create my Feylock with a reasonably good melee strike. The Hexblade does it in one shot. A traditional Fighter/MU, from the old days, could take some real messing around to create. Suddenly, you have the Bladesinger.

They're almost pre-multiclassed. There are still some options available though, that don't involve power swap feats.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 19, 2011)

Ryujin said:


> Except that some of the new classes are very much like multiclassing, as they stand. I did some multiclassing gymnastics, to create my Feylock with a reasonably good melee strike. The Hexblade does it in one shot. A traditional Fighter/MU, from the old days, could take some real messing around to create. Suddenly, you have the Bladesinger.
> 
> They're almost pre-multiclassed. There are still some options available though, that don't involve power swap feats.




Yeah, I think in a sense that's true. 

I sort of see the existing 4e situation as one where you have a group of highly generic super flexible base classes, which offer a lot of options and a lot of ways to pull in elements of other classes but require a lot of fiddling. They're great for building very specific options that are either not common enough or currently supported. Then you have your 'e-classes' which provide a specific focused build in an easy to implement package. They are just aimed at filling different needs. 

I know it is fashionable to assume that the newer classes represent some kind of abandonment of the concepts embodied by the original generalized classes, but I don't think that's really a good way of looking at it. The Essentials style classes by themselves can't really provide a complete D&D, not in the post 3e multi-classing world at least. The 4e devs know that. They rely on the fact that the game already has these flexible generalized 'classic' classes. This allows them to be free to narrow their focus. It makes perfectly good logical sense that they now concentrate on these niches. After all, there are infinite little niches you can fit in the cracks between the classic classes broad concepts.


----------



## Kinneus (Jul 19, 2011)

Yeah, I don't know how I feel about it. I love the Swordmage, and I just really like the flavor of an arcane guy with a sword, so that alone tempts me into taking this class.

A couple things are holding me back, though. Those melee basic-augmenting At-Wills are cool, and very controllery. Some, though, are -clearly- more powerful than the others (why on earth would you slow somebody when you could just as easily immobilize them?). This led me to the conclusion, on my first lazy read-through, that a Bladesinger got access to all of them. Now -that- would be interesting, and that would be new and bold design. It might even be worth giving up Dailies for. What it lacks in sheer, beat-you-over-the-head controlling power it makes up for with versatility!

I don't know why I thought the Bladesinger got access to every At-Will, but I have to say, I like my misreading better than reality. Poaching Wizard Encounters is all well and good, but I really can't expect them to work as Dailies without some sort of compensation.

I also can't help but feel like losing access to Dailies really cuts pretty deep into the controller role. When I think about controllers "doing what they do best," I think of damaging zones to break up enemy formations, conjurations and summons to block terrain, walls to change the battlefield, and powerful status effects like save-ends stun. Bladesinger can do exactly none of these, except for possibly an "end of next turn" version of the zones. Encounters-as-Dailies doesn't quite cut it.

Now, if it was just plain Wizard Encounters, then we might be in business. Dailies are the part of AEDU design I'm least attached to, so I really don't understand why WOTC seems so dead-set on taking away my precious Encounter powers with every new class! Serious question: have there been any Essentials-style classes that have no Dailies, but At-Wills and Encounters, with some measure of choice to the Encounters (so no, the Slayer's Power Strike doesn't count)? I ask because this is a sort of class I'd honestly be interested in playing.

My point is that the class right now feels like it's missing something. I'd prefer:
1) It gets access to all those pretty At-Wills, so it can use the perfect one in the perfect situation. This would be the main feature of the class, a huge and interesting break from current design, and really give it some "controller" street cred.
2) It should use Wizard Encounters as Wizard Encounters, and just plain not get Dailies. I'm not sure if this is a good change, but it's frankly the sort of class I'd like to play.
3) The designers need to get off their butts and give the class its own, actual, Daily-level Dailies. Sorry for being so cynical, but I can't get over how easy this class was to design. Just poop out a bunch of controllery At-Wills, add an Encounter power that has _nothing_ to do with the class role, and say "use Wizard Encounters as Dailies and poach Wizard utilities," and done. Instant class! Pretty sure I could write something like that over my lunchbreak. The way those At-Wills are deployed is new and exciting, but I simply remain unconvinced that Encounters-as-Dailies is going to cut it, especially when it's role is supposed to be Controller, all about reshaping the battlefield. Honestly, what good is a slide 3 if you don't have a Fire Wall or damaging zone to slide him into? Or some way of easily applying Slow without the use of an Action Point? (I know I'm going to get a _billion_ anecdotal examples of the time you used a slide 3 to throw Orcus off a mountain, or whatever, but you can't always depend on the battlefield terrain working to your advantage or on your allies having Agile Opportunist. My point is Bladeslingers have no way of capitalizing on a slide 3 themselves, short of putting an enemy into flanking).

So, I might give this class a try. It's probably the first Essentials-style class I'm actually interested in. Access to Wizard utilities might be its saving grace, but... anybody can get that with an Order Adept theme. So I dunno.

Everybody says that Essentials design is "pushing the boundaries," breaking the game down and building it back up again, trying new and exciting things... but I just don't see that. Every Essentials class I've ever looked at in-depth (with the exception of the Warpriest, Sentinel and the Mage, since they can poach older powers) seems to be about _restricting_ options. Taking away either At-Wills, Encounters, and Dailies, giving fewer (or no) options when you level up, restricting the sort of powers you have to choose from. To use an earlier analogy, Essentials doesn't feel like WotC letting us grow up and make mistakes. That's what O4e feels like, to me at least. Essentials feels more like that leash you see toddlers wearing at the mall.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 19, 2011)

Kinneus said:


> Everybody says that Essentials design is "pushing the boundaries," breaking the game down and building it back up again, trying new and exciting things... but I just don't see that. Every Essentials class I've ever looked at in-depth (with the exception of the Warpriest, Sentinel and the Mage, since they can poach older powers) seems to be about _restricting_ options. Taking away either At-Wills, Encounters, and Dailies, giving fewer (or no) options when you level up, restricting the sort of powers you have to choose from. To use an earlier analogy, Essentials doesn't feel like WotC letting us grow up and make mistakes. That's what O4e feels like, to me at least. Essentials feels more like that leash you see toddlers wearing at the mall.



Well yes, the Essentials classes have fewer choices, even though on the whole they add to the choices available to the players. Where I see the experimentation is in trying to find a reasonably balanced trade-off between constant, at-will, encounter and daily abilities. The slayer, for example, seemed to me to be trading off daily attacks for a constant bonus to damage. The bladesinger seems to me to be trading off less powerful dailies for more powerful at-wills. 

I don't think it's a coincidence that Mike Mearls has been talking about a "complexity dial" recently. This is just speculation on my part, but it may be leading up to "unified" classes where the player's choice options are expanded from simply selecting between powers with the same frequency to powers with varying frequencies (so a "unified" fighter could choose between a constant damage bonus and a daily power, for example). In a way, we already see this with the utility power choices for some classes.


----------



## Shroomy (Jul 19, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> I would be a lot happier if the new design philosophy were not pushing people into playing a single class with no hybrid or multiclassing going on. Or at least a lot less of it.
> 
> About the only multiclassing possible with HoS and the Bladesinger is take a multi feat, and an off-class PP. I see no or little way to switch encounters, dailies or the like.
> 
> ...




Last month there was a large playtest article in _Dragon_ that provided multi-class and hybrid options for many of the classes from HotFK and HoS.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 19, 2011)

Kinneus said:


> I also can't help but feel like losing access to Dailies really cuts pretty deep into the controller role. When I think about controllers "doing what they do best," I think of damaging zones to break up enemy formations, conjurations and summons to block terrain, walls to change the battlefield, and powerful status effects like save-ends stun. Bladesinger can do exactly none of these, except for possibly an "end of next turn" version of the zones. Encounters-as-Dailies doesn't quite cut it.




That's where the Utilities earn their pay. The bulk of this class control will come from stuff like Mystical Debris, Phantasmal Terrain, Wall of Fog, etc.

I think the Bladesinger will be on par with the Hunter as a controller.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 19, 2011)

Shroomy said:


> Last month there was a large playtest article in _Dragon_ that provided multi-class and hybrid options for many of the classes from HotFK and HoS.




What he's talking about is that the new class structures tend to not have the old at-will/encounter/daily mechanic, so there's nothing that you can swap out with a power swap feat. Without that there can be no Paragon Multiclassing, for example.


----------



## Kinneus (Jul 19, 2011)

Klaus said:


> That's where the Utilities earn their pay. The bulk of this class control will come from stuff like Mystical Debris, Phantasmal Terrain, Wall of Fog, etc.



So anybody who takes Order Adept is a fully-functioning Controller, eh?


----------



## Klaus (Jul 19, 2011)

Kinneus said:


> So anybody who takes Order Adept is a fully-functioning Controller, eh?



"Bulk", not totality. The bladespells contribute to the control (or can be focused for striker-level damage), and we still have to see the rest of the class.


----------



## Ajar (Jul 19, 2011)

I can't XP [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] again -- could someone do it for me?

Great post.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 19, 2011)

Kinneus said:


> Everybody says that Essentials design is "pushing the boundaries," breaking the game down and building it back up again, trying new and exciting things... but I just don't see that. Every Essentials class I've ever looked at in-depth (with the exception of the Warpriest, Sentinel and the Mage, since they can poach older powers) seems to be about _restricting_ options. Taking away either At-Wills, Encounters, and Dailies, giving fewer (or no) options when you level up, restricting the sort of powers you have to choose from. To use an earlier analogy, Essentials doesn't feel like WotC letting us grow up and make mistakes. That's what O4e feels like, to me at least. Essentials feels more like that leash you see toddlers wearing at the mall.




I think the more accurate way of looking at it is 'packaging'. If you were going to build a two-weapon strikerish fighter then you can instead of pouring through lists of feats and powers simply build a Slayer. You get basically the same thing, except it is a lot easier to do it. The fact that you don't get a whole lot of different options at higher levels is not important to you, you already KNEW what you wanted. You don't need those options. They are just a burdensome chore to go through to figure out what you already know you want, and there's always the risk you'll have misunderstood something to start with and find your character unable to match your concept 20 levels later. The Slayer is guaranteed to work. In practice if you are going to play this sort of character to start with you haven't LOST anything you wanted anyway. 

Essentials classes really aren't any kind of a replacement for anything that came before. They aren't a reimagining of existing classes, they are just simple bundles of powers and features designed from the ground up to give you what you want. Higher level E-class features aren't selectable because there's no real reason to do that, it would defeat the whole point. You know what you want. The things you get will work with that. You don't need choices of higher level daily powers for your Slayer because he's a SLAYER, of course he is going to do X, Y, and Z. 

And note that this isn't necessarily a matter of 'easy mode' or simplification. It is more a matter of just streamlining the game experience. I can be the greatest living charops expert and there's no reason why I shouldn't just play a Slayer if that's the kind of character I want and it does what I want.


----------



## Herschel (Jul 19, 2011)

I'm waiting for the whole thing to come out before passing too much judgement on it but as a DM seeing a Int/Dex character with nifty basic attacks makes me anticipate good things (re: extra attacks) for my controllers. ;-)


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 19, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> And note that this isn't necessarily a matter of 'easy mode' or simplification. It is more a matter of just streamlining the game experience. I can be the greatest living charops expert and there's no reason why I shouldn't just play a Slayer if that's the kind of character I want and it does what I want.




A quibble: It IS simplification.  It decreases the number of choices necessary to achieve your stated goal.  That's not "bad."  It's not a sin.  Simplicity is not inherently a bad thing.  Often it is a virtue.  And as you say, it gives you exactly what is on the label.  There's also significant virtue in that.

But, by definition, it IS simplification.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jul 19, 2011)

Shroomy said:


> Last month there was a large playtest article in _Dragon_ that provided multi-class and hybrid options for many of the classes from HotFK and HoS.




I know. It was utter garbage.


----------



## Akaiku (Jul 19, 2011)

Huh, requires offhand to not hold a weapon or a shield. Nothing about an implement.

Go bladesingers with a spear and orb! Chaaaaaaaarge~


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 20, 2011)

Akaiku said:


> Huh, requires offhand to not hold a weapon or a shield. Nothing about an implement.
> 
> Go bladesingers with a spear and orb! Chaaaaaaaarge~




Yup, the off hand doesn't have to be empty, it just can't hold a weapon or a shield. You could use any implement in it. DIS might be a cool option. 

Also, everyone has forgotten about the existence of Versatile Expertise? Yeah, it is one of the OLD expertise feats, but it would still be highly relevant, especially if you were to say want to play yourself say a dwarven axesinger (it is the guys he hits that do the singing).


----------



## ceiling90 (Jul 20, 2011)

Whoa. That just blew my mind. Bladespell is more or less equivalent to that feat; save for that part about treating the blade as a wand (and it doesn't actually do much, since it doesn't have any way to get superior implement on the blade nor do get wand accuracy), unless there's a way to poach that wand mastery...
But then again, you can hold an implement in your off hand anyway. 
Really, that blew my mind. 

So you can be a Spearsinger (there's one handed spears right?) or an Axesinger, or a Whipsinger, or one-handed melee singer of choice. And that's a single feat; though someone will arguably bring it up as a feat tax issue; but blades are some of the best weapons around anyway...


----------



## Journeymanmage (Jul 20, 2011)

ceiling90 said:


> ...
> 
> So you can be a Spearsinger (there's one handed spears right?) or an Axesinger, or a Whipsinger, or one-handed melee singer of choice. And that's a single feat; though someone will arguably bring it up as a feat tax issue; but blades are some of the best weapons around anyway...




"Blade Magic: Benefit: Choose a one-handed melee weapon with which you have proficiency, and that is a *light blade* or a *heavy blade*.  You gain proficiency with that weapon as an implement, meaning you can use your implement powers through it....."

Unless you and AbdulAlhazred are saying use the implement in the off-hand ....


----------



## Xris Robin (Jul 20, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yup, the off hand doesn't have to be empty, it just can't hold a weapon or a shield. You could use any implement in it. DIS might be a cool option.
> 
> Also, everyone has forgotten about the existence of Versatile Expertise? Yeah, it is one of the OLD expertise feats, but it would still be highly relevant, especially if you were to say want to play yourself say a dwarven axesinger (it is the guys he hits that do the singing).



DIS would only apply to your dailies, though.  Bladespells don't use damage rolls, or even have the Implement keyword, I think.


----------



## ceiling90 (Jul 20, 2011)

Everything, except your "dailies" doesn't care if you use a sword or not. The at-wills specify one-handed melee weapons with the off hand not wielding shield or weapon. 

So implements (that aren't... weapons), would work in the off-hand. Arguably, couldn't you use a weapliment in that off-hand too (as long as you aren't wielding it as a weapon)? So when you use a "daily", switch hands. I don't remember there being a rule that you can't do that (I mean isn't that how dual implement users work it?).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 20, 2011)

Christopher Robin said:


> DIS would only apply to your dailies, though.  Bladespells don't use damage rolls, or even have the Implement keyword, I think.




Yeah, well, dailies would be good things to optimize. Perhaps lower priority than buffing your weapon, but still interesting. 

And yes, I think not being able to use other weapons as implements is crappy, even if you can get some with this or that feat. I don't see why this restriction exists...


----------



## Dragon Sin-Camealot (Jul 20, 2011)

The character was killed in the first few posts.  My first thought was a Swordmage too.  In fact why can't another version of Swordmage have these abilities?

Oh well, back to the number crunchers.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 20, 2011)

ceiling90 said:


> Arguably, couldn't you use a weapliment in that off-hand too (as long as you aren't wielding it as a weapon)?




No, because it's still a weapon. It doesn't stop being a weapon just because you want to cheese the rules.


----------



## shamsael (Jul 20, 2011)

ceiling90 said:


> Everything, except your "dailies" doesn't care if you use a sword or not. The at-wills specify one-handed melee weapons with the off hand not wielding shield or weapon.
> 
> So implements (that aren't... weapons), would work in the off-hand. Arguably, couldn't you use a weapliment in that off-hand too (as long as you aren't wielding it as a weapon)? So when you use a "daily", switch hands. I don't remember there being a rule that you can't do that (I mean isn't that how dual implement users work it?).




Can't you figure a way to get proficiency in holy symbols or ki foci, which don't have to be held to be used?


----------



## ceiling90 (Jul 20, 2011)

I wasn't sure on that weapliments thing, I mean theoretically a Wizard staff is a Quarterstaff, that can be held one handed as an implement, but two handed as a weapon. So there's some strange loopholes in terms of weapons as implements and whether wielded as a weapon or an implement; since you're still holding something in the off-hand. 

As for Ki Foci or Holy Implements, couldn't you just take the MC feats (I think the Assassin one gives ki foci, and I don't remember any for holy implement use); on the same token, are Totems supposed to held? I think there's some MC feats for getting totem implements.


----------



## 1of3 (Jul 25, 2011)

> As for Ki Foci or Holy Implements, couldn't you just take the MC feats  (I think the Assassin one gives ki foci, and I don't remember any for  holy implement use); on the same token, are Totems supposed to held? I  think there's some MC feats for getting totem implements.




Note that the rules for MC implements were changed again after Essentials. Now you either are proficient with an implement or you are not. Restriction to class and paragon powers is gone.

So Cleric, Paladin and Avenger offer Holy Symbol just fine. Monk and Assassin offer ki-Focuses.

Totems must be held.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 25, 2011)

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...

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


----------



## FireLance (Jul 25, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> now that we have a class poatching other classes powers



Technically, that's not happening here because the bladesinger still is a type of wizard.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 25, 2011)

When arcane power came out there were no subclasses yet, and the tomb implment was given to all wizards...now does that extend to all subclasses?


----------



## drothgery (Jul 25, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> When arcane power came out there were no subclasses yet, and the tomb implment was given to all wizards...now does that extend to all subclasses?



Necromancers with tomb implements?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 25, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> When arcane power came out there were no subclasses yet, and the tomb implment was given to all wizards...now does that extend to all subclasses?




Not necessarily. Subclasses have the same power list and meet the same prereqs as the 'base' class (so a Mage IS a Wizard for all rules purposes). However, a subclass doesn't have all the class features (or actually any of them by default) of the base class. In fact as of now there is technically no such thing as a character that is just a 'Wizard', you would be a Wizard (Arcanist), or a Wizard (Mage), or a Wizard (Bladesinger). Since proficiency with implements is a class feature Bladesinger doesn't 'inherit' any implement proficiencies from Wizard, because Wizard is now an empty shell class that has no class features (they all belong to Arcanist now). 

So, no, out of the box a Bladesinger can use wands, period. You can use Arcane Implement Proficiency to get access to other types of implements. Of course you don't have implement mastery either, for the same reason, so there's not a lot of difference between implements for a Bladesinger, though you might get access to a specific enchantment you want.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 25, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Not necessarily. Subclasses have the same power list and meet the same prereqs as the 'base' class (so a Mage IS a Wizard for all rules purposes). However, a subclass doesn't have all the class features (or actually any of them by default) of the base class. In fact as of now there is technically no such thing as a character that is just a 'Wizard', you would be a Wizard (Arcanist), or a Wizard (Mage), or a Wizard (Bladesinger). Since proficiency with implements is a class feature Bladesinger doesn't 'inherit' any implement proficiencies from Wizard, because Wizard is now an empty shell class that has no class features (they all belong to Arcanist now).




I was afraid of that...I was just told my wizard (arcanist) has to take a feat for the tomb becuse it is not an (arcanist) but wizard...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 25, 2011)

Tom*E*.


----------



## Estlor (Jul 25, 2011)

Actually, since a bladesinger has a spellbook, Arcane Implement Proficiency (Tome) is a really good use of a feat for them.

Because of, ya know, those tomes that let you add honest to goodness wizard dailies to the spellbook of a wielder.  It's about the only trick WotC didn't lock the bladesinger out of through careful use of keywords and effects.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 25, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I was afraid of that...I was just told my wizard (arcanist) has to take a feat for the tomb becuse it is not an (arcanist) but wizard...




Yeah, that's bunk, dunno who told you that, but they're wrong. The Arcanist IS the old Wizard, they just forklifted all Wizard features into a subclass so that the system makes sense again (every class is made up of N subclasses, nobody is a member of just a raw class, at least for those with E-classes). They haven't gotten to the PHB2 ones etc yet, but presumably they would do the same for them too.

Anyway, your Arcanist can certainly use a tome still, and do every single itty-bitty thing that it could do before this change.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 25, 2011)

Estlor said:


> Actually, since a bladesinger has a spellbook, Arcane Implement Proficiency (Tome) is a really good use of a feat for them.
> 
> Because of, ya know, those tomes that let you add honest to goodness wizard dailies to the spellbook of a wielder.  It's about the only trick WotC didn't lock the bladesinger out of through careful use of keywords and effects.



Nice catch!


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 25, 2011)

Estlor said:


> Actually, since a bladesinger has a spellbook, Arcane Implement Proficiency (Tome) is a really good use of a feat for them.
> 
> Because of, ya know, those tomes that let you add honest to goodness wizard dailies to the spellbook of a wielder.  It's about the only trick WotC didn't lock the bladesinger out of through careful use of keywords and effects.




The bladesinger's spellbook only allows encounter powers to be used as dailies.  The bladesinger doesn't ever get to prepare daily spells, so having daily spells in the spellbook is rather pointless. 

It's the chart for 'Wizard spells per day' under 'Encounter as daily'.  At no point are they given a slot for a daily spell.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 25, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, that's bunk, dunno who told you that, but they're wrong. The Arcanist IS the old Wizard, they just forklifted all Wizard features into a subclass so that the system makes sense again (every class is made up of N subclasses, nobody is a member of just a raw class, at least for those with E-classes). They haven't gotten to the PHB2 ones etc yet, but presumably they would do the same for them too.
> 
> Anyway, your Arcanist can certainly use a tome still, and do every single itty-bitty thing that it could do before this change.




ok, so the full thing is more complacated...again tome was added to wizards...it eaither is all or none of the subclasses until errated...and to be honnest that is the problem of adding an implment outside of the class...

I now am told mage gets it ....mage doesn't get it... So I sent an email to rule of 3...


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 25, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> ok, so the full thing is more complacated...again tome was added to wizards...it eaither is all or none of the subclasses until errated...and to be honnest that is the problem of adding an implment outside of the class...
> 
> I now am told mage gets it ....mage doesn't get it... So I sent an email to rule of 3...




Or perhaps a Blackguard of Domination.  Not all gods need the cleric class or a specific domain to describe their priesthood.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 25, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> ok, so the full thing is more complacated...again tome was added to wizards...it eaither is all or none of the subclasses until errated...and to be honnest that is the problem of adding an implment outside of the class...
> 
> I now am told mage gets it ....mage doesn't get it... So I sent an email to rule of 3...




Well, ALL the pre-Essentials Wizard class feature material needs to be read as 'Arcanist', otherwise it really makes no sense. They never defined 'sub class' exactly, but clearly a subclass doesn't have the features of the parent class (otherwise on day one of Essentials all e-classes would have all the features of their parent classes, which they obviously don't). So, while no specific mention has been made in errata, this is a case where the concomitant to the creation of the Arcanist class is that either the stuff in AP etc is now part of the Arcanist, or else it isn't usable at all, or else the rules are completely non-functional. In the last case do it how it makes sense because there's no rational interpretation at that point. 

So we must conclude that all the stuff in AP that refers to Wizard (and similarly stuff in DDI) where it builds off of Wizard now builds off of Arcanist. I'm pretty sure you'll find that the CB works that way too.


----------



## mneme (Jul 26, 2011)

Not just that; if you look in the Compendium for Arcanist, you find:

*Wizard (Arcanist)*

_“I am the fire that burns, the choking fog, the storm that rains devastation on our foes.”_
*CLASS TRAITS*
*Role: *Controller.  You exert control through magical effects that cover large  areas—sometimes hindering foes, sometimes consuming them with fire.
*Power Source: *Arcane.  You channel arcane forces through extensive study, hidden knowledge,  and intricate preparation. To you, magic is an art form, an expressive  and powerful method by which you seek to control the world around you.
*Key Abilities: *Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity

*Armor Proficiencies: *Cloth.
*Weapon Proficiencies: *Dagger, quarterstaff.
*Implement: *Orbs, staffs, wands, tomes
*Bonus to Defense: *+2 Will.


----------



## mneme (Jul 26, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> The bladesinger's spellbook only allows encounter powers to be used as dailies.  The bladesinger doesn't ever get to prepare daily spells, so having daily spells in the spellbook is rather pointless.
> 
> It's the chart for 'Wizard spells per day' under 'Encounter as daily'.  At no point are they given a slot for a daily spell.




This is true, but kinda crazy.  (specifically, this is "Wizard Powers Prepared Per Day").  By the book, this would mean that you can't do power swaps with the the Bladesinger's dailies at all, as he doesn't have encounter or daily powers.

Basically, I don't think the Tome Trick should work (probably; if you maintain tomes as uncommon it's not that awful), but I do think that if you are willing to multiclass to another controller class and take a power swap feat to get a "real" daily power, that should totally work.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 26, 2011)

mneme said:


> This is true, but kinda crazy.  (specifically, this is "Wizard Powers Prepared Per Day").  By the book, this would mean that you can't do power swaps with the the Bladesinger's dailies at all, as he doesn't have encounter or daily powers.




He certainly does have encounter powers.  He uses them as dailies.  An encounter swap would work just fine.  He just is restricted to once-a-day use of them if they're occupying the class slots in his spellbook.



> Basically, I don't think the Tome Trick should work (probably; if you maintain tomes as uncommon it's not that awful), but I do think that if you are willing to multiclass to another controller class and take a power swap feat to get a "real" daily power, that should totally work.




Multiclassing and post-essentials classes are a wtf already anyways.  The bladesinger's no different from everything else.


----------



## mneme (Jul 26, 2011)

Draco: That's the thing, though.  For every purpose (except his own class feature), the Bladesinger has dailys, not encounter powers.  If you reworded his "Wizard powers prepared per day" as "Dailies" instead of "Encounters as Dailies", he would work fine both as designed and when multiclassing (the Tome Trick would also work by the book, as it would get around how spells get into his spellbook, though).  He has daily powers -- he just, by default, picks them from the wizard encounters spell list and they're dailies, not encounter powers for him.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 26, 2011)

That certainly seems to be the intent; that Wizard (Archanist) encounter powers be treated as Dailies, for the Bladesinger.


----------



## Estlor (Jul 26, 2011)

It seems like you can view it as one of two things:


Bladesinger's don't have dailies.  They have encounters that can only be used once per day.
Bladesinger's have dailies that just happen to be encounter powers for a normal wizard.
Option 1 would poo-poo the tome trick, but open up Enlarge Spell.

Option 2 would poo-poo Enlarge Spell, but open up the tome trick.

Personally, I think the distinction of "Encounters as Dailies" exists solely to define which power list you pick from when adding spells to your spellbook under the normal methods.  These spells are still dailies; they're just picked from the normal wizard encounter list.  In every way they are treated like dailies, including them being unaffected by Enlarge Spell.

But, more importantly, D&D being the exception based game that it is, whether the items in the spell book are encounters AS dailies or dailies is irrelevant.  The specific - the property of the tome - trumps the general - the bladesinger spellbook as normally presented - just as it trumps the general of the normal wizard spellbook by letting you have two more dailies than normal in it.  Just like it would trump a Swordmage with a spellbook not normally having wizard dailies in his spellbook.  Should you lose/sell/destroy the tome at any point, you lose those spells (since they're a property of the tome), reverting you back to the general.

Personally, it makes sense to me.  A bladesinger can only perform a daily of a normal wizard's magnitude if they carry an uncommon magic item imbued with the knowledge of the spell.  And it isn't terribly overpowered since you're still limited to 3 dailies a day and you're stuck with whatever dailies were in the tome at the time you obtained it, unless you want to spend a bunch of money to buy new ones.  Arcane Power only has four such tomes in it; two that give you fire dailies, one that gives you cold dailies, and one that gives you summon dailies.  Adventurer's Vault adds 2 more: one for lightning and one for force.  So the really _*good*_ wizard dailies that enchantment/illusion Mages toss around stay out of your grasp.


----------



## Mengu (Jul 26, 2011)

Now I want to make a tomb wizard (to go with my halfling rouge) lugging around a giant tomb stone. I better be genasi so I can have the strength to carry it around. Best be female, since I'll undoubted have the reputation of a tomb raider, as I search for more +'s for my tomb stone implement. Coincidentally, more +'s (those are Cross's for those less observant) are rather thematic at tombs.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 26, 2011)

Estlor said:


> It seems like you can view it as one of two things:
> 
> 
> Bladesinger's don't have dailies.  They have encounters that can only be used once per day.
> ...




I think that it's even more simple than that. Edit all of the Wizard power cards so that they say "Daily", rather than "Encounter", then print them on a black & white printer. They aren't encounter powers, when a Bladesinger uses them. They're dailies. The word "encounter" doesn't enter into it, at all, when you're a Bladesinger.


----------

