Listen, I really wouldn't blame you if you decided against reading all that bickering, but it should be said I don't think there's anything wrong with his build. Warcaster, great feat and an excellent recommendation. But, if you did go back and see what all the fuss was about, you'll see just how much of a deal was derived from leaving a spellcasting stat at a 3 modifier instead of bumping it to a 4 at the first ASI. Plus, I suggested taking it as a starting feat via v. human. Could the same be done with warcaster and his build? absolutely, but since it wasn't explicitly stated it can't be assumed.
Now, another thing, my build's aim is to satisfy the more martial side of things while still having full spellcasting and supporting ability. hexblade swords bard, that's a more focused spellcaster with the option to melee, and there's nothing wrong nor ineffective about it. But if that's so, then it can't be said my build's spellcasting is compromised either because both builds are having less than 18 in their main spellcasting mod before lvl 8.
Listen, I really wouldn't blame you if you decided against reading all that bickering, but it should be said I don't think there's anything wrong with his build. Warcaster, great feat and an excellent recommendation. But, if you did go back and see what all the fuss was about, you'll see just how much of a deal was derived from leaving a spellcasting stat at a 3 modifier instead of bumping it to a 4 at the first ASI. Plus, I suggested taking it as a starting feat via v. human. Could the same be done with warcaster and his build? absolutely, but since it wasn't explicitly stated it can't be assumed.
Now, another thing, my build's aim is to satisfy the more martial side of things while still having full spellcasting and supporting ability. hexblade swords bard, that's a more focused spellcaster with the option to melee, and there's nothing wrong nor ineffective about it. But if that's so, then it can't be said my build's spellcasting is compromised either because both builds are having less than 18 in their main spellcasting mod before lvl 8.
The simple fact of the matter is that your build fails to meet even your own goal. You are only able to promise a 1 point addition to damage over simply not using GWM, which is core to your build, while shouldering an overwhelming amount of character shortcomings just to focus that damage into a single attack after half a dozen misses. Further, you recommended this at level 1, when the build will be most vulnerable to these poor decisions. I am sure you are counting on people skipping our discussion on that simply because I pointed out these and other failings and you were, frankly, unable to provide suitable answers for them.
A great deal of ‘fuss’ as you call it, was directed at the spellcasting modifier and your initial baying at my recommendation shows that you simply didn’t understand my recommendation, likely because you are still tilted over my tearing yours down so completely. I did not recommend that they take the feat at first ASI. I recommended that they take the feat at some point, which I would recommend be left to the player so they can measure the kind of game they are in and take the feat or ASI as needed. Your recommendation crippled them. Do you understand the difference in our approaches now?
Your build did NOT satisfy the martial side of things by any measure. When it was pointed out that they would be hitting 40% of the time using the build you recommended, your rebuttal was to not use the feat that is core to your build, which FAILS to meet the martial side of things and fails to maximize every decision point in the character build along the way.
I do not believe it would be a good idea for anyone to use any of your build recommendations if their desire is to enjoy the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form| Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
Your build did NOT satisfy the martial side of things by any measure. When it was pointed out that they would be hitting 40% of the time using the build you recommended, your rebuttal was to not use the feat that is core to your build, which FAILS to meet the martial side of things and fails to maximize every decision point in the character build along the way.
I love this projection. I'm tilted? You "tore" my build "completely?" This is how I know your reading comprehension and critical thinking need a bit more work.
When you pointed out my build would be hitting 40% of the time, my rebuttal was actually that it's mathematically worth it, and only to not use it when it didn't qualify as such.
Fun facts about the similarities in our recommended builds: both achieve extra attack at lvl 7 total at the earliest. both have a spellcasting modifier of 3 after the first ASI should the hexblade take warcaster (and why wouldn't you? You can't even cast shield while using a sword and shield without warcaster, which defeats part of the purpose of hexblade). Both have improved concentration if we consider CON save proficiency as a functional equivalent to warcaster.
Differences in DPR: yours can do a bit more DPR thanks to blade cantrips from lvls 5-6 but not by much. Why? Because warcaster kinda has to be taken for a sword-n-board build to work as a caster, so you're behind the hitting curve by 5%. So, instead of hitting 65% of the time, you'll hit 60% of the time. Meanwhile, mine is still hitting 40% of the time should GWM be active because its STR kept up on the ASI. However, once extra attack is achieved, mine does more DPR. In order for your build to do more damage, it has to use resources such as hexblade's curse and hex, or something. But, at that point we're talking about resources, which my build can use as well. Suffice it to say, mine does more resource-less melee damage.
So, as things stand, this build of mine is keeping up according to your own standards and recommendations.
Your build did NOT satisfy the martial side of things by any measure. When it was pointed out that they would be hitting 40% of the time using the build you recommended, your rebuttal was to not use the feat that is core to your build, which FAILS to meet the martial side of things and fails to maximize every decision point in the character build along the way.
I love this projection. I'm tilted? You "tore" my build "completely?" This is how I know your reading comprehension and critical thinking need a bit more work.
When you pointed out my build would be hitting 40% of the time, my rebuttal was actually that it's mathematically worth it, and only to not use it when it didn't qualify as such.
Fun facts about the similarities in our recommended builds: both achieve extra attack at lvl 7 total at the earliest. both have a spellcasting modifier of 3 after the first ASI should the hexblade take warcaster (and why wouldn't you? You can't even cast shield while using a sword and shield without warcaster, which defeats part of the purpose of hexblade). Both have improved concentration if we consider CON save proficiency as a functional equivalent to warcaster.
Differences in DPR: yours can do a bit more DPR thanks to blade cantrips from lvls 5-6 but not by much. Why? Because warcaster kinda has to be taken for a sword-n-board build to work as a caster, so you're behind the hitting curve by 5%. So, instead of hitting 65% of the time, you'll hit 60% of the time. Meanwhile, mine is still hitting 40% of the time should GWM be active because its STR kept up on the ASI. However, once extra attack is achieved, mine does more DPR. In order for your build to do more damage, it has to use resources such as hexblade's curse and hex, or something. But, at that point we're talking about resources, which my build can use as well. Suffice it to say, mine does more resource-less melee damage.
So, as things stand, this build of mine is keeping up according to your own standards and recommendations.
Well, whatever you think of me, I have never insulted your intelligence. Can you say the same? I have remained focused on your build recommendation and why it is awful.
Your rebuttal that it is mathematically worth it was, as I pointed out, offering 1 point of extra damage by the time it can finally hit. This means that it is first affording the player with an abundance of misses just to give the occasional satisfaction of hitting really hard once in a while. I already covered this several times; this is not a fun way to experience the game. Something you have outright stated you do not understand or care about because unlike me and everyone else in this thread, your aim here is not to provide a fun build to the player.
You mentioned that you see yourself as the bigger man earlier. Let me show you what that looks like: Yes, you are making a fair callout by saying that you cannot cast Shield while holding a weapon and a shield without Warcaster. I did not notice this conflict. I will amend my post to account for that. See? Pretty different than what you have been providing, isn't it?
That said, this issue does not defeat the purpose of Hexblade at all. The purpose of Hexblade is to allow weapon attacks to use Charisma instead of Dexterity or Strength, provide a powerful curse, get proficiency with martial weapons, shield, and medium armor before Swords comes online, which is still very much accomplished. The spell Shield will suffice for now and when the time does come to take a feat over an ASI, I would recommend warcaster here. A longsword will prevent the bard from even having to swap gear around once they do pick up Warcaster. Your criticism is not the damning callout you imagined it was.
Warcaster is not necessary to take at level 1 or level 5. Though with my build being exceptionally SAD, the bard can start with a 16 to Charisma and with Hexblade, they are fighting with their casting stat. Are you sure about that 60% hit percentage? LOL They will be hitting literally exactly the same as any martial with a +5 to their hex weapon and a 1d8+3 from something like say, their longsword. At level 2, they are dealing as much damage as other martials without Hex and MORE insulated from damage because of Shield. Further, if things get dicey, they can put some distance and lay own damage with Eldritch Blast. You are deeply confused on the weaknesses of my build. Can your build do this?
While we are making comparisons, can your build cause enemies to try avoid hitting you with arguably the best defensive spell in the game? Armor of Agathys? Can it stack damage up using Hex, which can be moved to another enemy once the cursed one dies, or Hexblade's Curse, which admittedly does not move but it does give you a bonus to hit of your proficiency bonus, easy crit fishing (are you sure you factored that into your calculations???), and free hitpoints (which at level 2 is already protection from one hit). Hex benefits from Critical Hits too, which will be more common on my build by a significant margin.
At level 2, the target is going to have an AC of 13 on average. With a +5 to hit, this is a very stable hit percentage. 1d8+5 + 1d6 every attack is a fantastic level 2 damage output. If they put a baleful curse on them, it is even better as the player will be critting 10% of the time, up from the normal 5% and a +2 to hit. My build out damages yours for sure. When the first ASI comes around and if the player chooses to invest into Charisma, they are going to have a +7 to hit and a 1d8+6 + 1d6 to every attack that they will be making at twice the rate you are hitting with your build. Once the second attack comes online and enemies AC reach 16-17 in Tier 2, I will still have a 60% hit percentage on each single attack (like everyone else who devoted their ASI to their attacking stat) and an 84% chance to hit every round. Meanwhile you are will dropping down to between 30% and 35% to hit with your GWM and 51% to 58% chance to hit in a round. Your build will depend on the DM giving you less armored targets. Mine does not. Again, you are forgetting the fun factor.
Then we have to consider where you are forced to invest your spells, which even you have admitted gives only limited options. Mine does not. In fact, I will have some of the best spells in the game for support and battlefield control while yours HAS to avoid spells with a DC, because just to make your GWM build work sometimes, it has to avoid spells with saves, which is... all the best ones.
To the OP:
I am a DM with years of experience. I am strongly recommending against the GWM build. At least as cgarciao has built it. I have seen at my table what habitually missing feels like to the player. You almost certainly will not find the occasional hit for heavy damage to be worth countless burned turns where you will miss and do nothing but sit around. You don't have to take my build recommendation, but do yourself a favor and don't take his. At this point, I strongly doubt that he is trying to help you and is instead just trying to win this debate. My build at least was trying to help.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form| Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
Bard wasn't designed to deal damage in this edition, that's why people go to great lenghts and the answer isn't straightforward. Group can thrive on suboptimal damage if they got enough staying power to balance it out.
Contrary to what others have argued for here, I would recommend a Sorcerer, Bard multiclass, starting with Sorcerer 1.
Reasons for Sorcerer 1:
* Almost equivalent spell slot progression as pure Bard, but with more arcane variety and a lot more cantrips.
* Start off with saving throw profic in CON, which you want for your concentration spells.
* Access to Sorcerer spell list.
The reasons for access to the Sorcerer spell list:
* Cantrips like Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade. While you eventually get to make 2 attacks with your attack action, these cantrips boost your damage until you get there. Once you get to a high enough level, retrain these cantrip slots for some useful utility, like Mending or Minor Illusion.
* Also keep in mind that Lightning Lure is a Sorc cantrip that works well with the Bard spell Cloud of Daggers.
* Shield spell for extra defense.
So while this is less tanky than a Fighter/Bard build, it is somewhat better as a support build with some defensive benefits as well.
why wouldn't you? You can't even cast shield while using a sword and shield without warcaster
Per strict RAW, sure, but I know of no one who actually pays any attention to that ridiculous S vs SM distinction at the table
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
* Cantrips like Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade. While you eventually get to make 2 attacks with your attack action, these cantrips boost your damage until you get there. Once you get to a high enough level, retrain these cantrip slots for some useful utility, like Mending or Minor Illusion.
Keep in mind you can only retrain one cantrip every four Sorcerer levels, and even then, only if you are using optional class features. Plus, as others have noted, you can't cast the Shield spell with your hands full unless you have Warcaster. Of course if you do take Warcaster, BB and GFB remain useful, since you can then cast them when you are granted an Attack of Opportunity.
We play with it, and swords bard with shield/defensive flourish/shield spell is a pretty good reason to start doing it if you aren't already.
I mean, if you're already relying on Defensive Flourish and shield, actually carrying a physical shield for another +2 AC is pretty superfluous
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
* Cantrips like Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade. While you eventually get to make 2 attacks with your attack action, these cantrips boost your damage until you get there. Once you get to a high enough level, retrain these cantrip slots for some useful utility, like Mending or Minor Illusion.
Keep in mind you can only retrain one cantrip every four Sorcerer levels, and even then, only if you are using optional class features. Plus, as others have noted, you can't cast the Shield spell with your hands full unless you have Warcaster. Of course if you do take Warcaster, BB and GFB remain useful, since you can then cast them when you are granted an Attack of Opportunity.
The work-around for that is to play Thri-Kreen. That solves the "no hands to do somatic" issue.
Also, I never said that you need to take both GFB and BB; just one or the other is fine depending on your combat playstyle and the composition of your party.
And yes, if you want want to invest in BB or GFB, Warcaster is certainly worth it. The issue is that it might be better to make two weapon attacks using your Attack action if you get like, a magic Rapier or something, in which case, you won't be using BB or GFB as much.
We play with it, and swords bard with shield/defensive flourish/shield spell is a pretty good reason to start doing it if you aren't already.
I mean, if you're already relying on Defensive Flourish and shield, actually carrying a physical shield for another +2 AC is pretty superfluous
I think it's a matter of perspective in this case, like, sure the way you personally state it is true-- relying on a shield for 2 extra AC is overkill when you're already using a def. flourish and shield spell. But, what if we view it as relying on a shield's +2 AC primarily, with defensive flourish some of the time, and the shield spell for when we're really wanting to avoid attack rolls for that turn? That spell slot is then conserved until needed, and it's needed less frequently if we're carrying that shield to begin with. That's why, when push comes to shove, the hexblade+swords bard build can achieve some crazy AC values and why it's balanced by requiring warcaster to perform RAW (which you find enforced often if you play AL regularly).
We play with it, and swords bard with shield/defensive flourish/shield spell is a pretty good reason to start doing it if you aren't already.
I mean, if you're already relying on Defensive Flourish and shield, actually carrying a physical shield for another +2 AC is pretty superfluous
I think it's a matter of perspective in this case, like, sure the way you personally state it is true-- relying on a shield for 2 extra AC is overkill when you're already using a def. flourish and shield spell. But, what if we view it as relying on a shield's +2 AC primarily, with defensive flourish some of the time, and the shield spell for when we're really wanting to avoid attack rolls for that turn? That spell slot is then conserved until needed, and it's needed less frequently if we're carrying that shield to begin with. That's why, when push comes to shove, the hexblade+swords bard build can achieve some crazy AC values and why it's balanced by requiring warcaster to perform RAW (which you find enforced often if you play AL regularly).
The idea that you can cast some spells with an S component but not others while your hands are full is simply a terrible rule and terrible game design. Requiring Warcaster -- which really just means requiring your character to be a Variant Human, to get that extra feat -- doesn't "balance" anything, as the extra +2 AC is neither statistically nor strategically meaningful
It isn't even a case where ignoring the rule makes Warcaster pointless, as it still has more than enough utility from its other features
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You don't need to be a variant human to have warcaster. You have to choose to not increase your stats or wait until higher level. I have played multiple characters now that have prioritized warcaster over 20 in their casting stat. For clerics with spirit guardians it is simply better to grab warcaster than increase their casting stat.
The casting rules aren't a burden. They are a way to balance the game. Arguably I would expand the spells that you need warcaster for if I was revising the game.
You don't need to be a variant human to have warcaster. You have to choose to not increase your stats or wait until higher level. I have played multiple characters now that have prioritized warcaster over 20 in their casting stat. For clerics with spirit guardians it is simply better to grab warcaster than increase their casting stat.
The casting rules aren't a burden. They are a way to balance the game. Arguably I would expand the spells that you need warcaster for if I was revising the game.
We're not talking about "the casting rules", we're talking about one specific illogical rule -- that holding a spellcasting focus without another hand free allows you to cast VSM spells but not VS spells
If you're multiclassing to get shield, it'll be at least level 5 before you get your first ASI -- not to mention if you can't effectively cast it without a feat you don't even have yet, why did you take the spell in the first place? Hence Variant Human, and Warcaster at lvl 1
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
On the topic of S-but-not-M spells, I think we can safely put aside all spells that have a casting time of an action or bonus action, since you can generally use your free object interaction on your turn to ensure that you have a free hand. Not always, and sometimes that means that you end your turn without a weapon in your hand, but most of the time.
There are four S-but-not-M spells in the three main books that have a Reaction casting time: Shield, Absorb Elements, Counterspell and Hellish Rebuke. This are really the only four that are at issue. So why those four? I would say that it was a deliberate design choice in order to make them relatively harder to use in combination with weapons and armour. You can still get your gish with Warcaster, at the cost of a feat. I am good with that.
It is a clunky mechanism and could be improved, but I support the design goal.
"There are four S-but-not-M spells in the three main books that have a Reaction casting time: Shield, Absorb Elements, Counterspell and Hellish Rebuke. This are really the only four that are at issue. So why those four? I would say that it was a deliberate design choice in order to make them relatively harder to use in combination with weapons and armour. You can still get your gish with Warcaster, at the cost of a feat. I am good with that.IThat is exactly it. Yes. You might have to wait until 5th level. That doesn't bother me. "
This is exactly it. Yes you have to wait until 5th level if you multiclass. That isn't an issue. That is the design, and this is a good thing. If you want it at 4th then don't multiclass. If you want it earlier then either take var human or learn to wait. The logic is sound for not allowing those 4 spells to be cast with your hands full. Its good design and it makes sense. AND the feat you take to overcome it makes sense being called warcaster.
There are four S-but-not-M spells in the three main books that have a Reaction casting time: Shield, Absorb Elements, Counterspell and Hellish Rebuke. This are really the only four that are at issue. So why those four? I would say that it was a deliberate design choice in order to make them relatively harder to use in combination with weapons and armour.
(Absorb Elements was not in one of the three main books)
There are only eight reaction spells in the entire game. Two have real M components -- Feather Fall and and the 6th-level necromancy spell Soul Cage from Xanathar's. (Gift of Gab from AcqInc has that weird Royalty component)
The eighth is Silvery Barbs, which is V only
If it was a deliberate design choice to make reaction spells with combat applications harder to cast, why was Feather Fall excluded from the list? Why can a sword-and-board Swords bard cast Feather Fall using their sword as a focus, but not Shield?
If it was a deliberate design choice, why did they change their mind on it later on with Silvery Barbs?
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This is exactly it. Yes you have to wait until 5th level if you multiclass. That isn't an issue.
Again -- why would someone take a spell they can't effectively cast?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There are four S-but-not-M spells in the three main books that have a Reaction casting time: Shield, Absorb Elements, Counterspell and Hellish Rebuke. This are really the only four that are at issue. So why those four? I would say that it was a deliberate design choice in order to make them relatively harder to use in combination with weapons and armour.
(Absorb Elements was not in one of the three main books)
There are only eight reaction spells in the entire game. Two have real M components -- Feather Fall and and the 6th-level necromancy spell Soul Cage from Xanathar's. (Gift of Gab from AcqInc has that weird Royalty component)
The eighth is Silvery Barbs, which is V only
If it was a deliberate design choice to make reaction spells with combat applications harder to cast (or dual wielders, for that matter), why was Feather Fall excluded from the list? Why can a sword-and-board Swords bard cast Feather Fall using their sword as a focus, but not Shield?
If it was a deliberate design choice, why did they change their mind on it later on with Silvery Barbs?
To be fair, I'm pretty sure there has been significant power creep since the PHB originally came out. Silvery Barbs, Peace Cleric, Eloquence Bard, Artillery Artificer, etc. So design choices have changed, not always for the better and not always with a consistent design philosophy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Listen, I really wouldn't blame you if you decided against reading all that bickering, but it should be said I don't think there's anything wrong with his build. Warcaster, great feat and an excellent recommendation. But, if you did go back and see what all the fuss was about, you'll see just how much of a deal was derived from leaving a spellcasting stat at a 3 modifier instead of bumping it to a 4 at the first ASI. Plus, I suggested taking it as a starting feat via v. human. Could the same be done with warcaster and his build? absolutely, but since it wasn't explicitly stated it can't be assumed.
Now, another thing, my build's aim is to satisfy the more martial side of things while still having full spellcasting and supporting ability. hexblade swords bard, that's a more focused spellcaster with the option to melee, and there's nothing wrong nor ineffective about it. But if that's so, then it can't be said my build's spellcasting is compromised either because both builds are having less than 18 in their main spellcasting mod before lvl 8.
The simple fact of the matter is that your build fails to meet even your own goal. You are only able to promise a 1 point addition to damage over simply not using GWM, which is core to your build, while shouldering an overwhelming amount of character shortcomings just to focus that damage into a single attack after half a dozen misses. Further, you recommended this at level 1, when the build will be most vulnerable to these poor decisions. I am sure you are counting on people skipping our discussion on that simply because I pointed out these and other failings and you were, frankly, unable to provide suitable answers for them.
A great deal of ‘fuss’ as you call it, was directed at the spellcasting modifier and your initial baying at my recommendation shows that you simply didn’t understand my recommendation, likely because you are still tilted over my tearing yours down so completely. I did not recommend that they take the feat at first ASI. I recommended that they take the feat at some point, which I would recommend be left to the player so they can measure the kind of game they are in and take the feat or ASI as needed. Your recommendation crippled them. Do you understand the difference in our approaches now?
Your build did NOT satisfy the martial side of things by any measure. When it was pointed out that they would be hitting 40% of the time using the build you recommended, your rebuttal was to not use the feat that is core to your build, which FAILS to meet the martial side of things and fails to maximize every decision point in the character build along the way.
I do not believe it would be a good idea for anyone to use any of your build recommendations if their desire is to enjoy the game.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
You can try DDB for free using the Basic Rules, free adventures, MCV1:SC, and homebrew. Answers about physical books, purchases, and subbing.
What is it like to be on the forums.
I love this projection. I'm tilted? You "tore" my build "completely?" This is how I know your reading comprehension and critical thinking need a bit more work.
When you pointed out my build would be hitting 40% of the time, my rebuttal was actually that it's mathematically worth it, and only to not use it when it didn't qualify as such.
Fun facts about the similarities in our recommended builds: both achieve extra attack at lvl 7 total at the earliest. both have a spellcasting modifier of 3 after the first ASI should the hexblade take warcaster (and why wouldn't you? You can't even cast shield while using a sword and shield without warcaster, which defeats part of the purpose of hexblade). Both have improved concentration if we consider CON save proficiency as a functional equivalent to warcaster.
Differences in DPR: yours can do a bit more DPR thanks to blade cantrips from lvls 5-6 but not by much. Why? Because warcaster kinda has to be taken for a sword-n-board build to work as a caster, so you're behind the hitting curve by 5%. So, instead of hitting 65% of the time, you'll hit 60% of the time. Meanwhile, mine is still hitting 40% of the time should GWM be active because its STR kept up on the ASI. However, once extra attack is achieved, mine does more DPR. In order for your build to do more damage, it has to use resources such as hexblade's curse and hex, or something. But, at that point we're talking about resources, which my build can use as well. Suffice it to say, mine does more resource-less melee damage.
So, as things stand, this build of mine is keeping up according to your own standards and recommendations.
To the OP:
I am a DM with years of experience. I am strongly recommending against the GWM build. At least as cgarciao has built it. I have seen at my table what habitually missing feels like to the player. You almost certainly will not find the occasional hit for heavy damage to be worth countless burned turns where you will miss and do nothing but sit around. You don't have to take my build recommendation, but do yourself a favor and don't take his. At this point, I strongly doubt that he is trying to help you and is instead just trying to win this debate. My build at least was trying to help.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
You can try DDB for free using the Basic Rules, free adventures, MCV1:SC, and homebrew. Answers about physical books, purchases, and subbing.
What is it like to be on the forums.
Bard wasn't designed to deal damage in this edition, that's why people go to great lenghts and the answer isn't straightforward. Group can thrive on suboptimal damage if they got enough staying power to balance it out.
History:
(っ'-')╮ =͟͟ 🔥「sword, servant, hound, memory, mind, horse, lord, bolt, smoke, sight」
Contrary to what others have argued for here, I would recommend a Sorcerer, Bard multiclass, starting with Sorcerer 1.
Reasons for Sorcerer 1:
* Almost equivalent spell slot progression as pure Bard, but with more arcane variety and a lot more cantrips.
* Start off with saving throw profic in CON, which you want for your concentration spells.
* Access to Sorcerer spell list.
The reasons for access to the Sorcerer spell list:
* Cantrips like Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade. While you eventually get to make 2 attacks with your attack action, these cantrips boost your damage until you get there. Once you get to a high enough level, retrain these cantrip slots for some useful utility, like Mending or Minor Illusion.
* Also keep in mind that Lightning Lure is a Sorc cantrip that works well with the Bard spell Cloud of Daggers.
* Shield spell for extra defense.
So while this is less tanky than a Fighter/Bard build, it is somewhat better as a support build with some defensive benefits as well.
Per strict RAW, sure, but I know of no one who actually pays any attention to that ridiculous S vs SM distinction at the table
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
We play with it, and swords bard with shield/defensive flourish/shield spell is a pretty good reason to start doing it if you aren't already.
Keep in mind you can only retrain one cantrip every four Sorcerer levels, and even then, only if you are using optional class features. Plus, as others have noted, you can't cast the Shield spell with your hands full unless you have Warcaster. Of course if you do take Warcaster, BB and GFB remain useful, since you can then cast them when you are granted an Attack of Opportunity.
I mean, if you're already relying on Defensive Flourish and shield, actually carrying a physical shield for another +2 AC is pretty superfluous
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The work-around for that is to play Thri-Kreen. That solves the "no hands to do somatic" issue.
Also, I never said that you need to take both GFB and BB; just one or the other is fine depending on your combat playstyle and the composition of your party.
And yes, if you want want to invest in BB or GFB, Warcaster is certainly worth it. The issue is that it might be better to make two weapon attacks using your Attack action if you get like, a magic Rapier or something, in which case, you won't be using BB or GFB as much.
I think it's a matter of perspective in this case, like, sure the way you personally state it is true-- relying on a shield for 2 extra AC is overkill when you're already using a def. flourish and shield spell. But, what if we view it as relying on a shield's +2 AC primarily, with defensive flourish some of the time, and the shield spell for when we're really wanting to avoid attack rolls for that turn? That spell slot is then conserved until needed, and it's needed less frequently if we're carrying that shield to begin with. That's why, when push comes to shove, the hexblade+swords bard build can achieve some crazy AC values and why it's balanced by requiring warcaster to perform RAW (which you find enforced often if you play AL regularly).
The idea that you can cast some spells with an S component but not others while your hands are full is simply a terrible rule and terrible game design. Requiring Warcaster -- which really just means requiring your character to be a Variant Human, to get that extra feat -- doesn't "balance" anything, as the extra +2 AC is neither statistically nor strategically meaningful
It isn't even a case where ignoring the rule makes Warcaster pointless, as it still has more than enough utility from its other features
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You don't need to be a variant human to have warcaster. You have to choose to not increase your stats or wait until higher level. I have played multiple characters now that have prioritized warcaster over 20 in their casting stat. For clerics with spirit guardians it is simply better to grab warcaster than increase their casting stat.
The casting rules aren't a burden. They are a way to balance the game. Arguably I would expand the spells that you need warcaster for if I was revising the game.
We're not talking about "the casting rules", we're talking about one specific illogical rule -- that holding a spellcasting focus without another hand free allows you to cast VSM spells but not VS spells
If you're multiclassing to get shield, it'll be at least level 5 before you get your first ASI -- not to mention if you can't effectively cast it without a feat you don't even have yet, why did you take the spell in the first place? Hence Variant Human, and Warcaster at lvl 1
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
On the topic of S-but-not-M spells, I think we can safely put aside all spells that have a casting time of an action or bonus action, since you can generally use your free object interaction on your turn to ensure that you have a free hand. Not always, and sometimes that means that you end your turn without a weapon in your hand, but most of the time.
There are four S-but-not-M spells in the three main books that have a Reaction casting time: Shield, Absorb Elements, Counterspell and Hellish Rebuke. This are really the only four that are at issue. So why those four? I would say that it was a deliberate design choice in order to make them relatively harder to use in combination with weapons and armour. You can still get your gish with Warcaster, at the cost of a feat. I am good with that.
It is a clunky mechanism and could be improved, but I support the design goal.
"There are four S-but-not-M spells in the three main books that have a Reaction casting time: Shield, Absorb Elements, Counterspell and Hellish Rebuke. This are really the only four that are at issue. So why those four? I would say that it was a deliberate design choice in order to make them relatively harder to use in combination with weapons and armour. You can still get your gish with Warcaster, at the cost of a feat. I am good with that.IThat is exactly it. Yes. You might have to wait until 5th level. That doesn't bother me. "
This is exactly it. Yes you have to wait until 5th level if you multiclass. That isn't an issue. That is the design, and this is a good thing. If you want it at 4th then don't multiclass. If you want it earlier then either take var human or learn to wait. The logic is sound for not allowing those 4 spells to be cast with your hands full. Its good design and it makes sense. AND the feat you take to overcome it makes sense being called warcaster.
(Absorb Elements was not in one of the three main books)
There are only eight reaction spells in the entire game. Two have real M components -- Feather Fall and and the 6th-level necromancy spell Soul Cage from Xanathar's. (Gift of Gab from AcqInc has that weird Royalty component)
The eighth is Silvery Barbs, which is V only
If it was a deliberate design choice to make reaction spells with combat applications harder to cast, why was Feather Fall excluded from the list? Why can a sword-and-board Swords bard cast Feather Fall using their sword as a focus, but not Shield?
If it was a deliberate design choice, why did they change their mind on it later on with Silvery Barbs?
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Again -- why would someone take a spell they can't effectively cast?
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To be fair, I'm pretty sure there has been significant power creep since the PHB originally came out. Silvery Barbs, Peace Cleric, Eloquence Bard, Artillery Artificer, etc. So design choices have changed, not always for the better and not always with a consistent design philosophy.