the current rules support it without the need for any homebrew. Don't dump Strength and pick longsword as your proficiency in training in war and song and you are a bladesinger using a longsword. It is easy to do with the current rules starting at 2nd level.
Again i have to heavily disagree here the current rules DO NOT support such an style, and if you truly think that making a viable Bladesinger without dumping Strength is possible, either: A. your DM is very generous with ability scores at character creation or B. you are using homebrew rules for stats yourself, because believe me, there is NO way without either homebrew or rolling for stats and getting very lucky results, that your Bladesinger will have its main stats high enough to be good at what its supposed to do and still have some left for raising Strength.
Also as i mention the current rules DO NOT actually support any style besides Finesse weapons, which i believe we can all agree are very limited (if not extremely so), so again i fail to see how such a restrictive method (such as the one i suggested) for allowing Bladesingers to use more weapons besides Finesse ones would cause any sort of imbalance (specially since the class would not really change mechanically at all, it would still be MAD needing both Dex and Int as its main stats, with Con being a close third, it would still be restricted to d8 weapons, it would just now have more choice on which weapon in particular they can use).
In the grand scheme of things each game (yours, mine, joe bloggs down the road) all run independantly from each other and never the twain shall meet. So any adjustments you make to your own game is largely unimportant, for instance, you could do an alternate ability option and allow someone playing a Bladesinger to lose one of the published abilities in Bladesong (either the bonus to AC, bonus to Conscentration checks, advantage on Acrobatics or bonus speed whilst bladesinging) and replace it with something more akin to the Hexblade Warlock: "Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property. When you attack with that weapon and have nothing in your other hand, you can use your Intelligence modifier, instead of Strength or Dexterity, for the attack and damage rolls." (Just to through in an EDIT...I'd likely also make this alternate ability use up an Attunement slot for a magic item)
To refer back to the 3.5e version of Bladesinger, Bladesong only worked with a Longsword or Rapier when you used it one handed and had nothing in your other hand so it has gotten a bit more open with regards to weapon options.
the current rules support it without the need for any homebrew. Don't dump Strength and pick longsword as your proficiency in training in war and song and you are a bladesinger using a longsword. It is easy to do with the current rules starting at 2nd level.
Again i have to heavily disagree here the current rules DO NOT support such an style, and if you truly think that making a viable Bladesinger without dumping Strength is possible, either: A. your DM is very generous with ability scores at character creation or B. you are using homebrew rules for stats yourself, because believe me, there is NO way without either homebrew or rolling for stats and getting very lucky results, that your Bladesinger will have its main stats high enough to be good at what its supposed to do and still have some left for raising Strength.
Also as i mention the current rules DO NOT actually support any style besides Finesse weapons, which i believe we can all agree are very limited (if not extremely so), so again i fail to see how such a restrictive method (such as the one i suggested) for allowing Bladesingers to use more weapons besides Finesse ones would cause any sort of imbalance (specially since the class would not really change mechanically at all, it would still be MAD needing both Dex and Int as its main stats, with Con being a close third, it would still be restricted to d8 weapons, it would just now have more choice on which weapon in particular they can use).
You can make a viable wizard who dumps their Intelligence to negative levels because there are enough spells which don't depend on Intelligence that it doesn't matter. Don't presume you can tell anyone the rules don't support a Strengh-focused bladesinger when they absolutely do.
I think being the SADdest class is the greatest advantage bladesingers have, maybe next to paladin/hexblades. It just takes 3 levels of battlesmith, so you don't have to worry about other attributes, except Intelligence (and maybe some Constitution to compensate for your low base HP).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
+ Instaboot to murderhobos + I don't watch Critical Role, and no, I really shouldn't either +
the current rules support it without the need for any homebrew. Don't dump Strength and pick longsword as your proficiency in training in war and song and you are a bladesinger using a longsword. It is easy to do with the current rules starting at 2nd level.
Again i have to heavily disagree here the current rules DO NOT support such an style, and if you truly think that making a viable Bladesinger without dumping Strength is possible, either: A. your DM is very generous with ability scores at character creation or B. you are using homebrew rules for stats yourself, because believe me, there is NO way without either homebrew or rolling for stats and getting very lucky results, that your Bladesinger will have its main stats high enough to be good at what its supposed to do and still have some left for raising Strength.
You are just wrong. A Bladesinger can be viable with any stats as long as intelligence is decent because he is a Wizard. I have played bladesingers with a variety of DMs with a variety of ability generation methods including point buy, standard array, 4d6-drop and homebrew methods.
A Bladesinger with any race can have a S16D14I16 at level 1 and that character will be VERY viable. Going S14D16I16 or S16D16I15 will ALL result in a VERY viable player and enable a variety of different play styles with the right spell selection. It is a fairy tale that such a character will not only be viable it can in fact be more powerful in combat than most characters at most tables. The math supports this, let me know if you need me to illustrate that mathematically.
Also as i mention the current rules DO NOT actually support any style besides Finesse weapons, which i believe we can all agree are very limited (if not extremely so), so again i fail to see how such a restrictive method (such as the one i suggested) for allowing Bladesingers to use more weapons besides Finesse ones would cause any sort of imbalance (specially since the class would not really change mechanically at all, it would still be MAD needing both Dex and Int as its main stats, with Con being a close third, it would still be restricted to d8 weapons, it would just now have more choice on which weapon in particular they can use).
That is just factually not true. If you are going to use bladesong and going to go in melee often you do need a good dexterity and intelligence, but you can still play without maximizing either of those (or strength). Considering the spells available there is no mathematical reason you can't play a bladesinger with a 14 Dexterity and 12 Constitution and EXCEL compared to most other characters. Do that and with the right spell selections you have a higher AC than most builds and are much harder to hit even out of proportion to your AC, you can take more damage in combat than most other martials, you can reduce damage you take better than most martials, you hit good in melee compared to most other martials using a Longsword. Now there are builds that will be significantly better in some of these areas but few if any can match all those across the board.
As a matter of fact, if you want to be completely honest you can even play a viable bladesinger that never uses bladesong and dumps dexterity completely. Go Hill Dwarf, trade warhammer for Maul and pick up the heavy armor feat at level 4 (with a +1 strength). This character will be 2 points in AC behind an optimized bladesinger in Mage armor/bladsong at level 4 (and 1 point ahead out of bladesong) and is able to start with a 16 Con and gets an extra 1hp/level for Hill Dwarf. He does not have to use mage armor and will be able to use a Maul for 2d6 with the bladesinger extra attack plus either booming blade or green flame damage. Pick up Crusher at level 8 and you can reliably land your movement damage with Booming Blade almost every time you hit with it. Now that character will not be as powerful in melee once you make it past 10th level, because you will not be able to use Song of Defense, but until then he is on par trading a little AC and movement for a more damage.
None of that may appeal to you thematically and it is not as powerful as optimizing by giving the bladesinger an extra unneeded buff, but RAW supports all fo those builds and all of them will be good .... VERY good.
If this is how you all feel fine, i respect it, just please respect the fact that I disagree with it (after all i was just suggesting something that could appeal to everyone and that doesn't creates any imbalance).
Also as i mention the current rules DO NOT actually support any style besides Finesse weapons, which i believe we can all agree are very limited (if not extremely so), so again i fail to see how such a restrictive method (such as the one i suggested) for allowing Bladesingers to use more weapons besides Finesse ones would cause any sort of imbalance (specially since the class would not really change mechanically at all, it would still be MAD needing both Dex and Int as its main stats, with Con being a close third, it would still be restricted to d8 weapons, it would just now have more choice on which weapon in particular they can use).
That is just factually not true. If you are going to use bladesong and going to go in melee often you do need a good dexterity and intelligence, but you can still play without maximizing either of those (or strength). Considering the spells available there is no mathematical reason you can't play a bladesinger with a 14 Dexterity and 12 Constitution and EXCEL compared to most other characters. Do that and with the right spell selections you have a higher AC than most builds and are much harder to hit even out of proportion to your AC, you can take more damage in combat than most other martials, you can reduce damage you take better than most martials, you hit good in melee compared to most other martials using a Longsword. Now there are builds that will be significantly better in some of these areas but few if any can match all those across the board.
As a matter of fact, if you want to be completely honest you can even play a viable bladesinger that never uses bladesong and dumps dexterity completely. Go Hill Dwarf, trade warhammer for Maul and pick up the heavy armor feat at level 4 (with a +1 strength). This character will be 2 points in AC behind an optimized bladesinger in Mage armor/bladsong at level 4 (and 1 point ahead out of bladesong) and is able to start with a 16 Con and gets an extra 1hp/level for Hill Dwarf. He does not have to use mage armor and will be able to use a Maul for 2d6 with the bladesinger extra attack plus either booming blade or green flame damage. Pick up Crusher at level 8 and you can reliably land your movement damage with Booming Blade almost every time you hit with it. Now that character will not be as powerful in melee once you make it past 10th level, because you will not be able to use Song of Defense, but until then he is on par trading a little AC and movement for a more damage.
None of that may appeal to you thematically and it is not as powerful as optimizing by giving the bladesinger an extra unneeded buff, but RAW supports all fo those builds and all of them will be good .... VERY good.
Man most of the Bladesinger's main features scale of Int as nearly all of them are connected to Bladesong (which again scales with Int), also the Bladesinger is stuck with light armor meaning, that high (if not max) Dex IS NEEDED, so that's 2 stats you need to max out, so if using point buy or standard array you will likely spends most if not all your ASI's in order to achieve this leaving all your other stats way lower (and since Con tends to be everyone's third most important stats expect any remaining ASI's to go there), so again unless your DM is being generous, you are using homebrew or rolling for stats and getting very lucky, it will be impossible to that many stats high enough, simply because the game is designed to PREVENT players from maxing out more than 2 stats at a time (again unless rolling for stats or using homebrew), so yeah the whole part of the "current rules support it" are outright FALSE and NON-FACTUAL, also i fail to see why you are so opposed to something that doesn't even impacts negatively in the game, but then again feel free to disagree.
Also as i mention the current rules DO NOT actually support any style besides Finesse weapons, which i believe we can all agree are very limited (if not extremely so), so again i fail to see how such a restrictive method (such as the one i suggested) for allowing Bladesingers to use more weapons besides Finesse ones would cause any sort of imbalance (specially since the class would not really change mechanically at all, it would still be MAD needing both Dex and Int as its main stats, with Con being a close third, it would still be restricted to d8 weapons, it would just now have more choice on which weapon in particular they can use).
That is just factually not true. If you are going to use bladesong and going to go in melee often you do need a good dexterity and intelligence, but you can still play without maximizing either of those (or strength). Considering the spells available there is no mathematical reason you can't play a bladesinger with a 14 Dexterity and 12 Constitution and EXCEL compared to most other characters. Do that and with the right spell selections you have a higher AC than most builds and are much harder to hit even out of proportion to your AC, you can take more damage in combat than most other martials, you can reduce damage you take better than most martials, you hit good in melee compared to most other martials using a Longsword. Now there are builds that will be significantly better in some of these areas but few if any can match all those across the board.
As a matter of fact, if you want to be completely honest you can even play a viable bladesinger that never uses bladesong and dumps dexterity completely. Go Hill Dwarf, trade warhammer for Maul and pick up the heavy armor feat at level 4 (with a +1 strength). This character will be 2 points in AC behind an optimized bladesinger in Mage armor/bladsong at level 4 (and 1 point ahead out of bladesong) and is able to start with a 16 Con and gets an extra 1hp/level for Hill Dwarf. He does not have to use mage armor and will be able to use a Maul for 2d6 with the bladesinger extra attack plus either booming blade or green flame damage. Pick up Crusher at level 8 and you can reliably land your movement damage with Booming Blade almost every time you hit with it. Now that character will not be as powerful in melee once you make it past 10th level, because you will not be able to use Song of Defense, but until then he is on par trading a little AC and movement for a more damage.
None of that may appeal to you thematically and it is not as powerful as optimizing by giving the bladesinger an extra unneeded buff, but RAW supports all fo those builds and all of them will be good .... VERY good.
Man most of the Bladesinger's main features scale of Int as nearly all of them are connected to Bladesong (which again scales with Int), also the Bladesinger is stuck with light armor meaning, that high (if not max) Dex IS NEEDED, so that's 2 stats you need to max out, so if using point buy or standard array you will likely spends most if not all your ASI's in order to achieve this leaving all your other stats way lower (and since Con tends to be everyone's third most important stats expect any remaining ASI's to go there), so again unless your DM is being generous, you are using homebrew or rolling for stats and getting very lucky, it will be impossible to that many stats high enough, simply because the game is designed to PREVENT players from maxing out more than 2 stats at a time (again unless rolling for stats or using homebrew), so yeah the whole part of the "current rules support it" are outright FALSE and NON-FACTUAL, also i fail to see why you are so opposed to something that doesn't even impacts negatively in the game, but then again feel free to disagree.
If you want to max AC on a bladesinger you would use mage armor, not light armor. And it is not "DM," it is DMs plural as in multiple on many tables. I've been playing Bladesingers since the class came out and I have played 8 of them (both SCAG and Tasha versions), all well into tier 2 and most into tier 3, to include point buy, standard array, 4d6d1 and a homebrew method. Most had an 8 strength, but I have also played them with an 11 strength and 15 strength. I played them with 9, 10, 12, 13 and14 constitution at start (the 9 was with a homebrew ability generation method). They have all had 16 or better intelligence at level 1, but some of them went to level 14 without boosting Dex beyond 18. Most of the Bladesingers I played were built with point buy. Every one of them was either hands down the most powerful character in the party or one of the most powerful characters in the party and all of them were at least good in melee, to include the one that started with a 9 con. The latter ones were superb in melee both because of the Tasha subclass upgrades and the more experience I got playing the subbclass, the better I became at selecting and using spells.
It is not impossible to start with the stats I mentioned. Using point buy any race can start with a 16/16/14 in its three top stats at level 1. In fact several races can start with three 16s at level 1 on a standard 27 point buy. In any case a Bladesinger with a 16 Strength 14 Dexterity and 16 Intelligence will have a very high AC in bladesong. Not as high as one who starts with a 16, but high and only one point behind. He will maintain that 1 point difference until she maxes intelligence. (level 8 on point buy). If you want to wield a longsword RAW that is what you probably should do.
Everyone "tends" to put constitution as their 3rd best ability, but there is no rule saying you have to do that and a bladesinger is completely viable and in fact one of the most powerful characters in the game with a 10 or a 12 in constitution (and I can say this from experience having played with multiple DMs). A Wizard can make up for constitution with spells, it is the beauty of playing a Wizard.
Most of the Bladesinger's I have played used point buy, but as a point of fact the game is not "DESIGNED" around point buy. There are three methods of generating ability scores mentioned in the PHB, the default method is to roll 4d6 and drop 1. Standard array is offered as an option"If you want to save time or don’t like the idea of randomly determining ability scores" and point buy is a variant rule.
Bottom line is you are presented with numerous choices when building a character. Mechancally the longsword is an inferior weapon on almost any class compared to "the best" weapon available for optimizer. Even a Monk with dedicated weapon and racial proficiencies is still mechanically better off with a warhammer. RAW if you want to wield a longsword you are going to need to make some compromises, whether it is a Bladesinger, Fighter, Ranger or any other character. That is what the game is actually DESIGNED to do - make you consider the tradeoffs and make reasonable choices to build the character you want to build.
Bottom line is you are presented with numerous choices when building a character. Mechancally the longsword is an inferior weapon on almost any class compared to "the best" weapon available for optimizer. Even a Monk with dedicated weapon and racial proficiencies is still mechanically better off with a warhammer. RAW if you want to wield a longsword you are going to need to make some compromises, whether it is a Bladesinger, Fighter, Ranger or any other character. That is what the game is actually DESIGNED to do - make you consider the tradeoffs and make reasonable choices to build the character you want to build.
And this is where i disagree, as there are MANY classes that do NOT need to make such compromises, the most egregious example being both the Hexblade Warlock and the Battlesmith Artificer, since NEITHER class needs to sacrifice ANYTHING in order to be able to wield whichever weapon they want, and the worst part is that both are "single class gishes" just the Bladesinger, yet the Bladesinger is the only one with such arbitrary restrictions, heck i'm pretty sure that the only reason Bladesinger's doesn't has an equivalent to "Hex Warrior" or "Battle Ready" (the abilities that allow Hexblades and Battlesmiths to wield whichever weapon they want) is because they were printed back when Wizards of the Coast was still trying to nail down class design, because i'm pretty sure had the subclass released later in Xanathar's or Tasha's it would be more mechanically similar to those two (hence why i proposed this "Dedicated Weapon" like ability with the difference that my version would keep Bladesingers MAD instead of SAD).
Bottom line is you are presented with numerous choices when building a character. Mechancally the longsword is an inferior weapon on almost any class compared to "the best" weapon available for optimizer. Even a Monk with dedicated weapon and racial proficiencies is still mechanically better off with a warhammer. RAW if you want to wield a longsword you are going to need to make some compromises, whether it is a Bladesinger, Fighter, Ranger or any other character. That is what the game is actually DESIGNED to do - make you consider the tradeoffs and make reasonable choices to build the character you want to build.
And this is where i disagree, as there are MANY classes that do NOT need to make such compromises, the most egregious example being both the Hexblade Warlock and the Battlesmith Artificer, since NEITHER class needs to sacrifice ANYTHING in order to be able to wield whichever weapon they want, and the worst part is that both are "single class gishes" just the Bladesinger, yet the Bladesinger is the only one with such arbitrary restrictions, heck i'm pretty sure that the only reason Bladesinger's doesn't has an equivalent to "Hex Warrior" or "Battle Ready" (the abilities that allow Hexblades and Battlesmiths to wield whichever weapon they want) is because they were printed back when Wizards of the Coast was still trying to nail down class design, because i'm pretty sure had the subclass released later in Xanathar's or Tasha's it would be more mechanically similar to those two (hence why i proposed this "Dedicated Weapon" like ability with the difference that my version would keep Bladesingers MAD instead of SAD).
No it is not just the bladesinger, this is the biggest farce oif all. A Dex Ranger or Dex Fighter is faced with the exact same delima if they want to use a longsword.
To start with the base claim is not true, in fact Bladesingers themselves start adding Intelligence to melee damage at 14th level, which combined with strength or dexterity bonus and their unique extra attack will put them well ahead of either of hexblades or Battlesmiths in base melee damage. On the order of twice as much DPR using a similar weapon.
I completely reject the argument that this is only due to when it was written. Tasha's version of the bladesinger was published after Hexblade and at the same time as artificer. It was also written the same time as they gave the Monk Dedicated Weapon. They changed several of the other mechanics on the bladesinger, if they thought they needed to add intelligence or a dedicated weapon effect they would have, as that would have been a smaller change than some of the other changes they made. The reason they didn't is a bladesinger is more powerful than any of these other subclasses/classes and did not need such a buff.
Hexblades or Battlesmiths can use Charisma or Intelligence respectively earlier and you accept tradeoffs because of that. First off you can cast a lot less spells with either of those chassis. Second since Tasha's came out, Hexblade in particular is a pretty weak sublclass unless you multiclass. Hexblades are ok in melee, but despite the Charisma bonus, a bladepact undead Warlock with a high dexterity or a race with medium armor will give them a run for their money as a melee Warlock. A genie Warlock with the right feats makes a comparable melee Warlock too. That said, if you really want to use intelligence on a bladesinger you can always multiclass into Battlesmith as noted earlier. That comes with compromises of its own of course.
Monks have dedicated weapon because they are a weak class and they need that buff. Bladesingers do not. Frankly Fighters or Rangers have a better argument for a Dedicated weapon effect than Bladesingers do. What is the justification for giving this to bladesingers while leaving Fighter and Ranger off?
And i completely reject your arguments: first it's very unlikely that any given campaign will reach level 14 (or even go past level 10, its not impossible but certainly not likely) hence why i think that trying to make an argument using such high level abilities is a moot point since very VERY rarely will such circumstances come to pass, also there is the fact that by level 14 its very likely that your party already has either Very Rare or even Legendary items (and lets not even mention fullcasters with 7th level spells), as such game balance literally jumps down from the window and hangs itself, so trying to make any argument about "balance" at those levels is also a moot point.
Second your examples of the Ranger and the Fighter can in NO considerable way be fairly compared to the Bladesinger's case, simply because the fact that both Rangers and Fighters actually have a choice, for example: a Fighter unless Multiclassing, using a subclass that requires to focus on a specific stat (like the Eldritch Knight or Psi Warrior) or simply raising a mental stat for roleplay and/or mechanical benefit (for example raising Wisdom to have better Perception bonus or raising Charisma to be the party's face), realistically does NOT requires any other stats besides Str, Dex and Con, and if you are not doing any of the above you can realistically have great scores in all 3, add the 2 extra ASI's that you get and you are pretty much set (heck you could even make the character wear Light or Medium armor while still using Str to attack and still be effective thanks to all ASI's you get, a benefit NO OTHER CLASS GETS).
As for the Ranger they even have more versatility in how they are build thanks to the "Druidic Warrior" style which lets them pick "Shillelagh" and use their spellcasting stat for attack and damage rolls (granted with the limitation of only working with Clubs and Quarterstaves), at that point they only need to raise Dex to 14 in order to get the full benefit of Medium armor, or they could forget Dex too and instead take the "Heavily Armored" Feat and not worry about AC ever again, and that's JUST with "Shillelagh", if instead you wanted a full Str/Wis build its even easier, just take the aforementioned feat, dump Dex and focus on raising Str and Wis.
And you may ask, why does that work? because neither the Fighter nor Ranger have a mechanic that forces them to focus on a specific attack stat, unlike Bladesingers which because of Bladesong's mechanics are forced to wear Light armor or go Unarmored (and as we now Light armor FORCES you to make Dex builds, yet with either Medium or Heavy armor you can pretty much do whatever you like) and because the WHOLE subclass is based on Bladesong as its core ability, it means that if you want to use it to the fullest you are forced to comply to the restricitons it possesses, now you try to tell me how is this supposed to be even remotely similar to what you described, let me answer it for you: you CANNOT simply because THIS and THAT are 2 different things.
Look i don't want to you take any of this the wrong way but if you seriously cannot see where i'm coming from here, then i think it's for the best if we both simply agreed to disagree on this matter, because i will not change your opinion and you certainly will not change mine.
Second your examples of the Ranger and the Fighter can in NO considerable way be fairly compared to the Bladesinger's case, simply because the fact that both Rangers and Fighters actually have a choice, for example: a Fighter unless Multiclassing, using a subclass that requires to focus on a specific stat (like the Eldritch Knight or Psi Warrior) or simply raising a mental stat for roleplay and/or mechanical benefit (for example raising Wisdom to have better Perception bonus or raising Charisma to be the party's face), realistically does NOT requires any other stats besides Str, Dex and Con, and if you are not doing any of the above you can realistically have great scores in all 3, add the 2 extra ASI's that you get and you are pretty much set (heck you could even make the character wear Light or Medium armor while still using Str to attack and still be effective thanks to all ASI's you get, a benefit NO OTHER CLASS GETS).
If you want to build a dexterity fighter that uses stealth and a longsword as a Ranger or a Fighter you need to invest in both Dexterity and Strength. It is the same and you do not need a great constitution to play a bladesinger well. That is a myth.
As for the Ranger they even have more versatility in how they are build thanks to the "Druidic Warrior" style which lets them pick "Shillelagh" and use their spellcasting stat for attack and damage rolls (granted with the limitation of only working with Clubs and Quarterstaves), at that point they only need to raise Dex to 14 in order to get the full benefit of Medium armor, or they could forget Dex too and instead take the "Heavily Armored" Feat and not worry about AC ever again, and that's JUST with "Shillelagh", if instead you wanted a full Str/Wis build its even easier, just take the aforementioned feat, dump Dex and focus on raising Str and Wis.
A Ranger can not use a longsword with Shillaleagh! Your whole point is that a Bladesinger needs to be able to wield a longsword specifically using a stat other than Strength. A Ranger can not do this, a Fighter can not do this and Shillelagh can not do this. Suggesting that Shillelagh be applied to any weapon would be comparable, but it isn't.
Your argument here for not letting a Ranger use dedicated weapon is because he can use Shellelagh and use a staff instead - well the same argument works for a bladesinger, she can use dexterity and use a Rapier instead.
Remember the whole point of this discussion is a character who wants to use a stat other than strength for a longsword.
If I want my Ranger to be able to hide and to cast spells effectively and to swing a longsword and to survive in melee I need to invest in Strength, Dexterity and Wisdom all there is no way around it. Compared to a bladesinger I need to invest more in Constitution too because does not have the spells to be as durable in melee.
A stealth Ranger using a longsword and tanking in melee is MORE MAD than a Bladesinger is.
And you may ask, why does that work? because neither the Fighter nor Ranger have a mechanic that forces them to focus on a specific attack stat, unlike Bladesingers which because of Bladesong's mechanics are forced to wear Light armor or go Unarmored (and as we now Light armor FORCES you to make Dex builds, yet with either Medium or Heavy armor you can pretty much do whatever you like) and because the WHOLE subclass is based on Bladesong as its core ability, it means that if you want to use it to the fullest you are forced to comply to the restricitons it possesses, now you try to tell me how is this supposed to be even remotely similar to what you described, let me answer it for you: you CANNOT simply because THIS and THAT are 2 different things.
A Bladesinger in bladesong with a 14 Dexterity, 16 Intelligence, mage armor and upcast false life will have a higher AC and more hit points than a Fighter or Ranger of the same level in medium armor and a 14 Dexterity. With the shield spell, shield much higher unless the fighter is an EK in which case he will still be slightly higher and will have far more castings. That is before you even consider the defensive benefit of other spells like blur or haste.
Remember the whole point of this discussion is a character who wants to use a stat other than strength for a longsword.
That's the thing pal that was NEVER the point of this argument, or not the point i was trying to make, heck being entirely honest i only ever thought of this because the last time i suggested to simply let Bladesingers use Int for attacks and damage rolls, people told me it would make them too OP and after reconsidering i ended agreeing with them, hence why i tried to make a way for the class to get weapon versatility without making them SAD or compromising effectiveness (you know just like Hexblades and Battle Smiths the OTHER single class "gishes" do) and THIS idea was the closest i could think of, so excuse me for wanting to give mechanical support to something WotC should have addressed since the start.
Also the you are wrong about the Ranger i GAVE you an example how to make a Str build with it, simply dump Dex, take the "Heavily Armored" Feat, get heavy armor and raise Str and Wis to max, a Str Ranger needs NO Dex (Fighters DO need both but only if they are weaing Light armor and they only get to pull that because of the absurd amounts of extra ASI's that they get, which is something that NO OTHER CLASS GETS, like i mentioned on my last message).
Finally the example of Shillelagh was simply to show how much more freedom of choice other classes have with their stat allocation, as a Bladesinger on the other hand because of Bladesong's restricitions and because how the entire subclass is build on that one ability, you are pretty much forced to max Int and Dex specifically. If you believe otherwise good for you, but i for one am not convinced, so lets just agree to disagree because i'm frankly done with this and neither will i change your mind nor will you change mine.
Remember the whole point of this discussion is a character who wants to use a stat other than strength for a longsword.
Also the you are wrong about the Ranger i GAVE you an example how to make a Str build with it, simply dump Dex, take the "Heavily Armored" Feat, get heavy armor and raise Str and Wis to max, a Str Ranger needs NO Dex (Fighters DO need both but only if they are weaing Light armor and they only get to pull that because of the absurd amounts of extra ASI's that they get, which is something that NO OTHER CLASS GETS, like i mentioned on my last message).
You are not describing the Ranger I am talking about, you are making a Ranger that sucks with both Ranged weapons and stealth, and not sucks as in not as good as most Rangers, but as in sucks as in really bad.
A Ranger needs dexterity to be decent at stealth, he needs dexterity to be a decent bowman. Sure you can build him and sacrifice those things, but you "can" do that with a Bladesinger too. I mentioned it above - Mountain Dwarf Bladesinger, dump dex and take the Heavy Armor feat. You just don't get to use bladesong. Such a Bladesinger "needs no Dex" and is going to be pretty darn potent in melee (more than a match for the Ranger you mentioned above).
Also, both of these require feats. Without feats your 8 Dex Ranger in medium armor has a far worse in AC then an 8 dex bladesinger in mage armor and bladesong.
Finally the example of Shillelagh was simply to show how much more freedom of choice other classes have with their stat allocation
If they want a high-dexterity build to make the most use of the Ranger class features, they don't have the freedom to take a Longsword and use dexterity with it.
The two of you are talking past one another about something, quite frankly, ought to be irrelevant in a wizard forum. I suggest taking a breather and letting this go for a time.
I'd take a hand crossbow, nothing as far as I can tell insists that bladesong is used with melee weapons. Wizards are best off in the rear, pepper people with bolts and cantrips. Pew Pew.
I'd take a hand crossbow, nothing as far as I can tell insists that bladesong is used with melee weapons. Wizards are best off in the rear, pepper people with bolts and cantrips. Pew Pew.
Hand Crossbow is awesome on a bladesinger and works well with Bladesinger extra attack because your second attack is a cantrip so loading is not an issue. It is the go-to missile weapon. The only problem is Training in War and Song specifies proficiency in a melee weapon.
Ideally weapons you want are whip, shortsword, scimitar, rapier and hand crossbow. You get the one of the melee weapons through the subclass, usually I get the others (or most of them) through a race, the weapon master feat or a Rogue dip (starting as Rogue).
I'd take a hand crossbow, nothing as far as I can tell insists that bladesong is used with melee weapons. Wizards are best off in the rear, pepper people with bolts and cantrips. Pew Pew.
Hand Crossbow is awesome on a bladesinger and works well with Bladesinger extra attack because your second attack is a cantrip so loading is not an issue. It is the go-to missile weapon. The only problem is Training in War and Song specifies proficiency in a melee weapon.
Ideally weapons you want are whip, shortsword, scimitar, rapier and hand crossbow. You get the one of the melee weapons through the subclass, usually I get the others (or most of them) through a race, the weapon master feat or a Rogue dip (starting as Rogue).
Yeah, you'd need to get the proficiency elsewhere but once you have it, its gold. Drow would be a solid choice to get there, if you use the option that lets you move stat bonuses where you want.
i did told him "lets agree to disagree on this matter" at least twice because i for one was already tired of discussing something where neither of us was willing to compromise, its him who kept it going or as long as it did.
Plus i fail to see how discussing about an idea for a feature of a Wizard subclass is considered out of place in the Wizard forums.
Again i have to heavily disagree here the current rules DO NOT support such an style, and if you truly think that making a viable Bladesinger without dumping Strength is possible, either: A. your DM is very generous with ability scores at character creation or B. you are using homebrew rules for stats yourself, because believe me, there is NO way without either homebrew or rolling for stats and getting very lucky results, that your Bladesinger will have its main stats high enough to be good at what its supposed to do and still have some left for raising Strength.
Also as i mention the current rules DO NOT actually support any style besides Finesse weapons, which i believe we can all agree are very limited (if not extremely so), so again i fail to see how such a restrictive method (such as the one i suggested) for allowing Bladesingers to use more weapons besides Finesse ones would cause any sort of imbalance (specially since the class would not really change mechanically at all, it would still be MAD needing both Dex and Int as its main stats, with Con being a close third, it would still be restricted to d8 weapons, it would just now have more choice on which weapon in particular they can use).
In the grand scheme of things each game (yours, mine, joe bloggs down the road) all run independantly from each other and never the twain shall meet. So any adjustments you make to your own game is largely unimportant, for instance, you could do an alternate ability option and allow someone playing a Bladesinger to lose one of the published abilities in Bladesong (either the bonus to AC, bonus to Conscentration checks, advantage on Acrobatics or bonus speed whilst bladesinging) and replace it with something more akin to the Hexblade Warlock: "Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property. When you attack with that weapon and have nothing in your other hand, you can use your Intelligence modifier, instead of Strength or Dexterity, for the attack and damage rolls." (Just to through in an EDIT...I'd likely also make this alternate ability use up an Attunement slot for a magic item)
To refer back to the 3.5e version of Bladesinger, Bladesong only worked with a Longsword or Rapier when you used it one handed and had nothing in your other hand so it has gotten a bit more open with regards to weapon options.
You can make a viable wizard who dumps their Intelligence to negative levels because there are enough spells which don't depend on Intelligence that it doesn't matter. Don't presume you can tell anyone the rules don't support a Strengh-focused bladesinger when they absolutely do.
Optimal and viable are not the same thing.
I think being the SADdest class is the greatest advantage bladesingers have, maybe next to paladin/hexblades. It just takes 3 levels of battlesmith, so you don't have to worry about other attributes, except Intelligence (and maybe some Constitution to compensate for your low base HP).
+ Instaboot to murderhobos + I don't watch Critical Role, and no, I really shouldn't either +
You are just wrong. A Bladesinger can be viable with any stats as long as intelligence is decent because he is a Wizard. I have played bladesingers with a variety of DMs with a variety of ability generation methods including point buy, standard array, 4d6-drop and homebrew methods.
A Bladesinger with any race can have a S16D14I16 at level 1 and that character will be VERY viable. Going S14D16I16 or S16D16I15 will ALL result in a VERY viable player and enable a variety of different play styles with the right spell selection. It is a fairy tale that such a character will not only be viable it can in fact be more powerful in combat than most characters at most tables. The math supports this, let me know if you need me to illustrate that mathematically.
That is just factually not true. If you are going to use bladesong and going to go in melee often you do need a good dexterity and intelligence, but you can still play without maximizing either of those (or strength). Considering the spells available there is no mathematical reason you can't play a bladesinger with a 14 Dexterity and 12 Constitution and EXCEL compared to most other characters. Do that and with the right spell selections you have a higher AC than most builds and are much harder to hit even out of proportion to your AC, you can take more damage in combat than most other martials, you can reduce damage you take better than most martials, you hit good in melee compared to most other martials using a Longsword. Now there are builds that will be significantly better in some of these areas but few if any can match all those across the board.
As a matter of fact, if you want to be completely honest you can even play a viable bladesinger that never uses bladesong and dumps dexterity completely. Go Hill Dwarf, trade warhammer for Maul and pick up the heavy armor feat at level 4 (with a +1 strength). This character will be 2 points in AC behind an optimized bladesinger in Mage armor/bladsong at level 4 (and 1 point ahead out of bladesong) and is able to start with a 16 Con and gets an extra 1hp/level for Hill Dwarf. He does not have to use mage armor and will be able to use a Maul for 2d6 with the bladesinger extra attack plus either booming blade or green flame damage. Pick up Crusher at level 8 and you can reliably land your movement damage with Booming Blade almost every time you hit with it. Now that character will not be as powerful in melee once you make it past 10th level, because you will not be able to use Song of Defense, but until then he is on par trading a little AC and movement for a more damage.
None of that may appeal to you thematically and it is not as powerful as optimizing by giving the bladesinger an extra unneeded buff, but RAW supports all fo those builds and all of them will be good .... VERY good.
If this is how you all feel fine, i respect it, just please respect the fact that I disagree with it (after all i was just suggesting something that could appeal to everyone and that doesn't creates any imbalance).
Man most of the Bladesinger's main features scale of Int as nearly all of them are connected to Bladesong (which again scales with Int), also the Bladesinger is stuck with light armor meaning, that high (if not max) Dex IS NEEDED, so that's 2 stats you need to max out, so if using point buy or standard array you will likely spends most if not all your ASI's in order to achieve this leaving all your other stats way lower (and since Con tends to be everyone's third most important stats expect any remaining ASI's to go there), so again unless your DM is being generous, you are using homebrew or rolling for stats and getting very lucky, it will be impossible to that many stats high enough, simply because the game is designed to PREVENT players from maxing out more than 2 stats at a time (again unless rolling for stats or using homebrew), so yeah the whole part of the "current rules support it" are outright FALSE and NON-FACTUAL, also i fail to see why you are so opposed to something that doesn't even impacts negatively in the game, but then again feel free to disagree.
If you want to max AC on a bladesinger you would use mage armor, not light armor. And it is not "DM," it is DMs plural as in multiple on many tables. I've been playing Bladesingers since the class came out and I have played 8 of them (both SCAG and Tasha versions), all well into tier 2 and most into tier 3, to include point buy, standard array, 4d6d1 and a homebrew method. Most had an 8 strength, but I have also played them with an 11 strength and 15 strength. I played them with 9, 10, 12, 13 and14 constitution at start (the 9 was with a homebrew ability generation method). They have all had 16 or better intelligence at level 1, but some of them went to level 14 without boosting Dex beyond 18. Most of the Bladesingers I played were built with point buy. Every one of them was either hands down the most powerful character in the party or one of the most powerful characters in the party and all of them were at least good in melee, to include the one that started with a 9 con. The latter ones were superb in melee both because of the Tasha subclass upgrades and the more experience I got playing the subbclass, the better I became at selecting and using spells.
It is not impossible to start with the stats I mentioned. Using point buy any race can start with a 16/16/14 in its three top stats at level 1. In fact several races can start with three 16s at level 1 on a standard 27 point buy. In any case a Bladesinger with a 16 Strength 14 Dexterity and 16 Intelligence will have a very high AC in bladesong. Not as high as one who starts with a 16, but high and only one point behind. He will maintain that 1 point difference until she maxes intelligence. (level 8 on point buy). If you want to wield a longsword RAW that is what you probably should do.
Everyone "tends" to put constitution as their 3rd best ability, but there is no rule saying you have to do that and a bladesinger is completely viable and in fact one of the most powerful characters in the game with a 10 or a 12 in constitution (and I can say this from experience having played with multiple DMs). A Wizard can make up for constitution with spells, it is the beauty of playing a Wizard.
Most of the Bladesinger's I have played used point buy, but as a point of fact the game is not "DESIGNED" around point buy. There are three methods of generating ability scores mentioned in the PHB, the default method is to roll 4d6 and drop 1. Standard array is offered as an option "If you want to save time or don’t like the idea of randomly determining ability scores" and point buy is a variant rule.
Bottom line is you are presented with numerous choices when building a character. Mechancally the longsword is an inferior weapon on almost any class compared to "the best" weapon available for optimizer. Even a Monk with dedicated weapon and racial proficiencies is still mechanically better off with a warhammer. RAW if you want to wield a longsword you are going to need to make some compromises, whether it is a Bladesinger, Fighter, Ranger or any other character. That is what the game is actually DESIGNED to do - make you consider the tradeoffs and make reasonable choices to build the character you want to build.
And this is where i disagree, as there are MANY classes that do NOT need to make such compromises, the most egregious example being both the Hexblade Warlock and the Battlesmith Artificer, since NEITHER class needs to sacrifice ANYTHING in order to be able to wield whichever weapon they want, and the worst part is that both are "single class gishes" just the Bladesinger, yet the Bladesinger is the only one with such arbitrary restrictions, heck i'm pretty sure that the only reason Bladesinger's doesn't has an equivalent to "Hex Warrior" or "Battle Ready" (the abilities that allow Hexblades and Battlesmiths to wield whichever weapon they want) is because they were printed back when Wizards of the Coast was still trying to nail down class design, because i'm pretty sure had the subclass released later in Xanathar's or Tasha's it would be more mechanically similar to those two (hence why i proposed this "Dedicated Weapon" like ability with the difference that my version would keep Bladesingers MAD instead of SAD).
No it is not just the bladesinger, this is the biggest farce oif all. A Dex Ranger or Dex Fighter is faced with the exact same delima if they want to use a longsword.
To start with the base claim is not true, in fact Bladesingers themselves start adding Intelligence to melee damage at 14th level, which combined with strength or dexterity bonus and their unique extra attack will put them well ahead of either of hexblades or Battlesmiths in base melee damage. On the order of twice as much DPR using a similar weapon.
I completely reject the argument that this is only due to when it was written. Tasha's version of the bladesinger was published after Hexblade and at the same time as artificer. It was also written the same time as they gave the Monk Dedicated Weapon. They changed several of the other mechanics on the bladesinger, if they thought they needed to add intelligence or a dedicated weapon effect they would have, as that would have been a smaller change than some of the other changes they made. The reason they didn't is a bladesinger is more powerful than any of these other subclasses/classes and did not need such a buff.
Hexblades or Battlesmiths can use Charisma or Intelligence respectively earlier and you accept tradeoffs because of that. First off you can cast a lot less spells with either of those chassis. Second since Tasha's came out, Hexblade in particular is a pretty weak sublclass unless you multiclass. Hexblades are ok in melee, but despite the Charisma bonus, a bladepact undead Warlock with a high dexterity or a race with medium armor will give them a run for their money as a melee Warlock. A genie Warlock with the right feats makes a comparable melee Warlock too. That said, if you really want to use intelligence on a bladesinger you can always multiclass into Battlesmith as noted earlier. That comes with compromises of its own of course.
Monks have dedicated weapon because they are a weak class and they need that buff. Bladesingers do not. Frankly Fighters or Rangers have a better argument for a Dedicated weapon effect than Bladesingers do. What is the justification for giving this to bladesingers while leaving Fighter and Ranger off?
And i completely reject your arguments: first it's very unlikely that any given campaign will reach level 14 (or even go past level 10, its not impossible but certainly not likely) hence why i think that trying to make an argument using such high level abilities is a moot point since very VERY rarely will such circumstances come to pass, also there is the fact that by level 14 its very likely that your party already has either Very Rare or even Legendary items (and lets not even mention fullcasters with 7th level spells), as such game balance literally jumps down from the window and hangs itself, so trying to make any argument about "balance" at those levels is also a moot point.
Second your examples of the Ranger and the Fighter can in NO considerable way be fairly compared to the Bladesinger's case, simply because the fact that both Rangers and Fighters actually have a choice, for example: a Fighter unless Multiclassing, using a subclass that requires to focus on a specific stat (like the Eldritch Knight or Psi Warrior) or simply raising a mental stat for roleplay and/or mechanical benefit (for example raising Wisdom to have better Perception bonus or raising Charisma to be the party's face), realistically does NOT requires any other stats besides Str, Dex and Con, and if you are not doing any of the above you can realistically have great scores in all 3, add the 2 extra ASI's that you get and you are pretty much set (heck you could even make the character wear Light or Medium armor while still using Str to attack and still be effective thanks to all ASI's you get, a benefit NO OTHER CLASS GETS).
As for the Ranger they even have more versatility in how they are build thanks to the "Druidic Warrior" style which lets them pick "Shillelagh" and use their spellcasting stat for attack and damage rolls (granted with the limitation of only working with Clubs and Quarterstaves), at that point they only need to raise Dex to 14 in order to get the full benefit of Medium armor, or they could forget Dex too and instead take the "Heavily Armored" Feat and not worry about AC ever again, and that's JUST with "Shillelagh", if instead you wanted a full Str/Wis build its even easier, just take the aforementioned feat, dump Dex and focus on raising Str and Wis.
And you may ask, why does that work? because neither the Fighter nor Ranger have a mechanic that forces them to focus on a specific attack stat, unlike Bladesingers which because of Bladesong's mechanics are forced to wear Light armor or go Unarmored (and as we now Light armor FORCES you to make Dex builds, yet with either Medium or Heavy armor you can pretty much do whatever you like) and because the WHOLE subclass is based on Bladesong as its core ability, it means that if you want to use it to the fullest you are forced to comply to the restricitons it possesses, now you try to tell me how is this supposed to be even remotely similar to what you described, let me answer it for you: you CANNOT simply because THIS and THAT are 2 different things.
Look i don't want to you take any of this the wrong way but if you seriously cannot see where i'm coming from here, then i think it's for the best if we both simply agreed to disagree on this matter, because i will not change your opinion and you certainly will not change mine.
If you want to build a dexterity fighter that uses stealth and a longsword as a Ranger or a Fighter you need to invest in both Dexterity and Strength. It is the same and you do not need a great constitution to play a bladesinger well. That is a myth.
A Ranger can not use a longsword with Shillaleagh! Your whole point is that a Bladesinger needs to be able to wield a longsword specifically using a stat other than Strength. A Ranger can not do this, a Fighter can not do this and Shillelagh can not do this. Suggesting that Shillelagh be applied to any weapon would be comparable, but it isn't.
Your argument here for not letting a Ranger use dedicated weapon is because he can use Shellelagh and use a staff instead - well the same argument works for a bladesinger, she can use dexterity and use a Rapier instead.
Remember the whole point of this discussion is a character who wants to use a stat other than strength for a longsword.
If I want my Ranger to be able to hide and to cast spells effectively and to swing a longsword and to survive in melee I need to invest in Strength, Dexterity and Wisdom all there is no way around it. Compared to a bladesinger I need to invest more in Constitution too because does not have the spells to be as durable in melee.
A stealth Ranger using a longsword and tanking in melee is MORE MAD than a Bladesinger is.
A Bladesinger in bladesong with a 14 Dexterity, 16 Intelligence, mage armor and upcast false life will have a higher AC and more hit points than a Fighter or Ranger of the same level in medium armor and a 14 Dexterity. With the shield spell, shield much higher unless the fighter is an EK in which case he will still be slightly higher and will have far more castings. That is before you even consider the defensive benefit of other spells like blur or haste.
That's the thing pal that was NEVER the point of this argument, or not the point i was trying to make, heck being entirely honest i only ever thought of this because the last time i suggested to simply let Bladesingers use Int for attacks and damage rolls, people told me it would make them too OP and after reconsidering i ended agreeing with them, hence why i tried to make a way for the class to get weapon versatility without making them SAD or compromising effectiveness (you know just like Hexblades and Battle Smiths the OTHER single class "gishes" do) and THIS idea was the closest i could think of, so excuse me for wanting to give mechanical support to something WotC should have addressed since the start.
Also the you are wrong about the Ranger i GAVE you an example how to make a Str build with it, simply dump Dex, take the "Heavily Armored" Feat, get heavy armor and raise Str and Wis to max, a Str Ranger needs NO Dex (Fighters DO need both but only if they are weaing Light armor and they only get to pull that because of the absurd amounts of extra ASI's that they get, which is something that NO OTHER CLASS GETS, like i mentioned on my last message).
Finally the example of Shillelagh was simply to show how much more freedom of choice other classes have with their stat allocation, as a Bladesinger on the other hand because of Bladesong's restricitions and because how the entire subclass is build on that one ability, you are pretty much forced to max Int and Dex specifically. If you believe otherwise good for you, but i for one am not convinced, so lets just agree to disagree because i'm frankly done with this and neither will i change your mind nor will you change mine.
You are not describing the Ranger I am talking about, you are making a Ranger that sucks with both Ranged weapons and stealth, and not sucks as in not as good as most Rangers, but as in sucks as in really bad.
A Ranger needs dexterity to be decent at stealth, he needs dexterity to be a decent bowman. Sure you can build him and sacrifice those things, but you "can" do that with a Bladesinger too. I mentioned it above - Mountain Dwarf Bladesinger, dump dex and take the Heavy Armor feat. You just don't get to use bladesong. Such a Bladesinger "needs no Dex" and is going to be pretty darn potent in melee (more than a match for the Ranger you mentioned above).
Also, both of these require feats. Without feats your 8 Dex Ranger in medium armor has a far worse in AC then an 8 dex bladesinger in mage armor and bladesong.
If they want a high-dexterity build to make the most use of the Ranger class features, they don't have the freedom to take a Longsword and use dexterity with it.
The two of you are talking past one another about something, quite frankly, ought to be irrelevant in a wizard forum. I suggest taking a breather and letting this go for a time.
I'd take a hand crossbow, nothing as far as I can tell insists that bladesong is used with melee weapons. Wizards are best off in the rear, pepper people with bolts and cantrips. Pew Pew.
Hand Crossbow is awesome on a bladesinger and works well with Bladesinger extra attack because your second attack is a cantrip so loading is not an issue. It is the go-to missile weapon. The only problem is Training in War and Song specifies proficiency in a melee weapon.
Ideally weapons you want are whip, shortsword, scimitar, rapier and hand crossbow. You get the one of the melee weapons through the subclass, usually I get the others (or most of them) through a race, the weapon master feat or a Rogue dip (starting as Rogue).
Yeah, you'd need to get the proficiency elsewhere but once you have it, its gold. Drow would be a solid choice to get there, if you use the option that lets you move stat bonuses where you want.
i did told him "lets agree to disagree on this matter" at least twice because i for one was already tired of discussing something where neither of us was willing to compromise, its him who kept it going or as long as it did.
Plus i fail to see how discussing about an idea for a feature of a Wizard subclass is considered out of place in the Wizard forums.