And grease doesn't say it's flammable, so it isn't flammable.
Conversely, grease doesn't say its inflammable either. And just about anything in the world will either burn or melt / evaporate. Furthermore, its made using butter and/or pork grease, both of which are very much flammable. Absence of evidence is not proof of evidence of absence. Or, in other words, just because something is not in the book doesn't mean anything beyond "the rules don't cover this."
In the end, that makes this a situation where its deliberately left as a DM call. The writers of 5e didn't want to cover every niche case in the book and left such calls up to individual DMs, and this very definitely counts as one of those times. Rulings, not rules.
Crawrford is no longer considered official rules answer guy for a very good reason. The man basically ignores the whole design philosophy of 5e in the first place, simple casual language over highly technical. So, no, its not an official ruling at all.
Something is only flammable if it is expressly called out as such. The contents of an oil flask are expressly flammable. Your character's food and clothing, while realistically flammable, do not ignite unless an in-game effect says so.
Firebolt, burning hands, and fireball can all ignite flammable materials and objects. Scorching Ray cannot. The specific beats general every single time.
The DMs. When 5e was being playtested as DnD NEXT, when the book came out, inside the book itself, its been made very clear that the game is based on simple language instead of technical, because they want the weight of those decisions to be made at each individual table. Mearls had said, more than once, "Rulings, not rules." Its a design feature for you to go ask your DM how they want it handled.
Doesn't help that the D&D team has changed Crawford's calls in their official errata before, so clearly, he's very much not infallible.
Something is only flammable if it is expressly called out as such.
So are you saying that all the mundane equipment in the PHB is suddenly immflamable? Including non-magical, regular, everyday arrows? You know, the ones that are made out of wood?
Frankly, that's a rather extreme position I'm just going to have to disagree with. You can play that way (DM call) but its hardly a universal rule.
At some point, you're going to have to pull your head out of the sand. Crawford is the lead rules designer. He is absolutely qualified to speak to rulings and how a given rule is intended to be used. The DM is absolutely free to change things at their table. But there is also an official set of rulings for organized play. This fact should not be discounted.
The PHB has multiple entries that either specifically say something is flammable or can ignite other objects. If you wish to use your arrows as kindling to start a fire, that's your business. It's an idiotic move, but you do you. Does a casting of Burning Hands or Fireball ignite them, though? Or your cloak? No, because that's a specific exception carved out for the spells. Even a flask of oil only increases fire damage by a small amount for a limited time.
Grease (the spell) very specifically does not interact with fire. It was never intended to, and if it was then it would say so. Spells only do what they say they do. No more and no less.
And, to the best of my knowledge, no version of the spell ever has interacted with fire.
How rude. Because someone disagrees with you is no reason to start being rude.
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter). The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. Jeremy Crawford’s tweets are often a preview of rulings that will appear here.
There has been more than one instance where the tweets have not been made official in an Sage Advice Compendium, and have, in fact, been the opposite. They're as official as an Unearthed Arcana test document. Ie your choice
How rude. Because someone disagrees with you is no reason to start being rude.
I'm not being rude because you're disagreeing with me. Myself, and countless others, have been able to engage in informative and spirited debate with no problem. If I'm being rude, it's because I think your attitude sucks.
"The rules don't matter and the DM can do whatever they want."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that does seem to be the gist of your position. And you're kind of right. The DM is the final arbiter of the rules at the table. On the other hand, players are free to leave if any lack of consistency detracts from their fun. And your advocacy for relativism isn't remotely helpful.
Take the spell fog cloud, for example. It specifically creates an area that is heavily obscured. The spell gust of wind, by its description, counters fog cloud, similar spells, and other effects. Sleet storm, another area-of-effect spell used for controlling the battlefield, explicitly creates difficult terrain. Spells do exactly what their descriptions say they do, and they don't do what's not there. Your leaps of logic, as logical as they might seem to you, do not matter. Anything you impose beyond what's in the description is, literally, out of bounds.
Making an object or area flammable when it wasn't before is a mechanical effect. If grease was intended to have such a mechanic, it would say so. Casting fireball over the affected area will not burn off (dispel) or ignite (cause damage over) the "greased" terrain. But it would to a creature or square drenched in the contents of a flask of oil. Heck, it wouldn't even create a new light source on the battlefield.
I understand where you're coming from, I really do. But you're wrong.
I would disagree with your premise that they are vulnerable. A bladesinger is typically going to go into combat with mage armor +dex +int while bladesinging. That should give her on the order of 19 base AC at 2nd level plus shield as a reaction for 24 effectively. Very few 2nd level fighters are going to be this well armored and that is before you consider mirror image, blur etc and at high levels you can trade spell slots for damage on the rare hits that get through. I played a bladesinger once in battle where the opponent needed to roll a natural 20 with disadvantage to score a hit and they only got that opportunity if I failed my roll to make him target a mirror image.
Granted that is an extreme example, but in the games I have played, bladesingers in bladesong are by far the most difficult characters to score melee hits on and other than barbarians in rage they will "survive" the longest in melee (and will outlast even barbarians if the foe has magic weapons). AoE spells work well against bladesingers due to their few hit points, as do spells or cantrips that require saves instead of hits but they work against other wizards not on the front line as well, and being near the enemy makes it more difficult for the enemy to use AOE spells.
What bladesingers lack in melee is the offensive power of martial classes, or for that matter rogues. In bladesong they will survive in melee a long time, but they are not going to dish out as much damage, so they will keep fighting but will need help to "finish" the fight.
Here are my recommendations:
1. Tactics: It depends on the fight. One of my favorite uses is to go hold down a few enemies and have the rogue in the party glide in and out for sneak attack. I keep the enemies cut off and try to keep them off of the rogue. Following are some more general guidelines.
Against large numbers, bladesingers are great at plugging a gap or defending a choke point and locking up multiple enemies while the fighters clean everyone up. Keep your defenses up with blur and mirror image and you will probably not be hit at all. After they take down all your images put more up. When you aren't doing "defense maintenance" spam green flame blade and deal mediocre, but not great damage. You can augment that with damaging spells like burning hands or lightning bolt if you have the spare slots.
Against small numbers of medium-power monsters, same as above you can hold one or more off and keepthem away from squishy characters until the fighters dispatch theirs and can come help you take down yours.
Against bosses, you are going to want to act like a proper mage and hit them with your hardest spells first.
2. Feats: I generally go with feats that raise intelligence or dexterity with a bladesinger - fey teleportation Resilient dex and observant are some of my favorite. Because of the need to max both int and dex this is one of few classes where I might go with an ASI instead of a feat. Lucky is a really good feat too. Lucky works best when you don't need to use it often, so it is awesome to have it for when the enemy lands that impossible hit with disadvantage.
I would not use mobile for bladesinger. That feat works well for weak, easy to hit characters who need to go into melee, land a powerful blow and retreat. The bladesinger is the opposite of this, very hard to hit in melee but dealing mediocre damage. When the bladesinger is in bladesong you want her on the front line tying people up and denying the enemies mobility.
Warcaster is not that great either IMO. Bladesigning already gives you a bonus on concentration saves and I think it is better to save reactions (and spell slots) for shield.
Sentinel might work well, but I don't generally get it because I like to keep reaction available for shield if needed.
3. Spells: Shield is a must. Mage armor is good for 1 AC better than studded leather. You can decide if it is worth it, based on how wealthy you are and how much you will need it for 1st level before you get light armor proficiency. I generally get it. Other than those, the damaging spells good for wizards are generally good (i.e. magic missile, ice knife, fireball etc) and you certainly need some of those, but other spells I like specifically for this subclass are: absorb elements, grease, color spray, burning hands, blur, hold person, mirror image, blink, lightning bolt, Evard's tenticles, wall of fire, cone of cold, hold monster, contingency and eyebite.
I don't generally play above 12th level so I can't really make recommendations beyond this.
Multiclassing: In general no. You need a lot of spell slots for this class, so non full casters are a big hinderence. The only multiclass I would consider is a 2-level dip in cleric of light domain or order domain and only then if you rolled abilities and got a high wisdom. Those two, especially light domain, work really well with bladesinger. If you did a point buy or standard array your wisdom should not be high enough to multiclass to cleric though and if it is high enough you are really compromising the stats that matter for your bladesinger.
If I was playing a high-intelligence dex fighter or rogue that wore light armor, I might consider a dip into bladesinger to get bladesong, but wizard would not be their main class. Since it would need to be a high-intelligence PC to get the good benifits it is an EK or AT.
for my own money on spells however I always find mirror image to be a waste as it has at most a 15 ac and usually anything that ends up targeting an image manages to hit it even if that attack wouldn't have hit the singer I've had multiple mirrors go down before any would have hit so I just quit preparing it.
I sort of agree on the Warcaster being a waste too especially if you took an initial level of fighter or artificer to get the constitution saves... you just don't get hit often enough for concentration to really be an issue and usually shields are worth way more than getting to cast a spell as an opportunity attack but it is better than sentinel when paired with booming blade.
And grease doesn't say it's flammable, so it isn't flammable.
Conversely, grease doesn't say its inflammable either. And just about anything in the world will either burn or melt / evaporate. Furthermore, its made using butter and/or pork grease, both of which are very much flammable. Absence of evidence is not proof of evidence of absence. Or, in other words, just because something is not in the book doesn't mean anything beyond "the rules don't cover this."
In the end, that makes this a situation where its deliberately left as a DM call. The writers of 5e didn't want to cover every niche case in the book and left such calls up to individual DMs, and this very definitely counts as one of those times. Rulings, not rules.
Flammable and Inflammable mean the same thing. I think you mean non-flammable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my Disabled & Dragons Youtube Channel for 5e Monster and Player Tactics. Helping the Disabled Community and Players and DM’s (both new and experienced) get into D&D. Plus there is a talking Dragon named Quill.
D&D is written in a system where if something says it does something, it does that thing. If it doesn't say that, it doesn't do that thing.
Grease, is non-flammable. There is no way to argue RAW that Grease is flammable, it uses the same wording on the topic that spells such as Wall of Stone uses, no wording at all relating to fire. Granted, if you want to play the "but it doesn't not say it does that" game, then take it to the logical extreme and say Grease makes anyone who stands in it immune to all damage because it doesn't not say that.
On the topic on hand, I have not played a bladesinger but most of this advice seems very solid. I agree a level or two in another class can help, light domain to improve cantrip damage, fighter for CON saves, AC & Hp. Artificer cause artificer always goes well with wizard. Most of your bladesinger spells are probably going to be pretty low leveled anyways (shield, absorb elements, haste) except maybe Tenser's Transformation so if your starting at Tier 2, consider a dip. After level 5 Wizard most levels are only granting +1/2 spell slots anyways (all the spells I listed above cannot be upcasted).
Unless your a dual-wielder, yeah I agree with Auburn2, Warcaster isn't very important unless your finding yourself making many CON saving throws.
slight edit fixed a typo and I think absorb elements can be upcasted, but nobody is going to be doing that.
I just wanted to mention that Bladesinger seems great. There was some mention of dual wielding, however rules for the Bladesinger state you can't have a weapon or shield in the offhand.
I just wanted to mention that Bladesinger seems great. There was some mention of dual wielding, however rules for the Bladesinger state you can't have a weapon or shield in the offhand.
My copy of Tasha's only stipulates that Bladesong prevents wearing medium or heavy armor, wearing a shield, or attacking with a weapon in two hands. You can still wield a second weapon; which is consistent with the original wording from SCAG.
For example, wielding a longsword in one hand and a staff in the other.
I just wanted to mention that Bladesinger seems great. There was some mention of dual wielding, however rules for the Bladesinger state you can't have a weapon or shield in the offhand.
You can dual wield. Bladesong says it ends when you hold the same weapon with two hands, not hold two weapons.
That said, dual wielding is kinda subpar ngl. When many refer to dual wielding, it's often paired up with talks of shadow blade, and the main issue revolves around the earliest you could potentially use shadow blade is on the third turn. You may spend your first turn entering blade song, then the next turn you use your bonus action to conjure your shadow blade. Only until the third round can you start to benefit from your spell.
That may translate into using it towards the end when you need it least. so, that's my take.
A wizard who focus half of his/her life ( aka the way to be lvl 20 in less than 1 month ) is a wizard who just dislike the Arcana tradition and its own possibilities.
For most bladesinger's I'd recommend dipping fighter for the first level to pick up con save…
The only proficiencies that carry over into multiclassing are armor, weapons, skills and tools. You don’t actually get the saving throw proficiencies from new classes. Check out the chart on p164 of the PHB for all the proficiencies that carry over I from a new class.
You’d need to use a feat like Resilient to get that Con save proficiency, but Warcaster is probably more bang for the buck when it comes to Con saves.
For most bladesinger's I'd recommend dipping fighter for the first level to pick up con save…
The only proficiencies that carry over into multiclassing are armor, weapons, skills and tools. You don’t actually get the saving throw proficiencies from new classes. Check out the chart on p164 of the PHB for all the proficiencies that carry over I from a new class.
You’d need to use a feat like Resilient to get that Con save proficiency, but Warcaster is probably more bang for the buck when it comes to Con saves.
You misread a little bit there my dude. Mordes is suggesting that you go Fighter at lvl 1 before multiclassing into Wizard. So you do get CON saves.
For most bladesinger's I'd recommend dipping fighter for the first level to pick up con save…
The only proficiencies that carry over into multiclassing are armor, weapons, skills and tools. You don’t actually get the saving throw proficiencies from new classes. Check out the chart on p164 of the PHB for all the proficiencies that carry over I from a new class.
You’d need to use a feat like Resilient to get that Con save proficiency, but Warcaster is probably more bang for the buck when it comes to Con saves.
You misread a little bit there my dude. Mordes is suggesting that you go Fighter at lvl 1 before multiclassing into Wizard. So you do get CON saves.
Another option for Con saves that has come into play is taking Artificer at first level, thereby not losing any slot progression (though still a level behind in spell progression).
Honestly, I don’t recommend multiclass as a Bladesinger. Delay your extra attack and high level spells hurts much more.
You already have a good bonus in Concentration checks and Resilient CON is a lovely feat you can get ASAP if you are vHuman, Custom Lineage or playing with more generous stats.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While DMs are certainly allowed to house-rule it how they want, the writer has given an official ruling on the topic. https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/739200837809934340
Crawrford is no longer considered official rules answer guy for a very good reason. The man basically ignores the whole design philosophy of 5e in the first place, simple casual language over highly technical. So, no, its not an official ruling at all.
Something is only flammable if it is expressly called out as such. The contents of an oil flask are expressly flammable. Your character's food and clothing, while realistically flammable, do not ignite unless an in-game effect says so.
Firebolt, burning hands, and fireball can all ignite flammable materials and objects. Scorching Ray cannot. The specific beats general every single time.
And if not Crawford, then who?
The DMs. When 5e was being playtested as DnD NEXT, when the book came out, inside the book itself, its been made very clear that the game is based on simple language instead of technical, because they want the weight of those decisions to be made at each individual table. Mearls had said, more than once, "Rulings, not rules." Its a design feature for you to go ask your DM how they want it handled.
Doesn't help that the D&D team has changed Crawford's calls in their official errata before, so clearly, he's very much not infallible.
So are you saying that all the mundane equipment in the PHB is suddenly immflamable? Including non-magical, regular, everyday arrows? You know, the ones that are made out of wood?
Frankly, that's a rather extreme position I'm just going to have to disagree with. You can play that way (DM call) but its hardly a universal rule.
At some point, you're going to have to pull your head out of the sand. Crawford is the lead rules designer. He is absolutely qualified to speak to rulings and how a given rule is intended to be used. The DM is absolutely free to change things at their table. But there is also an official set of rulings for organized play. This fact should not be discounted.
The PHB has multiple entries that either specifically say something is flammable or can ignite other objects. If you wish to use your arrows as kindling to start a fire, that's your business. It's an idiotic move, but you do you. Does a casting of Burning Hands or Fireball ignite them, though? Or your cloak? No, because that's a specific exception carved out for the spells. Even a flask of oil only increases fire damage by a small amount for a limited time.
Grease (the spell) very specifically does not interact with fire. It was never intended to, and if it was then it would say so. Spells only do what they say they do. No more and no less.
And, to the best of my knowledge, no version of the spell ever has interacted with fire.
How rude. Because someone disagrees with you is no reason to start being rude.
There has been more than one instance where the tweets have not been made official in an Sage Advice Compendium, and have, in fact, been the opposite. They're as official as an Unearthed Arcana test document. Ie your choice
EDIT - further relevant. Tweet saying tweets aren't official - https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105277917582389248
Jeremy saying his tweets were always optional rulings, not RAW must use - https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/894971396018667520
Jeremy explaining his role - https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf
I'm not being rude because you're disagreeing with me. Myself, and countless others, have been able to engage in informative and spirited debate with no problem. If I'm being rude, it's because I think your attitude sucks.
"The rules don't matter and the DM can do whatever they want."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that does seem to be the gist of your position. And you're kind of right. The DM is the final arbiter of the rules at the table. On the other hand, players are free to leave if any lack of consistency detracts from their fun. And your advocacy for relativism isn't remotely helpful.
Take the spell fog cloud, for example. It specifically creates an area that is heavily obscured. The spell gust of wind, by its description, counters fog cloud, similar spells, and other effects. Sleet storm, another area-of-effect spell used for controlling the battlefield, explicitly creates difficult terrain. Spells do exactly what their descriptions say they do, and they don't do what's not there. Your leaps of logic, as logical as they might seem to you, do not matter. Anything you impose beyond what's in the description is, literally, out of bounds.
Making an object or area flammable when it wasn't before is a mechanical effect. If grease was intended to have such a mechanic, it would say so. Casting fireball over the affected area will not burn off (dispel) or ignite (cause damage over) the "greased" terrain. But it would to a creature or square drenched in the contents of a flask of oil. Heck, it wouldn't even create a new light source on the battlefield.
I understand where you're coming from, I really do. But you're wrong.
I would disagree with your premise that they are vulnerable. A bladesinger is typically going to go into combat with mage armor +dex +int while bladesinging. That should give her on the order of 19 base AC at 2nd level plus shield as a reaction for 24 effectively. Very few 2nd level fighters are going to be this well armored and that is before you consider mirror image, blur etc and at high levels you can trade spell slots for damage on the rare hits that get through. I played a bladesinger once in battle where the opponent needed to roll a natural 20 with disadvantage to score a hit and they only got that opportunity if I failed my roll to make him target a mirror image.
Granted that is an extreme example, but in the games I have played, bladesingers in bladesong are by far the most difficult characters to score melee hits on and other than barbarians in rage they will "survive" the longest in melee (and will outlast even barbarians if the foe has magic weapons). AoE spells work well against bladesingers due to their few hit points, as do spells or cantrips that require saves instead of hits but they work against other wizards not on the front line as well, and being near the enemy makes it more difficult for the enemy to use AOE spells.
What bladesingers lack in melee is the offensive power of martial classes, or for that matter rogues. In bladesong they will survive in melee a long time, but they are not going to dish out as much damage, so they will keep fighting but will need help to "finish" the fight.
Here are my recommendations:
1. Tactics: It depends on the fight. One of my favorite uses is to go hold down a few enemies and have the rogue in the party glide in and out for sneak attack. I keep the enemies cut off and try to keep them off of the rogue. Following are some more general guidelines.
Against large numbers, bladesingers are great at plugging a gap or defending a choke point and locking up multiple enemies while the fighters clean everyone up. Keep your defenses up with blur and mirror image and you will probably not be hit at all. After they take down all your images put more up. When you aren't doing "defense maintenance" spam green flame blade and deal mediocre, but not great damage. You can augment that with damaging spells like burning hands or lightning bolt if you have the spare slots.
Against small numbers of medium-power monsters, same as above you can hold one or more off and keepthem away from squishy characters until the fighters dispatch theirs and can come help you take down yours.
Against bosses, you are going to want to act like a proper mage and hit them with your hardest spells first.
2. Feats: I generally go with feats that raise intelligence or dexterity with a bladesinger - fey teleportation Resilient dex and observant are some of my favorite. Because of the need to max both int and dex this is one of few classes where I might go with an ASI instead of a feat. Lucky is a really good feat too. Lucky works best when you don't need to use it often, so it is awesome to have it for when the enemy lands that impossible hit with disadvantage.
I would not use mobile for bladesinger. That feat works well for weak, easy to hit characters who need to go into melee, land a powerful blow and retreat. The bladesinger is the opposite of this, very hard to hit in melee but dealing mediocre damage. When the bladesinger is in bladesong you want her on the front line tying people up and denying the enemies mobility.
Warcaster is not that great either IMO. Bladesigning already gives you a bonus on concentration saves and I think it is better to save reactions (and spell slots) for shield.
Sentinel might work well, but I don't generally get it because I like to keep reaction available for shield if needed.
3. Spells: Shield is a must. Mage armor is good for 1 AC better than studded leather. You can decide if it is worth it, based on how wealthy you are and how much you will need it for 1st level before you get light armor proficiency. I generally get it. Other than those, the damaging spells good for wizards are generally good (i.e. magic missile, ice knife, fireball etc) and you certainly need some of those, but other spells I like specifically for this subclass are: absorb elements, grease, color spray, burning hands, blur, hold person, mirror image, blink, lightning bolt, Evard's tenticles, wall of fire, cone of cold, hold monster, contingency and eyebite.
I don't generally play above 12th level so I can't really make recommendations beyond this.
Multiclassing: In general no. You need a lot of spell slots for this class, so non full casters are a big hinderence. The only multiclass I would consider is a 2-level dip in cleric of light domain or order domain and only then if you rolled abilities and got a high wisdom. Those two, especially light domain, work really well with bladesinger. If you did a point buy or standard array your wisdom should not be high enough to multiclass to cleric though and if it is high enough you are really compromising the stats that matter for your bladesinger.
If I was playing a high-intelligence dex fighter or rogue that wore light armor, I might consider a dip into bladesinger to get bladesong, but wizard would not be their main class. Since it would need to be a high-intelligence PC to get the good benifits it is an EK or AT.
this is a pretty good rundown...
for my own money on spells however I always find mirror image to be a waste as it has at most a 15 ac and usually anything that ends up targeting an image manages to hit it even if that attack wouldn't have hit the singer I've had multiple mirrors go down before any would have hit so I just quit preparing it.
I sort of agree on the Warcaster being a waste too especially if you took an initial level of fighter or artificer to get the constitution saves... you just don't get hit often enough for concentration to really be an issue and usually shields are worth way more than getting to cast a spell as an opportunity attack but it is better than sentinel when paired with booming blade.
You both do know inflammable & flammable mean the same thing, don't you?
Flammable and Inflammable mean the same thing. I think you mean non-flammable.
Check out my Disabled & Dragons Youtube Channel for 5e Monster and Player Tactics. Helping the Disabled Community and Players and DM’s (both new and experienced) get into D&D. Plus there is a talking Dragon named Quill.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPPmyTI0tZ6nM-bzY0IG3ww
D&D is written in a system where if something says it does something, it does that thing. If it doesn't say that, it doesn't do that thing.
Grease, is non-flammable. There is no way to argue RAW that Grease is flammable, it uses the same wording on the topic that spells such as Wall of Stone uses, no wording at all relating to fire. Granted, if you want to play the "but it doesn't not say it does that" game, then take it to the logical extreme and say Grease makes anyone who stands in it immune to all damage because it doesn't not say that.
On the topic on hand, I have not played a bladesinger but most of this advice seems very solid. I agree a level or two in another class can help, light domain to improve cantrip damage, fighter for CON saves, AC & Hp. Artificer cause artificer always goes well with wizard. Most of your bladesinger spells are probably going to be pretty low leveled anyways (shield, absorb elements, haste) except maybe Tenser's Transformation so if your starting at Tier 2, consider a dip. After level 5 Wizard most levels are only granting +1/2 spell slots anyways (all the spells I listed above cannot be upcasted).
Unless your a dual-wielder, yeah I agree with Auburn2, Warcaster isn't very important unless your finding yourself making many CON saving throws.
slight edit fixed a typo and I think absorb elements can be upcasted, but nobody is going to be doing that.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
I just wanted to mention that Bladesinger seems great. There was some mention of dual wielding, however rules for the Bladesinger state you can't have a weapon or shield in the offhand.
My copy of Tasha's only stipulates that Bladesong prevents wearing medium or heavy armor, wearing a shield, or attacking with a weapon in two hands. You can still wield a second weapon; which is consistent with the original wording from SCAG.
For example, wielding a longsword in one hand and a staff in the other.
You can dual wield. Bladesong says it ends when you hold the same weapon with two hands, not hold two weapons.
That said, dual wielding is kinda subpar ngl. When many refer to dual wielding, it's often paired up with talks of shadow blade, and the main issue revolves around the earliest you could potentially use shadow blade is on the third turn. You may spend your first turn entering blade song, then the next turn you use your bonus action to conjure your shadow blade. Only until the third round can you start to benefit from your spell.
That may translate into using it towards the end when you need it least. so, that's my take.
A wizard who focus half of his/her life ( aka the way to be lvl 20 in less than 1 month ) is a wizard who just dislike the Arcana tradition and its own possibilities.
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
The only proficiencies that carry over into multiclassing are armor, weapons, skills and tools. You don’t actually get the saving throw proficiencies from new classes. Check out the chart on p164 of the PHB for all the proficiencies that carry over I from a new class.
You’d need to use a feat like Resilient to get that Con save proficiency, but Warcaster is probably more bang for the buck when it comes to Con saves.
You misread a little bit there my dude. Mordes is suggesting that you go Fighter at lvl 1 before multiclassing into Wizard. So you do get CON saves.
Another option for Con saves that has come into play is taking Artificer at first level, thereby not losing any slot progression (though still a level behind in spell progression).
Honestly, I don’t recommend multiclass as a Bladesinger. Delay your extra attack and high level spells hurts much more.
You already have a good bonus in Concentration checks and Resilient CON is a lovely feat you can get ASAP if you are vHuman, Custom Lineage or playing with more generous stats.