You make a lot of assumptions that simply don't hold up to scrutiny. Chiefly because, and you admit this, every table is different. Every adventuring day is different. Something like shadow blade is not a universally optimal choice for anyone. And anyone who has to resort to language like "S-tier" is playing a different kind of game than, I would wager, at least a plurality of the player base.
For example, the optional rules for flanking (DMG 251) are stupid because they make it too easy to have advantage. It means people don't have to think about other ways of getting it, like with class features or spells. And that makes for boring, uninteresting combat.
Your main point was that bladesinger should be played like a regular wizard at range, which I disagreed with. Instead of shadowblade you can go summon fey for 3rd level if you want variety, you are right there isn't an one-size-fits-all but I have to base it on a build otherwise we will be debating for years on all the possible combinations. And what scrutiny is that? I detailed a lot of points on my previous reply to you and all you commented on was that bladesong is equally good at range as in melee, which is not true.
I agree 100% with everything you say about flanking, but many tables (including mine) use it, so that's what I'm going by. Even without flanking, the bladesinger could use the familiar or gain benefit from dim light/darkness which is not uncommon in D&D.
Of course you have to make some assumptions. Not every encounter is the same but I am basing it on common type of encounters. There is no point starting to debate on damage dealing capabilities of a melee class whilst fighting flying enemies, is there?
Do not put words in my mouth, Alex. I said bladesingers don't need to be fielded in melee, not that they can't or shouldn't be, which is true. This is especially true for their first five (four?) levels; where they don't have any features to exclusively help in melee until 6th-level. Arguably, as early as 4th-level with their fourth cantrip. That could be put towards booming blade or green-flame blade; assuming the optional rules in Tasha's aren't utilized. They're not guaranteed, so it's not reasonable to assume they're a factor.
And that's the crux of the argument: what is a reasonable assumption? You can't always predict what the environment combat will take place in, so Dim Light and Darkness are not conditions you can count on. Nor can you guarantee every wizard will have find familiar. And even if they did, any summoned familiar can easily die. You say you're basing your assumptions on a "common type of encounters", but you've never actually laid out those conditions. And that's because you can't.
I'm not even convinced you're cherry-picking "optimal" conditions because your posts read like every other optimizer guide I've seen or heard of. Cookie-cutter nonsense that leaves boring, uninteresting characters that all look the same. Sometimes, shadow blade isn't good enough. Maybe they want flaming sphere instead. Or maybe they want to use Concentration on something else. Players who only ever think inwardly aren't playing a cooperative game. And they'll actively hurt their group's chances of success in doing so.
I think the point they were trying to make is that, yes, your melee bladesinger works well as a melee character, but it still likely works better played as a normal wizard -- because the things you can do as a normal wizard are likely to be more valuable than what you can do in melee. Unless you're in a party with an excess of spellcasting already, anyway. Bladesinger's main draw, like any gish, is its versatility. It can be effective in ways a normal wizard cannot, while being only slightly less effective at being a normal wizard than other subclasses.
The whole point is that bladesingers need to be fielded up in melee, otherwise you are not utilizing the subclass to the fullest. You said that bladesong is equally as good at range. It's not, it's a melee focused feature. For ranged wizards see Divination or Chronurgy. Bladesinger doesn't work as good as a regular wizard because you lack features which help you land your spells. If you are a bladesinger and staying at range, you would have been better off with another wizard subclass.
Again, you don't have to pick shadowblade or animate objects or anything for that matter. Use concentration on anything you want. But I have to base my bladesinger on a specific build when I mention that it's one of the highest damage dealers in the game. Whether you think that's boring or not doesn't change what it is.
Common encounter means no immunity to psychic damage, no ludicrous AC i.e 25 etc.
Wizards without find familiar..ok. I mean, where does this stop? Should we assume then that not all wizards will focus on intelligence? What if a wizard wants to focus on strength instead in an attempt to become a wrestler? What if a wizard has memory issues and forgets to pick any spells? Again, this goes back to making reasonable assumptions and having a build which works in most situations.
Essentially, the things that make bladesingers great martials are not their sustained damage, but the effects they add ontop of their damage (crowd control from Booming Blade, excellent uses for their concentration, and their equally excellent reactions).
Sometimes as you go further and further into the game, it comes more and more apparent that sometimes focusing more on those extra effects, just being a normal wizard, is usually better than doing damage. Somehow, past a certain level, being a normal wizard is better than being a magical fighter. Nobody could have guessed.
Being a wizard bladesinger isn't bad either, you still get unbelievable concentration saves, mobility to get to the best positions for throwing spells, defenses (which a lot of wizards definitely want, at +5 INT it's basically shield but no reaction), better resourceless damage, and the flexibility to go to the frontline if your martials start dropping. Sure it's no chronology wizard, but like, the only thing comparable to chronology wizard is chronology wizard and maybe diviner if you squint hard enough.
I do confess it's a lot more enjoyable to play a bladesinger as a martial character, running into the frontline and doing more "direct" battlefield control. Doing so is perfectly viable as well, you still are doing good sustained damage esp. with the added effects of being a wizard. It's just there's always a weird disconnect whenever your making giving "tactics" or "most optimal play" as bladesinger which is that doing what's fun (hitting things with booming blades) is not always the same as doing what's most optimal (playing a normal wizard) and that both should be considered.
How is a 7th level bladesinger with TWF + shadowblade doing only 22 damage?
He only has a 16 Dexterity and is only hitting 60% of the time.
At 7th level you will be upcasting it at 3rd level. With extra attack + booming blade that is first attack + bonus attack: 1d6 + 1d8 + 3d8 + 3. Second attack: 3d8 + 3.
Ok then 27 if you upcast at 3rd level .... starting on the 3rd turn of combat. The First turn is 11 and the second turn is 18. Meanwhile other characters are doing more than that from the first turn or so close that you won't catch up during the spells duration. A 7th level Raging Zealot with a maul for example is doing 30 against AC15, he is doing that on round 1 and he can rage more than the bladesinger can bladesong.
Also considering that most tables use the flanking rule, it is not unlikely that all attacks will hit.
Most tables I have played do not use flanking. The tables that do use flanking use it for both enemies and allies and if you are running a bladesinger who is being flanked you are not going to last long at all without a good defensive spell up to counter the advantage.
Bladesingers are superb in melee, but that is largely based on avoiding hits. Because of this flanking nerfs the Bladesinger substantially and shifts the table towards a character with damage reduction and more hit points. A bladesinger in a table with flanking is much weaker in melee than one at a table without flanking. They lose a lot more than they gain.
In regards to animate objects, yes it comes later on into play and all wizards get it, but the other wizards can't have it running whilst also reliably dealing additional damage on top round after round.
Sure they can.
By the time they get Animate objects they have 14 spell slots all which can be damage and you state below that we are not looking at sustained damage for a whole whole day, but just one battle. If that is the case they can "sustain" casting their highest level damaging spells because they have more slots than the battle will last in rounds.
Also I would argue a bladesinger using animate objects and extra attack will generally do LESS damage over the course of a battle than another wizard using animate objects and cantrips because the Bladesinger loses a round to set up bladesong. Bladesinger goes into bladesong on round 1, so either she does not cast animate objects or she does not use her bonus to make them attack the first turn. Either way, that is like 50 damage lost on the first turn of combat compared to another wizard who does not have to use his bonus for something else. Over the minute the spell lasts she will be hard pressed to make up for that with the 1d8+dex extra damage she does with an attack every turn.
Spells depending on spell save dc's are not reliable unless portent comes into play.
Actually save spells are more reliable because most do damage even with a save, where an attack spell is all or nothing and is entirely dependent on stat vs ac. I will add though you can often choose your spell depending on the stat to save, so you can choose your spell based on what you think the weak stats are, while a high ac is always a high ac.
Also if the enemy makes a save you can force a reroll with a reaction and silvery barbs. You can't do that if you miss an attack roll, it is just a miss.
Also, spell slots are a limited resource whilst sword attacks are not ......The term sustainable was used on an encounter basis, not a day.
At 9th level when you get animate objects spell slots are not limited on a single encounter basis. Wizards have more slots than they can use in a single encounter. At 9th level they are pushing the limit of the number of slots they can use in 3 encounters.
And Martials like Battlemasters and Arcane Archers can burn through a bunch of maneuvers if you are only looking at a single battle (and get them back on a short rest instead of a long rest to boot). A Paladin can use smites. In terms of comparisons it is not fair to let the bladesinger use limited use abilities like bladesong and 3rd and 5th level spell slots and not let other classes use that stuff too.
That can vary from table to table. Some tables could have 5 encounters per day, others could have just 1.
And neither supports animate objects putting the bladesinger in a class of her own in terms of sustained damage. If it is 5 encounters at 9th level she is only going to be able to use animate objects in one of them (2 with arcane recovery). If it is just 1 fight then the damage she can deal with an attack action is irrelevant because running out of spell slots can't happen.
I agree that bladesinger takes a bit to get going assuming you set up defenses first or bladesong but once it's all there, it pulls ahead. Also, most DM's will let you know that an encounter is coming and you can take an action prior to the encounter, or you are about to provoke an encounter in which case you know in advance. Casting bladesong and a defensive spell there and then rolling for initiative will have you entering combat well and ready. If the enemy surprises you, then sure, it will take a while.
But those set up rounds matter, and it doesn't really pull ahead of a high damage melee build it keeps up with a normal damage melee marial build and starts doing that at round 2 or 3 while using concentration to do it.
If we are talking about setup times, a swarmkeeper Ranger at 7th level with PAM and a quarterstaff can throw up hunters mark and swarm damage and get a bonus action attack and a reaction attack when they reenter melee after being pushed back from the swarm and will average 31dpr against someone with a 15AC and +5 strength save. Those numbers include the chance of failing the movement save and losing the reaction attack with PAM. THAT IS WITH A RANGER!
That is 3 turns to setup too - shillaleagh on the first turn, hunters mark on the second, losing a bonus action attack each time, so it is a lot less powerful than it sounds. But after that it is a reliable 31 and blows a bladesinger burning a 3rd level slot out of the water using only a 1st level slot and it is a spell that lasts an hour to boot.
None of these examples I have given are crazy Sharpshooter or GWM builds. These examples are all simple and straightforward basic builds.
Letting you cast spells before initiative is not RAW unless the enemy is surprised and even there you are still losing damage that you could otherwise do with an attack. There are times where you might be able to do it, but those are the exception not the norm on every table I have played and on every streaming game I have watched.
This is not to bash bladesingers. They are my favorite class and they are AWESOME in melee with a defensive spell up, but they are not awesome at dealing damage in melee. They are "ok" at that or "good" with a spell like shadowblade while trading some defense.
Assuming you can trigger secondary damage, at level 11 that's 4d6+3(Dex)+4d8+3d8. That's (I think) 59DPR (If I'm doing my math right, multiplying the total damage by 55% to account for misses). Advantage makes a shift, elven accuracy makes it even bigger. It's not GWM or Sharpshooter but it's pretty darn solid. The second booming blade from haste (yes, it works) makes it a very strong combo.
You cannot use the extra action afforded by haste to Cast a Spell. And as has been pointed out already, sticking with two melee weapons hinders the ability of the wizard to cast spells.
You cannot use the extra action afforded by haste to Cast a Spell. And as has been pointed out already, sticking with two melee weapons hinders the ability of the wizard to cast spells.
I'm not casting a spell with haste, I'm taking the attack action, and as a Bladesinger, I am replacing my attack with a Cantrip.
I don't have to have the freedom to take a second attack in order for the bladesinger feature to apply. If on my normal (non-hasted) action, I can take the attack action, replace my first attack with Booming Blade, and then not swing a second time, I can do exactly what haste says I can do, and take the attack action, and use my bladesinger feature to swap in the cantrip.
You cannot use the extra action afforded by haste to Cast a Spell. And as has been pointed out already, sticking with two melee weapons hinders the ability of the wizard to cast spells.
I'm not casting a spell with haste, I'm taking the attack action, and as a Bladesinger, I am replacing my attack with a Cantrip.
I don't have to have the freedom to take a second attack in order for the bladesinger feature to apply. If on my normal (non-hasted) action, I can take the attack action, replace my first attack with Booming Blade, and then not swing a second time, I can do exactly what haste says I can do, and take the attack action, and use my bladesinger feature to swap in the cantrip.
I'm going to point you towards the linked discussion. And, honestly, I forgot just how much I posted there and how much my opinion evolved as the discussion did. The additional Attack granted by haste can only be spent on a weapon attack. It doesn't matter how you Cast a Spell, even if it's via a substitution from the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature. Anything other than "one weapon attack only" breaks this specific limitation. And specific beats general.
So, no, you cannot cast a second cantrip via haste.
That said, there is no such thing as handedness in 5e. So even with Extra Attack, they can attack once each with two different weapons before Two Weapon Fighting comes into play.
Assuming you can trigger secondary damage, at level 11 that's 4d6+3(Dex)+4d8+3d8. That's (I think) 59DPR (If I'm doing my math right, multiplying the total damage by 55% to account for misses). Advantage makes a shift, elven accuracy makes it even bigger. It's not GWM or Sharpshooter but it's pretty darn solid. The second booming blade from haste (yes, it works) makes it a very strong combo.
First it is optimistic to think you will get secondary damage, especially when you are using your bonus so you can't use misty step.
Your total damage is 4d6+6d8+3xdex (2 attacks, 2 cantrips 3x dex bonus). At 11th level with a 16 dex you should be looking at an 18 AC so a 50% chance to hit, with crits that comes out to 27DPR average (exactly 27.05), it is actually only slightly less if you go with a rapier (26.775) which still rounds to 27, so you are gettingalmost nothing out of TWF. You can only get the secondary damage once, but you have a 75% chance of setting it so that is another 3d8 - 10.125 after you factor chance to hit, but like I said that is typically far less than 50% of the time that the enemy will actually move.
Compare this to a fighter with a greatsword, a 20 strength and a fighting style at 11th level who is doing 6d6+15 and rerolling 1s and 2s. Factoring crits and a 60% chance to hit that is 25. Considering the lost action to cast haste (which puts you 16 below the fighter on that turn), the Bladesinger won't match what the fighter does in the whole battle. In theory she would catch up and pass the fighter on total damage on the 9th round of a combat (if she does not lose concentration earlier), however once haste ends she loses an entire turn IAW the spell description, and that happens on the 10th turn (or earlier).
So the only time a bladesinger in Haste will average more damage than the basic fighter build at 11th level is if the combat is exactly 9 rounds. Any more or less and a basic fighter build will average more damage in the battle and the bladesinger is using Haste to do that while the fighter is not using action surge, spells or any subclass abilities.
Blur is stupidly good for bladesinger's until you get haste once you get haste it's out classed by the beauty and versatility that haste provides.
For most bladesinger's I'd recommend dipping fighter for the first level to pick up con save and dual weild (or protection depending on your role) tho with artificer it's really tempting to pick that for a 2-3 level dip to get con save, infusions, +1 to weapons and armor, your weapon and armor into foci, cure wounds and sanctuary if you go 3 you get either a turret or homonculus.
The synergy of artificer and wizard is really strong.
But now back to the bladesinger I found myself disappointed by mirror image as a singer as most of the images were taken out by swings that would have missed anyways and it doesn't help at all against spells that target your nads ( non AC defenses ).
I really recommend false life as healers in this edition don't heal really until you drop and dropping kills singers as they lose most of their built up buffs and become a squishy wizard in melee. Think of it as a blade tax much like mage armor is a caster tax. But if you go 3 artificer don't bother with it as temp HP don't stack.
Shield and absorb elements are your bread and butter spells and are so essential that at levels 6-8 it's often a good use of second level slots if you run out of first level ones.
Once you get haste you should cast it, use your main action to dodge, your haste attack to attack and bonus to attack. When you need to cast use the haste action to disengage move out cast then move back in to melee expect to be casting shield when you get back in as you are way easier to hit without Dodge. If you took warcaster (you should) then when your not casting shield you can use booming blade to really punish mobs.
For fights where you're unlikely to be hit anyways (or where you have some temp HP or trust in heals) replace the Dodge with BB/GFB or casting a spell that targets nads (as attack spells roll with disadvantage in melee).
All in all tho playing a singer is really fun as it's like walking a tight rope as one well placed hit that causes a concentration loss can drop the previously almost unhitable engine of distruction to the ground bleeding out.
I completely disagree. Blur is a terrible spell compared to mirror image. Blur takes your concentration. Compare concentrating on blur to fighting 1/2 the enemies with a web. Or increase your damage even further by using Flaming Sphere or Shadowblade.
I also disagree with dipping fighter. You'll get +1AC, con saves, +4HP, and 1D10 HP / rest for delaying your spell progression. You can't dual wield effectively until level 5 when you can pick up warcaster. I think you're best off going straight wizard as a bladesinger given the tiers where most people play (levels 1-12). A F1/W9 (war mage) focused on strength and heavy armor is a better subclass combination.
Artificer is a nice combination again, but suffers nearly the same problem. Spell slots and ASIs are delayed to get a +1hit/+1AC and the best of warcaster.
JMO, Web is a great spell for any spellcaster, but it has some limitations. Once a melee starts, it's not as easy to place it and not hit allys. Not impossible but any stretch, but impractical if you roll bad on initiative. In addition, some hostile creatures will make their saving throw and other others will free themselves eventually.
Blur on the other hand *always* works...no saving throw needed. And due the +INT bonus to AC, a bladesinger should have a good 19 AC with a standard array. That is really hard to hit with disadvantage...ridiculously hard with an attack roll. And with the +INT to saving throws and it's really hard to break their concentration. Add on it Warcaster and the Shield Spell and they can be surrounded, and you aren't hitting them with attack rolls.
For comparisons sake...with the same 16 DEX, Mirror Image still falls particularly quick. Your copies have a DC of 13...so there will be times that this spell just doesn't last once surrounded.
Now the benefit is you can do Mirror Image+ a concentration spell, which is nice. I'm just saying Blur is not a horrible spell for a Bladesinger. But I do hate it for other Wizards
Blur is stupidly good for bladesinger's until you get haste once you get haste it's out classed by the beauty and versatility that haste provides.
I don't know if I agree with any strategy that involves casting Haste on yourself.
But I question it's effectiveness on a Bladesinger. At best, we're talking about adding 9.5 damage. With a DEX of 16, which is 5.4 damage vs a 15 AC at levels 5-8
Shadowblade as a third level spell will do 9 damage *per attack* equaling 18 damage, which is 10.8 damage vs a 15 AC and you don't suffer if your concentration is broken at the same levels
So is the +2 AC and double movement worth giving up 5 damage per round? I don't know
Blur is stupidly good for bladesinger's until you get haste once you get haste it's out classed by the beauty and versatility that haste provides.
I don't know if I agree with any strategy that involves casting Haste on yourself.
But I question it's effectiveness on a Bladesinger. At best, we're talking about adding 9.5 damage. With a DEX of 16, which is 5.4 damage vs a 15 AC at levels 5-8
Shadowblade as a third level spell will do 9 damage *per attack* equaling 18 damage, which is 10.8 damage vs a 15 AC and you don't suffer if your concentration is broken at the same levels
So is the +2 AC and double movement worth giving up 5 damage per round? I don't know
In hard toe-to-toe melee generally Blur>Haste in tough battles, unless you want to go Gish and use a wand or something with the haste action.
That said, it is not the extra damage, but the extra action that is the most valuable with Haste. You double your base move and then you can use your haste action to dash, which is going to give you the ability to move about 160 feet in a turn (more with some races), while still having an action and a bonus or you can dodge while still moving 80 and attacking once. In most fights that means you can use anywhere you want on the battlefield.
You can do a full action and even cast a spell if you want and then use a wand or a scroll with your hastge action - again while moving 80. Even if you are just going to melee, the 80 move often lets you move out of range and 160 always does. You can use the haste action to disengage or you can use a whip to engage from range and move out of range, or you can just use all 3 attacks from close in and then move away taking the AOO. If the opponent has multiattack and you can move far enough away it often makes sense to take the AOO and avoid the multiattack.
Many if not most DMs will allow a bladesinger to use a cantrip with the haste attack as the RAW on this is ambiguous, which is going to give him an extra 13 average with toll the dead and a failed save, or 12 on a hit with a Rapier and Booming blade.
For my characters Shadowblade is mostly an Arcane Trickster spell, I don't use Shadowblade very much at all as a Badesinger. The problem with Shadowblade is there is no defense with that spell. Blur and PEG give disadvantage, Haste gives a +2 as well as an extra action and movement than you can translate into defense. IME a Bladesinger will generally not last long in melee with shadowblade unless you are fighting easy monsters or have awesome defensive magic items like a cloak of displacement or bracers of defense.
Shadowblade also interferes with Bladesong because it is a bonus action to cast, meaning it takes longer to get online. You can use both Bladesong and bour or haste on the first turn of combat and with Haste you get an attack that very turn as well.
If you're casting a spell from a wand or spell scroll, you're using the Cast a Spell action; not the Use an Object action.
I don't know of anywhere in the rules that states using a Wand is the cast a spell action, but some of the spell like effects are not actually spells. For example the cone of fear from the wand of fear and the paralysis from the wand of paralysis are not "spells" even though they work identically to the Fear spell and Hold Monster spell respectively.
Your main point was that bladesinger should be played like a regular wizard at range, which I disagreed with. Instead of shadowblade you can go summon fey for 3rd level if you want variety, you are right there isn't an one-size-fits-all but I have to base it on a build otherwise we will be debating for years on all the possible combinations. And what scrutiny is that? I detailed a lot of points on my previous reply to you and all you commented on was that bladesong is equally good at range as in melee, which is not true.
I agree 100% with everything you say about flanking, but many tables (including mine) use it, so that's what I'm going by. Even without flanking, the bladesinger could use the familiar or gain benefit from dim light/darkness which is not uncommon in D&D.
Of course you have to make some assumptions. Not every encounter is the same but I am basing it on common type of encounters. There is no point starting to debate on damage dealing capabilities of a melee class whilst fighting flying enemies, is there?
Do not put words in my mouth, Alex. I said bladesingers don't need to be fielded in melee, not that they can't or shouldn't be, which is true. This is especially true for their first five (four?) levels; where they don't have any features to exclusively help in melee until 6th-level. Arguably, as early as 4th-level with their fourth cantrip. That could be put towards booming blade or green-flame blade; assuming the optional rules in Tasha's aren't utilized. They're not guaranteed, so it's not reasonable to assume they're a factor.
And that's the crux of the argument: what is a reasonable assumption? You can't always predict what the environment combat will take place in, so Dim Light and Darkness are not conditions you can count on. Nor can you guarantee every wizard will have find familiar. And even if they did, any summoned familiar can easily die. You say you're basing your assumptions on a "common type of encounters", but you've never actually laid out those conditions. And that's because you can't.
I'm not even convinced you're cherry-picking "optimal" conditions because your posts read like every other optimizer guide I've seen or heard of. Cookie-cutter nonsense that leaves boring, uninteresting characters that all look the same. Sometimes, shadow blade isn't good enough. Maybe they want flaming sphere instead. Or maybe they want to use Concentration on something else. Players who only ever think inwardly aren't playing a cooperative game. And they'll actively hurt their group's chances of success in doing so.
I think the point they were trying to make is that, yes, your melee bladesinger works well as a melee character, but it still likely works better played as a normal wizard -- because the things you can do as a normal wizard are likely to be more valuable than what you can do in melee. Unless you're in a party with an excess of spellcasting already, anyway. Bladesinger's main draw, like any gish, is its versatility. It can be effective in ways a normal wizard cannot, while being only slightly less effective at being a normal wizard than other subclasses.
The whole point is that bladesingers need to be fielded up in melee, otherwise you are not utilizing the subclass to the fullest. You said that bladesong is equally as good at range. It's not, it's a melee focused feature. For ranged wizards see Divination or Chronurgy. Bladesinger doesn't work as good as a regular wizard because you lack features which help you land your spells. If you are a bladesinger and staying at range, you would have been better off with another wizard subclass.
Again, you don't have to pick shadowblade or animate objects or anything for that matter. Use concentration on anything you want. But I have to base my bladesinger on a specific build when I mention that it's one of the highest damage dealers in the game. Whether you think that's boring or not doesn't change what it is.
Common encounter means no immunity to psychic damage, no ludicrous AC i.e 25 etc.
Wizards without find familiar..ok. I mean, where does this stop? Should we assume then that not all wizards will focus on intelligence? What if a wizard wants to focus on strength instead in an attempt to become a wrestler? What if a wizard has memory issues and forgets to pick any spells? Again, this goes back to making reasonable assumptions and having a build which works in most situations.
He only has a 16 dexterity and therefore only hits AC15 60% of the time.
Essentially, the things that make bladesingers great martials are not their sustained damage, but the effects they add ontop of their damage (crowd control from Booming Blade, excellent uses for their concentration, and their equally excellent reactions).
Sometimes as you go further and further into the game, it comes more and more apparent that sometimes focusing more on those extra effects, just being a normal wizard, is usually better than doing damage. Somehow, past a certain level, being a normal wizard is better than being a magical fighter. Nobody could have guessed.
Being a wizard bladesinger isn't bad either, you still get unbelievable concentration saves, mobility to get to the best positions for throwing spells, defenses (which a lot of wizards definitely want, at +5 INT it's basically shield but no reaction), better resourceless damage, and the flexibility to go to the frontline if your martials start dropping. Sure it's no chronology wizard, but like, the only thing comparable to chronology wizard is chronology wizard and maybe diviner if you squint hard enough.
I do confess it's a lot more enjoyable to play a bladesinger as a martial character, running into the frontline and doing more "direct" battlefield control. Doing so is perfectly viable as well, you still are doing good sustained damage esp. with the added effects of being a wizard. It's just there's always a weird disconnect whenever your making giving "tactics" or "most optimal play" as bladesinger which is that doing what's fun (hitting things with booming blades) is not always the same as doing what's most optimal (playing a normal wizard) and that both should be considered.
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.
He only has a 16 Dexterity and is only hitting 60% of the time.
Ok then 27 if you upcast at 3rd level .... starting on the 3rd turn of combat. The First turn is 11 and the second turn is 18. Meanwhile other characters are doing more than that from the first turn or so close that you won't catch up during the spells duration. A 7th level Raging Zealot with a maul for example is doing 30 against AC15, he is doing that on round 1 and he can rage more than the bladesinger can bladesong.
Most tables I have played do not use flanking. The tables that do use flanking use it for both enemies and allies and if you are running a bladesinger who is being flanked you are not going to last long at all without a good defensive spell up to counter the advantage.
Bladesingers are superb in melee, but that is largely based on avoiding hits. Because of this flanking nerfs the Bladesinger substantially and shifts the table towards a character with damage reduction and more hit points. A bladesinger in a table with flanking is much weaker in melee than one at a table without flanking. They lose a lot more than they gain.
Sure they can.
By the time they get Animate objects they have 14 spell slots all which can be damage and you state below that we are not looking at sustained damage for a whole whole day, but just one battle. If that is the case they can "sustain" casting their highest level damaging spells because they have more slots than the battle will last in rounds.
Also I would argue a bladesinger using animate objects and extra attack will generally do LESS damage over the course of a battle than another wizard using animate objects and cantrips because the Bladesinger loses a round to set up bladesong. Bladesinger goes into bladesong on round 1, so either she does not cast animate objects or she does not use her bonus to make them attack the first turn. Either way, that is like 50 damage lost on the first turn of combat compared to another wizard who does not have to use his bonus for something else. Over the minute the spell lasts she will be hard pressed to make up for that with the 1d8+dex extra damage she does with an attack every turn.
Actually save spells are more reliable because most do damage even with a save, where an attack spell is all or nothing and is entirely dependent on stat vs ac. I will add though you can often choose your spell depending on the stat to save, so you can choose your spell based on what you think the weak stats are, while a high ac is always a high ac.
Also if the enemy makes a save you can force a reroll with a reaction and silvery barbs. You can't do that if you miss an attack roll, it is just a miss.
At 9th level when you get animate objects spell slots are not limited on a single encounter basis. Wizards have more slots than they can use in a single encounter. At 9th level they are pushing the limit of the number of slots they can use in 3 encounters.
And Martials like Battlemasters and Arcane Archers can burn through a bunch of maneuvers if you are only looking at a single battle (and get them back on a short rest instead of a long rest to boot). A Paladin can use smites. In terms of comparisons it is not fair to let the bladesinger use limited use abilities like bladesong and 3rd and 5th level spell slots and not let other classes use that stuff too.
And neither supports animate objects putting the bladesinger in a class of her own in terms of sustained damage. If it is 5 encounters at 9th level she is only going to be able to use animate objects in one of them (2 with arcane recovery). If it is just 1 fight then the damage she can deal with an attack action is irrelevant because running out of spell slots can't happen.
But those set up rounds matter, and it doesn't really pull ahead of a high damage melee build it keeps up with a normal damage melee marial build and starts doing that at round 2 or 3 while using concentration to do it.
If we are talking about setup times, a swarmkeeper Ranger at 7th level with PAM and a quarterstaff can throw up hunters mark and swarm damage and get a bonus action attack and a reaction attack when they reenter melee after being pushed back from the swarm and will average 31dpr against someone with a 15AC and +5 strength save. Those numbers include the chance of failing the movement save and losing the reaction attack with PAM. THAT IS WITH A RANGER!
That is 3 turns to setup too - shillaleagh on the first turn, hunters mark on the second, losing a bonus action attack each time, so it is a lot less powerful than it sounds. But after that it is a reliable 31 and blows a bladesinger burning a 3rd level slot out of the water using only a 1st level slot and it is a spell that lasts an hour to boot.
None of these examples I have given are crazy Sharpshooter or GWM builds. These examples are all simple and straightforward basic builds.
Letting you cast spells before initiative is not RAW unless the enemy is surprised and even there you are still losing damage that you could otherwise do with an attack. There are times where you might be able to do it, but those are the exception not the norm on every table I have played and on every streaming game I have watched.
This is not to bash bladesingers. They are my favorite class and they are AWESOME in melee with a defensive spell up, but they are not awesome at dealing damage in melee. They are "ok" at that or "good" with a spell like shadowblade while trading some defense.
Bladesinger. w Haste + Dual Wield is...
Booming Blade, Strike, Strike, Booming Blade
Assuming you can trigger secondary damage, at level 11 that's 4d6+3(Dex)+4d8+3d8. That's (I think) 59DPR (If I'm doing my math right, multiplying the total damage by 55% to account for misses). Advantage makes a shift, elven accuracy makes it even bigger. It's not GWM or Sharpshooter but it's pretty darn solid. The second booming blade from haste (yes, it works) makes it a very strong combo.
You cannot use the extra action afforded by haste to Cast a Spell. And as has been pointed out already, sticking with two melee weapons hinders the ability of the wizard to cast spells.
This topic has been debated to death in this thread:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/wizard/87771-bladesinger-haste-cantrips
Not too sure you should be mentioning it here lest we get another 12 pages of arguing lol.
holy crap! that is a *thread*. Just... wow... Thank you for sharing that!
That was a ride. I still say it works, though.
I'm not casting a spell with haste, I'm taking the attack action, and as a Bladesinger, I am replacing my attack with a Cantrip.
I don't have to have the freedom to take a second attack in order for the bladesinger feature to apply. If on my normal (non-hasted) action, I can take the attack action, replace my first attack with Booming Blade, and then not swing a second time, I can do exactly what haste says I can do, and take the attack action, and use my bladesinger feature to swap in the cantrip.
I'm going to point you towards the linked discussion. And, honestly, I forgot just how much I posted there and how much my opinion evolved as the discussion did. The additional Attack granted by haste can only be spent on a weapon attack. It doesn't matter how you Cast a Spell, even if it's via a substitution from the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature. Anything other than "one weapon attack only" breaks this specific limitation. And specific beats general.
So, no, you cannot cast a second cantrip via haste.
That said, there is no such thing as handedness in 5e. So even with Extra Attack, they can attack once each with two different weapons before Two Weapon Fighting comes into play.
First it is optimistic to think you will get secondary damage, especially when you are using your bonus so you can't use misty step.
Your total damage is 4d6+6d8+3xdex (2 attacks, 2 cantrips 3x dex bonus). At 11th level with a 16 dex you should be looking at an 18 AC so a 50% chance to hit, with crits that comes out to 27DPR average (exactly 27.05), it is actually only slightly less if you go with a rapier (26.775) which still rounds to 27, so you are gettingalmost nothing out of TWF. You can only get the secondary damage once, but you have a 75% chance of setting it so that is another 3d8 - 10.125 after you factor chance to hit, but like I said that is typically far less than 50% of the time that the enemy will actually move.
Compare this to a fighter with a greatsword, a 20 strength and a fighting style at 11th level who is doing 6d6+15 and rerolling 1s and 2s. Factoring crits and a 60% chance to hit that is 25. Considering the lost action to cast haste (which puts you 16 below the fighter on that turn), the Bladesinger won't match what the fighter does in the whole battle. In theory she would catch up and pass the fighter on total damage on the 9th round of a combat (if she does not lose concentration earlier), however once haste ends she loses an entire turn IAW the spell description, and that happens on the 10th turn (or earlier).
So the only time a bladesinger in Haste will average more damage than the basic fighter build at 11th level is if the combat is exactly 9 rounds. Any more or less and a basic fighter build will average more damage in the battle and the bladesinger is using Haste to do that while the fighter is not using action surge, spells or any subclass abilities.
JMO, Web is a great spell for any spellcaster, but it has some limitations. Once a melee starts, it's not as easy to place it and not hit allys. Not impossible but any stretch, but impractical if you roll bad on initiative. In addition, some hostile creatures will make their saving throw and other others will free themselves eventually.
Blur on the other hand *always* works...no saving throw needed. And due the +INT bonus to AC, a bladesinger should have a good 19 AC with a standard array. That is really hard to hit with disadvantage...ridiculously hard with an attack roll. And with the +INT to saving throws and it's really hard to break their concentration. Add on it Warcaster and the Shield Spell and they can be surrounded, and you aren't hitting them with attack rolls.
For comparisons sake...with the same 16 DEX, Mirror Image still falls particularly quick. Your copies have a DC of 13...so there will be times that this spell just doesn't last once surrounded.
Now the benefit is you can do Mirror Image+ a concentration spell, which is nice. I'm just saying Blur is not a horrible spell for a Bladesinger. But I do hate it for other Wizards
Love it on Eldritch Knights as well
I don't know if I agree with any strategy that involves casting Haste on yourself.
But I question it's effectiveness on a Bladesinger. At best, we're talking about adding 9.5 damage. With a DEX of 16, which is 5.4 damage vs a 15 AC at levels 5-8
Shadowblade as a third level spell will do 9 damage *per attack* equaling 18 damage, which is 10.8 damage vs a 15 AC and you don't suffer if your concentration is broken at the same levels
So is the +2 AC and double movement worth giving up 5 damage per round? I don't know
In hard toe-to-toe melee generally Blur>Haste in tough battles, unless you want to go Gish and use a wand or something with the haste action.
That said, it is not the extra damage, but the extra action that is the most valuable with Haste. You double your base move and then you can use your haste action to dash, which is going to give you the ability to move about 160 feet in a turn (more with some races), while still having an action and a bonus or you can dodge while still moving 80 and attacking once. In most fights that means you can use anywhere you want on the battlefield.
You can do a full action and even cast a spell if you want and then use a wand or a scroll with your hastge action - again while moving 80. Even if you are just going to melee, the 80 move often lets you move out of range and 160 always does. You can use the haste action to disengage or you can use a whip to engage from range and move out of range, or you can just use all 3 attacks from close in and then move away taking the AOO. If the opponent has multiattack and you can move far enough away it often makes sense to take the AOO and avoid the multiattack.
Many if not most DMs will allow a bladesinger to use a cantrip with the haste attack as the RAW on this is ambiguous, which is going to give him an extra 13 average with toll the dead and a failed save, or 12 on a hit with a Rapier and Booming blade.
For my characters Shadowblade is mostly an Arcane Trickster spell, I don't use Shadowblade very much at all as a Badesinger. The problem with Shadowblade is there is no defense with that spell. Blur and PEG give disadvantage, Haste gives a +2 as well as an extra action and movement than you can translate into defense. IME a Bladesinger will generally not last long in melee with shadowblade unless you are fighting easy monsters or have awesome defensive magic items like a cloak of displacement or bracers of defense.
Shadowblade also interferes with Bladesong because it is a bonus action to cast, meaning it takes longer to get online. You can use both Bladesong and bour or haste on the first turn of combat and with Haste you get an attack that very turn as well.
If you're casting a spell from a wand or spell scroll, you're using the Cast a Spell action; not the Use an Object action.
I don't know of anywhere in the rules that states using a Wand is the cast a spell action, but some of the spell like effects are not actually spells. For example the cone of fear from the wand of fear and the paralysis from the wand of paralysis are not "spells" even though they work identically to the Fear spell and Hold Monster spell respectively.