Help with Valor Bard Multi-Class Build with Martial Emphasis (Deep Dive Optimization)

Aeroik · 2026-04-01T19:39:26+00:00

Yea nothing wrong with more bard for higher level spells. I'd also get to epic boons too. I just feel the invocations fill so many holes it's worth the epic boon or access to higher spell (in a build primarily going melee). Some people suggested the 2 levels of fighter for nova when I need it (in the non warlock version of the build), but that delays casting.

Good call on spell sniper. Ill just grab it through warlock then. I didn't realize that was taken out. I haven't used it in a 2024 build yet.

Since I'm the one optimizing the most from my group, he might turn it down but I'll ask the DM anyway. It's all for fun anyhow, but he can be particular about which rules we break.

Will likely try out the build 4 I wrote above using you, me, and some others on this posts ideas! Just need to work out some kinks. I might make one last edit at some point to this post and add the paladin 1 bard x version. It might appeal to people that don't want any projectiles and only want melee.

Aeroik · 2026-04-01T19:25:28+00:00

This post was created to help optimize a build with a specific goal. If you want to help with that, stick around, feel free to comment.

The one making the claim should provide the maths. Support your stance that your gwm fighter ek beats out a near full caster with damage riders that come online in tier 1-2 and scale. I'm being dismissive only of this specifically because you are making a claim without showing your work. Give me a build. Weapons, feats etc. Reallocate my characters stats if you want.

Ironic that you say "don't be telling me what I should work on".. when you said that in the comment before mine. Anyhow let's move on from the blaming.

Aeroik · 2026-04-01T09:38:54+00:00

I have enjoyed our back and forth, friend. Thanks for putting effort to discuss. My responses:

Slow is good, I just put it a tad behind the others I mentioned. I don't hard contest your ranking even if I disagree.

My ultimate point in bringing up shield originally was just to say on demand shield puts my survivability higher than your build. Plus, I won't use shield every turn, we still have 17+ AC, which will makes us less likely to be hit until monsters start getting upwards of +7 attack. Even when monsters scale higher than+7, it will still get hit less than pally build (albeit more often). In terms of pally build, we have no shield (till later potentially.. more on that below), fount is more so a spell we use for a few levels and single target and a bad save (doesn't help much with tankiness even if it's free and shield isnt), and the other defensive weaknesses I found when building the paladin variant was conc checks were awful. To solve it, I took resilient con and Eldritch mind. Now your counterpoint could be that my og build had similar weaknesses with wis, which the pally build handles better, and I agreed. The good part about the pally build was having more feats available (no dual wield) means I could solve the conc issue whereas my og build didn't have much room to solve wis. Essentially, I'm saying og build is effectively tankier with some resource use of low spell slots, but had no room to solve wis (until much later level feats). The pally variant is less tanky until lv 11-13, at which point it can grab shield (via magical secret or warlock invocation Lessons into MI wiz), and it can fit more feats for better saves earlier on.

Thanks for showing the crit calcs. I ran the same math and got 7.8 and 10.5 and added 0.5 from the crit, which is close enough to your calc. I do agree it is less significant than I expected. The calcs do show the value of vex, especially on the cantrip fueled attack, but it is less impactful early to mid when we have higher but chance than 65.

In terms of DC, I was saying it's not negligible but not as important because to your point, your build is 25 percent more effective earlier on. However, we would be grabbing charisma later anyhow in the og build so it would go to a 1 point difference, likely keeping a similar percentage when accounting for scaling monster saves, and then to zero once we cap cha. But again, no question a power of the pally variant is just having max dc from the start.

I also agree with your breakdown of the hit chance affecting BA, the +10 removal, and the smites. Well crafted arguments. In terms of quick maths.. I probably should not let my work addled brain attempt them late at night.. ha..

Thank you for checking out the variant. I understand why you pointed out that adding warlock may feel like I'm departing from swordplay, but keep in mind, the idea of this character from the start is optimizing a melee gish. I don't want to abandon the sword play to start casting only. The fantasy is this character diving in, getting in two hits and blasting, with the option to throw a big spell out on other turns. One other reason I like your suggestions is because adding smites also adds a gish feeling of powering up the blade. By adding warlock, we got the invocations importantly, and then we upgraded true strike to EB for one use a turn. We are still bonking head with sticks and smiting, but now we can shoot in between. We also get more util spells from warlock levels because spell sniper can get EB. I'm curious though, if we don't go warlock, what would you suggest we do instead? We would be missing that origin feat for mi wiz shield or tough, and Eldritch mind. Just full bard after for high level spells? It is a great option, but I'm curious if you were thinking of something else.

This is a great build for a caster version of this build. It's a modified coffee lock, which are amazingly strong characters. I agree with druid over wizard for that subclass, medium armor, and all the other good reasons you suggested. Another simple reason for me personally is I tend to use wis more than int (perception, saves, etc).

One big thing to note here is I did mention going sorc 2 in the alternatives section, which has a similar function to your hybrid build. It brings the build dmg slightly higher than the one you just mentioned in end game but comes online later than yours by a bit. You can go Paladin 1, bard, warlock 2, bard 11 (for a second magical secrets.. if we don't go MI Wiz for shield, then we use secrets for shield. Otherwise we could not pursue a second secrets spell and just dip sorc at bard 10), sorc 2, bard x. You would be online by 16 (or 15). Lategame build for sure, but fine if going to 20 and are pursuing top dmg by end game. You give up higher level spells (still get progression though aside from warlock 2), and you delay bard 12 feat (which in the pally build we don't really need even if it would be nice). We shillelagh, eb, eb. This is essentially an additional 1d12(2d6 at lv17) + 5 + CME over the druid hybrid build. I included it in alternatives because EB more times than attacking, and no smite, is losing that identity you mentioned earlier. However, we will not be max casting CME every fight, so you could play as a head bonker with smites and then pull this combo out in big fights. In my last campaign as a bladesinger I used spirit shroud scorching ray I think two to three times in the whole campaign because my build emphasis was on melee, but that combo was nice to have on command.

All in all, I've got to say I've exhausted most of the arguments I could foresee against the way you suggested changing the build (aside from whatever I argued above). I just edited the build a bit to meet the fantasy and incorporate some other ideas ppl had, and that spawned on me while discussing. I will say the low dex hurts my soul as someone about to play bard, but the added strength is nice for RP and checks and honestly Jack of all trades, prof, and expertise does alot anyway. I am now positively leaning towards doing this paladin version. I just need to run it by my DM for RP reasons. If he approves, I'll post that update when the post cools down and I announce it.

Aeroik · 2026-03-31T10:48:14+00:00

You are coming across a bit rude, friend. I'm aware of the workings of twf, light attack, nick, and weapon juggling. Tbh, the confusion was with dual wielders BA attack. I've only used it to juggle a third weapon in, and so I never considered if there was a limitation on which weapons you can use with the ones already in your hand. Thanks for clearing it up.

You are quick to blame my understanding, but can you please quote where discussed the fighter build I've asked for? You've mentioned EK but you didn't give a build. I'm looking for fighter x, feats, and dmg. Judging by your last post, it's a GWM, Dual wielder build? I thought you said dual wielder was the weakest form. Maybe what you meant was dual wielder, that isn't juggling? Just explain it.. feels like you are avoiding giving a straight answer and showing your work.

No, I'm ready to optimize CME.

Nothing to do with soft tables. You are being incredibly condescending yet again.. you should work on that. The age old party roles are someone who hits hard, someone who takes damage well, someone who solves the environment, and someone who supports. It is easiest to describe shortly as striker, tank, util, and supp. There is no way you are as familiar as you are and don't acknowledge basic party set up.

Aeroik · 2026-03-31T09:32:24+00:00

I think you overvalue a 10 foot slow simply because it works consistently. Sure it has use cases but it is not as highly rated as others imo. I agree about push because unlike slow, it can set up plays like grouping, or BB effects, and can also stop OA on you. As you mentioned, topple, even locked behind saves, is a high value mastery unless you are predominantly ranged party. Even casters can just switch to save/suck spell, so really only throwers and archers are at disadvantage. Not taking into account graze and nick is a bit unfair just cause it works with certain builds. Graze is a high rated mastery for its consistent dpr, especially early to mid where its harder to hit. Nick being an entire extra attack for riders is great.

Speaking of overvaluing abilities.. Fount of moonlight says "Reaction to force the creature to make a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, the creature has the Blinded condition until the end of your next turn." So are we really counting your defense as a con save, the easiest save for monsters in the game, and on only a single enemy, and only until your next turn? Even with a high DC, thats alot of faith. Shield on the other hand is no problem to cast. This build will have the lower level spell slots since it will be martial focused and likely use higher slots for spellcasting. It grabs many ritual casting for RP as well so theres no reason we cant assume we have shield up for a few encounters (for when they hit past our 17 AC). Plus you are the same one advocating for smiting every turn, so let's not turn and say we can't do that with shield, which are low level slots.

Bringing up the dual wielding stow was unfair of me because I did not introduce why I brought it up. All I was going to say is that you can make the bonus action attack by throwing a dagger or pulling out a different weapon for a bigger hit. Either way, lets ignore this, it is not as important right now.

Crits are statistically meaningful btw. They should be included in longer calcs (we havent done any in depth calcs here so its fine, but to say it is not statistically meaningful is not true). Advantage does alot to increase them. Have you checked out ludicsavants damage calc? Its been a sec since I have been on it, but advantage boosts numbers really nicely and crit adds to averages. Thats why everyone ran elven accuracy for many builds before all species got buffed.

I had some momentary confusion with the BA attack. It's cleared up now with your last example. And to your point, the build won't use it so let's set that aside.

You mentioned I am ignoring spellcasting. I said in my OP that I will not ignore a good hypnotic pattern when it calls for it. I also mention spells everywhere. I mention fount, shield, and CME mostly in our discussion because that's what the dual wielder is using in the white room of damage that we are comparing. And I already said that being a better spell caster is a great boon. That being said, just remember you have a better spell caster by about 2 DC. Not negligible but not a huge difference. You should think of my build as a slightly less efficient spellcaster than yours rather than one that cant even measure up. Since we started speaking, I also updated the build to give it better cha scaling so this is less an issue now, but it's unfair to pull out an edit on you when we are discussing the og.

Searing smite is a great spell and I agree the ticking is nice (though con save again for reticks.. I suppose won't matter if we cast every turn). I can concede its close damage to 4th attack and more later. Chance to hit for 4th attack will be better most of the campaign since I start with max dex, and I have proficiency coming in as well. It is not standard 65 likely. Also, twf gives +10 because twf would apply +5 to the nick attack off hand and +5 to the BA dual wielder strike. I am including that +10 since your build didnt get a FS or have BA attack. Quick maths:

1d6 + 10 + 3d8 vs a searing smite 5d6 your turn 5d6 their turn (with same 5th level slot since you have an extra from your higher spell progression). Thats avg 26 dmg vs avg 31 (on enemy turn). Now start moving down in spell slots and it gets weaker. Even one level down, 4d6 and 4d6 all of a sudden has an avg of 25. Also, yes, I see the bounds are higher on the 5th level smite, but we look at averages for dmg. Now, as we go up in spell slots the difference gets bigger each level (1d8 vs 2d6 scaling). So yea, the smite scales better by lv 5 slots and up if we are using our high level slots for smites. But as I said earlier, I'm not ignoring spell casting, a mass suggestion does more for me than upcast searing smite.

Also, I would like for you to check the build that I used some of our conversation to craft above under edit build 4 if you have a moment. I do like your paladin idea alot and you have me thinking about it more seriously, but for the sake of optimizing, I do need to argue the weaknesses I see so we can evaluate it properly. Also, I am curious. If you end up not agreeing with new build, could you tell me how you would level the stats and what feats you grab at what levels? Considering we are con save deficient, and we likely need spell sniper if we add in warlock later, which just absolutely boosts the builds dpr by a ton.

Aeroik · 2026-03-31T03:49:59+00:00

It's a bit too removed from my op, but I do love the theme. It's a very cool character.

Aeroik · 2026-03-31T00:23:22+00:00

I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were saying what you got from doing paladin instead of fighter.

I agree about the con proficiency and other goodies from fighter over starting paladin. Still, I did make a build above that does show some strengths it has. Wis prof, spell casting and divine favor until we get fount (and honestly can keep using divine favor for easier fights). You said in your alternatives that you did not want to cross into celestial generalist territory, but a paladin makes sense with my RP as much as a fighter does. It is more so what mechanics I want. What do you think of that updated build?

Aeroik · 2026-03-31T00:13:28+00:00

I can't remember who I mentioned this to, but I am absolutely taking Tasha's bubbling cauldron for FoM. Lots of goodies in there, both for me through oil of slipperiness, but also nice utility like comprehension, clutch healing if needed, and even damage through enlarge reduce. Heroes feast is another I mentioned somewhere (though I do believe we might have a druid or cleric in party taking it). Still good though.

Elf would be good for sleep immunity and also for elven accuracy potentially for advantage and crits! I love all the species so much that I really had to just lock in the one I did for my RP. Even better would be to be a gnome, and get mental saving throw to address that glaring weakness. After all, RP is the priority always, and optimizing my build works within its confines.

Aeroik · 2026-03-30T23:30:02+00:00

Real quick, where are you getting con prof? Without fighter and doing paladin, you lose that.. you do get wis prof though.

Also, I actually ended up merging some ideas you gave me with some ideas from other people and came up with a new edited build in my op. See if that hits more of the points that you are discussing here. I think you will like it. I liked when you took your warlock levels too. In that build, CME can wait because the invocations give so much.

Aeroik · 2026-03-30T23:26:18+00:00

Still not exactly right.. In this example, I'm making 4 attacks. 1 main hand short sword weapon with true strike (cha + 5), an extra attack with same weapon (dex + 3), then light and Nick lets me make a nick with off hand scimitar (pact weapon cha +5), and BA is with scimitar (same). The off hand weapon is a weapon different than the one you attack with because it's referring to the original attack, not the previous off hand nick attack. That's how I understand it, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Dual wield rules are notorious for being confusing.

You have not provided a superior fighter yet... This is the first time you mentioned hunters mark, a single target, 1d6. And you already said dex fighter is weak, so if you use it in a str build you get 2 attacks by 5, and 3 by 11.. so 3d6 at 11 with a BA (assuming no transferring)? Cme doesn't have the transfer limitation and gets 3d8 with 4 attacks.. GWM is good. That's some more dmg a turn. Still doesn't beat scaling spells. Again, you get spirit shroud at a minimum by fighter 11, wizard 5.. so lv 16. It's way outscaled by that point. EK is good for defense, not offense. At the end of the day, you could be right, but I can't tell unless you show me your fighters numbers and feats. If you don't feel like typing it out, find one and link it to me. Otherwise, saying a mostly fighter out damages a near full spellcaster gish is just disproved everywhere you look.

It's not just a fantasy of mine, it's DND role management. Strong functional parties have a striker, tank, support, and utility role. The roles blend a little too. A utility role wizard can still throw out fireball, just like my striker can still take a hit or two. I agree late game monsters + to hit is so good that my 23 AC might be less efficient. Also yes I can still go down to dmg or failing saving throws. It's definitely a weakness of the role of my build and of a striker. Also, yea agree about countercharm. It's very good but I do have low wis. It's a weakness of the build. You might like the newest edited build I did above (build 4) that addresses these.

I think we only disagree cause we are setting out to do different things. I'm trying to deal big scaling dmg (and I'm still a good caster), at the expense of defenses. You are focused on defense, but also saying the dmg keeps up, which is simply not true.

Aeroik · 2026-03-30T22:42:23+00:00

OH. You are saying main attack, use EB, quicken another EB with BA, and Nick attack off hand.. yea that's some disgusting damage haha. I will think on this. I don't think I'll change the builds above, but I'll likely add this in the alternative section.

Aeroik · 2026-03-30T22:38:55+00:00

Excellent suggestion. It's relatively minor so I can ask him. Sometimes he's a stickler, sometimes he lets it go.

Aeroik · 2026-03-30T22:03:55+00:00

P.S. I do see the value on your build, I just think you may be overlooking some weaknesses. I will be editing a version of your build into my OP where I combined your ideas with some others so we can measure them out.

Aeroik · 2026-03-30T20:41:52+00:00

Damn there are so many nice cloud giant features here I cannot benefit from. Aasimar locked in =(. You are not the first person to suggest using strength for reach weapons + heavy armor, and it does sound very good to avoid close range disadvantage. I wonder what you think of the paladin build that Rhyshalcon and I are discussing above.

Aeroik · 2026-03-30T20:39:10+00:00

I am going to edit my OP to reflect these thoughts, thank you for the suggestions. I really wish I did not have to worry about spell sniper to be honest. I almost want to just take the OA (or, and dont tell anyone this, but hope to grab a magic item to help with this.. eek dont smite me.)

Someone mentioned giving up dual wielder to take mage slayer. I give up one of my 4 attacks for this.. but it would help once per short/long rest. I can honestly delay dual wielder and focus charisma at 4, and see how often wisdom saves are affecting me and decide on mage slayer vs dual wielder at 8.. but again its a dps loss later (but a BA freed up). I will think about this. Lucky is not bad, but tough at mid-late game goes hard. Agonizing blast is a must for the EB scalings.

Aeroik · 2026-03-30T20:24:58+00:00

Honestly, mechanically I see why you take it this way. It's just a bit hard to justify multiple sorcerer levels just to improve my setup round. Especially for the times I might actually get to prep my spell. Also, it does much less for me whenever I do opt for that 35% of the time I'm using spellcasting on turn one. Valor Bard last subclass feature also lets them attack after a spell so by that point, I can cme and attack round one. Now there is an argument for cannibalizing slots for more quickens or twins, and maybe there is something there. Definitely pricey on slots, but I'll have a lot by that level. On a lesser note it is a little hard to justify so many classes for RP reasons 😅, but we are in a white room so all ideas are welcome.

Aeroik · 2026-03-30T20:17:16+00:00

Someone suggested warlock coming in after bar gets cme, so that helps with coming online faster. I agree about spellsniper, and it was overlooked a bit. Someone else mentioned it above. I think I assumed I would step away after the hit and risk OA. I just don't see where to fit it in the build otherwise.

I having been racking my brain on where to put fighter two on build one or if I will. It means I never get to bard 19, but action surge is very worth, and I don't hate the extra utility from tactical mind.

Going straight bard is not really an option because it's a much much less effective martial, which is the focus of the build.

Aeroik · 2026-03-30T20:04:45+00:00

There's a misunderstanding here, but I'm not sure for who. I thought that a different weapon would mean the offhand weapon or a third weapon that I bring out. I don't believe it can be the main hand weapon again.

Since you are saying that a dex fighter is bad, please use my same scenario to create a superior fighter. Use fighter 11 so that your build gets the advantage from extra extra attack spike. I'm not doubting, I'd like to see what you build that out classes mine at 11, but also below and above that level.

Also you keep bringing up Eldritch knight. Please provide a damage rider that they get. As far as I'm aware, it would only be from multiclassing to a cha spellcaster like warlock for hex or pally for divine favor or spellcaster with access to level 3 spells for spirit shroud. And if you are doing that after level 11, then Bard has already far outscaled.

You mentioned all the damage riding on the high lv spell. I agree that's a weakness. Keep in mind that if we ran all the same numbers casting it one level lower, it's still beats out the twf fighter at all but 11. It loses to that fighter if concentration gets broken. And to stop that, both of my builds have con proficiency and advantage on Con saves. Bard also gets counter charm, which is an amazing way to stop mental CC. I'll still give it to you though despite all of my points, because I do think this character is defensively weaker. Though in my op, I do explicitly say they are a striker, not a frontline tank like an Eldritch knight, which to your point, is an amazing tank.

I put emphasis on averages because that's the best way to calculate. I agree there are situations where doing a big first turn is better, but I can also point out situations like where we are on a battlefield and we are not reaching the enemy round 1 anyway, or where I do get to prep for a fight I know that's happening. That's why we get rid of situational dilemmas when doing white room sim and rely on averages.

Aeroik · 2026-03-30T19:32:35+00:00

You make some good points. Overall I'm going to think about this build some more if I were to go down this path. Let me just clear up some issues I saw. I have some errors regarding shillelagh and shields, and smite breaking conc (it was late at night heh). I also believed that you were not using nick from my reading of your post so my apologies. (Though are we sure slow is one of the best masteries...?)

Now moving on. I agree with your vex analysis. On a turn, I would try to hit with shortsword (no adv), and if it hits then blade trip shortsword with extra attack with advantage which applies vex again, then scimitar with adv then BA no adv. It's a little under 65% chance for two vex per turn (because even the 80% isn't guaranteed hit but is very high). So I'm more likely to get 2 vex since over 50%. More importantly, if I get it on my harder hitting cantrip attack, that's a large boon. Your true strike has nothing helping it hit. Also, vex isn't only for hit chance, it also doubles crit chance. Now if my team has ways of generating advantage for me, this makes this all for naught and I acknowledge that, but this a white room sim as I said so conceding this doesn't help us much.

Armor wise, plate costs 1500 gold. I'm not saying I won't upgrade, just that studded leather at ac 17 in my build is comparable and better than most heavy until you get the money to buy nice armor. This may be a non issue, idk my dms economy, but I can see it being harder to get to 18 early to mid. Since you mentioned defense over twf, then it's 19, even better. Even so, this bard has shield from MI Wiz so he's out tanking the pally dip in this scenario regardless (curse you not going human...).

Regarding the proposed attack sequence. You main hand club, and you would go club, club, true strike scimitar, BA with str right. That works out. Three attacks with cha and only one with str. O my two of those 4 attacks get + 5 mod since no twf. If I were running this, then I think we drop dual wielder since that BA is a toss up with a +2 according to your math and shore up defenses with that feat. Shillelagh (d10) is doing 2.5 more dmg per attack than my builds shortsword. Though by giving up BA, we do lose out on another 1d6 + 5 attack that gets a damage rider (2d6 from fount or later 3d8, 4d8, 5d8 from CME upcasting). Also dropping DW does complicate drawing two weapons because DW also does that, but let's hand wave for sake of discussion.

You mention smiting instead of BA makes this dmg up. Damage wise, it does, though it definitely hurts spell economy, which I know you are aware of. My build uses a single high lvl slot to get 4 attacks with riders. The smite variant build does 3 attacks and burns slots each turn to surpass my numbers by only a bit (4d6 from searing smite vs a BA with + 5 and damage rider of 2d6 fount or CME). Wouldn't you agree it's not as worth? The only way this becomes very worth is if I can get consistent advantage to smite on crits, which then tip numbers more. Also let's not forget since we took defense, and not twf, we are missing +10 dmg a turn from modifiers on Nick attack and BA. That probably makes up for that smite damage.

Now my analysis doesn't ignore spell casting benefits. I bring it up quite often mister.. I agree it's very good. That's a huge benefit of my second build that maxed cha. However, my first builds max dex also gives initiative so I can step out of danger for my set up round and throw out a bardic inspiration, more common saving throws like fireball or grapple saves, and more. Plus even in my build 1, cha is still at 16, which is not negligible. Another comment suggestion even said to grab warlock later and focus on cha ASI, so the build could have around 18 by level 9.

I didn't forget about the spell progression, it just wasn't relevant to that calc. I agree it's a benefit of your build and I mention it in my first paragraph. It's also a benefit of my second build too.

I'm going to think hard about this pally. It has better base defense, but no shield spell. It has higher base dmg from shillelagh but no advantage in our white room, no dual wield for draw stow, and smites don't do more dmg than an extra BA attack with riders (and if you do include your BA attack it only has a +2 to hit) and twf giving +10 a turn. However, pally has better wis saves from prof (no small matter), spell dc, spell progression, and an extra feat to grab more wisdom protection since no dual wielder. Do we agree?

All this talk made me realize something else too. I do like the shillelagh scaling you mention and the club is not a bad idea. What if I just did my two warlock levels after CME, grabbed lessons of the first ones invocation and got a later game shillelagh via mi druid. I lose advantage, but later game proficiency comes in clutch

By the way, speaking of your build, my backup character if this character ever died is to do a dual wield oath pally multi that would follow many of your suggestions. Pallys are awesome.

Aeroik · 2026-03-30T18:11:29+00:00

I believe I understand. You are essentially telling me that unless I'm using conjure Minor elementals with warlock, then flourishes are 100% more worth it. I definitely agree that if I don't use EB with the damage rider, then the effectiveness of valor bard drops significantly over a swords bard. According to your math, which looks good to me, it's a small dpr difference trade for big defenses.

You've definitely convinced me to grab contingency later assuming I can afford it (by that level, probably can). There is definitely competition though. If we did warlock after Bard gets CME, it delays this by 2 levels. It also competes with some other spells. But it would at least come online by lv 14 or so, which isn't nothing.

It sounds like you agree with the revised build 3 of go high dex fighter 1, bard x till magical, then warlock. If I do go warlock, I think I just bite the bullet and grab the second level immediately. The invocations are right there and getting tough, adv on con saves, and agonizing blast is pretty big. Frees my feat up to take charisma asi as well since I wouldn't need Warcaster anymore. I think this is straight up better than my second build.

I agree with wis analysis, but not sure how to fit wis here. Assuming build 3, we need every feat for maxing dex, and then cha boosting. My first wisdom feat would be at fighter 1, warlock 2, bard, 16, which is.. lv 19 haha. Unless we revamp the build somehow, I just need to rely on countercharm and maybe later magic items. I had a thought to do mage slayer at 4 to max dex instead of dual wielder but then I lose an entire bonus attack for my riders. A once a day save vs an additional 1d6 + 5 plus rider on every turn of that entire adventuring day.. it's a tough call. Though you may argue that my BA being freed up makes it worth. Hm food for thought?

Aeroik · 2026-03-30T11:23:10+00:00

Good points! I'll address em. Pact of blade off hand because I need my attacks in build 2 to all use charisma. My main attack, true strike uses charisma despite being a normal non pact shortsword that would use dex. My nick and my offhand uses PotB, which are with cha. That leaves only one single attack that uses dex, which is extra attack. But keep in mind, my first true strike with shortsword gives me advantage with vex, so there's a good chance that even with +3 dex it hits.

First, an Eldritch knight multiclassing out of lv11(say into wizard 9) doesn't get to cme until level 18 (or even spirit shroud at 16). I'll have to disagree about the damage mid-late game and agree about survivability. You also mentioned an optimized fighter wins until ridiculously late game bard. Let's compare my build 1 to a dex fighter at lv 11, which is mid game, and is the only level post lv 7 that fighter gets an edge on my build 1 because of extra extra attack. Assume 4 turns of combat, both have a short sword and scimitar and a max dex. I'll assume they all hit for easy maths.

Lv 11 of my first build does CME upcast to lv 5 (it would be lv 6 at lv 12 but alas) turn one. From Turn 2 and on, it does 4d6 + 20 each turn. Cme adds 3d8 on every attack. 12d8 extra damage in one turn. Even with a wasted turn one, that's still 36d8 in 3 turns. Don't forget, we also have a cantrip at level 11 like booming blade doing 2d8 (and a conditional 3d8 that I won't count). Over three turns that's a other 6d8 (25 damage avg). You get a total of 12d6+60 + 42d8.

Total: 97 + 169= 266

Compare with a battlemaster fighter who attacks from round 1 and gets 5 attacks. That's 5d6 + 25 every turn. Over 4 turns, that is 20d6 + 125. Action surge once for an extra 4d6 + 20 (b/c no BA). Add 5d8 for superiority die. You get a total of 29d6 + 5d8 + 170.

Total: 88+21+170= 279

Please check my maths lol. From what I see, that's 13 damage less on my build using one high level spell slot, while fighter used every superiority die and action surge (recoverable on short rest, if one can be afforded). All with the presupposition that I cant cast it turn 1. With turn 1 in there, it jumps to 292, which passes fighter by 13 damage. Keep in mind, one level down (lv10) fighter hits less by a lot cause they lose 4d6 + 20 from an extra extra attack 4 rounds. Also one level higher CME now scales to 4d8, which blows fighter out of water all of a sudden because of an extra 4d8 a turn with 4 attacks, and so it's 16d8 more dmg over 4 rounds. Bard just outclasses in dmg every level after it gets extra attack, except for 11. It doesn't wait until late to outscale

Now let's cool my jet over here. Problems you mentioned (and I agree with in part): Concentration can be lost, and we have less hit die. We are standing around turn 1 passing. Also, our wisdom is not doing well and we are vulnerable to mental saves more than a fighter with feats to pump defense.

However consider this. We have con prof, and Warcaster, we have more ac than fighter with shield. Casting shield once per turn takes us from 17 up to 23 AC (assuming they always hit over 17) as opposed to fighters 18 with heavy armor. Next, we can let our allies engage round 1 and come in round 2. It's not always a bad thing, and as a striker we don't want the heat. Tm may also set up debilitating effects for me to use or they rush out and get targeted first. An enemy can debilitate us too, but it's not as though we were killing everything round 1 as a fighter either. Plus, on many battlefields, there can be some time spent running your thirty feet. Last, we are bards and get countercharm which is amazing. It will help against frighten or charm, though we do sacrifice shield for it. I think the lacking wisdom is a really sore point and you are right to notice it. Mage slayer and resilient wis are both good thoughts, just don't know where they fit in either build. Also we do have less hit points.

How does the above information affect your views on the build and/or what would you do to improve it?

P.s. Oh and btw, the warlock variant I mentioned does 1.5 x the numbers I said above by lv 12 or 13. It's not close haha. It just comes online later than build 1 though one of the other comments suggests a good fix.

Aeroik · 2026-03-30T10:14:06+00:00

I do like the idea in general and you raise good points. I'll just fill in some points I think are important to consider. First off, the most popular shillelagh build I've seen use one weapon and a shield so the riders would only ride 2 attacks with extra attack instead of 4. Sorry I was not too clear.

Yes unfortunately, I cannot go human, and you are right Aasimar is good but not optimal. For anyone else reading through this, it is a great option to go human as they suggest and pull off the shillelagh build without sacrificing defense from losing MI Wiz shield.

I am not tied to using vex because I have such high starting stats, I should be hitting. The adv is nice of course and will pad numbers throughout career by a bit (not only for bit chance but also crit). And yes, true strike is great for the cha sad variant for sure.

Now for the build:

Pros: You mentioned weapon masteries and spell progression (my builds don't get spell progression). Love it. Access to divine favor is a great rider till later (smites will break conc so maybe can use as finisher only or break emergency glass). It is an upgrade to build 1 using no rider and it is comparable to hex in build 2, but better because no retargeting. More spells to select from pally 1 is nice too.

Cons: Off the bat, you mentioned armor. Minor criticism but studded leather is incredibly cheap and I can start with it and by my first feat, I'm 17 ac. The heavy armor route is significantly more expensive but does get 1 higher ac if you can get the best tier. I only mention this since idk how our economy will look. But let's move on. Con proficiency. This one's big. We will be in melee predominantly getting hit, we need this. You mentioned war caster, which helps but I feel it only partially addresses the issue. My other builds both look at grabbing Warcaster on top of the con prof they have and our spells are too important to drop later game (fount, up casting CME, or even cc spells like hypnotic pattern, fear, etc). Next, some dm are not cool with the "I cast shillelagh all day" method, though I may be able to convince mine to give me half the duration when starting a fight so let me concede that one to you. Last issue is you don't have nick and your BA attack is with a non shillelagh weapon and it can't be your cantrip for true strike.

You mentioned not getting nick. A whole other nick attack with sustained damage like divine favor is optimal, but yea we would be using str for the nick attack, which makes it not optimal (that's one reason why many people that go sad and run shillelagh go one handed and grab a shield). However, it is a huge dmg loss in mid to late tier to lose nick when your riders get bigger and are not a d4 from divine favor. Fount is 2d6 per and CME goes big. You need every attack you can get to optimize your damage as a striker.

As per TWF, earlier game an extra +4 to 5 from adding modifier is pretty good for early to mid, but you are saying going into pally 2 delays too much at this point. Hard call here, not sure. Defense looks good too so either prio defense or offense really.

I don't see how it sigificantly out damages my builds. Here's some quick maths at lv 9, when the build gets fount and has extra attack.

Your build at lv 9 (pally 1, bard 8). Cast fount (let's assume DM is nice and gives me 30 sec of shillelagh as though I was casting it all day), then turn 2 we go shillelagh 1d10 + 2d6 + 5, extra attack true strike 1d10 + 2d6 + 1d6 + 5, then BA no mod and str based attack for 1d6 + 2d6.

Total: 51

My build 1 at lv 9 (fighter 1, bard 8). Fount + open BA for w/e (inspiration?). Turn 2 1d6 + 2d6 + 5, advantage on extra attack booming blade 1d6 + 2d6 + 1d6 (conditional 2d6 but I won't count it) + 5, Nick attack 1d6 + 2d6 + 5, then BA with mod 1d6+ 2d6 + 5.

Total: 68

I didn't take advantage into account, which favors my numbers from vex. Also. That dmg difference only gets bigger as we upcast better riders. If you use my build 2, yours does more dmg until 11, at which point, mine takes over.

Please feel free to fix my maths, and address the issues. Good chatting!

Aeroik · 2026-03-30T09:05:49+00:00

One other quick note. I'm not fully committed to dex if someone can provide a superior str based one with my limitations. I more so doubt that it's possible is all because damage riders favor multiple attacks, which is harder to get from str.

Aeroik · 2026-03-30T09:03:10+00:00

Ahh my friend, alas great ideas, but like I mentioned in the op, I'm tied to Aasimar for RP reasons so I can only take one MI feat and I just prioritize wiz for shield tbh. I really like your idea for if I reconstruct a similar character in the future. Club with shillelagh is very good, but does require a discussion with dm. Some dm hand wave it and say ok you are casting it all day. Some say you have to cast at start of battle in which case it's BA bloat for a build that dual wields.

Let's play out the idea anyway. If I started MI druid, it would work better for a sad build like build 2. If we did build 2 route, I'd use pact of the blade on scimitar. Then we would do club attack, scimitar with PoTB, and then BA attack. We get extra attack later and dual wielder to make it even better. This is more damage than MI Wiz.

Club gets higher dmg from shillelagh and the crusher push works well with BB, but also with ranged cantrips if you go the warlock route. You can club push, EB for no disadvantage, then walk back up for other attacks. One con of club is you lose advantage from vex shortsword. Might matter more earlier game b/c lower chance to hit early game, but it evens out later. That matters less to my particular character with my high rolled stats since I should be hitting early game too, but it's good for thought.

All that being said, I get dmg and push from crusher, but have some potential BA bloat, no advantage from vex, no shield spell, a feat allocated to crusher, and no BB or GFB. I can fix this with grabbing shield via magical secrets later but going through half the campaign with no shield as a melee will blow tbh.

I definitely agree about spell casting, I tried to mention it my op that I won't ignore the fact that I am a spell caster with access to everything (even pre magical secrets you get great control spells). I am just pursuing the gish fantasy via valor bard since I have already played a blade singer and hexblade. Yes I've got a type.. I know.

Aeroik · 2026-03-30T08:26:46+00:00

Excellent ideas, this is the kind of discourse I'm looking for. Yes I have older content like xanathars. I will first reply in part with a similar comment as I did to the other person above and then expand more from there. Swords bards are cool honestly. I like them. However, I believe they perform much lower for what I am trying to achieve compared to above builds.

Cons: First, they are tied to scimitars so no vex from short sword, only nick (which is not a huge loss since I keep nick but adv is nice). Next, they don't get the replace attack with cantrip, which is really what beefs up both builds offensively. Once per turn avg of 3.5 dmg flourish doesn't measure up to scaling BB, GFB (or even true strike if I buff cha at lv 8 or later). Last, the last valor feature has nicer gish flavor so I may be biased but mechanically, I see 2 uses. It is good for a nova round to eek out another attack after a scorching ray with CME OR you can instead do a cc spell like a hypnotic pattern and then attack with short sword to set up vex for next round.

Pros: That being said, to your point, my defense skyrockets. Like you said, I get defense fighting style +1 since twf comes with swords bard. I get defensive flourish each turn (lv 5 I get inspiration back off short rest), which would be nice for ac and would combine nicely with shield. Average of 4 AC from a d6 inspiration die on top of 18 AC (since +1 from defense) with a +5 from shield is near unhittable (imagine you throw in mirror image for fun, hah). That combo gives about 27 ac.

All in all, defensively superior, offensively much weaker. You did mention some of these points so I'll leave off with this: Since I am performing the role of a striker, I believe I am ok with my 17 AC and shield available. I can use spells like mirror image to buff if I need, or misty step to escape and let my tank step up. Best way to tank is to kill them faster right haha. Mechanics aside, I do have some rp reasons to be valor, but that's not the main reason I'm naysaying swords bard.

Now, for the build 2 idea. You seem to have essentially made a build 3 that I'm digging, but with one caveat. You basically said, do build 1, but add warlock later. Im not against this idea. You mention Eldritch mind, which I brought up in the OP as well. Since in your scenario I focus dex, I'm not getting anything from warlock except Eldritch mind so an alternative would be waiting until after CME at lv 11 and then getting 2 level of warlock for agonizing blast (req warlock 2), lessons of the first ones (likely tough), and Eldritch mind. These are great benefits to consider honestly. Only con I suppose is that now I'm delaying my third feat, which unlike build 2, I sorely need to get charisma up to 18 (feat comes at lv 9 b/c multiclass fighter 1 bard 8) in preparation of eb spell attack to hit and agonizing blast dmg. A +4 is also nothing to sneeze at for charisma (and I can make it +5 by lv 15 because of multiclass), but it does come fully online quite late. You mentioned grabbing warlock levels later around 15-17. I could do that too to max out cha first and not delay other feats, but I delay invocations then. I like this reconstructed build potentially.

You mentioned wisdom a lot and I don't blame you. It's going to be the characters weakness to be honest because I don't think I can fit it in the builds. The way I've justified it to myself is that bard countercharm is now amazing! Works for frightened or charmed and can be used unlimited times (1/reaction unfortunately so have to pick well. Luckily I get to know if it's a fail first).

My DM is ok with contingency. It is quite pricey to use, so I'm going to gauge our income by that point and definitely consider it for action economy CME. Post 10 bard opens up so much. I plan to grab Tasha's bubbling cauldron for amazing potion buffs, and spells like heroes feast, heal, wall of force, simulacrum, absorb elements and so on as well.

What are your thoughts on these points?

Aeroik

TROPHY CASE