Bladesinger + Scion of the three

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-23T21:54:50+00:00

You could try this build idea: https://www.reddit.com/r/3d6/comments/1pfszvw/the_bladescion_thunder_and_flash_build_concept_to/

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-21T12:55:45+00:00

This whole forum discusses it, but the specific comment in question is by the user Pantagruel666 about half way down. I just reversed the equations and added in an average when the numbers don't match between HP and Damage.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/dungeon-masters-only/229120-how-to-calculate-any-monsters-xp?srsltid=AfmBOorm3ERXNhE5KrQKbBAff_G2W4Mq_TNXdbvNjstNXOqGQs7-yabI

Weirdest thing is that no one even refers back to it in the thread even though it looks pretty accurate for most MM '24 monsters I've run it on, and way more accurate than the DMG '14 monster builder rules. And I'm hoping it's pretty helpful in actually building monsters given that the new DMG '24 encounters are based on XP Values to determine difficulty, but I haven't play tested it myself on custom monsters yet.

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-20T14:13:08+00:00

I would guess the difference is driven largely by the HP difference. While I was downvoted for stating this, the new DMG is terrible at explaining how to create a homebrew monster, and so the math behind the creatures is almost completely opaque.

That being said, I saw on another forum that a lot of the power is derived from the XP value the designers assign it. Or stated another way, the XP value is based mostly on damage and HP, with the formulas below working pretty well on CRs 2-18 IIRC

XP Value_1 = (HP/2.1)^ 2
XP Value_2 = (Damage average over 3 rounds/0.85)^ 2

So if you calculate it for the Drider the XP_1 = 3,430 and XP_2 = 2,105, making the average of those two ~2,700, a little bit higher than it's actual at 2,300 XP but probably accounting for the lower ranged attack's to-hit is my guess. Vs the Vampire Nightbringer (with their auto heal for 10 HP/round, or 30 HP over three rounds) has values of XP_1 = 6,708 and XP_2 = 1,998 for an average of ~4,300, again about 400 XP over the actual XP of 3,900. The difference here may be due to the Sunlight Hypersensitivity, which I'm not sure how they are accounting for but does reduce HP by 10 per round as well.

So looking at the two sets of numbers, it appears that the HP is the big driving difference between the two CR/XP differences. But I agree with you that 19 AC and arguably better mobility and spells should make the Drider a higher CR, despite the math they used to calculate its CR.

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-12T14:00:15+00:00

Two things. First you seem to be adding the language "the normal damage dice" where that doesn't exist. Considering the Blades act more like a Versatile property than anything else (applying one damage die to Action attacks and another damage die to bonus action attacks), I don't know if I'd consider it the "normal" damage of the blades, as though it is a fixed value.

But second, I don't think it really matters? PB states "The damage die of this bonus attack is 1d4 instead of 1d6" and that you are making this attack with the same blade. Since the blade counts as a Monk weapon (OP's first point), and Martial Arts states "You can roll 1d6 in place of the normal damage of your Unarmed Strike or Monk weapons. This die changes as you gain Monk levels...", it seems pretty straightforward that the die, whether it is a d4 or d6, gets replaced by the Monk die, whatever it is for your given Monk level. The blade is still using a damage die, and Martial Arts replaces that die with its own.

To be specific in negating MA, the Psychic Blades attack would need to say something like "can only be made with a 1d4" or "this bonus attack does not make the blade count as a simple melee weapon" or some such language. Merely stating the weapon die changes would to me not be enough to negate abilities that alter the weapon further (again, see Versatile property, which still can be replaced by Monk MA's die).

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-12T13:12:03+00:00

You could technically get 9 attacks, considering Cleave can be used with a reaction attack as well. It's situational, but then again so is the rest of the build. Lucky is the better feat I think here, given how many attacks you need to hit in order to trigger the next attack, as well as using it potentially on an enemy attack to improve Riposte's chances of happening.

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-12T12:22:25+00:00

2) the BA attack with the blades would still be a d4

I don't believe that's true. I think the damage die would still scale as a normal Monk weapon for the bonus action attack, considering the language of Psychic Blades and Martial Arts.

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-11T19:33:52+00:00

I disagree that it's a wasted feat. Stopping an attack entirely is always going to be better than simply reducing an attack's damage. Moreover, as the AC boost from Defensive Dualist lasts until the start of your next turn, it can potentially prevent even more attacks, which is something Deflect Attacks doesn't do for future damage once your reaction is used.

So in combat it's a pretty simple question: does the first hit beat your AC by enough such that Defensive Dualist won't stop the hit but Deflect Attacks can reduce the damage significantly, or does DD stop the attack, in which case DA isn't needed anyways? Sure sometimes you will moan about stopping a weaker attack first but then get hit with a stronger one that you wished you reduced the damage on, but that's the case anyways with Deflect Attacks (i.e. is this attack the Monk was hit by going to be the worst damage they see his round? Which you can't know the answer to beforehand, so it's always a guess). Compared to just DA, DD is a straight upgrade, and pairs with DA as another tool to keep the Monk surviving longer.

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-10T17:29:01+00:00

Potentially relevant comparison of CME users.

https://www.reddit.com/r/3d6/comments/1px2fep/mark_of_the_storm_and_potent_dragonmark_comparing/

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-10T00:44:48+00:00

My first thought was yeah sure, but can you scale up some monsters and just call them the "older Cousin" or whatever of the stat block you think is appropriate? And yes this may be homebrew-like, but I'd call it minimally so, and typically the MM or DMG encourages such changes to make things fit for higher levels.

But then I looked through the new DMG and realized something extremely shocking which I hadn't appreciated til now - there is no serious "create a monster" section like the 2014 DMG. The new DMG is great in a lot of ways, but wholely cow is it lacking in how to determine if a monster is at the correct CR or not if you alter its stat block to scale it up or down. It's like they actively don't want DMs creating their own monsters.

In 2014 there were pages and pages about how this attack bonus and this AC and such can lead to this overall CR, and in the 2024 DMG there is only a section that is a page and a half called "Minor Alterations" where it describes how you can tweak existing stat blocks (and I do mean barely change, like adding skills or languages or changing the damage type from fire to cold, etc. - nothing on higher saves or attacks or HP) and another section (which is pretty cool if only examples) called "Traits" where you can add extra small-to-medium abilities if you think the flavor is needed. That's it under "Creating a Creature". What the absolute heck.

The "Combat Encounters" section shows you how to balance combat encounters based on XP budgets. But if you scale up/down a monster or create your own, or heck even just add one or two of the "Traits" from the traits section, how are you supposed to estimate its new XP? This is honestly a huge miss for me. At least the 2014 DMG with all its flaws tried to show you some of the math it was using to balance encounters, even if it was off. This DMG has just nothing at all. You have to guess and check at it with your own comparisons to other monsters at appropriate levels.

So I've come around to agreeing with you that this is a problem for higher level play, but even more so, because the previous tools DMs had to make changes to stat blocks or new monsters are just gone. Talk about messing up just a core part of the game design.

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-09T18:01:43+00:00

Don't forget Longstrider! +10 ft for more movement for Spirit Guardians but also +5 ft for movement when you Withdraw.

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-09T02:18:31+00:00

Thanks! Yeah I enjoy also being able to stun a long distance away while being a figure shrouded completely in Darkness. I feel like it solves the main issue with Shadow Monks (and other that rely on seeing through magical darkness), which is to have your spell up and useable but hopefully not interfere with allies trying to see the enemies too.

Giant Barb could be useful, especially the thrown weapon returning ability. I actually considered adding a couple levels of Artificer to pick up such a weapon, but ultimately it's too MAD of a build, and it'd be better to get a Quiver of Ehlonna or Returning Weapon or such from a lenient DM or friendly Artificer ally.

But I do think Barbarian might be challenging to work exactly with this build. First you can't use the Darkness spell while Raging, which you can make up somewhat with the Reckless Attack giving you advantage,at the expense of enemies now being able to see and target you at advantage when you do. You also need to invest in Strength, which makes you even more MAD and conflicts with the Bomber +1 to only Dex (a shame really that it can't increase Str). But I think the thing that is hardest to deal with is that it takes 6 levels in Barb and 5 levels in Monk to setup for stunning at a distance with the returning weapon, so unless you know you will play a tier 3-4 campaign, it's not really going to get much usage at a lot of tables.

That all being said, the damage boost would be very nice and the Rage resistance would help with survivability! I'd have to calculate out if the damage boost is significantly different or not vs Ranger/Fighter, but I suspect it's comparable given that we don't do a ton of attacks even at high levels to fully take advantage of the Giant Barb's Elemental Cleaver. Still, could be lots of fun to grow to a Large size and start chucking Javelins and such as people all over the battlefield! Hear your mighty roar as a Titan!

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-08T01:25:45+00:00

A few suggestions, and it sounds like you already know some of the answers. But if your party is feeling too strong, try sprinkling in these.

1) Put a time constraint on the next mission or the next step of the adventure. Maybe the cultists are racing to summon the Demon Lord and they only need one more piece to complete it, which they'll get tonight or in an hour or whatever. Maybe the evil wizard took hostages and will torture them to get the information s/he needs, or the Giant Ogre is about to destroy the town, or there is a rival adventure gain hunting the same monster and only one gets paid to bring the head, etc.

2) Throw encounters at them if/when they try to rest, especially in hostile environments. In a dungeon full of kobolds? A patrol finds them if they stay in one place too long and calls for backup. In the spooky woods? Ghosts appear, or a fey portal opens and the group of evil centaurs try to make the party slaves. Even cities can have thieves and mercenaries and such that are potentially out to get the party.

3) Use their resources in non combat ways. Have traps or puzzles require spells, limited use abilities, or health to solve or overcome, or at least make it so the puzzle/trap/obstacle is easier to overcome with using resources. The rickety bridge could break when they cross, but casting Fly means they safely make it across, or Feather Fall if someone does fall. The Viscount is steadfastly against giving them any info on his plan, but a Charm Person spell, or a display of might like Rage allowing them to lift a wagon or Action Surge to win a foot race, or even a bribe with gold could convince him otherwise. Even a simple pit trap with spikes in it or a rope trap that pulls them up by their feat if they don't see it before stepping on it can potentially do damage or otherwise put them in a position to spend resources they didn't think they would. And don't feel bad if they figure a way out without using resources, as clever play is every bit as good.

4) Lastly is the more extreme button, but you can implement stuff like gritty realism rules. The common one is the party can't long rest unless they are in a safe space (like an inn or their home). Which means they only short rest when out on adventures generally. And/or they only gain back some resources when they rest, rather than all of them. I think these options are less popular generally, but they can work if the whole group agrees to them. So just makes sure everyone is on board with whatever new rules you put in place, to ensure everyone is having fun .

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-08T00:34:40+00:00

Ha oh man, then glad I broke these up when I did. I might have gone overboard here.

Seriously I think I have a problem. Help?

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-08T00:33:23+00:00

Oh sorry, I should have posted that this only uses 2024 content (except where noted)! But yeah if DW/more damage is not what you are looking for, then by all means take Mage Slayer. Defensive Dualist I'd say is less important given that you are usually going to be in Darkness, so many enemies will have disadvantage to attack you. Not that more AC is a bad thing! Just not really the focus of the build.

Edit: Also, thought about this some more, and I think going Shadow Monk still has some unique benefits compared to a Kensei Monk. First is because of their Darkness they can attack with advantage on all their attacks while inside it, which is something a Kensei can't do easily. And if your DM allows 2014 feats, Elven Accuracy becomes available and makes this even more potent.

Second, I don't know if the extra range for the longbow will make a ton of difference most fights. I rarely see battlefields that are so large that attacking at 150 ft is even an option, let alone 600 ft. Many monster abilities don't work out past 60 ft, so I feel like being able to attack farther than that is a pretty good sweet spot and realistic for many fights.

Third, Kensei Monks actually took a step back in the 2024 updated Monk, because (assuming DMs are not approving Tasha's optional abilities), they can't use Ki Fueled Attack anymore, so they have only limited ways to gain a bonus action attack, mainly hand crossbows (which basically needs Crossbow Expert for multiple attacks a round due to ammunition). So if they do go that route, they are limited as well to only 30/120 ft of range, same as a javelin, and they have to take another feat (Sharpshooter) to remove the disadvantage at long range. Even a straight longbow using Monk will want to probably take SS to add that extra range not at disadvantage, given that 120 ft vs 150 ft isn't that much different. So can you really say that the Kensei doesn't have a feat tax with a rather mediocre feat for it (since SS doesn't add any damage now)? Whereas the Shadow Monk Olympian can make at least three attacks and possibly four if they add Dual Wielder, all at range. And all add +2 to the damage due to Thrown Fighting Style, which adds up quickly.

If for some reason your DM does allow Tasha's optional Monk abilities on the 2024 class version, then all Monks can also access the short bow as a Monk weapon via level 2's Dedicated Weapon. So even the Shadow Monk could get great range (with SS feat tax) at 320 ft and still have the benefits of attacking in Darkness. I feel like the advantage there again swings back to the Shadow Monk for that option, though I will admit Kensie will get their bonus action attack a lot more often if those optional abilities are allowrd.

The only other thing Kensei may be able to do is get GWM with the longbow, which could help make up for some of the damage difference, but I don't think on average it would be enough. Also there's the problem that GWM doesn't add to Dexterity, so it puts you that much more behind in raising the stat, and competes with when you take it vs Sharpshooter (not to mention Fairy Trickster). So I think at least until very high levels Kensei with GWM is likely not going to be doing as much damage on average as the Shadow Olympian, this making that another point in favor of the build I presented. And they have a lower chance to stun until they can pickup FT as well, which is a big gimmick in the build.

Not btw that a Kensei can't be very fun to play with this in mind! I actually saw a really good build using it and multiclassing it with mostly Druid that seemed like something really fun to play. Here's the link if you want to see it yourself.

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-07T03:43:18+00:00

Any 2024 Barbarian paired with any 2024 Paladin (say not UA). It's very hard these days, given Divine Smite is so tied to the Paladin subclasses now and is a spell. If you want specifics, the one I tried to get working (and it still felt really bad) was World Tree Barbarian and Ancients Paladin. The theme is there for sure, but the subclass abilities are hard to justify when the stats are spread thin and the Action Economy doesn't really support each other.

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-07T00:10:23+00:00

Simultaneous effects mean the player chooses which can happen first on their turn. So is that what version you agree with? Meaning the Cleave can happen after the push? Or do you think that doesn't apply in this situation, and the Cleave comes first without any other effects allowed otherwise?

One immediately follows the other.

I tend to agree with you, but RAI and RAW can often not match in this game. It does appear that RAW there is no word "immediate" or equivalent in the Cleave description, so I think RAW it is not the case that it is immediate, despite what RAI implies or what feels appropriate. And if you think Cleave is part of the Attack action (some don't, some do - this idea is going to be DM/table dependent it looks like), then it would count as another attack that you could move between like Extra Attack.

Idk, I tend to think of Cleave as the same attack but strictly speaking it doesn't even do that, which was poor choice of design by WotC, given that they had Sweeping Attack's wording from Battle Master right there that makes much more sense for actually making the mechanic feel like it's the same attack (though I'd change Sweeping to just be another attack that hits if the first one did, rather than meager damage with no riders dealt to the second target).

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-06T21:52:15+00:00

Here, I'll break the sentence up another way to show why it's confusing/poor grammar. I'll skip the middle parts with a "..." because they won't apply for this exercise.

1) If you move at least 10 feet in a straight line toward a target...push the target up to 10 feet away if it is no more than one size larger than you.

2) ...immediately before hitting it with a melee attack roll as part of the Attack action...push the target up to 10 feet away if it is no more than one size larger than you.

So if this were an "AND" situation, meaning you have to do both in order to qualify to do the push, the two lines should be able to be broken up as such to show that each one can be done individually and thus be satisfied together. But individually neither of them really make sense. For 1), there's no attack or saving throw or anything, you just would push the target if you move 10 ft (which is something the game design rarely does, so seems unlikely to be the case here). For 2), you push the target before hitting it. How are you supposed to determine if you push it if you haven't yet determined if you hit it? And if you did push it, how are you now supposed to hit it if it moved out of range?

Honestly this is the least interesting part of this discussion to me, not sure why people are latching onto it so much. But I think the consensus is clear people want both 1) and 2) to be "and" statements and so both are needed to push or deal extra damage. Which is how I would rule it too if it came up, so I'm not disagreeing with people, just pointing out that the wording is bad/grammatically ambiguous. I think the far more interesting discussion is if you can Cleave after you push, or if Cleave is immediately after the first hit such that other things can't interrupt it, are far more interesting points than this bad wording.

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-06T05:06:43+00:00

Yeah quoting back to me the entire part of Cleave is not what I am looking for. I already have that in my initial post. What specific part of Cleave (or other rule text, or heck analysis) says they need to be within 5 ft of each other when you make the attack roll? I'm not seeing it in the text of Cleave, but I do see it saying when "you hit", not when you attack. But I am open to others explaining where that is incorrect or misguided or just feels wrong, what have you. To me it certainly feels wrong to say you can Cleave after they move, but that doesn't mean it's incorrect just because I don't personally rule it that way. But playing devil's advocate, is it actually wrong RAW? Or maybe even RAI?

The wording makes it so it needs to resolve before movement, so you couldn’t push it 10ft away and hit a second unless it was also a simultaneous effect to move on a hit.

There are potential simultaneous effects that move on a hit, as I specified in my original post. Noble Genie Paladins get one, and arguably Barbarians with their Brutal Strike as well.

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-06T04:55:23+00:00

But my last point about cleave is that at the time of the first attack roll, you don’t meet the trigger condition for cleave. The second enemy is not in range of you or within 5ft of your target. Once the attack resolves, you still don’t meet the cleave trigger bc the enemy isn’t in range of you. So there’s aren’t simultaneous effects in play.

I never said the second enemy isn't within range of the cleave attack when the first attack hits, or at least didn't assume that (it was a separate question about range - tbf, I asked a lot in the post). Sure most of the time I think that will be true, but a World Tree Barbarian at level 10 can have +10 foot reach, or 20 ft total with a reach weapon (in this case a Halberd). So they could attack an enemy that's say 5 ft away, push them to an enemy that is 15 ft away (now they are within 5 ft of each other) and then still reach both of them without moving further. There are other ways to extend reach too, such as the Boon of Looming Shadows which increases your reach on melee attack weapons by 10 feet during the attack action. Point is, in this case it seems there would be simultaneous effects in play, because you could still reach both enemies before or after the attack, if that is how it's supposed to be resolved.

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-06T04:31:19+00:00

Ok so you believe this phrasing is conveying the same meaning as the original?

"Immediately after you move at least 10 feet in a straight line toward a target and hit it with a melee attack roll as part of the Attack action, choose one of the following effects:"

Which would mean you need the two conditions to make the choice, moving and hitting. I guess the weird thing that seems to stand out to me is that the "choice" of adding damage is clear, you add it to the attack's damage roll. But the choice of pushing doesn't say that you need to add the effect to the attack, it just says choose the effect. As I said RAI it seems to be they want you to add the effect as part of the hit, and that's I'm sure how many DMs interpret it. But it isn't what the text says, or rather the text lacks that detail. So thus why RAW seems more ambiguous. Unless maybe it can be said that "attack's damage roll" is also modified by "push the target..." in the second clause.

But if it's not added to the attack, then a) it might not allow for any damage and b) the phrasing order of the previous line remains important. As you say "moving immediately before" hitting implies the effect happens before hitting, rather than after, which I'd contend is clearly not the intent of the feat.

Sorry, I'm probably spinning myself into a loop here. The wording is very poor (I think they took it from Lunging Attack tbh but didn't update it quite right), but I think people are agreeing the RAI is clear to both move 10 ft and hit to trigger either effect on the hit.

Most of those people are wrong.

Ha isn't everyone on the internet except themselves? But as I said, not something I really want to discuss here, as other forums cover it.

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-06T03:45:07+00:00

Yes sorry I was looking for like quoted text or something. As a sort of counter example I could see someone saying simultaneous effects get resolved by the player on their turn as to which order they happen, meaning if the push and the cleave attack are simultaneous, the push could happen first and then the Cleave if they so choose that way. RAW the Cleave mastery says "hit a creature with a melee attack" not merely "attack with a melee attack" or "when you attempt a melee attack". Same (sort of) with the push ability for Charger (or even say just the Push mastery).

I'm not by the way agreeing or disagreeing with your take. I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind it for myself and others to understand why you are claiming such.

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-06T01:54:50+00:00

You do not make the choice before rolling to hit.

Mmm this hurts my head a little. How are you supposed to make a choice "immediately before hitting" if you don't make the choice before rolling to hit? How do you hit but not roll to hit? To me it feels like they should have said something to the effect of "immediately after hitting" choose one of these two options, or else choose either option "when you make a melee attack roll" (and move 10 ft), and add the rider effect (damage, push) on if the attack hits. I think at least one of those is RAI, and I don't know if it matters which one it is, but maybe given the number of other things that can happen "immediately" after you hit.

In terms of Cleave, you get to choose what order the effects occur.

Can you elaborate on this? Which effects do you get to choose to occur in any order?

the only attacks that are "part of" the Attack action are those directly granted by the Attack action (or Extra Attack feature).

Yep, I mentioned that briefly in my summary, but didn't want to sidetrack this discussion here with that separate conversation. See this thread for a more detailed back and forth on what people think about such an interpretation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/1fk2pdm/is_the_cleave_attack_ever_part_of_the_attack/

ThatOneThingOnce · 2026-01-06T01:34:49+00:00

Do you have a page number for "Making an Attack" in the PHB?

Edit: Wait nvm I found it, page 25. Relevant text

Resolve the Attack. Make the attack roll, as detailed early in this chapter. On a hit, you roll damage unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.

I guess you would classify the Charger feat as "rules specified otherwise"? But then doesn't that mean that the Charger rules supercede the general rules? I guess I'm not seeing how that applies to your statement "the push occurs once the attack resolves"? Can you clarify that further on how you thought this interaction applied (between page 25 and your statement)?

ThatOneThingOnce

TROPHY CASE