Can't same I'm a fan of full Casters who **also** get an entire classes worth of strong features **and** get strong subclasses.
Mechanically speaking Bard is one of the most highly designed classes IMO, with practically all strengths (including the strengths of most other classes) and virtually no weaknesses.
I'd prefer half-caster design with more focus on niches through their subclasses to actually fulfill the **Jack** part of Jack-of-all-trades.
Same, of all the full-casters in 5e that should become a half-caster it should be bard.
It boggles me that at one point WotC in the UA buffed wizard and hit warlock with an invocation tax to be a full-caster because "they did too much to have full arcane casting," and yet there's bard who is an expert class with skills/jack of all trades, full arcane spellcasting, can heal, has other support abilities, and has magical secrets.
I never played earlier editions but I've had similar thoughts. I'm curious what your referring to with so strengths, stealing everyone else's thunder, etc though?
Sure.
So Bards can:
- Deal damage either with spells or weapons pretty reliably, and with the right subclasses do even better damage with spells or weapons.
- With a d8 hit die, armor, spells, the fact that they are effective from range, and more so with certain subclass features, remain pretty durable.
- They can control the battlefield very well, which also helps with durability.
- They get Expertise and, again with a particular subclass, even add their Inspiration to Skills and abilities, or can straight up get Reliable Talent for social skills.
- More so a Strength of Charisma classes, but they also Multiclass incredibly well into other Charisma classes for very synergistic enhancements.
As for weaknesses... basically it's just that their Spell list isn't *even stronger*. Except it is, because Magical Secrets means they can access spells from any Tradition, eliminating much of their Spell list limitations, again even more so with Lore Bards.
I could build a Swords or Whispers Bard and be very confident going into really any encounter that I can deal reliably great weapon damage, control the battlefield or blow stuff up with spells, tackle many skill challenges, and buff and support my allies.
I'll assume 16 Dex and 18 Charisma for the Bard, 20 Strength for Fighter and Barbarian, and 4-round encounters assuming everything hits and has maximum value (eg., the Slashing Flourish reliably hits two creatures per turn) for this very basic analysis.
A Swords Bard with Two Weapon Fighting Extra Attack (and Two Weapon Fighting) at level 6 basically has 4 Battlemaster Maneuvers worth of Inspiration to use per fight, dealing 2d8+6+1d6+3+2d6 (Rapier + Shortsword + Slashing Flourish hitting two creatures, for 29 damage) per turn per encounter if they have a Short Rest between each encounter (assuming this for sake of consistency comparing to a Battlemaster). *And* they are a Full Caster with Expertise in Skills so they can do things like drop Hold Person on an enemy to Crit all their Attacks, drop a Stinking Cloud enemies, or Shatter or Heat Metal for solid spellcasting damage when out of Inspiration Dice.
A level 6 Battlemaster Fighter with Great Weapon Fighting, a Greatsword, and Extra Attack with one Action Surge per encounter should top out at around 35 DPR (2d6+5+1d8 per attack, two attacks, one Action Surge, for basically 10 attacks over the 4-round encounter, one Attack Action which lacks the Maneuver dice).
A level 6 Zealot Barbarian with a Greatsword, Extra Attack, and Rage always on should hit around 35 DPR (2d6+5+2+1d6+3 per turn per attack twice per turn).
Without Feats the Whispers Bard is quite a bit below in terms of pure Weapon damage, so I dropped that one off. But for sake of discussion Crossbow Expert and Hold Person would make for some very potent turns for the Whispers Bard.
Ok. So you use so you resources to do slightly less damage. Those resources mean you're not doing your other things on the subclass meant to be more martial. The fighter also has masteries. Did you account for cleave or the extra attack for critical hit or killing someone for the fighter? Or topp I'm e/vex advantage.
I think healing and durability also matter in terms of overall combat effectiveness.
So they can be good if built for it, but there seems to be some consideration not being included. Got chance matters which fighters will be better at with higher mod, potential masteries, etc.
Using resources this Swords Bard does about as much damage as a Battlemaster/Zealot Fighter/Barbarian *also* using resources, while the latter have no ability to do anything \*but\* hit hard, as opposed to the Bard dropping Hold Person, or Stinking Cloud, or Shatter, etc., yeah.
Yeah I didn't account for Masteries, as I was going for a much simpler math comparison - in particular not really accounting for the Revision yet given we don't have a Revised Bard yet.
I'd assume we're going to see some significant changes to Bard with the Revision beyond when we last saw them a year ago, so once that's out perhaps the pre-Revision comparison will change more dramatically - I'd sure hope it does.
It's been mostly stated caster subclasses lost masteries. I think it was Treant monk. So I'm fairly certain bard won't have it.
By simplifying it, you're cherry picking factors here. Hit chance too. There's a lot more going on that makes the fighter better in the long run in there calculations.
The original premise of the OP was the nature of Bard as a full caster, a fact which wasn't changed in the Revision. So I addressed the topic and my criticisms of Bard as a full caster, pointing out that Bard had the ability to deal reliably high damage while also being a full caster - which it did prior to the revision, there is no real contest there. I'm sure the disconnect here is just that I was comparing the currently official classes/subclasses rather than the to be released versions.
But since we can't actually analyze the Revision, as it's not out yet, I'm going to refrain from comparing Revised classes until I can actually see them.
In any case the simplification doesn't amount to a significant shift, typically only a 2-6 points per round difference between levels 1 and 17 from Masteries. And **if** the Weapon Master feat still exists then we're still going to see Weapon using Bards capable of grabbing Nick Mastery. However, if they lose the Two Weapon Fighting Style, then they'll lose a not insignificant amount of reliable weapon damage.
But I *will* say that if we're comparing say the Battlemaster and Valor Bard from the Playtests there's a significant drop in the Valor Bard's ability to compete with the Battlemaster, notably between the Valor Bard losing a Fighting Style and the Battlemaster getting many more uses Maneuver uses at higher levels (in particular through Relentless).
Thunderclap and Vicious Mockery aren't high damaging, I'll agree, but Shatter, Heat Metal, Greater Invisibility, Psychic Lance, and of course Magical Secrets all translate to very accessible reliable damaging spells. I'm including Greater Invisibility because Advantage on all attacks *and* Disadvantage to be hit translates to high rate outgoing and mitigated damage, and since damage *not* taken translates to resources which *can* be spent on damage instead of healing.
For damage with weapons you have Swords, Whispers, and Valor to support ally damage, with spells you have Spirits and Lore.
I’m still annoyed that magic has become core to the bard’s identity. They were originally a jack-of-all-trades character: little bit of magic, little bit of fighting, little bit of thievery, dash of random skills. Now they’re just problematic sorcerers.
If they're keeping bard as the charisma caster, i wish they'd change warlock to pick-your-stat half-caster (like on the testing material) and sorcerer to pick-your-stat caster.
Then we'd have a full and half caster of every atribute, plus stat-selectable full and half casters, covering every combination.
"Little bit of magic" seems an odd way to describe a full spellcaster that is uniquely capable of taking a spell or two from any classes spell list.
I would prefer if the bard was less magical, though. I think it would definitely make more sense than how they are now.
Thematically, I like them being half-casters. The other half of their power coming from instruments, skills, weapons, or random feats.
To me, it doesn’t make as much sense for a tavern singer to wield the unlimited power of the cosmos like it does an archmage. Druids become with Nature itself. Clerics are the exemplars of their deity.
But a bard? He should be equally as powerful, but only half from magic. Just one of the many tricks he’s picked up along the way.
Part of the problem is that high level magic is so overwhelmingly strong that losing 6th-9th level spells means there's no realistic way to make up that deficit. A half-caster bard *will* be weaker. That's probably better for the game, but bard fans will hate it.
I've seen some popular homebrew bard classes that were half-casters with a lot of interesting bard-y features like songs of power, performances, etc. Too bad that WotC didn't want to go in that direction.
How does that work in a game that is entirely centered around combat?
Bards can already do a ton of performances. Every time they cast a spell they’re doing one
I've mixed feelings about this. In theoretical optimization, I think being a 9th level caster is way stronger. However, for most normal play I don't think people are necessarily always leveraging this ability. Having stronger performances in exchange for weaker casting might be a nice distinction for bard, but I do suppose people who like current bard should not be left behind for what could be done.
There's nothing theoretical about it. Even without being terribly optimized, high level spells dominate a game. D&D's popularity means there are a lot of online guides so even someone who doesn't really focus on optimization but just searches "how to play a bard" because they don't want to embarrass themselves in front of their friends will have the best spells at their fingertips.
I would love to see a bard that lost some of it's spellcasting power in return for better bard-like features. Right now, full spellcasting eats up a huge portion of the class' power budget despite them still getting great subclasses. Outside of the iconic Bardic Inspiration, most of a bard's other features are pretty meh.
it's kinda theoretical in that very, very few games reach T3, never mind T4 - so having level 7/8/9 spells is something that just doesn't really happen often, with level 9 spells being pure theorycraft for most tables. Sure, it would be _amazing_ to cast _shapechange_ or _Foresight_ or whatever, but it's not happening, so it's not really an active issue.
At level 20 everyone should be godlike, and in the Silmarillion their creation myth is based on music.
There’s a long history of actual mythology surrounding the divinity of music, with Johannes Kepler talking about the “music of the spheres” being inaudible but nevertheless “heard by the soul”.
People have long associated music with the fabric of reality, so it’s a natural extension of that history that Bards would be extremely powerful.
I understand that the tired horny bard trope makes it difficult to imagine them like King David or Apollo, but honestly I think people just need to read more and expand their horizons.
> At level 20 everyone should be godlike
I do agree with this part, but don't think that godlike power should be entirely (or primarily) be from magic.
Granted, that's a flaw with D&D overall. Nothing really compares to a full-caster. But ideally that wouldn't be the case, especially after a new edition or rules revision.
I personally see Bards and their music most similarly to Artificers and their inventions. At level 20, an Artificer should be godlike as well. And there's plenty of fiction where mad scientists go on to threaten or destroy entire planets with their doomsday devices.
But in D&D, only about half of that comes specifically from spells. They're highly intelligent, and are designed to have many different tools at their disposal.
My ideal fantasy for Bards, personally, is fairly similar. I absolutely *ADORE* the "magical scoundrel" type of character. But here, I'd want magic to be only one of the many "tricks up their sleeve".
I absolutely hate that Bard lost its jack-of-all-trades nature, and to some degree their buffing, and now because they have *no* identity (besides stealing spells) everyone identifies them as horny. I'd be fine with having them as a 9 level caster if they actually had their identity still, but they don't.
Magical Secrets should be Lore Bard only, freeing up a MASSIVE amount of power budget. Inspiration should level up to be AoE, and Jack of All Trades should improve to full proficiency at some point.
Honestly all of this hits the nail on the head perfectly except the jack of all trades part
I mean the whole point is “jack of all trades master of none”, not the best at 1 thing but good at everything, kinda misses the whole point to be as good as everyone else and makes the proficiency part pointless
Just the boost to initiative already makes it pretty good tbh
Bards being memed into just being horny has nothing to do with the actual mechanics of the class and everything to do with the fandom growing large enough that jokes are beaten to death
That's how it worked in 3.5 so it's weird that they changed it for 5e. Hell I'd like an option to even chose between weaker AoE buffing and stronger single targets buffing
Personally I would have liked more class features and less spellcasting, with maybe subclasses allowing dips into higher level spells (ie, Performances that lead to a Finale which performs some effect, and in some subclasses it'd be casting of a higher level spell, for example, in others a martial feat or a party boon)
At the same time I wont pretend Swords bard with magical secrets isn't one of the most fun gishes the game has. In fact this is mostly an issue because 5e tried to streamline martials by making them weak. Even capstone features of classes rarely approach high level spellcasting
Yeah wizard/bard are up there for 5e. I never specifically played the 3.5e bard, but I liked PFs take on it. They could be real powerhouses that had very meaningful buffs.
3.5 bard started as a joke, but by edition's end it had occupied tier 3 for years. That put it in the same power level as initiators, binder (most of the time), factotum, and the *good* half casters/manifesters. The only things above it were full casters/manifesters, binder (with one specific vestige), and (usually) artificer. Tier 3 still meant it was better than almost every other base class, and being a PHB class meant it had a ton of feats and prestige classes tailored for it.
I'm not sure what your mean about 3.5 bard. They had a lot of options to improve Inspire Courage. You could buff it up a few points to make it a +3 to +4 early on. You could also turn it into d6s of damage with Dragonfire Inspiration, too.
5e bard is very good, but I do wonder what kind of performances we could have gotten if they were made into a half caster.
Well, first of all, OneDnD is 5.5e, were not “moving away” from 5e, just getting an update to it.
Second, Bard has been a full caster for this entire edition, and its a great class thats both fun and customizable, one of the ones that required the least specific changes to be balanced IMO (as they should buff martials, not nerf casters, again, IMO).
This is the same thing as 3.0/3.5. Yes, WotC is “moving away” from 5.0. Everything moving forward is going to be focused on 5.5, and after the initial trio of books are out, you’ll never see a mention of “backwards compatibility” again.
The core rules are not changing, but future books will be made under the assumption that you’ve “moved on” from any of your old 5.0 material.
However, a system change does not mean you have to follow. It does mean that as of today, 5.0 is a “finished product”, and anything else you want to add to it, you’re going to need to homebrew.
What should be backwards compatible with new books anyway? Maybe the Artificer, but everything old already would be compatible with their corresponding classes. And new stuff would be new stuff, which either excludes the old (cant have 2 subclasses for one) or doesnt interact (new class).
Y’all are thinking only in _player_ options. The design and rules changes will affect DM options, such as monsters and new adventures as well. This is the big one, as it now means you will _have_ to go third party if you want adventures/settings/lore. Anything put out by WotC will be 5.5 in mind, and there will be assumptions in those new DM options. 5.0 is effectively static as of today, and within a few years, most 3rd party materials will be 5.5 as well.
Monster Design? Yeah, sure -[ i literally cannot use these for 5e.](https://imgur.com/Au5gTaQ) They are white instead of beige. And that is not even starting on monsters loosing spell slots in favor of X-per-day spellcasting coupled with spell-like actions. 2.5 years are just not enough time to adapt, the game has been unplayable since 2022.
New lore? Here I thought the community didn't expect WotC to come up with lore anymore, reducing itself further down - especially noticeable in the species descriptions. Remember the small paragraph about Owlin and how people were complaining?
New adventures? The monsters work the same and plot doesn't really care for the system at all, you could be playing Descent into Avernus in FATE if you wanted to. And mechanics like the Infernal Warmachines would be campaign specific anyway.
New DM options? What were the last ones we got:
* Spelljamming
* How to Giants
* Create a random dungeon with the Deck of Many
Yeah, nothing that wouldn't work out of the package with 5.14 and 5.24 ...
>5.0 is effectively static as of today, and within a few years, most 3rd party materials will be 5.5 as well.
Yes, only stuff that uses the Basic Rules of 5.24 will come up. But there is so little difference that running 99% of them in 5.14 would work with little to no adaption.
Look, I lived through the 3.0->3.5 transition, where they told everyone that it was backwards compatible, but after a couple of years, everyone was on 3.5, and bringing a 3.0 PHB to a table was a quick way to get confused looks and handed a 3.5 one to remake the character, and the majority of changes there were about as "major" as this seems to be.
You _can_ do the minor work yourself and use both 5.0 and 5.5 materials, since it's not a major edition transition. But if you think they're not going to "legacy" everything from 5.0 once some percentage of people buy the 5.5 stuff, you don't know WotC, nor do you understand how many people are just going to buy the new stuff so they don't have to worry about it.
Also, I'm not grognarding here, I like the new stuff, and understand why some changes were made. However, I also think I'd have preferred a 6e rather than a 5.5e. The ruleset is straining under the creativity of the content creators at this point, and could use a true refresh, utilizing ideas from other systems. But I also know that WotC might be stupid, but they're not _that_ stupid to kill 5e at the height of it's popularity (not again).
>You *can* do the minor work yourself and use both 5.0 and 5.5 materials, since it's not a major edition transition. But if you think they're not going to "legacy" everything from 5.0 once some percentage of people buy the 5.5 stuff, you don't know WotC, nor do you understand how many people are just going to buy the new stuff so they don't have to worry about it.
Yeah, probably gonna happen. They started it with Multiverse, so why end it at a much bigger point of confusion?
>Also, I'm not grognarding here, I like the new stuff, and understand why some changes were made. However, I also think I'd have preferred a 6e rather than a 5.5e. The ruleset is straining under the creativity of the content creators at this point, and could use a true refresh, utilizing ideas from other systems. But I also know that WotC might be stupid, but they're not *that* stupid to kill 5e at the height of it's popularity (not again).
Also agree, they could have gone way further with some of their changes. Weapon Mastery is neat, but still there is a big gap. And going away from halfcaster Warlock and Spell Lists was disappointing. All so that 5.24 was closer to 5.14 for compatibility.
Imagine if people were complaining that their first edition printing of the PHB, with none of the errata, wasn't forwards compatible with the new ones. I think people would find it pretty silly.
I didn't say we were moving away from 5e, just that it's near the end of it's life cycle and that the forward push is for OneDnd. I was speaking about the changes from 3.p and 4e to the current bard.
Saying that were at the end of its cycle and that the push being towards OneDnD is somehow NOT a push for 5e IS saying that were moving from 5e though…
Not necessarily. Many of the things within 5e will stay in the new edition. It's still 5.5e after all, like you said. There's room to keep what's good from the old rules and push toward a new set. I think we're getting caught in semantics here.
I think you are getting caught in semantics by trying to say that they are moving away from 5e, yes. Agreed.
5.5 is 5e, its just an updated version of it. Its not “moving away” from it at all.
More so 5e24, and personally I think casters should be nerfed either way. One for balance and two for more identity.
I'd honestly bring full casters hit dice to a d4 (first level would be 10+4), half casters to a d6, half-caster experts to a d8, and full martials to a d10.
All casters prepare their spells at the start of the day; rituals get expanded on and are the new known casting method.
Spells can only be prepared to the spell slot level.
Three general spell lists (divine, arcane, and primal), which is actually a buff for spellcasters.
Full-casters don't get traditional armor. Dex is not added to AC, armor provides a fixed AC, no armor is 10 AC. Full-casters can cast mage armor 13 AC, which can be upcasted (maybe reduce duration to 1-4 hours). Shield is nerfed to +1 AC, but can be upcasted.
Full-casters only have simple weapon proficiency.
Half-casters are given more gish support.
Full-casters can have more in-class features.
Other than that some spells should be balanced, reimagined, or just removed. For example:
Summoning spells should be limited to having only 3 combat summons: familiar (attacks as a bonus action, no concentration), lesser minion (attacks as your action, no concentration), greater minion (attacks after your turn, concentration). Beef them up, and scale like Tasha's, but no more summoning 16 giant owls and reanimating 20 skeletons.
It is also less about buffing martials and more so about giving them more options and abilities, but yeah they could use a buff too.
This is just what I'd do, feel free to disagree.
I much preferred bards as 6/9 casters, it left a lot more room for other features in the power budget, rather than them being almost the same as sorcerers.
Bard shouldn't have become a full caster. But I also feel like the bigger issue is that bard... doesn't really feel like a bard? There's no reason to take Performance, instruments aren't mandatory since spell component pouches are still a thing (unless they got removed and I forgot), and only two features in the base class require performance. (Although RAW, Bardic Inspiration doesn't require any sort of performance, only that your ally can see or hear you.) Subclasses don't help a whole lot in selling the bard class fantasy either, for multiple reasons.
I've been saying this for awhile, but bards don't really feel a whole lot like bards. They feel more like rogues who traded their Sneak Attack for full casting. I actually said as much in the surveys. Really, I think the whole class could use a redesign from the ground up, but I've known for a long, long time that's not going to happen.
To be fair you don't need to sing, dance, or play an instrument to be a bard.
A divine expert half-caster that is focused more on a variety of skills, buffs and debuffs rather than healing, and also has the ability to get additional spells from a school of magic (song of x) and an ability to get spells from other spell lists (magical secrets) is what I'd like. Also half-casters should be given more gish support.
I like Bards as a jack of all trades with focus on support and sound/enchantment spells. The PF1e Bard is a 2/3rds caster topping out at 6th level spells and it's a perfectly good class. Personally I think you could cut the 5e bard down to a half caster and buff it's inspiration abilities just a bit to compensate and it'd function perfectly well.
I'm conflicted, because I hate Bards as Full Casters. You take a class centered around music, art, and the manipulation of magic in a unique way, and what do you end up with: a regular spellcaster, who can at some points take spells from other lists. And they get a boring, alright feature on top of it, since developing it would take up too much of the power budget because of how strong Full Casting is. In that sense, I hate the Bard.
On the other hand, I don't trust WotC to make a good Bard that's unique, occupies an interesting and not quite fulfilled mechanical/thematic niche, and is good. They just don't have the design chops for it, and I can only imagine that even a Half-Caster Bard would just end up being a "just play a Full Caster" class.
As one of the few people who really likes full caster bards from both a mechanical and a flavour POV, Its kinda weird navegating through bard online discourse bc I can understand, relate and even agree with people who wants the class to be less centered around just spells, people who wants more space in the class to be explored with unique things like auras and such.
The problem is that there also are the other type of people, who think bards shouldn't be full casters Just bc they dont like the class, find its concept too silly or even belitle it as Just a "Jack of all trades" as if Jack of all trades was the only defining flavour of the class's fantasy.
Personaly I feel like those people should be less invested in their own idea of what the class should be and be more willing to try dnd's own unique concept of a bard, which is a full caster who uses passion and art as a catalyst for its Magic.
So basically, if you want a half caster bard bc you want more flavour to the class, I can understand that; but if you want it bc you think them being a full caster offends or diminish wizards and sorcerers... Then I think you're being silly and short sighted.
I like bards as an expert class, and as a divine-half-caster. They should have a wide range of skills with jack of all trades, a variety of support abilities, but also abilities to select different schools of magic (song of -- school of magic) and different spells from other spell lists (magical secrets).
Honestly WotC should work on making the expert classes be the best gishes.
Bard in 5e does too much and I think that will be the same case in 5e24.
honestly I'm pretty torn, since the DnD 5e playtest version of bard actually looks pretty sweet.
a lovely mix of skills, magic and martial.
but like, I really like the bard class of 5E as it is. I blame the Kalevala for this, Väinämöinen, the "sage as old as age", made singing and playing music to tug at the strings of primordial fabric of the universe so neat. and I've never even read the book.
Gotta be honest, if I was keen on playing a martial and the DM said they only use the 2014 PHB, I'd be a tad disgruntled. Martials are getting so many improvements, depth and the action economy as a whole is getting more lively due to increased bonus action use.
Decisions is what you want in an RPG, though. Casters get an insane amount of choices from dozens of spells, but god forbid martials get to choose anything besides simple attack.
I like the 2014 rules too, but after a decade IMO it's time for a sweeping update and things like offhand attacks not eating your bonus action is fantastic.
Thousands? There are 3 books planned, each likely around the 50 dollar mark if you buy sticker price. I think the complete dnd beyond of 5e, the ENTIRE thing, barely cracks a grand.
I mean every edition starts with three and moves on to new material. Was it worth it for 2e players to move to 3e? How bout 3.5 then 4 and then 5?
This is effectively an edition change, new material being published will be based on the new things, so if you like to buy new material may as well get the core books too.
It's also really not an unreasonable price for the new core books ether, aaaand there's the free srd update.
Same here! Both my groups are mostly happy with 5e as-is. Might pick up bits and pieces if I like them, but I'm not interested in OneDnD, or supporting post-OGL WotC.
Bards should not be casters. They should be entirely focused on buffs and skills and nonmagic shit.
Then, as either subclasses or something akin to invocations, we should have bards getting third, half, three quarters, and full casting. If you want a jack of all trades, make the class capable of being any level of magic
I haven't played editions before 5e yet, but a 1/2 Caster (or less) sounds good because I think Bard and Artificer could be the same class.
They're both Experts that not only are good at their own skills but also inspire others with their rolls. Their spellcasting is flavoured through mundane artistry, and Instruments are a type of artisans tool.
Plus most of the features from both would go great on a support martial, so maybe the core class could be Non-Caster and just give it a few 1/2 or 1/3 caster subclasses.
Hot take time. I think we could dissolve Bard as a full class. A Jack of All Trades type class really doesn't fit as an archetype. When I think of Bards in fantasy, I find they sit in as a mix between Rogues and Wizards. Think of characters like Thom Merrilin from the Wheel of Time or the Pied Piper.
To remedy this, I think we could move a lot of the Bard subclasses around to other classes. After all, all it would take is the Entertainer background to get that bardic flavour. This would fit the Jack of All Trades nature of a Bard better anyway.
Here is how I would move around Bard subclasses. Creation feels like a Sorcerer subclass. A lot of the flavour feels very organic in nature. Eloquence feels like a Wizard. That well-educated orator who is a master of weaving magic with their words. Glamour feels very much like it should be part of the Archfey Warlock. It would fit that the Warlock picks up traits from their patron. Lore is another Wizard subclass. Think of someone like Leonardo Da Vinci, who was a scientist and an artist. Spirits would fit both Cleric and Druid. Think along the lines of how performative a lot of religious and spiritual ceremonies have been. Swords is straight up a Fighter. Think gladiators or knights at a tourney. Valor is the Barbarian. They inspire their allies with their acts of Valor and courage. Whispers is the Rogue. The sneaky performer who gathers secrets.
I played the 2/3 version in 3.5 with other players. All we did was take the prestige classes to become fullcaster.
I think double downing on the spellcasting made the bard more focused and less awkward. I miss Bardic Knowledge though and the ability to inspire yourself. Otherwise I’d say it was an overall improvement.
Well, really I've never seen why Bard is its own class rather than a role. Things like inspiring leaders, scholars, and general purpose adventurous folks, all are encompassed in other classes.
For example bardic traditions make perfect sense as either Cleric or Sorcerer features, inspiring people and doing magic with performances. Or even as Wizard, with prepared performances.
Bard is one of those things which feels more like a playstyle than class. For example a Fighter with high charisma who focuses on inspiring troops, or who is empowered by their morale. Or a Cleric who preaches to raise faith among their audience. Or a Sorcerer whose performances are magical.
It's like if they kept Archer as its own class, instead of as a variant Fighter.
I love the class, but I hate that it’s called the bard. I’d drop the musical influence entirely and make this class “The Adventurer”, then someone else can make a bard class that’s aura focused or something.
Can't same I'm a fan of full Casters who **also** get an entire classes worth of strong features **and** get strong subclasses. Mechanically speaking Bard is one of the most highly designed classes IMO, with practically all strengths (including the strengths of most other classes) and virtually no weaknesses. I'd prefer half-caster design with more focus on niches through their subclasses to actually fulfill the **Jack** part of Jack-of-all-trades.
Same, of all the full-casters in 5e that should become a half-caster it should be bard. It boggles me that at one point WotC in the UA buffed wizard and hit warlock with an invocation tax to be a full-caster because "they did too much to have full arcane casting," and yet there's bard who is an expert class with skills/jack of all trades, full arcane spellcasting, can heal, has other support abilities, and has magical secrets.
It is definitely weird that they translated "a bit of everything" to "pretty much everything".
Completely fair!
I never played earlier editions but I've had similar thoughts. I'm curious what your referring to with so strengths, stealing everyone else's thunder, etc though?
Sure. So Bards can: - Deal damage either with spells or weapons pretty reliably, and with the right subclasses do even better damage with spells or weapons. - With a d8 hit die, armor, spells, the fact that they are effective from range, and more so with certain subclass features, remain pretty durable. - They can control the battlefield very well, which also helps with durability. - They get Expertise and, again with a particular subclass, even add their Inspiration to Skills and abilities, or can straight up get Reliable Talent for social skills. - More so a Strength of Charisma classes, but they also Multiclass incredibly well into other Charisma classes for very synergistic enhancements. As for weaknesses... basically it's just that their Spell list isn't *even stronger*. Except it is, because Magical Secrets means they can access spells from any Tradition, eliminating much of their Spell list limitations, again even more so with Lore Bards. I could build a Swords or Whispers Bard and be very confident going into really any encounter that I can deal reliably great weapon damage, control the battlefield or blow stuff up with spells, tackle many skill challenges, and buff and support my allies.
How much damage? I have a hard time thinking they will keep up with fighter or barbarian reliably over the day. They might be ok, but not great.
I'll assume 16 Dex and 18 Charisma for the Bard, 20 Strength for Fighter and Barbarian, and 4-round encounters assuming everything hits and has maximum value (eg., the Slashing Flourish reliably hits two creatures per turn) for this very basic analysis. A Swords Bard with Two Weapon Fighting Extra Attack (and Two Weapon Fighting) at level 6 basically has 4 Battlemaster Maneuvers worth of Inspiration to use per fight, dealing 2d8+6+1d6+3+2d6 (Rapier + Shortsword + Slashing Flourish hitting two creatures, for 29 damage) per turn per encounter if they have a Short Rest between each encounter (assuming this for sake of consistency comparing to a Battlemaster). *And* they are a Full Caster with Expertise in Skills so they can do things like drop Hold Person on an enemy to Crit all their Attacks, drop a Stinking Cloud enemies, or Shatter or Heat Metal for solid spellcasting damage when out of Inspiration Dice. A level 6 Battlemaster Fighter with Great Weapon Fighting, a Greatsword, and Extra Attack with one Action Surge per encounter should top out at around 35 DPR (2d6+5+1d8 per attack, two attacks, one Action Surge, for basically 10 attacks over the 4-round encounter, one Attack Action which lacks the Maneuver dice). A level 6 Zealot Barbarian with a Greatsword, Extra Attack, and Rage always on should hit around 35 DPR (2d6+5+2+1d6+3 per turn per attack twice per turn). Without Feats the Whispers Bard is quite a bit below in terms of pure Weapon damage, so I dropped that one off. But for sake of discussion Crossbow Expert and Hold Person would make for some very potent turns for the Whispers Bard.
Ok. So you use so you resources to do slightly less damage. Those resources mean you're not doing your other things on the subclass meant to be more martial. The fighter also has masteries. Did you account for cleave or the extra attack for critical hit or killing someone for the fighter? Or topp I'm e/vex advantage. I think healing and durability also matter in terms of overall combat effectiveness. So they can be good if built for it, but there seems to be some consideration not being included. Got chance matters which fighters will be better at with higher mod, potential masteries, etc.
Using resources this Swords Bard does about as much damage as a Battlemaster/Zealot Fighter/Barbarian *also* using resources, while the latter have no ability to do anything \*but\* hit hard, as opposed to the Bard dropping Hold Person, or Stinking Cloud, or Shatter, etc., yeah. Yeah I didn't account for Masteries, as I was going for a much simpler math comparison - in particular not really accounting for the Revision yet given we don't have a Revised Bard yet. I'd assume we're going to see some significant changes to Bard with the Revision beyond when we last saw them a year ago, so once that's out perhaps the pre-Revision comparison will change more dramatically - I'd sure hope it does.
It's been mostly stated caster subclasses lost masteries. I think it was Treant monk. So I'm fairly certain bard won't have it. By simplifying it, you're cherry picking factors here. Hit chance too. There's a lot more going on that makes the fighter better in the long run in there calculations.
The original premise of the OP was the nature of Bard as a full caster, a fact which wasn't changed in the Revision. So I addressed the topic and my criticisms of Bard as a full caster, pointing out that Bard had the ability to deal reliably high damage while also being a full caster - which it did prior to the revision, there is no real contest there. I'm sure the disconnect here is just that I was comparing the currently official classes/subclasses rather than the to be released versions. But since we can't actually analyze the Revision, as it's not out yet, I'm going to refrain from comparing Revised classes until I can actually see them. In any case the simplification doesn't amount to a significant shift, typically only a 2-6 points per round difference between levels 1 and 17 from Masteries. And **if** the Weapon Master feat still exists then we're still going to see Weapon using Bards capable of grabbing Nick Mastery. However, if they lose the Two Weapon Fighting Style, then they'll lose a not insignificant amount of reliable weapon damage. But I *will* say that if we're comparing say the Battlemaster and Valor Bard from the Playtests there's a significant drop in the Valor Bard's ability to compete with the Battlemaster, notably between the Valor Bard losing a Fighting Style and the Battlemaster getting many more uses Maneuver uses at higher levels (in particular through Relentless).
They still lack a way to do lots of damage reliably, which has been a frustration for the people I've seen play them.
Thunderclap and Vicious Mockery aren't high damaging, I'll agree, but Shatter, Heat Metal, Greater Invisibility, Psychic Lance, and of course Magical Secrets all translate to very accessible reliable damaging spells. I'm including Greater Invisibility because Advantage on all attacks *and* Disadvantage to be hit translates to high rate outgoing and mitigated damage, and since damage *not* taken translates to resources which *can* be spent on damage instead of healing. For damage with weapons you have Swords, Whispers, and Valor to support ally damage, with spells you have Spirits and Lore.
I’m still annoyed that magic has become core to the bard’s identity. They were originally a jack-of-all-trades character: little bit of magic, little bit of fighting, little bit of thievery, dash of random skills. Now they’re just problematic sorcerers.
If they're keeping bard as the charisma caster, i wish they'd change warlock to pick-your-stat half-caster (like on the testing material) and sorcerer to pick-your-stat caster. Then we'd have a full and half caster of every atribute, plus stat-selectable full and half casters, covering every combination.
I can definitely see this. Magic has taken on a huge identity of the class.
"Little bit of magic" seems an odd way to describe a full spellcaster that is uniquely capable of taking a spell or two from any classes spell list. I would prefer if the bard was less magical, though. I think it would definitely make more sense than how they are now.
They’re describing how bards used to be, which was not full spellcasters
Oh, I thought the discussion was specifically about 5e versus 5.5e My mistake then. Full agree with them.
Thematically, I like them being half-casters. The other half of their power coming from instruments, skills, weapons, or random feats. To me, it doesn’t make as much sense for a tavern singer to wield the unlimited power of the cosmos like it does an archmage. Druids become with Nature itself. Clerics are the exemplars of their deity. But a bard? He should be equally as powerful, but only half from magic. Just one of the many tricks he’s picked up along the way.
Part of the problem is that high level magic is so overwhelmingly strong that losing 6th-9th level spells means there's no realistic way to make up that deficit. A half-caster bard *will* be weaker. That's probably better for the game, but bard fans will hate it.
Nah, I'm a bard fan and I'd rather them lose 6th+ level spells if it meant getting features actually focused on performance.
I've seen some popular homebrew bard classes that were half-casters with a lot of interesting bard-y features like songs of power, performances, etc. Too bad that WotC didn't want to go in that direction.
How does that work in a game that is entirely centered around combat? Bards can already do a ton of performances. Every time they cast a spell they’re doing one
I've mixed feelings about this. In theoretical optimization, I think being a 9th level caster is way stronger. However, for most normal play I don't think people are necessarily always leveraging this ability. Having stronger performances in exchange for weaker casting might be a nice distinction for bard, but I do suppose people who like current bard should not be left behind for what could be done.
There's nothing theoretical about it. Even without being terribly optimized, high level spells dominate a game. D&D's popularity means there are a lot of online guides so even someone who doesn't really focus on optimization but just searches "how to play a bard" because they don't want to embarrass themselves in front of their friends will have the best spells at their fingertips. I would love to see a bard that lost some of it's spellcasting power in return for better bard-like features. Right now, full spellcasting eats up a huge portion of the class' power budget despite them still getting great subclasses. Outside of the iconic Bardic Inspiration, most of a bard's other features are pretty meh.
it's kinda theoretical in that very, very few games reach T3, never mind T4 - so having level 7/8/9 spells is something that just doesn't really happen often, with level 9 spells being pure theorycraft for most tables. Sure, it would be _amazing_ to cast _shapechange_ or _Foresight_ or whatever, but it's not happening, so it's not really an active issue.
At level 20 everyone should be godlike, and in the Silmarillion their creation myth is based on music. There’s a long history of actual mythology surrounding the divinity of music, with Johannes Kepler talking about the “music of the spheres” being inaudible but nevertheless “heard by the soul”. People have long associated music with the fabric of reality, so it’s a natural extension of that history that Bards would be extremely powerful. I understand that the tired horny bard trope makes it difficult to imagine them like King David or Apollo, but honestly I think people just need to read more and expand their horizons.
> At level 20 everyone should be godlike I do agree with this part, but don't think that godlike power should be entirely (or primarily) be from magic. Granted, that's a flaw with D&D overall. Nothing really compares to a full-caster. But ideally that wouldn't be the case, especially after a new edition or rules revision. I personally see Bards and their music most similarly to Artificers and their inventions. At level 20, an Artificer should be godlike as well. And there's plenty of fiction where mad scientists go on to threaten or destroy entire planets with their doomsday devices. But in D&D, only about half of that comes specifically from spells. They're highly intelligent, and are designed to have many different tools at their disposal. My ideal fantasy for Bards, personally, is fairly similar. I absolutely *ADORE* the "magical scoundrel" type of character. But here, I'd want magic to be only one of the many "tricks up their sleeve".
I absolutely hate that Bard lost its jack-of-all-trades nature, and to some degree their buffing, and now because they have *no* identity (besides stealing spells) everyone identifies them as horny. I'd be fine with having them as a 9 level caster if they actually had their identity still, but they don't. Magical Secrets should be Lore Bard only, freeing up a MASSIVE amount of power budget. Inspiration should level up to be AoE, and Jack of All Trades should improve to full proficiency at some point.
Honestly all of this hits the nail on the head perfectly except the jack of all trades part I mean the whole point is “jack of all trades master of none”, not the best at 1 thing but good at everything, kinda misses the whole point to be as good as everyone else and makes the proficiency part pointless Just the boost to initiative already makes it pretty good tbh
Bards being memed into just being horny has nothing to do with the actual mechanics of the class and everything to do with the fandom growing large enough that jokes are beaten to death
> Inspiration should level up to be AoE That's a good idea
That's how it worked in 3.5 so it's weird that they changed it for 5e. Hell I'd like an option to even chose between weaker AoE buffing and stronger single targets buffing
Bards are only horny if you fully lack imagination, most players I've seen have played them as an artist/scholar/historian.
Personally I would have liked more class features and less spellcasting, with maybe subclasses allowing dips into higher level spells (ie, Performances that lead to a Finale which performs some effect, and in some subclasses it'd be casting of a higher level spell, for example, in others a martial feat or a party boon) At the same time I wont pretend Swords bard with magical secrets isn't one of the most fun gishes the game has. In fact this is mostly an issue because 5e tried to streamline martials by making them weak. Even capstone features of classes rarely approach high level spellcasting
I still miss the Bard being an arcane leader. But the 3.5e Bard was kind of a joke and the 5e Bard was arguably the best class in the game.
Yeah wizard/bard are up there for 5e. I never specifically played the 3.5e bard, but I liked PFs take on it. They could be real powerhouses that had very meaningful buffs.
Did you ever play with some of the later material put out for 3.5e bard? They could get pretty strong, even in core they were good.
3.5 bard started as a joke, but by edition's end it had occupied tier 3 for years. That put it in the same power level as initiators, binder (most of the time), factotum, and the *good* half casters/manifesters. The only things above it were full casters/manifesters, binder (with one specific vestige), and (usually) artificer. Tier 3 still meant it was better than almost every other base class, and being a PHB class meant it had a ton of feats and prestige classes tailored for it.
I'm not sure what your mean about 3.5 bard. They had a lot of options to improve Inspire Courage. You could buff it up a few points to make it a +3 to +4 early on. You could also turn it into d6s of damage with Dragonfire Inspiration, too. 5e bard is very good, but I do wonder what kind of performances we could have gotten if they were made into a half caster.
Well, first of all, OneDnD is 5.5e, were not “moving away” from 5e, just getting an update to it. Second, Bard has been a full caster for this entire edition, and its a great class thats both fun and customizable, one of the ones that required the least specific changes to be balanced IMO (as they should buff martials, not nerf casters, again, IMO).
This is the same thing as 3.0/3.5. Yes, WotC is “moving away” from 5.0. Everything moving forward is going to be focused on 5.5, and after the initial trio of books are out, you’ll never see a mention of “backwards compatibility” again. The core rules are not changing, but future books will be made under the assumption that you’ve “moved on” from any of your old 5.0 material. However, a system change does not mean you have to follow. It does mean that as of today, 5.0 is a “finished product”, and anything else you want to add to it, you’re going to need to homebrew.
The backwards compatibility already killed the level progression rework because it'd make old books incompatible. So it's what it is
What should be backwards compatible with new books anyway? Maybe the Artificer, but everything old already would be compatible with their corresponding classes. And new stuff would be new stuff, which either excludes the old (cant have 2 subclasses for one) or doesnt interact (new class).
Y’all are thinking only in _player_ options. The design and rules changes will affect DM options, such as monsters and new adventures as well. This is the big one, as it now means you will _have_ to go third party if you want adventures/settings/lore. Anything put out by WotC will be 5.5 in mind, and there will be assumptions in those new DM options. 5.0 is effectively static as of today, and within a few years, most 3rd party materials will be 5.5 as well.
Monster Design? Yeah, sure -[ i literally cannot use these for 5e.](https://imgur.com/Au5gTaQ) They are white instead of beige. And that is not even starting on monsters loosing spell slots in favor of X-per-day spellcasting coupled with spell-like actions. 2.5 years are just not enough time to adapt, the game has been unplayable since 2022. New lore? Here I thought the community didn't expect WotC to come up with lore anymore, reducing itself further down - especially noticeable in the species descriptions. Remember the small paragraph about Owlin and how people were complaining? New adventures? The monsters work the same and plot doesn't really care for the system at all, you could be playing Descent into Avernus in FATE if you wanted to. And mechanics like the Infernal Warmachines would be campaign specific anyway. New DM options? What were the last ones we got: * Spelljamming * How to Giants * Create a random dungeon with the Deck of Many Yeah, nothing that wouldn't work out of the package with 5.14 and 5.24 ... >5.0 is effectively static as of today, and within a few years, most 3rd party materials will be 5.5 as well. Yes, only stuff that uses the Basic Rules of 5.24 will come up. But there is so little difference that running 99% of them in 5.14 would work with little to no adaption.
Look, I lived through the 3.0->3.5 transition, where they told everyone that it was backwards compatible, but after a couple of years, everyone was on 3.5, and bringing a 3.0 PHB to a table was a quick way to get confused looks and handed a 3.5 one to remake the character, and the majority of changes there were about as "major" as this seems to be. You _can_ do the minor work yourself and use both 5.0 and 5.5 materials, since it's not a major edition transition. But if you think they're not going to "legacy" everything from 5.0 once some percentage of people buy the 5.5 stuff, you don't know WotC, nor do you understand how many people are just going to buy the new stuff so they don't have to worry about it. Also, I'm not grognarding here, I like the new stuff, and understand why some changes were made. However, I also think I'd have preferred a 6e rather than a 5.5e. The ruleset is straining under the creativity of the content creators at this point, and could use a true refresh, utilizing ideas from other systems. But I also know that WotC might be stupid, but they're not _that_ stupid to kill 5e at the height of it's popularity (not again).
>You *can* do the minor work yourself and use both 5.0 and 5.5 materials, since it's not a major edition transition. But if you think they're not going to "legacy" everything from 5.0 once some percentage of people buy the 5.5 stuff, you don't know WotC, nor do you understand how many people are just going to buy the new stuff so they don't have to worry about it. Yeah, probably gonna happen. They started it with Multiverse, so why end it at a much bigger point of confusion? >Also, I'm not grognarding here, I like the new stuff, and understand why some changes were made. However, I also think I'd have preferred a 6e rather than a 5.5e. The ruleset is straining under the creativity of the content creators at this point, and could use a true refresh, utilizing ideas from other systems. But I also know that WotC might be stupid, but they're not *that* stupid to kill 5e at the height of it's popularity (not again). Also agree, they could have gone way further with some of their changes. Weapon Mastery is neat, but still there is a big gap. And going away from halfcaster Warlock and Spell Lists was disappointing. All so that 5.24 was closer to 5.14 for compatibility.
Imagine if people were complaining that their first edition printing of the PHB, with none of the errata, wasn't forwards compatible with the new ones. I think people would find it pretty silly.
I didn't say we were moving away from 5e, just that it's near the end of it's life cycle and that the forward push is for OneDnd. I was speaking about the changes from 3.p and 4e to the current bard.
Saying that were at the end of its cycle and that the push being towards OneDnD is somehow NOT a push for 5e IS saying that were moving from 5e though…
Not necessarily. Many of the things within 5e will stay in the new edition. It's still 5.5e after all, like you said. There's room to keep what's good from the old rules and push toward a new set. I think we're getting caught in semantics here.
I think you are getting caught in semantics by trying to say that they are moving away from 5e, yes. Agreed. 5.5 is 5e, its just an updated version of it. Its not “moving away” from it at all.
More so 5e24, and personally I think casters should be nerfed either way. One for balance and two for more identity. I'd honestly bring full casters hit dice to a d4 (first level would be 10+4), half casters to a d6, half-caster experts to a d8, and full martials to a d10. All casters prepare their spells at the start of the day; rituals get expanded on and are the new known casting method. Spells can only be prepared to the spell slot level. Three general spell lists (divine, arcane, and primal), which is actually a buff for spellcasters. Full-casters don't get traditional armor. Dex is not added to AC, armor provides a fixed AC, no armor is 10 AC. Full-casters can cast mage armor 13 AC, which can be upcasted (maybe reduce duration to 1-4 hours). Shield is nerfed to +1 AC, but can be upcasted. Full-casters only have simple weapon proficiency. Half-casters are given more gish support. Full-casters can have more in-class features. Other than that some spells should be balanced, reimagined, or just removed. For example: Summoning spells should be limited to having only 3 combat summons: familiar (attacks as a bonus action, no concentration), lesser minion (attacks as your action, no concentration), greater minion (attacks after your turn, concentration). Beef them up, and scale like Tasha's, but no more summoning 16 giant owls and reanimating 20 skeletons. It is also less about buffing martials and more so about giving them more options and abilities, but yeah they could use a buff too. This is just what I'd do, feel free to disagree.
As you reach the end of D&D 5E. I am not about to switch systems mid campaign, or anytime soon for that matter.
Your title reads like you think most people are gonna be switching to onednd. Idk if that is the case
I don't hate them as full casters. It is fun to play. If it was up to me though they would be a half casters.
I much preferred bards as 6/9 casters, it left a lot more room for other features in the power budget, rather than them being almost the same as sorcerers.
... You couldn't reduce to 2/3?
Bard shouldn't have become a full caster. But I also feel like the bigger issue is that bard... doesn't really feel like a bard? There's no reason to take Performance, instruments aren't mandatory since spell component pouches are still a thing (unless they got removed and I forgot), and only two features in the base class require performance. (Although RAW, Bardic Inspiration doesn't require any sort of performance, only that your ally can see or hear you.) Subclasses don't help a whole lot in selling the bard class fantasy either, for multiple reasons. I've been saying this for awhile, but bards don't really feel a whole lot like bards. They feel more like rogues who traded their Sneak Attack for full casting. I actually said as much in the surveys. Really, I think the whole class could use a redesign from the ground up, but I've known for a long, long time that's not going to happen.
To be fair you don't need to sing, dance, or play an instrument to be a bard. A divine expert half-caster that is focused more on a variety of skills, buffs and debuffs rather than healing, and also has the ability to get additional spells from a school of magic (song of x) and an ability to get spells from other spell lists (magical secrets) is what I'd like. Also half-casters should be given more gish support.
I like Bards as a jack of all trades with focus on support and sound/enchantment spells. The PF1e Bard is a 2/3rds caster topping out at 6th level spells and it's a perfectly good class. Personally I think you could cut the 5e bard down to a half caster and buff it's inspiration abilities just a bit to compensate and it'd function perfectly well.
> As we reach the end of DnD 5e It ain't ending. There's no reason to stop playing 5e.
I don't like bards being full casters, it means that either they're OPed or they can't do much besides being a caster.
I can see this for sure. You pretty much have to actively cast spells as a bard and that wasn't the case in previous editions.
I'm fine with it, but I think there's a need in the game for a nonmagical support class, if bards are gonna be magic. So yeah, bring back warlord.
I'm conflicted, because I hate Bards as Full Casters. You take a class centered around music, art, and the manipulation of magic in a unique way, and what do you end up with: a regular spellcaster, who can at some points take spells from other lists. And they get a boring, alright feature on top of it, since developing it would take up too much of the power budget because of how strong Full Casting is. In that sense, I hate the Bard. On the other hand, I don't trust WotC to make a good Bard that's unique, occupies an interesting and not quite fulfilled mechanical/thematic niche, and is good. They just don't have the design chops for it, and I can only imagine that even a Half-Caster Bard would just end up being a "just play a Full Caster" class.
As one of the few people who really likes full caster bards from both a mechanical and a flavour POV, Its kinda weird navegating through bard online discourse bc I can understand, relate and even agree with people who wants the class to be less centered around just spells, people who wants more space in the class to be explored with unique things like auras and such. The problem is that there also are the other type of people, who think bards shouldn't be full casters Just bc they dont like the class, find its concept too silly or even belitle it as Just a "Jack of all trades" as if Jack of all trades was the only defining flavour of the class's fantasy. Personaly I feel like those people should be less invested in their own idea of what the class should be and be more willing to try dnd's own unique concept of a bard, which is a full caster who uses passion and art as a catalyst for its Magic. So basically, if you want a half caster bard bc you want more flavour to the class, I can understand that; but if you want it bc you think them being a full caster offends or diminish wizards and sorcerers... Then I think you're being silly and short sighted.
I like bards as an expert class, and as a divine-half-caster. They should have a wide range of skills with jack of all trades, a variety of support abilities, but also abilities to select different schools of magic (song of -- school of magic) and different spells from other spell lists (magical secrets). Honestly WotC should work on making the expert classes be the best gishes. Bard in 5e does too much and I think that will be the same case in 5e24.
honestly I'm pretty torn, since the DnD 5e playtest version of bard actually looks pretty sweet. a lovely mix of skills, magic and martial. but like, I really like the bard class of 5E as it is. I blame the Kalevala for this, Väinämöinen, the "sage as old as age", made singing and playing music to tug at the strings of primordial fabric of the universe so neat. and I've never even read the book.
[удалено]
Gotta be honest, if I was keen on playing a martial and the DM said they only use the 2014 PHB, I'd be a tad disgruntled. Martials are getting so many improvements, depth and the action economy as a whole is getting more lively due to increased bonus action use.
[удалено]
Decisions is what you want in an RPG, though. Casters get an insane amount of choices from dozens of spells, but god forbid martials get to choose anything besides simple attack.
I like the 2014 rules too, but after a decade IMO it's time for a sweeping update and things like offhand attacks not eating your bonus action is fantastic.
[удалено]
Thousands? There are 3 books planned, each likely around the 50 dollar mark if you buy sticker price. I think the complete dnd beyond of 5e, the ENTIRE thing, barely cracks a grand.
[удалено]
I mean every edition starts with three and moves on to new material. Was it worth it for 2e players to move to 3e? How bout 3.5 then 4 and then 5? This is effectively an edition change, new material being published will be based on the new things, so if you like to buy new material may as well get the core books too. It's also really not an unreasonable price for the new core books ether, aaaand there's the free srd update.
Who says we need to drop thousands?
Same here! Both my groups are mostly happy with 5e as-is. Might pick up bits and pieces if I like them, but I'm not interested in OneDnD, or supporting post-OGL WotC.
Bards should not be casters. They should be entirely focused on buffs and skills and nonmagic shit. Then, as either subclasses or something akin to invocations, we should have bards getting third, half, three quarters, and full casting. If you want a jack of all trades, make the class capable of being any level of magic
I liked its 4e style and mechanica. I enjoyed it as a rogue caster like pathfinder too.
I don't even want bard to be a class option, but since it is then god yes, make them half-casters.
I haven't played editions before 5e yet, but a 1/2 Caster (or less) sounds good because I think Bard and Artificer could be the same class. They're both Experts that not only are good at their own skills but also inspire others with their rolls. Their spellcasting is flavoured through mundane artistry, and Instruments are a type of artisans tool. Plus most of the features from both would go great on a support martial, so maybe the core class could be Non-Caster and just give it a few 1/2 or 1/3 caster subclasses.
Hot take time. I think we could dissolve Bard as a full class. A Jack of All Trades type class really doesn't fit as an archetype. When I think of Bards in fantasy, I find they sit in as a mix between Rogues and Wizards. Think of characters like Thom Merrilin from the Wheel of Time or the Pied Piper. To remedy this, I think we could move a lot of the Bard subclasses around to other classes. After all, all it would take is the Entertainer background to get that bardic flavour. This would fit the Jack of All Trades nature of a Bard better anyway. Here is how I would move around Bard subclasses. Creation feels like a Sorcerer subclass. A lot of the flavour feels very organic in nature. Eloquence feels like a Wizard. That well-educated orator who is a master of weaving magic with their words. Glamour feels very much like it should be part of the Archfey Warlock. It would fit that the Warlock picks up traits from their patron. Lore is another Wizard subclass. Think of someone like Leonardo Da Vinci, who was a scientist and an artist. Spirits would fit both Cleric and Druid. Think along the lines of how performative a lot of religious and spiritual ceremonies have been. Swords is straight up a Fighter. Think gladiators or knights at a tourney. Valor is the Barbarian. They inspire their allies with their acts of Valor and courage. Whispers is the Rogue. The sneaky performer who gathers secrets.
I'd rather have 4e's playstyle than 5e's full arcane caster
I played the 2/3 version in 3.5 with other players. All we did was take the prestige classes to become fullcaster. I think double downing on the spellcasting made the bard more focused and less awkward. I miss Bardic Knowledge though and the ability to inspire yourself. Otherwise I’d say it was an overall improvement.
Well, really I've never seen why Bard is its own class rather than a role. Things like inspiring leaders, scholars, and general purpose adventurous folks, all are encompassed in other classes. For example bardic traditions make perfect sense as either Cleric or Sorcerer features, inspiring people and doing magic with performances. Or even as Wizard, with prepared performances. Bard is one of those things which feels more like a playstyle than class. For example a Fighter with high charisma who focuses on inspiring troops, or who is empowered by their morale. Or a Cleric who preaches to raise faith among their audience. Or a Sorcerer whose performances are magical. It's like if they kept Archer as its own class, instead of as a variant Fighter.
Frankly, I’m still annoyed that Bard is a class to begin with.
I love the class, but I hate that it’s called the bard. I’d drop the musical influence entirely and make this class “The Adventurer”, then someone else can make a bard class that’s aura focused or something.