Where to put Odd Spell-Casters: Bard, Witch, etc?

Aeolius · Jan 20, 2012

With a focus on simplicity and modularity, I doubt we'll see the bard in the 5e Players Handbook (unless of course the bard reverts to 1e and becomes a fighter/thief/bard(druid) ).

That being said, I've always wanted to see a bard variant that was focussed entirely on the magics of music. A class that mixed the best of Aquaria and Loom .

While we're at it, I'd like to see a proper witch class, akin to the NPC class presented in Dragon #114. Pathfinder was on the right path, with their hag-inspired witch. But so much more could be done with the class; bezoars, infusions, herbal magics, and the like.

So, would the bard and witch best be served as specialized druids, who are in turn specialized priests?

(EDIT: Whoops! Wrong Forum! Can someone please throw this over in "New Horizons"?)

Greg K · Jan 20, 2012

Aeolius said:
So, would the bard and witch best be served as specialized druids, who are in turn specialized priests?

Honestly, I would like to see the Druid renamed Animist. Then, I would add both a Shaman and a Witch class. Shaman's deal with spirits.

The witch would be a Wisdom based arcane caster whose magic focuses on charms, healing, protection, curses, illusions, transformation, and nature as presented in Green Ronin's Witch's Handbook. No flashy lightning bolts. No fireballs, and no monster summoning.

With these three classes, the player can then base their Druid on whichever fits their concept or DM's campaign as Druid's have been presented in all three manners.

The bard is a more interesting case. Is it a pure caster that does not fight well? A rogue or jack of all trades? a warrior (e.g., skald)? What power source? Arcane ? Divine ? Primal? Again, so many different sources to draw from. Personally, I don't like the rogue being default. I think there needs to be a way to handle all of these without multiclassing and hoop jumping so people can do their interpretation whether basing it upon the Celtic origin (the initial training for Ovate/Olahm and Druids as well as its own path for those not pursuing the path of Ovate/Olahm), the roguish minstrel, the gallant, the bardic arcane sage, the skald, the divine cantor, the tribal lore keeper.

Li Shenron · Jan 20, 2012

Which: this archetype I've never been convinced it needs a class of its own, why can't it be just a Wizard with proper selection of spells and customized flavor (i.e. instead of "studied from books" just say it's got spells from somewhere else?)

Bard: indeed this is a tricky case! A Wizard's build would never approach the bard concept, and fighters and rogues don't have spells (which would be hard to implement as simple add-on features except perhaps for a very small number), so this either needs to be a class of its own or a multiclassing case.

I've said in other threads that I would be fine with having just fighter, cleric, rogue and wizard in the core, but if core is going to have an extra group of base classes, the bard is certainly one I'd like to have, together with druid, paladin and ranger.

These 4 additional classes are each wide enough concept (the paladin being the narrowest of them) to have their own class. The proof of this "width" is how much we argue about what exactly a bard or druid or ranger should be

howandwhy99 · Jan 20, 2012

Early D&D had Bards as a Fighter/Thief class which then took training by Druids and gained some class-specific abilities as well as some druidic spellcasting.

I think that's doable and I'd guess we are going to see some prestige classes as an option in 5e. We should probably also have a Bard as a full class (or sub-class) as an option too. Arcane spellcasting a la 3e could also be incorporated.

Witches were a primitive NPC class for certain monster cultures under the name Witch-Doctor. Shaman was their too as a kind of primitive Cleric NPC class. Witches actually combined both divine and arcane spellcasting and abilities.

I imagine we'll see many options for how Witch as a class can be implemented in 5e as well.

Greg K · Jan 20, 2012

Li Shenron said:
Which: this archetype I've never been convinced it needs a class of its own, why can't it be just a Wizard with proper selection of spells and customized flavor (i.e. instead of "studied from books" just say it's got spells from somewhere else?)

From my perspective:
1. It is a valid fantasy archetype and one that is broad enough for its own class
2. It spells include some that are, traditionally, not D&D arcane spells/wizard spells.
3. Having a witch class with its own spell list tailored from various lists is much better than trying to pick apart aspects from various caster lists- especially, for players new to the game or if going with a 4e power structure.
4. If a pre-4e power structure is used, I prefer the witch as a 3e spontaneous caster than "fire and forget".

Greg K · Jan 20, 2012

What if Bard was not a class, but bardic lore was a feat? In 3e you need x ranks in Knowledge (History and Local) and Perform (music). Maybe, Nature, Religion, and or Arcana as well. In 4e, you would need the History and Persuasion as class skills ( maybe, Nature, Religion, and, or Arcana as well)

This would allow someone to just add Bardic Lore to whatever class fits their ideal of a bard whether it is a spellcaster, a rogue or a warrior.

Li Shenron · Jan 21, 2012

Greg K said:
2. It spells include some that are, traditionally, not D&D arcane spells/wizard spells.

I have in mind enchantments, summoning and polymorph spells, which are all wizard's spells. But maybe that's just one type of witch... which other spells do you have in mind?

edit: I agree on the spontaneous casting, in 3ed I would have made her a Sorcerer in fact

Li Shenron · Jan 21, 2012

Greg K said:
What if Bard was not a class, but bardic lore was a feat? In 3e you need x ranks in Knowledge (History and Local) and Perform (music). Maybe, Nature, Religion, and or Arcana as well.

It sounds good. But then how about Bardic Music and Bardic spells?

Number48 · Jan 21, 2012

I want a lot more fuzziness in what each class is or represents. FWIW, everyone selects X number of elements and that becomes their class. I pick what I think a bard is and what it should do and then it's a bard because that's what I call myself. Leave all the "hard-coded" definitions out, present them more as an example. A druid as a nature-worshiper is fine, but couldn't I take the mechanics of the class and apply it to a totally different theme? I hope in 5E, I can say that I do combat using Rogue mechanics, I do non-combat like a Wizard and my abilities come from music because I say so. Poof, bard. Or I do combat like a Wizard, I do non-combat like a Rogue and my abilities come from music. Poof, also bard but completely different.