D&D 5E Legends & Lore 03.10.2014: Full-spellcasting Bard

[Falling Icicle]

The articles about the sorcerer and warlock had me really excited. The bard, on the other hand, is a letdown for me. I don't like the direction they're taking the class.

I don't like bards having full spellcasting. IMO there are too many spellcasting classes already. Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard and now Bard. Plus Paladins and Rangers as "half casters." That means that only 1/3 of the classes are non-casters. The Bard already got 15 spells per day by level 20, which is only four less than what full casters get. Did bards really need to be given 9th level spells?

Plus, I don't like the idea of a very versatile skill-based class having just as many spells per day as the wizard. Full spellcasting is pretty much all wizards have going for them. When there's another class that's just as good at spellcasting plus has tons of skills and versatility outside of spellcasting, it makes the wizard seem pretty pointless. I'm sure wizards will probably have a bigger spell list, but it's hard to see how enchanters and illusionists in particular won't be overshadowed by the bard now.

The Inspiration ability seems lackluster. It's barely better than Guidance, a cantrip clerics can cast at-will.

I'm also disappointed that they're still doing the whole "rogues (and bards) are better at using skills than everyone else." If the math of the game is broken such that rogues can't succeed, they need to fix the game's math for everyone, not just double the bonus for rogues. I also dislike it on principle; rogues and bards already get more skills than anyone else. They don't need double the bonus on top of that.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Are they going a little overboard with all the spellcasting in Next?

 

[Li Shenron]

It's barely better than Guidance, a cantrip clerics can cast at-will.

That's because Guidance is just too good. +1 on a single check is nothing. +1 on every out-of-combat check is just too good.

 

[Klaus]

Warlock

Based on Mike's L&L on the Warlock, it's very much *not* a full caster.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

At his point, I wish they would just get rid of the half-caster concept and make everyone with magic full casters including Warlocks, Rangers and Paladins. It would probably make balancing the classes at higher levels a lot easier.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Perhaps because it relates to a class we've seen, I feel this L&L offers much more substance than previous columns.

Bardic inspriation is a limited use, high-powered Guidance, as has been noticed. Does it stack with guidance? That would be game breaking, I expect.

I'm pleased they are re-thinking Bardic knowledge, though I did lie the mechanism they had (rather than a bonus, there was a minimum roll that cold be achieved). There's a place for both mechanics in the game, I feel, and maybe a specialist will still have the other ability (at a higher level).

I am disappointed in the apparent "bards = charisma-based rogues, and now with full spellcasting!" approach, but I am hopeful that there will still be a genuine place for a charisma-optimized rogue in the final game.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Based on Mike's L&L on the Warlock, it's very much *not* a full caster.

Warlocks basically are full spellcasters, they just use encounter spells instead of daily spells, so they're a bit different. I believe they said warlocks get up to four 6th level spell slots per encounter, which is definitely on par with the power of full casters, and even better in some ways, as full casters only get four total 6th+ level slots per day. They may not get 9th level spells, but it would be broken if they did. And then they have invocations on top of that. So, I'd definitely consider them to be "full" spellcasters.

 

[Klaus]

Warlocks basically are full spellcasters, they just use encounter spells instead of daily spells, so they're a bit different. I believe they said warlocks get up to four 6th level spell slots per encounter, which is definitely on par with the power of full casters, and even better in some ways, as full casters only get four total 6th+ level slots per day. They may not get 9th level spells, but it would be broken if they did. And then they have invocations on top of that. So, I'd definitely consider them to be "full" spellcasters.

Then we have different definitions. I consider "full spellcasters" those that have a full table of spell slots, instead of a very limited number of slots.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not sold.

Bards are not full-on casters to me. They're dabblers, dilletantes, they know a bit of stuff but they don't know the full power. The kind of bard I want to play isn't a master of mighty magical energies, but is an adroit trickster and manipulator of their world. That doesn't require high-level arcane magic, and that requires martial capacities beyond that of a typical spellcaster.

They're also more about weapon skill and combat moves than a full-caster would suggest. A bard should be *at least* as skilled in weapon combat as a thief or assassin (and possibly more so, without as big a need for stealth and agility).

For me, the fun of a bard comes with being better able to blend ability sets together for a bigger boost in power. Bards should be able to do magical things with skill checks, and use skills spontaneously in combat for tricks. They should be able channel spells into martial prowess and skill versatility. They should be able to flip attack rolls into skill checks and do mystical things with them.

Bards have blades that sing and flash, magic that slices and twirls, and skills used effortlessly that tread into the supernatural. Bards balance on waves, juggle daggers, blast light, bend sound, charm without spellcasting, and fly with a simple leap. This isn't *just* an arcane trickster.

I can't imagine this is the whole shebang. If the 5e warlord is to find a home beneath the Bard class, it needs to have a "screw spellcasting, I'm going to hit things hard" option. This should to be a place where 5e's flexibility comes into play to be able to give us a bard that isn't such a magical powerhouse.

I don't know why full spellcasting was presumed to be a good idea in this case, but I'm not necessarily a fan. Give me versatility and combos that eclipse 9th level spells and 5 attacks/round. Don't just give me big charm magic. If I wanted that, I'd play an Enchanter.

 

[Klaus]

I'm not sold.

Bards are not full-on casters to me. They're dabblers, dilletantes, they know a bit of stuff but they don't know the full power. The kind of bard I want to play isn't a master of mighty magical energies, but is an adroit trickster and manipulator of their world. That doesn't require high-level arcane magic, and that requires martial capacities beyond that of a typical spellcaster.

They're also more about weapon skill and combat moves than a full-caster would suggest. A bard should be *at least* as skilled in weapon combat as a thief or assassin (and possibly more so, without as big a need for stealth and agility).

For me, the fun of a bard comes with being better able to blend ability sets together for a bigger boost in power. Bards should be able to do magical things with skill checks, and use skills spontaneously in combat for tricks. They should be able channel spells into martial prowess and skill versatility. They should be able to flip attack rolls into skill checks and do mystical things with them.

Bards have blades that sing and flash, magic that slices and twirls, and skills used effortlessly that tread into the supernatural. Bards balance on waves, juggle daggers, blast light, bend sound, charm without spellcasting, and fly with a simple leap. This isn't *just* an arcane trickster.

I can't imagine this is the whole shebang. If the 5e warlord is to find a home beneath the Bard class, it needs to have a "screw spellcasting, I'm going to hit things hard" option. This should to be a place where 5e's flexibility comes into play to be able to give us a bard that isn't such a magical powerhouse.

I don't know why full spellcasting was presumed to be a good idea in this case, but I'm not necessarily a fan. Give me versatility and combos that eclipse 9th level spells and 5 attacks/round. Don't just give me big charm magic. If I wanted that, I'd play an Enchanter.

Pretty much all of that can easily be done with a Rogue using the correct background and either Multiclassing or a few feats.

I think making the Bard a full caster with its own spell list (which is likely, since even the Sorcerer is getting his own list) can open a lot of possibilities and reinforce the class' own identity.