D&D 5E Bards Should Be Half-Casters in 5.5e/6e

[Ruin Explorer]

Absolutely. Removing wildshape from the core class opens up far more design-space. You can see that several of the more recent druid subclasses (spores, stars, wildfire) have tried to repurpose wildshape, but they would have been better if they could have just swapped it out.

Yup. It should be a subclass ability, or just spells - D&D in general could stand to have some lower-level shapeshifting spells (they literally won't break anything that wildshape doesn't already break, so...).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Indeed re: leaving them as they are.

All this sort of thing does is introduce more complication and decision-points which make the game more confusing for less expert players. Right now, thanks to the popularity of D&D, and the large number of classes, it's relatively easy for a newcomer to pick a class and have a good idea what they're getting. The fewer classes you have, the more decisions needed to make a class function in a specific way, the harder that becomes, and eventually you reach a point where newer players are basically going to have to read a guide and/or get another, more experienced player to tell them how to do what they want.

D&D's main issue is really not X is a full-caster or whatever.

The real issue is that D&D's classes are a bit outdated/outmoded, and really, to fit with what people actually want, there needs to be a properly-built and simple-to-use and non-weird Spellblade-type class, and likewise some kind of unarmed and unarmoured ass-kicker who is not Monk (nor Barbarian), because people aren't looking to be Monks, and I think it was a mistake to bring them back in 5E as the core of the "unarmed/unarmoured" class, rather than a subclass of a new class (but it was part of a pattern of mistakes that early 5E made, basically trying to retain grogs over all others).

I would also help if Wizard could shuffle over to be a bit more Harry Potter-esque. It's actually like, 80% of the way there already. And Sorcerer just needs an actual identity. Right now it's basically a class that only makes sense because of D&D's rules - it's "Like a Wizard, but with spontaneous casting!". Which is a bit pointless. There are token efforts to theme it via subclasses, but they're extremely weak. Again, part of the same "PLEASE THE GROGS OR THEY WILL DESTROY US ALL!!!" attitude of early 5E.

Do you really think 5e would have taken off like it did back in 2014 if it hadn't been leaned into classic stuff for the grogs? They wanted to bring people back to D&D. They did, and the resulting popularity snowballed, ultimately resulting in a huge new player base that has at this point surpassed the grogs. I believe 5e needed the grogs to get started, like a car battery. Now that the alternator (new players in this increasingly tortured metaphor) has taken over, they can and largely have left the battery behind.

 

[S'mon]

Taliesin/Merlin on the other hand is. Do either Alan a Dale or Jaskier have any magic at all? I think I'd class them both as rogues over even half-casters.

Yes, if this is the Bard model then it should be a Rogue subclass.

 

[le Redoutable]

and another Half-Caster Class could be the Monk ( by use of Ki points ) ??

btw, is there a difference ( to you ) in between Ki and Tchi ??

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

This whole thread is basically "fantasy heartbreaker" thinking in detail.

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that term. Could you please explain it?

There's no actual design problem being solved, which is evident from the first post. There's an opinion from some that "things should be different", which is not the same thing at all.

This is untrue. In the OP, I listed problems that I felt the Bard had. The main ones are as follows:

1. There are too many Charisma-based Full-Casters in D&D 5e (Bard, Warlock, Sorcerer).
2. The Bard's theme is pretty incohesive and disjointed (through certain spells not fitting their theme, to redundant subclasses, to trying to figure out if they want to be swashbuckling spellblades or musical scholars, to an overall weaker explanation of their magic compared to most other casting classes).
3. Most of the Bard's higher-level spells (besides Irresistible Dance and Glibness) don't fit the image of the "Magical Music Man" idea that is at the core of the class.
4. They borrow too much from other classes' themes (the Wizard for scholarly spellcaster, Cleric for support, Rogue for Expertise, etc).
5. Their subclasses aren't rewarding enough (only getting abilities at 3 levels).

Whether or not you think these things are actually problems large enough to warrant a substantial change in the mechanics of the class doesn't change the fact that they are problems.

The OP proposes a basically different design for Bards, and one unlike any other class in 5E - that of being forced into a support role with no other choices. Clerics aren't like that, Druids aren't like that. No class is. Because D&D 5E doesn't do forced support roles. 4E did - it had cleanly separated roles, and a support Bard worked well there because 4E had stuff which made support classes extremely strong and fun to play - something 5E is profoundly missing.

Now, this is just a blatant mischaracterization of my post. If you'll reread my post, you'll see that I suggested the exact opposite of what you're saying.

Did I suggest an expansion to a primarily-support-based feature that the Bard's get (Bardic Inspiration)? Yes, I did. Does that mean that I want to "force all Bards to be support characters"? Of course not! Later in the post, I went on to say that I would grant every subclass a different usage of Bardic Inspiration, such as giving the Martial subclass the ability to use Bardic Inspiration similar to Battle Master Maneuvers (like the College of Swords does). I also gave the example of there being a Thunder-damage focused bard that sings/plays an instrument loud enough that it damages their enemies. That's pretty obviously the opposite of "being forced into a support role with no other choices". So, either you didn't read my post well enough to understand this fact, or you're purposefully mischaracterizing my post to try and "win" this debate.

Furthermore, the "they'd be unlike any other class in 5e" thing is also inaccurate, as I listed another class that does things similar to what I'd envision this version of the Bard to be like; the Artificer. There could be more support-oriented Bard subclasses, like the Alchemist is more focused on support, while there would also be more damage-focused subclasses, like the Artillerist and Battle-Smith.

What's also funny is that, by following the OP's suggestions, the Bard would be an extremely bad support class. By having a vastly smaller number of spells, and being limited to slowly acquiring level 1-5 spells, the Bard would be hugely inferior in performing support to Clerics/Druids and so on.

This is also untrue. As I said in the OP, Bards would get features to make up for the higher level spells that they'd lose, such as expanded uses and styles of Bardic Inspiration, greater Jack-of-All-Trade-style class abilities, and other abilities to make up for the delayed spell-progression. So, unless you can see into the future, this statement is completely impossible to state in an objective manner. The class could very easily get features that make up for the loss of greater spell progression.

The OP doesn't seem to have taken on board that in 5E, most support functionality has been moved back to spells.

No, I'm aware of that. I just reject that it's the only way. Bardic Inspiration isn't a spell. Artificer Infusions aren't spells. Channel Divinity isn't a spell. The Artillerist's Protector Cannon, the Battle Smith's Steel Defender and Arcane Jolt, and the Armorer's Thunder Gauntlets all do not use 5e's spellcasting system. The support-oriented Battlemaster Maneuvers aren't spells. The Ancestral Guardian Barbarian, Cavalier Fighter, Purple Dragon Knight, Echo Knight, and Rune Knight don't get spells, but they all get support-oriented abilities.

The fact that a lot of 5e's support abilities are spells does not mean that it is the only way, the superior way, or that we shouldn't strive to add more ways.

And just adding to the "fantasy heartbreaker" vibe, what are the OP's suggestions for specializing/differentiating Bard subclasses? Spells. They're all spells. Some of them are spells which the Bard wouldn't even gain access to until what, level 17? Like, seriously, you want not only to give Bards a much smaller number of spells, and much weaker spellcasting, but you also want to limit them further with a theme? Just wild. As bonus to that, many of the suggested spells are terrible spells mechanically - weak, ineffective or niche spells which are not fun to use.

Again, this is a lie. I gave multiple suggestions in the OP on how to make Bard subclasses more rewarding to take; from added known spell lists, subclass-specific uses of Bardic Inspiration, added proficiencies for certain subclasses (martial proficiencies for the Warrior-Bard subclass, for example), and abilities that grant temporary hit points, or summon creatures to support you in combat (like the Creation Bard), or damage-enhancing features, and so on. Just because I did not write the whole damn class does not mean that the idea of it is flawed.

Seriously, can you please stop pretending that whatever version of the class you've envisioned in your head is what it would actually turn out to be like? Because, again, you cannot predict the future, and criticisms like "it would suck mechanically", or "it would only focus on support", or "you only want to give subclasses spells and nothing else" are all dependent on you actually having seen the class, which you have not, so all of those criticisms are moot.

Unless you can see the future and have seen whatever implementation would be used by WotC to make a Half-Caster Bard class . . . speculating that the class would suck mechanically or similar criticisms are just absolute nonsense.

There is, I'd argue, an actual issue with 5E that the OP and others don't fully seem to appreciate, which is that a lot of people want to play a Spellblade or Red Mage or similar class, and 5E is godawful at providing such a class, and definitely some people playing Bards are doing so because it's one of the less-awful ways to do that. But you don't fix that by weirdly limiting Bards to a role no other class is limited to (not even Artificer). You fix that by providing a Spellblade class.

No, that was not the inspiration for making this post. I've stated many times before on this site that I would love an official Arcane Gish Class in D&D 5e. I'm not trying to turn the Bard into that, I just sincerely think that it would work better as a Half-Caster. I would both make that change and add an Arcane Gish Class to the game if I were in charge of it. Making that class would not stop me from wanting this change.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Merlin is a druid or wizard. At this point in D&D history the bard is the minstrel archetype, not a Celtic archetype. they haven't had druid spells since 1st edition.

On the contrary. At this point in history the bard is a spellcaster - and has been a spellcaster in literally every single edition.

I would be quite happy if bard was folded into rogue and had no spells at all. Celtic bard could become a druid subclass.

The minstrel with no magic is a rogue. But music-as-magic has a long tradition that reaches throughout D&D with the bard always and without exception being magical - and shows up in lots of places in mythology and in fantasy literature, especially in high magic fantasy settings.

The only question is whether the bard should use magic in the normal way of D&D spellcasters or whether they should have their own separate magic system the way some people want for psychics. (For that matter is music-as-magic a psychic discipline).

 

[Joshy]

On the contrary. At this point in history the bard is a spellcaster - and has been a spellcaster in literally every single edition.

I agree with that, but I like the idea of the bard being a half caster and making it up with more and/or improved class features.

 

[le Redoutable]

On the contrary. At this point in history the bard is a spellcaster - and has been a spellcaster in literally every single edition.

The minstrel with no magic is a rogue. But music-as-magic has a long tradition that reaches throughout D&D with the bard always and without exception being magical - and shows up in lots of places in mythology and in fantasy literature, especially in high magic fantasy settings.

The only question is whether the bard should use magic in the normal way of D&D spellcasters or whether they should have their own separate magic system the way some people want for psychics. (For that matter is music-as-magic a psychic discipline).

bbbut! you all tell me that Rogues =/= Thugs ?
edit: french translation gives Rogue = voyou !

 

[UngeheuerLich]

[*]Most of the Bard's higher-level spells (besides Irresistible Dance and Glibness) don't fit the image of the "Magical Music Man" idea that is at the core of the class.
[*]They borrow too much from other classes' themes (the Wizard for scholarly spellcaster, Cleric for support, Rogue for Expertise, etc).

I think herein lies the problem:

You think the bard should be the magical muse, while in DnD the bard only ever had a bit of that.
The DnD bard actually is the ultimate jack of all trades that should borrow from other classes. The subclasses, although they only have 3 (actually 4) abilities are quite frontloaded (usually 2 at level 3) and do their job very well.

If you want a real magical muse (although I strongly believe that concept won't be played by a lot of people), you could create a new class.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I think herein lies the problem:

You think the bard should be the magical muse, while in DnD the bard only ever had a bit of that.

Have you read the 5e PHB's description of the Bard class? "Magical Muse" is a pretty apt summarization of what WotC felt best described the class when they were designing it for this edition. They're magical minstrels and poets that draw magic from their music and stories.

The description text pretty clearly illustrates that the 5e Bard is supposed to be a magical muse. Every example bard character given at the beginning of the class description is described as singing, humming, or playing an instrument, the "Music and Magic" section pretty clearly supports this position, as does the Learning from Experience section.

Being a "muse" is built into 5e's concept of the class. I don't know if that is accurate for all of the previous editions' versions of the class, but it is for 5e.

The DnD bard actually is the ultimate jack of all trades that should borrow from other classes.

That's not supported in the fluff text and only supported in two of the class's mechanics (Jack of All Trades and Magical Secrets). "Magical Muse" is supported in all of the fluff text, Song of Rest, Countercharm, Bard's being able to use musical instruments as their spellcasting focuses, and quite a few spells.

The subclasses, although they only have 3 (actually 4) abilities are quite frontloaded (usually 2 at level 3) and do their job very well.

Not as well as literally every other class in the game. Lots of classes' subclass abilities are frontloaded. However, not a single other class only gets subclass features at 3 levels.

If you want a real magical muse (although I strongly believe that concept won't be played by a lot of people), you could create a new class.

Again, the Bard is that class. It's supported in the fluff text of not only the core class but also plenty of subclasses (Creation, Glamour, Eloquence, Spirits, Lore, etc) and it's supported by the mechanics. If the class wasn't supposed to be a "magical muse", it wouldn't have been written that way.