WotC Bard is the biggest mystery in the 5.75e PHB

[Kobold Stew]

because after the last UA reveal where you can pick your spell list/power source,

I think this is the biggest loss that I regret from the playtest.

It was such a good idea -- immediate and easy to implement, leading to an range of builds for the class. Whatever they do, I think one of my house rules (should anyone want it) is that Bards and Sorcerers can pick a spell list to cast from (Maybe not Wizard? I'll have to see what the implications iwll be). But having a cleric-list Sorcerer or a Druid-list Bard just opens up so many opportunities.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think this is the biggest loss that I regret from the playtest.

It was such a good idea -- immediate and easy to implement, leading to an range of builds for the class. Whatever they do, I think one of my house rules (should anyone want it) is that Bards and Sorcerers can pick a spell list to cast from (Maybe not Wizard? I'll have to see what the implications iwll be). But having a cleric-list Sorcerer or a Druid-list Bard just opens up so many opportunities.

It's a very interesting idea thematically, but it creates huge headaches mechanically. It makes signature spells impossible, unless you're specifically granted them by class features--which then bogs down class write-ups by having to list out every signature spell in the class.

If they'd found a way to thread the needle on this, finding some way to preserve the "some spells really should only be available to one class/just a few classes" stuff while still getting "there are power sources and each one has a spell list," yes, that would have been great. But as with a lot of things in 5e, rather than doing the effort to make a cool concept work and earn player approval, they scrapped it as soon as a mere 1/3 minority disliked it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Any other none spell list changes to Bard or its subclasses are you expecting?

I'm just living in fear personally, because the Bard changes they'd made were pretty good and added up to a more functional class, but them never having shown us it after ripping out the spell lists really worries me, because they've suggested a lot of terrible, terrible ideas of classes, with absolutely no apparent judgement. Generous people have suggested they "knew they were bad ideas" and just wanted them shot down by the playtest, but I am more skeptical and I think there's been an element of both change for change's sake (not always bad but...) combined with throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks, and I'm concerned they'll have done something wack here. Best case we basically get the last playtest Bard with a single spell list but a much boarder one and/or with way more "magical secrets", worst case we get something demented, of which I fear there is a non-zero chance.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Bards won't get spellcasting. Instead they will get the ability to make plans that don't work.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

I think this is the biggest loss that I regret from the playtest.

It was such a good idea -- immediate and easy to implement, leading to an range of builds for the class. Whatever they do, I think one of my house rules (should anyone want it) is that Bards and Sorcerers can pick a spell list to cast from (Maybe not Wizard? I'll have to see what the implications iwll be). But having a cleric-list Sorcerer or a Druid-list Bard just opens up so many opportunities.

Does a Sorcerer taking the cleric spell list step on the toes of the Divine Soul subclass?

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Obviously still Arcane, though "power source" is hardly a thing that has much impact mechanically in 5e.

I liked the option of Divine magic Bards honestly.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Don't get the thread hung up on what number should be applied.

Spoiler

I thought Tasha was like a 5.1, but to each their own. I think a lot of what was in Tasha's probably should have been there from the start and should have been considered a correction. Specifically (and it has been a while since I looked at 5e at all), I think Tasha's added a bunch of fluidity to the game that should have been there early on.

Tasha was more then 5.1 or 5.25, because it was enough to kill PHB +1 rule, because any +1 besides Tasha's was just really weak in comparsion.

 

[Parmandur]

Its what I call "Revised D&D" because I concider Tasha's to really have been 5.5e, so this goes abit further then that, but not to 6e range.

The point of short hand monikers is to ease communication, but making up new idiosyncratic monikers that don't match with anyone's usage is bound to derail conversations.

Like all ".x" appellations, "5.75" us insufficiently futureproofed. What will you call the version of 5E that gets rolled out in 10 years, for instance?

Anyways, as to the Bard, it ia worth noting that the point of the UA tests was not to nail down final versions, but to conduct AB testing on Alpha versions before they did internal Beta testing. The final Ranger, we already know per Crawford, won't look like any of the UA Rangers because they learned from the AB testing which parts people liked or didn't like. Similarly with the Bard, most likely, particularly when you count the previous ten years of standard 5E Bards as part of the AB testing.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Tasha was more then 5.1 or 5.25, because it was enough to kill PHB +1 rule, because any +1 besides Tasha's was just really weak in comparsion.

So it was as much as the shift from 3.0 to 3.5? Honestly?
Did the spell list get rearranged?
Did skills vanish?
Did you now suddenly have to use a grid to determine cover?
Did suddenly the rule 0 first page of the DMG got scrapped?

Edit: just looked it up... Rule 0 was actually replaced by "playing on the battle grid".*
That was the beginning of the near end of D&D. And you compare tasha to it?

I was wrong.* It is still in. At about the same page as before. But somehow it loses importance if the first page tells you that the rules assume a battle grid.

**actually I was right. The introductory of the 3e DMG tells the DM that there is a little secret: you are totally incharge. You are responsible, but you are in charge.

 

[Nikosandros]

Anyways, as to the Bard, it ia worth noting that the point of the UA tests was not to nail down final versions, but to conduct AB testing on Alpha versions before they did internal Beta testing. The final Ranger, we already know per Crawford, won't look like any of the UA Rangers because they learned from the AB testing which parts people liked or didn't like. Similarly with the Bard, most likely, particularly when you count the previous ten years of standard 5E Bards as part of the AB testing.

I don't even know if there is such a need to over-haul the bard basic class (some of the sub-classes might use a bit of a touch-up). IMHO, it is a versatile and fun class.