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

[Joshy]

I like the idea of having there core features be jack of all trades but the subclass be what they master.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What design problem are you solving for? What would you give Bards to make up for a lack of full casting that would not destabilize the game's combat model? You already have subclasses that gain a second attack and I have never seen anyone indicating that College of Valor or College of Swords are particularly strong.

the problem is that the game is not in and of itself balanced class to class (although better then 3e that is damning with faint praise) a 10th or lower level bard that gets weapon and armor prof and a second attack is a fighter with X level spells. (BTW half the subclasses are weapon, armor and second attack) and even at 11+ when the fighter gets a 3rd attack the 5th+ level spells more then match or even surpass. So realistically a bard with 1/2 caster is still more versatile and powerful then fighter but not full casters.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Honestly, I'd blow up the Sorcerer and the Warlock. Basically the same thing as a wizard but slightly different mechanics is not a good class concept.

Honestly, I'd turn the wizard into a sorcerer subclass. It's basically the same thing - but its gimmick of a spellbook that lets you change the prepared spells is a good subclass, while its own subclasses are generally meh.

 

[Mordhau]

Honestly, I'd turn the wizard into a sorcerer subclass. It's basically the same thing - but its gimmick of a spellbook that lets you change the prepared spells is a good subclass, while its own subclasses are generally meh.

Yeah. That works I guess. And the Warlock could be another.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yeah. That works I guess. And the Warlock could be another.

The thing about the warlock is that they are currently mechanically incredibly different in some ways from everyone else in ways that benefit the game:

• They can cast top tier spells at any level without spell slots coming out of their ears so there's less to track making it IME easier for newbies to play and less effort for veterans.
• Invocations are incredibly varied and often character defining in a way other classes just don't get.
• Even the pact boon is like an extra subclass.

There is a strong thematic niche for warlocks - and an even stronger mechanical one.

 

[cbwjm]

Honestly, I'd blow up the Sorcerer and the Warlock. Basically the same thing as a wizard but slightly different mechanics is not a good class concept.

I'd like to merge all three into a single class.

 

[Joshy]

Personally I want three full casters one for each Int, Wis, and Cha. I just can't decide their roles.
If I can think of a third I would combine sorcerer and wizard into one.
Cleric and druid in another, maybe add warlock here or break it into feats.
Make the Wildshape ability into a subclass.

 

[Mordhau]

I think one of the advantages of merging specific types of casters is that they don't have to all depend on a single ability score. This was always the problem in the past that melee classes were MAD while casters were not.

5e (or well 4e really because it did it first) has mostly solved this by making melee characters either heavy armour wearers and Strength based or finesse users and dex based. But this solution itself comes at a cost. There's a saminess and loss of nuance to characters that arises from this, and this is also what has ended up making Dex too good.

If casters could also be a little MAD (say a different ability score for spells known and save DCs*) it would open up some design space and and allow for different approaches to casters and martials.

(It would perhaps be overly complex but perhaps making the save DC abilities scores for Arcane casters be based off the school they are using might be interesting. If blasting style DCs were based of Dex, but Charm and Illusion DCs based of Charisma it would go some ways to leading wizards to specialise without completely closing the door on whole schools of spells).

 

[Joshy]

(It would perhaps be overly complex but perhaps making the save DC abilities scores for Arcane casters be based off the school they are using might be interesting. If blasting style DCs were based of Dex, but Charm and Illusion DCs based of Charisma it would go some ways to leading wizards to specialise without completely closing the door on whole schools of spells).

If you wanted to force them to specialise you could just do it with proficiency.

 

[BrokenTwin]

I think one of the advantages of merging specific types of casters is that they don't have to all depend on a single ability score. This was always the problem in the past that melee classes were MAD while casters were not.

5e (or well 4e really because it did it first) has mostly solved this by making melee characters either heavy armour wearers and Strength based or finesse users and dex based. But this solution itself comes at a cost. There's a saminess and loss of nuance to characters that arises from this, and this is also what has ended up making Dex too good.

If casters could also be a little MAD (say a different ability score for spells known and save DCs*) it would open up some design space and and allow for different approaches to casters and martials.

(It would perhaps be overly complex but perhaps making the save DC abilities scores for Arcane casters be based off the school they are using might be interesting. If blasting style DCs were based of Dex, but Charm and Illusion DCs based of Charisma it would go some ways to leading wizards to specialise without completely closing the door on whole schools of spells).

They do something similar in Fantasy Craft (a D&D 3E heartbreaker). Intelligence is spells known, Wisdom is spells prepared, and Charisma is spell power. I may have Int and Wis backwards, been a while since I looked at that system.
In Shadow of the Demon Lord (a system that's kind of half way between Warhammer Fantasy and D&D 5E), traditions are divided between Intelligence and Willpower.