D&D 5E Bards. They are silly. Is there a way to make them NOT silly?

[Mouseferatu]

Bards inspire their companions when things are bad. They know ancient lore and great secrets. They often cast utility spells more than combat spells, and their spells often focus on imagery, trickery, and knowledge rather than direct damage. They, or at least some of them, often engage in melee alongside the fighters.

Hmm. You know who that sounds like? Sounds to me an awful lot like Gandalf.

If you don't like the class as written (and it's not actually written nearly as music-focused as people think, but even if it was), you can do an awful lot by just tweaking the flavor a bit but keeping the mechanics as they are.

(PS: Yes, I know, Gandalf and the other wizards weren't actually human, blah-blah-blah. Not the point.)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Truth! (Emphasis mine.)

Their primary class feature should be inspiration, followed closely by lore and a knack for opportunity to contribute in useful ways.

Maybe this is a house rule that you're forgotten is a house rule, but in 5E it's not the case. Bard spells are just spells. Nowhere in the Bard's rule text for Spellcasting does it suggest otherwise.

I'm getting conflicting information here.

I don't have bards in the game I run, because song-based magic doesn't fit with how the world works and lore-based spellcasting is already covered by the wizard.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm getting conflicting information here.

Posting "Truth!" isn't information; it's just an expression of agreement.

I pointed out that the PHB rules say nothing about bardic spellcasting being singing, and I pointed out an inconsistency with Verbal components which is further evidence against that theory. No one has supplied any information to the contrary.

If I'm overlooking something in the PHB rules for bards, I'd be interested to know it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If I'm overlooking something in the PHB rules for bards, I'd be interested to know it.

Likewise, if the song-mage camp has something to back up their position, then it would be extremely pertinent to this discussion. If not, then that solves the problem, because the bard is just as serious as the wizard is.

It does raise the question of why we need both a bard class and a wizard class, though.

 

[mrpopstar]

Read the PHB to resolve the conflict.

I fully concede to what is written in the Player's Handbook, and do acknowledge that my "should be" statements are opinion-based.

That being said, is there any exposition on "music is magic" outside of the bard's description? Is the "song of creation" mentioned anywhere else?

For me, that whole bit is odd and jarring. It kind of stands alone in a peculiar way in terms of tying the class into the story of the game. (Again, this is opinion.)

If you read the SRD (i.e. description of the class stripped down to mechanics), music/words being magic and the "song of creation" isn't mentioned AT ALL. -- Both are completely superfluous.

...These are merely observations and thoughts.

Posting "Truth!" isn't information; it's just an expression of agreement.

Support, really.

I pointed out that the PHB rules say nothing about bardic spellcasting being singing, and I pointed out an inconsistency with Verbal components which is further evidence against that theory. No one has supplied any information to the contrary.

It occurs to me that people are using "singing" and "performance" interchangeably. (Semantics and all that.)

If I'm overlooking something in the PHB rules for bards, I'd be interested to know it.

You're missing (maybe) that the rules as written deviate somewhat from the expectations of those who have been familiar with the bard through its various permutations as the editions have changed?

The broader conversation is about the bard's silliness. I think you're trying to drive the point that the RAW is written but the pedantry and semantics (ugly words, but no hate) involved in driving that point isn't moving the conversation forward.

 

[cbwjm]

I've never really felt that bards were silly. Some of the artwork used to depict them have been but the classes themselves not so much.

 

[mrpopstar]

Likewise, if the song-mage camp has something to back up their position, then it would be extremely pertinent to this discussion. If not, then that solves the problem, because the bard is just as serious as the wizard is.

It does raise the question of why we need both a bard class and a wizard class, though.

THIS!

At present, the bard concept is borderline subclass material for the wizard. -- For myself, that's frustrating because we've seen a recognizable maturation of concept from 1st - 4th editions, so 5th's interpretation feels reductive.

 

[Aldarc]

THIS!

At present, the bard concept is borderline subclass material for the wizard. -- For myself, that's frustrating because we've seen a recognizable maturation of concept from 1st - 4th editions, so 5th's interpretation feels reductive.

Nah. The wizard is a borderline subclass material for the bard.

 

[BoldItalic]

The thing about the bard is, he is the one who tells the tale of your adventure in the taverns afterwards and if you aren't nice to him your heroic deeds may not even get a mention.

♫ The Bard, he sav'd the party's hide,
♫ With song and rhyme the monsters died.
♫ Oh praise the Bard! they all did cry,
♫ And bore him homewards shoulder-high.
​

A slightly biased account? Yup. Didn't happen like that? It did now.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

The thing about the bard is, he is the one who tells the tale of your adventure in the taverns afterwards and if you aren't nice to him your heroic deeds may not even get a mention.

♫ The Bard, he sav'd the party's hide,
♫ With song and rhyme the monsters died.
♫ Oh praise the Bard! they all did cry,
♫ And bore him homewards shoulder-high.
​

A slightly biased account? Yup. Didn't happen like that? It did now.

Sadly, our lot are more in line with,

♫ WHO WOKE THE LICH UP!?
♫ WHO? WHO? WHO WHO?!

(..repeat until DM starts sobbing into their beer..)