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

GSHamster

Adventurer
Pretty much inevitable since the blacklash to giving mundane types special abilities or powers.

If mundane classes are only allowed to have the basics, then all classes other than the base fighter and rogue will gravitate towards magic, if only to give them some interesting and unique mechanics.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

GX.Sigma

Adventurer
I'm not happy with the idea of a full spellcaster bard. Spells are a generic ability and more spells just means fewer bardic abilities.

What makes you think the Bard's spells will be generic? If they follow the example of the Paladin and Ranger in the playtest, they'll write new spells just for the Bard, which will probably be analogous to older editions' bardic abilities.
Well considering they specifically mention that bards don't have to be music based in the article, you could replicate a 4e warlord here pretty easily. The "spells" will likely be buff/debuff stuff. Pretty easy peasy to make a new warlord.

Which makes me happy.
I think it has already been confirmed that there is a non-bard warlord.
 
Last edited:

What makes you think the Bard's spells will be generic? If they follow the example of the Paladin and Ranger in the playtest, they'll write new spells just for the Bard, which will probably be analogous to older editions' bardic abilities.
Yes, they'll write a couple new spells at each level, but they'll also give the bard access to generic spells. So the end result is the bard is mostly just another spellcaster, mostly defined by their choice of spells. If a bard doesn't take spells unique to the bard they're very similar to every other caster. And defining classes by spells just means making more spells in a game that already has a f-tonne of spells just adds bloat.
I also tend to find many new spells forgettable. Spells that have been in that game twenty or thirty or even forty years tend to have survived because they're iconic and evocative. The names are descriptive, telling you what the spell does. Newer spells don't always do that well.

It's also a little too close to the 4e design of defining characters by their powers. Which I find bland and samey. I'd rather more unique non-spell abilities, so the bard feels like a bard and not just a wizard with a bard subclass.

There's so many other ways of making the bard different rather than just resorting to spells as the defining feature. This feels... lazy. Like they couldn't make another idea work in time or procrastinated on the bard too long and now have to just compromise by making it a dedicated spellcaster rather than a hybrid class.
I wonder if balance concerns are part of the reason. If they're having trouble making the bard balanced with the rogue and wizard while being a mix of both, making it a full spellcaster simplifies things; they can just balance it against the wizard and cleric, which they already have a good idea of power level compared to the martial classes.

Really, too many classes in D&D5 cast spells. I'm not a fan of rangers and paladins casting spells, let alone at the low levels they do in D&D Next. It makes a low magic campaign harder when only three classes don't have access to magical powers on a regular basis.
 

Spellcasting progression doesn't mean the same thing as it did back in 3e given these points:
  1. Spells don't scale by caster level anymore.
  2. For the most part there isn't such a thing like caster level when determining any spell effect at all. The exception being Cantrips which are based on character level.
  3. All spells from the same caster have the same spell save DC.
  4. Spellcasters in general get far less spells than they did before.
For the most part it means that being able to cast 9th level spells, isn't much different from 3e bards with their capped at 6th level spells, which were often spells of a higher level in the sorcerer/wizard spell list. Down-level substitution rarely happened with the Paladin or Ranger in 3e. And some of the down-level spells of the Paladin are now castable as 5th level spells which they have access to without any of that.
 

Hussar

Legend
Jester C said:
It's also a little too close to the 4e design of defining characters by their powers. Which I find bland and samey. I'd rather more unique non-spell abilities, so the bard feels like a bard and not just a wizard with a bard subclass.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...4-Full-spellcasting-Bard/page13#ixzz2vdBuVN7J

What non-spell abilities did bards ever have? Bardic Music in 3e was pretty much just spells. Other than legend lore, what unique non-spell abilities did bards have?
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Am I the only one that kind of misses the days when wizards were the only "full" spellcasters that got up to 9th level spells? Being a full caster meant something back then. Bards could only get 6th level spells, rangers could only get 3rd, paladins could only get 4th, and clerics and druids could only get up to 7th. Now, it seems like being a full caster really isn't that big of a deal, since they hand it out like candy these days.

Nope and for me it is just another -1 for D&DN. Lets turn everyone into a spellcaster for powerz!!!.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
You know. Next is starting to look like older editions. Spells taking up the mantle for class features and special abilities.

This makes me wonder. Are there anymore fantasy archetypal adventurers and heroes that don't really on magic spell left in D&D lore?

Can you make a tinker class or must you make an artificer who gets the 9 levels of spells?

What about a beast master? Must that be a full caster in D&D?
 

Sadras

Legend
Personally the bard has never been a strong archetype to stand as a class on its own.
The Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger are strong conceptually and have many distinct abilities, the Bard has his varying degrees of Words/Music of Inspiration, Awe..etc far from enough in my opinion.

I have always felt the Bard should rather be a subclass allowable for a wizard, rogue and fighter.
 

variant

Adventurer
Personally the bard has never been a strong archetype to stand as a class on its own.
The Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger are strong conceptually and have many distinct abilities, the Bard has his varying degrees of Words/Music of Inspiration, Awe..etc far from enough in my opinion.

I have always felt the Bard should rather be a subclass allowable for a wizard, rogue and fighter.

Bards have always been a strong archetype throughout fantasy and mythology. D&D has always had a less than stellar version of the bard. The designers always just takes wizard spells (or druid) spells and dumps them on a sub-par rogue instead of fleshing out what a bard has traditionally been in both fantasy and mythology.
 

Sadras

Legend
Bards have always been a strong archetype throughout fantasy and mythology. D&D has always had a less than stellar version of the bard. The designers always just takes wizard spells (or druid) spells and dumps them on a sub-par rogue instead of fleshing out what a bard has traditionally been in both fantasy and mythology.

Perhaps this is true, but for arguments sake, how do you envision the bard to be reflected within D&D to represent this strong archetype within fantasy and mythology? What abilities would this person have?
Thinking of Orpheus, Homer, Shakespeare, Will Scarlet & Alan-a-Dale and the Pied Piper I'm not sure how you wish D&D had reflected the Bard differently.
 

Remove ads

Top