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

TerraDave

5ever, or until 2024
They did have music abilities, but were limited to charm effects in 1E. Spells were druidic then with an abbreviated progression. I would still consider the 1E Bard to be in the "partial caster" category myself. (For those interested, WotC posted the 1E Bard Extract on their website.)

Mixed feelings personally on a "full caster" bard -- I'll have to see what that means in practice. I've always rather enjoyed the "jack of all trades" bard approach myself. Heck, a bard was the *first* character I played in 3E!

*****

Who's the iconic character from fiction for the D&D bard, anyway? I've always thought Fflewdur Fflam from The Chronicles of Prydain or Thom Merrilin from Wheel of Time were good examples, and they're closer to the "jack of all trades" model in my mind.

You have to read a little more carefully. First, it gives a +10% to morale and a +1 to hit (this is the origin of the inspiration ability) as an "at will" ability, then it gives defense against magical sound attacks, then it charms, and finally enhances the effects of certain magic items. These do not include the bard specific items in the DMG.

(More fine print, they gain druid powers beyond spell casting, which I had not noticed before).

With levels in fighter and thief, this is a well rounded class.

Icononics? Gods and heroes from Celtic and Finish mythology?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Klaus

First Post
You have to read a little more carefully. First, it gives a +10% to morale and a +1 to hit (this is the origin of the inspiration ability) as an "at will" ability, then it gives defense against magical sound attacks, then it charms, and finally enhances the effects of certain magic items. These do not include the bard specific items in the DMG.

(More fine print, they gain druid powers beyond spell casting, which I had not noticed before).

With levels in fighter and thief, this is a well rounded class.

Icononics? Gods and heroes from Celtic and Finish mythology?


D&D seems to take its bard stylings from Vainamoinen, Celtic Myth (hence the early connection to druids), Will Scarlet and Orpheus.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
You said it was a "full replacement" for the Cleric, and I don't think of it as a "full replacement" unless they can turn undead. I don't think of the Cleric as just a heal bot. I see turn undead as a key ability, and an important and useful one.

Really Mistwell? Normally I agree with most of what you say on the boards, but now you're being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative.

I said the Bard would be a full replacement for the Cleric in that he could equally fulfill the Healer role in the game. That's what I was talking about... healing... and there should have been no confusion on that score unless someone did not actually read what I said, or was being deliberately obtuse. And I've read enough of your posts to know you're a smart dude who understands most arguments pretty clearly... so I don't buy that you didn't understand my post was all about other options for the Leader/Healer role in the party. So trying to add in a "Nuh Uh!" about Turn Undead is a pointless quibble over my use of the word "full", and for which I don't have any desire to further argue about. Waste of my time.
 

Full spellcasting means less than it did in 3e, putting everything together making the bard a full spellcaster pretty well puts in on par with the 2/3 spellcaster it was in 3e.

When Wizards, Clerics, and Sorcerers get less they can do with their main class feature of spellcasting, they get more class features than they had in 3e because of this with things like Enchanter Wizards forcing anyone who attacks them to make a saving throw or end up attacking someone else, or Clerics with their +2d8 divine strike, or Sorcerers with their ability to use dragon breath and grow wings. Full spellcasting, plus assorted uses of bardic music, and skill bonuses and second attack do put at the same level as the Druid a full spellcaster that's always had a lot of class features to go with its full spellcasting.

Yes this is conceivably the first non-AEDU version of the Bard that's equal to the Druid in what it can do.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Really Mistwell? Normally I agree with most of what you say on the boards, but now you're being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative.

I'm really not, and please stop claiming I am. Let's keep this to what I say, rather than what you suspect I am thinking.

I said the Bard would be a full replacement for the Cleric in that he could equally fulfill the Healer role in the game.

Uh, no you didn't. It's why I responded. Look again.

That's what I was talking about... healing... and there should have been no confusion on that score unless someone did not actually read what I said, or was being deliberately obtuse.

You didn't say any of that though. You just said he would be a FULL replacement. Not a partial replacement for just the healing part. And as further responses indicated, it seemed to be a claim that turn undead is a superfluous ability.

And I've read enough of your posts to know you're a smart dude who understands most arguments pretty clearly... so I don't buy that you didn't understand my post was all about other options for the Leader/Healer role in the party. So trying to add in a "Nuh Uh!" about Turn Undead is a pointless quibble over my use of the word "full", and for which I don't have any desire to further argue about. Waste of my time.

Again please cut out the claim you know what I am thinking.

I think the Cleric represents about 5 things. You said a bard was now a full replacement for the Cleric, implying they fill all 5 things they do and not just one. I said I disagree, it just fills a few, and follow-on responses confirmed a view from others that some of those 5 things were considered meaningless abilities to them and so they thought Bard does fill all the "valuable" parts of the Cleric. So, they ALSO viewed your statement as saying it replaced all Cleric abilities (and agreed).

Now maybe you didn't mean it that way, but as I am not the only one that viewed it that way, you can either reply to what we're saying or not. But, quit claiming we have a bad motive in viewing your comment the way we did. It's how it came across to me. If you don't find value in that part of the discussion triggered by your comments, then feel free to not comment. But quit bashing me for doing so.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Nope and for me it is just another -1 for D&DN. Lets turn everyone into a spellcaster for powerz!!!.

So I will ask you the same question - who has been made into a spellcaster who was not previously a spellcaster?

The debate is about quantity of spells within the spellcasting classes (and so far that debate is just ONE class large), and not adding spellcasting to classes who didn't previously have it.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Let's also not forget that as WotC has said (or I believe at least implied) that rules for designing sub-classes will be in the DMG... anyone who doesn't want full spellcasting for their Bards will be able to make possible suitable replacements.

- Designing a sub-class of the Bard that replaces full spellcasting with something like using the Ranger/Paladin 'half-caster' chart and adapting a Rogue style.

- Designing a sub-class of the Rogue called the "bard" with a bardic Rogue Style + the Minstrel background.

So if a spellcasting chart on par with the Cleric, Wizard, Druid, or Sorcerer really bothers you... you're probably going to be able to take care of it if you really need a Bard in your game that badly.
 

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
Hussar said:
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?

The criticism of a bard defined by their spell list being too samey (and comparing it to how 4e differentiated characters based on their powers) doesn't mean earlier e's necessarily did the bard much better. It's totally possible that 2e and 3e leaned heavily on the spell list as their way of distinguishing the bard from other classes. It's totally possible that this is part of why the bard in those e's kind of sucked. The criticism is that defining things simply by their spell list (or power list) isn't enough differentiation.

2e and 3e both threw a little bit more than a spell list the bard's way.

In 2e, the bard had a few thief skills (climb walls, detect noise, pick pockets, read languages, which was pretty valuable as thief skills were exclusive. They could "influence reactions" (make non-hostile a group friendlier or more hostile), inspire (bonus to attacks, saves, and morale), countersong (a pretty niche use), had local history (still a pretty niche thing) and a chance to recognize magic items (in an e with curses and hidden item properties, not insignificant!). He can also use any weapon and armor up to chain mail (essentially, they were not too shabby in melee or ranged combat), and had a mid-range THAC0.

In 2e, that was weak sauce. In 5e, that would translate to perhaps some more proficiencies (Diplomacy to influence reactions, Climb, Perception, History for local knowledge and to discern magic items, Thievery to pick pockets...extra languages?), and the bardic inspiration Mearls talked about. Perhaps also some attack bonus or extra attack mechanic to represent their "middling" melee skills. And maybe a countersong cherry on top. Still pretty weak sauce.

In 3e, the bard had extra skill points (more than most other characters, a little less than a thief), they could countersong (still pretty niche), and had a Bardic Music trait that let them fascinate an audience, give them a suggestion, grant some bonuses (courage, competence, greatness, heroics), and break enchantments. Plus, a bardic knowledge check that let them know anything. They had a mid-range attack bonus to boot. And this was pretty weak.

In 5e, that might translate to, again, more proficiencies, some sort of attack bonus/extra attack, and the countersong cherry. It takes the inspiration idea a lot further, than a simple bonus, though.

And I think that distinction -- between a spell-like effect created only semi-magically with a performance, and a spell you cast a la a wizard -- is not nearly as irrelevant as a lot of people are tending to assume here.

That distinction is where it makes sense to double-down on, to give the bard a unique, powerful thing that it can do that no one else can, to make the experience of playing a bard unique.

There's plenty of room to build on that idea. It dovetails with warrior-skalds, Orpheus, and warlords, who don't "cast spells" as much as they just perform, and achieve their results with the beauty of their art. Pathfinder added a whole suite of doom-n-gloom to their bard, along with the ability to use Perform for a bunch of other things aside from strumming a lute.

I wonder if the reason they didn't has to do with simplicity, honestly. Jettisoning yet another niche mechanic that every new player will be forced to learn if they want to decide whether or not they want to play a bard. I can sort of even get on board with that from a practical standpoint ('tis true, learning how spells work and applying that to multiple classes is going to be easier than learning how bardic performance works and how it's different than just casting a spell). This is just one of those places that 5e's advertised customization will be vital for me to get what I want out of it. It's cool -- that's going to be a common 5e experience, I bet. And people who just want a simple easy bard can have one, too.

But a mage-bard with a different spell list doesn't do it for me. It can't. Too boring. I'm a pretty advanced player, though. ;)
 
Last edited:



Remove ads

Top