D&D 5E [Poll] Bard Satisfaction Survey

[Sacrosanct]

Yesterday was the Barbarian, today is the Bard.

Once a year or so, I think it would be interesting to get a pulse on the satisfaction of the various classes. The game's been out for a few years now, and that's plenty of time to get a good experience on how each plays out.

For the purpose of this poll, I am keeping the answers to a minimum intentionally. When you have too many options, it's harder to really evaluate the results. And for the purposes of this, a general feeling is more than adequate.

Long term goal: Have a survey of each class, then compiled results to be easily referenced for future discussions that may want said information.

 

[Yunru]

I like them.

The lore bard is good for a collector of knowledge, and Magical Secrets gives some very interesting options for playing out of the expected niche.

The valor bard is somewhat less impressive (a statement more for the lore's versatility than against the valor), but is one of my favourite ways to play a Ranger

 

[Sacrosanct]

I have made no secret I am not a fan of the bard class. 2e was the only edition of a bard that I liked. For 5e, I don't like how it can be used to step on the toes of every other class, and even be better than said class at something that class specializes in. To me, the bard is two things:

1. Poet, singer, player of instruments that are core to the class's abilities. 5e does this pretty well
2. Jack of all trades, not specialized at any one thing. This is where I think 5e fails. Especially lore bard, which can be a better caster than an actual wizard because of increased potential spell repertoire.

I think the bard needs to go away completely. Make it a subclass of the fighter (inspiring skald) or rogue (dashing entertainer) or wizard (charming). I'd even be good with it as a background that gets skills on performance and persuasion. But that will never happen. It's been a core class way too long.

 

[Bitbrain]

Personally, I'd rather a Bard be nothing more than a Druid, Ranger, or Rogue with the Entertainer background.

If it must exist as a class, I'd rather it have been designed as an arcane half-caster.

 

[Dionysos]

In terms of playability and power level, the bard is fine. Maybe slightly high on the power curve, but whatever, I don't actually care about that.

Conceptually, I hate the bard as a full caster. That's never been what it did in previous versions, and it isn't what I would ever expect from a class called "bard". I want bards to be dabblers in magic, not mighty magicians on the order of wizards and sorcerers.

I'd prefer it as a half caster, with more class features surrounding bardic inspiration and other ways to provide party buffs through performance, to make up the difference.

 

[Gadget]

I think mechanically it is okay, other than the fact that it seems to be able to cherry pick the 'best' spells for its build and thereby horn in on other class's shtick. Conceptually, I've always had a few issues with it. I've never been fond of the "Brave, Brave, Sir Robin" vibe that is sometimes associated with it. If it is merely a traveling acrobat/entertainer type, then I don't think the class mechanics really back that up. In fact, a background would be sufficient. On the other hand, given the power an enchantment associated with music in some myth and fantasy, I could see the Bard as something much more, someone who can tap into the language and music of creation/nature to cause things to happen. This is more than a traveling Entertainer, though that may be a guise. I could see filing the serial numbers off this class to recreate the old "Elf" class from BCEMI, when race was built into class (you could use that argument for the Ranger, Fey'lock, or Eldritch Knight as well, depending on the flavor of elf you want).

As for the jack-of-all-trades thing, I'm not sure about that label. What it usually means is that the Bard ends up sucking at most everything, so that descriptor does not really do it for me. That's not really an archetype for me.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I guess the only thing I dislike about the 5E bard is not about the bard class: it's just a 5E stylistic thing. They wrote bardic abilities, particularly Bardic Inspiration and Cutting Words, in a purely mechanistic fashion that makes them awkward if you try to actually fit them into a six-second round together with all the other things the bard and everyone else is doing.

That gives bards a terrific action economy, but also a narratively incoherent action economy for any bard with fewer than three mouths.

 

[BookBarbarian]

That gives bards a terrific action economy, but also a narratively incoherent action economy for any bard with fewer than three mouths.

Beware the Hydra Bard for it harmonizes with itself!

 

[Ratskinner]

I'm honestly not sure how to respond to this poll. My take on the 5e bard was to ignore the music stuff and call them "Officers" or "Jacks (of all trades)" or maybe "Face"-es. I view them as a less-purely-martial warlord. However, I think their rules are pretty good, effectswise.

So...is that a small tweak? or it that "as written"?

 

[DaveDash]

I was not a fan of the Bard until 5e. They are now a fantastic class.

I've seen a Lore Bard all the way up to level 18, and I am currently in game with a Valor Bard. They have so much versatility now without compromising too much (ie Jack of all trades, master of none).

Vicious mockery also has to be the most fun cantrip in the game.