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

[tuxgeo]

I like the idea of bardic magic being truly ancient magic, from before the dawn of wizardry and even before the gods. I'm yoinking that.

Ainulindale? The song before the world began? Would bardic magic predate the existence of the mortal races?

 

[Blackbrrd]

How do you justify a lower magic world, with very few magic items, when the classes are composed of a majority full caster classes?

Because the art of creating magic items is lost?

Anyway, I do feel that the abundance of casters in DnD does make for some weird campaigns/campaign settings. My current Dnd party consists of a spellcaster bard, spellcaster druid and a spellcaster paladin/sorcerer. There is also a Rogue, but he's the only one that doesn't rely on magic. It's a fun party and all that, but it really does make magic feel common place. I would be really interested in a low-magic DnD setting with magic-less variants of the Paladin/Ranger/Bard.

 

[I'm A Banana]

t all depends on the spell list itself, doesn't it? If the spell list has a nice mix of Druidic, Cleric, Wizard, etc spells plus a few "Bard Only" spells then I think the archetype you are talking about is possible. I think what we are seeing is "Spells are what magic stuff is in D&D" rather than "magical stuff as class features". That may not be satisfying, but I think that is the mechanical outline of what they are doing. Add in Skill mastery stuff, weapon and armor mastery stuff (ie proficiencies as well as an aggressive feat gain vis a vis fighter) and it might be ok. Then, subclasses can focus on Jack-of-all, Fighter Bard, Spell Bard, Druid/Cleric Bard, etc.

I suppose if the concept of "arcane spell" is broad enough to be kind of meaningless, there's not much mechanical distinction between "9th level arcane spell called True Domination 1/day" and "I can dominate someone's mind and orchestrate their movements 1/day."

I'm not really a fan of that level of meaninglessness in the mechanic, though. An arcane spell should represent something in the world, and the thing that I imagine arcane spells representing (esoteric knowledge on how to violate the laws of the universe) aren't what I imagine bards doing (Why isn't that True Domination an option on a high skill check, or even on an attack roll?).

Why do we need Enchanter Wizards again? I'm sorry it doesn't make you happy, but I think the whole point of a class system with open multiclassing should be to create classes built around pillars of specificity. Blending things together should be the whole point of using open multiclassing.

Enchanter Wizard is a distinct archetype from Bard (and distinct again from, say, an empath psion). In as much as classes exist to support archetypes, they should remain distinct.

Maybe it's my new-school roots showing, but to me, the defining element of the bard has always been its mystical link with music. The jack-of-all-trades schtick, to me, has always been secondary. (And done much better with classes like the 3e factotum.) Of course, I also think the iconic bard is Edward from Final Fantasy IV.

I think this might be a good subclass breakdown. I have zero problem with a bard subclass that focuses more on music or magic, and one that focuses on jacking-all-the-trades. I've got kind of an issue with that musical magical bard being enough bard for bard players who are more interested in jacking the trades. Musical magical mystical isn't necessarily what is interesting about the Bard.

It's also worth saying that even the 4e bard had more than a few ways to get it out of the musical/mystical schtick. I had a dwarf bard with axes that mixed it up in melee more than pulling magical stunts (though he had that at-will that killed things with insults, because HA!). So this doesn't seem to be a new/old distinction. They're both good bardchitypes.

Again, this may be my new-school (especially 4e) roots showing, but all that stuff is just different kinds of bardic magic to me. Maybe something like an Arcane Strike ability to turn spell slots into attack and damage bonuses for the "mystical warrior" stuff, and a spell list that borrows some nature highlights from the druid, as well as enchantments and buffs

I guess this just gets back to my point above about an arcane spell being pretty functionally meaningless in the world of the game, only a mechanical container. Which isn't great. It'd work, but...ick.

I feel like you are passing judgment on this too quickly. Without seeing the bardic spell list, it's impossible to know whether the developers have failed to capture the "dabbler and dilettante" aspect of the bard. That is something that could easily be addressed thematically rather than mechanically.

That separation isn't what I'm looking for. I would like mechanics to support thematics.

You, sir, like me, are apparently a big fan of the bard -- and the right kind of bard, too, which is rare. But as Mearls says, the bard is a solo hero in a game that poorly supports solo heroing. He can't just be better at everything, no matter how bad we want it.

What I'd like to see is a bard who uses her diverse abilities to enhance each other. That makes the bard not as much a solo hero as she is a Swiss Army Knife hero: she can be whatever her team needs in the moment. Playing a bard should feel like playing an instrument in a spontaneous jam session, all improvisation and diversity and surprising harmonies and confident dissonance. A sword strike here. A spell there. A charm here. A bluff right....now. And then they all explode into exactly what the Bard wants to happen: victory, and themselves enshrined in legend.

 

[1of3]

How do you justify a lower magic world, with very few magic items, when the classes are composed of a majority full caster classes?

Because the majority of people in the world doesn't have a character class at all.

 

[Dausuul]

They did have that. The question is, do they still?

Ok, I'll answer my own question. Yes, the wizard probably still has charm person. But suggestion, fascinate, geas? Maybe not.

Suggestion has been a wizard favorite since forever. They won't take it away. I don't see geas going anywhere either. Fascinate? Okay, maybe. But the Saruman-style enchanter is a well-established archetype in D&D, and I guarantee the new edition will support it. Trying to shoehorn that archetype into the bard class would anger fans of both the enchanter and the bard.

I guess the difference is I don't view "full caster" as an identity in and of itself. It's just a mechanical method to access the spell list, which is where the real differentiation exists.

I disagree. This argument puts you in a position where you have to argue for stripping wizards of a bunch of their spells, in order to protect the bard's class identity. The enchanter and the bard are two quite distinct concepts and should be able to exist in the same game.

The mechanical structure of a class is an essential part of what makes that class distinct. The "full caster" class structure is not a neutral canvas! It encourages a very particular style of play, carefully husbanding a limited but potent resource. That fits perfectly with the wizard archetype: Scholarly, focused, cautious, disciplined. The bard archetype hews much closer to the rogue: Improvisational, daring, adaptive. They should have mechanics that encourage those traits.

 

[Mistwell]

Because the majority of people in the world doesn't have a character class at all.

But those who do, tend to be full casters. Which means the world should be much more used to full casters. Your societal leaders would tend to be full casters. The people sent on quests of dire urgency would tend to be full casters. Historical events and myths would tend to be about full casters. There are evil wretched monsters in the world, and the people who fight them tend to be full casters. Races who live a very long time will tend to become full casters.

Imagine if half the Fellowship of the Ring were full casters.

This just doesn't sit well with the type of world they're trying to imply through the implied setting. The setting implies a lower magic world, but the classes imply the opposite.

 

[TwoSix]

I suppose if the concept of "arcane spell" is broad enough to be kind of meaningless, there's not much mechanical distinction between "9th level arcane spell called True Domination 1/day" and "I can dominate someone's mind and orchestrate their movements 1/day."

I'm not really a fan of that level of meaninglessness in the mechanic, though. An arcane spell should represent something in the world, and the thing that I imagine arcane spells representing (esoteric knowledge on how to violate the laws of the universe) aren't what I imagine bards doing (Why isn't that True Domination an option on a high skill check, or even on an attack roll?).

Well, my personal view is that arcane magic can be broader than "esoteric knowledge on how to violate the laws of the universe" (which seems wizard focused) without simply becoming a metagame construct. To me, arcane magic is more of a "knowledge of an esoteric technique to manipulate the rules of the universe". They aren't hypnotizing minds because there so gosh-darn good at music, rather, their music unlocks the power to affect the universe, just as a wizard's mystical words and symbols do.

Enchanter Wizard is a distinct archetype from Bard (and distinct again from, say, an empath psion). In as much as classes exist to support archetypes, they should remain distinct.

I tend to view mind control as one of those fundamental types of magical effect (like shapeshifting or raising the dead), so thematically strong that you build a whole class around it. I've never liked that enchantment has always been an adjunct ability on the wizard's utility belt.

I think this might be a good subclass breakdown. I have zero problem with a bard subclass that focuses more on music or magic, and one that focuses on jacking-all-the-trades. I've got kind of an issue with that musical magical bard being enough bard for bard players who are more interested in jacking the trades. Musical magical mystical isn't necessarily what is interesting about the Bard.

I guess there's a difference here. I don't see jack-of-all-trades as being a necessary part of the bard schtick, or really any classes' schtick. Jack-of-all-trades is a bad class archetype, because that's one of the things that multiclassing is for.

And while not a true jack-of-all trades, the best home for a "master of the mundane" would seem to be the rogue, not the bard.

Having said all that, the bard also seems to me to be a natural home for subclasses that deviate strongly from the base magical bard. I guess one point where I differ from others is that I'm putting a lot of faith in WotC to develop lots of strongly archetyped subclasses, that are willing to diverge quite a bit from the base class. I may be let down, of course.

I guess this just gets back to my point above about an arcane spell being pretty functionally meaningless in the world of the game, only a mechanical container. Which isn't great. It'd work, but...ick.

My main point of contention is that "wizardry" should just be a subset of what the "arcane" can accomplish. A wizard isn't the master of all the arcane, he's a master of the particular type of arcane magic of wizardry.

What I'd like to see is a bard who uses her diverse abilities to enhance each other. That makes the bard not as much a solo hero as she is a Swiss Army Knife hero: she can be whatever her team needs in the moment. Playing a bard should feel like playing an instrument in a spontaneous jam session, all improvisation and diversity and surprising harmonies and confident dissonance. A sword strike here. A spell there. A charm here. A bluff right....now. And then they all explode into exactly what the Bard wants to happen: victory, and themselves enshrined in legend.

I just think that's all possible while still being a full caster. Especially if the spell lists make it so that "full caster" isn't synonymous with "can do everything".

 

[DMZ2112]

That separation isn't what I'm looking for. I would like mechanics to support thematics.

Suit yourself. For me, that mechanical support comes in at "spell." The number or frequency of spells is dressing. Fighters are typically characterized by high armor class and weapon damage -- how high? As high as they need to be. *shrug*

What I'd like to see is a bard who uses her diverse abilities to enhance each other. That makes the bard not as much a solo hero as she is a Swiss Army Knife hero: she can be whatever her team needs in the moment. Playing a bard should feel like playing an instrument in a spontaneous jam session, all improvisation and diversity and surprising harmonies and confident dissonance. A sword strike here. A spell there. A charm here. A bluff right....now. And then they all explode into exactly what the Bard wants to happen: victory, and themselves enshrined in legend.

Heh. You're not contradicting me.

But those who do, tend to be full casters.

This doesn't logically follow. Even in most high magic worlds your martial classes will outnumber your arcane classes by at least an order of magnitude.

This just doesn't sit well with the type of world they're trying to imply through the implied setting. The setting implies a lower magic world, but the classes imply the opposite.

I think expecting the Forgotten Realms to ever be a "lower magic world" is a recipe for deep personal disappointment.

 

[TwoSix]

But those who do, tend to be full casters.

Why? You seem to be implying that PC classes are scattered evenly throughout the world for those NPCs who do have them. There's nothing to say that's either true or not true. Maybe there's 1 wizard for every cleric and for every fighter. Or maybe there's 50 fighters for every wizard. That's an exercise in worldbuilding.

 

[Mistwell]

I think expecting the Forgotten Realms to ever be a "lower magic world" is a recipe for deep personal disappointment.

Exactly - I think the classes imply Forgotten Realms, but the implied setting of the rules (which is not Forgotten Realms) does not. Forgotten Realms doesn't have "almost no magic items, and anything above a +1 items is a near-artifact".