D&D 5E Are you happy with the Bard being a full spellcaster?

[ForeverSlayer]

Personally I like the old fighter/Mage/Thief type of bard. I think we have way too many casters as it is. Are you happy with the full spellcasting bard or would you rather see it as an optional build?

 

[Hussar]

I honestly don't really see the issue. Bards have long been casters - they started off as druids and then shifted to wizard spells, then moved over to a sort of hybrid cleric/wizard list. They've never really had their own set of spells, so why not give them one?

Sure, you could do a bard that is a bit stronger fighter and weaker caster, but, then again, the spells could easily offset that, making a bard a fairly strong fighter through buffs.

 

[Ichneumon]

If it gives the bard a bit of oomph, I'm all for it.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I honestly don't really see the issue. Bards have long been casters - they started off as druids and then shifted to wizard spells, then moved over to a sort of hybrid cleric/wizard list. They've never really had their own set of spells, so why not give them one?

Sure, you could do a bard that is a bit stronger fighter and weaker caster, but, then again, the spells could easily offset that, making a bard a fairly strong fighter through buffs.

The bard has never been a primary spellcaster.

Also, I don't want a bard who needs to be built using spell selections. That's too much like 4th edition to me.

 

[Ichneumon]

(double post)

 

[Hussar]

The bard has never been a primary spellcaster.

Also, I don't want a bard who needs to be built using spell selections. That's too much like 4th edition to me.

Take casting away from a bard in any edition and you have a poor man's thief. Spells have always been the main way to differentiate bards from rogues. Now, by spells, I'm also including SLA's here - bardic music, charm, that sort of thing.

Sure, bards weren't up to wizards or clerics, but, then again, in 2e and 3e, bards were one of the weakest classes you could take. So, you essentially have a choice, either up their fighting capabilities or up their magic. A bard with little or no magic and good fighting capabilities isn't really very close to an archetypal bard. And, going with archetypes, at least from literature, bards have often been presented with extremely powerful magic. This is where the celtic flavoured bard comes from after all.

I'd say this presents a bard that is actually much closer to archetype than a poor wizard in chain mail.

 

[variant]

I think the it's a mistake to say the bard is a full spellcaster even if it has full spells. It isn't going to have all the spellcasting modifying abilities that the full spellcaster has. It will still have a lot less spells since the full spellcasters have abilities that let them regain spells they have casted. The colleges are going to ultimately define what type of bard the character is.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I prefer for the bard to be a jack of all trades and to dabble in magic, not for it to be their primary focus. In fact, I would have loved for there to be a bard subclass that didn't even use spells at all, but there's a slim chance of that happening now.

 

[mhensley]

No, but I've always disliked the bard class in all its variations.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I prefer for the bard to be a jack of all trades and to dabble in magic, not for it to be their primary focus. In fact, I would have loved for there to be a bard subclass that didn't even use spells at all, but there's a slim chance of that happening now.

Same here. I would love a rogue type bard who uses his enchanting voice to infiltrate.