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

[variant]

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.

That's called a rogue who can play an instrument.

 

[Mon]

The bard has never been a primary spellcaster.

The 1e Bard was a primary spell-caster. It had spell progression not too different from a cleric or druid with the full compliment of spell levels at the time.

It did require a bunch of oddball dual-classing, though, which does offset this somewhat due to delayed access.

Edit: It wasn't the core 1e bard that had all 7 druid spell levels, it was the "revised" bard in the DRAGON #56 (which is the one we used in our games, but which doesn't require fighter/thief levels first). Duh! .... Sorry

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Insufficient data.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

Yes, and make Paladins and Rangers full casters while you are at it. There is so much more versatility with spells than preselected options.

Monks should be converted over to whatever Warlocks are... Burning Hands could easily be a Ki fired elemental spell option while Slow Fall is a cantrip.

 

[Minigiant]

To me, the key to being a bard was combining spells with weapons and skills.

You cast Haste on yourself and the group fighter, tumble behind the giant he is fighting, and flank it. Then stab it up hastenext turn.

You use alter self and bluff skill to imitate a well known noble to get in the class.

As long as the bard is still forced to use weapons and skill, it is okay. They cant' however magic problems away like wizards. That feels off. So it depends who it plays out.

My issue is 6th-9th level spells are "problem solver" spells. I don't want bard teleporting the party to the dungeon. The Bard haggles a merchant for a decent price on a magic carpet.

 

[Halivar]

I don't want bard teleporting the party to the dungeon. The Bard haggles a merchant for a decent price on a magic carpet.

That's not a "unique" roll in the least.

And that's the problem with the bard; everything he can do, someone else can do better. "Jack of all trades, master of none" sounds great in theory, but in practice it's the class that gets left on the table. Everyone thinks it's cool, no one wants to play one.

 

[Zardnaar]

That's not a "unique" roll in the least.

And that's the problem with the bard; everything he can do, someone else can do better. "Jack of all trades, master of none" sounds great in theory, but in practice it's the class that gets left on the table. Everyone thinks it's cool, no one wants to play one.

Bard was one of the most powerful classes outside a primary caster in 3.5 and in 2nd ed they often made a better spellcaster than the actual wizard. The Bard has always been perceived as weak for some strange reason maybe the art work for them in 2nd end 3rd ed. We had a level 8 bard IIR giving everyone in the party +8 to hit and damage which accounted for around 170% of the parties total damage (comabred to the avg damage without the bard). In 2nd ed you could have a level 3 wizard or a level 4 bard with the exact same spell table, but the bard had d6 hit dice (and 4 of them) better weapons and armor and could use some skills and bardic ability and this kind of carried through to the higher levels. The wizard finally got level 7 spells at level 14 IIRC which the bard could not get to but the bard would be 3 or 4 levels higher with a higher caster level.

The bard has never really sucked, just the average bard player is an idiot in my experience.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I'm happy with the bard being a full spellcaster. Also, i like that in D&D Next, compared to previous editions, bards don't get access to the same spell list as wizard, meaning they have the same spellcasting potential in castings, but with different spell effects.

 

[Halivar]

We had a level 8 bard IIR giving everyone in the party +8 to hit and damage which accounted for around 170% of the parties total damage (comabred to the avg damage without the bard).

I suspect there was some inappropriate stacking of morale bonuses.

 

[MoonSong]

Yesterday i was busy and without access to the net, but I guess this better goes here.

In defense of the full spellcasting bard
Bard has never been a half caster, yes part of the archetype is blending weapons with spells, however bard has always have nearly full spellcasting status, their caster level has always been full never half. They weren't fully 9th level casters, but they were closer to 2/3rds than to 1/2.
Why is this important? because in Next caster level has become full access to slots, Bards will be too weak otherwise, and since 4e it has become more and more expected than Bards could fill for a Cleric should the need arise, and they won't be able to do that if their heals don't scale accordingly.
I still think bards won't get more than 6th level spells,(and that their spell list will be empty on 7-9th level) but having the full slots is necessary for them to scale properly.
But why don't make paladins and rangers full casters too? Because they are more apt for combat, they have more stuff going for them so they won't need so many spells, Rangers and paladins get heavy blades, bards get toothpicks...