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

[Sage Genesis]

Although we lack a lot of details I think it's safe enough to assume that "full caster" means "casts like a wizard, cleric, or druid" except of course with its own spell list (which might have some overlap with other classes).

I don't think I really like that. Spells like that come with their own mechanical ramifications. Spell scrolls, material components, interaction with feats/items/etc., stuff like that. Not sure that's the kind of stuff that bardic magic should do a lot with. It strikes me that more spells means less room for bardic songs as class abilities. I'd rather have seen more of those. You could easily use a mechanic like the monk's ki points and call them... I don't know, verses of power or something. Which you can then use to power all sorts of unique magical effects. Or you could copy the warlock, who apparently has limited spell casting (max spell level is 6th I think Mearls said on twitter?) on top of at-will magical abilities.

Given that both such models already exist within the core of Next... why go with full casting? That doesn't match up with tradition, it doesn't match up with their dabbler JoaT concept, and it doesn't really match up with what (most?) people think of when they hear of magic songs.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

By no means do I think they bring no value to a party; but I think playing a sidekick is a pretty niche interest in our hobby. I would like the class to support a more dynamic range of play styles, such as the cleric, which can play either a support role or a center role depending on build and play.

The proficiency bonus and full-casting of the 5E version I think will bring us there. The traditional support role will still be there if you choose that play style. Meanwhile, those looking to break out of the support role will have their play style facilitated, as well. Hopefully this is a win-win scenario.

LOL!

This just goes to show the misconception when you use sidekick to describe a support character.

 

[Halivar]

LOL!

This just goes to show the misconception when you use sidekick to describe a support character.

I'm talking about how if feels to play one for many people. It's a subjective experience (and thus cannot be "a misconception"). You don't understand that, and that's fine. Play as you like. The 5E designers seem to understand, and now we can both play as we like.

 

[Tuft]

What you're really saying here is that support classes can't be heroes. A valid view, but not a universal one. I know my group appreciated the 3.5/Pathfinder bard, and finds it more powerful than most classes. In the meaning "you can add one more character to the party, what class should he be?". Unless you already have a bard or are lacking any warrior class at all, the answer to that is usually bard.

By no means do I think they bring no value to a party; but I think playing a sidekick is a pretty niche interest in our hobby. I would like the class to support a more dynamic range of play styles, such as the cleric, which can play either a support role or a center role depending on build and play.

The proficiency bonus and full-casting of the 5E version I think will bring us there. The traditional support role will still be there if you choose that play style. Meanwhile, those looking to break out of the support role will have their play style facilitated, as well. Hopefully this is a win-win scenario.

Speaking from my own experience in [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION]' Pathfinder campaign, now at 10th level, last session we played:

Tumbling into the center of the melee, then using Greater Trip to fell four of the opponents surrounding the raging barbarian, thus providing her with four extra attacks at full rage/power attack power (as she has Combat Reflexes and plenty of Dex), while boosting her to to-hit (and my own trip chance) with Heroism and Inspire Courage makes "sidekick" feel as a very erroneous description. And by then I've given the barbarian one extra attack already on her turn through my Haste, and I provide her with flank bonus.

Pathfinder Bards feel very nice.
When you are a less-than-full-BAB, non-power-attacking class, Pathfinder Combat Manuevers is a very good way to go.

 

[Halivar]

Tumbling into the center of the melee, then using Greater Trip to fell four of the opponents surrounding the raging barbarian, thus providing her with four extra attacks at full rage/power attack power (as she has Combat Reflexes and plenty of Dex), while boosting her to to-hit (and my own trip chance) with Heroism and Inspire Courage makes "sidekick" feel as a very erroneous description. And by then I've given the barbarian one extra attack already on her turn through my Haste, and I provide her with flank bonus.

I'm a big fan of team play, and I try to bolster my comrades' abilities whenever possible. All I want is for that to not be my only contribution. (Again, with the caveat that IF that IS someone's cup of tea, then their play style should continue to be supported.)

When you are a less-than-full-BAB, non-power-attacking class, Pathfinder Combat Manuevers is a very good way to go.

Combat Maneuvers were indeed a much needed boost for otherwise combat deficient classes. In that case, however, it is not class specific. Other than tumble, any other character has the potential to do the same thing. Again, much needed, but I would like something special and bard-specific to make the class shine apart from other classes.

 

[DM Howard]

I'm fine with the bard being a full spellcaster as it can easily fit into how I, personally, imagine a bard. However, I would not be disturbed at all if there were two different options for the Bard.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I'm a big fan of team play, and I try to bolster my comrades' abilities whenever possible. All I want is for that to not be my only contribution. (Again, with the caveat that IF that IS someone's cup of tea, then their play style should continue to be supported.)

Combat Maneuvers were indeed a much needed boost for otherwise combat deficient classes. In that case, however, it is not class specific. Other than tumble, any other character has the potential to do the same thing. Again, much needed, but I would like something special and bard-specific to make the class shine apart from other classes.

My god!

What else do you want the bard from his example to be able to do?

He can cast spells that do anything from heal, attack, buff and self buff, fight with weapons, major support via bardic abilities, and knows all skills.

 

[Halivar]

My god!

What else do you want the bard from his example to be able to do?

He can cast spells that do anything from heal, attack, buff and self buff, fight with weapons, major support via bardic abilities, and knows all skills.

The example given Combat Maneuvers, which is not bard-specific. I explained why this is insufficient for me already.

 

[Hussar]

That would be the point no? If you could replace that bard with a rogue and the only difference would be the barbarian not getting an extra attack from a haste spell that doesn't really say much for the bard does it?

 

[Elf Witch]

I have played a lot of bards and never found them weak. But then I don't judge a class by how much damage it can do by itself. The ability to buff everyone is strong. And Bardic knowledge can put a wizard and their knowledge skills to shame. I also found a lot of role playing opportunities for the bard. I get that some people view support characters as not as important as other characters. But I never felt they were just side kicks. Maybe I have been lucky with my DMs who made sure that every character was an integral part of the game.

To be honest I am not sure that I like the direction 5E is taking the bard. But until I have the product in my hands I am, willing to wait and see before saying no don't like this.