D&D 5E A bard walks into a bar

[Gundark]

If you've ever seen Gamers 2, there's a line in there that kind of summarizes this for me. The Bard is playing his lute and standing at the back of the party. One of the PCs says "God dammit, man, HELP!" and the Bard says "I *AM* helping!".

I'd prefer a Bard whose entire purpose wasn't to use nothing but one ability every combat. And especially not to have that ability be "I play my instrument...look at all the bonuses the rest of you get".

 

[TwoSix]

I'd prefer a Bard whose entire purpose wasn't to use nothing but one ability every combat. And especially not to have that ability be "I play my instrument...look at all the bonuses the rest of you get".

That's not his only purpose. Bards also provide cover, once you get behind the pile of dead ones.

 

[variant]

Yes, I'm aware, and the tier system is based around an assumption of moderate optimization with regards to Prestige Classes, spell choices, and feats.

We are talking about the same tier system, aren't we? When you said "lowest tier", I assumed we were talking about JaronK's tier system.

I don't even know what JaronK's tier system is.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The 2e bard was basically a hodge-podge of thief abilities and wizard spells. When they finally got their spells, they progressed faster than a wizard which was nice for a few levels since their experience requirement was much lower. However, they couldn't even wear the armor they were proficient in if they wanted to cast their spells.

The 3.5e was incredibly weak, easily the lowest tier class, but it was certainly an improvement in flavor. Though that meant they didn't even get to throw around fireballs like its 2e counterpart. The bardic abilities no way made up for the fact that they were a subpar spellcaster class.

I disregard everything 4e.

This is straight up wrong, variant.

You presumably don't know much about tiers in 3.XE. Bard is a solid-to-high T3. You sneer about obscure PrCs and Feats, but that's enough to take Bards to T2! For god's sake! T2! If you demand T1, you should know that ONLY full casters got that status, and not even all of them! T2 is pretty crazy. T3 is where most good-but-not-overpowered classes lived.
So no, they are not "lowest tier". Not easily. Not at all. Not even slightly. You need to accept your error, there.

2E Bards were an extremely strong class, and their armour limitations were no worse than any multiclass Mage (by the time the Elf F/M had Elven Chain, you probably had Bracers of Defense or a Ring of Protection). In practice every DM I ever heard of let them cast in armour, though, and I believe Dragon magazine even recommended it (can't remember what the Bard's Handbook had to say). They levelled so fast that they challenged the Wizard for highest level spell they could cast.

You say when they "finally" got their spells. They got their spells AT LEVEL 2. If that's too long to wait, on Rogue XP, god freakin' help you. That's not "finally". That's weird.

4E you "disregard", but it still happened. And the Bard in it was great. No possible major complaints great.

Personally, I like the fact the bard actually has a real niche without being a "me too" 3rd wheel. I guess the 4e bard had that as well (and the 2e one could fake it for a few levels due the the oddness or rogue Xp charts and spellcasting). Still, its nice to have a bard that feels like he could replace a core member rather than emulate it badly.

I honestly feel like that's never really been a problem for Bards except in 3E having played them in every edition except 1E. In 2E, they were tremendous. I was the goddamn boss of the party most of the time, playing one. I fought, I cast spells, I influenced NPCs, I identified stuff, etc. etc. - no way was I "emulating badly". 3E. Yeah. Yeah. Hmmm. Not so much. Just kind of terrible at everything. 3.5E/PF, though? Much better, much more solid, actually feels like you have a niche - not a great one, but still decent. 4E completely solid, not a trace of "emulating badly".

So... I do like the 5E Bard, but I don't really like the focus on spellcasting or the slightly boring spell list, and the fact that they cut his ability to buff the party (as opposed to single specific members for single actions) during combat out entirely for the first time, what, ever? COMPLETELY TERRIBLE. As discussed elsewhere, Bless, L1 Cleric spell (and thus spammable) gives 3+ party members +1d4 to hit and save on ALL attacks and saves for the WHOLE combat, so you'd think Bards, who were previously typically granting similar bonuses to a Bless spell, would get an ability like that, or just that, or just another spell which was similar? But you'd be wrong!

Unless they've changed it again - but it seems really unlikely.

If you've ever seen Gamers 2, there's a line in there that kind of summarizes this for me. The Bard is playing his lute and standing at the back of the party. One of the PCs says "God dammit, man, HELP!" and the Bard says "I *AM* helping!".

I'd prefer a Bard whose entire purpose wasn't to use nothing but one ability every combat. And especially not to have that ability be "I play my instrument...look at all the bonuses the rest of you get".

Not only did it almost never add up mathematically(It was almost always a better idea to attack with your weapon than to give bonuses to the rest of the party), but it seems silly that in character ANYONE would consider playing an instrument to be as useful as actually fighting.

I don't mind a character who inspires but doing it continuously and doing it by playing music...not sure about that.

This is complete untrue, Majoru, and Gamers 2 was apparently written by people who know nothing about D&D.

2E. You orate or sing. You don't play a goddamn instrument to grant the bonus.
3.5E You SING. SING. SING. Not play a goddamn instrument. Right here: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/bard.htm#inspireCourage
Pathfinder: You do whatever you want so long as it's perform - it's not even specified - Oratory, Acting, Singing - Instrument if you want, but no-one is making you.
4E. You sing, or orate, or whatever the hell you want.

So how about we don't spread really lazy and inaccurate lies about Bards in front of people who know more about Bards than you do?

 

[TwoSix]

I don't even know what JaronK's tier system is.

No problem; we're not even talking about the same thing, so don't worry about it.

3.5 bards are still awesome, though.

 

[Morrus]

Is it me, or is EnWorld pretty much now the only site on the entire internet not to get exclusive 5e previews or interviews? Anything you got coming [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION]?

Nope.

 

[Li Shenron]

Ok, I'm not a game designer. But can someone honestly explain why the Bard must have this ad-hoc known spells progression, instead of a simpler 1 new spell known every level, starting with 4 and ending with 23?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Ok, I'm not a game designer. But can someone honestly explain why the Bard must have this ad-hoc known spells progression, instead of a simpler 1 new spell known every level, starting with 4 and ending with 23?

It first goes funky with the "magical secrets" ability, which also reappears each time the spells known jump by two rather than one. I assume that's something to do with it.

 

[Remathilis]

I honestly feel like that's never really been a problem for Bards except in 3E having played them in every edition except 1E. In 2E, they were tremendous. I was the goddamn boss of the party most of the time, playing one. I fought, I cast spells, I influenced NPCs, I identified stuff, etc. etc. - no way was I "emulating badly". 3E. Yeah. Yeah. Hmmm. Not so much. Just kind of terrible at everything. 3.5E/PF, though? Much better, much more solid, actually feels like you have a niche - not a great one, but still decent. 4E completely solid, not a trace of "emulating badly".

My rationale (as a bard player myself in 2e, 3e, and PF, had quit 4e before ever trying one).

If we imagine the Four Basic Food Group Classes (Fighters, Rogues, Clerics, Wizards) we get a sense of what each classes "role" is (not in 4e sense of the term, but the more generic earlier). Fighters were supposed to be good in melee, wizards had spells, cleric's healed, and rogues were sneaky, larcenous, and trap-finding.

Most classes tried to "fill" one of those roles: a druid could be a decent cleric, a ranger or paladin did a fighter's job, a sorcerer was a replacement wizard, etc. A bard didn't. He couldn't fight to fill a fighter's role (low hp/attack), a clerics (no healing in 2e, weak and slow healing in 3e), a wizards (solid in low-level 2e, but lacking in 3e) and a rogues (the four worst thief skills in 2e, and average-good skill points in 3e but no traps thanks to trapfinding). Even with a bard's songs and stuff, they were never good enough to replace a core four member, so they always were the "5th wheel" after you filled the other roles first.

4e did break that mold by making them leaders, a tradition the 5e bard proudly carries on. A 5e bard CAN replace a cleric now.

So... I do like the 5E Bard, but I don't really like the focus on spellcasting or the slightly boring spell list, and the fact that they cut his ability to buff the party (as opposed to single specific members for single actions) during combat out entirely for the first time, what, ever? COMPLETELY TERRIBLE. As discussed elsewhere, Bless, L1 Cleric spell (and thus spammable) gives 3+ party members +1d4 to hit and save on ALL attacks and saves for the WHOLE combat, so you'd think Bards, who were previously typically granting similar bonuses to a Bless spell, would get an ability like that, or just that, or just another spell which was similar? But you'd be wrong!

Unless they've changed it again - but it seems really unlikely.

I think this is a major tonal shift: before a bard had hack-eyed casting to support their magical songs and now they are primarily spellcasters and have some minor song-based powers to augment that. Which is why I think the cleric example is apt: bard inspiration is pretty much on par now with Channel Divinity rather than being the be-all-end-all of the bard. I wager they'll be more a debuffer-healer (or in 4e parlance: controller/leader) than the preview walking prayer-spell.

This is complete untrue, Majoru, and Gamers 2 was apparently written by people who know nothing about D&D.

The Gamers was a COMEDY dude. I'm pretty sure they know (and are making fun of) the perception of bards.

Lighten up Francis.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The bardic abilities no way made up for the fact that they were a subpar spellcaster class.

This is straight up wrong, variant.
...
Not easily. Not at all. Not even slightly. You need to accept your error, there.
...
No possible major complaints great.
...
This is complete untrue, Majoru
...
So how about we don't spread really lazy and inaccurate lies about Bards in front of people who know more about Bards than you do?

Okay, we're seriously going to need to turn down the "you either agree with me or you're wrong" thing. Experiences differ. If that's not a fact you can admit into your worldview, just mentally replace any disagreeable posts with the words "Blah blah blah I'm wrong blah blah blah" and move on with your day.