D&D 5E I would really like a return of the old Bard class.

[mellored]

I agree, in part. There's too many casters. Or at very least, make a few "song" spells.

i.e.
song of battle. level 3 spell.
Concentration: up-to 10 minutes.
All weapon attacks gain +Cha damage.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Really if Bards existed in colleges those colleges would be used by the powerful to sing their version of events into reality. The plucking of a lyre would send people into a frenzy of fear and ostentatious displays of upright citizenship.

 

[Bardbarian]

You can create the bard you want with multiclass rules. Go fighter, then rogue till you feel you have the right level of mixed abilities then multiclass bard. Go lore and take magical secrets that are the spells you feel identify with the bard you have in your mind. Multiclassing works entirely differently in 5th from older editions but the concept is still very viable.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Couldn't disagree more. 5e bard (especially Lore bard) is probably the single best class of the edition. If I had to pick one class to be the only caster class in the game, it would be bard.

That's the point of his complaint. The Bard shouldn't be the best caster, let alone one of the more competent ones.

 

[Illithidbix]

Ever wonder what a forum would look like without edition warring?Only a little teeny bit different, really.


We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread...

Sorry if that was unclear, it wasn't a dig at 4E (which is my favourite edition alongside 5E), I consider the fact that 4E acknowledged that D&D characters ARE superhuman and always have been to be one of it's strengths.
But that the powers of the 4E bard are the only edition I can recall that would make it more melee combat focused than the 5E bard.

(Of course 1E Bards were fairly combat potent because it required you to dual class from Fighter)

3E Bard seemed to be in a relatively weaker place for both combat ability AND spellcasting than the 5E bard, but I maybe remembering wrong.

 

[Li Shenron]

Right now I think the 5e version of the Bard is my favourite ever, so I wouldn't want to "rewind" the class back to an older edition...

As for the character concept being less magical (or at least less spell-based), I don't have much opinion. Had they decided to go with half-caster I probably would have felt more or less the same as with full-caster. IMO they had to choose between the two, because a "3/4-caster" as in 3e would have required more work on balancing the slots chart with the other casters, and an extra case in multiclassing rules. So it was either downgrade it to half-caster or upgrade it to full-caster, and I would have expected a lot more complaints in the first case.

That said, ultimately it's more a matter of mechanical difference (for which I have no preference) than concept. The narrative description of a Bard's spellcasting gives out a lot of connections with songs and speech anyway, so from a narrative point of view there isn't much difference between spells and magical songs.

 

[Mistwell]

Bard went from one of the least popular, least liked classes in prior editions (on average) to one of the most popular and liked classes with this edition. I don't think going backwards is in the cards. They scored well with this version of the bard (again, on average).

 

[TwoSix]

That's the point of his complaint. The Bard shouldn't be the best caster, let alone one of the more competent ones.

I understand the nature of his complaint; I simply disagree with it. I like the idea of song magic being a potent entity that's distinct from the scholarly magic of wizards or the granted powers of clerics. New fluff > old fluff.

Tack that onto the fact that the 5e bard is more mechanically interesting than any 5e caster other than warlock, and yea, I have little sympathy for the idea that bard needs to go back to the old style.

Now, if you want to make a Rogue subclass that has minor magical abilities and musical abilities, I'm 110% on board.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

While the concept of "2nd best in everything" is interesting in theory, they never managed to make it happen in a fun and balanced way. At some point the designers had to choose between a) full warrior, skill and spell dabbler; b) full expert, warrior and spell dabbler; and c) full caster, skill and warrior dabbler. Considering that the default way to represent limited resources in 5E is spellcasting, and the bard is usually seen as a support specialist, I believe they made the right choice.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sorry if that was unclear,

As has been pointed out to me, recently, what we mean to say, and how it can be taken are different things. Maybe you were trying to put a new face on something that'd been used negatively in the past, or were unaware of that line of attack having been so common...

But that the powers of the 4E bard are the only edition I can recall that would make it more melee combat focused than the 5E bard.

(Of course 1E Bards were fairly combat potent because it required you to dual class from Fighter)

Nod, 1e bards were also way ahead of their time in being virtually a PrC. But the melee competence of certain bards (1e, 4e, Essentials Skald) is clearly alluded to with the Valor Bard, in 5e. Maybe not enough, because it's still a full caster, and that doesn't leave huge volumes of design space to fill with melee tricks.

3E Bard seemed to be in a relatively weaker place for both combat ability AND spellcasting than the 5E bard, but I maybe remembering wrong.

The 3e Bard did suffer a bit from it's informal '5th wheel' role, and from being a 'sorcerer lite' in spell progression (only up to 6th level spells), but, it was still a full caster in the sense of casting at it's class level, which was nothing to sneeze at. 5e finally gave it full casting progression, right up to 9th level spells, so yes, it's as capable a caster as the Sorcerer, now.

Bard went from one of the least popular, least liked classes in prior editions (on average) to one of the most popular and liked classes with this edition.

With this edition? You don't think it's been a trend, for instance? From the fighter-first 1e, to the Rogue-sub class in 2e, to the near-full caster in 3e, to the full-casting arcane leader with melee/skills in 4e, to the melee-oriented, but still full range of arcane spells, Skald in Essentials, to the 5e full-caster with both Lore & Valor colleges?

I know the Bard was roundly mocked in OotS, but is there some data on it's relative popularity across the editions? It'd be interesting to see.

I don't think going backwards is in the cards.

I will agree that the Bard seems to have continued moving forward in 5e rather than retreating from the ground gained by the other modern editions. And that it's even unusual in that sense, as 5e classes have been mostly backward-looking to evoke classic feel - with great success in every sense.