D&D 5E Any ideas for a Fire Dancer Bard subclass?

[Leatherhead]

What if a baseball bat was a quarterstaff?

 

[KahlessNestor]

You can wield a baseball bat in one hand. A one-armed person with a baseball bat is still very dangerous. That's why a baseball bat is definitely a club and not a greatclub.

I'm not saying that a torch, or chair leg, is worthless as a weapon; as an improvised weapon, it's definitely better than nothing. I'm just saying that it's not as effective as a club, because a real club - like a baseball bat - is legitimately scary. A real club is significantly more than just a length of wood. If you attack someone with a baseball bat, then that's considered assault with a deadly weapon.

I think a baseball bat does significantly more damage than 1d4. Also, it isn't light, so can't be dual wielded, like a club can be. And a bat is DESIGNED to be wielded 2 handed. So I don't think it's a club, but a greatclub. A chair leg could probably still be a deadly weapon. A bottle certainly is, hence treating it like a dagger.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think a baseball bat does significantly more damage than 1d4. Also, it isn't light, so can't be dual wielded, like a club can be. And a bat is DESIGNED to be wielded 2 handed. So I don't think it's a club, but a greatclub. A chair leg could probably still be a deadly weapon. A bottle certainly is, hence treating it like a dagger.

It's possible that baseball bats - or solid clubs of that rough shape - just don't map onto the current weapon list, much like how one-handed spears weren't a thing 3E; which means it's a judgement call on whether a club or a greatclub is a better fit. Honestly, the quarterstaff stats seem more appropriate than anything else, except it's clearly not the closest weapon in terms of how it's built or used.

Getting away from baseball bats for a moment, letting any old stick count as a club would mean that there's very little reason to have an actual club. For that reason alone, I would need to find some way of representing how hitting someone with a torch is less effective than hitting them with a purpose-built weapon. Fifth edition doesn't really have the language for -1 to the attack roll, so I'd probably go with something like reduced damage (1d3) or making it break in half whenever you roll maximum damage on the die. If that doesn't fly (because the players are averse to ad hoc adjudication), then I'd fall back on the rules as written - getting your proficiency bonus when using an improvised weapon in a fashion similar to a real weapon is entirely at the option of the DM, so I would choose to not invoke that option.

And following that back to the actual topic of this thread, it's probably worth giving the class a special feature that lets it wield torches as though they were flaming clubs, rather than hoping that the DM will adjudicate it that way.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I might include:
- Bonus fire damage (mechanically similar to what other classes/sub-classes get)
- Some kind of ability to dazzle/bewilder/blind opponents, maybe as a reaction?
- Advantage on Dexterity saves versus fire.
- Some kind of cool ribbon.

I’d say also some fire spells added to their list.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I might include:
- Bonus fire damage (mechanically similar to what other classes/sub-classes get)
- Some kind of ability to dazzle/bewilder/blind opponents, maybe as a reaction?
- Advantage on Dexterity saves versus fire.
- Some kind of cool ribbon.

Yes, as a couple of posters have noted I might add some fire spells to their list, plus maybe Produce Flame and/or Control Flame as bonus cantrips.

I wouldn't go overboard with the fire spells, though. For example, Fireball doesn't really say "Fire Dancer" to me, more "Elementalist" or "Pyromaniac". I think the ones I would add are:
- Fire Shield
- Pyrotechnics
- Continual Flame
- Flame Weapon
- Investiture of Flame

 

[Kobold Avenger]

For fire spells I would think Flaming Hands and possibly the Fire Bolt cantrip might make some good choices going the more castery route.

While it seems reasonable for adding Inspiration Die Damage to an attack going the Blade route, I feel that some would feel that weapons always should do a little additional fire damage. The combat-orientated Bards generally get a second attack, but I could see things going sort of a Cleric Divine Strike route too except starting at 1d4 or 1d6 extra fire damage.

I don't feel that medium armour proficiency is something for this subclass, it seems to me a Fire Dancer would be more of a skirmisher. Though I guess they could get some sort of defensive bonus using fire or burning those who attack them as a reaction.

As it is a Bard I feel that an ability to hypnotize/distract a creature in some way with a fire performance is certainly suitable beyond you cast a spell that does that using your flaming tools as a focus.

 

[KahlessNestor]

It's possible that baseball bats - or solid clubs of that rough shape - just don't map onto the current weapon list, much like how one-handed spears weren't a thing 3E; which means it's a judgement call on whether a club or a greatclub is a better fit. Honestly, the quarterstaff stats seem more appropriate than anything else, except it's clearly not the closest weapon in terms of how it's built or used.

Getting away from baseball bats for a moment, letting any old stick count as a club would mean that there's very little reason to have an actual club. For that reason alone, I would need to find some way of representing how hitting someone with a torch is less effective than hitting them with a purpose-built weapon. Fifth edition doesn't really have the language for -1 to the attack roll, so I'd probably go with something like reduced damage (1d3) or making it break in half whenever you roll maximum damage on the die. If that doesn't fly (because the players are averse to ad hoc adjudication), then I'd fall back on the rules as written - getting your proficiency bonus when using an improvised weapon in a fashion similar to a real weapon is entirely at the option of the DM, so I would choose to not invoke that option.

And following that back to the actual topic of this thread, it's probably worth giving the class a special feature that lets it wield torches as though they were flaming clubs, rather than hoping that the DM will adjudicate it that way.

But a club is literally just something tou can pick up. In previous editions like Pathfinder, it didn't even cost any money, AND it did 1d6 damage. The improvised weapon rules even use the example of a chair leg as a club. The Sailor background gets a belaying pin, which is specifically called out as a club, despite clearly being nonweaponized. Your weaponized clubs like nunchucks should arguably do more than d4 damage, more like a mace than the listed club.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

 

[Guest 6801328]

For fire spells I would think Flaming Hands and possibly the Fire Bolt cantrip might make some good choices going the more castery route.

Yeah, I could see possibly adding Flaming Hands, but I would not add Fire Bolt. I was trying to keep the spells up close and personal, not ranged (even though Produce Flame and Control Flame are ranged). Again, I interpret "Fire Dancer" to be something more subtle and interesting than just another fire caster.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But a club is literally just something tou can pick up. In previous editions like Pathfinder, it didn't even cost any money, AND it did 1d6 damage. The improvised weapon rules even use the example of a chair leg as a club. The Sailor background gets a belaying pin, which is specifically called out as a club, despite clearly being nonweaponized. Your weaponized clubs like nunchucks should arguably do more than d4 damage, more like a mace than the listed club.

A club is also a deadly weapon, crafted to some measure of tolerance, with a specific purpose in mind. A real club is much more than just a chair leg. If you want to say that any stick you find on the ground counts as a club for game purposes, and a real purpose-built club is a mace for game purposes, then why would anyone go to the extra trouble of making a mace? Why not just re-normalize the language and invent a 1d3 stick weapon, so clubs can be clubs?

 

[KahlessNestor]

A club is also a deadly weapon, crafted to some measure of tolerance, with a specific purpose in mind. A real club is much more than just a chair leg. If you want to say that any stick you find on the ground counts as a club for game purposes, and a real purpose-built club is a mace for game purposes, then why would anyone go to the extra trouble of making a mace? Why not just re-normalize the language and invent a 1d3 stick weapon, so clubs can be clubs?

Renormalize? What does that even mean? Wouldn't that be going back to previous editions where a club was free and did even more damage? As I pointed out, and you ignored, the improvised weopon rules themselves call out chair legs and such as clubs, and the sailot with his belaying pin. The intent seems to be to be rather liberal with the improvised weapon rules.

Tje bigger problem, though, to bring it back to the fire dancer, is that you are either 1) replacing scimitar proficiency with a worse option (so why would I want that, as a fire dancer bard), and 2) violating the 5e KISS ethos by not using the rules already there for improvised weapons.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app