Where does it say that in the PHB's section explaining the bard?
Why does it
need to say that? It says what Teleportation Circle does. The PHB inspires. It doesn't treat you like you are a six year old and sit down, holding your hand, and pointing out every single possibility that can be done in explicit detail. I would not
want a PHB that was as absurdly restrictive as you seem to want, letting you only use a class for a few things and no others.
Furthermore, having the charisma to have people like you and be more willing to accept them into your home is absolutely not the same as having the ability to draw a magical, runic circle on the ground to create a permanent wayport between other teleportation circles. That's not Bardic in theme, that's Wizardry.
Teleportation circle doesn't create a permanent wayport unless you cast the spell every day for a year. Travelling places is well within bardic themes.
Yeah, no. If Bards were more "Words of Power" and "True Naming" magic, sure. I could absolutely see "Avada Kedavra" be a spell that they get access to. However, the rest of the bard spell list and the bard's flavor text both beg to differ.
Bards are quite literally the only class to get all three words of power in 5e (stun, kill, heal). Although to be fair Divine Word is cleric only - but the bard if they want the theme can grab it with Mystical Secrets at level 14. Where there
is a words of power theme it belongs to bards more than any other class. And if you think there should be more truenaming for some bards then the problem isn't that these are on the bard list, it's that there aren't m,ore.
And this is getting into why bards and sorcerers both lead to much more interesting and thematic characters than wizards and clerics. When you play a wizard or, worse, a cleric, your magic is ultimately pretty cookie cutter. You simply have access to all the spells both in character and out.
On the other hand when playing a sorcerer, bard, warlock, or ranger you define your spell list for this character in specific. If I want a bard who's about true naming and words of creation I can pick spells that fit that theme. If I want an illusionist and mindbender who has nothing to do with words of creation I can pick those. And neither of these choices invalidates the other.
What this means is that if you think that a spell doesn't fit your personal bard
no one is forcing you to pick it either in character or out. So its presence on the spell list isn't a problem unless you like policing other peoples' characters and telling them that they are having BadWrongFun
Meanwhile because clerics pick their spells and wizards prepare their spells it can be asked both in character and out why they refuse to pray for or prepare a given spell.
. . . Which, again, is not explained in the PHB's Bard fluff text,
And again who cares? I don't play D&D to have my hand held and to have my imagination straightjacketed by someone saying "You can only play this in this way". Instead I expect it to support my imagination.
and there's a major difference between a Light Show (Dancing Lights, Minor Illusion, Silent Image, or the many other illusion spells that the bard gets access to) and the "I will incinerate/freeze/dissolve/poison/electrocute you to death, or possibly of blinding you and sending you to a random plane of existence, or turning you to stone, or do two of these options".
Again there's a major difference. It's in part called "level."
Most bards of mine are unlikely to take prismatic spray. A rockstar one might. If you don't like the spell and it doesn't fit the bard you are playing don't play it then. Objecting to a spell on the spell list is saying "I don't think I'd want it so no one should ever have it".
. . . But why? Why is healing a part of the bard archetype? I'm guessing it's for the reason I explained in the OP (WotC not knowing how to do buffing unless it's just plain healing, when other types of buffing work way better for bards).
Partly tradition. Partly because there's a long standing association between music and healing.
And partly because why in the name of the little black pig
shouldn't it be? If you don't want your bard to heal
don't take the spells. Some bards can heal, others can't. Why are you so offended by what other peoples' characters can do.
If you want an actual question that causes in game issues then why is every single cleric in D&D able to heal? I have no problem with some faith healers - but every single cleric has Cure Light Wounds and Healing Word on their spell list - and Lesser Restoration at level 3. Why? What makes healing something literally all the Gods agree to give all their empowered servants. This to me is a far deeper question and far bigger worldbuilding problem than why can
some bards heal.
You say that like it isn't a bad thing. It's a bad thing that the Berserker's flavor is "Barbarian, but MOAR BARBARIAN!", that the Land Druid's theme is "Druid, but even more nature-connected", that the Champion and Battlemaster Fighters are "Just the Fighter, but even better at martial combat", that the Open-Hand Monk is "Just the monk, but even more monk-y than the other monks", that the Hunter Ranger is "the Ranger, but with more Ranger added", and so on, and so on, and so on.
Yes. I'm saying that's how PHB subclasses work. Except they are slightly subtler than you claim - for example the Druid of the Moon is Druid but MOAR shapeshifting while the Druid of the Land is Druid but MOAR magic. The Berserker's isn't "Barbarian but MOAR Barbarian." It's "Barbarian but MOAR hitty" while the Totem Warrior is "Barbarian but MOAR other stuff". They take one part of the subclass and expand on it.
Okay, you want me to be a bit more fair? Fine. I'll count the Valor/Swords as one subclass identity (martial bard),
Fine. Go after the wizard. Almost every single one of their subclasses is "Wizard but MOAR magic".
That's a grand total of 5 out of 8, with many of them being very, very similar in theme. Drop the Lore Bard, drop either the Valor or Swords Bard, drop the martial part of the Whispers Bard, drop the overlapping part of the Glamour/Eloquence Bard, and you've got some thematically and mechanically distinct subclasses.
There is no problem with focusing on core class features - most classes on their own should be able to support characters without there being twists. Why are you so keen on policing what other people play and enjoy? If we look at what people play in reality then the College of Lore is the single most popular bard subclass. Yet you want to tear the most popular subclass of bard away.
For that matter you want to tear the most popular subclass away from almost all the classes. Cleric but moar healy is most popular. Wizard but moar magic is. Fighter doubling down as champion is most popular.
Why are you trying to police what people actually want to play and declaring it to be badwrongfun?
Oh, please. You don't even know me,
@Neonchameleon. Stop making assumptions about my person and my taste in classes just because I think there are mechanical and thematic problems with one, please. Just because I don't like the execution of the bard in 5e doesn't mean that I don't like the idea of the bard in D&D. Those are two very, very distinct issues, and you would do better to not conflate them when debating with me in this thread.
I don't know you. I just can read what you are arguing for. And what you are arguing for is to nerf the bard (by stripping it of top level spells) and to destroy characters people are playing by taking away options
and options that need never come up in play.
I love music. I love how music makes me feel. I love the idea of a fantasy character using song or instrument or poem or story to make/channel magic, and to support their party. Bard characters on D&D livestreams and campaign stories are some of my favorite out of all of them. I love the idea of the bard. I just think that it's executed poorly in 5e, and want to fix it in a manner that suits my tastes.
Then talk about fixes. You have offered very little in the way of fixes other than starting the thread declaring that bards should be nerfed, suggesting that types of bard should be taken out of the game, and offering some concrete suggestions and actual mechanics.
Disliking how a class is mechanically and thematically executed is not the same thing as disliking the class. Don't conflate the two, and especially don't accuse me of not liking a class (or even worse, accuse me of wanting to nerf a class because you think that I don't like it).
To want to strip the bards of their most powerful spells and to give them all their spells later is a nerf whether you like it or not.
Again, no. That's not what I'm saying. Read the OP, please. I gave some examples of how to make up for the loss of 6th-9th level spells there. Stop painting me as a "Evil, bard-nerfing, music-is-magic minstrel killer". You're mistaking me for someone else/painting me as someone that I am not.
@Snarf Zagyg is the one that dislikes bards (or at least, jokes a ton about how much they hate bards), not me.
I
have read the OP, as I pointed out when you accused me of not having. And you give nothing I'd call an actual example in there - just some very very vague outlines.
And in giving those very vague outlines you destroy most existing bards. A bard can
already be an excellent support character - something they couldn't be if they didn't have healing magic (which is one of the many things you object to in the post I'm replying to). But there's far far more they can be. And many of those things are because of the spells you are complaining about and because the subclasses you complain are too similar.
