D&D 5E Bards Should Be Half-Casters in 5.5e/6e

[Minigiant]

Merlin has bardic roots.

However I think the modern interpretation of how Merlin would be described is a sorcerer who has a Sorcererous Origin that gives him a ritual book, a casting stat swap to INT, and access to the spells of other classes.

The modern view of the bard is a spellcaster with roguish elements. Something Merlin isn't A bard that is half expert half caster would fit the image of the bard best. Theissue is that D&D had problems mixing the expert and spellcaster together that made something too weak (3e) or too strong (5e) or siloed into one aspect of play (4e)

However with the marginable success of the 5e artificer, the bard could be built of a similar base.

 

[Umbran]

Anderson and Gygax were Americans, not Europeans.

Yeah, so, you have definitely missed the major issues around cultural sensitivity and appropriation. I don't really want to make this thread about that, but perhaps a few notes are in order.

The biggest issue is about "punching down" - taking the cultural heritage of people that are disadvantaged, and making a hash of it for your own profit. Western Europe is mostly made of what we'd call "first world" countries. Italy, France, and England are not "disadvantaged" on the world stage in any cultural sense.

Moreover, Anderson was American born of immigrant parents. Gygax's father was an immigrant. They were, we might say, or European extraction, and therefore have some rights to draw upon the tradition of that continent for their works.

 

[Amrûnril]

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.

Those . . . aren't good subclass ideas. If the subclass choice is between "cool differentiations from the base class" and "the base class but with more base class theme", that's not creative or intelligent design. Yeah, my criticism of the Lore Bard applies to much of the other subclasses in the PHB, but that doesn't make me wrong.

So, yeah, you're right that other subclasses in the PHB do that. That doesn't mean that they're "thematically different ideas" from the rest of the subclasses, because you can't be thematically different as a subclass if your theme is the base class.

I'd argue that having "vanilla" subclasses that stick close to their classes' default themes is very much a good thing. It ensures that, if a player likes the overall idea of a class, they'll always have at least one subclass that supports that idea. Having subclasses that take things in more specific directions is great too, but if all the subclasses do that, you can end up with situations like the PHB sorcerer, where a player who likes the idea of a intuition-based spellcaster with flexibility in how the cast their spells, but who doesn't want either a strong draconic theme or the chance of turning themself into a potted plant, is completely out of luck.

The Lore Bard doesn't just refrain from forcing too specific a theme on you, though. It actively empowers you to create your own theme, whether that's sticking with a generalist support direction, channeling divine power through song, making the undead dance to your music, or disrupting your enemies' spellcasting from atop a giant purple hand. Additional Magical Secrets is an incredibly flexible option, letting you put essentially whatever spin you want on a spellcasting focused Bard, and the Valor Bard does a simple but effective job of supporting a greater focus on weapon combat. If the Xanathar's and Tasha's Bard subclasses seem lackluster, I don't think that's indicative of any weakness in the Bard class/concept. I think it's an indication that the base class and PHB subclasses are flexible enough that it's hard to see what else is needed.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Okay. This is going to be a long post, as I'm replying to two separate posts at the same time. Let's get started.

Nope. You are missing the point.

It's not often that I'm accused of missing the point of the own thread that I made, but okay. Why don't you tell me what "point" I'm "missing", instead of just telling me "no, u!" when I said that you missed the point of the recommendation in the first place.

That might have been the very first thing you wrote - but it is not the first thing that people read.

The thread title and therefore the very first thing people read when they click on the thread is "Bards Should Be Half-Casters in 5.5e/6e"

. . . I clearly wrote in the OP, immediately after the title, that I was going to elaborate and explain my position. The reason we have titles to threads in the first place is to get the basic premise across first, and then giving elaboration. If someone can't see the forest from the trees, the fault is on them, not the person who created the topic in the first place.

And what the hell does it matter what the first thing written/read means? Clearly someone should read the whole thread to understand the premise, instead of leaping to conclusions based off of the title, like you just admitted to. "To assume is to make an ass out of u and me", after all.

This is what you talk about first and what people read first. You chose to lead with how bards should be nerfed and half their magical power should be taken away. If you didn't mean that you shouldn't have lead with that.

It might not have been what you intended to write but it is what you wrote.

No, it's not. Hear what I actually say, please, not what you think/want to think that I'm saying. Listen/read the words coming out of my mouth/posts, not the ones you leap to after reading the simplified premise that was put into the title to give the thread a short and summarizing title. If you leap to assume that I hate and want to nerf bards because I think their role would be better filled as a half-caster, the fault is on you for leaping to conclusions, not on me for writing the thing. (Furthermore, you seem to be the only person who can't see any more nuance in changing a full-caster into a half-caster than just straight-up wanting to nerf them. There is more to the issue here, and you're the only one trying to paint it as "@AcererakTriple6 hates and wants to nerf bards!!!")

Just, kindly, please knock it off. It's frankly very annoying.

And even if the error in miscommunication was my fault, that's no excuse to double down on the error and seem to try to divert the argument to try and accuse me of the point of view that I told you I don't have. Believe the words I say, not the ones you want me to say, please.

1: They don't get more actions
2: Their physical combat actions are worse (and hence worth less) than non-casters
3: Their magical actions are worse because their magic is significantly weaker

So no matter what they do their contribution in that moment is worse. There are ways to get round this (such as smites and bonus actions) - but these do not work unless carefully written.

1. No one gets more actions! Why the f**k should a half-caster get more actions that full-casters? Non-casters don't get more actions that full-casters, and they have even less magic than full-casters. To me, this sounds like someone at an ice-cream place complaining that their scoop of Chocolate-Vanilla Swirl ice cream is exactly the same as that if they had just gotten either Chocolate or Vanilla separately.
2. Tell that to the Paladin or Battlesmith Artificer. Incorrect assertion with no supporting evidence is incorrect.
3. Tell that to the Artillerist. You can focus and be effective at using magic without having 6th-9th level spell slots.

You seem to be defining a "half-caster" by an imaginary and unfounded type of half-caster in D&D that is strictly a character that gets half the magic (and therefore half the power) of a full caster, with no mechanics to make up for it. That's not how Half-Casters work in D&D, in any of the 3 instances of them being their own classes. So, yeah, if you define "half-caster" as a type of half-caster that doesn't and never has existed in 5e, yes, you are correct that they are worse at everything than everyone else who isn't half of a class.

OK. So now you're just admitting you did not bother to read what you were replying to. There was evidence presented. And it is not "fully inaccurate" - a work round to a problem (as the paladin gets) is a workround dealing with a core issue.

Uh, no. You said "half-casters are bad because of action economy", and didn't give any examples of any of the existing 5e half casters actually being bad at action economy. You even gave examples of how they avoid being bad at action economy, and I gave even more examples in my reply. So, tell me please, what part of that is "not bothering to read what I replied to", and "ignoring evidence that was presented", because the evidence that I saw supported my view that half-casters don't have to suck at action-economy and effectiveness, due to the current examples of the 3 half-casting classes that avoid those issues in a variety of different ways.

If you had actually read what you were replying to then you'd know I explicitly mentioned that Paladins had Divine Smite which avoids the action economy issue and that is why they work.

Right. And that proves that half casters have (or have to have, as you seem to be implying that a half-casting bard would have to have action-economy issues) action economy issues . . . how exactly? Because that seems to support my viewpoint, and not the viewpoint that bards would suck as half-casters due to action economy.

Please answer this question:

Why would a half-caster bard naturally/innately have worse action economy than a full-casting bard?

Um, how about you actually read and address your own OP to figure out what you were actually saying - especially with the title that you yourself wrote either because it accurately summarizes your position, it is clickbait, or it was a mistake.

It roughly summarizes my position. There's no way that I, an imperfect human being with communication issues due to being on the Autism Spectrum, can perfectly and completely summarize my 1,327 word OP in a simple, roughly 10-words-or-less title/header that is meant to draw people in so that they actually read the other 1.3 thousand words that I wrote. Human error in choosing a perfect title is not some "gotcha, you hate the bard!" card that you can play to invalidate my viewpoint.

Maybe that would help get your points across. And once you've read your own OP and not accused me of dishonesty because I think that a post starts with a title you could actually read what I am writing and not use the very things I've pointed out as workrounds.

Do that, and then we'll talk.

Ah, there's nothing that I love more than unnecessary and unwarranted overly hostile and condescending snark that implies that I did not, in fact, read my own OP to a thread that I spent about 2 hours and 1,300 words writing.

/s, incase that needed to be stated (I don't think it did, but you can never be too careful on the internet)

Could I have chosen a better/more accurate title to the thread? Almost definitely. I'm human, and thus imperfect, thus making most of my decisions/phraseology imperfect.

Does that mean that my side is invalidated because you misunderstood my position to be one of complete, and utter hatred towards the Bard class, and thus excuse your accusations towards me of wanting to nerf the bard class because you think I hate it? Of course not.

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.

When discussing the theme and definition of the bard class, is it too much to ask that the assertion that "bards have access to open every door, and thus have Teleportation Circle" be supported by any scrap of flavor-text in the PHB or Xanathar's Guide to Everything? When discussing what a class is and what it can do thematically/mechanically, one (such as myself) would assume that the part of the core rulebooks that describe and define the chassis of the class would support the arguments made in favor of keeping that part of the class's mechanics. If paladins had fluff that said "they are especially good at smiting creatures of fiendish or necromantic origin", it would be quite befuddling to not have any mechanics in the game that supported that flavor text. Thus, the inverse is true; that any mechanical part of a class should have at least some bearing in the fluff/flavor text describing that class.

I don't want classes to be "absurdly restrictive", like you seem to think. I just want their mechanics to be coherent and fitting to the fluff that is the whole reason they exist in the first place. (Furthermore, I'm not against the idea of a teleporting bard, especially if they were one that was noted for being a worldly/planar traveler that spread stories across the lands, but I don't think that this should be a part of the base class unless it's explained/justified, and I personally think it would be better for a subclass than the base class.)

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.

. . . I am aware of what the spell does. However, Teleportation Circle relies on the castings of other Teleportation Circles made permanent through the process that you described in order to function. In a world where bards can/are know for cast(ing) teleportation circle, one would assume that some bards were the one creating the permanent teleportation circles that they travel between. Travelling places is well within the bardic theme, but there are more than one means of travelling places. You could use the same "minstrel that travel places" justification to allow the Bard to pick up a whole swathe of flying spells, which are notably lacking from their spell list.

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 more.

I am aware that they get most of the Power Words. That doesn't negate anything I said, though. Clerics get Power Word Heal (fairly recently, though, through TCoE), Wizards get Power Word Kill, Stun, and Pain (which notably isn't on the Bard spell list, besides you claiming that the Power Word Spells are mainly bardic in theme).

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.

Now, here is a claim that Bards and Sorcerers are superior in character ideas than Wizards and Clerics. That's just your opinion, you know, and I personally believe that they're all fairly equal for creating interesting and thematic characters. I've seen all of the classes be done well in this manner, which absolutely doesn't support your claim that Bards and Sorcerers "lead into much more interesting and thematic characters than wizards and clerics". Anecdotal evidence may be anecdotal and imperfect, but it still overrules unsupported claims about subjective opinions being objectively true.

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.

Hang on, isn't that the whole point of having subclasses, though? Have the base theme be covered by the base class and its spell list, and have the subclasses add more to that and give spells (or incentives towards certain spells) that add to it is the point of having a subclass, not of the spell list.

So, it's perfectly valid to have characters that work in much different ways mechanically and thematically from others of the same class, but that largely should be covered by your subclass and other specific choices major to your character (like a Warlock's Pact Boon, or a Fighting Style, or Feats, not what minute differences in spell choices you have).

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.

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.

(Emphasis mine)

Stop it, please. Just plain, completely stop it. This is uncalled for and unwarranted.

There is a huge difference between saying it's wrong to play a certain archetype (like someone saying that X class/aspect of D&D sucks, or that they hate it, or that it shouldn't exist) and saying that it should be (or that they'd prefer if it were to be) handled differently than it is in the base game. There's a difference between those two, just like there's a difference between saying, "I like Vegetarian Pizza, but I don't like Onions, so I replace them with Artichoke Hearts", and saying, "Vegetarian Pizza is disgusting, no one should eat it, and if you do eat it you're not a real pizza fan!".

Never did I ever say that no bard should be able to pick the Teleportation Circle spell or other teleportation spells. I just said that I don't think that it fits the base bard theme, and think it would work better in a subclass spell list (which I would add to all of the subclasses), and not as a part of the base class.

Again there's a major difference. It's in part called "level."

No. "Level" is not what separates the illusion spells that bards get access to and Prismatic Spray/Wall. Theme is. There is a very, very different theme between creating illusory light shows for a band-style bard, and being able to create giant, damaging, planar-rifting/petrifying area of effect spells.

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".

Again, no, it's not that. I just don't think it fits the base chassis of the Bard class. Sure, I'd be okay with some bards taking it (probably a subclass that was themed to illusory light shows that killed/harmed enemies), but just the average travelling, singing Bardy McBardson with a Lute that sings to support allies? No, I don't think that every bard should have access to Prismatic Spray/Wall and spells similar to them, because, to me, that's a very specific niche that is not the same as the base bardic niche. Could the bardic niche support it? Absolutely. Is that a reason to let any bard ever have access to it? Absolutely not.

Partly tradition. Partly because there's a long standing association between music and healing.

And I'd be absolutely fine with a subclass that focuses on healing through their bard spells. However, that isn't the base bardic niche (to me, at least). (And, as always, I stand by the position that doing things for tradition's sake is a poor reason to do that thing._

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.

Again, subclasses are the major way to differentiate between major differences in thematic and mechanical elements like this. I'm 100%, absolutely okay with letting a bard heal and resurrect/revivify through bard magic (I find it awesome and amazing to reflavor it as a bard using their Charisma to persuade or even intimidate the soul of a fallen ally to return to their body), however, as I said before, major themes like "resurrecting magic" and "evocative sprays of death rainbows" and similar "out there" themes would be better if relegated to subclass options.

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.

I find issue with that argument, too. Why should all Clerics be able to heal? Why should a Cleric of Vecna (Death) or Zeus (Tempest) get access to spells that alter your theme as much as healing/resurrection spells do? Why shouldn't they focus more on the god that they're worshipping than the traditional standard of "Clerics heal, Wizards blast"? IMO, that is an issue, and it feels to me that your subclass theme should matter more than the abilities of a D&D class in previous editions. Tradition has a spot, but it isn't and shouldn't be the absolute arbiter of how modern versions of those classes are played.

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.

The majority of Druid subclasses focus on using Wild Shape in their own unique and specific way (Wildfire, Spores, Stars, Moon). The land druid doesn't have that, and IMO, isn't as good of subclass as the others because of that.

The Berserker is 100% Barbarian but just with more Barbarian theme added onto it. The Totem Warrior has magical mechanics and has the theme of channeling the totems/spirits of animals to enhance their abilities (both in and out of combat). It's more than just the base barbarian theme. The Berserker isn't.

Fine. Go after the wizard. Almost every single one of their subclasses is "Wizard but MOAR magic".

There's a major difference between specializing in a particular school of magic and just leaning more into the base class's theme as a whole.

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.

Sure, but there are better and more interesting ways to accomplish fulfilling your base class's theme without being boring. The Eloquence bard largely is just more bardic theme as a subclass, but it does it in a few unique and effective ways that make it (IMO) a better subclass than the Lore Bard.

Why are you so keen on policing what other people play and enjoy?

Can we stop with these accusations? I'm not a game designer at WotC. I'm not an authority figure. I'm just some guy on the internet who's proposing an idea about how I think WotC could better tackle the theme of the Bard in future editions. I have no authority to police what other people enjoy, which is exactly why I haven't been doing that (and even if I did have the "authority to do so", I wouldn't do it, because all constructive playstyles are perfectly valid, and no one needs anyone else to go around telling others that they're playing wrong). No matter how you try to paint/misconstrue my argument, that's not what I've been doing or trying to do. It's no more "policing other people's playstyles/enjoyment" to say that Lore Bards don't build on the bardic theme than it is to say Vanilla Ice Cream is generic.

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.

View attachment 143277

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.

Those are D&D Beyond statistics. Go look at the content that is, by default, free for anyone who has a D&D Beyond account. You will see that in every occasion of the most popular subclass in the statistics that you supply, the most common type of character is the subclass that was free by default. All of them.

The Berserker is the free Barbarian subclass, the Champion is the free Fighter subclass, the Thief is the free Rogue subclass, the College of Lore is the free Bard subclass, the Way of the Open Hands is the free Monk subclass, and so on, and so on. All of the most "popular" subclasses are the ones that are free through the D&D 5e SRD.

That doesn't mean that it's the subclass that people like the most, or that they have the highest opinion on/enjoy playing the most. It just means that when you have free content on your site, the most commonly played/made characters through your site's system will be the free options.

If you opened an Ice-Cream stand that gave out free Vanilla ice cream to anyone that wanted it, with an added price if they wanted toppings or a different flavor, I can guarantee you that the most "popular" choice at that ice cream stand would be the free Vanilla ice cream without any toppings. Just like this theoretical ice cream stand wouldn't prove that Vanilla ice cream is the most popular flavor of ice cream, these presented statistics don't prove anything about what subclasses are actually the most popular (or which are the favorite).

Why are you trying to police what people actually want to play and declaring it to be badwrongfun?

Stop it, dude. I haven't made any accusations against you like this. This is unprovoked, unwarranted, and uncool. I have never said that it was wrong to want to play a bard that has any of these spells that I said I don't think fit the base theme of the Bard class, or said that it was wrong to like playing a bog-standard bard (or any subclass of any other class that's theme is the basic theme of that class). Stop trying to paint me as an evil gatekeeper that is coming to take away your bards and say you're playing the game wrong. Stop it. Further accusations will be reported, as they're completely unwarranted and not okay.

I don't know you.

Then stop pretending like you do. (Saying that I promote badwrongfun, trying to paint me as a gatekeeper/bard-hater, etc.) It's very simple. If you don't know someone, don't make claims about them based off of them wanting a class to have altered mechanics.

I just can read what you are arguing for.

Obviously you can't (or at least, haven't). I'm not arguing for badwrongfun or gatekeeping, I'm arguing for making a bard be a half-caster. Those are very, very different things. Stop conflating the two.

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.

Again, NO I AM NOT. I am not arguing to nerf the bard. I am not arguing to destroy characters. I am not arguing to take away options from being available. I am merely and completely suggesting that maybe those options should be relegated to somewhere else where they might make more sense (a subclass, or a sub-subclass like a Bardic equivalent of a Warlock's Pact Boon). Saying that you think that a class would be better as a half-caster is 100% a distinct statement from saying "I hate bards, want to destroy and nerf bards, and will take away your bard characters because you're having fun with them". Learn the difference, please.

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.

And you give nothing I'd call an actual example in [the OP] - just some very very vague outlines.

I freaking did. In the OP, I explicitly and clearly mentioned that I would expand and buff Bardic Inspiration to make up for some of the lost power, and have different subclasses do different things with them. (If you want an example, look no further than the College of Creation and the College of Spirits. Both have expanded uses and benefits to using Bardic Inspiration. Something like that could be added to all of the subclasses.

I also mentioned how I would give the bard subclasses extra-known spell lists that fit their theme (like many other casting classes get). That would significantly enhance their effectiveness, making them be more versatile with spell options even if they have less spell slots. I mentioned that I would probably replace Countercharm with some sort of Song of Courage feature that would negate/cancel Frightening/Charming effects (probably working similarly to the second benefit of the Twilight Cleric's Channel Divinity feature). I mentioned how I would better separate the subclasses in theme and mechanics, and combine the redundant parts of the ones that have quite a bit of overlap. Is that enough for you, or do I have to write up the whole class's mechanics right now in order to prove that I don't want to nerf the class? Because that's quite an unreasonable claim, if you ask me, especially because I want/would prefer for WotC to design this, as I'm not a professional game designer.

I thought those examples of mechanics would be enough. If you truly need more, I would consider allowing higher level bards give out a Bardic Inspiration as a reaction to a specific ally's d20 roll (kind of like Flash of Genius, but with the dice's randomness added to it, and some balancing effects). Like Artificers, I would let the subclasses carry most of the weight of their mechanical effectiveness, due to them fulfilling mechanic niches (like having an equivalent of the Artillerist's Arcane Firearm, which enhances the lower level spells that an Artillerist can cast, but with one that somehow enhances the bards lower level spells).

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.

It's a nerf to their spellcasting ability. It doesn't have to be a nerf to the class overall. There's a big difference between the two.

I have read the OP, as I pointed out when you accused me of not having.

Then you should have known that I wasn't wanting to nerf the whole class without at least trying to make up for it. The Artificer is a mechanically effective spell-based half-caster. There's absolutely no reason why a half-casting version of the Bard class wouldn't be capable of being just as effective.

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.

Big disagree. Relegating themes and expanding them in subclasses, by no means, is the same as "destroying most existing bards". Yes, they would change mechanically, but doesn't the flavor of the bard matter more than getting Wish through Magical Secrets and most of the other stuff people look forward to for the later levels of the Bard class?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

When majority of 5e players think Bard, how many (%) do you believe think of this traditional Merlin/Celtic/Norse version, in comparison to a Rogue/Caster/'Face' charismatic musical Class?

IME, few think Merlin, but by far most think Celtic/Norse/fictional characters inspired by same when actually making a bard, and only associate the “cthulu-seducer” with memes.

If we look at the historical record of half-casting bards it's been ... mixed. And what has worked probably can't be repeated.

• The 2e bard hacked the XP system and levelled up at thief speed not mage speed. They therefore had more hit points than mages, could wear armour, could wield weapons, and were almost as good at casting as a mage. They traded low level power for high level power. This is not an approach that could work here due to harmonised XP systems.
• The 3.0 bard was a punchline. Good at nothing and could only do one thing at once. Never do this again.
• The 3.5 bardtook some skill to make work, but had two things going for them.
  • Inspire Courage was technically limited by neither duration nor number of targets as long as they could hear you. Yes, there's endurance - but with a couple of buffs (a spell, a feat, and an item) a call and response military cadence could turn a party into a blending machine that hit a dungeon like a buzz-saw and last for hours while alternatively the Alphorn had a range measured in miles for an entire battle.
  • The bard spell list was heavily hacked with the bard getting broken unique spells like glibness, and getting spells from Tasha's Hideous Laughter to Otto's Irresistible Dance early, so within their niche of enchanters and illusionists they could out-cast sorcerers. 5e threw out the idea of spells being different levels for different classes
• The Pathfinder bardmanaged to break the 3.5 bard although it did remain better than the 3.0 bard
  • With a limited number of rounds per day and no "for five rounds after they stop hearing you" the long duration party buff aspect of Inspire Courage vanished. It just became a decent-ish spell
  • It lost most of the splatbook stuff bards could get - and that was never replaced
  • The sorcerer got significantly better (which to be fair it needed to)

So that's just 2e and 3.5 not falling a long long way behind the full casters and the way 2e did it can not be repeated.

What are you offering that isn't just trying to gut the class?

Just wanna add that 4e made the bard kick ass and was one of the best Leader classes, with tons of powers that combined buff or debuff (single target and group) with forced (enemy) or allowed (ally) movement, group tactic boosting, and easy access to swashbuckling sword bard, full musical instrument magic song bard, intelligent lore master tactical bard, and oddball combinations of the above, as well as having unique rituals to really drive home the themes.

Alchemists would be way better and much cooler if they were related to discovering the 5th element "Aether", the Philosopher's Stone, and stuff like that).

This is a much overblown aspect of historical alchemy. The vast majority of real world alchemy was just pre-modern laboratory science, and/or esoteric mysticism. Alchemists invented optics, toxicology, and many of the basic tools and methodologies of chemistry that are still used today. Alchemists developed the scientific method in Asia (East and South) 1-2 millennia ago.

A magical chemist with some knowledge of various other sciences is closer to historical alchemists than nearly any other fictional alchemist out there. It basically takes RL alchemy, whether Chinese, Indian, Hermetic (Greek, Arabian, European), or otherwise, and says “if magic had been real and worked how it does in D&D, here is an adventuring version of Paracelsus.”

 

[Li Shenron]

The title gets the point across, but I want to support my viewpoint here (as usual).

But before I do that, I understand that this may be a contentious topic (as are most threads discussing/debates what things "should be like" in D&D), and will kindly ask that posts below remain respectful or constructive. I'm not adding a (+) to the title, because it's perfectly okay for you to post in this thread if you disagree with the premise. However, still treat this thread as a "if I don't have anything constructive to post, don't post at all" thread (which is how most, if not all, threads should be treated, but I wanted to make the reminder). Feel free to disagree (and preferably, if you're going to post that you disagree, explain why), but disagreement doesn't equal disrespect. And, if you don't like Bards in the first place (I'm sure you all know who I'm talking about), maybe realize that this thread may not be for you (this thread isn't to discuss whether or not D&D should have bards, it's to debate how they should be mechanically executed). Now, onto the topic.

Bards have (IMO) always had a weird place in D&D. The main part is that they're one of the 4 Charisma-based caster-classes from the PHB, while Intelligence has 1 (Wizards, but now has Artificers), and Wisdom has 3 (Clerics, Druids, and Rangers). I've addressed a way to solve/reduce this issue (which is an issue, in my opinion and experience, but you may disagree) in a thread about making Sorcerers be Constitution-casters, but this could also be used to give Warlocks a bigger thematic niche as the full caster (or full-caster equivalent) Charisma-based-class. (However, I don't want to make this change just because of this relatively small issue, I'll elaborate more below.) Additionally, the bard's spell list is thematic and great at lower levels (Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Vicious Mockery, Charm Person/Monster, Disguise Self, Gift of Gab, Suggestion, etc), but at higher levels they start to not fit as well (Teleportation Circle? Since when do Bards teleport? Forcecage? Regenerate/Resurrection? Prismatic Spray/Wall??? Foresight? POWER WORD KILL!?!? What the hell do any of these (or many of the others that I didn't mention in order to save space) have to do with being a bard?!?!). It seems like when Wizards of the Coast made the list of spells that bards could get at higher levels, they just kind of blanked and decided "Okay, let's throw in all the Illusion spells, because those are kind of tricksy and bards are tricksy. Oh, also some resurrection/regenerating spells because bards are support, and the only way we know how to emulate support mechanically is through healing/restoration magic. What about after that? Eh, screw it, let's just throw in any Wizard spell that isn't straight-up blasting, and a few others from the Cleric list for good measure." This also feels like the reason why Wizards of the Coast gave Bards Magical Secrets, because they figured "Well, we don't know what spells they should get at higher levels, so we might as well let them steal spells from anyone's spell list, and flavor it as 'Jack of All Trades'". In fact, the only high level (6th level) spell that I think really fits Bards is Otto's Irresistible Dance, and that could just be bumped down one level to a 5th-level spell, which half-casting bards eventually would get access to.

And that's only scratching the surface of the issue. What role do bards fill in the game? They're primarily support characters, but a lot of the time they're not supporting through their spells (their spells are primarily de-buffing in nature), and are instead spamming Bardic Inspiration to help their team-mates. In fact, the bardic niche in 5e is so incohesive, that of the 8 official bard subclasses, 3 of them focus their main/beginning mechanical effects on enhancing their own weapon combat (the Colleges of Valor, Swords, Whispers), two more share practically the same thematic niche but achieved slightly differently (College of Eloquence and College of Glamour), the College of Lore just asks the question of "What if I was even more a Jack of All Trades?", the last two are basically the only mechanically and thematically unique (but also kind of weird) subclasses for the Bards in the game (College of Creation, and College of Spirits. Both of which I'm actually quite fond of, but 2 of the 8 subclasses having actually thematically different and interesting mechanics isn't good, if you ask me). The subclasses are disjointed, the higher level spells are a jumble, and the class can't decide whether it wants to be a part-martial spell-and-slash class, or a primarily buffing/debuffing musician/storyteller. (And there's also the minor theme of a bard that wants to play screamo hard-rock so much that their enemies are all killed by the thunder damage delivered to their ears, which is only supported through the Thunderwave and Shatter spells being on their spell list, even though it actually makes sense for someone that is known for playing musical instruments in a magical manner.)

The theme is . . . disjointed at best (incoherent at worst), even if the mechanics are solid. (Another minor gripe, there's absolutely on reason for Song of Rest to use a different die-size than Bardic Inspiration.)

And my solution for this? Turn the Bard into a primarily support-based half-caster. Give them cantrips (like the Artificer), only give them spells up to level 5 (because the ones beyond that aren't very bard-y), and lean more into focusing off of Bardic Inspiration as a base mechanic (with the various subclasses having different usages of it, like the newer ones do, but built in from the start and having more mechanical diversity). Bardic Inspiration becomes the Half-Caster Bard's equivalent of the Artificer's Infusions. The class still gets to be a Jack of All Trades through the Jack of All Trades and Expertise features, but the get more support as a "Jack of Supporting the Party" class as a base. Furthermore, the subclasses would determine more than they did before, giving the bards automatic known/prepared spell lists that fulfill their thematic niche, as well as mechanical features at more than just 3 levels (seriously, why do bards only get subclass features at 3rd, 6th, and 14th level?!?! Subclasses should do more than that!!!).

There would be 1 subclass for martial combat (the Bardic equivalent of the Battlesmith that gets spells like Compelled Duel, Wrathful Smite, and Staggering Smite), one subclass for charming and deceit (Eloquence that gets charming/social interaction spells), one subclass for distracting enemies with illusions and giving THP to allies through Bardic Inspiration (Glamour, getting illusion and THP spells), a subclass for frightening effects and psychic damage (like the Whispers bard, but without the martial theme, and getting spells like Dissonant Whispers, Geas, and Fear), and a subclass for playing your instrument (or singing) so loudly that people's ears start to bleed (College of Thunder/Sound? Getting spells like Thunderwave, Thunder Step, Thunderclap, Destructive Wave, etc). Then, they could get more "out-there" subclasses like College of Spirits and College of Creation. (And the class would drop countercharm and replace it with something that was actually good, like a Song of Courage that they can activate to sing an aura of charmed/frightened prevention.)

Another (fairly minor) issue that would be solved by this if if the class kept Magical Secrets, they wouldn't get the Paladin's/Ranger's/Artificer's 4th-5th level spells before the classes they're meant for (which can be an issue for balancing new spells for those classes, as they tend to be slightly more powerful than full-caster spells of the same level).

So, what do you think? Should the bard be based more off the Artificer than, say, the Wizard? Any ideas similar to this, or ones that would promote this same general idea? Anyone have any criticisms of this?

I don't have any actual technical criticism, but it made me think how every edition is condemned to rehash the same ideas and remake the same mistakes again to satisfy a culture of perennial unsatisfaction.

 

[Gladius Legis]

We tried a half-caster bard in the D&D Next playtest, and it was hot garbage.

Nope, I like the bard a full caster as it is.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

So I could get behind a half-caster bard. I think they should continue to get cantrips similar to the artificer if that happened. But I can't really make a judgement call one way or the other without seeing the execution of a half-caster bard design.

A few interesting mechanics I can think of if this were done:

-Rather than being able to maintain concentration on multiple spells at once, perhaps let a bard who is maintaining concentration on an ongoing spell to substitute it with a different concentration spell. Or maybe just any spell, regardless of concentration. A bard concentrating on Calm Emotions could change it to Heat Metal or Silence or Shatter. As long as concentration is maintained, a bard could substitute in a new spell. If they substitute in a spell that has an instantaneous duration or if it would end when all possible targets save on their saving throw, then that would cause the spell to end and prevent further substitution without casting a new spell slot. This would give them flexibility in their spells despite their lower number of spells slots if they were made a half-caster.

-Make a bard choose all their spells to have only verbal or somatic components at 1st level (to differentiate a dancer/mime bard vs instrumentalist/singer/orator bard). Even if a spell would normally have other components, for a bard it would only have their chosen component.

-Either costing a bardic inspiration or by sacrificing a spell they are already concentrating on, they can use a reaction to counter a spell by another caster. Or maybe just make the casting harder by forcing an opposed caster check or something. The spell would need to have a verbal or somatic component, and the bard can only attempt this on spells that use the component they chose for their own spells. Ok, so that's clear as mud. But as an example, a bard who chooses their spells to only use verbal components could interfere with another caster's spell in this way only if that spell requires a verbal component.

 

[Aldarc]

Question: Although this thread is talking primarily about bard as being a full caster or a half caster, is there conceptual space in 5e for a 3/4th caster, and what would it look like? (I almost suspect that the Artificer would have also been better serviced as a 3/4 caster too.)

Yeah, so, you have definitely missed the major issues around cultural sensitivity and appropriation. I don't really want to make this thread about that, but perhaps a few notes are in order.

The biggest issue is about "punching down" - taking the cultural heritage of people that are disadvantaged, and making a hash of it for your own profit. Western Europe is mostly made of what we'd call "first world" countries. Italy, France, and England are not "disadvantaged" on the world stage in any cultural sense.

Moreover, Anderson was American born of immigrant parents. Gygax's father was an immigrant. They were, we might say, or European extraction, and therefore have some rights to draw upon the tradition of that continent for their works.

It's also worth pointing out that Americans are generally taught British history as the main focus of European history and literature up until the American Revotionary War. There is often a strong sense of American history being rooted in the traditions, cultures, literature, and history of Britain. It's not as if the colonists came over here and said, "Oy! Guess King Arthur, Merlin, and bards aren't part of our literary heritage anymore now that we're living in Jamestown!" One could even point out that there are more people living in the United States of English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish descent than people living in those respective countries.

 

[Minigiant]

We tried a half-caster bard in the D&D Next playtest, and it was hot garbage.

Nope, I like the bard a full caster as it is.

Just because WOTC messed something up in the playtest doesn't mean the concept should be abandoned.
The barbarian, monk, sorcerer, and especially ranger all exited the playtest with serious issues.

Making the bard a full caster always felt like a copout. Especially since

1. The bard was given so few unique spells.
2. The bard was given the feature to steal the spells of other classes as a core feature
3. There are so many ways to gain and add bard spells to another classes' list.

Turning the bard into a full caster made it function. However it sucked up so much design space on its own. And once the "Jack of All Trades" element was reinserted, the class became just powerful and bland. A full caster bard without a bunch of musical, artistic,and poetic spells makes the bard feel like an "enchanter who can heal and sneak". Especially if your party has another healer or buffer in it already.