D&D General The "Jack Of All Trades" is a cursed archetype in tabletop RPGs

[Willie the Duck]

You are absolutely right on all accounts.

A roleplay game is about each PC having a role, it's ok that complex RPGs like D&D allow everyone to have secondary roles, but if someone has too many roles then inevitably the whole character is diluted down. My personal opinion is that JOAT characters are made for 2 kinds of players, those who genuinely can't decide what to play, and those who want to win the game against the others. For the first kind, it is better to just remind them that they are not going to have only a single shot at playing the game in their entire life, they can play one character role in this campaign and another role in the next.

That seems like a needlessly uncharitable dichotomy. I suspect the primary motivation is that someone wants to play the Mario, and it actually be a good (not overshadowing, just adequately contributing) choice.

 

[Ashrym]

The 5e bard is a STRONG spellcaster, not an okay one, a fully stocked powerful caster.

I have to disagree a bit here. People look at the spell levels but it's not a holistic approach. 3.5 bards used a different spell progression table and other mechanics to be near a full spellcaster, and it was pretty successful. They've always been on the lower end of full spellcasters regardless of edition as opposed to the more limited casters.

5e accomplished the same thing in how the mechanics for other spellcasters work. The other more support oriented spell casters (druids and clerics) are better because of the spell preparation mechanics for volume of options. The other arcane casters (sorcerer, warlock, wizard) are better because of their spell recovery options.

The basic spell level progression looks similar but it still places bards into the "almost as good as other full casters" category, which is what they always were. Arcane recovery, metamagic, and spell preparation place other full casters in a better position. 5e did an excellent job of making bards good enough casters without making them as good as more focused casters.

IMHO, the Magical Secrets comes online a little too late to be useful as a JOAT to your average adventuring party. All bards get Magical Secrets at 10th level, by which point, most games are over. The Lore Bard is the only one who gets them potentially early enough to make a difference.

Bards don't actually need magical secrets to fall into the JOAT category. If they didn't have any magical secrets at all they would still be decent enough spellcasters based on the bard list alone because it does cover a bit of healing, direct damage, status effects, and utility.

Magical secrets helps tailor the spell list to match the character concept and build it towards the archetype in mind.

I prefer the "renaissance" term to "JOAT", however, because a bard learns what player apply to the build and generally does a little bit of everything but generally does a couple of things fairly well.

 

[Stalker0]

The basic spell level progression looks similar but it still places bards into the "almost as good as other full casters" category, which is what they always were. Arcane recovery, metamagic, and spell preparation place other full casters in a better position. 5e did an excellent job of making bards good enough casters without making them as good as more focused casters.

Its true that a wizard gets a few more spells per day than a Bard, but in comparing old editions Bards still come out much better.

• Bards get access to the next tier of spells at the same time as other classes, ensuring they are always on the power curve.
• Bard save DCs are not weakened by lower spell levels (a problem in 3e). Bard spell DCs are as good as anyone else.
• Bards have a full caster level "equivalent", in some iterations bards have had more limited caster levels.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Its true that a wizard gets a few more spells per day than a Bard, but in comparing old editions Bards still come out much better.

• Bards get access to the next tier of spells at the same time as other classes, ensuring they are always on the power curve.
• Bard save DCs are not weakened by lower spell levels (a problem in 3e). Bard spell DCs are as good as anyone else.
• Bards have a full caster level "equivalent", in some iterations bards have had more limited caster levels.

In 3.5 not every spell was the same spell level for anyone. Bards even had access to a few spells earlier than full spellcasters, for example heroism.
5e solved the issue by spells having a fixed level no matter the class. So bard's spell slot progression had to increase a bit.

 

[Stalker0]

In 3.5 not every spell was the same spell level for anyone. Bards even had access to a few spells earlier than full spellcasters, for example heroism.
5e solved the issue by spells having a fixed level no matter the class. So bard's spell slot progression had to increase a bit.

There were a few exceptions yes, but on the whole (speaking as someone who played and dmed bards), bards generally got delayed access to most effects compared to other casters.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There were a few exceptions yes, but on the whole (speaking as someone who played and dmed bards), bards generally got delayed access to most effects compared to other casters.

In 3.5 bards had quite a few powerful spells for their level that noone else had access to. I still like the 5e idea better, that spells of the same level are roughly equal in power no matter the class (with a few exceptions).

 

[Blue]

The actual quote: "A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one."

I find JOAT to be pretty good in a team game because while you may be second best at everything, you are also exactly what the situation calls for. Which is usually more powerful than best at something inappropriate and mediocre at the rest.

 

[Scribe]

The actual quote: "A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one."

I find JOAT to be pretty good in a team game because while you may be second best at everything, you are also exactly what the situation calls for. Which is usually more powerful than best at something inappropriate and mediocre at the rest.

I still like the wow hybrid comparison.

Does a pure damage class do more damage? Sure.

Can the pure damage class step out and heal in a pinch of the priest dies? Nope.

 

[Ashrym]

Its true that a wizard gets a few more spells per day than a Bard, but in comparing old editions Bards still come out much better.

• Bards get access to the next tier of spells at the same time as other classes, ensuring they are always on the power curve.
• Bard save DCs are not weakened by lower spell levels (a problem in 3e). Bard spell DCs are as good as anyone else.
• Bards have a full caster level "equivalent", in some iterations bards have had more limited caster levels.

Wizards get a few more spells prepped than bards know (plus the benefits of swapping them), carry more rituals than bards learn because of a better ritual caster mechanic, have an extra cantrip, and add anywhere from one to ten spell levels worth of extra slots in a day before looking at spell mastery or the fact that wizard traditions enhance spellcasting.

The only advantage a bard has is access to spells not available to the wizard spell list but after that the wizard is better at spell casting in every way.

Bards get access to the next tier of spells at the same time as other classes, ensuring they are always on the power curve.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Adding spells to the classes at different spell levels for each class was an awkward mechanic and not restricted to bards. It was a method of giving bards spells from a higher band at roughly the same time, however.

A bard or wizard would cast charm monster at 7th level and the difference was 5% of the rolls made for the bard spell would be saved that the wizard spell would fail, and 95% of the time it was the same effect at the same level.

I would also point out that sorcerers also had delayed spell levels.

Bard save DCs are not weakened by lower spell levels (a problem in 3e). Bard spell DCs are as good as anyone else.

The power curve from the next tier of spells is not looking at the big picture. 3.5 bards used songs to a greater extent as additional magical power than 5e bards use inspiration dice. All classes have differences, however, such as giving wizards access to better cantrip use and rituals and more hit points and hit dice healing when looking at 3.5 wizards. And things that are not as good.

What's important to keep in mind is that a comparison between 3.x bards and 5e bards isn't relevant to comparing bards and wizards. 3.5 bards get compared to 3.5 wizards while 5e bards get compared to 5e wizards. The point I was bringing up was that bards were grouped with full casters in the mechanics even if they were not always quite as good.

Getting to the DC's, 1e and 2e used a different DC mechanic so that wasn't true in those editions and it's wasn't true in 4e. 5e being the same as other casters matches most editions. 3.5 is a bit misleading because the DC being based on spell level was a thing, but the majority of spells would have had the exact same DC from spell levels 1 thru 6, and fascinate was based on a CHA skill. At 1st level using average dice on rolling gave a 1st level spell a 13 DC and pushing 18 in a point buy maxed that at 15 DC. Fascinate at 1st level used a perform check for a range from 7 (min roll 1 + 4 ranks +2 ability score) to 26 (max roll 20 +4 ranks +2 ability score) with an average of 16 DC. Add 2 to each of those pushing CHA on point buy.

By 20th level a 9th level spell would be 19 DC plus modifiers and fascinate would range from 24 DC to 43 DC (plus bonuses) with an average of 33 DC plus bonuses.

Other SLA's (spell-like abilities) such as suggestion used a class level mechanic of 10 + 1/2 class level plus ability score. Suggestion started at 13 DC + CHA mod and ended at 20 DC plus CHA mod.

Only a few higher level spell level slots beat the bard spell level slots where the spell levels 1-6 were the same, song SLA's were similar DC's to the higher level slots, and fascinate DC's blew wizard DC's away. And then I could just use sublime chord to also have up to 9th level spells and invalidate the DC argument even more. The difference was clerics, druids, sorcerers, and wizards had a better variety of spells at those high DC's, not that the DC's weren't there. Song SLA's (spell-like abilities) were higher DC's than spell DC's.

Bards have a full caster level "equivalent", in some iterations bards have had more limited caster levels.

That's misleading.

The original bard used weapons like a fighter but had some armor restrictions, attacked and saved as a cleric, had a similarity to the original clerics in not getting spells until 2nd level but used MU spells, had thief skills at 1/2 level, and had innate charm and lore abilities. Caster level was unaffected and they cast spells at the class level like other spell casters.

In 1e there were two (optional) versions of bards. The PHB appendix bard had caster level restriction of 12th level and later 13th level but that's based on the druid having a max 14th class level that required fighting from the limited pool of higher level druids at 12th level.

The other optional version was the dragon magazine bard. That bard used fighter attack progression but did not gain multiple attacks, a combined saving throw table for clerics and wizards, and also started casting spells at 2nd level like the original bards and clerics. This bard cast druid spells at 1 level below their bard class level. This bard also cast illusionist spells at 3 levels below bard class level. That made for a unique situation where the bard would end up casting druid spells at a higher caster level than druids (because of XP advancement and fight club rules) and lower level than illusionist.

Paladins and rangers had odd restrictions because RAW they started casting spells at the caster level they got the spells and that was recommended to be house-ruled to a level subtraction from Dragon Magazine but was not errata'd. It led to 1e rangers and paladins casting spells at a higher caster level than druids or bards until Unearthed Arcana increased the maximum class level for druids and the Dragon Magazine remake of the bard came out. At that point paladins capped at 20th caster level and rangers capped at 17th caster level while appendix bards capped at 13th caster level and DrgMag bards only took the tiny level restriction. Regardless of the bard being used, bards had more spell slots than paladins and rangers combined.

2e bards continued to wait until 2nd level for spells but they used a spell book and followed the rules for wizards when it came to spell casting. Paladins and rangers had the house-rule for caster level made official and started casting as a 1st level caster when they received spells, then capped out at 9th level casters.

A key point here is bards used full caster level but they used rogue experience advancement and had bonuses for everything. That lead to being 1-2 levels above other spell casters and the caster level rules had bards casting spells at a higher caster level because of the experience rules. For example, bards hit 3rd level when wizards hit 2nd level.

In both editions, rangers started gaining spells at 8th level and paladins started gaining spells at 9th level. In 2e bards wrecked on caster level, had more slots than paladins and rangers combined, and still cast spell levels up to a similar level as clerics and druids.

3rd edition bards are the odd exception, not the typical example. 1e, 2e, 4e, and now 5e bards were/are very close to clerics and druids in spellcasting (realistically the high WIS req for 6th and 7th level spells in the first two editions limited clerics and druids to 5th-level spells unless lucky rolling or DM facilitation occured). 3e was an attempt to split spells and songs apart but still made for a spell caster as I pointed out.

Keeping on point for caster level, bards in 3.x used the class level for the caster level, just like clerics, druids, sorcerers, and wizards. 0-level spells were added to the system and bard were spellcasters with a caster level right from 1st level, relying on cantrips and songs at that level. Spell progression was slower but spell + song progression is the point on the split system.

In 3e, bards had no caster level restrictions. Paladins and rangers cast spells as if they were one-half their level.

The image above demonstrates the 3.5 casting classes. I added wildshape for the druid, songs for the bard, and specialization for the wizard. I gave a bonus slot for spell levels 1-4 for an assumed casting stat and a bonus spell slot for level 1-2 for rangers and paladins based on more of a martial focus. Feats and ASI's might alter those a bit but it's a good representation. There's an argument for LOH's value added to the paladin but it's still not going to reach the bard's level of magical abilities.

That's also without subclass bonuses.

Number of magical actions were easily far closer to other spellcasters than to what we consider half-casters now, caster level was equal to the other caster levels instead of the half-casters, and the DC's were a lot more similar to the other spell casters instead of the half-casters. If we build a new system and we're making an easy multiclassing approve for the spell tables then we have a choice for grouping the bard one way or the other. The bard clearly groups with the full casters even looking at 3e, the only edition where all other major spell casters had those higher level spell slots.

Bards fit in to that higher grouping in all editions. The only caster level restrictions were from an edition where they were options outside of the core classes and that changed with the first edition in which they were included with that group.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have generalist in my job title and when people ask me what I do I sometimes jokingly tell them, "I do a little bit of everything but I'm not really good at any of it." But while I'm expected to have a broad breadth of skills in my job role, I concentrate more on compliance and contracts than anything else.


That's where I am and a few months ago I started a thread stating that all PCs should be good at talking to NPCs. My idea wasn't that you couldn't have a Face in the group, only that we're playing an RPG and every player should be encouraged and incentivized to participate in social interactions even if that isn't their main forte because it's a big part of the game.

In the past I've found that D&D characters are so specialized that it discouraged players from participating in the game if they felt like the scene was outside of their lane. I can't count the number of times I've seen social encounters played out with one player doing all the talking because the other players didn't make "social" characters. I feel as though 5th edition with its Backgrounds afford players an opportunity to broaden their characters a bit more than in 3rd edition at least.

In most other games, I encourage players to find a niche for their character but I also encourage them to be good at other things as well. In Savage Worlds, I tell them they're going to get into a fight at some point during the campaign so it's a good idea to put some points into skills that'll help you with that. It's good to be cross trained in case you're not all together for a scene.

I've designed characters that were JOATs because they're fun to play for two reasons: I'm able to meaningfully participate in a wide variety of scenes. And even if I'm not the super star I am often able to provide a supporting role to another PC and that's fun too.

The thing is, the rules encourage you to specialize, and the assumed playstyle does as well. The DM and the players have to make a real effort to make a JOAT character feel equal to the rest of the party. Ultimately, it's a system issue.