D&D 5E Are you happy with the Bard being a full spellcaster?

[Mistwell]

Well let me think........

Maybe the people who actually care about the bard.

You can't care about the bard and simultaneously not care if their spellcasting is full or not?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

You can't care about the bard and simultaneously not care if their spellcasting is full or not?

Emmmmmm no.

Most of the people who say they don't care don't care about the bard anyway, they said so themselves.

Also, I did not create a thread just so people could post they don't care. If you don't care then you don't care. We don't need to know you don't care.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I hope we aren't getting 4th editions class replacement system where the Bard can do the job or the Cleric or Druid. I don't want all Bards to have a healing word. I don't mind an option for it but I want a bard that can specialize in multiple areas.

Isn't that why spells are perfect for the Bard? Because there quite enough spells at each level that you won't have to take Healing Word? If you don't want a healer Bard... you just don't take any healing spells.

Look at the opposite idea right now with the druid. As it stands, all druids cast spells *and* all druids wildshape. They are hardwired into the class features. If you want a druid that doesn't wildshape, you're technically out of luck. Your druid can wildshape even if you choose never to use it.

But with spells... you pick and choose what kind of bard you are. If you want a bard that doesn't heal? No problem. Strictly an illusionist bard? Take those one or two spells known, and as far as anyone else is concerned... any enchantment or healing doesn't exist. That's what the spell mechanic grants a class... a much wider range of options for class abilities. You can be healing-focused, or enchantment focused, or animal focused, or illusion focused, or spells that help you in melee focused etc.

 

[DEFCON 1]

We don't need to know you don't care.

Well, technically we don't need to know that you do care either. Knowing that you care isn't going to change anything.

 

[Mistwell]

Emmmmmm no.

Most of the people who say they don't care don't care about the bard anyway, they said so themselves.

Also, I did not create a thread just so people could post they don't care. If you don't care then you don't care. We don't need to know you don't care.

You can in fact care about the bard but not particularly care if they are full casters in terms of spellcasting slots.

And you're incorrect that all the people who don't care said they don't care about the bard. In fact, only one single person said that, and then he retracted it in his edit.

Instead people tried to mention the issue of spellcasting slots being different from quantity of spells known and knowable by the bard. Which is a relevant distinction, worth discussing, and which could well be what people care about while they don't care about the number of total slots much. A lot of others said they have insufficient data to draw a conclusion.

So, you should want to know if you're hitting on the key issue, by asking people if they think this is the important aspect of the bard change. Hence, people will continue to tell you if they don't care about this change, and what they do care about, even though you don't seem to care what they think. Which, as DEFCON1 mentioned, is something we didn't need to know from you either, that you don't care. We didn't post to this thread to hear you say you don't care about our opinion on the topic you created, any more than you don't care that we have an opinion that doesn't fit neatly into your poll options

 

[Halivar]

Still very dissatisfied with the bard.

Mechanically it has always been a support class. This runs completely counter to its expressed theme in every edition. The bard in the PHB pictures and the bard in actual play might as well be from different classes.

As it just so happens, I like neither its expressed thematic concept (the swashbuckling debonair) nor its actual mechanical design (the buff-caster).

I want the bard out of the support role and into the role I believe it was designed in its original inception: a retired fighter with new-found knowledge into the deepest mysteries of druidism. Not a dabbler, mind you, but one who has been initiated in full. I'm talking about Taliesin or Myrddin Emrys. They aren't charismatic rogues.

I'm tired of the buff-dispenser concept with the thinnest thematic veneer of swashbuckling ne'er-do-well we've seen for the last three editions. Whether it has full or half casting is irrelevant; if it continues to be a pure support class with no actual breakout potential then it will continue to have no traction with me or my players.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Isn't that why spells are perfect for the Bard? Because there quite enough spells at each level that you won't have to take Healing Word? If you don't want a healer Bard... you just don't take any healing spells.

Look at the opposite idea right now with the druid. As it stands, all druids cast spells *and* all druids wildshape. They are hardwired into the class features. If you want a druid that doesn't wildshape, you're technically out of luck. Your druid can wildshape even if you choose never to use it.

But with spells... you pick and choose what kind of bard you are. If you want a bard that doesn't heal? No problem. Strictly an illusionist bard? Take those one or two spells known, and as far as anyone else is concerned... any enchantment or healing doesn't exist. That's what the spell mechanic grants a class... a much wider range of options for class abilities. You can be healing-focused, or enchantment focused, or animal focused, or illusion focused, or spells that help you in melee focused etc.

So now instead of picking powers like in 4th edition, we just pick spells. That used to be how wizards worked. If you wanted an ice mage you just chose all ice and water type spells. What happens if I want a bard that only has a few spell type abilities and fights really well?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Well, technically we don't need to know that you do care either. Knowing that you care isn't going to change anything.

And the censored comment was supposed to achieve what again?

And the going around the language filter was supposed to achieve what again? Just don't. - Lwaxy

 

[Remathilis]

So now instead of picking powers like in 4th edition, we just pick spells. That used to be how wizards worked. If you wanted an ice mage you just chose all ice and water type spells. What happens if I want a bard that only has a few spell type abilities and fights really well?

Multiclass into a fighter?

Seriously. Every class has the same proficiency bonus. Bard will probably have d8 HD, and will be able to inspire themselves. What else does a bard need to fight well?

 

[Halivar]

Multiclass into a fighter?

Seriously. Every class has the same proficiency bonus. Bard will probably have d8 HD, and will be able to inspire themselves. What else does a bard need to fight well?

Nothing, so far as I can see. A player can choose to focus on their combat over spellcasting just as a 3.5 druid can.