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

[tuxgeo]

< snip >
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.

[Emphasis added.]

Kind of off-topic, but:
I'm interested in learning more about this breakout potential that you mention. Could you give a fuller explication of this (perhaps in another thread); or could you point to where you had already posted such information?

 

[Halivar]

[Emphasis added.]

Kind of off-topic, but:
I'm interested in learning more about this breakout potential that you mention. Could you give a fuller explication of this (perhaps in another thread); or could you point to where you had already posted such information?

If I was an RPG designer, I might be able to tell you in detail. Alas, as a layperson, all I have are my personal feelings, but I'll try my best.

I suspect (but am not married to the idea) that a breakout moment is that point in the game where your character, by virtue of who he/she is (expressed in D&D in its purest mechanical form as their class) has a moment to be THE (and the only possible) pivotal actor in a conflict; where the other players at the table say "thank god you were here; whatever would we do without you?"

Currently, if you play a bard, you get these opportunities if and only if you are missing one of the following:

• an arcane spellcaster
• a fighter of at least middling skill
• a rogue

Bonuses to attacks or saves are nice, but they do not make pivotal actors. They make contributory actors. The guy swinging the sword, casting the fireball, and disarming the trap are pivotal actors. Clerics are pivotal because of their sheer necessity; nothing about a bard is necessary.

What encourages me about the 5E bard is that with the full proficiency bonus with the full spellcasting chart, the bard feels more like a full adventuring peer and not the second-string back-up.

 

[Remathilis]

I think I'd agree more about the bard being a 1/2 or 2/3 caster if the FRICKING CLERIC AND DRUID weren't standing right there!

A cleric gets decent weapons and armor, d8 HD, domain powers, and 9 levels of spells full of healing, attack, divination, and buffs.

A druid gets decent weapons and armor, d8 HD, wild shape, and 9 levels of spells full of healing, attack, summoning, and buffs.

Therefore, A bard should get decent weapons and armor, d8 HD, bardic inspiration, and 9 levels of spells full of healing, charms, divination, and buffs.

Else, the cleric should get d6 HD with poor weapons/armor and the bard and druid get only 6 spell levels. But I seriously doubt that is going to happen.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And the wise-a@& comment was supposed to achieve what again?

Beats me. You didn't care about my opinion to include it as an option for the poll, so why I should I care whether you think my comment was supposed to achieve something?

 

[n00bdragon]

The bard has never been a primary spellcaster.

Also, I don't want a bard who needs to be built using spell selections. That's too much like 4th edition to me.

I don't want a bard who needs to be built around hitting things with a sharp object. That's too much like 3rd edition to me.

 

[theredrobedwizard]

The best version of the Bard was the Sublime Chord in 3.5; full 9 levels of spellcasting plus buffing. Diminished fighting capacity was a small price to pay to be the most interesting music man alive.

 

[Mistwell]

So now instead of picking powers like in 4th edition, we just pick spells.

You keep repeating this as if it is true, and when people correct you on it you ignore it and then repeat it again.

These classes ALWAYS HAD SPELLS in prior editions. There is nothing new in the Bard having spells.

Nobody ever thought of them the way you're describing it - as if it is powers. Powers implies something different than spells. Everyone knows what a spell is, but power is a far broader and vaguer category, and more common to super-hero games than fantasy games.

So, if you disagree (and you appear to disagree), then SHOW ME WHICH CLASS NOW HAS SPELLS, THAT DID NOT HAVE SPELLS BEFORE. Until you can do that, your objection doesn't seem to have any substance. It's like you complaining that the glass of orange juice has orange juice in it. Yes, the bard has spells in it. And?

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?

While I don't like the bard being a full caster myself, the answer to this is pretty obvious: multiclass. Same thing you do if you want a wizard that has fewer spells and fights really well.

You seem to be attempting to use a general objection to bards being full spellcasters, and attempting to warp it (repeatedly) into some comparison to 4e powers. It's a vacuous claim that you have yet to even attempt to support aside from simply asserting it.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I don't want a bard who needs to be built around hitting things with a sharp object. That's too much like 3rd edition to me.

Sorry but you need to go a long way further back than 3rd edition I'm afraid. The idea of a bard being a primary spellcaster is something new.

If you go back to 1st edition, before you could be a bard you first had to be a fighter, then take levels in rogue, then finally around 9th level they can study as a druid to finally become a bard who would eventually gain access to 5th level spells.

Bards have always been just a blend of fighter, rogue, and caster. They have never been primary in either one. In 2nd edition they get up to 6th level spells and you don't get your first one until 16th level. You can use all weapons, wear up to chain mail but no shield, identify items, use bardic abilities, have rogue abilities, counter spells, read languages, influence NPCs, use magical devices, and know a little bit of everything.

Most of the same in 3rd edition. They were skill monkeys who could fight well, use their bardic abilities, and cast up to 6th level spells which they didn't get access to until 17th level.

What you want is something outside the norm of the class.

 

[Argyle King]

The best version of the Bard was the Sublime Chord in 3.5; full 9 levels of spellcasting plus buffing. Diminished fighting capacity was a small price to pay to be the most interesting music man alive.

No way.... Seeker of The Song for the win.


Also, I'd dare argue that the 3rd Edition Bard has the potential to be a very powerful class if you know what you're doing; it's one of the few classes I feel Pathfinder made worse. Likewise, the 4th Edition Bard performed rather well.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

You keep repeating this as if it is true, and when people correct you on it you ignore it and then repeat it again.

These classes ALWAYS HAD SPELLS in prior editions. There is nothing new in the Bard having spells.

Nobody ever thought of them the way you're describing it - as if it is powers. Powers implies something different than spells. Everyone knows what a spell is, but power is a far broader and vaguer category, and more common to super-hero games than fantasy games.

So, if you disagree (and you appear to disagree), then SHOW ME WHICH CLASS NOW HAS SPELLS, THAT DID NOT HAVE SPELLS BEFORE. Until you can do that, your objection doesn't seem to have any substance. It's like you complaining that the glass of orange juice has orange juice in it. Yes, the bard has spells in it. And?



While I don't like the bard being a full caster myself, the answer to this is pretty obvious: multiclass. Same thing you do if you want a wizard that has fewer spells and fights really well.

You seem to be attempting to use a general objection to bards being full spellcasters, and attempting to warp it (repeatedly) into some comparison to 4e powers. It's a vacuous claim that you have yet to even attempt to support aside from simply asserting it.

You can only correct someone when what you have is factual information which you don't possess.

I find it funny when people use those lines like somehow you and these other people have all this information that the rest of us don't have and you strut around like it's 100% right.

You have no more of a clue as to what is going to happen any more than I do so please stop acting like you are the information center for all things D&D. I am telling you what "I" see.