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

[Mistwell]

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.

Wait, we have bard spells in the playtest right now. We have no reason at all to think they will operate differently than they already operate - they just get more of what they already have. To argue there will be some sort of significant change from the types of spells they already have, you need SOMETHING to indicate that.

You have nothing at all. You seem to be asserting it as fact, and then when someone says "show me" you blow it off like you just did.

If you "see" them being powers, then SHOW ME. Give me the texts of a bunch of existing bard spells, show me how they resemble powers more than they resemble spells from prior editions, and then we will have something to talk about. SUPPORT your claim already.

So far it's like you're saying "Spells are now all about different types of cheeses". And when I say "Show me some spells that talk about types of cheeses" you respond with "You have no more clue than I do, I am telling you what "I" see, and what I see is different types of cheeses". No really, you get your own opinion but not your own facts - if the spells mention different cheeses, then you can mention which spells mention cheeses. If none of the spells actually mention cheeses, then your wrong. You're making a factual assertion when you say they operate more like powers than spells, not one of opinion.

 

[TwoSix]

Honestly, it's not worth arguing about. The books are already written, so nothing is changing at this point. The (obviously non-scientific) poll shows strong support for the change. And continuing to argue about it just makes it look an actual issue, when there's no real issue to be had. So I'm dropping the bard discussion, and will simply continue to be happy that WotC made a good choice on this one.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Wait. What? Bards could fight well in 3e? Without magical backup? Since when? Good grief rogues were more effective in combat than bards. Heck MONKS were a better choice.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

Wait. What? Bards could fight well in 3e? Without magical backup? Since when? Good grief rogues were more effective in combat than bards. Heck MONKS were a better choice.

Arguably. Monks were pretty weaksauce in 3.P.

 

[Zardnaar]

Wait. What? Bards could fight well in 3e? Without magical backup? Since when? Good grief rogues were more effective in combat than bards. Heck MONKS were a better choice.

Bardic archers using rapid shot and music to give themselves +8-+16 to themselves and the entire party were nasty as sin. I had a party of archers and 1 Dwarven Defender and they all used bows+ rapid shot and the bard almost tripled the parties average damage. Bard is a tier 3 class IIRC which makes it better than most of the classes in the game.

 

[Hussar]

Bardic archers using rapid shot and music to give themselves +8-+16 to themselves and the entire party were nasty as sin. I had a party of archers and 1 Dwarven Defender and they all used bows+ rapid shot and the bard almost tripled the parties average damage. Bard is a tier 3 class IIRC which makes it better than most of the classes in the game.

Yeah and how many splat books did you need to cherry pick through for those kinds of bonuses? Also remember we're talking about straight combat power. The point I was responding too called bards a good combatant without resorting to powers.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah and how many splat books did you need to cherry pick through for those kinds of bonuses? Also remember we're talking about straight combat power. The point I was responding too called bards a good combatant without resorting to powers.

I think it was 3 books, 2 spells 1 feat. There were other bard abuses and it was not a weak class.

 

[pemerton]

The bard has never been a primary spellcaster.

Sure, bards weren't up to wizards or clerics

In 4e a bard has better access to rituals than either class (because s/he gets the special bardic rituals as well).

A 4e bard also has magical powers roughly comparable to those of a wizard or cleric, at least in those areas of bardic speciality (illusions, charms, support).

I think DPR is being used too much as a way to judge whether or not a class is worth taking.

What has this got to do with anything? You're the only person who's mentioned DPR on this thread, I think. (Except for the person upthread who said that 3E bards are good because they give lots of damage buffing!)

They were skill monkeys who could fight well

Do you measure "fighting well" by way of DPR, or some other metric?

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?"

I've only seen the 4e bard in play via a sorcerer who is bard multi-class. But he busts out buffing powers that give the other PCs free attacks with big bonuses. They seem to fit your definition of "breakout".

 

[Starfox]

...in 2e ..., bards were one of the weakest classes you could take.

The 2e bard was only weak until you took the differentiated xp tables into account. In the low-middle range (wizard levels 2-9) the bard generally got access to the same spells as the wizard at about the same times the wizard, and had better caster level, hp, ac, to-hit and some thief skills on top. Yes, bard fireballs did more damage that wizard fireballs. It was an odd and class, and might have missed the desired concept, but by no means weak. It was also an illustration of why differentiated xp tables are so misleading.

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

What you're really saying here is that support classes can't be heroes. A valid view, but not a universal one. I know my group appreciated the 3.5/Pathfinder bard, and finds it more powerful than most classes. In the meaning "you can add one more character to the party, what class should he be?". Unless you already have a bard or are lacking any warrior class at all, the answer to that is usually bard.

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.

The pathfinder bard looks weaker on paper. In particular, the spell list is very heavily nerfed, to open viable niches for the alchemist, magus, and summoner. It also lost the ability to have 2 bardic effects running at once until it gets 4th level spells. But versatile performance is a very high-utility ability, making the bard THE skill monkey from around level 7. Yes, more so than the rogue. Top that off with Jack of All Trades. Combined with (arguably improved) bardic knowledge, bardic performance (improved from 3.5 except for the one-performance-only thing) and spells, bard is a very strong class in Pathfinder.

Does this have a bearing on the bard being a full caster in 5E? Considering how skills are no longer a thing in 5E, I suspect the bard will now have many spells that does what it used to do with skills. 9 levels of bard spells are not the same as 9 levels of wizard spells.

 

[Halivar]

What you're really saying here is that support classes can't be heroes. A valid view, but not a universal one. I know my group appreciated the 3.5/Pathfinder bard, and finds it more powerful than most classes. In the meaning "you can add one more character to the party, what class should he be?". Unless you already have a bard or are lacking any warrior class at all, the answer to that is usually bard.

By no means do I think they bring no value to a party; but I think playing a sidekick is a pretty niche interest in our hobby. I would like the class to support a more dynamic range of play styles, such as the cleric, which can play either a support role or a center role depending on build and play.

The proficiency bonus and full-casting of the 5E version I think will bring us there. The traditional support role will still be there if you choose that play style. Meanwhile, those looking to break out of the support role will have their play style facilitated, as well. Hopefully this is a win-win scenario.