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

[Minigiant]

The main advantage the bard had in all editions was that it was the only "decent warrior" with "magic that was not subtle" and could heal.

Basically it was a cleric with better spell effects.

Someone who could cast sleep ​and not be automaticallyslaughter by who doesn't fall asleep.

 

[Starfox]

Speaking from my own experience in [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION]' Pathfinder campaign, now at 10th level, last session we played:

Tumbling into the center of the melee, then using Greater Trip to fell four of the opponents surrounding the raging barbarian, thus providing her with four extra attacks at full rage/power attack power (as she has Combat Reflexes and plenty of Dex), while boosting her to to-hit (and my own trip chance) with Heroism and Inspire Courage makes "sidekick" feel as a very erroneous description. And by then I've given the barbarian one extra attack already on her turn through my Haste, and I provide her with flank bonus.

Actually, this almost sounds like the definition of sidekick to me. And also a pun - you kicked them sideways into the barbarian. But then again, sidekick was never a bad thing in my vocabulary. Those are often the characters that get the interesting plot developments. The main hero is too tough to approach, the sidekick is easier. And to me, to be a sidekick that interacts with the other characters is much better than being a heroic loner.

But I realize expectations differ, and have no problem with that.

 

[Lwaxy]

Don't worry, one of these days you'll get a poll to reflect badly on 5e. Hang in there.

Snark bad. Posters no snark or mods will be unhappy. -Lwaxy