Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9511295" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Unfortunately, the big problem that the "jack of all trades" runs into with 3e-/5e-style game design is that "somewhat less focused" = mostly sucks. I wish that weren't the case, but it is. Bards in 3.x work alright at E6 levels, maybe up to 7 or 8 at extremity, but beyond that? The chunkiness of class features just doesn't let it work.A 2/3 caster falls behind by a spell level every three. So when the Wizard is getting fireball...and fireball is a worthwhile spell for the Wizard to cast...the 2/3 Bard is still stuck using 2nd level spells. But something that incremental can't be compensated by just getting all the strong features a Fighter would have, because then you're as good as a Fighter but also having double the spellcasting an Eldritch Knight would have. You're just stuck. With the way this game design style works, this effect compounds. Top-level 2/3rds Bards are just getting access to true seeing and mass suggestion (both things full-caster Wizards have been able to cast for six entire levels!) when Wizards are getting access to wish and time stop. And conversely, Fighters are narrowing in on four attacks per round (or two attacks + damage bonus feature, for Fighter-alikes like Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian), while the Bard at best (as in, with a fighting subclass) languishes in 2 attacks with no other bonuses because any more bonuses would make them as good as an actual melee-focused class.The lesson 3e taught us with Bards was that they have to be focused on something. They can augment that focus with breadth or depth, but they need to have something they're actually, directly good at all on its own. It's not that "jack of all trades" is a problem: it's that the "trades" only have two modes, too weak to carry a character, and too strong to be paired up with the other parts. In theory, the unique or semi-unique Bard features like Bardic Inspiration, Song of Rest, and Expertise should  make up the gap....but they just don't. And, frankly, if they did make up the gap, people would complain that these features were either stupidly overpowered, or "mandatory" because of how dramatic an effect they have.I mean, it produces exactly what you're asking for. A class that gets a taste of Fighter and some additional skill/combat bonuses (via Rogue) and only 2/3 casting progression. It's just that that package, in 5e design, is simply Not Very Good, and even if you recompiled this into a single class, it wouldn't get meaningfully better.The only way I could see any of this working is if you make it so the subclasses actually do make you comparable to a (minimal, hard-to-optimize) baseline character class that IS focused on that. Effectively, your subclass is multiclassing without multiclassing: the Valor Bard is a minimal, stripped-down, unoptimized but still functional, Sword-and-Board Fighter with 2/3rds casting; the Lore Bard is a minimal, stripped-down, unoptimized but still functional, Wizard with no subclass features (because it actually boosts you to full spellcasting); the Dance Bard is a minimal, stripped-down, unoptimized but still functional, Monk with 2/3rds casting; etc. And even that sounds like it would be absolute hell to balance because 2/3rds casting is a huge power boost relative to even a subclass-free Monk or Fighter, even if you strip out most of their class features.</blockquote>

Verification