D&D 5E Bard as a subclass

I want the bard to be

  • a class with a bunch of entertainer types under it

    Votes: 41 70.7%
  • a subclass of a greater arcane gish type class

    Votes: 17 29.3%

My litmus, which I don't expect WotC to follow, is: for something to be a class, it needs to have its own mechanical identity.

So, if they have something interesting going on under the hood, be it variant spellcasting or bardic performance, they should be their own class. If they're just some skill training or a very narrow power, they could be a subclass, background, or even a feat.

I think it'd be selling the bard short to not give them an interesting mechanic, though. Hopefully it won't be something quite as tracking-intensive as 3/Pathfinder bardic music, but a bard class with a bunch of performance types as subclasses seems like an easy fit.

Cheers!
Kinak
 

log in or register to remove this ad

In 2e, I believe the thief and bard were the classes in the rogue category.

Technically, yes. They shared some traits but they were about as different as subclasses could get. A ranger could fill in for a fighter in melee, a specialist could do a mage's job, a druid was a serviceable cleric replacement, but a bard couldn't do a thieve's job worth spit.

Keep 'em separated.
 


Technically, yes. They shared some traits but they were about as different as subclasses could get. A ranger could fill in for a fighter in melee, a specialist could do a mage's job, a druid was a serviceable cleric replacement, but a bard couldn't do a thieve's job worth spit.
I'd argue a 2e bard could do the thief's job probably at least as well as the druid could do the cleric's job (which was not very well; 4e was the only version of D&D where any non-cleric was remotely viable as primary healer despite being the edition where it was easiest to go without a healer at all) -- though they mostly did it the same way the wizard could do the thief's job (by using spells instead of abilities).
 

Technically, yes. They shared some traits but they were about as different as subclasses could get. A ranger could fill in for a fighter in melee, a specialist could do a mage's job, a druid was a serviceable cleric replacement, but a bard couldn't do a thieve's job worth spit.

Keep 'em separated.

A bard could fill in for a social rogue. Sure, there were no social rogues in 2E, that came with 3E, but still. :D

To me bard is more a subclass of cleric and/or rogue than a gish class. [MENTION=6700362]Pathfinder[/MENTION] has both a gish (Magus) and bard class, and they are quite distinctly different.

I do agree that Gish could be its own class, tough, with subclasses leaning towards rogue, fighter, ranger, etc. I just don't feel the bard fits under that umbrella. And if Meals has said that Gish fits under fighter, I can live with that... Then the bard is the rogue's answer to the gish, the mystic theurge is the cleric's answer to... And so on.
 




I meant to use warrior in its most general sense "guy who fights with weapons" which could be a rogue type or a fighter type.
That seems an overgeneralization though. I mean, a rogue is more of a skill guy first, backstab guy second. But particularly with regards to the bard, who may or may not even use weapons in any significant way.
 

Bard could just be a casting methodology, like at-will, vancian, and power points. In this it would be using bard songs and music/dance. Then you could attach it to any caster. This would be my preferred way of handling the bard.

Then:
cleric is to paladin like
druid is to ranger like
mage is to ???

apply this bard casting methodology to the any of the classes and you have a bard caster, I think this maximizes the potential of the bard.

Also how do backgrounds play into the bard. They have a minstrel and jester background. I would also like to see the various listings of entertainers listed as a background not a subclass...
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top