D&D 5E Bard exists, now make YOUR Bard. (+)

[Blue]

Everything is as it is now, and the Bard class exists. You are inspired/tasked/challenged/hired to make what you envision a bard to be, though with your own name. It doesn't (and shouldn't) overlap too heavily with the existing Bard, but by the flip side of the same token, that means you don't need to cover any gaps removing the current Bard class would leave.

What would you do? Casting, or maybe completely non-magical. Doesn't have to fill the same role, but what does it cover?

I know there's lots of good fun making fun of the bard, and some who seriously don't like the concept. I'm asking for this to be a + thread, please help the concept grow. If you hate bards but think that it should be a Musician subclass under Rogue to cover it all, hey that's adding.

So, what are your ideas?

 

[Minigiant]

Medieval "Pro Wrestler/Celeb/All Star athlete/A-lister" Class

• Half caster
• Powered by truename. You are awesome. Your name is attached to awesomeness
• Default no casting stat
• Gets expertise
• Subclasses chooses a style and a caster stat
  • Powerhouse: Strength based. Focuses on buffing attacks and melee attacks
  • Speedster: Dexterity based. Focuses on movement and quickness
  • Hardcore: Constitution based. Focuses on toughness and violence
  • Technician: Intelligence based. Focus on control
  • Cultist: Wisdom based. Focuses on healing and revival
  • Showman: Charisma based. Focuses on Vicious Mockery
• Gets a theme song, nickname, or logo that boosts you when used
• Can create of learn the theme song, nickname, or logo for the party
• Can haggle for better prices

 

[W'rkncacnter]

an alternate bard as a half-caster whose main gimmick is using their performances to manipulate range/target limits on spells. so yeah, that bard isn't getting third level spells until like, 9th level, but they effectively have mass cure wounds at 1st.

admittedly i don't have too much for it beyond that, but the idea is that the bard should be able to affect a wide swath of creatures at once - field musicians, basically. the half-caster aspect is to balance being able to hit so many creatures at once with what would normally be single target spells. would it broken? i don't know, maybe. would it be cool? i don't know, probably.

 

[Minigiant]

an alternate bard as a half-caster whose main gimmick is using their performances to manipulate range/target limits on spells. so yeah, that bard isn't getting third level spells until like, 9th level, but they effectively have mass cure wounds at 1st.

admittedly i don't have too much for it beyond that, but the idea is that the bard should be able to affect a wide swath of creatures at once - field musicians, basically. the half-caster aspect is to balance being able to hit so many creatures at once with what would normally be single target spells. would it broken? i don't know, maybe. would it be cool? i don't know, probably.

So like a Sorcerer but cheaper metamagic on your spells and the spells of others?

 

[Zardnaar]

5E bards a great class poor bard. It's more like a 3.5 beguiler

I liked the 3.5 one wrong edition though.

My bard would be a mix of them I suppose.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

5E bards a great class poor bard. It's more like a 3.5 beguiler

I liked the 3.5 one wrong edition though.

My bard would be a mix of them I suppose.

I think the 3e bard was rather terrible. Not because of the way spells worked. Being able to only use lower level spells was a heavy penalty as DC was set by spell level. Also they were very mad.

AD&D 2e bards were way better in that regard as they were in a way less MAD (as there was not such a preassure to have high stats), and had a more favourable xp table and a lot of waya to get extra experience.

I can however get behind a bard class that is the arcane half caster in 5e. There is less pressure for higher level spells as low level spells (especially those of the traditional bard schools) in 5e are quite powerful.

If that was really compensated by having more warlordy (battlemaster fighter) and roguish staff, I could get behind it.

 

[Minigiant]

I think the 3e bard was rather terrible. Not because of the way spells worked. Being able to only use lower level spells was a heavy penalty as DC was set by spell level. Also they were very mad.

AD&D 2e bards were way better in that regard as they were in a way less MAD (as there was not such a preassure to have high stats), and had a more favourable xp table and a lot of waya to get extra experience.

I can however get behind a bard class that is the arcane half caster in 5e. There is less pressure for higher level spells as low level spells (especially those of the traditional bard schools) in 5e are quite powerful.

If that was really compensated by having more warlordy (battlemaster fighter) and roguish staff, I could get behind it.

The 3e bard was bad because few spells were made for it specifically.
Many were just spells made for other classes.
Mostly wizard.

Bard spells should have used skill checks not saves.
Cast a spell and get a +X bonus to your next Y check. You can do Z with your next Y check.

5e has less of this problem but still needs more bard specific spells.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think the 3e bard was rather terrible. Not because of the way spells worked. Being able to only use lower level spells was a heavy penalty as DC was set by spell level. Also they were very mad.

AD&D 2e bards were way better in that regard as they were in a way less MAD (as there was not such a preassure to have high stats), and had a more favourable xp table and a lot of waya to get extra experience.

I can however get behind a bard class that is the arcane half caster in 5e. There is less pressure for higher level spells as low level spells (especially those of the traditional bard schools) in 5e are quite powerful.

If that was really compensated by having more warlordy (battlemaster fighter) and roguish staff, I could get behind it.

I didn't care about spell use that much. We had one giving the party +8 to hit and damage. Could have been +16 missed some things.

Spell DC would use 5E. That's what I meant I think the 3.5 was a good bard wrong edition.

The 2E bards the most powerful bard due to way xp worked in that edition.

 

[CreamCloud0]

INT half-caster but with access to learn all rituals
minimal inherent spell list but way more magical secrets, wide but not deep versatility of casting is primary appeal
has bardic inspiration and auras similar to paladin, can perform bonus action help action at range
expertise between knowledge and social skills, can identify monsters in battle

this isn't super different from the current bard in concepts but differs greatly in focus of execution

 

[Ancalagon]

It really bothers me that the bard is a full caster.

In a game of mine, one player wanted to play "a bard" - but I knew their understanding of the game was limited, so we had a discussion of what they wanted - they certainly didn't want a full caster...

so they ended up playing an arcane trickster with the entertainer background

Another good "bard" is a warlock with the entertainer background. They made a deal with the devil to master the fiddle