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

[Aldarc]

He was also, explicitly, a poet, charmer/influencer, and trickster... Besides, imo, the case is easily made for a "Warlord" as a subclass of bard (e.g. the Bard who leans warrior-leader...vs. a Skald subclass who would be more "bard who leans into barbarian/warrior-in-the-field.")

He was explicitly many things. And the case is easily made that Odysseus is a Warlord. Have a nice day.

 

[steeldragons]

As for the "half-caster" question, above... For me, it is a combination of two things. One is flavor/concept for the class. One is simple meta-game design space.

One: Bard's started out as part druid, and should never have been made wizard/arcane casters. They got spells as druids, but that was after many (somewhere in the neighborhood of minimum 10-12, from what I remember) levels of something else. Making magic/being able to work magic or have magical knowledge is definitely a PART of the Bard. But it is not -and should never have been set up as- the primary part.

The second is, just, since WotC went that direction (of having the Bard be all Arcane-focused), it was an obvious missed opportunity, and asymmetrical in a game with FAR too many "full casters," where you have the: Cleric and half-(divine)caster warrior Paladin; the Druid and half-(nature)caster warrior Ranger (which, don't get me started on 5e's spell-slinging rangers); there was a BLATANT opening for there to be the Wizard(or Sorcerer) and the half-(arcane)caster warrior Bard. THEN, Bard could have been morphed into some combo/subclass of the greatest missed class opening for all of D&D's history - the fighter/mage combo-class... And they somehow missed (or ignored) it.

And for a third, as others have said, the Bard is really what is supposed to be the ultimate 'support" class. Need help fighting? Look to the Bard. Need help skulking/picking locks or pockets? Look to the Bard. Need help talking your way out of some trouble or negotiating a contract? Look to the Bard. Need some (emergency/little bit) healing? Look to the Bard. Need a spell? Decipher some hieroglyphs? Identify some magic item? A little bit of luck? A "Hail, Mary!"? Bard. Bard. Bard. In a pinch, the Bard can help do just about ANYthing that a party would need in a life of adventure. Can't do anything the BEST! Can't "out-fight" the fighter or "out-stealth" the thief or "out-heal" the cleric...A wizard is "the best" at magic/casting spells. The Bard , really, can not/should not be "as good as" a wizard at arcane magic.

So, far as I'm concerned, half-caster is the BEST at spellcasting a Bard should hope to have. The class has plenty of other magical powers, mundane tricks, myriad skills, oh yeah, and there's still weapons to use when a bard's player is looking for something to do on their turn. "Full casting" has no reason to be in a Bard's very-well-packed quiver.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So, a question:

For those of you who included 'half caster'... why?

Historically, I've found half casters to be a consistent disappointment; never getting enough other options to make the loss of the top three spell levels worth it, and the progression gets screwed up because the spells rarely have their levels adjusted so you get them at the level where they're useful. I remember my 3x bards always getting hold or dominate monster months after the wizard was able to get them.

The thing here is there was a huge difference between the bard in 3.0 and 3.5. You might remember what you say - but the 3.5 bard treated Hold Person as a second level spell which they got at level 4, while wizards treated it as a third level spell (therefore at level 5). As for dominate person, bards got it as a 4th level spell at level 10 - or at the same time sorcerers do. (The fact the 3.5 sorcerer was junk compared to the wizard is a whole different can of worms).

The 3.0 bard needed a glow-up as much as the 3.0 ranger or monk. In 3.5 the bard and ranger actually got it. So I'm wondering which you are comparing to.

 

[Neonchameleon]

He was also, explicitly, a poet, charmer/influencer, and trickster... Besides, imo, the case is easily made for a "Warlord" as a subclass of bard (e.g. the Bard who leans warrior-leader...vs. a Skald subclass who would be more "bard who leans into barbarian/warrior-in-the-field.")

The case is easily made for a warlord as a subclass of bard if and only if we drop Vancian casting. Meanwhile the case is easily made for Skald being a subclass of warlord.

 

[steeldragons]

The case is easily made for a warlord as a subclass of bard if and only if we drop Vancian casting. Meanwhile the case is easily made for Skald being a subclass of warlord.

I'm fine with that.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Honestly one of my biggest disappointments in D&D has always been how the magic is a weird combination of highly specific and bland and generic. Everything is measured in spell slots and levels, with VSM components (even if M is now deprecated in favour of Focus). If it was actually generic (the way 4e spells frequently were thanks to AEDU) you could add whatever flavour you wanted. But when you have spell slots, spell levels, and VSM, you are also being highly specific.

This works pretty well for wizards; I can absolutely believe wizards measure magic in spell slots and spell levels with arcane rules about how many spells of which level per day. It's the sort of thing I'd expect wizards to do. But it feels a lot worse to me when every other type of caster is bound by what feels like wizardly rules (clerics are just Different Wizards here). This is one of the reasons why the warlock is my favourite 5e class, and why I think 5e has far the best take on psionics (they aren't just wizards with the serial numbers filed off).

So what do I want for bards ideally? Their own magic. I'd like bardic magic to somehow be more about flow and about ramping up to crescendos. And flexible round illusions and enchantments but able to do more. And whose magic reflects who they are performing to/with. I don't know if something like the 13th Age Bard is ideal - but it's closer to what I want than either a full or a half casting bard.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The thing here is there was a huge difference between the bard in 3.0 and 3.5. You might remember what you say - but the 3.5 bard treated Hold Person as a second level spell which they got at level 4, while wizards treated it as a third level spell (therefore at level 5). As for dominate person, bards got it as a 4th level spell at level 10 - or at the same time sorcerers do. (The fact the 3.5 sorcerer was junk compared to the wizard is a whole different can of worms).

The 3.0 bard needed a glow-up as much as the 3.0 ranger or monk. In 3.5 the bard and ranger actually got it. So I'm wondering which you are comparing to.

The flaw basically was that spell saving throws were also dependent on spell level in 3E, so even though you could get these spells possibly even earlier, they weren't as likely to stick. And particular enchantments tend to be "save or suck" spells. You don't get a consolation prize like for a Fireball (at least it's half damage).