D&D 5E Bards have an identity problem!

[Gadget]

One of the problems with many of the spell casting classes in 5e is the lack of differentiation among spell lists. Sure, you still don't have wizards using healing, and clerics are a lot more support and buff oriented, but with the proliferation of spell casters in 5e, it is hard to make many unique unless spell casting is a lesser part of their class. Paladins and Rangers at least started out with a number of spells unique to their class, and that helped with the paladin a good bit (Rangers less so, for a variety of reasons, but helped make them a little less Druid-lite and Cleric-lite).

Bards are hit harder in this than most classes, since for the first time they are full spell caster able to cast 9th level spell spells. Early spells and cantrips (Vicious Mockery), combined with class features help them feel a bit more unique, but once you get past, say, third level spells, they start feeling an awful lot like wizards with a slightly more restrictive spell spell selection (which is somewhat mitigated by magical secrets).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Plus, that leeches design space from enchanters, illusionists, necromancers, etc., and their 10 subclasses starve classes that actually need subclasses.

Wizard subclasses are so bad. Many of them are thematically very weak and indeed step on the toes of other classes. Enchanting and illusion magic for example to me sound like things that should be the forte of the bards.

 

[Maxperson]

Wizard subclasses are so bad. Many of them are thematically very weak and indeed step on the toes of other classes. Enchanting and illusion magic for example to me sound like things that should be the forte of the bards.

Should we take weapons away from Paladins, Rangers and Rogues? Weapons are the forte of fighters after all. This idea that a class can't do something that another class does is absurd to me. It's okay for Wizards to be able to use illusion and charm magic.

 

[Mort]

1. D&D Bards are based on charisma and wit. They are dabblers. Decent at many things but not experts at many.

The problem is, Bards have been various things through various editions - the big commonality being their magic through music.

5e has settled on Excellent at some skills (Expertise) good at other skills (proficient) and better than many at many skills (Jack of all trades) AND that bards get access to magic through sound (not necessarily music - though that's what it often is). So in a way they are music mages - since that is the source they draw from.

2. D&D bards are based Musical magic.

for 2, Music itself has no magic properties. What is the source of the bards music magic? That’s where I find fault in treating bards as about music magic. There needs to be more elaboration on how his music magic is coming about.

IMO, that's a really odd opinion to hold for a D&D world!
There are all sorts of myths, legends etc. of music having real magical power.
In a world where magic actually exists, why shouldn't music have real power for those that know how to access it?
For example, the Forgotten Realms has the weave, mages access it through arcane writings, symbols etc. Bards access it through music - seems to make perfect sense.

for 1, that’s what I envision as a bard. It doesn’t really mesh well with the concept of someone who is primarily concerned with music magic.

So the 5e bard doesn't have the right identity for for what you envision. That doesn't mean the 5e bard lacks a coherent identity it just means it's not one you like. Which is fine. Personally, I do like the 5e bard as someone who is to an entertainer like a 5e wizard is to a street magician.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Should we take weapons away from Paladins, Rangers and Rogues? Weapons are the forte of fighters after all. This idea that a class can't do something that another class does is absurd to me. It's okay for Wizards to be able to use illusion and charm magic.

I didn't say wizards shouldn't have those spells, I said that they shouldn't have dedicated subclasses themed around such magic.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Bards are also storytellers, so words can take the place of music. The key is entertainment and USUALLY that takes the form of music with a Bard, but not always.

What is the context of your disagreement with RuinExplorer concerning music?

I think there is plenty of room for a bard’s magic to be “musical” (for a sufficiently broad interpretation of music) without bards are being fops strumming a lute during battle.

Just off the top of my head, I would consider Gregorian chanting, a shaman, a fey-like music as a compelling voice, a military drummer, magic brought into effect through dance and Cthulhu-esque discordant notes as non-stereotypical bards that are covered by the bard class.

 

[Maxperson]

What is the context of your disagreement with RuinExplorer concerning music?

He's dismissing music as being a major part of the Bard class. I was pointing out that it's a very large part.

I think there is plenty of room for a bard’s magic to be “musical” (for a sufficiently broad interpretation of music) without bards are being fops strumming a lute during battle.

Just off the top of my head, I would consider Gregorian chanting, a shaman, a fey-like music as a compelling voice, a military drummer, magic brought into effect through dance and Cthulhu-esque discordant notes as non-stereotypical bards that are covered by the bard class.

I agree with most of that. The primary thing that makes a Bard a Bard is telling a story. You can chant the story, speak it, sing it, etc. I wouldn't consider military drumming or the Cthulhu example by themselves to be sufficient. There would need to be a verbal story component going on as well.

 

[Mort]

Just off the top of my head, I would consider Gregorian chanting, a shaman, a fey-like music as a compelling voice, a military drummer, magic brought into effect through dance and Cthulhu-esque discordant notes as non-stereotypical bards that are covered by the bard class.

It would be interesting to have a bard who casts through dance - houserule that no verbal component is required for spells but any spell that requires a verbal component (which for bards is most of them) instead requires the bard to use 5' of movement for somatic components.

 

[Marandahir]

Bards are artists, performers, creatives. They're dabblers in magic, with full spellcasting and a broad range of spells that seem to be drawn from all of the Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and Sorcerer lists, not any one other casters. But while they have access to many different types of spells that they can learn, they have very limited numbers of individual spells known, more akin to that of a Ranger in that sense.

They're also skillmonkeys like a rogue and not entirely useless in melee combat (and the Colleges of Swords, Valour, Whispers, and the Dirgesinger all have melee-benefitting abilities).

They're supporters, beguillers, enchanters, thaumaturgists, musicians, poets, dancers, courtesans, troubadours, artistes, skalds, choir singers, war chanters and war drummers. Music CAN be a major part of the class, but it's not required - performance of some sort, however, is.

Your Bard could be a prima donna ballerina, or a Geiko master of tea ceremonies, dance, song, and traditional arts. Your Bard could also be a 4e-style Warlord, or an itinerant jester travelling with a circus. You could be the 1st Viola in an orchestra ensemble (and thus, despite your expertise, the butt of everyone's jokes). You could be a philosopher-senator in a Greco-Romanesque forum, debating the merits of logos, pathos, and ethos. You could be a playwright, an actor, a gladiator, a warrior-poet, a scholar-bureaucrat, or even a phantom thief.

This is not an identity problem, it's a THEME.

Unlike any other class, The Bard is all about being a Polymath (at best) or a Dilettante (at worst). It's the classic Jack of All Trades, Master of None, and rather than restricting their mastery of spells by halfing the number of spells prepared each day, 5e restricts their spellcasting via a limited number of spells known.

Wizards are versatile in that they can know basically every Wizard spell as long as they can find the formula for it and inscribe it into their spellbook.
Sorcerers are versatile in that they can shape and sculpt their spells with metamagic to do different things with them than they'd normally do.
Warlocks are versatile in that they can cast all day long with their short rest-recovery spells and at-will invocations that sculpt their cantrips.
Bards are versatile in that they can learn almost any spell from any spell list and their default spell list crosses the thematic streams of every other spellcaster, to boot.

 

[Haldrik]

Bards are also storytellers, so words can take the place of music.

Emphasis added.

Sometimes the Bard concepts are only about the wording, not music.

This is the case for their lore skills, as sages, often employed as an advisor or teacher or expert, as a job.

Likewise, their capacity to foresee the future, is also why governments (including the Arthur) employed bards as advisors. In addition to blessing the wellbeing of the government.