D&D 5E Bards Should Be Half-Casters in 5.5e/6e

[Gladius Legis]

Why it is 'forcing'? Bards are supposed to be jacks of all trades, a bit of magic a bit of combat. But now they're just all magic and no combat. There are already tree other full arcane caster classes that do that.

4e threw the very concept of the Bard as a jack of all trades in a fire, and 5e spread the ashes and gave it one feature that bore the name that has only to do with skills.

The Bard in the last two editions was NEVER meant to be the jack of all trades as you knew it from 2e and 3e.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I think all casters (wizards, druids, bards, you name it) except warlock should be half casters. If the wizard caps out at 5th level spells it will stop the power house spells... keep the 6th-9th level spells as rituals and epic casting... warlocks i like as is

No.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The Bard in the last two editions was NEVER meant to be the jack of all trades as you knew it from 2e and 3e.

But it should. Then it actually would have an unique purpose instead of just being an another caster to add to the caster bloat.

 

[Gladius Legis]

But it should. Then it actually would have an unique purpose instead of just being an another caster to add in the caster bloat.

No, it shouldn't. It sort of got away with it in 2e because it leveled up much faster than a Mage, thus its casting actually somewhat kept up in the levels most people played AD&D at. The 3.0 Bard was absolute trash, and the 3.5 Bard remedied the 3.0 situation with overpowered yet somewhat boring inspirations and moving spells that were normally higher level on other classes down to the levels Bards could actually cast. 5e doesn't do that with spells anymore, obviously.

 

[Minigiant]

Bardic Inspiration says hello. And at 5th level onward you're handing that out like candy.

I think it should be expanded.

Umm, isn't a class being at least partially defined by its subclasses a good thing?

Partially is fine.

The issue with the Bard is it is mostly defined by its subclasses. Bardic Colleges each tilt the bard heavily in seperate directions because the base class does so little.

I really don't see how making it a half-caster opens up any design space it didn't have previously. In fact, if anything it restricts it even further because now you're forcing it to be at least partially martial. Which makes sense for all Paladins and Rangers to be but does not make sense for all Bards to be.

I think 4e and 5e broke everyone's brains. Traditionally there were FOUR grouping of class features.

Warrior
Thief/Rogue/Expert
Arcane Magic
Divine Magic

Traditionally the bard was the only class with access to all four but at weaker power than full or half members. However D&D had problems getting it right because it was overly concerned with making every class use the 4 aspects in the same way. So bards were rarely matched up well with level appropriate obstacles outside of conversation.


5e "fixed" this by turning down the warrior, expert, and divine aspect of the bard, shoving them into subclasses, and watering down the base class to make it malleable. It "worked" in making the bard function in adventures must it made the class feel more bland.

If the bard was supposed to be defined by subclass, it would have been better to make it a halfcaster in a Artificer style. Then subclasses could lean harder in any direction without fear of oveetuning a full caster. Each college would let you focus on warrior, expert, divine, arcane, or generalist aspects of the bard trope.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I think it should be expanded.


Partially is fine.

The issue with the Bard is it is mostly defined by its subclasses. Bardic Colleges each tilt the bard heavily in seperate directions because the base class does so little.

But the base class doesn't do "so little" at all. The default use of Bardic Inspiration is still a very solid buff. Another feature the base class has increases the efficiency of using hit dice for healing, without using a spell. The subclasses only add to what the solid base class already does.

If the bard was supposed to be defined by subclass, it would have been better to make it a halfcaster in a Artificer style. Then subclasses could lean harder in any direction without fear of oveetuning a full caster. Each college would let you focus on warrior, expert, divine, arcane, or generalist aspects of the bard trope.

You could not be any more wrong than you are.

 

[Laurefindel]

A love the full caster Bard because it is mythologically accurate. The word "bard" comes from reallife Celtic tradition, refering to a kind of mage. This mage did magic by means of formulating magical spells into words. Especially, the bard foresaw and manipulated the future by praising someone to bless them, and making fun of them to curse them. They are known for many other kinds of magic as well.

The famous Merlin is in fact a Celtic bard.

The slot 9 spell Shapechange allowing perpetual shapechanging into anything ultimately comes from a story about another Celtic bard, Taliesin.

The slot 9 spell Foresight is also a Celtic bard thing relating to the ability to foresee the future.

Power Word Kill is something the Celtic bard is famous for, where the satire litery deals body harm.

Generally, the main themes of the D&D class are prescience, healing, teleportation, shapechanging, and of course mind magic, of enchantment and illusion. These themes are mythologically correct.

I appreciate the accuracy because the term bard is a reallife term from a reallife culture. For the sake of cultural sensitivity, there is an ethical obligation to use the term in a reasonably appropriate way - and here D&D does this well.

The Bard class models Celtic magical traditions. But it turns out, the Bard class also describes Nordic magical tradions well. The healing, resurrecting, and protective magic relate to the Songs. The prescience relates to the Spa by the volva. Mind magic of enchantment and illusion relates to Seidr. The shapeshifting and teleportation relate to Form Travel.

The Celtic and Nordic traditions sometimes describe very powerful magic. The high level spellcasting of the Bard class is accurate too. The Bard is an important and excellent class.

The bard makes an excellent Merlin or enchanter-type magician - that’s the easiest refluff the (5e) bard can get. No only is it a good archetype for the mechanics, but as you said, it fits the name of the class! (it's missing the enchanting of items however).

But in the tradition of D&D, the bard was (is) a wandering minestrel or troubadour, jack of all trade, sharing "features" with all classes. That's still the fluff they give it in the PHB. When the fantasy RPG bard is mentioned, Taliesin or Merlin aren't what come to mind in popular culture. Merlin actually, very much evokes the image of the wizard for the grand public. I'm not saying D&D should stick with popular culture, but those are the expectations people are coming to D&D with.

The wandering troubadour bard would be best served as a half-caster IMO. I'm not too keen in making it a third-caster rogue archetype, for one thing because it would compete uncomfortably with the Arcane Trickster, and because the wandering troubadour bard has enough for itself to warrant a full class with it's own archetypes. At least, I believe that would best represent the expectation of a fantasy bard for a vast majority of people.

 

[FrogReaver]

IMO a class with Bardic Inspiration, Song of Rest, Jack of all trades, Expertise and Spell Casting feels very Bard-like to me.

I think a shift to a 2/3 caster would have worked well for the Bard. Use the power lost to grant a little more boost to the inspiration mechanics (not that they aren't solid, but they could be even better). It also helps make him feel more jack of all trades and master of none which is something the 5e bard lacks IMO.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

4e threw the very concept of the Bard as a jack of all trades in a fire, and 5e spread the ashes and gave it one feature that bore the name that has only to do with skills.

What exactly constitutes a jack of all trades to you? Because aside from the feature named as such in 5e they also get a spell list that made them the only caster (originally when the PHB came out) whose spell list was a blend of the traditionally Arcane and Divine (outside some "arcane heavy" extra spell lists for Land Druids and such, once again pre-additional subclasses being added), a feature that lets them eventually pilfer spells from anyone's spell list, the far from complete but fairly robust weapon and armor proficiencies of a rogue, and are the only class who can choose absolutely whatever they want for class skills. The original phb subclass options were one that enabled more borrowed spells and more skills and one that enabled extra attack and martial proficiencies in weapons and armor. It seemed pretty "jack of all trades" to me. At the very least it is jack of whatever trades it wants to be. Ultimately you have to make some sacrifices if you want to avoid the "master of none" corollary.

Now I do think in current 5e where we have Divine Soul Sorcerers, Arcana Clerics, Celestial Warlocks, and endless subclasses with extra spells or features from some completely different class that the goalposts have moved a bit, but the original design of 5e seems to have placed making uniquely niche-transgressive aspects of the Bard forefront in the design of the class.

 

[Minigiant]

But the base class doesn't do "so little" at all. The default use of Bardic Inspiration is still a very solid buff. Another feature the base class has increases the efficiency of using hit dice for healing, without using a spell. The subclasses only add to what the solid base class already does.

Bardic Inspiration is great. My point is that full caster part of the class holds Bardic Inspiration and JOAT aspects back and keeps the bard at the edge.

This allowed Divine Soul Sorcerers, Bladesinger Wizards, Celestial Warlocks, Knowledge and Arcane Clerics, and most Druids to steal the bard's thunder. And this is what makes the bard seem to do little.

You could not be any more wrong than you are.

Like I said. It depends on which rules the table uses. The Bard loses its shine faster than other classes the more additions to the game you allow.