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

[James Gasik]

Don't forget simulacrum.
The whole Azure bonds Trilogy is based around the Idea of a bard that created a simulacrum...

To be fair, Finder Wyvernspur needed help to make the Alias clones- Bards in his edition couldn't cast 7th level spells. His job was providing them with personalities and backstories.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

To be fair, Finder Wyvernspur needed help to make the Alias clones- Bards in his edition couldn't cast 7th level spells. His job was providing them with personalities and backstories.

Did he also have help for the clone of himself before then? I just downloaded the audiobooks, so I don't know yet.

 

[James Gasik]

Oh Vanity? I'm not so sure about him. I would say that since he was able to go beyond his programming, as it were, and that even Finder considered him flawed, he wasn't a standard Simulacrum (really, none of the Alias clones are). But thinking about it, if Finder is a 2e Bard, he would have had a 75% chance to successfully cast a Simulacrum scroll (and maybe he screwed it up- Finder is known for being an arrogant SOB).

Maybe things just went wrong somehow. But since Alias and her sisters resemble Cassana, I would assume they were all made with her help, after Vanity's creation.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Then the easiest solution is changing the flavor text, because after all that is not what the class crunch tells us (except for the 3 instruments they gain at level 1). Subclasses of splat books actually have more musical abilities, but in the PHB both subclasses support the Idea of a loremaster/rogue or warrior/leader.

It is also not what I have seen in play for the last few decades... the bard was never the muse. They did perform on stage sometimes, but their roguish behaviour and their magical one always stood in the foreground.
In ADnD they were correctly classified as rogues. The 3e bard was more musical I admit, but 5e puts them back were they belong.

I am not totally against changes. But relegating them to half-casters and adding musical abilities to compensate is the wrong way.

As others have already suggested, the warlock model could have worked well for the bard. Imstead of invocations they could have learnt bardic secrets that could be magical, musical or skillbased.
They would have to do more stuff than just casting spells during an encounter, but their highest spells are still (nearly as) powerful as other spellcaster's.

No, again, as I said in my last post, "Magical Muse" is supported more in the 5e Bard's mechanics than "Jack of All Trades" is. It's not just the fluff text that supports bards being a "Magical Muse", it's also a ton of mechanics. Song of Rest, Musical Instrument Proficiency and Spellcasting Focuses, Bardic Inspiration, Countercharm, and a lot of their spells and subclasses are all either explicitly or implicitly connected to their musical or poetic nature. "Jack of All Trades" is literally only supported by 2 mechanics (Jack of All Trades and Magical Secrets), while "Magical Muse" is supported by waaaay more.

5e's Bards are "Magical Muses". They're not all Musicians, some of them are poets or other storytellers, but all of them are connected to the concept of a "Muse".

I frankly don't care how they were in previous editions. If they used to be a Rogue prestige class, that's fine and dandy, but 5e doesn't do everything that previous editions did. Elves and Dwarves are no longer classes, THAC0 no longer exists (except as a clown NPC), all classes level up using the same XP table, d20s are used for basically everything, Paladins are no longer required to worship a god or be Lawful Good, and prestige classes don't exist anymore.

Furthermore, probably the single most well-known Bard PC in the modern hobby (Scanlan) perfectly embodies the idea of a "Magical Muse". Like it or not, 5e Bards are magical muses; mechanically, fluff-wise, and in popular culture. They're not Rogues, they're not equally good at literally every role that can be played in the game, and D&D is not completely beholden to its past for class or race concepts in the game. Things can, do, and have changed, and that's okay. Things will continue to change, and that's also okay.

Denying that "Magical Muse" is in the core of the 5e Bard class really seems ignorant to me. It is. They showed it in the fluff text, in the mechanics, and the most popular characters and stereotypes of the class all fit the idea of the class being the "magical muse". It's just a fact.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I want bards to be Jacks of All Trades but they aren't. They're just casters with decent skills. But they can't fight for crap. Sure, certain subclasses can, but if you're a Jack of All Trades then that should be the default.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I want bards to be Jacks of All Trades but they aren't. They're just casters with decent skills. But they can't fight for crap. Sure, certain subclasses can, but if you're a Jack of All Trades then that should be the default.

I have a question for those that want Bards to become "Jacks of All Trades" again; what on Earth does a "Jack of All Trades" even mean in D&D 5e, mechanically speaking? Because blasting people with damaging spells is a "trade" in D&D 5e combat, but Bards literally only get two blasting spells in the PHB (Shatter and Thunderwave), less than literally every other full-casting class in the game. Clerics and Druids both get more blasting spells than Bards do. Rangers being able to navigate the wilderness is a "trade" or "role", but Bards get literally no features or spells to aid them in this role in the party. Necromancy, Transmutation, and Conjuration magic are all also "trades", but Bards also get basically none of those abilities or spells.

Where do you draw the line to eliminate roles that are too niche for Bards to be able to be "Jacks" of them? How do you not invalidate literally every other class and role in the game by having the Bard be able to fulfill all of them?

Furthermore, if they're supposed to be "Jacks of All Trades", shouldn't they be Half-Casters, then? Because being a Jack of All Trades means being a Master of None, so they shouldn't be as skilled at magic as Wizards, Clerics, or Druids, right?

 

[cbwjm]

I'd look back to earlier editions to get the jack of all trades feel. For me that would be half-caster, extra attack at 5th, and skill use with expertise and the jack of all trades ability. That would be the base anyway, I'd keep the bardic inspiration ability. This would be my baseline for a new bard.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I have a question for those that want Bards to become "Jacks of All Trades" again; what on Earth does a "Jack of All Trades" even mean in D&D 5e, mechanically speaking? Because blasting people with damaging spells is a "trade" in D&D 5e combat, but Bards literally only get two blasting spells in the PHB (Shatter and Thunderwave), less than literally every other full-casting class in the game. Clerics and Druids both get more blasting spells than Bards do. Rangers being able to navigate the wilderness is a "trade" or "role", but Bards get literally no features or spells to aid them in this role in the party. Necromancy, Transmutation, and Conjuration magic are all also "trades", but Bards also get basically none of those abilities or spells.

Where do you draw the line to eliminate roles that are too niche for Bards to be able to be "Jacks" of them? How do you not invalidate literally every other class and role in the game by having the Bard be able to fulfill all of them?

Furthermore, if they're supposed to be "Jacks of All Trades", shouldn't they be Half-Casters, then? Because being a Jack of All Trades means being a Master of None, so they shouldn't be as skilled at magic as Wizards, Clerics, or Druids, right?

Yes, they should be half-casters. And things like specific schools of magic indeed are too niche 'roles.' When I say a Jack of All Trades I mean they should be OK in a lot of different stuff, though a class dedicated to that specific stuff can be better. Except in performance/face/buffing, the Bards can be best in that.

I'd look back to earlier editions to get the jack of all trades feel. For me that would be half-caster, extra attack at 5th, and skill use with expertise and the jack of all trades ability. That would be the base anyway, I'd keep the bardic inspiration ability. This would be my baseline for a new bard.

Yes, this!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Snip

Ok, there are a few magical song abilities. Granted... Other abilities however play a much more present role: versatile spellcasting and a bit of everything else, even if they are more scarce in number.

And even if they are there, I still see no point in reducing spellcasting in favour of more songs. I am ok with that much musical ability they have, even if I would prefer any kind of verbal activity (oratory).
So as long as you want to take away what I like and see in the bard class I will speak up.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Yes, they should be half-casters. And things like specific schools of magic indeed are too niche 'roles.' When I say a Jack of All Trades I mean they should be OK in a lot of different stuff, though a class dedicated to that specific stuff can be better. Except in performance/face/buffing, the Bards can be best in that.

Okay. So, instead of "Jack of All Trades, Master of None", you would prefer "Jack of Most Trades, Master of One", then? They'd be decent at most roles (martial combat, a bit of blasting, most types of magic, lots of skills) but experts at one or two roles (being the face of the party, musical/poetic/speech performances and the like).

Yeah, I'd be fine with that. The main reason that I made this post originally was because I was looking over the Bard spell list and realized how few of the high-level spells I felt actually made sense for bards to have, and thought of what a half-caster Bard could look like, which helped me realize that I would just prefer them as half-casters. I don't necessarily care what type of half-caster they are (Paladin/Ranger-type vs Artificer-type) so long as they are half-casters. I'm glad we can agree on this.