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

[Minigiant]

Personally I think Bard should be 3/4th casters.

Basically a bard would have the spell progression of a ranger or paladin but a bardic inspiration/song/dance/chant would be equivalent in fantastic power of a full caster's highest level spell of level.

Basically a 7th level bard would only have access to 1st and 2nd level spells but they can use their bardic inspiration/song/dance/chant to mimic a 4th level spell. Different archetypes would give better weapon skills, a larger spell library, or more bardic inspiration/song/dance/chant effects.

As is, the bard and the sorcerer are kinda melding into the same concept in origin, look, and practice.

 

[tommybahama]

The only spells I dont recognize from the Celtic bard is Forcecage and Prismatic Wall/Spray. Prismatic spray relates to elemental magic. Actually, there is a Norse story of a triangular item whose sides shot forth fire, cold, and wind, so the Prismatic concept seems possible. I suspect, this is moreso a D&Dism, relating to the 3e Bard spell Control Light. Perhaps Forcecage relates vaguely to the spell that entombed Merlin. In any case, as far as I know, these three D&D spells arent especially bardic.

I believe Prismatic Spray is from Jack Vance's Dying Earth series. Vance earned a spot on Gygax's Appendix N as one of the inspirations for D&D, particularly the magic system.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You're . . . you're missing the point. I don't know where this happened, but you missed it.

Nope. You are missing the point.

Furthermore, I did not start by saying "if we give the bards these really cool things, they don't need to be a full caster" or "we should nerf the bard", I started out, quite literally, by saying "Bards have a weird place in D&D (mechanically and thematically), a lot of the subclasses have too much overlap, the high level spells don't fit, the class doesn't have a unified theme, and even though it's mechanically effective, turning it into a half-caster could solve a lot of these problems".

That might have been the very first thing you wrote - but it is not the first thing that people read.

The thread title and therefore the very first thing people read when they click on the thread is "Bards Should Be Half-Casters in 5.5e/6e"

This is what you talk about first and what people read first. You chose to lead with how bards should be nerfed and half their magical power should be taken away. If you didn't mean that you shouldn't have lead with that.

I'm perfectly fine with you disagreeing and arguing with me, but at least be honest about my own argument, please.

It might not have been what you intended to write but it is what you wrote.

. . . I disagree. How do Half-Casters have worse action economy than Full-Casters or Non-Casters?

1: They don't get more actions
2: Their physical combat actions are worse (and hence worth less) than non-casters
3: Their magical actions are worse because their magic is significantly weaker

So no matter what they do their contribution in that moment is worse. There are ways to get round this (such as smites and bonus actions) - but these do not work unless carefully written.

That assertion doesn't have any evidence to back it up, and is fully inaccurate

OK. So now you're just admitting you did not bother to read what you were replying to. There was evidence presented. And it is not "fully inaccurate" - a work round to a problem (as the paladin gets) is a workround dealing with a core issue.

(Paladins don't have an action economy issue when they cast one of their many bonus action spells and/or use Divine Smite, Rangers just have to use their bonus action spells and attack as an action, neither or which are action economy issues).

If you had actually read what you were replying to then you'd know I explicitly mentioned that Paladins had Divine Smite which avoids the action economy issue and that is why they work.

Um . . . how about you read and address the OP to figure it out. I addressed things there. Maybe that would help get your points across, instead of accusing me of trying to nerf a class, not understanding how action economy/half-casters work, and so on.

Do that, and then we'll talk.

Um, how about you actually read and address your own OP to figure out what you were actually saying - especially with the title that you yourself wrote either because it accurately summarises your position, it is clickbait, or it was a mistake. Maybe that would help get your points across. And once you've read your own OP and not accused me of dishonesty because I think that a post starts with a title you could actually read what I am writing and not use the very things I've pointed out as workrounds.

Do that, and then we'll talk.

 

[Charlaquin]

I use the term "half caster" (properly partial caster) to mean any spellcaster who cannot reach slot 9 spells. So, Rogue Arcane Trickster and Paladin are both half casters (tho some call them third and half, respectively). By contrast, Warlock is a full caster because it does reach a slot 9 spell at level 17.

Arcane Trickster is a third caster because it gains spells at one third the rate full casters do. Likewise, Paladin is a half caster because it gains spells at half the rate full casters do.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

One another reason why they should be half casters is the class line up as a whole. There are way too many full casters and bard is the one that would make most sense as half caster.

 

[Charlaquin]

When majority of 5e players think Bard, how many (%) do you believe think of this traditional Merlin/Celtic/Norse version, in comparison to a Rogue/Caster/'Face' charismatic musical Class?

I certainly don’t think of Merlin when I think bard. He may well have been a bard in a historical sense, but he certainly wasn’t what the D&D bard is or should be. Though, personally, I would prefer a bard that was more of a warrior-poet than the magical swashbuckling rake it has come to be viewed as.

 

[tommybahama]

Big disagree. Paladins aren't historically accurate paladins (thank goodness), Warlocks aren't historically accurate Warlocks/Witches, Clerics aren't historically accurate clergy, Berserkers/Barbarians aren't historically accurate Berserkers, and Alchemists aren't historically accurate Alchemists (okay, this one, I could get behind. Alchemists would be way better and much cooler if they were related to discovering the 5th element "Aether", the Philosopher's Stone, and stuff like that).

Paladins were influenced by the paladin in Three Hearts, Three Lions by Poul Anderson. It was very accurate with the lay on hands and protection from evil aura among other things that players would immediately recognize. I think Anderson was influenced by the legendary Frankish knight named Roland. I suspect the you'll find the archetype for the cleric and barbarian in Appendix N literature as well.

With all the controversy over Oriental Adventures I'm surprised some people can so casually toss aside cultural sensitivity. Literature is an important part of culture.

 

[Malmuria]

I wouldn't mind different kinds of casters having different ways of interacting with the magic system as a whole, similar to how the warlock doesn't fit within the full/half/third paradigm. They use slot progression to keep everything consistent, but coming up with a separate subsystem might make the bard more distinctive and just as powerful, but not in a access-to-9th-level-spells sort of way

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh, note for anyone who may not have followed 5e since as far back as the open playtests: Bards started out as half-casters in the playtest, but generally scored low on player satisfaction, I think in large part because the other two half-casters were much stronger martially. When they got upgraded to full caster they finally felt good at something.

Now, to be clear, I’m onboard for the bard becoming a half caster. But I think it’s extremely important that if you take away half of a bard’s casting power, you need to do something to compensate in the combat department. Bards need to be able to go toe-to-toe with paladins and rangers to be satisfying as half-casters. Which, as a fan of the warrior-poet take on the bard, I’m very much in favor of. But I think that’s where you’re likely to run into trouble because for a lot of people bards don’t feel right as frontline martial combatants.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Care to elaborate?

Why yes. Thanks for asking.

I think the 5e Bard is the best executed Bard in any version of D&D. A competent Bard build will feel useful and relevant in almost all situations, and occasionally gets to be the MVP, and can contribute in most roles while at the same time not showing up other classes in their own roles. I also think its the only full charisma caster that really has a satisfying design in 5e, because Sorcerers are far too limited in spells known, and Warlocks are somewhat too limited in spells known while being way too limited at spell slots in any remotely typical adventuring day. They're also, to me, the most natural charisma caster, so I like them being a particularly strong charisma caster (I can't come around to Constitution based Sorcerers, but if there were an actual "Magical Energy" stat that would be the natural home of Sorcerers. Based on the lore I think Warlocks should be Intelligence based). I don't really see your problem with the high level Bard spells; they feel thematic enough to me. Who better to wield the words of power than the groups resident singer, poet, or orator? Honestly I think on the whole Bards have one of the best curated spell lists in 5e, albeit with a few oddballs and a few that should not be there because they simply don't make any sense for memorized casters (I mean I know Feign Death is "acting" but its a "prepare and cast exactly once for that one particular scheme" spell if ever there was one).

I also find the class thematically coherent, while you find it disjointed. I'm not sure how you find them particularly more "disjointed" than any other D&D class. I'm going to guess it has to do with expectations set over years of playing D&D. Personally to me, as someone who came to regular play of D&D somewhat late in life with a European history background the thematic oddball of the full-casters is the Cleric. While there are a handful of literary and historical precedents for a heavily armored and armed priest, in the medieval european context "clericus" was the catchall for priest, monk, or person with training in the "white-collar" skills of such people (hence the word "clerk"). To me the dissonnace between historical or literary clerics and D&D clerics is far greater than the dissonance between actual performers and characters who wield bardic magic.

I also think "half-casting" is not terribly well executed in 5e progression-wise. Basically the spell slot progression is such that being a caster is pretty useless until you have the equivalent of three full caster levels, and suddenly go from someone who has three slots a day to someone who who has 6 slots a day and can actually afford to spend spell slots reasonably freely. For half casters this doesn't come until level 5, which is a substantial journey at most tables I play at. This is not a huge problem for the martial half casters, because Paladins are more interested in smiting than casting anyway and Rangers can lean on the economical Hunter's Mark, and both these "martial half-casters" are really more martial than half-caster. When they hit level 5 they're players are probably far more excited by the extra-attack than the expanded spellcasting. I find the progression a bigger problem with Artificers who to me, in 1st tier play, feel like they are too spell-based for the number of spell slots they get. Though they still fare better than the 1/3 caster Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters, who are basically the only non-multiclass options in the game that don't feel "online" to me by level 5. One saving grace of all of these is that 5e has done a good job at creating a spell system with lots of low level spells that continue to be useful in mid-to-late game, such that when these classes and subclasses actually get enough casting to throw around, with the right spell picks the casting abilities of partial casters still feel useful and powerful, I just feel like they take a bit too long to get there.

Of the memorized casters, full or partial, in 5e, Bards are the only one for whom the number of spells know doesn't feel excessively constraining to me at any level. I would hate to see them stray far from their current, strong 4 spells-known start.

I'm not completely opposed to the idea of Bards being more of a 2/3rds or 3/4 caster or otherwise a little less magically competent at some point than the straight mage classes, in a system that supported such things, but should the Full-Caster, Half-Caster, 1/3-Caster framework of 5e continue to rule for future editions I would very much object from Bards losing their full-caster status.