Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 8391529" data-attributes="member: 7023887">Okay. This is going to be a long post, as I'm replying to two separate posts at the same time. Let's get started.It's not often that I'm accused of missing the point of the own thread that I made, but okay. Why don't you tell me what "point" I'm "missing", instead of just telling me "no, u!" when I said that you missed the point of the recommendation in the first place.. . . I clearly wrote in the OP, immediately after the title, that I was going to elaborate and explain my position. The reason we have titles to threads in the first place is to get the basic premise across first, and then giving elaboration. If someone can't see the forest from the trees, the fault is on them, not the person who created the topic in the first place.And what the hell does it matter what the first thing written/read means? Clearly someone should read the whole thread to understand the premise, instead of leaping to conclusions based off of the title, like you just admitted to. "To assume is to make an ass out of u and me", after all.No, it's not. Hear what I actually say, please, not what you think/want to think that I'm saying. Listen/read the words coming out of my mouth/posts, not the ones you leap to after reading the simplified premise that was put into the title to give the thread a short and summarizing title. If you leap to assume that I hate and want to nerf bards because I think their role would be better filled as a half-caster, the fault is on you for leaping to conclusions, not on me for writing the thing. (Furthermore, you seem to be the only person who can't see any more nuance in changing a full-caster into a half-caster than just straight-up wanting to nerf them. There is more to the issue here, and you're the only one trying to paint it as "[USER=7023887]@AcererakTriple6[/USER] hates and wants to nerf bards!!!")Just, kindly, please knock it off. It's frankly very annoying.And even if the error in miscommunication was my fault, that's no excuse to double down on the error and seem to try to divert the argument to try and accuse me of the point of view that I told you I don't have. Believe the words I say, not the ones you want me to say, please.1. No one gets more actions! Why the f**k should a half-caster get more actions that full-casters? Non-casters don't get more actions that full-casters, and they have even less magic than full-casters. To me, this sounds like someone at an ice-cream place complaining that their scoop of Chocolate-Vanilla Swirl ice cream is exactly the same as that if they had just gotten either Chocolate or Vanilla separately.2. Tell that to the Paladin or Battlesmith Artificer. Incorrect assertion with no supporting evidence is incorrect.3. Tell that to the Artillerist. You can focus and be effective at using magic without having 6th-9th level spell slots.You seem to be defining a "half-caster" by an imaginary and unfounded type of half-caster in D&D that is strictly a character that gets half the magic (and therefore half the power) of a full caster, with no mechanics to make up for it. That's not how Half-Casters work in D&D, in any of the 3 instances of them being their own classes. So, yeah, if you define "half-caster" as a type of half-caster that doesn't and never has existed in 5e, yes, you are correct that they are worse at everything than everyone else who isn't half of a class.Uh, no. You said "half-casters are bad because of action economy", and didn't give any examples of any of the existing 5e half casters actually being bad at action economy. You even gave examples of how they avoid being bad at action economy, and I gave even more examples in my reply. So, tell me please, what part of that is "not bothering to read what I replied to", and "ignoring evidence that was presented", because the evidence that I saw supported my view that half-casters don't have to suck at action-economy and effectiveness, due to the current examples of the 3 half-casting classes that avoid those issues in a variety of different ways.Right. And that proves that half casters have (or have to have, as you seem to be implying that a half-casting bard would have to have action-economy issues) action economy issues . . . how exactly? Because that seems to support my viewpoint, and not the viewpoint that bards would suck as half-casters due to action economy.Please answer this question:Why would a half-caster bard naturally/innately have worse action economy than a full-casting bard?It roughly summarizes my position. There's no way that I, an imperfect human being with communication issues due to being on the Autism Spectrum, can perfectly and completely summarize my 1,327 word OP in a simple, roughly 10-words-or-less title/header that is meant to draw people in so that they actually read the other 1.3 thousand words that I wrote. Human error in choosing a perfect title is not some "gotcha, you hate the bard!" card that you can play to invalidate my viewpoint.Ah, there's nothing that I love more than unnecessary and unwarranted overly hostile and condescending snark that implies that I did not, in fact, read my own OP to a thread that I spent about 2 hours and 1,300 words writing./s, incase that needed to be stated (I don't think it did, but you can never be too careful on the internet)Could I have chosen a better/more accurate title to the thread? Almost definitely. I'm human, and thus imperfect, thus making most of my decisions/phraseology imperfect.Does that mean that my side is invalidated because you misunderstood my position to be one of complete, and utter hatred towards the Bard class, and thus excuse your accusations towards me of wanting to nerf the bard class because you think I hate it? Of course not.When discussing the theme and definition of the bard class, is it too much to ask that the assertion that "bards have access to open every door, and thus have Teleportation Circle" be supported by any scrap of flavor-text in the PHB or Xanathar's Guide to Everything? When discussing what a class is and what it can do thematically/mechanically, one (such as myself) would assume that the part of the core rulebooks that describe and define the chassis of the class would support the arguments made in favor of keeping that part of the class's mechanics. If paladins had fluff that said "they are especially good at smiting creatures of fiendish or necromantic origin", it would be quite befuddling to not have any mechanics in the game that supported that flavor text. Thus, the inverse is true; that any mechanical part of a class should have at least some bearing in the fluff/flavor text describing that class.I don't want classes to be "absurdly restrictive", like you seem to think. I just want their mechanics to be coherent and fitting to the fluff that is the whole reason they exist in the first place. (Furthermore, I'm not against the idea of a teleporting bard, especially if they were one that was noted for being a worldly/planar traveler that spread stories across the lands, but I don't think that this should be a part of the base class unless it's explained/justified, and I personally think it would be better for a subclass than the base class.). . . I am aware of what the spell does. However, Teleportation Circle relies on the castings of other Teleportation Circles made permanent through the process that you described in order to function. In a world where bards can/are know for cast(ing) teleportation circle, one would assume that some bards were the one creating the permanent teleportation circles that they travel between. Travelling places is well within the bardic theme, but there are more than one means of travelling places. You could use the same "minstrel that travel places" justification to allow the Bard to pick up a whole swathe of flying spells, which are notably lacking from their spell list.I am aware that they get most of the Power Words. That doesn't negate anything I said, though. Clerics get Power Word Heal (fairly recently, though, through TCoE), Wizards get Power Word Kill, Stun, and Pain (which notably isn't on the Bard spell list, besides you claiming that the Power Word Spells are mainly bardic in theme).Now, here is a claim that Bards and Sorcerers are superior in character ideas than Wizards and Clerics. That's just your opinion, you know, and I personally believe that they're all fairly equal for creating interesting and thematic characters. I've seen all of the classes be done well in this manner, which absolutely doesn't support your claim that Bards and Sorcerers "lead into much more interesting and thematic characters than wizards and clerics". Anecdotal evidence may be anecdotal and imperfect, but it still overrules unsupported claims about subjective opinions being objectively true.Hang on, isn't that the whole point of having subclasses, though? Have the base theme be covered by the base class and its spell list, and have the subclasses add more to that and give spells (or incentives towards certain spells) that add to it is the point of having a subclass, not of the spell list.So, it's perfectly valid to have characters that work in much different ways mechanically and thematically from others of the same class, but that largely should be covered by your subclass and other specific choices major to your character (like a Warlock's Pact Boon, or a Fighting Style, or Feats, not what minute differences in spell choices you have).(Emphasis mine)Stop it, please. Just plain, completely stop it. This is uncalled for and unwarranted.There is a huge difference between saying it's wrong to play a certain archetype (like someone saying that X class/aspect of D&D sucks, or that they hate it, or that it shouldn't exist) and saying that it should be (or that they'd prefer if it were to be) handled differently than it is in the base game. There's a difference between those two, just like there's a difference between saying, "I like Vegetarian Pizza, but I don't like Onions, so I replace them with Artichoke Hearts", and saying, "Vegetarian Pizza is disgusting, no one should eat it, and if you do eat it you're not a real pizza fan!".Never did I ever say that no bard should be able to pick the Teleportation Circle spell or other teleportation spells. I just said that I don't think that it fits the base bard theme, and think it would work better in a subclass spell list (which I would add to all of the subclasses), and not as a part of the base class.No. "Level" is not what separates the illusion spells that bards get access to and Prismatic Spray/Wall. Theme is. There is a very, very different theme between creating illusory light shows for a band-style bard, and being able to create giant, damaging, planar-rifting/petrifying area of effect spells.Again, no, it's not that. I just don't think it fits the base chassis of the Bard class. Sure, I'd be okay with some bards taking it (probably a subclass that was themed to illusory light shows that killed/harmed enemies), but just the average travelling, singing Bardy McBardson with a Lute that sings to support allies? No, I don't think that every bard should have access to Prismatic Spray/Wall and spells similar to them, because, to me, that's a very specific niche that is not the same as the base bardic niche. Could the bardic niche support it? Absolutely. Is that a reason to let any bard ever have access to it? Absolutely not.And I'd be absolutely fine with a subclass that focuses on healing through their bard spells. However, that isn't the base bardic niche (to me, at least). (And, as always, I stand by the position that doing things for tradition's sake is a poor reason to do that thing._Again, subclasses are the major way to differentiate between major differences in thematic and mechanical elements like this. I'm 100%, absolutely okay with letting a bard heal and resurrect/revivify through bard magic (I find it awesome and amazing to reflavor it as a bard using their Charisma to persuade or even intimidate the soul of a fallen ally to return to their body), however, as I said before, major themes like "resurrecting magic" and "evocative sprays of death rainbows" and similar "out there" themes would be better if relegated to subclass options.I find issue with that argument, too. Why should all Clerics be able to heal? Why should a Cleric of Vecna (Death) or Zeus (Tempest) get access to spells that alter your theme as much as healing/resurrection spells do? Why shouldn't they focus more on the god that they're worshipping than the traditional standard of "Clerics heal, Wizards blast"? IMO, that is an issue, and it feels to me that your subclass theme should matter more than the abilities of a D&D class in previous editions. Tradition has a spot, but it isn't and shouldn't be the absolute arbiter of how modern versions of those classes are played.The majority of Druid subclasses focus on using Wild Shape in their own unique and specific way (Wildfire, Spores, Stars, Moon). The land druid doesn't have that, and IMO, isn't as good of subclass as the others because of that.The Berserker is 100% Barbarian but just with more Barbarian theme added onto it. The Totem Warrior has magical mechanics and has the theme of channeling the totems/spirits of animals to enhance their abilities (both in and out of combat). It's more than just the base barbarian theme. The Berserker isn't.There's a major difference between specializing in a particular school of magic and just leaning more into the base class's theme as a whole.Sure, but there are better and more interesting ways to accomplish fulfilling your base class's theme without being boring. The Eloquence bard largely is just more bardic theme as a subclass, but it does it in a few unique and effective ways that make it (IMO) a better subclass than the Lore Bard.Can we stop with these accusations? I'm not a game designer at WotC. I'm not an authority figure. I'm just some guy on the internet who's proposing an idea about how I think WotC could better tackle the theme of the Bard in future editions. I have no authority to police what other people enjoy, which is exactly why I haven't been doing that (and even if I did have the "authority to do so", I wouldn't do it, because all constructive playstyles are perfectly valid, and no one needs anyone else to go around telling others that they're playing wrong). No matter how you try to paint/misconstrue my argument, that's not what I've been doing or trying to do. It's no more "policing other people's playstyles/enjoyment" to say that Lore Bards don't build on the bardic theme than it is to say Vanilla Ice Cream is generic.Those are D&D Beyond statistics. Go look at the content that is, by default, free for anyone who has a D&D Beyond account. You will see that in every occasion of the most popular subclass in the statistics that you supply, the most common type of character is the subclass that was free by default. All of them.The Berserker is the free Barbarian subclass, the Champion is the free Fighter subclass, the Thief is the free Rogue subclass, the College of Lore is the free Bard subclass, the Way of the Open Hands is the free Monk subclass, and so on, and so on. All of the most "popular" subclasses are the ones that are free through the D&D 5e SRD.That doesn't mean that it's the subclass that people like the most, or that they have the highest opinion on/enjoy playing the most. It just means that when you have free content on your site, the most commonly played/made characters through your site's system will be the free options.If you opened an Ice-Cream stand that gave out free Vanilla ice cream to anyone that wanted it, with an added price if they wanted toppings or a different flavor, I can guarantee you that the most "popular" choice at that ice cream stand would be the free Vanilla ice cream without any toppings. Just like this theoretical ice cream stand wouldn't prove that Vanilla ice cream is the most popular flavor of ice cream, these presented statistics don't prove anything about what subclasses are actually the most popular (or which are the favorite).Stop it, dude. I haven't made any accusations against you like this. This is unprovoked, unwarranted, and uncool. I have never said that it was wrong to want to play a bard that has any of these spells that I said I don't think fit the base theme of the Bard class, or said that it was wrong to like playing a bog-standard bard (or any subclass of any other class that's theme is the basic theme of that class). Stop trying to paint me as an evil gatekeeper that is coming to take away your bards and say you're playing the game wrong. Stop it. Further accusations will be reported, as they're completely unwarranted and not okay.Then stop pretending like you do. (Saying that I promote badwrongfun, trying to paint me as a gatekeeper/bard-hater, etc.) It's very simple. If you don't know someone, don't make claims about them based off of them wanting a class to have altered mechanics.Obviously you can't (or at least, haven't). I'm not arguing for badwrongfun or gatekeeping, I'm arguing for making a bard be a half-caster. Those are very, very different things. Stop conflating the two.Again, NO I AM NOT. I am not arguing to nerf the bard. I am not arguing to destroy characters. I am not arguing to take away options from being available. I am merely and completely suggesting that maybe those options should be relegated to somewhere else where they might make more sense (a subclass, or a sub-subclass like a Bardic equivalent of a Warlock's Pact Boon). Saying that you think that a class would be better as a half-caster is 100% a distinct statement from saying "I hate bards, want to destroy and nerf bards, and will take away your bard characters because you're having fun with them". Learn the difference, please.I freaking did. In the OP, I explicitly and clearly mentioned that I would expand and buff Bardic Inspiration to make up for some of the lost power, and have different subclasses do different things with them. (If you want an example, look no further than the College of Creation and the College of Spirits. Both have expanded uses and benefits to using Bardic Inspiration. Something like that could be added to all of the subclasses.I also mentioned how I would give the bard subclasses extra-known spell lists that fit their theme (like many other casting classes get). That would significantly enhance their effectiveness, making them be more versatile with spell options even if they have less spell slots. I mentioned that I would probably replace Countercharm with some sort of Song of Courage feature that would negate/cancel Frightening/Charming effects (probably working similarly to the second benefit of the Twilight Cleric's Channel Divinity feature). I mentioned how I would better separate the subclasses in theme and mechanics, and combine the redundant parts of the ones that have quite a bit of overlap. Is that enough for you, or do I have to write up the whole class's mechanics right now in order to prove that I don't want to nerf the class? Because that's quite an unreasonable claim, if you ask me, especially because I want/would prefer for WotC to design this, as I'm not a professional game designer.I thought those examples of mechanics would be enough. If you truly need more, I would consider allowing higher level bards give out a Bardic Inspiration as a reaction to a specific ally's d20 roll (kind of like Flash of Genius, but with the dice's randomness added to it, and some balancing effects). Like Artificers, I would let the subclasses carry most of the weight of their mechanical effectiveness, due to them fulfilling mechanic niches (like having an equivalent of the Artillerist's Arcane Firearm, which enhances the lower level spells that an Artillerist can cast, but with one that somehow enhances the bards lower level spells).It's a nerf to their spellcasting ability. It doesn't have to be a nerf to the class overall. There's a big difference between the two.Then you should have known that I wasn't wanting to nerf the whole class without at least trying to make up for it. The Artificer is a mechanically effective spell-based half-caster. There's absolutely no reason why a half-casting version of the Bard class wouldn't be capable of being just as effective.Big disagree. Relegating themes and expanding them in subclasses, by no means, is the same as "destroying most existing bards". Yes, they would change mechanically, but doesn't the flavor of the bard matter more than getting Wish through Magical Secrets and most of the other stuff people look forward to for the later levels of the Bard class?</blockquote>

Verification