Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Bards Should Be Half-Casters in 5.5e/6e
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8392276" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>The bard has always been weird. But it wasn't until 4e that the Bard was actually <em>functional</em>, in part because it was always designed with form in front (remember how <em>weird</em> the requirements for Bard were in ye olden dayse?), with function an afterthought. ANY time you design something like that, it's at risk of ending up crappy, a grab-bag of features that don't actually work together except in a thematic sense.</p><p></p><p>More or less, you can divide D&D classes into two categories: those that have a "narrow" fundamental fiction, and those that have a "broad" one. Rogues, Fighters, Clerics, Wizards, and a few other classes fall into that "broad" group, where they <em>need</em> their subclasses/specialties/whatever to make one character meaningfully different from another. (Fighter and Rogue are particularly generic, something Mearls himself even lamented very slightly at one point, specifically Fighter, when reflecting on 5e and what he'd change.) Those that have a "narrow" fiction include bards, warlocks, sorcerers, and paladins: classes that carry a much more specific story (unless opted out of, as opposed to the opt-in nature of story for the previous group).</p><p></p><p>It sounds to me like [USER=7023887]@AcererakTriple6[/USER] wants to push Bard into the "broad" category, and I think the past failures to achieve success with that are indication enough that that's not an effective strategy. More can be done to integrate the theme and concept with the class, to be sure, but there are <em>very good reasons</em> why Bard was often disliked in prior editions, but was quite popular in 4e and remains popular in 5e. It actually works, and actually does things now. That's a big selling point.</p><p></p><p>Ultimately, I don't disagree with the desire to have a lower-magic alternative to the Bard that gets some other thing in exchange. I just think that it is a disservice to an awful lot of people that really love Bards to take away a version that, y'know, <em>actually works</em> for once, in order to give them the same thing they'd been sold for years and years with an airy promise that <em>this</em> time being a half-caster and a half-meleeist and a half-whatever actually WILL work and WON'T suck.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8392276, member: 6790260"] The bard has always been weird. But it wasn't until 4e that the Bard was actually [I]functional[/I], in part because it was always designed with form in front (remember how [I]weird[/I] the requirements for Bard were in ye olden dayse?), with function an afterthought. ANY time you design something like that, it's at risk of ending up crappy, a grab-bag of features that don't actually work together except in a thematic sense. More or less, you can divide D&D classes into two categories: those that have a "narrow" fundamental fiction, and those that have a "broad" one. Rogues, Fighters, Clerics, Wizards, and a few other classes fall into that "broad" group, where they [I]need[/I] their subclasses/specialties/whatever to make one character meaningfully different from another. (Fighter and Rogue are particularly generic, something Mearls himself even lamented very slightly at one point, specifically Fighter, when reflecting on 5e and what he'd change.) Those that have a "narrow" fiction include bards, warlocks, sorcerers, and paladins: classes that carry a much more specific story (unless opted out of, as opposed to the opt-in nature of story for the previous group). It sounds to me like [USER=7023887]@AcererakTriple6[/USER] wants to push Bard into the "broad" category, and I think the past failures to achieve success with that are indication enough that that's not an effective strategy. More can be done to integrate the theme and concept with the class, to be sure, but there are [I]very good reasons[/I] why Bard was often disliked in prior editions, but was quite popular in 4e and remains popular in 5e. It actually works, and actually does things now. That's a big selling point. Ultimately, I don't disagree with the desire to have a lower-magic alternative to the Bard that gets some other thing in exchange. I just think that it is a disservice to an awful lot of people that really love Bards to take away a version that, y'know, [I]actually works[/I] for once, in order to give them the same thing they'd been sold for years and years with an airy promise that [I]this[/I] time being a half-caster and a half-meleeist and a half-whatever actually WILL work and WON'T suck. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Bards Should Be Half-Casters in 5.5e/6e
Top