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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="UngeheuerLich" data-source="post: 8393440" data-attributes="member: 59057">Now I see the problem of the premise:The bard as it has been for decades is not fitting for a bard. I want something different. There are people out there who want the bard to mainly stay as it is. The 5e bard captures the feel well. It coul be tweaked slightly, but the OP proposal would change the feel of the DnD bard. That was the mistake of 4e in many cases (interetingly the bard was one of the classes that actually did capture the feel well). So the premise should have been:I want a class with half spellcastng that focusses on oratory and performances and less on spellcasting. Actually, in 5e we have 2 classes that add spellcasting to an existing class. If 6e will have subclasses at level 1, I would see no problem in having a bard class that can decide at level 1 to have less spellcasting in exchange of having more song like abilites. In DnDnext, the were iterations of the bard that had less spellcasting, exactly what you wished. But it was not not liked very well. Probably because the design space was too narrow. Maybe not every bard should sing... And then different abilities for different types of bards were created and then it stepped on spells too much and then the designers thought, maybe just give them back high level spells including magical secrets (note how magical secrets cone at a point where other classes get subclass abilities instead) and then you arrived as the bard we have today. So for 6e the question is: should spells generally be the go to option for adding supernatural abilities to a class.</blockquote>

Verification