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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 8577342" data-attributes="member: 7023887"><p>I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that term. Could you please explain it?</p><p></p><p>This is untrue. In the OP, I listed problems that I felt the Bard had. The main ones are as follows:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">There are too many Charisma-based Full-Casters in D&D 5e (Bard, Warlock, Sorcerer).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The Bard's theme is pretty incohesive and disjointed (through certain spells not fitting their theme, to redundant subclasses, to trying to figure out if they want to be swashbuckling spellblades or musical scholars, to an overall weaker explanation of their magic compared to most other casting classes).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Most of the Bard's higher-level spells (besides Irresistible Dance and Glibness) don't fit the image of the "Magical Music Man" idea that is at the core of the class.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">They borrow too much from other classes' themes (the Wizard for scholarly spellcaster, Cleric for support, Rogue for Expertise, etc).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Their subclasses aren't rewarding enough (only getting abilities at 3 levels).</li> </ol><p>Whether or not you think these things are actually problems large enough to warrant a substantial change in the mechanics of the class doesn't change the fact that they are problems.</p><p></p><p>Now, this is just a blatant mischaracterization of my post. If you'll reread my post, you'll see that I suggested the <em><strong>exact opposite</strong></em> of what you're saying.</p><p></p><p>Did I suggest an expansion to a primarily-support-based feature that the Bard's get (Bardic Inspiration)? Yes, I did. Does that mean that I want to "force all Bards to be support characters"? Of course not! Later in the post, I went on to say that I would grant every subclass a different usage of Bardic Inspiration, such as giving the Martial subclass the ability to use Bardic Inspiration similar to Battle Master Maneuvers (like the College of Swords does). I also gave the example of there being a Thunder-damage focused bard that sings/plays an instrument loud enough that it damages their enemies. That's pretty obviously the opposite of "being forced into a support role with no other choices". So, either you didn't read my post well enough to understand this fact, or you're purposefully mischaracterizing my post to try and "win" this debate.</p><p></p><p>Furthermore, the "they'd be unlike any other class in 5e" thing is also inaccurate, as I listed another class that does things similar to what I'd envision this version of the Bard to be like; the Artificer. There could be more support-oriented Bard subclasses, like the Alchemist is more focused on support, while there would also be more damage-focused subclasses, like the Artillerist and Battle-Smith.</p><p></p><p>This is also untrue. As I said in the OP, Bards would get features to make up for the higher level spells that they'd lose, such as expanded uses and styles of Bardic Inspiration, greater Jack-of-All-Trade-style class abilities, and other abilities to make up for the delayed spell-progression. So, unless you can see into the future, this statement is completely impossible to state in an objective manner. The class could very easily get features that make up for the loss of greater spell progression.</p><p></p><p>No, I'm aware of that. I just reject that it's the only way. Bardic Inspiration isn't a spell. Artificer Infusions aren't spells. Channel Divinity isn't a spell. The Artillerist's Protector Cannon, the Battle Smith's Steel Defender and Arcane Jolt, and the Armorer's Thunder Gauntlets all do not use 5e's spellcasting system. The support-oriented Battlemaster Maneuvers aren't spells. The Ancestral Guardian Barbarian, Cavalier Fighter, Purple Dragon Knight, Echo Knight, and Rune Knight don't get spells, but they all get support-oriented abilities.</p><p></p><p>The fact that a lot of 5e's support abilities are spells does not mean that it is the only way, the superior way, or that we shouldn't strive to add more ways.</p><p></p><p>Again, this is a lie. I gave multiple suggestions in the OP on how to make Bard subclasses more rewarding to take; from added known spell lists, subclass-specific uses of Bardic Inspiration, added proficiencies for certain subclasses (martial proficiencies for the Warrior-Bard subclass, for example), and abilities that grant temporary hit points, or summon creatures to support you in combat (like the Creation Bard), or damage-enhancing features, and so on. Just because I did not write the whole damn class does not mean that the idea of it is flawed.</p><p></p><p>Seriously, can you please stop pretending that whatever version of the class you've envisioned in your head is what it would actually turn out to be like? Because, again, you cannot predict the future, and criticisms like "it would suck mechanically", or "it would only focus on support", or "you only want to give subclasses spells and nothing else" are all dependent on you actually having seen the class, which you have not, so all of those criticisms are moot.</p><p></p><p>Unless you can see the future and have seen whatever implementation would be used by WotC to make a Half-Caster Bard class . . . speculating that the class would suck mechanically or similar criticisms are just absolute nonsense.</p><p></p><p>No, that was not the inspiration for making this post. I've stated many times before on this site that I would love an official Arcane Gish Class in D&D 5e. I'm not trying to turn the Bard into that, I just sincerely think that it would work better as a Half-Caster. I would both make that change and add an Arcane Gish Class to the game if I were in charge of it. Making that class would not stop me from wanting this change.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Levistus's_Leviathan, post: 8577342, member: 7023887"] I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that term. Could you please explain it? This is untrue. In the OP, I listed problems that I felt the Bard had. The main ones are as follows: [LIST=1] [*]There are too many Charisma-based Full-Casters in D&D 5e (Bard, Warlock, Sorcerer). [*]The Bard's theme is pretty incohesive and disjointed (through certain spells not fitting their theme, to redundant subclasses, to trying to figure out if they want to be swashbuckling spellblades or musical scholars, to an overall weaker explanation of their magic compared to most other casting classes). [*]Most of the Bard's higher-level spells (besides Irresistible Dance and Glibness) don't fit the image of the "Magical Music Man" idea that is at the core of the class. [*]They borrow too much from other classes' themes (the Wizard for scholarly spellcaster, Cleric for support, Rogue for Expertise, etc). [*]Their subclasses aren't rewarding enough (only getting abilities at 3 levels). [/LIST] Whether or not you think these things are actually problems large enough to warrant a substantial change in the mechanics of the class doesn't change the fact that they are problems. Now, this is just a blatant mischaracterization of my post. If you'll reread my post, you'll see that I suggested the [I][B]exact opposite[/B][/I] of what you're saying. Did I suggest an expansion to a primarily-support-based feature that the Bard's get (Bardic Inspiration)? Yes, I did. Does that mean that I want to "force all Bards to be support characters"? Of course not! Later in the post, I went on to say that I would grant every subclass a different usage of Bardic Inspiration, such as giving the Martial subclass the ability to use Bardic Inspiration similar to Battle Master Maneuvers (like the College of Swords does). I also gave the example of there being a Thunder-damage focused bard that sings/plays an instrument loud enough that it damages their enemies. That's pretty obviously the opposite of "being forced into a support role with no other choices". So, either you didn't read my post well enough to understand this fact, or you're purposefully mischaracterizing my post to try and "win" this debate. Furthermore, the "they'd be unlike any other class in 5e" thing is also inaccurate, as I listed another class that does things similar to what I'd envision this version of the Bard to be like; the Artificer. There could be more support-oriented Bard subclasses, like the Alchemist is more focused on support, while there would also be more damage-focused subclasses, like the Artillerist and Battle-Smith. This is also untrue. As I said in the OP, Bards would get features to make up for the higher level spells that they'd lose, such as expanded uses and styles of Bardic Inspiration, greater Jack-of-All-Trade-style class abilities, and other abilities to make up for the delayed spell-progression. So, unless you can see into the future, this statement is completely impossible to state in an objective manner. The class could very easily get features that make up for the loss of greater spell progression. No, I'm aware of that. I just reject that it's the only way. Bardic Inspiration isn't a spell. Artificer Infusions aren't spells. Channel Divinity isn't a spell. The Artillerist's Protector Cannon, the Battle Smith's Steel Defender and Arcane Jolt, and the Armorer's Thunder Gauntlets all do not use 5e's spellcasting system. The support-oriented Battlemaster Maneuvers aren't spells. The Ancestral Guardian Barbarian, Cavalier Fighter, Purple Dragon Knight, Echo Knight, and Rune Knight don't get spells, but they all get support-oriented abilities. The fact that a lot of 5e's support abilities are spells does not mean that it is the only way, the superior way, or that we shouldn't strive to add more ways. Again, this is a lie. I gave multiple suggestions in the OP on how to make Bard subclasses more rewarding to take; from added known spell lists, subclass-specific uses of Bardic Inspiration, added proficiencies for certain subclasses (martial proficiencies for the Warrior-Bard subclass, for example), and abilities that grant temporary hit points, or summon creatures to support you in combat (like the Creation Bard), or damage-enhancing features, and so on. Just because I did not write the whole damn class does not mean that the idea of it is flawed. Seriously, can you please stop pretending that whatever version of the class you've envisioned in your head is what it would actually turn out to be like? Because, again, you cannot predict the future, and criticisms like "it would suck mechanically", or "it would only focus on support", or "you only want to give subclasses spells and nothing else" are all dependent on you actually having seen the class, which you have not, so all of those criticisms are moot. Unless you can see the future and have seen whatever implementation would be used by WotC to make a Half-Caster Bard class . . . speculating that the class would suck mechanically or similar criticisms are just absolute nonsense. No, that was not the inspiration for making this post. I've stated many times before on this site that I would love an official Arcane Gish Class in D&D 5e. I'm not trying to turn the Bard into that, I just sincerely think that it would work better as a Half-Caster. I would both make that change and add an Arcane Gish Class to the game if I were in charge of it. Making that class would not stop me from wanting this change. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Bards Should Be Half-Casters in 5.5e/6e
Top