D&D 5E Building a better Bard

[TheCosmicKid]

Bards could work as half-casters (warlocks... just no), but I don't see any reason why they need to.

I'd give bards Bardic Lore (advantage on Intelligence checks to recall information), and then I think they're fine.

 

[MichaelSomething]

More Bardic Archetypes!

Spoony Bard
Backstreet Bard
Queenly Bard
Dubstep Bard

 

[aco175]

I would like to see some of their old abilities added, even if it cost full casting. You can give a list of abilities they can pick from based on level and CHA mod. Some can be limited by the archetype.

One new one can be multi concentration where he can have 2 spells going at the same time.

 

[rgoodbb]

As I say to my beloved (In my mind):

Don't ever change. I love you just the way you are

 

[happyhermit]

Hi everyone.

Lets talk Bards. What works about them? What would you change and why? How can they be improved?

I would love to hear everyones thoughts.

What works about them? Everything. I have found them to be incredibly useful for me as GM, to suggest for certain players/parties and for specific situations ie; only or primary caster of healing/utility/blasting magic in a low magic game. They can replace classes or fill roles when needed and yet they have been particularly noteworthy IME for not overshadowing other PCs.

I think the consensus is clear, that a half-caster version of the bard (and I agree with those saying the Warlock, also) is the way they should have gone. Rather than, yet another "Charisma-based full caster."
...

I strongly object to this consensus When and where was this decided?

 

[steeldragons]

I strongly object to this consensus When and where was this decided?

First page of this thread. Posts 2 & 4 flat out say they'd like to see a half caster with more bardic features/abilities/powers. Other posts concur on the desire for "more bardic abilities"...though are more reticent to "give up" [i.e. "trade off"] full casting power for it...which, obviously is unrealistic. Adding myself in at post #8, seems to indicate a "majority" view, i.e. "consensus."

Those posts looking for just silly over-powered "cake and eat it too" munkinism are obvious nonstarters that are not to be taken seriously.

So, I decided <taps staff on floor three times> Nothing else to do about it but comply.

 

[lall]

What works about them?

Expertise, Magical Secrets, Cutting Words, and Peerless Skill. Being a full caster.

What would you change and why?

Countercharm as it sucks.

How can they be improved?

Replace Countercharm with anything.

 

[Thurmas]

I'm fond of bards, but the one hole I see is Magical secrets. I wish all subclasses got it at 6, 10, etc. Not just Lore bard. 10 is just too late for many players to ever see it. Then give Lore bard something else that is Loreish at 6.

Beyond that, I'd love to see some more Bard only spells in the next big book.

 

[mellored]

Well... if there was a complete redo, then I would have the bard kill the paladin and take it's stuff. Cha, auras, light healing, half-caster, with medium armor and a weapons. Then have a lore, sklad, and trickster subclasses.
Other parts of the paladin (oath -> determination, smites) would go to the fighter, and other parts of the bard go to the enchanter.

But I don't think the benifits outweigh the cost of changing it. Where as new spells would hit the missing parts easily enough without disruption things.

 

[Gadget]

I suppose you could do a bard as a half caster, though I see no compelling reason to do so. Also, there is no "Divine" or "Arcane" distinction in 5e, just spell casters and how they get their spells. In addition, I would point out that the two half casters we have posses strong class abilities and features outside of casting to fall back on, and are fighters in all but name. The Paladin has smites that his spell casting fuels, while the Ranger has the "we don't want to anger the anti-4e crowd with martial or mundane abilities that are too magic like, so anything that might hint at a supernatural ability we will put in the spell casting system" going for it.

The Bard, while having a hodge-podge of abilities outside spell casting in earlier editions, does not have the strong, fighter-like chassis to build on (unless you're talking about he 1e bard, which started out as a fighter, then druid, then magic user. Or was it the other way around?). Also keep in mind that, despite this hodge-podge of non-spell casting abilities used over the years, the Bard has never been, shall we say, universally acclaimed. The whole jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none concept that the Bard has sometimes taken has not traditionally done that well in D&D, though it has it's fans. None of this is insurmountable, but why bother?