Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 8011574" data-attributes="member: 6750235">The hit point pool is nice at low levels though.  I'd rather have better AC, IME, and tend to prefer land druids for more available spells and renewal.I find the class has so much customization potential more subclass options aren't needed.There is a lot of utility in wild-shaping, regardless.  It"s not something I would call a ribbon ability.It's odd but has situational use.  That's one of the common complaints of the class -- too many niche abilities instead of general ability.I would go with a similar approach if we had a do-over or new edition.  Possibly similar to warlocks where the class picks a terrain and enemy instead of patron and pact.  Then each level-gates relevant abilities as the class levels to keep it simple.I disagree.  1e bards had 5th, 6th, or 7th level spells depending on which optional version was used.  The related jester class  consumed as a bard archetype in later editions had 8th level spells.  Clerics, druids, and illusionists had 7th level spells so Ty he spell casting wasn't far off but bards had the charm / suggestion magical ability to support it.2e bards always cast up the 6th level spells while priests (clerics and druids) cast 5th, 6th, or 7th level spells depending on WIS score but still hit 7th vs 6th.  The songs were less prominent, here.The only class to get 9th level spells in either edition was magic-user/mage/wizard so if that's your criteria most casters were "half-casters". ;-)It wasn't until 3.x that clerics and druids gained 9th level spells, and bards accomplished a similar benefit through more spells and supernatural abilities through songs than they had in the previous editions.  3e also gave the same spells at different spell levels so a bard would gain the same spell at similar levels if it was considered iconic to bards.On top of that 3e bard PrC's gave the spell benefits we see in 5e's magical secrets and could advance them too 9th level spells as well as songs (sublime chord as a typical example).Calling 3e bards half-casters is about as valid as calling 5e warlocks half-casters just because of a mixed mechanic.All three editions used the caster level mechanic.  Partial casters like paladins and rangers had restricted caster levels.  Bards cast spells at full caster level along with other full casters.4e bards cast spells using the arcane power source and was the same as other "spell-casters".There were editions bards were weaker casters but they were never something I would consider a half-casters.  It's not like they cast spells at lower level like paladins and rangers did.I make DEX fighters all the time.  DEX is too useful not to consider it.Yeah, but what we see on forums isn't much better than anecdotal evidence.  We don't know all the survey information.</blockquote>

Verification