Yet in the doing you've stripped out an enormous amount of spells (seriously, this is massive and cannot be understated) and, if Inspiration works the way you've said, horribly nerfed the core shtick of the class.
Well what is a bard? They didn't have as much spells in 3.X for example (although more than an arcane trickster, they were "2/3 casters".) Is magic really core to the concept?
A miserable pile of (Magical) Secrets! But enough talk!
Usually I say no to this question--I consider Rangers and Paladins significantly improved when they don't cast spells, but have other forms of supernatural power--but for the Bard? Yes, absolutely. The whole point of the Bard is that they do all the things. They're the equivalent of Red Mage from Final Fantasy (or, rather, Red Mage is the equivalent of Bard, since D&D very much came first.)
And, as above, I think that that is sad. Proper spells should be one important, but not hegemonic, branch of supernatural power. Some classes should be focused on it. IMO, those are Bard, Cleric, Druid, Invoker (a 4e class), Sorcerer, Summoner (a PF class), Wizard, Warlock. Possibly also Artificer and Shaman--I can see those going either way. But Assassin, Avenger, Monk, Paladin, anything psionics-based, Ranger, Swordmage, and Warden should all do things that aren't neo-Vancian slots-and-levels spellcasting. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have supernatural powers; instead, it means that whatever supernatural powers they have should function differently, preferably more closely tailored to the theme of these classes. (Notably, most of those which I think should use neo-Vancian casting are pretty "big tent" classes with multiple divergent takes under one roof, while most of those I think shouldn't do so are more inherently tightly-themed, with subclasses being more about focus and tone than about playstyle shifts.)
For someone who wants a character that is like that, awesome. Opting into that is great, and I would 100% approve of a "soft multiclass" option for a Rogue with a dabble of Bard. Making it so everyone must run with that--and, moreover, cannot opt out of it--is kind of a problem.
I agree with you that an assassin shouldn't have to have spells... but it was one of their distinguishing feature in 3e. An assassin would use any tool that accomplishes the job IMO, and a bit of magic certainly helps a lot. Interestingly, in 2e there was no assassin class, because "anyone can be a killer for hire"
You must be happy with some of the more recent "alt magic" sub-classes, like the rune knight or the soul knife? (I am)
With the way 5e is designed, yes. Really, it applies to 3e as well; the Bard sucks as a caster unless you bolt on the Sublime Chord PrC...which very specifically gets a weirdo magic progression allowing a Bard to have 9th level spells.
Well, "spell" means two different things in 4e: class powers for arcane classes, and rituals. 4e Bards are excellent Ritual Casters, with a suite of Bard-only rituals to boot. It's...difficult to make direct comparisons between powers and spells proper because they are similar, but they have enough fundamental but subtle differences to make it very complicated.
And I thought that was silly back then, too. Keep in mind, in 3e, the Warlock was NOT a spellcaster of any kind, yet it makes a great deal of sense that it is one in 5e. The "original" version is not always the best version.
I prefer "a bit of magic" to be something that isn't Vancian spellcasting. Indeed, that is exactly where I think non-spellcasting supernatural power shines brightest.
Oh, sure, some are pretty neat. I haven't closely looked at the soulknife (no phone, not soup knife...) so I can't comment on that.
I had understood that to be CleverKnickName's point, intending to completely replace the Bard class with a Rogue subclass, hence the phrasing: "And to think: some folks still think that the bard shouldn't be a subclass of Rogue." Certainly I can guarantee it's the intent of more than one poster on here, e.g. demoting Warlock to being a Cleric subclass. Class reductionism is a lamentably common interest.
Wait…it makes sense for the “breaks the rules of magic via otherworldly gifts as a shortcut to power” to be a full spellcaster, but the Ranger shouldn’t be!?
Same reason the ranger should have spells, IMO. And yeah I’m a D&D world, I agree that the best assassins have magic.
That has always got my hackles up. “Killer for hire” is a mercenary or contract killer. An Assassin is something quite different.
Warlocks, Clerics, and Sorcerers all get spells by endowment. This is a well-established pattern.
I honestly don't get what is confusing about this. I want a diversity of approaches to supernatural power. This requires that there be more than just the very specific mechanical and thematic limitations imposed by "you have X/Y/Z slots of level M/P/Q, which specifically refresh daily and which are totally fungible between your different magical abilities of a given level, and which are disabled or defeasible under specific well-defined circumstances no matter how you perform them, and you must specifically engage nondescript physical motions, highly specific magical materials, or nondescript verbal expressions if and only if they are mentioned in the text."
It's incredible how our experiences shape our perception of the subclasses. I played an Arcane Trickster and had an absolute blast. One of my best characters. I played him as an arcane investigator and exfiltrator of magical relics. The spells were not the main feature, but his tricks and tools of the trade. The long-distance Mage Hand, for example, came in handy when the party had to disarm a magical bomb. At later levels, he did multiclass into wizard, but that was also due to some story reasons rather than deficiencies of the AT.
