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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8819582" data-attributes="member: 6790260">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.</blockquote>

Verification