D&D 5E D&D doesn't need bards

[Ath-kethin]

I like bards as jacks of all trades who happen upon different abilities and traits. I love the card as a half-caster who has a random assortment of spells and tricks, a la the 2nd Edition AD&D version. That concept fills a design space, especially as a prepared cater with a humble of spells in their spellbook.

Bards as full casters l, or even as more focused casters, rub me the wrong way. Of course, I don't really like so many full casters in 5e anyway, so that's part of the problem right there IMO.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm just responding to @Morrus request for more suggestion threads for testing.

However, I don't like bards and think the game would be better without them. Certainly not as full casters and in no way should they be able to swap spells on a long rest.

Edited for grammer.

I'm going to violently disagree. D&D does need bards. Without Bards....

Who would you feed to the alligators while visiting the city zoo?

Who would you kneecap while being chased by hungry monsters?

Who would you trade to the evil extraplanar creature for the artifact you need to save the day?

 

[pemerton]

It really all comes down to 4e being driven more by marketing than game design. That or, as I heard someone describer it once, 4e was designed assuming the old WotC forums were a representative sample of D&D gamers, and not outliers. Thus, the game was designed to assume that every player bought every book and that strict mathematical balance between the classes was a goal because most players would work hard to actively "break" the system through elaborate "builds" if they didn't.

Getting this back to talk of Bards, bards have long been hated by powergamers as not specialized enough to work with powergamer logic. They're great for players that want a versatile character. They are great for characters that can fit into a variety of jobs in the party. They are a popular roleplaying archetype among fans. What they aren't, and probably never will be, is raw optimized power (especially while remaining true to their concept). This mentality probably shaped why 4e didn't have a bard in its initial release, and why it's perennially complained about as being an under-powered class.

Both these paragraphs are bizarre.

4e is entirely driven by game design. It sacrifices many received notions of how D&D should look and play in pursuit of design.

5e is clearly very concerned with "mathematical balance" between classes - hence why the fighter's second attack is gained at 5th rather than the traditional 7th level, so as to balance it with the mage's fireball; and hence why fireball does 8d6 rather than its traditional 5d6 for a 5th level caster.

And I've never seen anyone complain of either the 4e or 5e bard being underpowered. I do see occasional complaints of the 5e bard being overpowered.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The only classes that have been in all 5 main editions were Cleric, Fighter, Wizard, Rogue (called Thief in 1st and 2nd edition), Paladin and Ranger. . .and going to Basic D&D you didn't even have Paladin and Ranger. Bard was in 1e, as a proto-prestige-class, but not as a base class.

The Ranger wasn't in OD&D (it was published in Strategic Review, but wasn't an official class until 1e).

The classes that you can trace back through all editions are Fighting Man (Fighter), Magic User (Wizard), Cleric, Thief (Rogue), and Paladin.

....Druids and Monks were in OD&D, but had issues depending on how you define "base class" in further editions (both appeared in all editions, but not in the first publication).

Bards? They are really not so bad, provided that you do not play them nor allow them at your table.

 

[wingsandsword]

The Ranger wasn't in OD&D (it was published in Strategic Review, but wasn't an official class until 1e).

The classes that you can trace back through all editions are Fighting Man (Fighter), Magic User (Wizard), Cleric, Thief (Rogue), and Paladin.

....Druids and Monks were in OD&D, but had issues depending on how you define "base class" in further editions (both appeared in all editions, but not in the first publication).

Bards? They are really not so bad, provided that you do not play them nor allow them at your table.

I don't count OD&D as a main edition of D&D.

I was talking about the core D&D design lineage from 1st edition AD&D to 5e, intentionally not counting BD&D or OD&D, as side-projects or precursors to the main design lineage.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't count OD&D as a main edition of D&D.

Um, okay. That's kind of like saying, "I don't think of Iron Man as an MCU movie," but to each their own.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Bard should have the spellcasting format of Warlock, replacing Invocation per Songs that can add effect to an aura around the bard and replacing Boons (at 1st level) with Performer's Focus: Blade (prof with martial, medium armor and Accro), Minstrel (Instrument as focus, prof in social skills) or Loremaster (tomes as focus, prof with knowledge skills and languages).

Considering that I hate Warlocks, I actually like this idea. The mechanics make way more sense for a bard.

Having your instrument or focus of study actually have a mechanical benefit is a great idea.

 

[Starfox]

d20 Legend fo the 5 rings had a class like amny here seem to want the bard to be - was it called Courtier? Anyway, it had absolutely superb courtly and diplomatic abilities and was next to useless on adventures outside of the social stage. This was a VERY BAD idea! Basically, gameplay got divided into 2 sphere, one where all players but the courtier could leave the table, and the other where the courtier could leave the table. Each group was so much better at their chosen tasks that the others were more of a hindrance. Not fun. It might be simulationist (simulating what, exactly?) but was the opposite of heroic and fun.

 

[Starfox]

Deleted duplicate post.

Still migraine-child around.

 

[Jack Daniel]

D&D doesn't need bards, but it's certainly nice to have them around. I wouldn't play AD&D without them.

The only classes that have been in all 5 main editions were Cleric, Fighter, Wizard, Rogue (called Thief in 1st and 2nd edition), Paladin and Ranger. . .and going to Basic D&D you didn't even have Paladin and Ranger. Bard was in 1e, as a proto-prestige-class, but not as a base class.

0th edition has:
Fighter, Mage, and Cleric in Men & Magic.
Thief and Paladin in Greyhawk.
Monk and Assassin in Blackmoor.
Druid in Eldritch Wizardry.
Bard, Ranger, and Illusionist in The Strategic Review.

They all reappeared in 1st edition (the Bard gets a base class variant in Dragon #56), and they all reappeared in 2nd edition (with Monks and Assassins found in The Scarlet Brotherhood sourcebook), arguably with the exception of the Illusionist. A Mage specialized in the school of Illusion just doesn't feel quite the same.

I don't count OD&D as a main edition of D&D.

You should probably expect to be alone in that regard.