Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7645574" data-attributes="member: 996">Bards really were pretty awful for quite a while. They were darn near inaccessible in 1e and pretty sad in 2e and better than they looked (but still not competitive with other full casters) in 3e.&nbsp; And, all the while, they were saddled with this ridiculous high-CHA-yet-obnoxious minstrel stereotype (cf Elan).&nbsp; 4e, of course, compulsively balanced classes, so even the Bard was solid, and 5e, while restoring the status quo ante in most cases, somehow got the idea that the Bard should be a genuine 9-spell-levels full caster.&nbsp; Maybe it was powering back up casters with such a broad brush that the Bard just got caught up in it.I think, though, a defining question for Bard preference (4e or 5e) is how your group reacts to the discovery of a cantrip called Vicious Mockery.&nbsp; If they're all like &quot;I can INSULT people to death?!? Woo-hooo sign me up!&quot; the Bard will go over well with them.&nbsp; If they're more like &quot;that's just not realistic, even with magic, hit point damage must represent physical injury...&quot;&nbsp; ..oh well.On paper, it's always seemed kinda strong - casting /and/ full armor and d8 HD? And scare undead away?&nbsp; Kinda a big deal back in the day - until you factored out the 'healing burden,' at which point they were d8 HD 1 att/rnd mace-wielding fighters.&nbsp; 3e, of course, eliminated the healing burden thanks to WoCLW, and we got CoDzilla, Tier 1 on paper or off.&nbsp; (4e shifted to healing burden to surges so had the luxury of balancing the cleric).&nbsp; 5e, on paper, shifts healing burden back to the cleric (and several other classes), but also leaves between-combat healing to HD, so the cleric isn't as burdened as all that......but, the Cleric and Bard still tend to suffer from just rather limited, not broadly-appealing concepts.&nbsp; The pious healer and the magical minstrel just don't stand out in genre the way the heroic warrior archetypes do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7645574, member: 996"] Bards really were pretty awful for quite a while. They were darn near inaccessible in 1e and pretty sad in 2e and better than they looked (but still not competitive with other full casters) in 3e. And, all the while, they were saddled with this ridiculous high-CHA-yet-obnoxious minstrel stereotype (cf Elan). 4e, of course, compulsively balanced classes, so even the Bard was solid, and 5e, while restoring the [i]status quo ante[/i] in most cases, somehow got the idea that the Bard should be a genuine 9-spell-levels full caster. Maybe it was powering back up casters with such a broad brush that the Bard just got caught up in it. I think, though, a defining question for Bard preference (4e or 5e) is how your group reacts to the discovery of a cantrip called Vicious Mockery. If they're all like "I can INSULT people to death?!? Woo-hooo sign me up!" the Bard will go over well with them. If they're more like "that's just not realistic, even with magic, hit point damage must represent physical injury..." ..oh well. On paper, it's always seemed kinda strong - casting /and/ full armor and d8 HD? And scare undead away? Kinda a big deal back in the day - until you factored out the 'healing burden,' at which point they were d8 HD 1 att/rnd mace-wielding fighters. 3e, of course, eliminated the healing burden thanks to WoCLW, and we got CoDzilla, Tier 1 on paper or off. (4e shifted to healing burden to surges so had the luxury of balancing the cleric). 5e, on paper, shifts healing burden back to the cleric (and several other classes), but also leaves between-combat healing to HD, so the cleric isn't as burdened as all that... ...but, the Cleric and Bard still tend to suffer from just rather limited, not broadly-appealing concepts. The pious healer and the magical minstrel just don't stand out in genre the way the heroic warrior archetypes do. [/QUOTE]

Verification