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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 7832681" data-attributes="member: 6750235">Naw, bards were always full casters.  This was demonstrated with lack of restrictions on caster levels like other non-full casters would have, and also hidden by using a modified progression with additional supplemented magical abilities.The original and AD&D had near top level spell slots (6th level spells compared to the cleric or illusionist 7th level spells) plus level-per-day uses of mass charm.  There was also a revised Dragon Magazine version that used druid and illusionist spells instead.  2e's supplemental abilities were pretty weak in comparison but they were solid spell casters because of the spell caster level mechanics and their progression rate.  3.x went back closer to the AD&D version with a lot of spells, 8th level spells that were 6th level spells for bards, and a ton of magical songs.  4e was 4e so the power structure was similar all around, and bards continued to be arcane casters.5e (and PF2) just takes away the massive magical power AD&D and 3.x charm abilities / songs had and replaces that potential with spells.  Bards always cast spells at full power, and in 2e's example that easily made them better than wizards in a lot of ways.  Given the area of effect of AD&D's charm ability or the DC of 3.x's fascinate or mass suggestion abilities I would say the conversion weakened bards in some ways.  ;-)The only real change is bards know high level spells now that they didn't before.  That's the equivalent of complaining clerics, druids, and illusionists were upgraded from 7th level spells to 9th level spells and weren't real casters before that point.  ;-)Even that was covered in 3.x pre's where swapping in spells from other classes was popular in bard pre's, as well as advancing up to 9th level spell slots on a bard chassis.  We cannot have forgotten sublime chord's already.... ;-)I'm in the "bards should be full casters" group.  If a group doesn't like that version, just don't allow it and players can make bards how they want as flavor in other classes, or a subclass of rogue or fighter patterned after AT / EK can replace it without much effort.  The arcane trickster is already pretty close to some of the concepts, with the right background and skills to theme it out.Getting 6th level spells at a time when clerics get 7th level spells, plus a lot of charm power.  It was a lot like 2e bards with more rogue abilities, plus the AD&D charming power.  Or a lot like the AD&D version but using magic user spells instead of druid spells, and without the massive amount of hit points.A 20th level bard had 120% chance to charm any 20th level character within 60' other than monks.  There were a lot of odd things about that like undead being resistant instead of immune and Balrog's getting a flat 200% resist (which gave a 50/50 chance for the bard at 25th level).  Then they got a save vs magic for the suggestion power that came free with the charm.  The 3e bard song was surprisingly similar to the original version effect.1e and 3.x had that jedi mind trick running rampant at times. ;-)Nostalgia.  <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🙃" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f643.png" title="Upside-down face    :upside_down:" data-shortname=":upside_down:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> As for the topic, I would just cut what I don't want, tbh.  Often, I prefer a more S&S feel and that means restricting cantrips and not the spell casters so much as the spell available.  No class is required, and spell selection is easy to limit.  I find it less work to trim than to flat out change.</blockquote>

Verification