D&D 5E I Told Ya So 2014!! (or not)

[Zardnaar]

That's not at all accurate. Here's a breakdown:

Starting out at 0 XP, the wizard knows a few spells and has a spell slot - the bard knows zero spells and has zero spell slots (sure, he picks up a spell slot at half as many XP as the wizard needs to get a second slot, but there is zero guarantee of having any spells to cast it with, and the bard doesn't even get read magic as guaranteed so they could fail a learn chance and not even be able to use scrolls to learn new spells).
When the Wizard reaches level 2, the bard is level 3 - they have the same spell slots, but the wizard is guaranteed to know a few spells and the bard isn't (and that's reiterated enough, so I'll stop mentioning it now).
When the Wizard reaches level 3, the bard is level 4 - they have the same spell slots.
When the Wizard reaches level 4, the bard is level 5 - but from this point forward the wizard always has more numerous spell slots of at least one spell level
When the Wizard reaches level 5, the bard is level 6 - but from this point forward the wizard not only always has more numerous spell slots, but has higher level spell slots too.

The only thing which might make the bard be considered "better" is all of the parts of the class that aren't spellcasting, because the bard has a number of such features which is greater than the zero the wizard has, unless they are a specialist in which case their ability to cast spells is even more potent than the bard because all the above XP values where I've said the spell slots are the same the wizard actually has more than the bard, plus better learn chance and a save penalty for the favored type of spells.

Wizard xp tables were a bit funky and they sped up a bit at level 6-10 or so. A bard hits level 16 around the same time a wizard gets to level 13 for example. Bards also got a d6 hit dice (vs a d4), and +2HP a levelinstead of +1 after level 9 or 10. Said Bard could often end up with double the wizards hit points with a superior THACO and they hard bard abilities as well along with better THACO and at low levels could use beter weapons and armor which mattered after you ran out of spells. Bards also hit level 20 while wizards were at level 15.

Spells auto scaled as well so the bard cast spells at a higher caster level so things like Fireball were better coming from a bard. So at lower levels they were better than a wizard and at higher levels were not that far behind in the spell pattern except at the highest level and the Bard was generally 1-2 levels ahead of the wizard. Level 12 wizard or level 14 Bard for example. The main point being the 2E Bard was no slouch in the spell casting department. They were a bit more MAD though so a a wizard has an edge there. Even when bards fell behind in spell slots it was not that far behind and they cast the spells at a higher caster level.
Some classes were nerfed in the 2E to 3.0 changeover, Bards and Fighters being at the top of that list.

Bards really only sucked in 3.0. We more or less outright broke the 3.5 Bard CO boards not required. I think I was one of the ones who put together the power Bard build on the boards back in 2004 or 5. It was like the Cleric archer from 3.0 except it buffed the entire party.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Wizard xp tables were a bit funky and they sped up a bit at level 6-10 or so. A bard hits level 16 around the same time a wizard gets to level 13 for example.

...are you under the impression that I don't know these things?

Bards also got a d6 hit dice (vs a d4), and +2HP a levelinstead of +1 after level 9 or 10. Said Bard could often end up with double the wizards hit points with a superior THACO and they hard bard abilities as well along with better THACO and at low levels could use beter weapons and armor which mattered after you ran out of spells.

All of which I know. All of which I implicitly acknowledged in the post you quoted to tell me. And, most importantly, all of which don't actually make the bard a better "magic user" since none of them have to do with using magic which the bard may or may not actually have.

Bards also hit level 20 while wizards were at level 15.

And yet that 15th level wizard still has more spell slots than the bard, and can cast 7th level spells, making the wizard the better character in the category of magic use.

Spells auto scaled as well so the bard cast spells at a higher caster level so things like Fireball were better coming from a bard.

Yeah, when making the gigantic assumption that the bard ever found a way to learn the fireball spell - meanwhile an invoker wizard got at least one guaranteed shot at a chance to learn roll for fireball just by leveling up.

The main point being the 2E Bard was no slouch in the spell casting department.

"no slouch in the spell casting department" was not the argument you originally phrased, nor is the counter "a slouch in the spell casting department" the argument I have phrased. You said the bard was a better magic user than the wizard in parts of 2e, and I have demonstrated that as not being the case.

Bards really only sucked in 3.0.

And that "sucked" is entirely relative to other classes and doesn't mean that all of the other classes didn't also suck, just to a lesser degree - or to phrase that differently; it doesn't mean that not all of the classes are above the objective line of good enough established by the system and its intended design, just that of all the classes the bard is one of the least popular among players concerned with optimization in that edition.

 

[DEFCON 1]

At this point does anyone actually even CARE whether or not Bless, SW/GWM, or the Bard are overpowered?

Those that think they are amend them or just don't use them... those that don't just use them as normal.

What exactly is the point in arguing about it still? Do people actually believe if they continue to argue the point that WotC is going to REMOVE these things from the game down the line? Well, hate to break it to you... that ain't gonna happen. They're in the book, they're in the book to stay. The best you're going to get is a new book of mechanics down the line that'll maybe give "alternate" versions of these things that are powered down. But even then... the other versions will still be in the game and every DM will still get to use them as they want.

 

[Giant2005]

It is always better to take the appropriate combat feat (Sharpshooter for bow use and Great Weapon Master for heavy weapons) over not taking it.

I sure don't think so (although my objections is solely with your use of the word "always" - a build that has been carefully optimized to make the best use of those feats certainly benefits from them, or if you were somehow gaining them without any form of opportunity cost you would obviously be better off for having them, but that is about as far as it goes.
However due to the opportunity cost, you are probably worse off for taking the feat than you would be without it.
The average game is probably 20% combat (I think that figure it probably a bit generous and that number would likely be a lot lower), and of those combats the feat is useful for probably 50% of them if the character hasn't been heavily optimized and designed around the feat (again, 50% is probably a bit generous but I prefer to err on the side of caution).
The net result is that you have spent a very scarce resource (an ASI/Feat) on something that will only benefit you for about 10% of the game. Considering the plethora of feats (or ASI options) that you could otherwise have that offer their benefits far more consistently, it is hard to consider the feat to "always" be a good idea, and in most situations, it probably isn't a good idea at all.

 

[Imaculata]

Bards really only sucked in 3.0. We more or less outright broke the 3.5 Bard CO boards not required.

No they don't. The Bard is just fine in 3.0 and 3.5. It just happens to be one of the less popular classes. But he's a pretty good all rounder. He has a D6 hit die, which is pretty decent, and has a lot of skill points per level. He has a really good selection of spells, as soon as level 1. In fact, I like his spell variety a lot better than the Druid's. He can wear leather armor without penalty, and yet can also cast Mage Armor.

 

[Ahglock]

I kind of agree with the bard. Probably the best caster in the game with by far the most impressive class abilities for a caster. At least lore bard. Want to play a great wizard play a lore bard you will be s better wizard than the wizard.

Sharpshooter it's a damage feat that increases your damage. If this game had massive feat lists I might be able to say OP but given how few damage feats there are not do much.

Bless probably a bit too good for its level but not so much that I call it OP.

 

[happyhermit]

I kind of agree with the bard. Probably the best caster in the game with by far the most impressive class abilities for a caster. At least lore bard. Want to play a great wizard play a lore bard you will be s better wizard than the wizard.
...

In what way is a Lore Bard a better Wizard than a Wizard?

 

[Shasarak]

So Was Zardy somewhat right in 2014 or was he barking up the wrong tree. Or shall we go with the or not part of the thread title.

I must admit that you did call it.

 

[Ahglock]

In what way is a Lore Bard a better Wizard than a Wizard?

He can easily craft his spell list to be wizardly+. With the massive known list bards get having a spell book and preparing isn't much of an advantage. And they get access to spells a wizard never will. Want to summon things in one action instead of one minute boom take the Druid spell. Wizards other gimmick is lore and intelligence but the bard can beat them in that easily since they can get double proficiency bonuses. There are a couple wizard specialties that add something valuable to their spell casting but overall a bard matches them there and maybe trumps them as they can throw in a few out of class spells. But all the non spellcasting stuff you might envision about your wizard. A bard will do it better. So overall IMO if you have a image of a wizard in your head play a bard.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Back in 2014 justr after 5E came out on the WotC boards I claimed several things. THey were.

1. Bless was OP.
2. Sharpshooter/Great Weapon Master was OP
3. Bards were OP.

This was circa September/October 2014. Some of the other posters were very good at spotting other things such as the Sorcerer/Warlock and how RAW eldritch blast+polearm master+ warcaster worked together. Now here we are 2 years later and the -5/+10 feats seem to be widely regarded as being OP but I am also seeing a few references to Bards being OP as well but I'm not sure that is so clear cut.

So Was Zardy somewhat right in 2014 or was he barking up the wrong tree. Or shall we go with the or not part of the thread title.

Note I regard myself as a reasonable powergamer. I roll 4d6 drop the lowest and whatever I try and do I try and excel at but I rarely go for things regarded as being uber power, hence playing a Monk ATM despite my thematic dislike of the class. If I did something like roll 3 18s I would play an Elemental Monk or Beastmaster.

I agree with the -5/+10 mechanic being broken in 5e. There are too many easy combos to effectively negate the penalty.