D&D 5E I would really like a return of the old Bard class.

[UngeheuerLich]

Think about it that way: If you do things that are like spells, you can as well make it spells. No need for another subsystem. I REALLY would have liked the bard to memorize spells.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I wonder what kind of a bard you'd get if you went:

Entertainer background
Rogue Arcane Trickster
Swap out complete Sneak Attack suite for complete Bardic Inspiration suite at proper levels

 

[Li Shenron]

Think about it that way: If you do things that are like spells, you can as well make it spells. No need for another subsystem.

Yes to this but...

I REALLY would have liked the bard to memorize spells.

...I don't think it makes a difference. If you look at the numbers, the number of spells known by spontaneous casters is close to (or less than) the number they would prepare if they followed the same preparation rules as the others.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

...I don't think it makes a difference. If you look at the numbers, the number of spells known by spontaneous casters is close to (or less than) the number they would prepare if they followed the same preparation rules as the others.

I really liked to be able to learn spells and memorize them smartly... I also think the difference is not big... did I mention I really liked to memorize spells?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Currently I am struggling to find my ideal bard. Right now I am favouring a level 1 fighter with entertainer background and half elf for extra skills. Then bard from there. Or human instead of half elf for inspirational leader at level 1.

Starting with a non spellcasting bard would emulate the feel of 2nd edition where you started as bad fighter but quickly advanced to a formidable mage.

Other ideas are

sage, barbarian 1 and bard later dor the skald feel.

Rogue 1, sage, for the sage

Rogue 1, charlatan for the charlatan.

If you want, every path is possible with backgrounds and multiclass and the will not to optimize by means of specializing but rather trying to diversify by means of clever multiclassing.

 

[jgsugden]

I'm finding that Valor bards can hold their own in melee next to the fighter, paladin, ranger and barbarian. They have some unique tricks that allow their utility in combat to make up for the lower level of pure damage at higher levels. There is nothing wrong there.

However, if you want the feel of older edition bards, you may just want to build it with the right background and class combinations. There are a lot of paths there...

 

[MoonSong]

As has been pointed out to me, recently, what we mean to say, and how it can be taken are different things. Maybe you were trying to put a new face on something that'd been used negatively in the past, or were unaware of that line of attack having been so common...
Nod, 1e bards were also way ahead of their time in being virtually a PrC. But the melee competence of certain bards (1e, 4e, Essentials Skald) is clearly alluded to with the Valor Bard, in 5e. Maybe not enough, because it's still a full caster, and that doesn't leave huge volumes of design space to fill with melee tricks.

The 3e Bard did suffer a bit from it's informal '5th wheel' role, and from being a 'sorcerer lite' in spell progression (only up to 6th level spells), but, it was still a full caster in the sense of casting at it's class level, which was nothing to sneeze at. 5e finally gave it full casting progression, right up to 9th level spells, so yes, it's as capable a caster as the Sorcerer, now.

It is stronger than the sorcerer right now. Way stronger.

Yes to this but...



...I don't think it makes a difference. If you look at the numbers, the number of spells known by spontaneous casters is close to (or less than) the number they would prepare if they followed the same preparation rules as the others.

No, only for bard, Sorcerers know way less spells. (first level Wizard 3-4, sorcerer 2, bard 4. 20 th level. wiz 25, bard 22, sorc 15)

 

[Tony Vargas]

It is stronger than the sorcerer right now. Way stronger.

As a caster? Considering the differences in their spell lists, and the Sorcerer's meta-magic directly enhancing his casting, vs the Bard's features enhancing his allies?

 

[Li Shenron]

No, only for bard, Sorcerers know way less spells. (first level Wizard 3-4, sorcerer 2, bard 4. 20 th level. wiz 25, bard 22, sorc 15)

That's what I meant. Because Bards & Sorcerer know about as many spells as (in Bards case) or less spell than (in Sorcerers case) the spells prepared by other casters, to require Bards/Sorcerers to prepare their spells (presumably with the same rules i.e. Cha+level) would have no effect: they would just prepare all their known spells!

 

[MoonSong]

As a caster? Considering the differences in their spell lists, and the Sorcerer's meta-magic directly enhancing his casting, vs the Bard's features enhancing his allies?

Sorcerer "power" only lets them nova more often. That and a little more damage (very little) -contrast with the better ac, hp and more skills + expertise bards get on top of ritual casting-. Sorcerers and bards share about little less than half their spell lists (54 spells), on top, Bards share 33 spells with wizards that sorcerers don't. And they have even more variety of spell effects sorcerers can't hope to share. (and most of those sorcerer spells are basically damage, damage and more damage, but if a bard wants to do damage, they can just take whatever good sorcerer spell they wish.) Replace a sorcerer with a bard and the same party does better.