Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6837763" data-attributes="member: 996">As has been pointed out to me, recently, what we mean to say, and how it can be taken are different things.&nbsp; 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...&nbsp;&nbsp; Nod, 1e bards were also way ahead of their time in being virtually a PrC.&nbsp; But the melee competence of certain bards (1e, 4e, Essentials Skald) is clearly alluded to with the Valor Bard, in 5e.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; With this edition?&nbsp; You don't think it's been a trend, for instance?&nbsp; From the fighter-first 1e, to the Rogue-sub class in 2e, to the near-full caster in 3e, to the full-casting arcane leader with melee/skills in 4e, to the melee-oriented, but still full range of arcane spells, Skald in Essentials, to the 5e full-caster with both Lore &amp; Valor colleges?I know the Bard was roundly mocked in OotS, but is there some data on it's relative popularity across the editions?&nbsp; It'd be interesting to see.I will agree that the Bard seems to have continued moving forward in 5e rather than retreating from the ground gained by the other modern editions.&nbsp; And that it's even unusual in that sense, as 5e classes have been mostly backward-looking to evoke classic feel - with great success in every sense.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6837763, member: 996"] 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. With this edition? You don't think it's been a trend, for instance? From the fighter-first 1e, to the Rogue-sub class in 2e, to the near-full caster in 3e, to the full-casting arcane leader with melee/skills in 4e, to the melee-oriented, but still full range of arcane spells, Skald in Essentials, to the 5e full-caster with both Lore & Valor colleges? I know the Bard was roundly mocked in OotS, but is there some data on it's relative popularity across the editions? It'd be interesting to see. I will agree that the Bard seems to have continued moving forward in 5e rather than retreating from the ground gained by the other modern editions. And that it's even unusual in that sense, as 5e classes have been mostly backward-looking to evoke classic feel - with great success in every sense. [/QUOTE]

Verification