D&D 5E Legends & Lore 03.10.2014: Full-spellcasting Bard

[ambroseji]

The one thing I'm surprised about that more people aren't giving props for in this version of the Bard is that (from what Mike says) it can and will be a full replacement for the Cleric. The one thing that was hailed almost as much as any other about 4E was that a Cleric was no longer necessary-- you could have another other Leader class fulfill the needs of a party that felt like it needed a full-on healer.

I think that the designers have already done a good job of designing multiple classes that can heal.

I think it's great that the bard fills this role, but I don't think it should be pigeon-holed into it. The current bard does alright as a healer in a party without one. I've ran played enough sessions of Next that I have seen bards, paladins, rangers, druids, and clerics all step up as the primary healer. Some are stronger at healing than others, but they can all do it.

 

[Halivar]

The "traditional" D&D bard, in all its incarnations, has been the worst class of all and I have disagreed with its thematic underpinnings from the very beginning. The 1E bard, IMHO, comes the closest to not being terrible. At this point, I'm all for anything that can point this class in a less useless, redundant direction, even if it means burning down the house.

 

[GX.Sigma]

On the one hand, full spellcasting feels wrong for the D&D Bard. I also don't understand his line of thought: Let's break some tradition and give the Bard a unique place in the game... by making it even more like wizards/sorcerers?

On the other hand, the playtest bard is incredibly boring to play in combat. Turn on Call to Battle in round one, ineffectually shoot a crossbow every round thereafter, and healing word whenever someone needs it. The bard player in my campaign actually painted a portrait between combat rounds because she was so bored.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

On the one hand, full spellcasting feels wrong for the D&D Bard. I also don't understand his line of thought: Let's break some tradition and give the Bard a unique place in the game... by making it even more like wizards/sorcerers?

On the other hand, the playtest bard is incredibly boring to play in combat. Turn on Call to Battle in round one, ineffectually shoot a crossbow every round thereafter, and healing word whenever someone needs it. The bard player in my campaign actually painted a portrait between combat rounds because she was so bored.

what?

Call to battle and two weapon fighting is quite strong to be honest...

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

what?

Call to battle and two weapon fighting is quite strong to be honest...

This is how I'm seeing it being used in my game. The bard will call to battle R1 and TWF after that. Add a good Dex score and some finesse weapons to the mix and you have a respectable melee combatant. Not yet a sneak attacking rogue, but enough to make he feel very useful to the party.

 

[I'm A Banana]

FWIW, I'm enjoying Bards as it is. Probably my 2nd or 3rd favorite class so far, behind Warlock (the warlock is soooooooooooooooooo cool) and <redacted>.

The article does a pretty good job of summing up what the Bard is; the full spell progression thing isn't that big of a deal. It's nice, but Bards are still very much Bards, and they no longer suffer from "OK at everything, master of nothing" syndrome that inevitably causes them to suck at anything besides buffing the party at high levels. Most of the concerns here seem to be dealt with by the (current) details, fwiw.

I guess where I don't see it is where a full spell progression helps that (in a way that, say, unique uses of Inspriation might not). I also wonder what the bard gives up to get that full spell progression, and why it couldn't have gotten something a bit more versatile, spontaneous, and interesting instead?

But this might be just something I'll need to see before it makes sense to me (the original 3e Sorcerer using CHA to cast spells was like that, too!).

 

[EnglishLanguage]

However, its a helluva lot better balanced than the 3.5 bard whose magic is too weak to really be a caster and whose melee is too weak to really get in a fight.

To be fair though, "more balanced than it's 3.x incarnation" isn't really saying a whole lot.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I guess where I don't see it is where a full spell progression helps that (in a way that, say, unique uses of Inspriation might not). I also wonder what the bard gives up to get that full spell progression, and why it couldn't have gotten something a bit more versatile, spontaneous, and interesting instead?

But this might be just something I'll need to see before it makes sense to me (the original 3e Sorcerer using CHA to cast spells was like that, too!).

I really can´t see why he should give something up besides call to battle, which is clearly too good as written, because it enhances quadratic with level (number of attacks and more damage). I can see him getting d8 for hitdice and full spellcasting progression (without recoveries of spellslots wizard/druid or sorcerer like). Full spellcasting and half spellcasting lies very close to one another: just 4 more spells and faster progression. And if spells like ottos irresistable dance are same spell level for the bard as the wizard it may even be a "nerf"* of some kind, as the bard only has a single very high level slot. They also may lose all those limited spellcasting workaround features the current bard has. Going for 9 level spellcasting may just be the more convenient solution. It also makes sure, a bard using a healing spell does so with enough power if needed.

*of course it is a buff overall, not a nerf. But the other way to bring him on par could leave him too strong or unbalanced. This progression is a lot smoother.

 

[Mistwell]

So what? When people talked about being forced to play Clerics, it ain't because the party was desperate for someone to turn undead. It was for healing. And we all know it. Let's not get silly, you know exactly what I meant.

You said it was a "full replacement" for the Cleric, and I don't think of it as a "full replacement" unless they can turn undead. I don't think of the Cleric as just a heal bot. I see turn undead as a key ability, and an important and useful one.

Turn Undead is a superfluous ability that most don't really care about, but it's something that's there always given the history of the Cleric in the game.

I care about it, and I don't think it's superfluous.

Truly, I am getting sick of the, "If I think this way about the game, then everyone must think this way about the game". First I was called silly for mentioning it, and now I'm told the thing I mentioned is superfluous? How about consider the possibility, for just a brief moment, that you guys might not have a lock on universal tastes in all things?

 

[Mistwell]

double