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

[DEFCON 1]

Or you just go Rogue10/Bard10.

Another perfectly valid solution.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And really... newly designed subclasses are what I fully expect we're going to see over on the ENWorld House Rules, Homebrews, & Conversion Library board within the first month of the game's release. Someone is going to use only the Core Four classes... and then create sub-classes for the other classes we're going to see in the book.

- A fighter "Ranger" subclass
- A cleric "Druid" subclass
- A wizard "Sorcerer" subclass
- A fighter "Barbarian" subclass
- A fighter "Monk" subclass
- A fighter/cleric multiclass "Paladin" subclass
- A rogue/wizard multiclass "Bard" subclass

Etc. etc.

You add in the applicable Backgrounds, and all those who wished for all these extra classes over the Core Four to be removed from the game can get their wish.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And really... newly designed subclasses are what I fully expect we're going to see over on the ENWorld House Rules, Homebrews, & Conversion Library board within the first month of the game's release. Someone is going to use only the Core Four classes... and then create sub-classes for the other classes we're going to see in the book.

- A fighter "Ranger" subclass
- A cleric "Druid" subclass
- A wizard "Sorcerer" subclass
- A fighter "Barbarian" subclass
- A fighter "Monk" subclass
- A fighter/cleric multiclass "Paladin" subclass
- A rogue/wizard multiclass "Bard" subclass

Etc. etc.

You add in the applicable Backgrounds, and all those who wished for all these extra classes over the Core Four to be removed from the game can get their wish.

Man, if this happens, I will be a happy panda, and I think that the 5e designers will be able to put a gold star on their resumes. It will be a good sign of a game system at least half as flexible as I'd hope it would be.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

You have to read a little more carefully. First, it gives a +10% to morale and a +1 to hit (this is the origin of the inspiration ability) as an "at will" ability, then it gives defense against magical sound attacks, then it charms, and finally enhances the effects of certain magic items. These do not include the bard specific items in the DMG.

(More fine print, they gain druid powers beyond spell casting, which I had not noticed before).

With levels in fighter and thief, this is a well rounded class.

Thanks for the correction. I do like the well roundedness of the 1E Bard, personally. It's a real accomplishment to have a bard character in 1E -- I never had one, but did DM a 1E campaign where one player was able to become a bard after about a year (real time) of adventuring.

 

[Zardnaar]

So I will ask you the same question - who has been made into a spellcaster who was not previously a spellcaster?

The debate is about quantity of spells within the spellcasting classes (and so far that debate is just ONE class large), and not adding spellcasting to classes who didn't previously have it.

Its the quantity of the spells. The Ranger and Paladin are now basically secondary spellcasters now. Throw in the Sorcerer and Warlock, Druid and CLeric you are now going to have 6 classes with access to level 9 spells compared with 1st eds 1 class. They are just trying to reskin 4th ed powers into neo vancian spells and use the same ideas 4th ed had but chaning the format to slip one past the goalie.

 

[Mistwell]

Its the quantity of the spells.

Yes I know. I said that in the quote you quoted. Which is a different argument than the argument ForeverSlayer is making.

They are just trying to reskin 4th ed powers into neo vancian spells and use the same ideas 4th ed had but chaning the format to slip one past the goalie.

Yeah this I disagree with, and I think it's totally unsupported so far. The spells don't much resemble any powers, the constraints on spells don't resemble powers, what they do only resembles powers which previous resembled spells themselves, none of this analogy seems to hold up under scrutiny. And, no coincidentally, they DO resemble spells from prior editions.

The Bard always had spells. To claim this is some massive shift to a powers-like structure instead of a spells-based structure, you'd have to show the spells operate more similar to powers than to spells from prior editions, and you'd have to show classes that had no spells are now being given spells to replicate that.

You've done neither.

Now if you can show me how a bunch of spells (not just a cherry-picked few) hold up in comparison to how "powers" were typically represented and worked more than they resemble spells from prior editions, I will certainly listen. And if you can show me a host of classes that were previously spell-less are now being given spells, I am all ears.

But so far, it seems to be the sort of assertion being made just to trash a concept that you and ForeverSlayer don't like. But, there's no meat on that bone other than you guys simply asserting it, so far.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Yeah this I disagree with, and I think it's totally unsupported so far. The spells don't much resemble any powers, the constraints on spells don't resemble powers, what they do only resembles powers which previous resembled spells themselves, none of this analogy seems to hold up under scrutiny. And, no coincidentally, they DO resemble spells from prior editions.

The Bard always had spells. To claim this is some massive shift to a powers-like structure instead of a spells-based structure, you'd have to show the spells operate more similar to powers than to spells from prior editions, and you'd have to show classes that had no spells are now being given spells to replicate that.

You've done neither.

Now if you can show me how a bunch of spells (not just a cherry-picked few) hold up in comparison to how "powers" were typically represented and worked more than they resemble spells from prior editions, I will certainly listen. And if you can show me a host of classes that were previously spell-less are now being given spells, I am all ears.

But so far, it seems to be the sort of assertion being made just to trash a concept that you and ForeverSlayer don't like. But, there's no meat on that bone other than you guys simply asserting it, so far.

You actually continue to miss the point. Nobody has said that spells act like powers. What we are saying, well at least I can speak for myself, is that the designers are trying to use spells to instead of powers to give us the same style of play. What's the difference between a list of powers and a list of spells? Nothing to be honest, it's writing the same thing but using different words.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes I know. I said that in the quote you quoted. Which is a different argument than the argument ForeverSlayer is making.



Yeah this I disagree with, and I think it's totally unsupported so far. The spells don't much resemble any powers, the constraints on spells don't resemble powers, what they do only resembles powers which previous resembled spells themselves, none of this analogy seems to hold up under scrutiny. And, no coincidentally, they DO resemble spells from prior editions.

The Bard always had spells. To claim this is some massive shift to a powers-like structure instead of a spells-based structure, you'd have to show the spells operate more similar to powers than to spells from prior editions, and you'd have to show classes that had no spells are now being given spells to replicate that.

You've done neither.

Now if you can show me how a bunch of spells (not just a cherry-picked few) hold up in comparison to how "powers" were typically represented and worked more than they resemble spells from prior editions, I will certainly listen. And if you can show me a host of classes that were previously spell-less are now being given spells, I am all ears.

But so far, it seems to be the sort of assertion being made just to trash a concept that you and ForeverSlayer don't like. But, there's no meat on that bone other than you guys simply asserting it, so far.

Compare the D&DN classes to the 1st ed PHB. 6 primary spell casters vs 1, Paladin and Druid were mostly martial based only getting a few spells very late in their careers and not many of them.
Bard was a good class in 2nd and 3rd ed even with level 6 spells.

 

[Mistwell]

Compare the D&DN classes to the 1st ed PHB. 6 primary spell casters vs 1, Paladin and Druid were mostly martial based only getting a few spells very late in their careers and not many of them.
Bard was a good class in 2nd and 3rd ed even with level 6 spells.

I agree. I am not all that pleased with bards getting more spells.

But that argument is not the same argument as "spells are just replacing powers from 4e".

It's no more supported than "spells are just replacing a 100% skill-based system" or "spells are just replacing a storygame narrative manipulation mechanic".

What's the connection to powers, and why do these resemble powers MORE than they simply resemble spells?

 

[GSHamster]

You actually continue to miss the point. Nobody has said that spells act like powers. What we are saying, well at least I can speak for myself, is that the designers are trying to use spells to instead of powers to give us the same style of play. What's the difference between a list of powers and a list of spells? Nothing to be honest, it's writing the same thing but using different words.

But now it's "magic", and so it is acceptable to the playerbase.

I wish that the playerbase had been more accepting of "mundane" powers, but we weren't. So WotC is taking the only option open to them.