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

[am181d]

It sounds like they're taking a page from the Beguiler class which was a very good late addition to 3rd Edition. I suspect it'll be fine, although my preference would be for Rangers/Paladins/Bards to have no spells per se, and instead choose from a smaller set of extraordinary and supernatural abilities.

 

[Mistwell]

How do you justify a lower magic world, with very few magic items, when the classes are composed of a majority full caster classes?

 

[Kobold Avenger]

The Bard from the playtest was still generally underpowered, especially on the issues of it's saving proficiency. I'm alright with full caster access, because spell list access is what makes a lot of the difference between spellcasters.

Yes it's a little more like the cleric now, in terms of having full access to magic but not having magic perceived as world-shaking as the wizard's spells are (even though many cleric spells are). 9th level spells are probably going to include Astral Projection, Mass Hold Monster, Mass Heal and Foresight, but nothing like Storm of Vengeance or Power Word Kill. It fixes where they gave the bard access to spells as lower level slots back in 3e, which could have lead to some multiclassing complications/abuses with the unified spellcasting table.

1/2 caster was too little for it, and the way I see it was it was too complicated to make a class 3/4 caster, and really the thing in common with both of the 1/2 casters is that they really good at fighting. I don't think anyone expected the bard to have something like like the fighter's (or Paladin's or Ranger's) combat prowess, and upping the inspiration powers can only go so far. So there wasn't much else could the Bard go other then taking from the Sublime Chord prestige class (who's whole shtick was 9th level spells for bards) and the half of the Beguiler class (the other half taken by Enchanter Wizards).

 

[DMZ2112]

What do you think about it?

Overall, I am pleasantly surprised. It was getting worse in every edition, and I did not expect the D&D bard to ever come out from under the music problem.

Are they going a little overboard with all the spellcasting in Next?

Well, there have always been more casting classes than not. I've never understood the introduction of the sorcerer or warlock to a system that already included the wizard, but that ship has sailed, arrived at its destination, and is on its way home again.

Honestly, I am nervous about this myself, if only because I don't want 150 pages of my 300-page PHB to be spell descriptions. Those things take up a lot of space, and giving every class its own spell list is going to have a very real practical toll.

That said, I don't actually mind the /concept/ -- thematically, casters shouldn't have a lot of spell overlap. But it's a lot of complexity to add!

This is a simple change, but it goes a long way toward leveling the field when comparing the bard to other classes. Rather than forcing the bard to rest somewhere between a caster and a noncaster, we've pushed the class hard toward fully embracing magic.

Reading between the lines here, I wonder if the developers have run into balance issues with partial casters, and that's why we're seeing these changes.

Bards are not full-on casters to me. They're dabblers, dilletantes, they know a bit of stuff but they don't know the full power.

I feel like you are passing judgment on this too quickly. Without seeing the bardic spell list, it's impossible to know whether the developers have failed to capture the "dabbler and dilettante" aspect of the bard. That is something that could easily be addressed thematically rather than mechanically.

A bard should be *at least* as skilled in weapon combat as a thief or assassin (and possibly more so, without as big a need for stealth and agility).

You, sir, like me, are apparently a big fan of the bard -- and the right kind of bard, too, which is rare. But as Mearls says, the bard is a solo hero in a game that poorly supports solo heroing. He can't just be better at everything, no matter how bad we want it.

Why do we need Enchanter Wizards again? I'm sorry it doesn't make you happy, but I think the whole point of a class system with open multiclassing should be to create classes built around pillars of specificity. Blending things together should be the whole point of using open multiclassing.

Boom goes the dynamite. This.

This is completely true, and the biggest obstacle to bard design in D&D (or any class-based system). If a bard is just a fighter/mage/rogue, then he /absolutely/ ought to just be a fighter/mage/rogue. What I'm hoping is that the new bard spell list and the bard's increased access to that list makes him a distinct entity that is more than the sum of its parts -- without resorting to nonsense music powers.

Maybe it's my new-school roots showing, but to me, the defining element of the bard has always been its mystical link with music. The jack-of-all-trades schtick, to me, has always been secondary. (And done much better with classes like the 3e factotum.) Of course, I also think the iconic bard is Edward from Final Fantasy IV.

I blame the The Bard's Tale series for this. I'm pretty sure those games were the first place where bards got music-based powers, and the archetype has been trying to recover ever since. Not that Edward isn't spoony. He's the spooniest bard, for certain.

Bards are musical because in ancient times, music was how knowledge was gathered and passed on. Bards were the keepers of an oral tradition in a time when history and learning wasn't written down. The music was just a mnemonic device for the bard, with the happy side effect that it encouraged people to welcome them, feed them, and put a roof over their heads for a few nights.

Maybe I got that last part backward, but the important take away is that a proper bard is not powerful because he is musical -- he is musical because he is powerful. For my part, the bard will always be a loremaster first, a jack-of-all-trades second, and a musician third.

I've always considered that in D&D bards represent a tradition older than wizardry and possibly even older than priesthoods. In that sense, giving them their own full-access spell list makes perfect sense.

 

[TwoSix]

How do you justify a lower magic world, with very few magic items, when the classes are composed of a majority full caster classes?

1) Casters don't make magic items. If it isn't a rule in the game, house-rule it in.

2) The proportion of different classes has nothing to do with the distribution of those classes in the game world. There are probably 100 fighters and rogues for every 1 wizard.

Note that I'm NOT advocating for these stances, merely pointing them out as obvious justifications.

 

[Dausuul]

You could, certainly, if you gave sorcerers access to enchantment magic, and a spell that gives players a skill bonus (a la Bardic Inspiration). Why don't they?

My personal hope is that they're siloing magic between classes to a greater extent than they have in previous versions. So that a bard has access to enchantment effects that a wizard or sorcerer doesn't.

The other possibility I can think of is that they're worried about people losing their <redacted> if the bard isn't the PHB, like during the 4e release. Saying "Oh, bards are sorcerer/rogues now" isn't going to cut it.

My point is that, if the goal is to give the bard a distinct identity (as opposed to being, in essence, a multiclassed fighter/rogue/sorceror specializing in enchantment spells), turning it into a full caster class doesn't accomplish anything. We've got four full casters, including a couple--the wizard and sorceror--who have plenty of access to illusion and enchantment magic. WotC is certainly not going to take charm person and phantasmal force away from the wizard, so what's that leave for the bard?

There are really two ways to tackle the bard IMO. The first is to focus on its distinctive ability, bardic performance, and build that up while de-emphasizing other elements. The second is to envision the bard as a "fusion" of all four core classes: Cleric (or druid), wizard (or sorceror), rogue, and fighter. In the latter case, the point of the bard is to blend these classes more smoothly and elegantly than the multiclassing system can do. Multiclassing is really designed for two or at most three classes; trying to make it do four is asking for trouble.

I think Mearls and company risk getting so caught up in seeing the forest that they stop paying attention to individual trees. Yes, the bard looks kind of like a full spellcaster, if you squint. That doesn't mean it should be crammed into the wizard mold. You would think 4E would have taught them the dangers of having one class design to rule them all.

 

[Minigiant]

I have to see the final result.

The fun of the bard to me was this question "Do I stab it, skill it, spell it, spell and stab it, spell and skill it, or stab and skill it?"



It was like playing 5 color MTG. You had access to everything in some capacity and you succeed via ether versatility against smaller issues or combination against big ones.

Making them a full caster risks turning bards into another flavor of wizard. A Druid - Wild Shape + Inspiration.

 

[TwoSix]

I blame the The Bard's Tale series for this. I'm pretty sure those games were the first place where bards got music-based powers, and the archetype has been trying to recover ever since. Not that Edward isn't spoony. He's the spooniest bard, for certain.
<snip>

I've always considered that in D&D bards represent a tradition older than wizardry and possibly even older than priesthoods. In that sense, giving them their own full-access spell list makes perfect sense.

Good point on Bard's Tale. I think it's way too late to put the genie back in the bottle, though. It's nice to want the bard to be the keeper of ancient lore, with music being the symbol of the knowledge, but it's hard to mix that archetype with Edward and Elan.

I like the idea of bardic magic being truly ancient magic, from before the dawn of wizardry and even before the gods. I'm yoinking that.

 

[TwoSix]

My point is that, if the goal is to give the bard a distinct identity (as opposed to being, in essence, a multiclassed fighter/rogue/sorceror specializing in enchantment spells), turning it into a full caster class doesn't accomplish anything. We've got four full casters, including a couple--the wizard and sorceror--who have plenty of access to illusion and enchantment magic. WotC is certainly not going to take charm person and phantasmal force away from the wizard, so what's that leave for the bard?

They did have that. The question is, do they still?

Ok, I'll answer my own question. Yes, the wizard probably still has charm person. But suggestion, fascinate, geas? Maybe not.

I think Mearls and company risk getting so caught up in seeing the forest that they stop paying attention to individual trees. Yes, the bard looks kind of like a full spellcaster, if you squint. That doesn't mean it should be crammed into the wizard mold. You would think 4E would have taught them the dangers of having one class design to rule them all.

I guess the difference is I don't view "full caster" as an identity in and of itself. It's just a mechanical method to access the spell list, which is where the real differentiation exists.

 

[the Jester]

Huh. We'll see. I think that all the arguments that full casting will make a bard too powerful are pretty presumptuous without seeing the list of spells that they have access to.