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

[Mistwell]

Why? You seem to be implying that PC classes are scattered evenly throughout the world for those NPCs who do have them. There's nothing to say that's either true or not true. Maybe there's 1 wizard for every cleric and for every fighter. Or maybe there's 50 fighters for every wizard. That's an exercise in worldbuilding.

Whatever mix there is, you can be sure that the general random-generation rules for villages and towns and cities and such will have at least a fair representation of all the classes. It certainly might skew heavily to non-magical classes, but as magical classes make up the overwhelming majority of the classes, those who gain power in the world will tend to be magical in nature. And that's my focus - not on the grunts, but those in power.

 

[TwoSix]

Suggestion has been a wizard favorite since forever. They won't take it away. I don't see geas going anywhere either. Fascinate? Okay, maybe. But the Saruman-style enchanter is a well-established archetype in D&D, and I guarantee the new edition will support it. Trying to shoehorn that archetype into the bard class would anger fans of both the enchanter and the bard.

I guess we'll agree to disagree. I don't see much archetypal resonance in "academic caster who can take over minds". Fey, vampires, Pied Piper types, sure. Wizards, not so much. (And is Saruman really an enchanter-type? He seems more interested in magical eugenics and technological advancement.)

I disagree. This argument puts you in a position where you have to argue for stripping wizards of a bunch of their spells, in order to protect the bard's class identity. The enchanter and the bard are two quite distinct concepts and should be able to exist in the same game.

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I'm arguing for, so I'm glad to be in that position! Wizards should be focused on evocation and transmutation, with some personal abjurations mixed in.

The mechanical structure of a class is an essential part of what makes that class distinct. The "full caster" class structure is not a neutral canvas! It encourages a very particular style of play, carefully husbanding a limited but potent resource. That fits perfectly with the wizard archetype: Scholarly, focused, cautious, disciplined. The bard archetype hews much closer to the rogue: Improvisational, daring, adaptive. They should have mechanics that encourage those traits.

Making casters improvisational and adaptive is simply a matter of making the right spells. Give the bard spells like Ruin Delver's Fortune, or Shadow Evocation. Heck, enchantments are pretty darn versatile when you're encountering pretty much any non-mindless NPC.

 

[TwoSix]

Whatever mix there is, you can be sure that the general random-generation rules for villages and towns and cities and such will have at least a fair representation of all the classes. It certainly might skew heavily to non-magical classes, but as magical classes make up the overwhelming majority of the classes, those who gain power in the world will tend to be magical in nature. And that's my focus - not on the grunts, but those in power.

Well, sure, but that's because magic is where the power is. That would happen even if the classes in the PHB were "wizard" and then all the classes from Iron Heroes.

 

[DMZ2112]

Exactly - I think the classes imply Forgotten Realms, but the implied setting of the rules (which is not Forgotten Realms) does not. Forgotten Realms doesn't have "almost no magic items, and anything above a +1 items is a near-artifact".

I understand your point, but consider what kind of damage a +5 weapon would do in the new rules.

...I mean metaphorically, of course. Literally... it would do exactly five more points of damage.

I feel like this is a game of relativism. No setting in D&D5 is going to be high-magic when measuring with the D&D3 or D&D4 yardstick. That does not necessarily mean that no D&D5 setting will be high-magic by its own yardstick.

 

[fuindordm]

I'm OK with this version of the bard if they're also a decent fighter. For me, the two big historical inspirations for the class are the celtic bard (sort of a druid envoy, with druid spells for a fantasy setting) and the viking skald (warrior/poet with rune magic for a fantasy setting). I think that god fighting ability and strong but limited magic is a key element of both archetypes, so I'm not sorry to see the full spellcasting.

The 3e bard also has strong magic--it's rather artificial to say that they only get spells up to 6th level then say that a powerful spell is 8th level for wizard but 6th level for bards. We won't know whether their magic is too much or not enough until we see the full spell list. The key to balance here is not the number of spell slots/levels, but the scope of their abilities. Wizards are powerful because they have spells to do almost anything except healing. If bards get 9th level spells but only enchantment/illusion/support magic, then their magic is unarguably weaker.

I think it would make sense for the bard to have subclasses:

• skald with strong fighting, better combat inspiration and weaker magic
• standard bard with good fighting, all-purpose inspiration and strong magic
• loremaster with weak fighting, weak inspiration, stronger magic and skill expertise

(for example)

 

[bogmad]

I guess we'll agree to disagree. I don't see much archetypal resonance in "academic caster who can take over minds". Fey, vampires, Pied Piper types, sure. Wizards, not so much. (And is Saruman really an enchanter-type? He seems more interested in magical eugenics and technological advancement.)
.

Exactly, Saruman isn't exactly a suave, sexy type that folks want to follow. He's got a pretty broad focus. He might be into eugenics and technological advancement, but he can throw a compulsion on someone weak willed when he needs to.

There's definitely an archetype of the creepy old man in robes casting a spell to beguile the beautiful maiden into seeing him as young and attractive. An unlike a charismatic pied piper type, he might have some other eldritch tricks up his sleave of a completely different variety.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I also like that bardic inspiration doesn't necessarily mean the bard is singing or playing an instrument as its not everyone's jazz.

 

[Dausuul]

Making casters improvisational and adaptive is simply a matter of making the right spells. Give the bard spells like Ruin Delver's Fortune, or Shadow Evocation. Heck, enchantments are pretty darn versatile when you're encountering pretty much any non-mindless NPC.

Not the point. Regardless of what the spells themselves do, the mechanics encourage full casters to hoard their spells carefully, because their supply of them--especially in 5E--is tightly limited. Every spell must be considered in light of whether you might need that spell slot for something else later on. When confronted with an obstacle, your first impulse should be to pull back and consider whether you can get past it without having to waste a spell.

It's a very different mindset from the rogue. Rogues have a set of unrestricted abilities, and they can use them whenever they spot an opportunity. If you think of a clever use for Cunning Action this round, you just go for it; you don't worry about whether you should expend your Cunning Action now or hold it for a bigger battle coming up. The bard mechanics should encourage that freewheeling approach.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Pretty much all of that can easily be done with a Rogue using the correct background and either Multiclassing or a few feats.

I think making the Bard a full caster with its own spell list (which is likely, since even the Sorcerer is getting his own list) can open a lot of possibilities and reinforce the class' own identity.

The bard has had an identity for ages. Why screw that up now?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The 3e bard also has strong magic--it's rather artificial to say that they only get spells up to 6th level then say that a powerful spell is 8th level for wizard but 6th level for bards. We won't know whether their magic is too much or not enough until we see the full spell list. The key to balance here is not the number of spell slots/levels, but the scope of their abilities. Wizards are powerful because they have spells to do almost anything except healing. If bards get 9th level spells but only enchantment/illusion/support magic, then their magic is unarguably weaker.

Yes, with full spellcasting for the bard, there should not really be a need for spells to be available at different levels for different classes: a spell of 5th level stays that way all the time. Makes the scaling by increasing a spell slot a lot simpler.
Also here is my explanation from the wizards board, why I believe, the bard (and also the cleric) are not full casters:

"I believe it is the right idea to give the bard better spellcasting than the paladin or ranger. And in the last hours i thought about 1/3 spellcasters and 2/3 spellcasters. And then I cam to the conclusion: we already have 1/3 and 2/3 spellcasters, despite only having full and half progression. And here is the reasoning why:


The wizard and druid currently are only two classes I count as full spellcasters. They have a mechanic to recover some spells. At level 20 they can recover 10 levels of spells, which is quite impressive, when you know that half casters only have 30 levels of spells at level 20. (2 of each from level 1 to level 5 spells). Wizards get eve more spells with their schools of specialization.

I guess the sorcerer will be on par with him by the means of his sorcery points.

The cleric and now the bard will be 2/3 spellcasters. Full progression, but most probably no means of extra spell recoveries. They can make up for this with their fighting and/or skill prowess. A battle cleric currently does very well in combat. I believe the bard will be about on par with the cleric in that regard if they chose the right college.

The paladin and ranger are 1/3 spellcasters. Only levels 1-5. No means of recovery. They are warrior type classes with full fighting prowess.

The barbarian, fighter, monk and rogues lack spellcasting but get their unique mechanics. I hope they won´t suck.


In the end, after thinking it through a bit, I like the way the bard is heading, and really hope, somewhere beween barbarian and bard is a space for the skald, and somewhere between the fighter and bard lies the warlord, and somewhere between wizard and bard lies the loremaster.

overall

edit: concept wise, I see the bard as redmage from now on. Mediocre at everything, but buffing and debuffing, where he is the best. Still makes him a good solo character, but truly makes him the most wanted 5th man."