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

[TwoSix]

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.

I guess it's just a fundamental difference in how we view the archetype. My bards have always been more loremasters than merry tricksters. The bard skills and sings first, and casts second. Nothing too different in 5E.

The quick with a blade, a quip, and a charm spell sort of bard might be more appropriate for a fey-pacted bladelock.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

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.

Actually, Saruman's main power was his enchanting voice.

 

[fuindordm]

Because the art of creating magic items is lost?

Anyway, I do feel that the abundance of casters in DnD does make for some weird campaigns/campaign settings. I would be really interested in a low-magic DnD setting with magic-less variants of the Paladin/Ranger/Bard.

Me too, very much so. I think it could be handled by having at least one mundane subclass for each of these--or at least for the paladin and ranger.

 

[Sadrik]

Don't just give me big charm magic. If I wanted that, I'd play an Enchanter.

This was my thought about this too. So he is basically a beguiler from 3e's PHB2. Or he is a psion telepath, swapping the psychic baggage with bard baggage (not sure which is worse). Or like above he is an enchanter.

I am not seeing the unique niche here like MM says in the article, to give the class a clear and unique place. I am not sure that is accomplished...

 

[Mistwell]

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.

I don't want a +5 sword in the rules, I like the rules being relatively lower magic in nature. Which is also why I feel they're overdoing it on the caster-types. This is a world where there should be more rogue-types than full-caster types. The bard has always fit comfortably as a rogue-type more than a full-caster type, so I am not understanding this change in light of that fact and the nature of the implied setting as lower magic.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm not seeing how full caster ruins the bard archetype.

The bard in 3e was weak. They had the problem of sorcerers, but worse. Slow spell progression, limited spell slots which played havoc on balancing spell levels. (More on that in a moment) And they got little to trade in for; a few buff-songs and counter-songs, light armor, more skill points, and a few extra weapon proficiencies. (And a rogue's HD/Bab, so they were miserable combatants that lacked a rogue's SA spike damage). They needed some work.

The biggest advantage moving a bard up to full caster does is allow their spells to scale properly. For example, a bard in 3e got summon monster spells (which fits thematically). However, they lagged behind in spell slot acquisition so badly that most of the time, when you got a new SM spell, it was woefully outdated (Summon monster IV came at 10th level, the same point clerics and wizards got V. At 16th level, they gained access to the same monsters a cleric had at 11th). This was similarly true of illusions, charms, and healing spells; they didn't even do their magical shtick as well as the core casters. Moving them to full caster puts them on par with a cleric now. They will get access to healing at the same rate, can use charms, illusions and summons like a full caster, allowing someone to probably play one as a replacement for a cleric or druid (yay!) rather than a second-rate caster.

In fact, comparing them to a CoD might be an apt metaphor: full casting to keep their magical abilities scaling, a bit of weapon/armor use (since their magic isn't going to be combat-based), and some funky powers (inspiration, skills) to equal domains/wild shape.

I mean really, who EVER complained the bard was "too powerful"? Full casting is probably a simple fix that would do a lot to making them on par with the divine duo (which seems to be the new role they are going to play; a nod to the 4e Bard/leader).

 

[Dausuul]

I mean really, who EVER complained the bard was "too powerful"? Full casting is probably a simple fix that would do a lot to making them on par with the divine duo (which seems to be the new role they are going to play; a nod to the 4e Bard/leader).

I don't think anyone is complaining that full-caster bards will be too powerful. My complaint is with making spellcasting into the focus of a bard's power. I would much rather see bardic performance get beefed up to the point where it's on par with fighter attacks and wizard spells. If bards have spellcasting at all, it should be a sideline, a smattering of low-level utility spells and illusion tricks, not the core of the class.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

This is part of it that bears repeating: the feel of playing someone who relies on a limited pool of daily spells to do their thing is a lot different from the feel of someone who can do whatever whenever they do it. They seemed to appreciate this with the Warlock, I don't know why they forgot about it with the Bard.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I mean really, who EVER complained the bard was "too powerful"? Full casting is probably a simple fix that would do a lot to making them on par with the divine duo (which seems to be the new role they are going to play; a nod to the 4e Bard/leader).

The bard was never too powerful, but the class would greatly benefit from better combat skills, not better magic, in my opinion.

Not a rogue's sneak attack, not a ranger's favored enemy, not a paladin's smite evil, but a bardic feature of equivalent power. Not side by side with the plate user, if you ask me, but in melee, nevertheless. This is the place the bard should be, in my opinion.

Now, with d6 HD, no more bonus to damage with bardic music and full spellcasting power, I expect bards to favor a ranged position, much like mages - a mage with light armor proficiency instead of mage armor.

Cheers!

 

[TwoSix]

This is part of it that bears repeating: the feel of playing someone who relies on a limited pool of daily spells to do their thing is a lot different from the feel of someone who can do whatever whenever they do it. They seemed to appreciate this with the Warlock, I don't know why they forgot about it with the Bard.

But that makes the assumption that the unlimited use feel is what they wanted with the bard. Obviously, they could have made a mistake, but it's just as likely that the archetype you expected them to present isn't the same as the archetype that they wanted to present.