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

[mattcolville]

Reading the first three paragraphs of that article convinced me we don't need a Bard, we have the Rogue.

 

[Remathilis]

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 their bardic performance abilities beefed up.

Potato/Potahtoe.

Really, most bard songs/performances are just spells anyway. Really, what else does a bard need?

The ability to heal through song? Cure Wounds.
The ability to manipulate others emotions? Good Hope, Rage, Crushing Despair, etc.
The ability to control a foe? Charm Person, Dominate, Mass Charm, etc.
The ability to non-lethally disable foes? Hideous Laughter, Sleep, Hold Person, Irresistible Dance, etc.
The ability buff allies/himself? Animal Buffs, Good Hope, Heroism, Haste
The ability to learn secrets? Legend Lore, Locate Object, Scrying, etc.

What should a bard be doing that can't be handled via these or similar spells? Esp if they can be cast spontaneously? Why reinvent the wheel?

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Presuming that my jack-of-all-trades archetype isn't completely off-base from the history of D&D bard archetypes, and that one of the goals of 5e is to be very archetypal D&D, what would be the benefit in disregarding it?

Really, most bard songs/performances are just spells anyway.

I'm not sure that I agree.

I mean, you maybe could present it that way, but that would be disregarding the unique tone and feel of bardic music magic in favor of a mechanic that isn't a comfortable fit.

Plus, that's part of what 4e presumed with its powers structure. Everything's a power. Everything's a spell. The only difference is "fluff."

I'm pretty sure that's not a great way to give people who are looking for a unique distinction what they're looking for.

 

[Ichneumon]

I'd like the bard to pick between different performance styles, much as classes like fighter and paladin choose between fighting styles.

Becoming a full caster is OK. I currently play a bard and while it's lots of fun, switching between bardic performance and spells can be frustrating. Changing the performance to something unobtrusive, like granting inspiration, suits me fine. Though I am curious to see how they represent the valor bard.

 

[howandwhy99]

This is an interesting take. The core question for a Bard's spellcasting is: Is the source of effects arcane (inner plane) or divine (outer plane) or something completely different?

I like the clerical bent with healing and emotion. Perhaps there could be a slight throwback to the Druidic subclass where Divine Magic is from the Prime Material realm? Gaia, earth, nature or whatever is for Druids worship directly, but for the Bard the arts, music, dance, storytelling, etc might be used as a manifestation of the former?

This would still be divine power though, so I'd see a mystical tradition as the best possible answer. It partially answers the question, "Where do the powers the Bard derive from?" Players might be more specific, or settings. For some it may be soul-based, for others divine creatures in the world. Perhaps quasi-deities like the Fairie Queen? If not these sources, then perhaps more mundane in nature. Bit music and dance in more scientific understanding definitely go the other way: Arcane magic. Also, magical beings like nymphs and satyrs sing and dance, but they are not usually divine creatures...though maybe their magic is due to partaking in divine practices themselves so their magic comes from gods? It depends on the campaign really. It's interesting to speculate.

On the other side, not the affective, emotive or healing spells, are the words of power and trickery magic. Words of power are traditionally arcane, but as scripture, the names of gods, demons, devils, etc., they could work as well.

The magical arts involved in trickery on the other hand are basically like enchantments and illusions, squarely in the arcane side again traditionally. However, I could see how those could be understood as a particular focus within the artistic realm. Charisma, wooing, evoking emotion to sway others feelings and thoughts. "Sneak dancing". Painting a picture to confuse someone. Those are definitely in the Bard's wheelhouse, so perhaps these could be divinely assisted mundane acts for the Bardic Inspiration mechanic. Or maybe the mechanic isn't spellcasting at all? By design I don't think it should be. It should be useful all the time. Or limited by endurance to play for long periods. As it stands the Bardic Inspiration mechanic fails due to its metagame nature, like using luck points with no in-game reference to tell players.

Also, I'd be interested to hear how the skill features of the class apply to games which don't use skills or checks at all.

 

[Remathilis]

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!

This is a personal thing, but I've never throught of a bard as a melee class. They've always been more ranged/magic. As you said, they lack a gimmick that allows them into melee (and really, a smart rogue shouldn't be spending time in melee either) but I can't think of one (other than a self-buff, like dervish dance) that would work.

And actually, I see them akin to clerics moreso than mages; some combat ability (decent weapons, probably d8 HD and a second atk) with spells that are primarily used to heal and buff in combat.

 

[DMZ2112]

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.

I understand your position. I'm just suggesting that the developers may not see the core setting as "low-magic" when taken alone, even though it is /comparatively/ low-magic when taken alongside previous editions. If they are considering the new paradigm as the baseline for determination of "high" vs. "low" magic, then the presence of more full casters isn't necessarily contradictory. There's an logical assumption that low-magic campaigns will lean away from magic items and caster classes, and that high-magic campaigns will lean toward them.

I feel like the bard would have been caught out by that determination regardless, as he has always had spells.

 

[ambroseji]

I'm falling in the camp of folks who are wary about bards becoming full casters.

I don't hate it, and I accept that many of the things bards are supposed to do can be accomplished via spells. However, bards need to be more than just a spellcaster with Inspire Competence. To quote Kamikaze Midget from much earlier in this thread:

Bards have blades that sing and flash, magic that slices and twirls, and skills used effortlessly that tread into the supernatural. Bards balance on waves, juggle daggers, blast light, bend sound, charm without spellcasting, and fly with a simple leap. This isn't *just* an arcane trickster.

Duplicating that feel mechanically requires more than spell slots. In fact, the iteration from the last playtest packet does do a good job of it, in my opinion, but there are some balance issues.

Call to Battle, obviously, but also the fact that College of Wit's features are so situational that College of Valor is going to be more useful 90% of the time. (I'm speaking in hyperbole of course, that's not a real statistic)

If the designers capture the spirit of bard throuh spellcasting, that's great, but I'm concerned that they are moving in the wrong direction.

 

[Klaus]

I guess it's just a fundamental difference in how we view the archetype. My bards have always been more loremasters than merry tricksters.

Perhaps both? I mean, we have already seen variant rogues, druids, clerics, fighters.

 

[Klaus]

In what way does a full spell list make the Bard a jack-of-all-trades better at versatility and unexpected combos than a broader ability to pull on more elements?

For starters? Customizability. Look at how many different rangers you can make just by toying with the spells prepared.