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

[DEFCON 1]

The one thing I'm surprised about that more people aren't giving props for in this version of the Bard is that (from what Mike says) it can and will be a full replacement for the Cleric. The one thing that was hailed almost as much as any other about 4E was that a Cleric was no longer necessary-- you could have another other Leader class fulfill the needs of a party that felt like it needed a full-on healer.

Now we have the Druid and the Bard fulfilling that same role in 5E for those who need it, thereby not requiring a Cleric to be in every party. Not to mention (as talked about in Kobold Stew's other thread "How best to help the party: Guidance and Help Others") that you have a full replacement for the Cleric's Guidance cantrip with the Bard's inspiration mechanic.

To me... that's going to be the biggest benefit to all of this. Any way to get several classes up to par on being "party healer" so that no one class is the de facto choice (and thus gets pushed by other players and DMs onto a player who might not want to do it) I can only see as a good thing. If you want a party healer in the group, great! But if that's the case... hopefully you still can give that player of that role a couple strong class choices, not just Cleric.

 

[TwoSix]

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?

I would forward the argument that any archetype (such as the jack-of-all-trades) that can be defined as having moderate skill in several distinct areas should be viewed as a target for multiclassing, and for a subclass if multiclassing cannot beat the full weight of the archetype.

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.

That's understandable, but it's not like bards were always some free-wheeling "do whatever" class. In both 3.5 and Pathfinder, bards have per-day limits on the amount of music they can do. Making bardic music explicitly a spell doesn't change that dynamic. Or have bard music as a special kind of spell that can be sustained as a free action with a Perform (or whatever its equivalent is) check.

 

[Mistwell]

The one thing I'm surprised about that more people aren't giving props for in this version of the Bard is that (from what Mike says) it can and will be a full replacement for the Cleric.

I don't think they can turn undead.

 

[Cybit]

FWIW, I'm enjoying Bards as it is. Probably my 2nd or 3rd favorite class so far, behind Warlock (the warlock is soooooooooooooooooo cool) and <redacted>.

The article does a pretty good job of summing up what the Bard is; the full spell progression thing isn't that big of a deal. It's nice, but Bards are still very much Bards, and they no longer suffer from "OK at everything, master of nothing" syndrome that inevitably causes them to suck at anything besides buffing the party at high levels. Most of the concerns here seem to be dealt with by the (current) details, fwiw.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't think they can turn undead.

So what? When people talked about being forced to play Clerics, it ain't because the party was desperate for someone to turn undead. It was for healing. And we all know it. Let's not get silly, you know exactly what I meant.

 

[jrowland]

I suppose if the concept of "arcane spell" is broad enough to be kind of meaningless, there's not much mechanical distinction between "9th level arcane spell called True Domination 1/day" and "I can dominate someone's mind and orchestrate their movements 1/day."

I'm not really a fan of that level of meaninglessness in the mechanic, though. An arcane spell should represent something in the world, and the thing that I imagine arcane spells representing (esoteric knowledge on how to violate the laws of the universe) aren't what I imagine bards doing (Why isn't that True Domination an option on a high skill check, or even on an attack roll?).

For the record, I'm not really a fan of that level of generalization either. I wouldn't call it meaninglessness, but over-generalization.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I don't think they can turn undead.

Turn Undead is a superfluous ability that most don't really care about, but it's something that's there always given the history of the Cleric in the game.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

What unique tone?

By v3.5, a bard gets nine unique "songs": Inspire Courage, Countersong, Inspire Competence, Fascinate, Suggestion, Inspire Greatness, Song of Freedom, Inspire Heroics, and Mass Suggestion.

Four of these (Fascinate, Suggestion, Song of Freedom, Mass Suggestion) replicate spell effects right there in the text. While fascinate isn't "as per the spell", it easily replicates the effect.

Four others (Inspire Courage, Inspire Competence, Inspire Heroics, Inspire Greatness) are equivalent to buff magic. While not directly analogous to a spell, they fall keenly into the same vein as Haste, Aid, Prayer, or even lowly Guidance. They could all be made into unique bard-only spells and nobody would bat an eye.

That only leaves Countersong, which is pretty situational and itself not unreplicable via spells.

The only thing unique is that they draw from a common pool of "performances per day" rather than spell slots and that they aren't specifically labeled (though with the minimum ranks in perform, its easy to figure out what level "power" they are).

Granted, the warlock invocation system is very similar (and I'm surprised the bard didn't become the "divine warlock") but the standard bard songs aren't something that can't be replicated with spell effects in a more concise form.

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.

It started LONG before 4e. Just look at some of the 3.5 "spells" a bard got:

* Lullaby
* Song of Discord
* Focusing Chant
* Insidious Rhythm
* Joyful Noise
* Battle Hymn
* Dissonant Chant
* Sonorous Hum
* Allegro
* G'elsewhere Chant
* Love's Lament
* Fugue
* Wail of Doom
* Dirge

Want to tell me those are NOT supposed to be bard "songs" masquerading as spells?

Yeah, creating a 9-level bard caster isn't terribly "clever". However, its a helluva lot better balanced than the 3.5 bard whose magic is too weak to really be a caster and whose melee is too weak to really get in a fight. In a choice between the two, I'd rather than strengthen his spellcasting and allow him to be a buffer/debuffer/tricker/healer than keep the illusion of balancing mediocre spellcasting with mediocre combat.

 

[Remathilis]

The one thing I'm surprised about that more people aren't giving props for in this version of the Bard is that (from what Mike says) it can and will be a full replacement for the Cleric.

ME!

I love the fact that a bard might be able to step up and fill the healer/buffer role, exchanging the divine light/anti-undead stuff for guidance and skills.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] nailed it in a big post up thread. Bards are everything in their own special way. Here's my take on it.

Bards are artists and in that they are like the Arts.

Art doesn't abide any other sphere of existence. To Art, art is everything. Combat? Obviously an art. Magic? Art! Clerics? Religion is culture. All culture is the arts! There is no such thing as non-art! NPC Classes? All arts. Crafters are all artisans, a.k.a. artists. Merchants sell as all artists sell themselves. That's art.

And so too with the Bard. If we're not using the crazy prestige class thingy from 1eAD&D, then we have an all encompassing class that covers what every class in the world does. Roleplaying? Bah! Who needs roleplaying? Bards craft, fight, spellcast, steal, and shout to the heavens songs, stories, dances, jokes, artistic designs, artistic places, all of it and everything to play to people's emotions and desires.

And I think that's where we find the real identity of the Bard. Not in any possible limited identity, but as an attempt to be all things to all people. The Bard is squarely focused on the mythic aspects of us, people. All their acts are more like mediums to affect and effect the emotions of other people. And in this I firmly believe they are in the realm of clerics, a subclass of clerics if you will. Without people Bards don't have an audience to play to, to feint against, ensorcell, to entwine others in their mystical realm of aesthetics. Just like the majority of Clerics (not Monks) other people are their purview.

So... What might be done is to consider a potential cleric system with an option where one type of practitioner, the Bard, is fundamentally arcane at root. No divine source is called upon. Instead all of the game material cleric players discover and master through play is also covered by the Bard, but with a distinctly arcane viewpoint. Think of it as a sort of non-deity option at cleric, but not ever called "mundane" or dull.

This Bard doesn't overlap with Fighters so much as they don't focus on success in battle as battles for them are meant to be great stories and amazing spectacles.

They don't overlap with Wizards so much as Bards aren't interested in how fire works, or invisibility, or any other arcane secrets of the universe. Rather Bards use the universe to entertain others.

And they don't overlap with Thieves so much as Bards aren't interested in trickery and theft ultimately. They fool others to only teach them not to trust so much (making Bards commonly Alignment Neutral).

And they don't overlap with NPC Sages because they aren't interested in cataloging the knowledge of the world, but rather in engendering great deeds to be done by relating those of others.

I believe there is enough of a focus here to identify Bards as a class, a game focus, and one capable of being captured in game mechanics. (By which I mean a game system, not a "bard stuff" check.) How this might be done in 5e I'm not as sure.