Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 6274170" data-attributes="member: 58197">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.</blockquote>

Verification