D&D 5E Low Charisma Lore Bard?

[FormerlyHemlock]

Two comments:

This bard is just begging for a DM ruling on what happens when you try to "inspire" your comrades when you are all out of bardic inspiration. If your player is good at roleplaying, the comic potential here is awesome.

Second, I'm afraid that yes, this bard will be impacted by his low prime stat more than most PCs would. He won't be useless, but he's likely to have fewer effective options open to him than a more normal bard, and he's therefore in danger of feeling a bit like a one- or two-trick pony. (There's only so much fun you can squeeze out of Conjure Animals, for example.) I can see this being fun in one of two ways: either your player really hams up the roleplaying aspects and the goblin's unique personal story of somehow, against all odds, becoming a famous and successful bard and hero despite all the people who said he would fail--or your player really mechanically enjoys the one or two tricks that he has.

After all, some people like specialization. Some people love being the tough dwarven barbarian who hits things with an axe, or the Moon Druid who wildshapes into giant animals and fights things. (There are even people who spend all of their druid spell slots on healing the wildshaped forms instead of casting any spells! They love wildshape that much!) Even a Cha 12 Lore Bard can have as many effective options as, say, a Shadow Monk.

 

[Satyrn]

It is a random rolled character. We do this from time to time, and have found it to be really fun. This character was just a little less lucky than the others.

Danggit. You make me ashamed I didn't stick with barbarian when I randomly rolled my gnome battlemaster.

Oh, but an 8 Str barbarian is probably 100 times less effective at barbarianing than a 12 Cha bard is at barding.

 

[jgsugden]

Are you guys really advocating low score casters? Great advice guys.

This is the bit where you tell me you run these characters "all the time" and how your group ''really really" supports your low score caster roleplaying choice because its soooooo unique and special.

Is it an optimal build to have a 'low' Charisma bard? Probably not, but you can do a pretty solid low charisma melee bard over 20 levels. I built a bard with a 14 Charisma that never advanced it - Started with a 16 Strength and took feats or advanced strength at levels 4, 8, 12, and 16. Retired before 19th level. Most of his spells were not influenced by his Charisma (Invisibility, Haste (after 10th), etc...)

 

[Pathkeeper24601]

Oh, but an 8 Str barbarian is probably 100 times less effective at barbarianing than a 12 Cha bard is at barding.

My horse agrees, a 12 Cha bard makes terrible barding. Leather or chain is much more effective.

 

[jgsugden]

My horse agrees, a 12 Cha bard makes terrible barding. Leather or chain is much more effective.

If you put leather or chain on a horse and send it into combat, people may have trouble getting through the armor. If you put a bard on it, people target the bard most of the time. The lower the charisma, the more often they target the bard.

 

[Mistwell]

Are you guys really advocating low score casters? Great advice guys.

This is the bit where you tell me you run these characters "all the time" and how your group ''really really" supports your low score caster roleplaying choice because its soooooo unique and special.

This is the bit where you admit you didn't read the whole thread before you posted that and don't understand why he's running this character - which is this was a random character game, and the entire point is to make a random character like this function. It's not intended as a standard representation of most games. It's not about being unique and special - it's about being a one-off challenge, and not advocating something general for anyone. Which sounds like fun to me.

 

[transtemporal]

It is a random rolled character. We do this from time to time, and have found it to be really fun. This character was just a little less lucky than the others.

Oh I see, fair enough then. This wasn't clear from the first post.

If it's accepted that randomness is a feature of the campaign, that should be absolutely fine. Personally I would focus on buffing or fighting though, rather than trying to land save or suck spells since you'll find that frustrating.

And for those saying low stat casters are fine? Theres a reason why there is the term "save or suck" for casters but not the term "hit or suck" for melee and ranged. With an attack, your success of failure depends on how well you roll. With spells that agency is completely taken out of your hands and thats why it feels so anticlimatic when a spell fails. Failure feels particularly pronounced with a caster, hence why I think casters should take every opportunity they can to not suck!