D&D 5E New D&D WotC survey! On classes.

[Ruin Explorer]

I would much prefer 4 classes, with dozens of subclasses. But I doubt that's the direction they will take.

That ship sailed in like 1989 dude. I'm just saying. Even if it comes back one day, it won't have "D&D" written on the prow.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That ship sailed in like 1989 dude. I'm just saying. Even if it comes back one day, it won't have "D&D" written on the prow.

1989? I think you mean 1978?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Man what? Bards in 5E are astonishingly effective characters.

Astonishingly effective at annoying people? Sure!

It's like the old saw ...

Q. Why are there Bards in 5e?

A. So the Way of Four Elements Monks have something to look down on.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Astonishingly effective at annoying people? Sure!

It's like the old saw ...

Q. Why are there Bards in 5e?

A. So the Way of Four Elements Monks have something to look down on.

look can you fill the gen z guy in on this grand story hating bards as I smell a history.

 

[Charlaquin]

Man what? Bards in 5E are astonishingly effective characters.

I feel like that about monks too, but that never stopped the discourse around them.

I agree. I think the problem is one of feel. Bards and Monks are both very effective in 5e, but something about them just feels off to people. Since we’re really good at recognizing when we like or don’t like something but really bad at identifying why, this off feel ends up manifesting as “bards/monks suck” because that’s what our brains reach for most immediately. “This class feels off, must be because it’s bad.”

 

[el-remmen]

Normally I am happy to fill out these surveys as even the questions themselves provide some insight into what WotC may be thinking, but this thing was friggin' ponderous and I gave up fairly quick. Rating every single ability of every single class is a slog, but I guess kind of a good way to figure out that I don't really care? The classes are fine and if I have not played one (which is all of them, b/c I have only run 5E) or DMed for one (which is only some of them), I have absolutely no opinion because in most cases I have not even read the class abilities closely unless they become relevant.

But I am also one of those weirdos who wants fewer options, not more.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

look can you fill the gen z guy in on this grand story hating bards as I smell a history.

Well, as is well-known and cannot be reasonably disputed, the class started in error. Do you know how old mapmakers would put fake towns in their atlases to make sure that no one was copying them? And Van Halen would put in the "M&M" rider into their contracts to make sure that venues read the entire contract?

Well, Gygax did the same thing. He realized that he needed editing on occasion. So he deliberately put in a "joke class," the Bard, in the appendix. I mean, c'mon! You know it's a joke! It doesn't follow any of the rules of any other class. It doesn't make any sense within the rules (half-elves can be bards, but they can't dual class ... so .... ). He put it in there to make sure that other people were paying attention.

But then it got published. Ugh. That's right ... worse than any Mountebank, we have the Bard. A class that quite literally is an anagram for "drab." And Brad, because Brad? Yeah, that guy always wants to play Bards, because of course he does. "Yeah, Brad, we get it. Freddie Mercury, the really fast Bard. Yes, you are so clever Brad. No one before has thought of that."

And so it goes. Poo-tee-weet. What is a Bard, anyway, other than a grab-bag of abilities, designed to annoy other players? "Look, my cantrip is insulting people! Time to dust off the yo mama jokes."

Of course you will find Bard defenders; the person who avows, "No, really, my Bard is cool! He's the Sally Field of Bards, you'll like him, you'll really really like him!"

Don't believe that for a second.

Bards represent that dark, venal and incurably violent side of D&D players that almost every other TTRPG has learned to fear and despise. Bards are D&D's answer to the monstrous Mr. Hyde. The Bard speaks for the werewolf in us; the bully, the predatory shyster who turns into something unspeakable, full of claws and bleeding string-warts on nights when the moon comes too close.

Other than that?

 

[Undrave]

My beef with bard is that I simply don't have a name for an iconic "bard" in my fantasy. I can name a went-once-to-church paladin. I can name a wizard. I can even name an iconic artificer (though I must admit that Gilgamesh Wulfenbach or Agatha Heterodyne lack the classic feel of Roland, Merlin or even Cugel, they entered by mental space). Not a single bard. Unless you're willing to count Iluvatar, but that's a stretch.

That, and I recently heard someone actually say the word barlock out loud. I kind of lamented my lack of smiting ability.

You should watch Thunderbolt Fantasy: Bewitching Melody of the West then...

I feel like that about monks too, but that never stopped the discourse around them.

Monks are extremely effective at getting around the battlefield, that's for sure.

Then they don't do anything.

I agree. I think the problem is one of feel. Bards and Monks are both very effective in 5e, but something about them just feels off to people. Since we’re really good at recognizing when we like or don’t like something but really bad at identifying why, this off feel ends up manifesting as “bards/monks suck” because that’s what our brains reach for most immediately. “This class feels off, must be because it’s bad.”

Monks have like 1 optimal play line, and that comes online at level 5 with Stunning Strike, and they have 1 optimal stat spread that doesn't leave them dead the moment someone attacks them. Playing a Monk is a frustrating exercise in precise Ki management and precise stat line. It's really really easy to mess up and have your Monk's effectiveness drop to 0 until the next short rest recharges your Ki. And even if you land all your attacks, it still feels like you're not doing a lot of damage.

When I play a Monk, it feels like I'm walking a tight rope. I feel like I have to work hard just to reach the same end point everybody does with no effort, it's just really frustrating.

As a Way of Shadow Monk I got mobility for DAYS and stealth that will make any Rogue jealous... but I feel like that's all I got and it doesn't serve any sort of purpose beyond itself. It's great to spy on people and that's about it.

As for Bards, it's really frustrating that they only have Vicious Mockery as a damaging cantrip in the PHB.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Monks have like 1 optimal play line, and that comes online at level 5 with Stunning Strike, and they have 1 optimal stat spread that doesn't leave them dead the moment someone attacks them. Playing a Monk is a frustrating exercise in precise Ki management and precise stat line. It's really really easy to mess up and have your Monk's effectiveness drop to 0 until the next short rest recharges your Ki. And even if you land all your attacks, it still feels like you're not doing a lot of damage.

When I play a Monk, it feels like I'm walking a tight rope. I feel like I have to work hard just to reach the same end point everybody does with no effort, it's just really frustrating.

As a Way of Shadow Monk I got mobility for DAYS and stealth that will make any Rogue jealous... but I feel like that's all I got and it doesn't serve any sort of purpose beyond itself. It's great to spy on people and that's about it.

As for Bards, it's really frustrating that they only have Vicious Mockery as a damaging cantrip in the PHB.

Do your DMs literally give you no casters to fight? Seriously?

Stunning strike is good. And your subclass should offer you something else (4 elements sucks). The monk of shadow among other things can bring a silence down on a wizard or a darkness down on everyone. The Open Palm have options that aren't stunning strike.

The big issue I have with monks is that they lack anything active between level 7 and level 10. It's all cute passive abilities which means that the only thing you feel you're gaining are Ki points.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I agree. I think the problem is one of feel. Bards and Monks are both very effective in 5e, but something about them just feels off to people. Since we’re really good at recognizing when we like or don’t like something but really bad at identifying why, this off feel ends up manifesting as “bards/monks suck” because that’s what our brains reach for most immediately. “This class feels off, must be because it’s bad.”

One good point with the bard-feel is that it has too thematically opposite feature: Jack-of-all-trades and full spellcasting, on par with the full-time, professional spellcasters.

Bardic Inspiration being restricted to a few time per rest feels off. The new Expert sidekick as a wonderful features-line that improves the Help Action to make it similar to Inspiration, but at-will.

Those mechanics are already in the game!

Same for the 4E monks: the playtest had wonderful elemental maneuvers, why the heck did they go with overpriced spells....and only 3-4 of them?!

Ignore Wholeness of Body and Stunning strike, and give a leveled progression to those elemental disciplines. Revisit the cost because the playtest monk at 8 Ki instead of 20. Done.