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

[Bolares]

They say that the best way to lead is by example, so I'm gonna give it a try. Right here, in this thread.

That's right: I will attempt to roll up a Bard that (1) isn't a walking cliché, (2) is fun, interesting, and effective to play, and (3) uses only the 5th Edition Player's Handbook. This will either be easy or impossible, judging from some of the comments in this thread...but we'll see. I don't think it's impossible.

Stay tuned.

And join me, if you dare.

Spoiler: Details

The "walking cliché" of a bard, to me, is one who behaves like a smarmy class clown, fights almost exclusively with the vicious mockery cantrip and/or a rapier, and optimizes Dexterity and Charisma over every other stat. You've already met this bard, dozens of times, so you know what I'm referring to. The point of this exercise is to test the theory that bards don't have to fit this stereotype to be fun, interesting, and effective; therefore my bard will not use the VM cantrip, will not even own a rapier, and neither Dexterity nor Charisma will be their highest (or second-highest) stat. Can it be done? Some argue "yes."

For me, a D&D character is fun and interesting when it has a good backstory and makes sense from a narrative perspective. "Because it gives me a bonus to Whatever" is the antithesis of this philosophy, so it will be avoided. Counter to that, a D&D character is effective when it can fill more than one role on the battlefield and more than one role off the battlefield, has both a ranged and melee attack, has a decent armor class, and doesn't repeat the same two actions in combat...so these will be prioritized.

And finally, this thread (and the WotC survey that spawned it) focuses only on the classes and subclasses in the 5E Player's Handbook, so this will be the only book used. No third-party books, no obscure rules options from the Dungeon Master's Guide, no Xanathar's, no Tasha's, no SKAG, nothing else. Feats and multiclassing are in the PHB, for example, so they will be allowed (and probably necessary, but we will see.)

I will consider this exercise a success if @Blue, @Ruin Explorer, and @Snarf Zagyg can all agree that the Bard I create is one they would enjoy playing, even if only for a one-shot.

Wish me luck.

I hope you call this bard Snarf

 

[R_J_K75]

We allow players to pick their weapons, and we end up with weapon-focused PCs all with the same few best-in-class for their category. When is the last time you saw a primary weapon wielder with a trident unless it's something special on it's own?

I prefer strongly themed lists, both to keep casters distinct from each other and so that casters don't all have the capability to do everything. I'd rather see like 3-5 spells per level on the general cleric spell list, and domain lists that just add to spells known and have 6-10 per level. So a trickster god spell availability is very different than a life cleric and both very different than a light cleric.

(And I'd redo the sorcerer with themes of collected spells, a few each level, and they have themes known instead of spells known, getting all spells in their themes. So a sorcerer picking air might have gust of wind and fly and all sorts fo stuff around that.)

I see your point that this may create PCs that seem the same but my preference would be a more standardized spell casting system. I do like the theme idea it definitely has potential to make playing a spell caster easier while keeping them unique.

 

[Undrave]

I'm not particularly sure that having the eight traditions as eight separate subclasses really adds anything, especially since the spell choices tend to be the samey. While I once hated spell restrictions for traditions, I almost now would prefer it simply for seeing a greater variety of spell selection with wizards.

I'm convinced it was a bad design. It set a bad precedent for Wizard subclasses and really cut off a bunch of ideas for relatively subpar repetitive builds.

Diviner is a good one because of its Portent ability, and Illusionist could work as a full on subclass because of the strong theme, and you could add spells to both that aren't on the Wizard spell list. Then they could have a generic subclass that gets the whole 'scribe your favoured school spells for cheaper' feature and just be a generic 'School Specialist' subclass. Maybe give them a 'You can use this feature once and you can use it again after you spend a slot on a spell of your chosen school' based on your favoured school (like the Abjurer shield).

I'd have kept proper Necromancer for later when you have room to add more necromancy spells.

I mean, if you say so. I've been playing 5E for almost a decade and I've never seen a bard that wasn't a smarmy class clown with the vicious mockery cantrip and a rapier. So my perspective is going to be different.

I like Vicious Mockery because it's a support debuff you can apply At-Will, but I would be REALLY happy if there had been more of those available to the Bard... How about a 'Stillness of Silence' cantrip that slows a target? Or a miniature Fairie Fire that hits 1 target for 1 turn?

But the rapier thing... I totally get it, it's way too good.

I had a character who started originally as a Cleric of Trickery, who had a whole backstory about being actually a follower of a Deity of Secrets , but who pretended to be a follower of its aspect as the Deity of Knowledge (or was it travel?). He was on a personal revenge quest to destabilize the ruling government by manipulating nobles into backstabbing each other by gathering dirt on all of them. But I was disappointed with the Cleric of Trickery. It felt more like a Cleric of Stealth and not much else... so I tried to make him as a bard and I'm still not sure it was the best pick... that was before Xanathar came out, mind you. He wasn't a smarmy libido type, but more the "I know something you don't and I'm not telling" type with a thirst for dark secrets. But... I did end up with a rapier. In retrospect, an Arcane Trickster with Magic Initiate: Cleric and the Charlatan background could have worked really well. Or maybe even a Warlock?

One day I'll revisit the concept now that we have more material to work with.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And this is exactly why my main trope as a poster here on EN World is always talking about why this focus on the miniatures board game that so many people have is inevitably resulting in a detriment to their own enjoyment. And if they could only come at the game much more focused on the narrative (with combat mechanics just being one smaller facet of their PC) they'd be much happier. But it requires them to literally change how they think.

But the fact is that if people keep coming up with the same "build" for any one class... it's because they have decided that there's only one way the game mechanics should be run to have a "good" or "standard" character. As @Scribe says, the game has been "solved" for a good many characters and classes. I mean heck... four years ago all the talk was about how it seemed every melee player was going Great Weapon Master and every ranged player went Sharpshooter all the time, because those feats were "solved" and made for the most DPR. And DMs were getting justifiably bored with all their players playing these mechanical characters. But I would of course then say that if these players felt like playing these "solved" mechanics was the only way to play... it said a lot about how those DMs were running their games and what THEIR focus was on. And that they might have needed to change how they ran their games to convince their players that these cookie-cutter builds weren't actually necessary.

Which is why I think everyone would be a heck of a lot happier if they just stopped worrying about the board game and how well they can do "in combat" and instead just created the characters they wanted purely from a narrative perspective and then played into that narrative when combat started. Because then you could play your cool Monk concept that wasn't just focused on the end-all-and-be-all of white room DPR. Or you could play a Beastmaster Ranger and enjoy the roleplaying that comes with a favored pet, knowing that the DM wasn't going to intentionally gun straight for the animal because it was the "optimal combat choice" for them to make. Or you could play any one of the various subclasses in the game because their stories were really cool, even though they weren't "as good" in combat as another.

Unfortunately, I know quite well I'm barking at the moon when I say all this though.

More than barking at the moon, you’re lecturing grown adults on how they’re wrong about what they enjoy and how they’d be happier if they just did what you told them to do.

 

[CleverNickName]

A Bard I Can Get On Board With, Part 1.

First, I rolled my stats, using the 4d6 method. Why? Because everyone always insists on using the same standard array, which means everyone has the same stats, which means they will get funneled into the same three stats in the same order, and you already see the problem. So I'm going to immediately jump off the "same thing we always do" train in Step 1, and roll those bones.

The stats I ended up with are: 10, 6, 15, 13, 14, and 17.

I'm gonna make this bard 4th level, because I feel like if your character needs to be higher than Level 4 to become interesting and fun to play, you've already set yourself up for failure.

 

[R_J_K75]

I hope you call this bard Snarf

Or Frans...

 

[Faolyn]

I mean, if you say so. I've been playing 5E for almost a decade and I've never seen a bard that wasn't a smarmy class clown with the vicious mockery cantrip and a rapier. So my perspective is going to be different.

But see, that's a problem with the players playing an overly-memed trope, not with the class. Like, if you're the DM, have you asked a person playing a bard to not play that sort of character? Have you awarded non-smarmy/clown behavior and had NPCs react to smarmy clowns with disdain or refusing to deal with them?

Edit: Glad to see you're attempting a non-cliché bard!

 

[R_J_K75]

That's right: I will attempt to roll up a Bard that (1) isn't a walking cliché, (2) is fun, interesting, and effective to play, and (3) uses only the 5th Edition Player's Handbook. This will either be easy or impossible, judging from some of the comments in this thread...but we'll see. I don't think it's impossible.

I want in on this. I'll have a submission by tomorrow.

 

[Garthanos]

etty sure I'll get good stories to read among your list. So thanks you all !

(There is a strong point to be made about Odysseus be more a rogue than a bard, though. 5e bards are full spellcasters so that quite narrows the mental archetypes and nearly everytime collide with either wizard (academic knowledge) or sorcerer (spontaneous magic)).

The Greeks considered Odysseus a respected Warlord and valued the cleverness and leadership. The Romans consider Ulysses a Rogue and considered him a dishonorable scoundrel. He was known for having unmatched strength so the Warlord fits to me.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

They say that the best way to lead is by example, so I'm gonna give it a try. Right here, in this thread.

That's right: I will attempt to roll up a Bard that (1) isn't a walking cliché, (2) is fun, interesting, and effective to play, and (3) uses only the 5th Edition Player's Handbook. This will either be easy or impossible, judging from some of the comments in this thread...but we'll see. I don't think it's impossible.

Stay tuned.

And join me, if you dare.

Spoiler: Details

The "walking cliché" of a bard, to me, is one who behaves like a smarmy class clown, fights almost exclusively with the vicious mockery cantrip and/or a rapier, and optimizes Dexterity and Charisma over every other stat. You've already met this bard, dozens of times, so you know what I'm referring to. The point of this exercise is to test the theory that bards don't have to fit this stereotype to be fun, interesting, and effective; therefore my bard will not use the VM cantrip, will not even own a rapier, and neither Dexterity nor Charisma will be their highest (or second-highest) stat. Can it be done? Some argue "yes."

For me, a D&D character is fun and interesting when it has a good backstory and makes sense from a narrative perspective. "Because it gives me a bonus to Whatever" is the antithesis of this philosophy, so it will be avoided. Counter to that, a D&D character is effective when it can fill more than one role on the battlefield and more than one role off the battlefield, has both a ranged and melee attack, has a decent armor class, and doesn't repeat the same two actions in combat...so these will be prioritized.

And finally, this thread (and the WotC survey that spawned it) focuses only on the classes and subclasses in the 5E Player's Handbook, so this will be the only book used. No third-party books, no obscure rules options from the Dungeon Master's Guide, no Xanathar's, no Tasha's, no SKAG, nothing else. Feats and multiclassing are in the PHB, for example, so they will be allowed (and probably necessary, but we will see.)

I will consider this exercise a success if @Blue, @Ruin Explorer, and @Snarf Zagyg can all agree that the Bard I create is one they would enjoy playing, even if only for a one-shot.

Wish me luck.

Good luck! Though I think you're being a tad silly to limit yourself by not having CHA as top-two stats because so many Bard spells rely on saves. YMMV though.

FWIW I've played 3 Bards in 5E. One of them had Vicious Mockery, but barely used it, the other two didn't have it (including the ones I currently play, who semi-illegally has Mind Spike or whatever it's called). You can take my rapier out of my cold dead hands simply because it's the highest-damage Finesse melee weapon! I'd love it if there were more valid options there but 5E is absolute bloody terrible for valid weapon options for people who don't use STR!

Anyway interested to see what you do!