Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8383769" data-attributes="member: 87792">I'll argue for one and a half exceptions in terms of subclasses that feel worthless - and even then you've got a main class that's just kind of weaker.The one truly worthless subclass is the PHB Beastmaster Ranger. The problem here is that your animal companion, being a melee combatant with the hit points and AC of a wizard is so fragile you feel as if you've saddled the party with an escort mission. The half is Four Elements Monk - they are a very weak and anti-synergystic subclass of a fairly weak base class.Honestly I'd call &quot;sound-based magic&quot; a sorcerer or barbarian thing. Sorcerers are the casters who focus on one big area of magic and barbarians have their big flashy rage that should meld well with sound.Bards, rather than being sound based, I'd say have their magic much more deeply rooted in illusions and enchantmet.I actually like the 3.5 bard - but the 3.0 one was a complete trashfire and the Pathfinder one broke most of the parts that worked of the 3.5 one.Given the shenanigans I could get up to with a 3.5 bard and optimised Inspire Courage I'm going to disagree here. The 5e bard lacks the long term buffs and sheer area and NPC buffs of Inspire Courage, the general knowledge of Bardic Lore and well, the Glibness (the bard spell list in 3.5 was better than it looked, with a discount on certain spells). Of course Inspire Courage got really good when you were allowed multiple sources; by third level you could make it better by means of a feat, a spell, and a magic item - and +4 to hit and damage on all your attacks for the entire party at third level really changes the math and Bardic Inspiration, being single target per use, is nowhere near as good.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 8383769, member: 87792"] I'll argue for one and a half exceptions in terms of subclasses that feel worthless - and even then you've got a main class that's just kind of weaker. The one truly worthless subclass is the PHB Beastmaster Ranger. The problem here is that your animal companion, being a melee combatant with the hit points and AC of a wizard is so fragile you feel as if you've saddled the party with an escort mission. The half is Four Elements Monk - they are a very weak and anti-synergystic subclass of a fairly weak base class. Honestly I'd call "sound-based magic" a sorcerer or barbarian thing. Sorcerers are the casters who focus on one big area of magic and barbarians have their big flashy rage that should meld well with sound. Bards, rather than being sound based, I'd say have their magic much more deeply rooted in illusions and enchantmet. I actually like the 3.5 bard - but the 3.0 one was a complete trashfire and the Pathfinder one broke most of the parts that worked of the 3.5 one. Given the shenanigans I could get up to with a 3.5 bard and optimised Inspire Courage I'm going to disagree here. The 5e bard lacks the long term buffs and sheer area and NPC buffs of Inspire Courage, the general knowledge of Bardic Lore and well, the Glibness (the bard spell list in 3.5 was better than it looked, with a discount on certain spells). Of course Inspire Courage got really good when you were allowed multiple sources; by third level you could make it better by means of a feat, a spell, and a magic item - and +4 to hit and damage on all your attacks for the entire party at third level really changes the math and Bardic Inspiration, being single target per use, is nowhere near as good. [/QUOTE]

Verification