D&D 5E Rogue, Bard, Assassin, Tinker, (Tailer, Spy)

[doctorbadwolf]

Brief thoughts:

Why does every rogue know Theive's Cant? That should be in one or more subclasses, but not a default rogue feature.

I disagree, but think it should be more broad. Rogues all knowing secret languages if a fun note for the class, just don’t limit it to thieves cant.

I feel like demoralizing enemies should be a basic bard feature.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Here's where we differ in interpretting narrative stuff from the game mechanics...I would posit that "doing miracles" is what any/all casting is supposed to be

I definitely disagree on this.

 

[Charlaquin]

Here's where we differ in interpretting narrative stuff from the game mechanics...I would posit that "doing miracles" is what any/all casting is supposed to be. That magic, of any type, functions/works is a spectacular thing. You don't have to legit be raising people from the dead or conjuring elementals (that's fairly high magic, still, right? 5th level? 6th?) for magic to be "impressive."

To the "bards are/should be full casters because they're supposed to be jacks of all trades. So they need to be 'good' at everything." Being "good" at everything and having full access to all levels of casting are not the same thing. The "jack of all trades" thing, by its very definition, means you are "good" at doing a bunch of different things. You are NOT, by definition, "the best" at anything.

I would submit that "full casting" is being "the best" at [your particular sort of] magic. Seeing as the game doesn't see fit to actually give the Bard its own kind of magic, they're just another "arcane caster," they have no business with full access to all spell levels.

To use an example/another angle, I can safely say -without any hint of arrogance- I am a pretty darn good cook. I can make a phenomenal dinner for two, multi-course dinner party for 4-6-10, or even (not often, but a few times a year) whip up catering for large gatherings/events/holidays. My repertoire is broad. I have several "signature dishes" friends expect and enjoy when they come over -for everything from an informal cocktail hour to Thanksgiving/Xmas feast. My collection of cookbooks is diverse. I can say with all confidence, I am a "good cook."

That doesn't mean you could through me in a restaurant's kitchen and say, "Go to town! You know all of this. Just make everything for this restaurant's intercontinental menu, any number of people that come in, any of day of the week." I have not been to -let alone successfully graduated from- the Culinary Institute of America (or France or anywhere else). I am not certified nor have the experience to be considered -nor would I necessarily be able to step into the role of- "chef."

The Bard can be a perfectly "good cook," perhaps even "above average" if they focus their diversity of talents into that area. They are also an adequate gardener, have a passing knowledge of first aid, history, mythologies, and general wildlife/animal idenitfication/behaviors, etc...

The Bard is not, nor should be expected to be (if we are using/keeping with a "jack of all trades" design sensibility), the chef, professional farmer or botanist, EMT or surgeon, professor or park ranger/zoologist.

Bard can certainly "lean into" any of those areas (subclasses), but solely at the expense of some expertise in one of the others. And, even then, they'd still be better than Joe Schmoe from da Block.

Long story, long. I do not think "they're a jack of all trades" can justifiably be used as an explanation for the "full caster" decision. But, that's just me.

See, this line of thinking is what lead to the bard being worthless in 3.Xe. Being ok at everything just doesn’t work in a game built around having a team of characters all specialized in different areas. If you’re ok at everything, you’ll always get passed up for someone who’s good at one of those things and bad at the others. The thinking with the 5e bard was, they need to be good at everything, even if they aren’t the best at it. Full casting is really baseline competence for a party caster. Half-casting is a nice bonus to support a character in a non-casting role, but it isn’t enough to fill the party caster role. And other casters still have features that make them stand out compared to the bard. The wizard has their spell book and can add new spells to it outside the ones they automatically get for leveling up, plus they get Arcane Recovery. Sorcerers have Metamagic and flexible casting to turn unneeded low-level slots into sorcery points and/or high(er) level slots. Druids and clerics get their domain/circle spells. Warlocks get to play a completely different resource game. Bards just get full casting progression and nothing else special (well... apart from Arcane Secrets, which I don’t think they should get anyway.)

And to be clear, I don’t really like the bard being a full caster. But, as I said back then, if Jack of All Trades is going to be the Bard’s shtick (which I don’t think it should be), then they need full casting progression.

 

[steeldragons]

Full casting is really baseline competence for a party caster. Half-casting is a nice bonus to support a character in a non-casting role, but it isn’t enough to fill the party caster role.

And this is where we disagree...or maybe agree with each other, but disagree with the game's design/take. lol. Full casting is, absolutely, baseline for a party caster.

My contention is, the Bard is not, nor should ever be considered, a party caster. Your next sentence kinda sums up my thought rather nicely...

"Half-casting is a nice bonus to support a character in a non-casting role..." which a precisely why the Bard should have been a half-caster.

They aren't a "party caster" but what they are "the best" at?...They are the Support class. Even moreso than Clerics or Druids. The bard, in their "jack of all trades/being good at a bunch of things" makes them the quintessential "Support" class.

They aren't there to be on the front line...but they can be. They aren't there to find/dismantle ALL of the traps...but they can help/be another set of eyes and hands. They aren't there to be "the party caster"...but they can absolutely do some of it...lil' divination, lil' illusion, lil' enchantment... free up the party mages for more fireballs, conjurings, serious arcane stuff. Need healing? I can do that. Little magical inspiration for defense or damage boost in combat? I can do that, too. "Woah, can you guys read this? Let me see. Hey, check out this scroll...if I'm reading this right...Incendiary Cloud [FWOOMSHROARBURNYBURN!] Whoops. Sorry."

And to be clear, I don’t really like the bard being a full caster. But, as I said back then, if Jack of All Trades is going to be the Bard’s shtick (which I don’t think it should be), then they need full casting progression.

Fair. I disagree...or rather, agree it shouldn't be the shtick. Being the best Support class is the Bard's shtick. "Jack of all Trades" is just one element of being that and full casting progression, imo, definitely isn't/doesn't have to be.

 

[Charlaquin]

And this is where we disagree...or maybe agree with each other, but disagree with the game's design/take. lol. Full casting is, absolutely, baseline for a party caster.

My contention is, the Bard is not, nor should ever be considered, a party caster. Your next sentence kinda sums up my thought rather nicely...

"Half-casting is a nice bonus to support a character in a non-casting role..." which a precisely why the Bard should have been a half-caster.

They aren't a "party caster" but what they are "the best" at?...They are the Support class. Even moreso than Clerics or Druids. The bard, in their "jack of all trades/being good at a bunch of things" makes them the quintessential "Support" class.

They aren't there to be on the front line...but they can be. They aren't there to find/dismantle ALL of the traps...but they can help/be another set of eyes and hands. They aren't there to be "the party caster"...but they can absolutely do some of it...lil' divination, lil' illusion, lil' enchantment... free up the party mages for more fireballs, conjurings, serious arcane stuff. Need healing? I can do that. Little magical inspiration for defense or damage boost in combat? I can do that, too. "Woah, can you guys read this? Let me see. Hey, check out this scroll...if I'm reading this right...Incendiary Cloud [FWOOMSHROARBURNYBURN!] Whoops. Sorry."

Fair. I disagree...or rather, agree it shouldn't be the shtick. Being the best Support class is the Bard's shtick. "Jack of all Trades" is just one element of being that and full casting progression, imo, definitely isn't/doesn't have to be.

I agree that bard should be the support class. I just think “support class” should look less like doing the same things everyone else can do but worse, and more like a 4e Leader class. Passing out party buffs and/or enemy debuffs, healing, etc. A “jack of all trades” isn’t a support character, it’s just second-best at everything, in a game built around characters filling specialIzed roles in the party. If the bard is going to be the generalist, they need to be competitive in every role. I thing generalist is a bad concept for bards, what they should be is a support character.

 

[Greg K]

I like the bard as a full caster, but I do have a few issues with the class. I dislike Jack of All Trades and Expertise as class features (but would not mind them in a subclass). I also would remove or swap out a few of the spells

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I dont really mind bards having 9th level spells...

...but I really dislike that every more ''bard-y'' features of the bards (inspiration, musical stuff, social non-spell features, song of rest) seems soooooo secondary to their spellcasting.

 

[TwoSix]

They aren't a "party caster" but what they are "the best" at?...They are the Support class. Even moreso than Clerics or Druids. The bard, in their "jack of all trades/being good at a bunch of things" makes them the quintessential "Support" class.

I agree that bard should be the support class. I just think “support class” should look less like doing the same things everyone else can do but worse, and more like a 4e Leader class. Passing out party buffs and/or enemy debuffs, healing, etc. A “jack of all trades” isn’t a support character, it’s just second-best at everything, in a game built around characters filling specialIzed roles in the party. If the bard is going to be the generalist, they need to be competitive in every role. I thing generalist is a bad concept for bards, what they should be is a support character.

And here we see why they left it up to crowd sourcing. Personally, I prefer the bard as less rogue-y, but more buff oriented and fey magic oriented (illusions, enchantments, etc), so I'm pretty happy with the 5e direction.

 

[Charlaquin]

And here we see why they left it up to crowd sourcing. Personally, I prefer the bard as less rogue-y, but more buff oriented and fey magic oriented (illusions, enchantments, etc), so I'm pretty happy with the 5e direction.

Eh, I feel like that’s the safe route. I would much rather they picked a direction I didn’t like and commit to doing it well, rather than compromise between whatever the polls say the majority wants. A focused design whose direction I disagree with is infinitely better than an unfocused but generally inoffensive one.

 

[Greg K]

Brief thoughts:

Why does every rogue know Theive's Cant? That should be in one or more subclasses, but not a default rogue feature.

I feel like demoralizing enemies should be a basic bard feature.

I agree- especially, when they decided that the outdoor specialist warrior was to be handled by the Scout rogue archetype and the light armored warrior by the Swashbuckler, because rogues were the light armored skilled martial class (although honestly, in a campaign, I would replace WOTC's Rogue Swashbuckler with a Fighter variant (and its subclasses) by Khalis for Swashbucklers and several other light armored warrior archetypes).