D&D 5E The Bard is...

[Kobold Stew]

I agree that a sample list of available musical instruments would be useful; previous editions mentioned some of them, such as drum, flute, harp, horn, lute, lyre, and woodwind in 4E; there was a "yarting" mentioned in 2E that the god Oghma played; and hand-bells or chimes might be good additions, or possibly even maracas and castanets.

How about "songblades?" Too early yet? Few bards are going to enter melee wielding a lute.

<snip>

Also, Shields: 3E and 4E Bards got shield proficiency, though 2E Bards did not.

I think bards should be going into battle wielding their lute -- if they want to use bardic music in combat. That's the thing: there should be some player choice involved. If you want a shield, you're not using an instrument. You can still cast spells, but not get the spellcasting bonus.

If you are wielding your instrument (with two hands, let's say) then you get your spellcasting bonus. But it's a choice for the player, and involves in-game decisions.

The same is true for the cleric: I love the thought of a cleric wielding her holy symbol instead of a weapon (again, a choice) to drive back the undead or to shoot off a spell. If she doesn't, and she's choosing to swing a mace or whatever, she still can cast, but doesn't get the bonus.

It makes the spellcasting bonus not something that is always on, but something that activates depending on the build, the situation, and player actions.

 

[Sadrik]

Cleric --> Paladin
Druid --> Ranger
Mage --> Bard

These are the hybrid classes, the Bard is too entwined in its background fluff. I would like to see the background of being a performer removed. The Paladin and Ranger do not have this problem, they are tied to divine power and to wilderness magic but they do not say you have to be holding a holy symbol, or fiddling with mistletoe to cast your spells. The bard is too limited in scope. Want to play an arcane caster who is good with a sword? Look elsewhere this is not your class.

To solve some of these problems... The casting methodology should be removed. I wish this class could be open like the mage, where a casting methodology could be plugged in. Plug in warlock at-will and you now have a completely different feel for the class. Add the minstrel background and you get a warlock minstrel who can fight with a sword in a pinch.

Also why does this class have a unique casting method anyway?

The party leader thing should be for any class. It is not something that should be hung on any one class. Anyone who has a high charisma and perhaps takes a background that enhances the CHA based skills should be competent at that. Something like the Minstrel or others. I don't want to see a mechanical edge given to a class that makes that their defacto thing. I feel like there should be many that can do that role and many that can do that role well.

Bardic knowledge also is another ability that I feel like touches on the sage background. Not every bard should be a font of knowledge. If you wanted to make a jester type character, clearly they should not be a know every sagely obscure fact about everything. This is something that certain types of bard could have but not all.

Bardic performance, this is where I think some really creative design could be applied. Open up the "performance" to include other types of buffing.
Call to Battle: increased damage which scales up to allies in a 25' rad.
Inspire Competence: add your proficiency to ability checks in a 25' rad.
Honestly why are these not just unique spells on the bard spell list. That would be the simple solution. This is the approach they went with the different smites for the paladin. This would be a good direction with the bard too.

So bards are also kind of roguish, where is their roguish stuff. I see nothing that makes them anything like that in here. Give them some rogue stuff! Even some fightery stuff would be warranted. Right now they cannot stand on their own with a sword at all. The sword is just for show.

So my thoughts are two fold allow the performance based stuff, but do not hard code it. Make them the arcane warrior class without all the unnecessary fluff. The other is give them some rogue and or fighter stuff.

 

[Kobold Stew]

So bards are also kind of roguish, where is their roguish stuff. I see nothing that makes them anything like that in here. Give them some rogue stuff!

I don't think we're reading the same Bard. There is so much roguish stuff (plus spell casting, plus music). I listed many of them in post 3:

1. Why are the weapons identical to the rogue?
2. Why are there no class skills?

5. Expertise. Identical to Rogue. No sense of synergy.
6. Jack of All Trades. With Expertise and Bardic Knowledge, there is so much helping bards with skill checks. The Bard is a better skill monkey than the rogue.

Same weapons as rogue, same Expertise (but at level 3 rather than 1), less restricted class skill choice, and better skill-enhancers. Add a background that provides the required tool proficiency if you want to pick locks, and you're good to go -- better than a rogue in many ways. Plus spellcasting and bardic music.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Cleric --> Paladin
Druid/Mage --> Ranger
Druid --> Bard

IMO

IMO

 

[Zaruthustran]

Want to play an arcane caster who is good with a sword? Look elsewhere this is not your class... So my thoughts are two fold allow the performance based stuff, but do not hard code it. Make them the arcane warrior class without all the unnecessary fluff.

I think they mentioned that a "Spellsword" path will be available to either Fighter or Mage. Or you can get there with multiclassing, or feats, or race choice (all high elves are arcane casters who are good with swords). Point being: Bard isn't trying to be "arcane caster with sword." It's not trying to be an arcane warrior class. It's trying to be a magical performer. Or more literally, it's trying to be as the rule text describes: "Bards master a form of magic that uses music and oration to alter the listener’s emotions and mood."

The music "fluff" is an absolutely (pun intended) integral part of the class known as "Bard."

I think bards should be going into battle wielding their lute -- if they want to use bardic music in combat.

I've seen a lot of mention of the lute, and how it doesn't jive with wielding weapons, using shields, or in general the Bard of Valor. Well, yeah. The Lute is hardly known as a martial instrument. I imagine fighting bards will want to use traditional martial instruments: a horn. A drum. Something that can be played one-handed. Also, keep in mind that while starting a performance of Bardic Music is an action, maintaining it is Concentration, and can include "oratory". So blow a blast on your horn to signal the charge, then bellow encouragement. Or skip the horn and just yell.

 

[KidSnide]

the Bard is too entwined in its background fluff. I would like to see the background of being a performer removed. The Paladin and Ranger do not have this problem, they are tied to divine power and to wilderness magic but they do not say you have to be holding a holy symbol, or fiddling with mistletoe to cast your spells. The bard is too limited in scope. Want to play an arcane caster who is good with a sword? Look elsewhere this is not your class.

Agreed. I think the best version of the bard was the 2e bard in the Complete Bard's Handbook. With kits like the Blade and the Loremaster, the bard class covered a wide range of concepts. This bard looks like just a narrow subset of what the class could be.

-KS

 

[Manabarbs]

Cantrips? I'm OK with that, but I find it a little strange that the Bard gets Cantrips when the Paladin and the Ranger do not. (Perhaps that comes from the Power Sources in 4E: the Bard in 4E is Arcane, but the Paladin and Ranger are much more weapon-dependent. However, why does the Bard not get an attack cantrip? The Cleric and Mage both do. . . .)

I'm guessing that's influence primarily from 3.5. In 3.5, clerics, wizard/sorcerers, and bards all get level 0 spells (cantrips/osirons), while rangers and paladins do not. At least for the past few editions - and I think even further back than that - the wizard and cleric have been presented as heavier on spellcasting than the bard, which is heavier on spellcasting than the ranger and paladin, although in 4e both the bard and paladin have a pretty wide range. Attack cantrips and who has them are also inherited from 3.5; in that edition, Clerics and Wizards both have (uselessly terrible but technically extant) damaging cantrips, while the bard does not, at least not in core.

 

[gyor]

I agree that Magical Secrets should be spaced out over the levels. To make up for the loss of the capstone I'd add a Bardic Colleges Capstone.

And I don't know if you noticed this, but the Bard's magic does not specify its power source and even hints that thier is more then one.

Unlike that Mage which is said to be Arcane or Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Cleric which are all said to divine.

 

[Arytiss]

Just had time to sit down and have a quick look at the new packet. I have to say that at the moment, especially in comparison to everything else, the Bard (one of my favourite classes) seems utterly bland. It doesn't really do anything to effectively evoke the flavour of the bard. The roguishness, the wit and charm that lies at the core of the class, seems to be missing.

 

[Firebeetle]

I've been in grad school AGAIN and missed out the premiere of the D&D Next bard. I'm the guy who started the 700 reply poll in which over 400 people said the bard sucked the most in 3.5, and gave some withering attacks of the 3.5 bard on these here boards. I LOVE playing bard, but hate how the class has been structured for so many editions.

It's a serious kick in the teeth, the new/old bard. The 4e bard was everything I could hope it to be. Instead of building on that success, we have a regurgitated 3.5 bard that still looks like a stinky pile of puke. There are little improvements, I like that Bardic Knowledge has some definition finally and the colleges hold some promise. It ends there. Issues are namely:

1.) 1st level bites, AGAIN. Developers, please play a 1st level bard and then see if you're excited to play him again at the level after the session. It's not going to happen. It's so easy to beef this guy up too (see 2 & 3 below).
2.) No bluff buff. Again, the number one expectation for bards is that they will talk the party out of trouble again and again. Yet, there is no buff to Bluff or Diplomacy AGAIN. What the hell? Bards should have the gift of blarney, period. Put in a bluff buff please, perhaps a bonus to all charisma skills would fit in.
3.) No ability to talk to everyone. D&D languages are always a problem mechanic. They are often ignored anyway. Give the bard a "Sacajawea" ability to speak to anyone on a basic level. This makes the most of that bluff buff that should be added from 2 above.
4.) The spell list sucks. Bards deserve their own spell list or similar ability list. 4e did wonders here. The current spell list looks a lot like the old one. It gives no flavor to the bard, and simply casts the bard as "spare mage/cleric". I'd rather have the bardic music abilities expanded or a unique spell list.
5.) The ability list is really random AGAIN. It's obvious that the original bard writeup for 3e back in the LATE 90s was not very inspired when it was written. Do we still have to suffer for it now? I'd like a rewritten class that has a lot of clarity. Counterspell? Really? There is a lot of "Well, you know, that could be useful" stuff, which usually isn't very useful.
6.) Instead of being second best at everything, how about bard players can choose what they are good at, skills they pick up. One bard may never be rogueish, he's very good at knowing a lot of stuff. Another bard is great at picking locks and pockets. Another bard is great swordplay. Instead of a bunch of substandard abilities, how about the choice about what sort of bard you want to play with bardish abilities that back that up? The swordfighting bard can taunt his opponents, the rogueish bard is a good con man, the knowledgeable bard can have occasional, automatic high rolls to know the weirdest and most eclectic crap. Etc, etc.

This bard is a dealbreaker for me. I'm NOT going back to playing crappy bards anymore. Please fix this Wotc.

Let the barrage of BS excuses why the bard is okay and how I must be a substandard player with no skill if I don't see the value of the crappy bard begin. I've given up all faith that an EN World board will do something constructive like talk about the class instead of attacking me.