D&D 5E The Bard is...

[Kobold Stew]

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.

What an odd way to end an otherwise interesting post.

My experience of the current bard in play is that it is one of the stronger classes, and easily outshines the rogue as the party's skill monkey by level 3. So the question becomes:

if we are adding abilities to the bard (let's say your 1, 2, and 3), what are you prepared to lose?

Is the Sacajawea ability and advantage on all charisma skills (at levels 1 and 2, say) worth losing expertise at level 3? What would *you* be prepared to lose from the current play test abilities?

What spells would you want to lose from the list before you start importing them. I know it's not a zero-sum game, but I'd be interested in what abilities you feel shouldn't be in the bard payload, to make room (as it were) for the things you feel should be introduced.

 

[Mistwell]

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).

I am guessing you yourself did not play the bard, you just read about it in isolation apart from the other mechanics in the game. Maybe I am wrong in that guess (please let me know), but if I am right I think you might find playing it, it's not what it seems. Also, there are assumptions you may not be aware of, as you say you didn't follow all the betatest release issues as they came up. For example, it sounds like you were not aware that not all the spells and subclasses are in this release, or how the first three levels work for the classes, or the scaling of skills.

I'll respond specifically to detail:

First level "sucks" for all the classes, intentionally. They've built it so that the 1st and 2nd level of the classes are essentially "apprentice" levels, and the final product apparently suggests starting at 3rd level if you don't like this.

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.

They, like all classes which have a bonus to any sort of skill, get it at third level. It's listed as Expertise. It's a MASSIVE bonus. I know from the perspective of other editions it seems like a small bonus, but once you become more familiar with how ability checks work (skill checks are just modifiers on ability checks), you'll see that having the skill and then on top of it the expertise makes you truly a master of that type of thing in this game. Few classes get expertise, your skills don't really go up with level (they do, but not by much), and you'll dominate whatever you have Expertise 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.

Languages come through background, race, and intelligence. A Bard usually has a decent intelligence. Then most of the races that tend to gravitate to bard get bonus languages, and most of the backgrounds that tend to mesh well with bard also get bonus languages. A half-elf bard with a sage background and a 16 intelligence, for example, would get: Common, Elvish, Bonus (half-elf), Bonus (sage), Bonus (sage), Bonus (sage), Bonus (Intelligence), Bonus (Intelligence), Bonus (Intelligence). There you go, nine languages at first level, and there are only nine standard languages in the game. And then, you also get Comprehend Languages on your first level spell list. Now a polyglot ability isn't a bad idea, and I think it should be included in a subclass. So, good idea. But I don't think it's quite as bad as you think.

4.) The spell list sucks. Bards deserve their own spell list or similar ability list.

They do have their own spell list, but not all the spells are listed in the Beta test.

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.

Well it's the beta, bard came along later in the testing, and we know not all the spells are listed (not even close, apparently). I'd bet you a fair sum of cash you're going to see plenty of unique bard spells in the final book. And I agree with you, they should have more unique spells on their list, and I think that is coming.

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.

I think this is a matter of taste. I don't think it looks random. But, that's what the playtest is for - play the game, and then give them your feedback.

6.) Instead of being second best at everything, how about bard players can choose what they are good at, skills they pick up.

That's what they do. I think this is where some background in how subclasses work for all the classes becomes more helpful.

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.

Yup, that's this bard.

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.

Yes to all that - that's how the class is set up. We don't have all the subclasses revealed yet, but that's the direction the current subclasses went, exactly the sort of stuff you're talking about. It's in the colleges. They get their subclass at 3rd level, like most classes, and there will be more subclasses.

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.

I am not attacking you, but it does sound like you didn't playtest the bard to see if it matches what you think it matches, and I think you'd gain something from trying it out. Also, I think you're coming at this without knowing about some important things that happened in development, and how some other classes work, to see where some information is located, and what levels everyone gets them.

 

[CleverNickName]

I voted "Missed Expectations," but that isn't entirely true. I'll explain.

In every edition I've played, the Bard has missed the mark in my opinion. But that is a problem with my expectation, not with the class design over the years. (So I guess you could say that it actually DID meet my expectations...but not really...ugh. Nevermind.)

The thing is, the bard has always felt like a multiclassed thief-mage to me. Sure, there are cosmetic differences (singing and strumming a lute instead of waving a wand and muttering incantations, fascinating your foe with music instead of distracting them with ventriloquism, etc.), but nothing that really sings. Pun intended. At the end of the day, the "bard" is just another high-charisma rogue who can cast a few spells. Why do they need to pick locks and cast spells at the same time? Nobody knows...they just do. With a lute. Somehow.

But like I said: that is my problem, not the game's problem. And I'm working on it. Right now, one of the villains in my ongoing campaign is a high-level bard, and he is a lot of fun to play. (A high-level bard can be devilishly frustrating to PCs.) But it still feels like I'm playing a weird wizard, not a separate character class.

Anyway, back on topic.

This version has a lot of potential, though. I am very interested in the Colleges--it would be a great way for me to separate out the different interpretations of the class...not all bards play musical instruments, for example, so it would make sense that some of them studied under a different school. This is an elegant way to make the bards versatile, and to give their magical music a solid background.

But then they have things like Wit, which feels like a giant step backwards to me. Players who choose to play the bard usually do so because they like the immersive, interactive style of roleplaying. This mechanic, the way I am reading it, seems like it would take that special bard-flavor and panache and reduce it all to a dice roll.

I'll be curious to see how this class ends up in print.

 

[gyor]

I'm really curious as to what subclasses they put into the game and if the whole not nessarily an arcane spellcaster thing they did with the 5e bard translates in regard to subclasses. Like college of piety, a college of shadow, college of the weave, college of nature and so on that lean heavily on different power sources and methods.

Also it will he interesting how the fact that bard magic isn't always arcane unlike in 3.e and most of 4e will effect the class in 5e Darksun.