D&D (2024) There needs to be a 4th spell list.

[doctorbadwolf]

Might just make a better bard by picking fighter, then multiclassing rogue. Then taking a bit of druid.

Just kidding. But if I did play Bard I'd probably go 50% bard 50% rogue to get it playing closer to what I consider a jack of all trades class should be.

That is a fun build, even if I’d prefer the bard ditch the Jack of all trades idea, and lean more into the lore (and thus song, oration, etc) of the mythic bard.

If any class should be a Jack of all trades, it’s the Ranger.

Bard is a wizard with a guitar. Ranger is a wizard with a bow. Neo-vancian casting is consuming every unique and interesting character feature and it bores me to tears.

The fact they prepare spells makes them a wizard!? What!?

Lets just forget the 3e bard...

The 3.5 Bard is one of the very few things I don’t want to forget from 3/.5e.

I’d happily replace bardic inspiration with songs that you activate as a bonus action and last for 1 minute or longer and have an area effect like making your allies all do more damage or add a bonus to mental saves or move faster.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Its still magic. I know rules in general don't seem to be very important to you, but not everyone feels that way.

If you don't wish to handwave it, that's fine. You don't have to. But you also just have to accept that WotC will do their designs the way they want to. And if they do it such that they are insinuating "If you don't want magic then you WILL have to handwave it"... you either ignore the insinuation and play it with the magic you don't want, or you accept the idea of handwaving it and play it in the style you prefer even if it goes against what the book suggests is the default.

Speaking personally... I would much rather play the game in the style that I want. So I will handwave all rules in the book that I don't like till the cows come home. And I think anyone who doesn't do that is just setting themselves up to be miserable.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Except you're still wiggling your fingers and saying magic words. Pretending you aren't doesn't change anything.

But I’m not. It’s just a limited resource driven special ability.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you don't wish to handwave it, that's fine. You don't have to. But you also just have to accept that WotC will do their designs the way they want to. And if they do it such that they are insinuating "If you don't want magic then you WILL have to handwave it"... you either ignore the insinuation and play it with the magic you don't want, or you accept the idea of handwaving it and play it in the style you prefer even if it goes against what the book suggests is the default.

Speaking personally... I would much rather play the game in the style that I want. So I will handwave all rules in the book that I don't like till the cows come home. And I think anyone who doesn't do that is just setting themselves up to be miserable.

The more hand-waving you have to do, the less useful the book becomes, and the more money is wasted buying it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But I’m not. It’s just a limited resource driven special ability.

That still follows all the spell rules.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That still follows all the spell rules.

Wholly irrelevant.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The 3.5 Bard is one of the very few things I don’t want to forget from 3/.5e.

No. You are right. Let it always remind us how not to build a class.

 

[Charlaquin]

The fact they prepare spells makes them a wizard!? What!?

The fact that they access and cast spells the same way makes them same-y. That the way they access and cast spells is a spin on Vancian casting is what gives that same-y feel a particular D&D wizard vibe.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

I have not read the full thread, so something like this might already be mentioned somewhere.

Having more unified spell lists can make things easier, as long as you then do not create exceptions.
2 of the 3 classes we have seen already have exceptions saying you have access to list X and then listing parts of that list you don't have access to, or the subset you do have access to.
As soon as you do this you create class specific spell lists.

It is also harder for new players.
So I have access to the wizard list but only spells that are of this school....
Goes to wizard lists looks at a few spells, had to go back to the page for his class having trouble remembering the names of the schools as to this new player the names of the spell schools are a new thing.
Player goes back and forth a few times.
Player grumbles why can't they just put a (b) next to the spell name if I can cast it as a bard.
Then goes online to get himself a list of spells the bard has access to that somebody else already made.
Maybe even printing it out and putting the bard spell list in the back of his PHB.

In my opinion the only way a person can think the access to list X with the following expiations is good design is if the designer assumes you will be using a character builder (presumably DnD beyond) that will show you only the options available to you anyway, and you will never have to figure out if you have access to a spell manually in the book.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The fact that they access and cast spells the same way makes them same-y. That the way they access and cast spells is a spin on Vancian casting is what gives that same-y feel a particular D&D wizard vibe.

Same is what most people want, right?