OB1
Jedi Master
Math is hard, especially at 6am
Even at 1 in 400, I think the point stands that it's not extremely rare to find a group who all wouldn't care for a particular class.
D&D 5E Time to remake the Bard
Even at 1 in 400, I think the point stands that it's not extremely rare to find a group who all wouldn't care for a particular class.
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Paul Farquhar
Legend
For that maths to be valid you have to assume independence.
I find it unlikely that people belonging to the same group would formulate their opinions entirely independently.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
No, it's not. It's not even CLOSE. When you aren't cherry picking that a DM will only run a single encounter every day, that is.
Esker
Hero
Was just going to say that. In the extreme of a high level of groupthink, it could be as high as 30% of groups!
(and, of course, the 70% approval statistic is based on a group of play-testers who are not likely representative of the wider gaming community, so really, who knows)
You can only do all that if you ignore everything I just illustrated and don't post an example of how you made it possible.
Repeating claims that don't match up to my comparisons won't make those claims true. Adding more spell slots didn't change the numbers because I was using the best scenario examples, and also why I pointed out how often the bard can disintegrate. Those examples always followed your assumption of 3 rounds and 1 spell slot used.
Rogue don't "squeak ahead". 3 rounds of sneak attack beats 1 round of 10d6. It's really that simple. Eldritch blast plus hex by itself isn't impressive damage by any standard. Cantrip damage is low in general until 11th or 17th level, and then some of them can be questionable. Agonizing blast is what makes eldritch blast good and your example doesn't have that. That's why your example doesn't even compete until 11th level when the 3rd die comes online.
Writing a bard guide doesn't mean you understand bards anymore than anyone else here. That a claim of authority which is just avoiding giving proof of your claims again.
And no, sneak attack is extremely reliable. It's easy to have a party member beside the target until you prove it's not. It's actually normal to have party members in the front lines in melee. That's why sneak attack is reliable and casting fireball is not. It's far more likely to have sneak attack than avoid friendly fire with an AoE like that.
And no, your example cannot buff outside of bardic inspiration. Which you are using for cutting words as well and are once shot benefits. Buffing takes concentration with rare exception. You need that for hex. You cannot have both.
And no, your example does not have hypnotic pattern until you give something else up. If you do cast hypnotic pattern, you are doing less damage because learning a spell does not give you another action in combat. That means your damage goes down from my example with every single spell the bard casts in combat that is not one of those examples. A non-damage spell is less than a damage spell in case the math is hard.
And no, your example is not healing. At least not past minimalistic healing. You're trying to prove damage and in doing so not actually using secrets for that healing spell you need. Bards have some healing spells inherently but nothing like a cleric or druid. They need to use secrets for respectable healing and they need to use spells known to do it. You actually have to fit those in somewhere along with the damage spells along with the utility spells along with specific spells you mentioned. Secrets doesn't do it because you are using more secrets than you have at the levels you are claiming. In case 2 and 4 is hard math.
Or just 2 secrets and 10th level. The base class cannot logically be overpowered because one subclass has 2 more spells known no matter how well-known Shrodinger is.
He's not casting those lower level spells because he will lose or give up hex and recast, so there are slots that won't be available, and I flat out helped support your build by adding in spiritual hammer. The damage I was giving you already included those 2nd level slots. The slots I left after giving everything to damage for you are whatever 1st level you don't use for hex or emergency use for healing word for baseline emergency healing. You don't have the slots or enough spells known to do more than a couple of rituals, which cost you hex OC.
That also gets back to having to choose which spells are in those lower level slots and the limitations of the 5e action economy. Bards struggle covering what you describe because they're designed similar to druids and clerics, typically used to covering utility like a wizard, and splitting up spells known between 2 of those 3 when any of those 3. You have to allocate your spells known somehow. Every selection in one area is a loss in another. And the 5e action economy is naturally limiting. It doesn't matter how many spells you might know. You can still only cast them at the rate they are cast and have so many actions to use. If you drop something for healing in spells known then cast it in combat you just lost your damage again. When I gave you the best case scenario you only have room to go down from there.
The build I gave you is great damage for a bard and decent damage in general. It also fit in respectable enough healing and utility. It won't match the build pace you think you can get and the fluidity of combat won't match your number crunch but that part doesn't change that the build is solid for the design goal. If it takes resilient CON at 12th, moderately armored at 16th, and then tops up both ability scores at 19th it also mildly shores up some squishiness with benefits available to a 1st level cleric and well behind a wizard casting shield at will via spell mastery. That's about as well rounded as you are going to get with room for preference changes of spells that don't impact anything overall, and it takes tier 4 to really get there.
The question is "why shouldn't they be?"
Going full caster allows for more build concepts that suit class concepts on something that is a magical class. It's easier to build around being less magical like going the 1e route with 6 levels of fighter, 4 levels of rogue, and then 10 levels of bard than it is to take a restricted caster frame and turn it into one of the full caster bard tropes. It's just easier to turn it into broader concepts this way.
Also, they aren't too good. They actually still suffer from the 3e stigma of not being the best at anything but people see the chassis and jump to caster bias. Not that casters aren't good; I just see a lot of reaction without much analysis when I play a variety of classes based on my mood and have quite a bit of my own experience with the class as well as how it compares to others.
Personal bias is always subjective. It can throw math off regardless.
I was considering it over the course of the day above, lol. Spell casters generally do get to the point that they can launch damage spells regularly. We were looking at 3 round encounters with 1 damage spell and 2 cantrips per encounter, and later a second damage spell in some encounters. IE 8 spell slots would cover 8 encounters. That's not the unreasonable part, lol.
It's how fast and how many spells he's applying at what levels that's throwing him off. The spells known mechanic is bottlenecking him more than he realizes and he's not doing as much damage as he thinks at the levels he thinks he is.
TheCosmicKid
Hero
Furthermore, even assuming independence, 0.3^5 is the probability that a group will dislike the bard specifically. The probability that the group will dislike some class is 1-(1-0.3^5)^12, or a respectable 0.029.
Zardnaar
Legend
You can only do all that if you ignore everything I just illustrated and don't post an example of how you made it possible.
Repeating claims that don't match up to my comparisons won't make those claims true. Adding more spell slots didn't change the numbers because I was using the best scenario examples, and also why I pointed out how often the bard can disintegrate. Those examples always followed your assumption of 3 rounds and 1 spell slot used.
Rogue don't "squeak ahead". 3 rounds of sneak attack beats 1 round of 10d6. It's really that simple. Eldritch blast plus hex by itself isn't impressive damage by any standard. Cantrip damage is low in general until 11th or 17th level, and then some of them can be questionable. Agonizing blast is what makes eldritch blast good and your example doesn't have that. That's why your example doesn't even compete until 11th level when the 3rd die comes online.
Writing a bard guide doesn't mean you understand bards anymore than anyone else here. That a claim of authority which is just avoiding giving proof of your claims again.
And no, sneak attack is extremely reliable. It's easy to have a party member beside the target until you prove it's not. It's actually normal to have party members in the front lines in melee. That's why sneak attack is reliable and casting fireball is not. It's far more likely to have sneak attack than avoid friendly fire with an AoE like that.
And no, your example cannot buff outside of bardic inspiration. Which you are using for cutting words as well and are once shot benefits. Buffing takes concentration with rare exception. You need that for hex. You cannot have both.
And no, your example does not have hypnotic pattern until you give something else up. If you do cast hypnotic pattern, you are doing less damage because learning a spell does not give you another action in combat. That means your damage goes down from my example with every single spell the bard casts in combat that is not one of those examples. A non-damage spell is less than a damage spell in case the math is hard.
And no, your example is not healing. At least not past minimalistic healing. You're trying to prove damage and in doing so not actually using secrets for that healing spell you need. Bards have some healing spells inherently but nothing like a cleric or druid. They need to use secrets for respectable healing and they need to use spells known to do it. You actually have to fit those in somewhere along with the damage spells along with the utility spells along with specific spells you mentioned. Secrets doesn't do it because you are using more secrets than you have at the levels you are claiming. In case 2 and 4 is hard math.
Or just 2 secrets and 10th level. The base class cannot logically be overpowered because one subclass has 2 more spells known no matter how well-known Shrodinger is.
He's not casting those lower level spells because he will lose or give up hex and recast, so there are slots that won't be available, and I flat out helped support your build by adding in spiritual hammer. The damage I was giving you already included those 2nd level slots. The slots I left after giving everything to damage for you are whatever 1st level you don't use for hex or emergency use for healing word for baseline emergency healing. You don't have the slots or enough spells known to do more than a couple of rituals, which cost you hex OC.
That also gets back to having to choose which spells are in those lower level slots and the limitations of the 5e action economy. Bards struggle covering what you describe because they're designed similar to druids and clerics, typically used to covering utility like a wizard, and splitting up spells known between 2 of those 3 when any of those 3. You have to allocate your spells known somehow. Every selection in one area is a loss in another. And the 5e action economy is naturally limiting. It doesn't matter how many spells you might know. You can still only cast them at the rate they are cast and have so many actions to use. If you drop something for healing in spells known then cast it in combat you just lost your damage again. When I gave you the best case scenario you only have room to go down from there.
The build I gave you is great damage for a bard and decent damage in general. It also fit in respectable enough healing and utility. It won't match the build pace you think you can get and the fluidity of combat won't match your number crunch but that part doesn't change that the build is solid for the design goal. If it takes resilient CON at 12th, moderately armored at 16th, and then tops up both ability scores at 19th it also mildly shores up some squishiness with benefits available to a 1st level cleric and well behind a wizard casting shield at will via spell mastery. That's about as well rounded as you are going to get with room for preference changes of spells that don't impact anything overall, and it takes tier 4 to really get there.
The question is "why shouldn't they be?"
Going full caster allows for more build concepts that suit class concepts on something that is a magical class. It's easier to build around being less magical like going the 1e route with 6 levels of fighter, 4 levels of rogue, and then 10 levels of bard than it is to take a restricted caster frame and turn it into one of the full caster bard tropes. It's just easier to turn it into broader concepts this way.
Also, they aren't too good. They actually still suffer from the 3e stigma of not being the best at anything but people see the chassis and jump to caster bias. Not that casters aren't good; I just see a lot of reaction without much analysis when I play a variety of classes based on my mood and have quite a bit of my own experience with the class as well as how it compares to others.
Personal bias is always subjective. It can throw math off regardless.
I was considering it over the course of the day above, lol. Spell casters generally do get to the point that they can launch damage spells regularly. We were looking at 3 round encounters with 1 damage spell and 2 cantrips per encounter, and later a second damage spell in some encounters. IE 8 spell slots would cover 8 encounters. That's not the unreasonable part, lol.
It's how fast and how many spells he's applying at what levels that's throwing him off. The spells known mechanic is bottlenecking him more than he realizes and he's not doing as much damage as he thinks at the levels he thinks he is.
By level 9 bard has 7 level 3 spells. With 6-8 expected encounters you can drop an 8d6 minimum spell every encounter.
So 1st round 8d6 minimum, then two rounds of 2d10+2d6.
The 8d6 part is likely to hit multiple targets and lightning bolt can be easy to avoid hitting your own mooks
Level 10 destructive wave doesn't hit your team mates plus knocks prone.
They still have another 10-14 known spelks if allies are in the way. And aoe spells don't miss and they don't rely on allies.
Rogues often win initiative and can't sneak attack. Or fly critters with no flying allies.
Blaster bard damage isn't reliant on allies.
That's in top of bard dice which can be used on skills, song if rest and actual bard spells like invisibility, enhance ability, hypnotic pattern, heat metal etc.
A Rogue has to sneak attack a blaster bard doesn't have to blast.
Bard dice are also hitting d8s and d10s which is actually better than expertise.
Limited yes but if you really need to pass the average roll is more than expertise and applies to any skill.
Plus cutting words as well.
Outside combat jack of all trades and enhance ability are also good.
Bards always good regardless rogue may not be.
Note this is something bards are not good at and it's competitive IMHO. Even if the rogue wins (both classes are situational in a rl game) it's not going to be by that much and damage isn't a bard thing.
That's what makes the bard so good you can build them to be decent at something they're supposed to be bad at.
And that's just on thing they can do. You could build one to focus on healing instead and it's still useful due to the class abilities and actual bard spell list.
You could pick spells like banishment or just cherry pick good spells and not focus on anything. Healing spirit plus fly/haste/fireball or whatever is still good.
Last edited:
Esker
Hero
And of course that assumes that a given group's preferences are independent across classes, which also is highly unlikely. I'd bet that groups' likes of similar classes are correlated, and likes of classes supporting widely different playstyles negatively correlated.
Shardstone
Hero
I took a lot of inspiration from this thread. Currently working on a class that has Muses for archetypes, arts for invocations, and warlock style casting. Might not call it the bard though.
Similar Threads
