Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Time to remake the Bard
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 7835379" data-attributes="member: 6750235"><p>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. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. <strong>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. </strong>A non-damage spell is less than a damage spell in case the math is hard. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>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. <strong>Secrets doesn't do it because you are using more secrets than you have at the levels you are claiming.</strong> In case 2 and 4 is hard math. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p><p></p><p>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. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>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, <strong>and I flat out helped support your build by adding in spiritual hammer</strong>. 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The question is "why shouldn't they be?"</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Personal bias is always subjective. It can throw math off regardless. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ashrym, post: 7835379, member: 6750235"] 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. [B]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. [/B]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. [B]Secrets doesn't do it because you are using more secrets than you have at the levels you are claiming.[/B] In case 2 and 4 is hard math. :P 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, [B]and I flat out helped support your build by adding in spiritual hammer[/B]. 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. ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Time to remake the Bard
Top