So...either the Factotum or the Four Elements Monk?My preference of Bard would have been a non-caster rogue type with "Bardic Points" that could be used for inspiration, music effects, and magic via the Magic of Music.
So...either the Factotum or the Four Elements Monk?My preference of Bard would have been a non-caster rogue type with "Bardic Points" that could be used for inspiration, music effects, and magic via the Magic of Music.
More like the Sorcerer with double sorcery points, no spell slots, light armor, and all the bard stuff.So...either the Factotum or the Four Elements Monk?
It sounds like a neat class to play, but you know what people would say? "Where's mah spells. Bards cast spells."
It would probably be a mess. I like the idea of modularity myself, but I suspect they dropped it because they couldn't get it to work as intended.
This legitimately made me chuckle.
It really depends on the level of modularity.A spellcasting subclass could easily be added.
My hot take on the Thread's Title Question:
It would probably be a mess. I like the idea of modularity myself, but I suspect they dropped it because they couldn't get it to work as intended.
It really depends on the level of modularity.
Like I feel 5e is just a step or two too hardcoded to meet those first mod goals. But if you look at XGTE, TCOE, and MOTM, you can see that if 5e was peeled back and run off a few different assumptions, it could have worked.
But that's hindsight.
I think 5e is passed the point of conservatism. Anything WOTC publishes has to include things that are "more work than doing myself". Anything without major variants, options, or customization content will have to be full adventure to sell.Yes, at this point it would probably be 'safe' to create a few options, as long as they are not planning on changing the game drastically in the near future (which I doubt). I wonder if they'd consider it worthwhile, though, as they have reached a level of popularity that usually leads to conservation, not experimentation.