D&D (2024) What's your opinion on the standardization of Spellcasters?

[Mephista]

Lore is more generalist caster bard than specialized niche caster. It also has two sets of magical secrets to draw upon if they want the arcane spells not under divination enchantment illusion or transmutation enough to eat some opportunity cost on them.

... You are saying the generalist bard caster shouldn't have access to the iconic bard spells that help fulfill the base class fantasy. Right then. What's next, no healing spells on the life cleric? They can just use channel divinity instead.

Bah. Magical Secrets are pointless as a balancing feature. Only like, what was it, 5 or so percent of games make it past level 10? This is like, end of the game, if you're lucky, so you've pretty much settled your party fighting style and tactics and gotten all your feats and magic items. And you'll never make it to the second Magic Secrets unless your DM is specifically running the rare starting at high level game. This does jack and @#$% for actual levels the vast majority of people play at.

I think that bard also has too much of its power budget sunk into the combo of magical secrets & inspiration to really justify all of those spells in the base class without using either of those. The mage group can't exactly excel as mages if the full weight of their own spell list is too easily wielded by expert classes who themselves are carrying a bunch of expert class features on top of that weight either.

So, you care more about a different class entirely, ones we haven't even seen, than the bard being able to fulfill its class fantasy at playable levels. That's the impression I'm getting here.

 

[tetrasodium]

... You are saying the generalist bard caster shouldn't have access to the iconic bard spells that help fulfill the base class fantasy. Right then. What's next, no healing spells on the life cleric? They can just use channel divinity instead.

Bah. Magical Secrets are pointless as a balancing feature. Only like, what was it, 5 or so percent of games make it past level 10? This is like, end of the game, if you're lucky, so you've pretty much settled your party fighting style and tactics and gotten all your feats and magic items. And you'll never make it to the second Magic Secrets unless your DM is specifically running the rare starting at high level game. This does jack and @#$% for actual levels the vast majority of people play at.


So, you care more about a different class entirely, ones we haven't even seen, than the bard being able to fulfill its class fantasy at playable levels. That's the impression I'm getting here.

Those spells were "iconic" when bard was a half caster. They are no longer half casters though and gained a bunch of nondoell abilities that no longer leave them don't room for all of the spells they are now gaining twice as fast with full csstervprogression as when those spells were "iconic".

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Those spells were "iconic" when bard was a half caster. They are no longer half casters though and gained a bunch of nondoell abilities that no longer leave them don't room for all of the spells they are now gaining twice as fast with full csstervprogression as when those spells were "iconic".

I do miss an earlier magocal secrets... but otger than that, I think the 4 schools of magic are pretty iconic.
I think some of the druid spells were a nice addition in 5e though. I think there should be an easier way to get them back.
(Other than using magic initiate).

 

[SkidAce]

I do miss an earlier magocal secrets... but otger than that, I think the 4 schools of magic are pretty iconic.
I think some of the druid spells were a nice addition in 5e though. I think tgere should be an easier way to get them back.
(Other than using magic initiate).

I missed this point...bards dont have access to druid spells?

What will my Faux Celtic bards do then?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I missed this point...bards dont have access to druid spells?

What will my Faux Celtic bards do then?

Take druid or ranger instead?

I hope for a feature like songs of restauration that gives limited druid spells.
But I guess we could easily take magic initiate primal and later ritual caster with 2 primal spells and an apropriate subclass. Not great, but not bad either.

 

[tetrasodium]

I do miss an earlier magocal secrets... but otger than that, I think the 4 schools of magic are pretty iconic.
I think some of the druid spells were a nice addition in 5e though. I think tgere should be an easier way to get them back.
(Other than using magic initiate).

The bard we have gets a bardic inspiration feature at 1 3 6 10 7 14 & 18. I could see a bard archetype focused on a theme that fits some flavor of the missing abjuration/conjurartion/necromancy/evocation spells giving features at one or more of those seven levels that allow using bardic inspiration to cast the relevant spell(s) or generating similar results in a bardy way using something like bardic inspiration.

 

[MoonSong]

The bard we have gets a bardic inspiration feature at 1 3 6 10 7 14 & 18. I could see a bard archetype focused on a theme that fits some flavor of the missing abjuration/conjurartion/necromancy/evocation spells giving features at one or more of those seven levels that allow using bardic inspiration to cast the relevant spell(s) or generating similar results in a bardy way using something like bardic inspiration.

You still haven't told us how is it a good thing restricting to a single subclass something that thematically all bards should be able to do?

 

[tetrasodium]

You still haven't told us how is it a good thing restricting to a single subclass something that thematically all bards should be able to do?

You are inserting "good thing" in place of "a thing that fits within the power budget of a class". I don't believe that the base bard class has room for all of the spells being thrown around as "iconic" and all of the stuff it already gets from base+archetype and be a full caster. A particular archetype is something I could see substituting some of the factotumish lore master stuff & heavy bardic inspiration options for those spells or similar effects.

"But it's iconic" is avoiding the fact that it's "iconic" & "bards should be able to" from when bards were not full casters like they are now. Why are we calling to history only for power& ignoring the thorny parts of that history?

 

[Amrûnril]

You are inserting "good thing" in place of "a thing that fits within the power budget of a class". I don't believe that the base bard class has room for all of the spells being thrown around as "iconic" and all of the stuff it already gets from base+archetype and be a full caster. A particular archetype is something I could see substituting some of the factotumish lore master stuff & heavy bardic inspiration options for those spells or similar effects.

"But it's iconic" is avoiding the fact that it's "iconic" & "bards should be able to" from when bards were not full casters like they are now. Why are we calling to history only for power& ignoring the thorny parts of that history?

Increasing a class's number of available spell options does, in principle, make it stronger. But so long as the class already has difficult trade-offs about what spells to prepare or cast, the difference is pretty small (unless the added spells are intrinsically stronger, but that would be separate balance issue). Spell list restrictions are far more about theme and niche-protection than about balance, and inspiration is central to the 5e Bard's default theme and niche. So even if something does need to be cut for power budget purposes, the spells that reinforce that theme should be pretty far down the list.

 

[tetrasodium]

Increasing a class's number of available spell options does, in principle, make it stronger. But so long as the class already has difficult trade-offs about what spells to prepare or cast, the difference is pretty small (unless the added spells are intrinsically stronger, but that would be separate balance issue). Spell list restrictions are far more about theme and niche-protection than about balance, and inspiration is central to the 5e Bard's default theme and niche. So even if something does need to be cut for power budget purposes, the spells that reinforce that theme should be pretty far down the list.

I don't disagree, but also the bard's niche is not "I'm totally a full on wizard when it's useful". Back in the past being half caster kept the bard from shoving the wizard aside from the wizard's own niche but bounded accuracy skill changes & making them a full caster allows them to do that. Why is it a problem for bard to find their own niche in generating these effects if they need them instead of using the wizard's niche for them?

With regards to the "difficult tradeoffs", the flex-vancian prep changes the opportunity cost to prepare a spell compared to both 3.x as well as 5e. Now it only competes with spells of that level but unlike in the past it can be used for anywhere between zero and all of that level's slots. I like the new prep style but lets not pretend it has no impact.