D&D 5E Which classes will you play first?

[Li Shenron]

I'll be DMing, but if I got a chance to play a character, I'd like to try one of these concepts I haven't played before:

Totem Barbarian
Circle of the Tundra Druid
Monk of the Four Elements
Great Old One Warlock

But I'd be interested also in checking out a Battlemaster Fighter for the new mechanic.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Vengeance Pally is in the lead? Fascinating! Never would have guessed that.

Personally Ancient Oath Pally would be first up for me, given I'm unimpressed with 5E's Bard (it's powerful, but not Bard-y enough for my tastes, more like a Sorcerer who focuses on Enchantment and Illusion spells and has some vague Bard flavour).

 

[Tormyr]

Mostly I am a DM. I love weaving together a story, bringing the players into it, seeing where they take it and adapting the story to the new direction. That being said, I think I would really enjoy playing the following:

Resurrect Tormyr, a male, human, Devotion Paladin. Named after Torm and Tyr. Was forced into Paladin service by his parents against his wishes, but found his calling. Defender of the weak, slayer of the wicked. Always willing to give someone another chance until they cross the line when he strikes swiftly and surely.

Banner: A maile, half-orc, barbarian berserker with an anger management problem. He hates his anger issues and finally finds spiritual guidance after meeting a monk and starting to train in the monk's disciplines. He learns to control and harness his rage.

Saffron: A female, human, bard (not sure which college yet) that uses her music, charms and spy abilities to infiltrate areas and acquire things. Shiny.

 

[Lalato]

For my first character I'll probably be creating something that is mechanically sub-optimal but still pretty fun to play.

At first I had the idea of playing a shady Cleric with a criminal past. As I was looking through the deity list, I saw Leira in the FR pantheon. That led to more research... which led me to the 2e Faiths & Avatars book. There was a specialty priest in there that sparked the idea for a new type of "specialty priest". So the character will be Monk (Way of Shadow) / Cleric of Trickery. And I will try and combine the two classes as effectively as I can. Wood elf with the Charlatan background rounds things out. And now I have someone that is totally androgynous, that wears lots of disguises, and lies about everything... and pockets any valuables within sight. But he/she isn't all that bad... all the proceeds go to the needy (after a small finders fee).

 

[Wolfskin]

I'm DMing right now, but my first 5e test drive character was a Champion Fighter, so I voted that option

 

[Joe Liker]

I'm unimpressed with 5E's Bard (it's powerful, but not Bard-y enough for my tastes, more like a Sorcerer who focuses on Enchantment and Illusion spells and has some vague Bard flavour).

What, really? My DM and I were just talking about how the 5e bard is the most bard-like version of bard we've ever seen (not counting 1e, which is too strange a hybrid to make a fair comparison).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What, really? My DM and I were just talking about how the 5e bard is the most bard-like version of bard we've ever seen (not counting 1e, which is too strange a hybrid to make a fair comparison).

I can't really comment on that unless you can explain how the 5E version is the most "Bard-like", I mean, what's your basis of comparison here?

For me, the biggest thing that defines a Bard as a Bard, not just a multi-class dabbler, is his music, which he uses largely to support his colleagues (and indeed supporting his party is a huge thing, and huge part of what I like about the class), and his very wide knowledge, about, well, pretty much everything.

The problem with the 5E Bard, for me, is that he doesn't really get to buff his party - his spell list carefully excludes party-buff spells to a huge extent(even as other full-casters all get them) - in particular, one Bard ability in almost all previous editions was to buff the party in combat. This guy can't do that.

But the Cleric can. A few levels into the game, the Cleric can easily afford to cast Bless every combat (and if he isn't casting Bless, it's probably only because he has some nasty CC spell out which is situationally even better).

Further, the inspiration ability, which could be cool, even with the limited uses (CHA mod, doesn't even refresh on short rest until L5), is made extremely weak by the fact that it requires you to use a bonus action to give out the bonuses, so you can't use them as a reaction to changing circumstances or to help someone in dire need or the like, you have to pre-emptively hand them out, and hope that they aren't wasted.

On top of that, the "After the roll but before the DM says the result" deal is something that I know from long experience of such abilities in various games is intensely disruptive, because it leads to the DM constantly having to pause after the roll to allow a second or three for the player to say "I add Bard dice!" (because let's be real, you don't remember which PCs have them, as DM, not all the time). If the Bard is a Loremaster, he even has to do it on his OWN rolls!

So the whole main ability of Bards to buff the party in 5E seems janky.

As I've noted, they moved most Bard abilities to spells (fine, I guess), but they didn't both to move the songs (even though they DID move the Pally Auras for the Pally, for example!), and on top of that, if you want to use other "standard" Bard abilities of old, you have to burn quite a few of your "Known Spell" slots on slightly janky stuff like Identify. Or just not have those once-standard Bard abilities.

So yeah, it's like a half-finished design to me. As I've said, more of an Enchanter/Illusionist with a Bard theme than an actual Bard-Bard.

 

[TwoSix]

I can't really comment on that unless you can explain how the 5E version is the most "Bard-like", I mean, what's your basis of comparison here?

For me, the biggest thing that defines a Bard as a Bard, not just a multi-class dabbler, is his music, which he uses largely to support his colleagues (and indeed supporting his party is a huge thing, and huge part of what I like about the class), and his very wide knowledge, about, well, pretty much everything.

The problem with the 5E Bard, for me, is that he doesn't really get to buff his party - his spell list carefully excludes party-buff spells to a huge extent(even as other full-casters all get them) - in particular, one Bard ability in almost all previous editions was to buff the party in combat. This guy can't do that.

But the Cleric can. A few levels into the game, the Cleric can easily afford to cast Bless every combat (and if he isn't casting Bless, it's probably only because he has some nasty CC spell out which is situationally even better).

Further, the inspiration ability, which could be cool, even with the limited uses (CHA mod, doesn't even refresh on short rest until L5), is made extremely weak by the fact that it requires you to use a bonus action to give out the bonuses, so you can't use them as a reaction to changing circumstances or to help someone in dire need or the like, you have to pre-emptively hand them out, and hope that they aren't wasted.

On top of that, the "After the roll but before the DM says the result" deal is something that I know from long experience of such abilities in various games is intensely disruptive, because it leads to the DM constantly having to pause after the roll to allow a second or three for the player to say "I add Bard dice!" (because let's be real, you don't remember which PCs have them, as DM, not all the time). If the Bard is a Loremaster, he even has to do it on his OWN rolls!

So the whole main ability of Bards to buff the party in 5E seems janky.

As I've noted, they moved most Bard abilities to spells (fine, I guess), but they didn't both to move the songs (even though they DID move the Pally Auras for the Pally, for example!), and on top of that, if you want to use other "standard" Bard abilities of old, you have to burn quite a few of your "Known Spell" slots on slightly janky stuff like Identify. Or just not have those once-standard Bard abilities.

So yeah, it's like a half-finished design to me. As I've said, more of an Enchanter/Illusionist with a Bard theme than an actual Bard-Bard.

I just played a Bard last night, so let me throw out some Bard defense.

1) No, they aren't as "Bard-like" as previous editions, I agree. You're correct to say that being the party buffer is no longer their schtick.

2) What they are in 5e is a Beguiler/Healer mix. They're clerics who trade in combat focus for extra ability in the "other pillars".

3) Lore bards, especially, are skill monkeys. My bard was proficient in 8 skills, with expertise in 2.

4) The spell secrets ability is not something to overlook. Getting fireball with a bard is a game changer, because AoE evocations are game changers in 5e.

5) This is probably table-specific, but my group was very attentive to the possibility of adding a d8 to their roll. They did forget for one or two rolls where it really would have helped, but you shrug it off and save it for next time.

6) Inspiration lasts for 10 minutes. If you're going into a situation that looks dangerous, take the 18-30 seconds to pass them out to the party. If that doesn't happen, Lore bards can use the points defensively, as a reaction, to lower the result of an enemy's roll. That's a pretty strong defensive tactic.

 

[Joe Liker]

I can't really comment on that unless you can explain how the 5E version is the most "Bard-like", I mean, what's your basis of comparison here?

When you first brought up bards, you also didn't give any reasons, so I guess I felt like it was obvious that I think the things the 5e bard can do are the things I consider bardy.

For me, the biggest thing that defines a Bard as a Bard, not just a multi-class dabbler, is his music, which he uses largely to support his colleagues (and indeed supporting his party is a huge thing, and huge part of what I like about the class), and his very wide knowledge, about, well, pretty much everything.

The ability to cast party buffs seems like an oddly narrow thing to focus in on as the class's signature feature. I feel like the bard's versatility has been far more emphasized in previous editions than party buffs, and to me, it is the true core of the class.

In fact, it is that versatility that allows the 5e bard to do everything you claim it cannot do.

The problem with the 5E Bard, for me, is that he doesn't really get to buff his party - his spell list carefully excludes party-buff spells to a huge extent(even as other full-casters all get them) - in particular, one Bard ability in almost all previous editions was to buff the party in combat. This guy can't do that.

But the Cleric can. A few levels into the game, the Cleric can easily afford to cast Bless every combat (and if he isn't casting Bless, it's probably only because he has some nasty CC spell out which is situationally even better).

A few levels into the game (6 for College of Lore), the bard can do exactly the same thing. You can learn any spell in the game as a bard, so if group buffs are this important to you, you should take the bless spell and buff your little heart out. At level 10, you can take those sweet paladin auras as well.

As for Bardic Inspiration, I don't have a problem with it. It's a great addition to the bard's repertoire, but again, I don't really understand why you think it is supposed to represent the core of the class. To me, Song of Rest and Countercharm are a far more realistic representation of how a bard's music can support the rest of his party.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The ability to cast party buffs seems like an oddly narrow thing to focus in on as the class's signature feature. I feel like the bard's versatility has been far more emphasized in previous editions than party buffs, and to me, it is the true core of the class.

That's complete shenanigans, imho. It's not "cast party buffs", it's the whole bardic song strengthening the party thing. Nothing "narrow" about.

In fact, it is that versatility that allows the 5e bard to do everything you claim it cannot do.

Except it can't unless it's a Loremaster or extremely high-level, and can only do so by stealing the spells of other classes, not, y'know singing or whatever.

A few levels into the game (6 for College of Lore), the bard can do exactly the same thing. You can learn any spell in the game as a bard, so if group buffs are this important to you, you should take the bless spell and buff your little heart out. At level 10, you can take those sweet paladin auras as well.

Sure, or I can take Fireball or whatever, because I'm BASICALLY A SORCERER NOT A BARD. That's the point I'm making here. This isn't a Bard. A Bard would have these abilities as a matter of course. This is, as others have put it, a Beguiler-Healer mash-up (as in the two 3.XE classes). You can't get Bless or any other buffs until LEVEL 10 unless you're a Loremaster, either.

As for Bardic Inspiration, I don't have a problem with it. It's a great addition to the bard's repertoire, but again, I don't really understand why you think it is supposed to represent the core of the class. To me, Song of Rest and Countercharm are a far more realistic representation of how a bard's music can support the rest of his party.

So, a hilariously weak heal party heal on short rest (1d12 at level 17 LOOK THE HELL OUT! 1d12!!!!!!! Woo!) and a super-specialized counter-ability are you idea of supporting the party? Also, realistic? What the heck does that word even mean in this context? Magic music can't "realistically" help except as a super-weak heal or specialized counter? What?

That seems, I am afraid, somewhat bizarre to me. Magic music is magic, it can do whatever WotC say it can do. It could certainly have continued to do what it did in earlier playtests (perhaps nerfed a tad).

Bardic Inspiration is bad, as I have explained, because you have to hand out the dice either before combat entirely (and hope they're useful and that combat happens within 10 minutes), or hand them out 1/round in combat, and not even as a reaction, and on top of all that, you hardly get any of them any they only refresh on a short rest (and only even then after L5). It's a truly badly designed system as I've explained, and you've done nothing to argue against that.

EDIT - The fact that you use the rather dog-whistle-y word "realistic" to sneer at Bardic Song and imply it should only be for out-of-combat or rare applications gives me the feeling that, maybe, you just don't like Bards very much, and are happy because the 5E Bard is less Bard-ish. You still haven't explained why you and your DM think it's "more" Bard-ish in so many words.

[MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] - Yeah. 1 & 2, completely agree, except that the "combat" option for Bards is not only much worse at combat than a Cleric, he's also got so much less utility that he's questionable there, too, and his ability to use his dice is much worse, too! 3 - Yep, but non-Loremasters less so - none are terrible here, but it feels a bit dry and weak. 4 - Agree, but it seems like yet another step into being a Sorcerer with a theme, rather than a Bard. Though I do love Fireball. 5 - That's not the problem I was describing at all. I'm talking about how disruptive and annoying the design is, and how you have to use it in a really weird way that - you can't accentuate the crescendos of a fight, or whatever, you just hand out some bennies before it starts like you're some sort of weak-ass dice-dealer. 4-20 roll dice every day. 6 - As discussed but I do agree that Loremasters suck less because the way they can use their dice is far more awesome-er. Valour Bards should get to hand out their dice as a reaction in combat - that'd make them suck a bit less. I'd also give Bards proficiency + CHA mod dice, not just CHA mod.