Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 7851095" data-attributes="member: 6750235">Bards lack potency because none of their class features or subclass options support improving spell casting or combat beyond basic levels, lol.  People on the internet claiming potency doesn't change the game mechanics.  That's falling into classic fallacies.I've explained my justification on bards as full casters many times (because that's what they mechanically were in past editions), and that would be going on a tangent here.  We can argue that in another thread again if you want, lol.I will say they get good skills in 5e but mad skills is an overstatement, "full spells" is a label without context, and they aren't remotely close to fighting like other combat types.  Don't let the sparkly toys distract you from the actual mechanical differences.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Like I said, though, you don't need to include the class at all.  If it's the fluffy crap then I agree because it's not my favorite flavor either (I do it sometimes) but I always give the fluff I want based on background and concept, and apply that to the mechanics.My advice to you would be to simply omit classes from your campaigns you don't want.</blockquote>