D&D (2024) YOU are in charge of the next PHB! What do you change?

[TwoSix]

What most people want from Bard is a diverse class that can do a lot of things, is clearly strongly magical, is okay with a sword in their hand (at least to look good, if not to be super-effective), has a lot of skills, knows lore, probably has some element of musical theme-ing (though this is likely not dominating everying), and probably has abilities to help other people out. They're looking for a "master of none"-kind of character, not Mandrake, Master of Illusions (enemies crumble in fear and confusion!). Yeah mind-control spells are probably in the mix, but that's more because 3E wanted to stop Bards casting Fireball or the like (you sure as hell could in 2E, I did all the time), in case precious Wizards got upset.

So, Bard as Red Mage is something I could get behind.

 

[Aldarc]

Your whole "people who want Bards just want Mind Mages, we should delete their class and replace it with Mind Mages who just like, took a Background" is completely condescending and makes vast and sweeping assumptions, so it's pure hypocrisy to say that lol.

Ruin, I said nothing of the sort. I would kindly appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. You can go back and read my post again yourself if you don't believe me. I made it abundantly clear at several points that I was mostly pondering and spit-balling as part of my own personal musings. You are inventing a series of strawmen arguments that were not part of my original post and then top it off with accusing me of being a hypocrite and a mocking "lol."

So, Bard as Red Mage is something I could get behind.

The Mesmer is essentially GW1 and GW2's Red Mage.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So, Bard as Red Mage is something I could get behind.

Not an FF class expert here I must admit so I don't fully know the implications, but they seem to Jack-of-all-trades caster with their own special casting ability, not bad. Certainly close to how most D&D Bards are than the FF Bard-classes I've seen, which tend to be pretty wild (and likely impossible to replicate in tabletop, at least in some cases).

Except I said nothing of the sort, Ruin. Go back. Read it yourself if you don't believe me. I made it abundantly clear at several points that I was mostly pondering and spit-balling as part of my own personal musings.

Okay fair enough, maybe I overreacted a bit (though I'm not sure my argument is actually wrong) but you were "musing" about straight-up deleting Bards, a class I've played regularly for 30+ years, and replacing them with "mind mages with a background":

I almost wonder if one generalized mind magic class would suffice. I have something in mind here like the Guild Wars 1 & 2 Mesmer. Then to make it a "bard," one grabs the Entertainer or Bard background.

Sucks if you feel my detailed explanation as to why not do that is somehow insulting, but you're not exactly the first person to suggest deleting Bards because you think they could be replaced with some sort of "mind wizard", so it's not addressed solely at you. Another common suggestion I thought to debunk in the process, which you didn't even mention, was the "music mage", where people think Bards are solely about playing instruments or singing - it's a common theme but it's a part of what Bards are, not their sole focus. And I do find these suggestions usually come from people who don't really play Bards.

I have to say I don't really get why Bards get singled out for this kind of stuff. They're a class with a long history and distinctive traits, which regularly get totally ignored in favour of "just delete them and replace them with X" where X is a fundamentally different concept (often an interesting one worthy of its own class).

I guess it does happen to other classes. Rangers often get the "Just make them a Fighter with Nature proficiency!", Paladins have been given "Just take a few levels in Cleric!" for a long time, Warlocks get told their class is just a theme for another caster, and I bet if we dug long enough we could find someone telling Rogues/Thieves that really they should just be a Fighter with some proficiencies or something lol.

I do agree that Wizards maybe have a bit "too much" spell-wise. I think they need to maybe be recast as the "do everything" caster rather than "THE Caster which everyone else is merely a pale shadow of!".

The Mesmer is essentially GW1 and GW2's Red Mage.

That's really not coming across in the examples I can find of the Red Mage. He appears to be a Jack of all trades caster, whereas the Mesmer in GW1/2 is a tightly focused mind/illusion caster (it was my main in GW2, note, and I always had one in the party in GW1) who was particularly focused on debuffing and interrupting enemies.

But like I said, I'm not an FF expert. Does the FF Red Mage also focus on mind/illusion spells?

 

[TwoSix]

The Mesmer is essentially GW1 and GW2's Red Mage.

Yea, I think the dilettante concept and the mentalist concept both have traction within the "charismatic magic entertainer" box, which is really what the bard needs to hit, stereotypically.

Should the bard have access to every wizard or cleric spell, but just get them slower? Is it better if they have exclusive spells, but can't cast wizard or cleric iconic spells like fireball and raise dead? I think reasonable people can disagree here.

PF2 does the most thorough job conceptualizing the bard's magic, as they're the primary occult casters, focused on mental and spiritual magic. If a future PHB had a more defined cosmology in this style, it would probably be easier to define the magic that a bard could use.

 

[Dire Bare]

Jumping in without reading the thread . . . .

If WotC hired me to do the next edition's PHB . . . well, that probably wouldn't be good for the game, but . . .

I'd create four base classes for the "starter" or "OSR" version of the rules, the warrior, mage, mystic, and rogue. Each class would essentially be the class itself and a "basic" subclass combined, with the subclass being replaceable in the "advanced" rules. The advanced rules would have additional classes based on the now classic 13 classes (12 from the PHB + artificer).

These basic classes would be designed with minimal choice points to introduce folks to the game and for OSR style play. The warrior would essentially replace the fighter (not sure why, but I've always hated the class name). The mage would take the place of the wizard as a "core" class, but there could still be a separate wizard class in the advanced rules. Same with the mystic replacing the cleric.

 

[Steampunkette]

Not an FF class expert here I must admit so I don't fully know the implications, but they seem to Jack-of-all-trades caster with their own special casting ability, not bad. Certainly close to how most D&D Bards are than the FF Bard-classes I've seen, which tend to be pretty wild (and likely impossible to replicate in tabletop, at least in some cases).

Okay fair enough, maybe I overreacted a bit (though I'm not sure my argument is actually wrong) but you were "musing" about straight-up deleting Bards, a class I've played regularly for 30+ years, and replacing them with "mind mages with a background":

Sucks if you feel my detailed explanation as to why not do that is somehow insulting, but you're not exactly the first person to suggest deleting Bards because you think they could be replaced with some sort of "mind wizard", so it's not addressed solely at you. Another common suggestion I thought to debunk in the process, which you didn't even mention, was the "music mage", where people think Bards are solely about playing instruments or singing - it's a common theme but it's a part of what Bards are, not their sole focus. And I do find these suggestions usually come from people who don't really play Bards.

I have to say I don't really get why Bards get singled out for this kind of stuff. They're a class with a long history and distinctive traits, which regularly get totally ignored in favour of "just delete them and replace them with X" where X is a fundamentally different concept (often an interesting one worthy of its own class).

I guess it does happen to other classes. Rangers often get the "Just make them a Fighter with Nature proficiency!", Paladins have been given "Just take a few levels in Cleric!" for a long time, Warlocks get told their class is just a theme for another caster, and I bet if we dug long enough we could find someone telling Rogues/Thieves that really they should just be a Fighter with some proficiencies or something lol.

I do agree that Wizards maybe have a bit "too much" spell-wise. I think they need to maybe be recast as the "do everything" caster rather than "THE Caster which everyone else is merely a pale shadow of!".

That's really not coming across in the examples I can find of the Red Mage. He appears to be a Jack of all trades caster, whereas the Mesmer in GW1/2 is a tightly focused mind/illusion caster (it was my main in GW2, note, and I always had one in the party in GW1) who was particularly focused on debuffing and interrupting enemies.

But like I said, I'm not an FF expert. Does the FF Red Mage also focus on mind/illusion spells?

So... If I were to be -forced- "Delete the Bard"...

I'd make it into a Rogue Subclass that can trade in sneak attack damage per turn to create other effects. They'd have their full spellcasting, but the list would be fairly limited to Conjuration, Enchantment, Illusion, and Transmutation.

I'd give them Healing Performances where your song/dance/inspiring oration/whatever allows you to split your sneak attack dice between 6 targets within range as healing and make it a limited number of times per day or per short rest. Do something similar for trading in sneak attack dice to give allies attacks or other functions... Make Sneak Attack Dice their primary "Martial" resource while Spellcasting is their primary "Magical" resources.

Plus they'd get a lot of skills and other rogue abilities 'cause they'd be rogues, but would be using their Sneak Attack dice for other purposes so kind of lag in overall rogueliness.

Jack of all trades, master of none.

But I would -much- rather have Bards exist as a full class of their own. Preferably with some unique mechanics rather than just a variety of mechanics lifted from other classes.

 

[Greg K]

What most people want from Bard is a diverse class that can do a lot of things, is clearly strongly magical, is okay with a sword in their hand (at least to look good, if not to be super-effective), has a lot of skills, knows lore, probably has some element of musical theme-ing (though this is likely not dominating everying), and probably has abilities to help other people out. They're looking for a "master of none"-kind of character, not Mandrake, Master of Illusions (enemies crumble in fear and confusion!). Yeah mind-control spells are probably in the mix, but that's more because 3E wanted to stop Bards casting Fireball or the like (you sure as hell could in 2E, I did all the time), in case precious Wizards got upset.

5E's Bard perfectly understands what Bard players have wanted and has been pretty iconic of 5E (esp. among younger players) as a result. It's a Jack-of-all-trades again - yes it's most powerful as a caster, and close in power to other casters, but its spell list and other limitations keep it under control, and the various themes are expressed through the Bard subclasses - again, the majority of them are not about mind-magic or even music. Speech is actually the main theme, I'd say - "Words of..." abilities being common. Only the Glamour and Whispers subclasses really seem mind-magic-oriented.

Anything that ends up with the Bard "focused" on a specific thing like "mind magic" or "buffing others" and little else is not really going to be a D&D Bard because the dilettante spirit is part of their concept. I do think them being a full caster in 5E is a bit of a kludge, but the only real way to fix it would be to make major changes to other parts of the game to stop slot-based spells stealing so many concepts for magic and reduce the top-end power of casters. Several (most?) classes in 5E have design elements that are a bit kludge-y and speak to them being finished in a hurry, and Bard is one of the least-bad cases.

I don't want bard's by default as dilettante/jack of all trades with sword in hand. I want them as a full caster focusing on Enchantment, Illusion, with some buffing/debuffing, some divination, and some healing, and some nature spells (I might even use charm Speech and music would be important for Enchantment. Lore should also be important.

If the next edition does subclasses at first level, I want to see the default class weapon proficiencies being simple weapons and then other weapons built into the subclasses. The lore bard (simple weapons + short sword, longsword), the valour bard (martial weapons), and the additon of a troubadour bard that is more "roguey" (simple weapons + shortsword, rapier, hand crossbow*). I'd also add a subclass that does the 2e Meistersinger for the Disney Princess (simple weapons).

* which I will promptly house rule out

 

[Aldarc]

@Ruin Explorer, I was not singling-out the bard. The bard was just what was being discussed at the time. The other classes were not subject to my whimsical musings, because they weren't pertinent. I have played my share of bards in 3e, PF1, 4e, and 5e, including a kobold bard. I do happen to like bards. I have also played a lot of psionics, clerics, and druids, and I would undoubtedly have my own set of controversial half-serious brainstorming takes about those classes too.

I honestly wasn't expecting that I was going to get accused in my casual musings of deleting the bard and just making a "mind wizard." If anything, the opposite. I was half-expecting that people would accuse me of deleting the Wizard Enchanter and Illusionist and giving their stuff to the Bard.

Again, I will fully admit that my take regarding the Bard has been shaped a lot by the Mesmer in Guild Wars 1 and Guild Wars 2, which covers a lot of similar conceptual space as an illusionist/enchanter/fast-caster/duelist/chanter. It's also a fun class that I enjoy playing.

I understand that D&D is committed to its legacy archetypes, but I also have been influenced in my thinking by both Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved and class-based fantasy design in computer games (e.g., WoW, GW, Diablo, etc.). In Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, he took a step back with classes and asked himself more about the sort of playstyles that people liked playing and he designed his classes around that: e.g., skill monkey (Akashic), heavily-armored warrior (Warmain), swashbuckler/skirmisher (Unfettered), gish (Mage Blade), beast-master (Totem Warrior), master of magic (Magister), the healer (Greenbond), etc. And when people say that there is conceptual overlap between the Enchanter, the Illusionist, the Bard, the Psion, the Aberrant Sorcerer, etc., I wonder if there could be a mind mage to capture that in one class. After all, Starfinder basically took the Shaman, the Psion, the Cleric, the Druid, etc. and put them under the single intuition-guided Mystic class. I thought that was pretty darn neat.

I don't think that we would be better off without the bard or with a mind mage. Because when I do think of the sort of casters are commonly found in computer games, I do think that there is generally a standard caster (e.g., mage, wizard, sorcerer, black mage, etc.), the "dark" caster (e.g., necromancer, warlock, etc.), the support caster (e.g., priest, cleric, white mage, monk, etc.), the summoner (e.g., summoner, warlock, necromancer, witch doctor, etc.), and/or the mind caster (e.g., mesmer, WoW priest, cipher, etc.) or various combinations thereof. I do wonder if the cleric is trying to be too much, and I do wonder if the Paladin and War Priest aspect of the Cleric would be better as a single class separate from a lightly-armored support caster (e.g., Priest). I do wonder if there are other ways than the classes we have to express the archetypes that we find ourselves drawn to play.

It's not because I feel or think that I know what's best about the bard or that I hate bards or anything like that. It's simply me imagining "what if..."

 

[IndigoTraveler]

Halflings get Powerful Build.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

On the subject of bard, since WotC came up with Expert sidekick, this is my version of them:

d8,
prof with light, medium amors, simple weapons.
Saves: dex/cha

1: spellcasting
Artificer progression, aka 1/2 spellcaster with cantrips

1: Inspiring Performance (aka Expert's Helpful feature)
Bonus action help with a 30 ft range.

2: Jack of all trade
2: Song of Rest

3: Archetypes
3: Bardic Knowledge (expertise in 2 lore skills)

4: ASi

5: Archetype feature

6: Countercharm
6: Battle Harmony (Coordinated strike from Expert)
When helping an attack, your attacks deal +2d6 on a hit against the same target hit by the helped ally.

7: Magical Inspiration
After using Help, your spells damage or heal +1d6.

8: ASI

9: Song of rest improves
9: Bardic Knowledge improves.

10: Magical secrets
Pick any spell from any list from a level you can cast. 1/long rest free cast.

11: Inspiring Help
When using Help, the target can add 1d6 in addition to the advantage to the roll. If its an attack, you can forgo the bonus to hit to add it to the damage instead. The bonus increases to 2d6 at level 20.

12: ASI

13: Song rest improves

14: Archetype feature
14: Magical secret

15: ------

16: ASI

17: Song of rest improves
17: Countercharm Improves:
When using Countercharm, allies have advantage on saves against magic effect.

18: Magical Secret

19: ASI

20: Inspiring Help improves.