Are Bards Overrated?

[Garresh]

Before you overreact, let me clarify my intentions of this post.

I am NOT attempting to argue that bards are in any way a weak class. All the bardic subclasses are pretty much excellent, and it's borderline impossible to "screw up" a bard build. They are deserving of their place as one of the top classes of 5e.

I AM trying to argue that bards are actually not as versatile as they are made out to be, on the basis that they are actually somewhat less versatile than some other classes. Additionally, they have a large number of holes in both spell selection and fighting styles which make them not quite the "Martial Class with Full Casting Progression" they are cracked up to be. Furthermore, my intent is not to say bard are badly designed. On the contrary, I think they're an excellently designed class, and the developers did a great job giving them a little bit of everything while still giving them weaknesses. I simply want to highlight these weaknesses so people don't consider Bards to be quite as overpowered as the rumors would have you believe.

A lot of this is going to focus on spell selection, but also opportunity cost. So with that in mind, I think the easiest way to explain this is to show what bards can't do. Now, I do realize that bards can pilfer spells from other classes, but its worth noting that unless they forego extra attack, they have no spells to pilfer before level 10. And even if they can, the total spells borrowed is quite small. They can't cover all their bases. With that being said, here are things bards can't do.


Bards have no mobility

If you look at the bardic spell list, you'll find that they have almost no mobility spells which are given to other classes. They do not gain access to Expeditious Retreat, Jump, Levitate, Misty Step, Spider Climb, Fly, Haste, Gaseous Form, Water Breathing, or Water Walk. The first real mobility spell they get is at 4th level, in the form of Dimension Door.


Bards are not the best buffers either

I'm not going to dispute that bardic inspiration is awesome, but once again if you look into their spell selection you see that their buffing potential is extremely limited. Before I list what they don't get, I'd like to highlight one interesting thing with bards. In general, they focus on single high impact buffs, through their inspiration. Meanwhile, clerics, sorcerers, and wizards focus on sustained concentration style buffs.

For example, Bards do not get access to the best buffs, like Bless, Haste. But, unlike with mobility spells, they get access to pretty much all the second tier buff spells that are still extremely useful, but usually outclassed by Bless or Haste. They get goodies like Enhance Ability, and eventually Greater Invisibility and Polymorph. And while it's not technically a buff, I'd be dishonest if I didn't point out they get access to the excellent Faerie Fire at level 1.


Bards have almost no blasting potential

I'm not going to be as comprehensive here, because a quick once-over of the Bard spell list makes this self evident. There is no way for a pure bard to focus on putting out high damage through magical means, without coming at the cost of other options. A quick glance at their spell list shows they get no damage spells(Other than Shatter, see edit below) in the first 5 levels. They absolutely can contribute to damage, but it's entirely through Faerie Fire, illusions to set up for allies, and some decent buffs once they get 4th level spells. However, this is fairly easily mitigated by stealing Fireball and maybe a Scorching Ray or something, but it still won't approach the potential of other classes(which is of course by design).

Edit: I forgot to mention Shatter. This is why you proofread before you post. gah. I wanted to mention that Shatter is a pretty good spell actually, and not a bad spell to call upon. However, it both does less damage than fireball until it overtakes it many levels later(at which point you could just steal fireball), and also suffers from a much smaller area. Shatter is a good spell to have and gives them some blasting power, but it can't be the basis of a full build, and is ultimately just a nice spell to have handy, rather than a primary spell you rely on. It's damage is too low for big bads really(unlike fireball or scorching ray), but it remains useful for clearing out tightly clustered mooks.


Bards are missing critical utility spells

This is arguably the strongest "weakness" on this list. Pretty much all the key spells are there, so I can't say they're poor at utility. But the few standout elements that are missing are spells like Counterspell, Remove Curse, Banishment, Stone Shape. Also, I can't think of anywhere else to put this, but they don't really get any "Wall" spells either, while both arcane and divine full casters usually get something. Even if it's just a spike growth or a spirit guardians.


Bards don't get any defensive spells

Okay this has gone on much longer than I intended, so I'll try to wrap this up quickly. Every class gets some defensive buffs of one kind or another. Arcane casters get Mirror Image, Shield, Blur, Blink, etc. Divine casters get Shield of Faith, Sanctuary, Protection from Good and Evil, Protection from Poison, Barkskin, etc. Pretty much everyone gets Protection from Energy, and there are other defensive buffs sprinkled about for 1 or 2 classes each like Armor of Agathys, Mage Armor, False Life, and other things. Even classes that don't cast usually get some defensive features like fighting styles, rage, or uncanny dodge.


Conclusion

Bards are a well designed and balanced class, if a bit on the strong side, but for all their strengths they are riddled with weaknesses which show their face if you try to optimize or step too far outside of your role. I do not think the class needs any changes, but the perception of them as the "Do Anything" class needs to be addressed. They are not the most versatile class. If you look at subclasses like Bladesinger, Favored Soul, or a Pact of the Blade warlock who dips 1 level in fighter for armor, most all of them are more versatile across most categories. Likewise, a cleric or druid who uses class features like Circle of the Moon, or who takes Arcane, War, or Tempest domains and utilizes SCAG cantrips or supplements their damage through Sacred Weapon will often outperform a bard on both the magical utility front and on several other fronts.


To try and bring this to a close, I will try and TLDR:

Bards are not the most versatile class. There is no most versatile class, as every class must accept some weaknesses and tradeoffs, even when trying to gish. Bards are simply the most accessible and easiest class for achieving versatility, because they can always grab spells they need down the road.

[djreynolds]

Bards have always been the best "5th" man in a 4 man party. An excel in the other pillars of the game... exploration and talking/social.

They do lack some spell access, granted, in the base spell list. I agree with that.

Inspiration should be short rest at 1st instead of at 5th, though it last 10 minutes and is not concentration, once used its gone and unlike bless which is good for a whole 1 minute of combat for 3 party members.

[Arkhios]

Bards are, as their second level feature says, "Jacks of all trades, [masters of none]".

They know a little bit of everything but are not truly masters in one area in particular. This is (probably) why they have the built-in feature to cherry pick spells from whatever classes they like, individually.

That said, I have never seen the bard as if it should be the (primary) party buffer. In fact, bards excel at debuffing more than anything else.

PS. Bard's do have at least one other blasting spell, and that's Thunderwave.

As for the lack of "wall" spells, Bards do get Plant Growth and it can seriously hinder foes, much like a "wall" spell could.

[MrStabby]

Not a bad summation of the class.

Whilst you do address level a little in the OP I think there is a real difference that that level makes.

At low levels the number of spell slots is very limited so you are reduced to cantrips and attack rolls for many actions early on. For easy fights the rate you can finish off enemeies pretty much tedermines how many resources you need to recover after the fight (spells, hit dice etc.). In this sense, the bard's weakness is quite important.

As the bard gets to higher levels they get access to more spells but also they get access to spells with a better duration so they can take a concentration spell that will last the fight. Not only can you cast fairie fire or a higher level spell every fight in a day but you can pick up the encounter changing buffs along the way or spells like bigby's hand.

I also see valor bards and lore bards as being quite different in how they provide versatility. Valor bards can have access to lots of different spells valuable in different circumstances. Their versatility comes from having spell slots available. Two attacks makes the attack action a viable choice each turn whist still contributing well which helps preserve spell slots for those things that the rest of the party can't cover.

Lore bards face a similar problem with no recovery option (warlocks get short rest recovery, wizards arcane recovery, druids natural recovery) so I find their additional magical secrets tend to be spells that provide a longer effect - spells like conjure animals.

As for things the bard IS best at - consider a lore bard counterspell. Add half proficiency to it from Jack of All trades and add a die for it being an ability check and you have a great defensive caster. This is better than an abjuration wizard arguably, and certainly is for a number of levels. Or single target mobility control - telekenisis also uses opposed checks so a bard with this spell will outperform any other caster as they bypass legendary saves to stop the movement of a real nasty enemy. Sure these things are niche examples but the bard can find roles that they are amazing at as well as a lot of roles that they are sollidly good at as well.

[Socratov]

First, please note Heat Metal: my bard has abolutely wrecked eno****ers with it to the point that my DM refused to have us fight foes in metal armour who are not immune to fire damage. It is the Bard's version of Moonbeam (roasted a very nice deep dwarf to the point of brisket once, great times). Oh, and please don't forget Dissonant Whispers and Phantasmal Force, both excellent spells, and when used right terrifying.

Then there is the fact hat even tough a bard may not have the best party buffs (which is better territory for paladin, cleric or wizard, special mention for twin spell sorcerer) but instead focuses on disrupting the enemy ranks through spells, while using bardic inspiration to increase the awesome on friends. Then there is the fact that built right a bard will ahve skills on par with a rogue, and in some cases even a lot more. On top of that expertise, so in the field of utility and out of combat prowess, the bard wins hands down (except for int skills, which should be the wizard's limelight). Just count the ways a bard can make a person's head spin round, right round, only the dual enchantment feature keeps the enchantment wizard from turning green from jealousy...

Wizards and cleric wreck encounters, martials wreck faces, bards create the circumstances for success and reduces (if not eliminates) the chances for failure. Bards create career adventurers out of the strong.

Then there is the fact that a while ago I created a (near) perfect mage hunter; bards have a higher counterspelling ceiling then wizards due to Jack of all trades. (counterspelling a level hgher then the spellslot used takes a castingability check: for wizards that's d20+int.mod, for bards that is d20+cha.mod+floor(0.5*proficiency)). And then there is the matter that a bard will ahve a higher initiative due to jack of all trades.

The bard has a few hidden strengths that completely overwhelm a couple of very strong classes.

[JellyPooga]

@OP: your main complaint appears to be that the Bard spell list is somewhat lacklustre, but I didn't see anything about Magical Secrets. Now, I'm not saying everything you mention is completely negated by MS, but it's IMO the primary reason Bards are considered among the most powerful Classes. Having access to every spell in the game, even if you only get up to 8 such "picks", is incredibly versatile.

Want blasting? Magical Secrets.
Want party buffs? Magical Secrets.
Want mobility? Magical Secrets.
Want defences, utility or anything else? Magical Secrets.

In essence, despite their slower access, the Bard spell list encompasses every other spell list too, including the highly specialised Paladin and Ranger lists. That's why it has to have the "holes" you point out; so you can plug them with your MS choices to focus your character in a variety of directions, whether it be buffer-guy, caster-guy, melee-guy or whatever.

[Socratov]

Oh, and before I forget, unless silenced, the bard will always be able to debuff enemies: Vicoous Mockery is relevant at any level: disadvantage on attackrolls fo rthe next turn is a serious hindrance and will reduce the number of crits your party faces, number of hits your party faces, or forces the enemy to use their turn in a different way (essentially removing options for the enemy).

The fact that bards don't get all of the spells (for more versatility), but limited access to ANY spell list more then makes up for it.

Also, MrStabby, bards cannot inspire themselves through the Bardic Inspiration ability. (says so in the PHB) unless it was adressed in the Errata.

[MrStabby]

Also, MrStabby, bards cannot inspire themselves through the Bardic Inspiration ability. (says so in the PHB) unless it was adressed in the Errata.

Yeah, I was thinking of Telekinesis - cutting words acts on your opponent to lower their score. Doesn't work with counterspell though.

Vicious mockery is good, but not that good. yeah the damage is pitiful (but you don't cast it for it's damage. The trouble is that as you fight bigger and bigger pools of creatures the effects become less significant. Disadvantage on an attack from one bandit is good at low levels, when there are 5 bandits. At high levels when there are 15 bandits it doesn't really make a difference. Even if the DM gives you low number of creatures then as they level up so do the number of attacks. Are you prepared to use your action to give disadvantage to just one of a Drider's 3 attacks? Or to just one of a Roper's? Even this relies on the target making attack rolls - not so effective vs casters that cast spells needing a save or the barbarian who decided to grapple instead of attack. Against single monster encounters where the monster js low enough intelligence to just keep attacking away with a small number of powerful attacks this spell is fantastic.

[PeteNutButter]

Oh, and before I forget, unless silenced, the bard will always be able to debuff enemies: Vicoous Mockery is relevant at any level: disadvantage on attackrolls fo rthe next turn is a serious hindrance and will reduce the number of crits your party faces, number of hits your party faces, or forces the enemy to use their turn in a different way (essentially removing options for the enemy).

The fact that bards don't get all of the spells (for more versatility), but limited access to ANY spell list more then makes up for it.

Also, MrStabby, bards cannot inspire themselves through the Bardic Inspiration ability. (says so in the PHB) unless it was adressed in the Errata.

Vicious Mockery is just the next attack roll, which is nice, but by mid level most foes have 2+ attacks.
Bard's cannot inspire themselves.

At any rate I find bards to be lackluster in play. It greatly depends on spell choice, but in general they lack a lot of good options. If it weren't for Magical Secrets they would be downright bad. With magical secrets, levels 1-5 are drudgery. Level 5 is especially painful for a bard of any school. Valor bards still don't have extra attack and lore bards spells feel like level 2 spells compared to a wizard's.

I too lament that bard's feel very weak with just their core list. Buff spells lacking, offense lacking, healing weaker than a cleric etc. Magical secrets makes the class.

One thing I haven't seen anyone complain about was how weak valor bards feel. Without amazing buffs like haste, and stuck in medium armor, without a fighting style, your damage is weak and your AC weaker. A bladesinger is probably better in both regards, with a better casting list and -1 hp/level. Compared to the bladelock he gets very little support for his attacks.

[odigity]

...a bard can make a person's head spin round, right round...

Like a record, baby?

Edit: To actually contribute to the thread, I think the OP's summation is pretty accurate.

I'm planning to make a Bard as my next character, but I'm thinking of focusing 100% on "support", essentially making the ultimate party cheerleader by choosing Lightfoot Halfling with Lucky and dipping Warlock and Sorcerer for additional low-level spells and class feature variety. (I know high-level spells are powerful, but there are so many low-level spells that are awesome and relevant at all levels that I expect I'll still be effective and have fun.)

[jaappleton]

I played a level 8 lore bard for awhile. I found the class to be quite powerful. It was myself, a Monk, and a Melee Ranger. I was capable of turning encounters with my spells. There were a few moments where the Monk would get wrecked due to some great rolls, and just when he was almost down and out, I polymorphed him into a Giant Ape and proceeded to grab the nearest enemy and just throw it like a rag doll.

Cutting Words was invaluable, turning the tide very frequently.

The spell list was... There's a reason the best spells are Concentration spells, right? I often struggled to see what spells would serve us best at that opportunity, and whenever I was Concentrating on something, I found I wasn't so useful. I had to Concentrate and toss Viscious Mockary, since VM was nearly all I could do without burning through all my slots (since I was the only full caster).

[JellyPooga]

Magical secrets makes the class.

I couldn't agree with this sentiment more. Everything else the Bard gets, more or less, is just icing on a pretty tasty cake made primarily out of Magical Secrets.


One thing I haven't seen anyone complain about was how weak valor bards feel.

I really don't like Valour Bard; it feels like an attempt at a cheap Warlord knock-off, but they didn't quite get it right. As we've said, Magical Secrets is what makes Bard good and Valour Bards get less of that tasty tasty goodness than Lore Bard. Weapon/Armour profs and a delayed Extra Attack, with little in the way of anything to buff them, is small compensation for missing out on some MS, not to mention how much better Cutting Words is compared to Combat Inspiration. I'm not even going to bother mentioning the difference between Peerless Skill and Battle Magic (hint: one's OK, the other's amazing).

I disagree that levels 1-5 are drudgery for a Bard; you still get Expertise, some fairly decent weapons to play with, a fairly solid selection of low-level spells (Faerie Fire, Thunderwave, Heat Metal, Enhance Ability) and Bardic Inspiration and Song of Rest are appreciated by all. Compared to the excitement of level 6, it pales by comparison, true, but I've still had some good times playing a low-level Bard.

[Socratov]

Like a record, baby?

Edit: To actually contribute to the thread, I think the OP's summation is pretty accurate.

I'm planning to make a Bard as my next character, but I'm thinking of focusing 100% on "support", essentially making the ultimate party cheerleader by choosing Lightfoot Halfling with Lucky and dipping Warlock and Sorcerer for additional low-level spells and class feature variety. (I know high-level spells are powerful, but there are so many low-level spells that are awesome and relevant at all levels that I expect I'll still be effective and have fun.)

low level Tasha's is invaluable: for a lvl 1 spellslot you can keep someone prone AND incapacitatied (so melee has advantage AND autocrit). That's HUGE!, sure at the end of a turn new aves are offered and when damaged the traget gets to save at advantage, but still, that is a huge benefit.

Against hordes VM is not that useful, but ifyou fight any mirror party (or a group of enemies who have both casters and brutes), targeting the brute that's currently chewing out your frontliner is certainly nice, but wait, if you hit the caster that is blasting cantrips, chromatic orbs and the like at you (essentially any spell with a single spellattack), maybe they can have the spell mis as well, that would be fun! As for buffing, nobody can do that better then a twinspell sorcerer., Healing should be a cleric's forte. A sorc/wizard should have blasting covered. The bard should conentrate on reducing enemy threats and making the lives of his pals easier. As for great options for a bard to take magical secrets on: Haste and Pass without Trace. Take 'em at 6 for lorebard and boom, now everyobody can stealth and blender. Take Counterspell and boom you are the one who make sure the enemy does not have arcane support.

While each partymember will have its function, the bard creates hte opportunities for success and the resources spent by the bard will have consequences (moreso then other classes) for the party as a whole.

[JellyPooga]

While each partymember will have its function, the bard creates hte opportunities for success and the resources spent by the bard will have consequences (moreso then other classes) for the party as a whole.

This is an important point; Bards aren't designed to go solo. They're among the best party-players, from the ground up. Heck, the archetypal Bard Feature, Bardic Inspiration, is completely unusable as a solo! At least until you get either of the "upgrades" from your College. Contrary to expectations, Bards aren't the ones in the spotlight; they spotlight the other members of their team. They're like the ultimate promoter who not only talks a big game, but actively helps their client in the ring.

[Garresh]

Lot of good points here, but I need to reiterate something again because it seems to have been lost in the discussion. Bards are not weak. They are simply not versatile. Sorcerers *CAN* frontline. Draconic sorcerers who are based on dex and fight with greenflame blade can do okay damage. If they dual wield and haste themselves with warcaster they can GFB with cha bonus and then get 2 attacks on top of that. Shield + draconic resilience puts them at 23 AC and bumps their hit die to effectively D8. They might need a level 1 dip in fighter for martial proficiencies and fighting style, but for 1 level they get 19 levels of caster, 3 attacks, excellent buffs and utility, durability, performancd at melee or range, etc.

Bards are extremely powerful. But with a single dip in fighter, cleric, or rogue(and sometimes not even that), they are outclassed in versatility by sorcerers, clerics, and druids, who can dabble in more roles simultaneously than a bard can. After level 10 they catch up, but before that they are more specialized than alleged specialist classes.

[Arkhios]

Contrary to expectations, Bards aren't the ones in the spotlight; they spotlight the other members of their team. They're like the ultimate promoter who not only talks a big game, but actively helps their client in the ring.

Bards also tell the stories of legendary heroes OTHER than themselves, both in songs and tales. They may be great at captivating their audience, but rare is the bard who praises his or her own achievements as a hero. In fact, many bards would probably prefer to stay away from the danger and let others do the heroics, only to write down their deeds to be told to others.

Even Skalds (= college of valor), while capable warriors themselves, prefer to tell the tales of others.

[JellyPooga]

Lot of good points here, but I need to reiterate something again because it seems to have been lost in the discussion. Bards are not weak.

I don't think I understand your point here. You say this, then go on to give a very specialised (potentially) multiclassed Sorcerer build that doesn't do much except kick the teeth of his enemies in really well and cite it as some kind of proof that Bards aren't as versatile. I don't get it.

Even a generic base-line Bard is way more versatile; between Expertise, Bardic Inspiration and Bard List spells (ignoring Magical Secrets), the Bard has a lot more diversity of options than any Sorcerer, who is largely limited to a couple of buffs and direct damage. The same can be said of Clerics, Druids or any other Class; they're good at what they do, but they're not as versatile as the Bard who can back up any given one of them. He might not be as good as them individually (though I wouldn't bet on it), but he's good enough at all the things they can do collectively, to pull his weight by helping them out. That's versatility and it's the strength of the Bard; not to "take the spotlight" as I mentioned, but to shine a little light on everyone else and make them look good*.

Take the Bard-only Cantrip Vicious Mockery as a perfect example. What's good about it? It certainly isn't the damage. It's the rider effect of imposing Disadvantage on their next attack roll; something that stays relevant long after the damage became an insignificant side-effect. Is this likely to help the Bard directly or outright kill a foe? Probably not; it's more likely to be used on a monster attacking the front-liners to increase the durability of those meat-shields, allowing them to do something more aggressive. The Bard can give them +dX to whatever they want to do with Bardic Inspiration and has (somewhat) taken care of their defences for a turn with VM. This opens up the potential for the meat-shield to focus more on offence. All for the low low cost of 1 use of a 5/short rest resource and a Cantrip, let alone anything they can do when they pull out the "big guns".

*and, as Arkhios mentions, tell a tale about it afterwards :smallbiggrin:

[Belac93]

Bards aren't the ones in the spotlight; they spotlight the other members of their team. They're like the ultimate promoter who not only talks a big game, but actively helps their client in the ring.

This is exactly it. A bard doesn't have to be the guy who casts fireball at the guy attacking their fighter, they are the guy who makes the fighter impossible to hit, and makes the monster easy to hit. Or they stop with wizard from turning the fighter into a newt. Or they get the fighter back up until the cleric can get his heavy-armoured behind over there.

[Garresh]

I don't think I understand your point here. You say this, then go on to give a very specialised (potentially) multiclassed Sorcerer build that doesn't do much except kick the teeth of his enemies in really well and cite it as some kind of proof that Bards aren't as versatile. I don't get it.

Even a generic base-line Bard is way more versatile; between Expertise, Bardic Inspiration and Bard List spells (ignoring Magical Secrets), the Bard has a lot more diversity of options than any Sorcerer, who is largely limited to a couple of buffs and direct damage. The same can be said of Clerics, Druids or any other Class; they're good at what they do, but they're not as versatile as the Bard who can back up any given one of them. He might not be as good as them individually (though I wouldn't bet on it), but he's good enough at all the things they can do collectively, to pull his weight by helping them out. That's versatility and it's the strength of the Bard; not to "take the spotlight" as I mentioned, but to shine a little light on everyone else and make them look good*.

Take the Bard-only Cantrip Vicious Mockery as a perfect example. What's good about it? It certainly isn't the damage. It's the rider effect of imposing Disadvantage on their next attack roll; something that stays relevant long after the damage became an insignificant side-effect. Is this likely to help the Bard directly or outright kill a foe? Probably not; it's more likely to be used on a monster attacking the front-liners to increase the durability of those meat-shields, allowing them to do something more aggressive. The Bard can give them +dX to whatever they want to do with Bardic Inspiration and has (somewhat) taken care of their defences for a turn with VM. This opens up the potential for the meat-shield to focus more on offence. All for the low low cost of 1 use of a 5/short rest resource and a Cantrip, let alone anything they can do when they pull out the "big guns".

*and, as Arkhios mentions, tell a tale about it afterwards :smallbiggrin:


You misunderstand me. Those builds aren't specialized. They use those tricks to gain expertise, healing, or a little more frontline potential, yes. But their entire spell selection is free to grab other things. A bard has to choose between counterspell, haste, fireball, shield, misty step, SCAG cantrips, bless, and any other protection spells I'm forgetting because the bard spell list is generally bad.

My point is that magical secrets is great, but it creates a specialist, not a generalist.

A sorcerer with a dip in cleric and/or rogue can do anything. Not as good as the specialists of course, but the goal was never to be the best. The goal was to be able to do anything so you can supplement your party by being a jack of all trades.

In the role of jack of all trades, bards are second tier. Sorcerers Druids and Clerics are better.

[DMThac0]

First things first: This thread came at the best time possible; I have a fairly new player who chose to roll a bard and I have been hard pressed to find the words to explain her role in the party. Now I should be able to help guide her and help her develop as a player!

As toward the OP and the thread; I found that the Bard does seem, at first, quite underwhelming as a class. I have always been a min/max'er even when I don't try and looking at the Bard I couldn't find out how to use it. A couple of the earlier posts actually opened my eyes and when looking over the class again I saw it, this is not a solo class, and the "do all" versatility of the class doesn't exist like I had heard. I found that it is a back line class that really needs to drop the idea of "I can do it all" since in a way a Bard starts out backwards. Instead of someone multi-classing into 4 different things and finding out it was a very poor choice, a Bard starts out in the 4 class spot and as it levels you start removing/refining it until it only takes on 2 roles. Versatile, backrow, and (as it was so eloquently put) the party's cheerleader, the Bard is far from useless, and I agree with the OP: slightly over-rated.

[JellyPooga]

because the bard spell list is generally bad.

Ah...I think here is our point of contention. I disagree. The Bard Spell List is short(ish), I agree, but by necessity if Magical Secrets is going to be a thing. I disagree that it's bad and it's certainly more versatile than any other list bar the Wizard (who's whole schtick is being a specialist at having the right spell for the job) and even then, the Bard has some outliers.

For example; tell me about the 1st level non-Bard build that has Healing Word, Sleep, Faerie Fire and Thunderwave.

You're also trying to tell me that Hold Person, Invisibility, Phantasmal Force and Suggestion are bad spells? Major Image? Freedom of Movement? Polymorph and Animate Objects? Forcecage? All these spells are on the basic Bard List. They're power-play spellslingers without Magical Secrets and they have a mixed bag of other spells to round them out, let alone their other Class Features.

Bards in 5ed are primary spellcasters of the highest calibre. Not because they get any bonuses to their spellcasting like Sorcerers do, but because they have one of the most diverse spell lists available, which includes some of the most powerful spells in the game and on top of that, they get to cherry pick 6-8 spells from other lists too.

You say MS makes Bards specialists, but it doesn't; it allows them the option to specialise from an already very versatile base, or it allows them to become even more versatile by broadening their potential further.

[Garresh]

That is a fair point, I'll give you that. But for all the high points, bards come with low points too. They miss out on so many critical spells. Is having those spells worth losing so many others?

Here's an example of what I mean. Those spells you listed? Those are all best in class spells. Healing, debuffing, and CC. Thunderwave does okay damage but thats not the primary purpose.

The bard has a handful of great spells, but they're all specialized spells without the more fundamental spells included. No counterspell, Expeditious retreat, haste, bless, fireball, etc.

Bards snag best in class spells along a narrow spectrum of debuffs, illusions, healing, and CC. Power isnt the problem. They're simply overspecialized.

Besides, I could offer the same point about any of those classes. Name me a class that gets access to Fireball, Bless, Healing Word, and Faerie Fire. That would be the cleric. Or you could ditch Healing Word for cure wounds, trade out faerie fire for haste, and grab quicken on a favored soul for the same result. And you get to keep counterspell, then pick up thunderwave and sleep for good measure.

Their list has some gems on it, but the list is still fundamentally the weakest of all the full casters, because it is overspecialized.

[Gastronomie]

I think the reason so many people rate Bards as being an awesome class is because, with Magical Secrets, basically anyone can customize a Bard to become anything they want to use. It satisfies the needs of virtually anyone, and as a result, all the people who play them feel Bards are a really powerful class that lets them do whatever they want to do.

And indeed, while they do have their weak points, overall Bards are really an awesome class.

[Garresh]

I can't disagree with you there. It *is* an awesome class, and coming up with some strange magical secrets combos is way too fun.

[Sigreid]

I think your issue really comes down to every other class having something that they excel at. Bards don't really excel at anything, but they're the only class that can heal, fight, sneak, cast illusions, cast AOE or specific damage spells, enhance their team mates all in one class. In essence they can have a passable ability of any type wherever the party needs bolstering, but they are flat out not the best at anything. Everything they do, some other class can out class them, but without multi-classing they are the only class that can fill in all the gaps.

I mean, I believe I saw higher up the chain it explained how various multi-classes can out do them in versatility. Yeah, multiple classes to try to play on their field. By the same token, a valor bard that dips fighter or paladin can hold the front line just fine. A bard that dips warlock can be amazing with a couple of invocations or a fabulous archer if they focus on EB.

[JellyPooga]

Their list has some gems on it, but the list is still fundamentally the weakest of all the full casters, because it is overspecialized.

That's just it, though; the Bards specialisation is in its diversity. It appears narrow because it's mostly illusions and charms, but unlike other spell lists it also encompasses some key points from other lists, such as healing, before even contemplating specialising further.

The Light Domain Cleric you give the example of is a specialist in his own right and he forgoes the benefits of other Domains to do that. The Bard has no such restriction on his versatility when MS comes into play; he can grab both Haste and Fireball; not an option for any single class Cleric (to my knowledge; which I'll admit doesn't encompass any UA material). Likewise, a Sorcerer could have both those spells, yes, but he's never picking up Healing Word or Glyph of Warding, for example, not without multiclassing or taking Magic Initiate, both of which have their own downfalls in sheer power reduction or opportunity cost.

The Bard might arguably have the weakest spell list, but that's where MS comes in and catapults it beyond the potential of any other list for diversity and versatility. While other specialist spellcasters can fill the same role as a Bard with those spell picks and possibly do it better, they don't have the same freedom to pick and choose.

[Garresh]

I think your issue really comes down to every other class having something that they excel at. Bards don't really excel at anything, but they're the only class that can heal, fight, sneak, cast illusions, cast AOE or specific damage spells, enhance their team mates all in one class. In essence they can have a passable ability of any type wherever the party needs bolstering, but they are flat out not the best at anything. Everything they do, some other class can out class them, but without multi-classing they are the only class that can fill in all the gaps.

I mean, I believe I saw higher up the chain it explained how various multi-classes can out do them in versatility. Yeah, multiple classes to try to play on their field. By the same token, a valor bard that dips fighter or paladin can hold the front line just fine. A bard that dips warlock can be amazing with a couple of invocations or a fabulous archer if they focus on EB.

No, my point is that their versatility is less than other classes. That list you made? Favored Soul Sorcerers can do everything on it, in addition to providing defensive buffs, walling, and mobility.

Clerics can do everything except illusions, but they do offer a wider range of buffs, better combat ability, and some different kinds of utility.

Druids can do everything but illusions, but gain unmatched mobility, utility, and walling.

When I say multiclassing characters, I'm talking 1/19 multiclass combos, and often they aren't even necessary. The bard isn't the most versatile. It specializes in healing, debuffing, and CC effects. Its combat potential is okay, and it makes a great skill monkey. But others can do more things simultaneously at a lesser degree of mastery than a bard.

[Garresh]

That's just it, though; the Bards specialisation is in its diversity. It appears narrow because it's mostly illusions and charms, but unlike other spell lists it also encompasses some key points from other lists, such as healing, before even contemplating specialising further.

The Light Domain Cleric you give the example of is a specialist in his own right and he forgoes the benefits of other Domains to do that. The Bard has no such restriction on his versatility when MS comes into play; he can grab both Haste and Fireball; not an option for any single class Cleric (to my knowledge; which I'll admit doesn't encompass any UA material). Likewise, a Sorcerer could have both those spells, yes, but he's never picking up Healing Word or Glyph of Warding, for example, not without multiclassing or taking Magic Initiate, both of which have their own downfalls in sheer power reduction or opportunity cost.

The Bard might arguably have the weakest spell list, but that's where MS comes in and catapults it beyond the potential of any other list for diversity and versatility. While other specialist spellcasters can fill the same role as a Bard with those spell picks and possibly do it better, they don't have the same freedom to pick and choose.

Oh absolutely. But I think I'm doing a poor job conveying, or maybe we're saying the same thing. If he does that it doesn't kick in til 10, unless he forgoes his melee options. The bard can choose literally anything in the game and do it well. Just not at the same time, and not in the same build. At least until level 14. It's a very top-heavy class.

If you want to do a little bit of everything, bard is not the best. If you want to specialize in 2 or 3 seemingly unrelated things to a great segree of competency, then bard is the best thing since sliced bread.

[Sigreid]

No, my point is that their versatility is less than other classes. That list you made? Favored Soul Sorcerers can do everything on it, in addition to providing defensive buffs, walling, and mobility.

Clerics can do everything except illusions, but they do offer a wider range of buffs, better combat ability, and some different kinds of utility.

Druids can do everything but illusions, but gain unmatched mobility, utility, and walling.

When I say multiclassing characters, I'm talking 1/19 multiclass combos, and often they aren't even necessary. The bard isn't the most versatile. It specializes in healing, debuffing, and CC effects. Its combat potential is okay, and it makes a great skill monkey. But others can do more things simultaneously at a lesser degree of mastery than a bard.

For Favored Soul, I've never been in a game that allows the UA classes and don't expect them to be in their final balanced form so /shrug.

The other ones you mentioned don't get expertise in skills, sole province of the bard and the rogue. So stealth and social are still not dominated by clerics, druids, etc. Because of the way the game is designed, it's true that none of the classes are as pigeon holed as they used to be.

Don't get me wrong, I know classes aren't one trick ponies anymore and I'm glad of that. I mean, I have a wizard that is decent with stealth and perception and ok in a melee fight thanks to a high dex. He still belongs outside of melee if I can manage it. I think the real reason fighter was so maligned in 3.x was they wound up having access to the least number of skills of any class (for no good reason) so you could fight pretty good, and do literally nothing else.

[JellyPooga]

When I say multiclassing characters, I'm talking 1/19 multiclass combos

Which present their own problems; every other level the Bard enjoys having access to spells one level higher than a 1/19 MC build. That's not to be sniffed at. If that's what it takes for a non-Bard to be more versatile, then I'd argue the Bard is doing it better. If the MC is taken further (e.g. a Cleric/Rogue who dips Rogue 2 for Cunning Action), then the disparity becomes even more pronounced. Bard gets a similar level of versatility, if not more, without sacrificing anything to do it.


or maybe we're saying the same thing.

I think we're roughly on the same page, just coming at it from different angles. You're not particularly seeing any additional versatility the Bard has compared to other versatile builds, while I'm not particularly seeing those builds as doing much that the Bard can't. Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to.

As you say, there's a lot of love for the Bard in 5ed and much of it is kind of undeserved. I think it's largely because in previous editions they were jack-of-all-trades but rubbish at all of them (outside of a very few, highly specific TO builds). Now they can actually hold their own, albeit largely in a support role, it's something new and exciting to play with that simply wasn't an option in any kind of optimised play before.

[Biggstick]

While it doesn't have much to do with what the thread is talking about, I always found it interesting that Bards are considered arcane casters and have access to healing spells. (I'm not counting UA material, because like an above poster, I've never played in a game where UA material was allowed). That definitely makes them stand out to me, as they're the only arcane casters with healing spells on their spell list.

[Socratov]

While it doesn't have much to do with what the thread is talking about, I always found it interesting that Bards are considered arcane casters and have access to healing spells. (I'm not counting UA material, because like an above poster, I've never played in a game where UA material was allowed). That definitely makes them stand out to me, as they're the only arcane casters with healing spells on their spell list.

well, to be fair, I find the difference between divine and arcane magic in 5e to be pretty nonexistent. back in 3.5 it meant something: Arcane Spell Failure and a clear division of wha the spells could do: healing was srictly divine (except for bard) and blasting and illusions specifically arcane.

[JAL_1138]

In 1e, bards were a triple-class--first you took Fighter, then after a certain point switched to Thief, then after a certain point you could finally start taking Bard levels, and your casting came from the Druid list (and you had to be trained by a druid, IIRC).

In 2e, bards traded some thief skills for better weaponry, a few limited skills of their own, and cast from the Wizard list--and, ironically, were better blasters than a Wizard for most of the game, because of how fast they leveled up--their reduced spell slots and delayed spell learning actually meant they still got spells about the same time in the game that the Wizard did, but were higher-level than the Wizard when they got them, although the Wizard would overtake them eventually and would always be a better utility caster than the Bard.

3e split the difference and made them half (2/3?) casters with a list that featured a blend of traditionally-arcane spells and traditionally-divine spells...but didn't give them the crazy-fast level progression that made them good in 2e, or the dual-class multiclass strengths of 1e. It also took a difficult-to-use feature from 2e, the bardic music party buff (you had to do it right before combat in 2e, which meant it was difficult to get in many circumstances), and made it a main schtick that essentially kept the bard strumming on the sidelines and took a significant skill point investment to get.

4e was...4e. It's kind of hard to compare 4e classes to caster classes in other editions.

5e essentially tries to rectify some of the problems and give them good casting and solid skillmonkeying like 1e and 2e, keeping the arcane/divine mix of 3e but giving full casting and removing the requirement to sink skills into Perform to use their class abilities. The 5e bard, rather than taking off like a rocket in terms of feature progression speed like the 2e bard, is now something of a late-bloomer like in 1e.

[MeeposFire]

In 1e, bards were a triple-class--first you took Fighter, then after a certain point switched to Thief, then after a certain point you could finally start taking Bard levels, and your casting came from the Druid list (and you had to be trained by a druid, IIRC).

In 2e, bards traded some thief skills for better weaponry, a few limited skills of their own, and cast from the Wizard list--and, ironically, were better blasters than a Wizard for most of the game, because of how fast they leveled up--their reduced spell slots and delayed spell learning actually meant they still got spells about the same time in the game that the Wizard did, but were higher-level than the Wizard when they got them, although the Wizard would overtake them eventually and would always be a better utility caster than the Bard.

3e split the difference and made them half (2/3?) casters with a list that featured a blend of traditionally-arcane spells and traditionally-divine spells...but didn't give them the crazy-fast level progression that made them good in 2e, or the dual-class multiclass strengths of 1e. It also took a difficult-to-use feature from 2e, the bardic music party buff (you had to do it right before combat in 2e, which meant it was difficult to get in many circumstances), and made it a main schtick that essentially kept the bard strumming on the sidelines and took a significant skill point investment to get.

4e was...4e. It's kind of hard to compare 4e classes to caster classes in other editions.

5e essentially tries to rectify some of the problems and give them good casting and solid skillmonkeying like 1e and 2e, keeping the arcane/divine mix of 3e but giving full casting and removing the requirement to sink skills into Perform to use their class abilities. The 5e bard, rather than taking off like a rocket in terms of feature progression speed like the 2e bard, is now something of a late-bloomer like in 1e.

ell in 3e you could use bardic music and still fight (after the first round) and with a feat you could even cast while doing it so there would be no reason to only use it and nothing else.

4e bards were leaders so they are best compared to the clerics, warlords, and other leader classes. THis meant they could heal and boost allies. Bards were also heavy on controller effects and were the best at moving enemies on the board while being the 2nd best at moving allies (behind the warlord). They were also very good at handing out attacks and good at handing out bonuses. Their healing was decent. IN all they were one of the best leaders in the game.

[Herobizkit]

As a die-hard 2e Half-Elf Bard fan, 5e bards finally got it right.

That said, I would love if it Bards had an option to pick a spell list from level 1 - Bard, Cleric, Druid, or Wizard.

Bard with a Druid list gives a very nature-y Meistersinger (A Bard/Druid MC from 2e's Bard's Handbook) feel.

Bard with a Wizard list brings him back to his 2e roots.

Bard with a Cleric and optional Domain gives a Bard who specializes in a certain kind of Lore.

I like 5e Bards. I love 5e Half-Elf Bards.

You just gotta want to like the class. :)

[Arkhios]

5e bards finally got it right.

I like 5e Bards.

You just gotta want to like the class. :)

Only reason why bard isn't my favorite 5e class is because I like paladin even more :P

Seriously though, from my (limited to from 3.0 forward) experience 4e bard was the first time I was even vaguely interested with the class when it comes to official D&D (pathfinder bard was ok, but has its stupidities). 5e edition bard however had me consider playing one for the first time ever.

[JellyPooga]

Only reason why bard isn't my favorite 5e class is because I like paladin even more :P

Seriously though, from my (limited to from 3.0 forward) experience 4e bard was the first time I was even vaguely interested with the class when it comes to official D&D (pathfinder bard was ok, but has its stupidities). 5e edition bard however had me consider playing one for the first time ever.

I quite liked the Archaeology Bard from Pathfinder, as being the archetypal "adventurer", but I'm inclined to agree with your sentiment. 3ed Bards were ridiculous, both in theme and lack of agency, but 5ed has got it right, IMO, without going too far the other way.

[Arkhios]

I quite liked the Archaeology Bard from Pathfinder, as being the archetypal "adventurer", but I'm inclined to agree with your sentiment. 3ed Bards were ridiculous, both in theme and lack of agency, but 5ed has got it right, IMO, without going too far the other way.

Oh, aye. Archaelogist bard is awesome. It's the versatile performance the Pathfinder bards have which is absolutely ridiculous. So much wasted potential.

[Rerem115]

The OP is, at least for me, a more or less perfect summation of 5e Bards. There are relatively few scenarios where a Bard is absolutely the best tool for a job (most of those are related to skillmonkey type activities). HOWEVER, between Bardic Inspiration and Magical Secrets, Bards are always relevant. They can always buff, debuff, blast, and charm their way out of a problem; maybe not as well as the Wizard, Sorcerer, or Warlock, but they'll always have the second best option. They don't do the heavy lifting, but they enable everyone else to do it for them, while being no slouch on their own.

[Sicarius Victis]

No, my point is that their versatility is less than other classes. That list you made? Favored Soul Sorcerers can do everything on it, in addition to providing defensive buffs, walling, and mobility.

1. Favoured Soul is one specific subclass of the Sorcerer. The rest of the subclasses don't have anywhere near that versatility.
2. Even the FS still has to choose just ONE domain to get the spells from. Want buffs from War? Then you don't get any healing from Life. Etc.
3. Favoured Soul isn't even official. Know what is official? The Bard.

Your other examples are half-decent, but the FS isn't anywhere near a good example.

Besides, the FS spells are still limited to Sorc and one Domain. Bard is limited to Bard and every other spellcaster ever.


I quite liked the Archaeology Bard from Pathfinder, as being the archetypal "adventurer", but I'm inclined to agree with your sentiment. 3ed Bards were ridiculous, both in theme and lack of agency, but 5ed has got it right, IMO, without going too far the other way.

The PF Bard is quite fun, I agree. However, my interests in it tend to lie in the more martial subclasses for it, such as the Dervish Dancer and the Arrowsong Minstrel. The UA "Classics Revisited" or whatever it's called has a decent Dervish Dancer/Battle Dancer, but for Arrowsong Minstrel all that's there is nicking spells off of the Ranger's list.

[Biggstick]

Favoured Soul isn't even official. Know what is official? The Bard.

This sums it up quite nicely.

[Garresh]

This sums it up quite nicely.

Yeah that's a good point. I'll definitely concede that one.

I suppose I've made my case and I swung a little too hard one way, but I am still somewhat convinced they are held a bit too highly.

The main inspiration for this post was going through several character concepts who were meant to be generalists or utility platforms, and every time I found I couldn't do what I wanted with bard. If I wanted to have enough melee potential around level 7 while also packing some counterspell and buffs, I found I was actually better suited to go with sorcerer who took a dip in cleric or fighter.

Likewise, when I was rolling up other types of generalists it was often better to pick one of the 3 "platform" classes I listed and tack on a single level dip.

To me it's not so much that the bard is a bad class, as much as it is that before level 10 I can get much further for my jack of all trades type builds with other stuff.

I probably shouldn't be holding up favored soul as the be all and end all, but there are some other subclasses and domains which can be used with a single level dip to make some ridiculously flexible characters. Good examples are Bladesinger, Arcane Domain Clerics, and Draconic Sorcerer. But I digress.

Ultimately, even when optimizing for a generalist or jack of all trades, knowing what you want to focus on more than others will turn out better builds. Bards are just one of many options, after all.

[Sigreid]

Yeah that's a good point. I'll definitely concede that one.

I suppose I've made my case and I swung a little too hard one way, but I am still somewhat convinced they are held a bit too highly.

The main inspiration for this post was going through several character concepts who were meant to be generalists or utility platforms, and every time I found I couldn't do what I wanted with bard. If I wanted to have enough melee potential around level 7 while also packing some counterspell and buffs, I found I was actually better suited to go with sorcerer who took a dip in cleric or fighter.

Likewise, when I was rolling up other types of generalists it was often better to pick one of the 3 "platform" classes I listed and tack on a single level dip.

To me it's not so much that the bard is a bad class, as much as it is that before level 10 I can get much further for my jack of all trades type builds with other stuff.

I probably shouldn't be holding up favored soul as the be all and end all, but there are some other subclasses and domains which can be used with a single level dip to make some ridiculously flexible characters. Good examples are Bladesinger, Arcane Domain Clerics, and Draconic Sorcerer. But I digress.

Ultimately, even when optimizing for a generalist or jack of all trades, knowing what you want to focus on more than others will turn out better builds. Bards are just one of many options, after all.

If your point is that the bard is held a bit too highly, that I can accept for two reasons. First, it's an opinion and as such can't really be wrong. Second, they do get a bit of an edge in view because they're much improved along the lines of what they should have always been. You get the same effect with the fighter. The fighter isn't the be all end all of martial combat, but for the first time in years (for those of us who skipped 4e) it is good.

[djreynolds]

Its class for an expert role player, counter charm, getting out of fights is a way of winning combat.

Combat wise, a bard needs some help... but there are other classes for that.

Dissonant whisper is a potent spell.

Bard takes a practiced hand to play.

[Garresh]

If your point is that the bard is held a bit too highly, that I can accept for two reasons. First, it's an opinion and as such can't really be wrong. Second, they do get a bit of an edge in view because they're much improved along the lines of what they should have always been. You get the same effect with the fighter. The fighter isn't the be all end all of martial combat, but for the first time in years (for those of us who skipped 4e) it is good.

That was basically the intent of my original post. Just to draw attention to the fact that other classes can be just as versatile and its not as clear cut.

[djreynolds]

That was basically the intent of my original post. Just to draw attention to the fact that other classes can be just as versatile and its not as clear cut.

Your post is great and informative. The class can be lacking in a smaller party.

In a 4 man group, trying to be the rogue... he lacks the big damage of the sneak attack.

Trying to replace the cleric, a low levels bless is a big spell and he has to wait till he gets heavier armor

A wizard and sorcerer can both blast and have utility

A bard cannot replicate the melee abilities, at low level, of the fighter, paladin, or barbarian

But in a 5 man party, he can allow others to specialize and the bard can fill in the gaps...

Can another class replicate the 5th man better, possibly.

I think a valor bard makes a good archer with supporting spells at lower levels.

[Arkhios]

I think a valor bard makes a good archer with supporting spells at lower levels.

At early days of 5th edition a "friend" of mine kept saying that a Valor Bard was better Ranger than Ranger. Back then I refused to agree with him, but come this day, I can kinda agree with the sentiment. A bard can get all the relevant Ranger spells (which aren't many) at a much lower level via Magical Secrets and most other spells already are in their list anyway.

Seeing how Hunter's Multiattack is still a bit wonky - even with revised ranger - it's easy to see why this sentiment rings true, at least in some sense.

[djreynolds]

I love the ranger class, even before the revision.

The archer has to do more than just damage for the party. What else do they do? Stealth, healing, utility, what skills do they cover down on for the party.

Rangers and bards have nice spells for utility and healing and can pull out a sword and shield when needed. Even a warlock with EB could be seen as an archer.

But if you already have a rogue or monk, perhaps a bard gives other skills a ranger does not provide.

I like both classes, you cannot go wrong.

If you have a sorcerer in the party a bard archer may make more sense than a ranger does, than if you had a wizard.

[CaptainSarathai]

My opinion of the Bard is that while it is by no means "OP", it is one of the best classes in a very balanced game. I may catch some flack for this, but I consider Wizards, Sorcerers, and Fighters to run alongside Bards as being superb classes. I would add Druids, except that it's easy to build a bad druid, and much like Warlock, they rely on a single powerful feature to prop up an otherwise mediocre class.

I rate them this way, based on two criteria:
1) Their ability to play to 20th level without ever feeling like they "lose steam" or have a "dead level."
2) Whether they are the 'Primary' or 'Dip' in a multiclass.

What blows my mind with the Bard, is their Extra Attack option coded right into the PHB. Rogues get the Expertise and almost "5th man utility" of the Bard, but don't have Extra Attack, and they are built on attacks as a source of damage.

There's nothing on the Bard list that makes me want to take only a few levels in Bard and then jump out. Other classes have that issue. Warlock is best for their first 2-4 levels, then you bail. Paladins are good for 3/6-7. Barbarians go to about 3, etc.
Bard though, you can run him all the way to whatever Break you want. So those other classes, that's Lock2/Bard18, or Pal6/Bard14, or whatever. The exception is Sorcerer, who might go Bard6/Sorc14 for Extra Attack, although you could also do Sorc3/Bard17 for the same plus higher level spells.

Best of all, taking levels in Bard carries so much. They are 1 of 2 classes for Expertise, which is always great for anyone. They're a Full Cha Caster, which makes them slot perfectly with the most common Caster stat (Lock, Pally, Sorc). They can, if they want, have Extra Attack. With enough levels, they are 1 of 2 classes who can cherry spells from other lists.

I agree with the the assessment that for anyone else to do what a Bard does would require about 3 different classes MCed together (a Martial5 for Extra Attack, Rogue1 for Expertise, TomeLock3 to cherry spells) and it wouldn't have the advantage of being a single-classed caster.
Yes, Bards do benefit from deciding what they want to specialize in, but they are perfectly fine just being Face/5th Man. And to specialize, they need only take a dip into another class. Want more spells on your list? Sorc. Want armor? Fighter or Pally. Want mobility? Rogue. And the whole time, you are backing that up with the most versatile chassis in 5e.

[Ashrym]

Bards aren't over-rated. Magical secrets is over-rated and that over-rating is carried over to Bards in general. The reasons it's over-rated are:

1. Delayed access.
2. Limited quantity.
3. Spells are ranked by level and spells of the same level that bards already access do not become more powerful by means of additional choices.
4. The spells do not create new abilities. A spell taken from another list is not more effective when a bard casts that spell. Often it is less effective because bards miss out on class or subclass abilities that enhance spells. The only significant advantage is access to paladin or ranger unique spells earlier than those classes gain them but that gets back to 3 above; they aren't more powerful than other spells of the same spell level just because they normally aren't seen in play as early.

Magical secrets allows for customizing the bard spell list at high levels. Nothing more. It's a really nice feature but it is what a person typically over-rates when hyping the bard class. It's also one of the three main draws to the bard class. The others being bardic inspiration dice and skill benefits.

I find the class incredibly versatile. The natural tendency to dex and cha lead to a lot of skills plus a bonus skill plus jack-of-all-trades plus expertise plus bonus healing from song of rest plus adding BI dice to others plus a versatile spell list even before secrets makes for more than multi-classing can cover. MC'ing can add quite a bit but mixing cleric and sorcerer and rogue takes too many dips and still lacks BI dice (ie one of the main draws to the class).

A skills first spells second approach reinforces that versatility and removes the need for arcane renewal etc to have slots last longer. This is especially true on lore bards reinforcing the skills and secrets benefits. It's remains true as well for valor bards who add combat options as a spell alternative. The free armor upgrade is nice and extra attack beats the heck out of cantrip damage as an option. Even greenflame blade as battle magic replaces extra attack for a valor bard who picks up greenflame blade or eldritch blast via secrets later on when those can trips get ahead of attacks.

Battle magic tends to be under-rated and is a nice option. Casting a spell and also attacking is a nice option on a full caster.

For anyone thinking BI dice cannot be used solo, they can. The obvious is lore using cutting words or peerless skill but a trained dog or warhorse, charmed or suggested individual, or summon can all benefit from BI dice as examples. PC use is preferable but not required.

I would dispute clerics being better healers as well. Song of Rest can add a lot and heroism is great damage mitigation at low levels. They even have the bard only power word heal and plenty of shared healing spells to go with song of rest.

It seems a bit odd to call clerics, druids, or sorcerers more versatile when the fact is that no one class has all the spells. They are all different. It's the combination of abilities that gives bards their high versatility including a primary focus on ability and skill checks. They don't have the punch of some of the other classes but they also don't suffer a lack of contribution in any given scenario.

The versatility is there relative to other classes because the breadth of options is there.

[Herobizkit]

Also, The Bard has been crapped on since 77 or so.

Every party had at least one character break a Bard's lute because they thought it was funny.
Every party called the Bard the "5th man".
Every party hated that bards sang their magic.
Every party assumed the Bard couldn't do anything but talk and talking was 'useless' in a dungeon.
Every party called the Bard a 'tool' and not in the nice way.

♪ 30 years of crawlin' was bottled up inside him
He wasn't holdin' nothin' back... he let 'em have it all... ♫

Yes, Bard are tools. Multi-tools. Multi-tools come in handy when the bigger tools don't work or aren't available.

[Socratov]

I quite liked the Archaeology Bard from Pathfinder, as being the archetypal "adventurer", but I'm inclined to agree with your sentiment. 3ed Bards were ridiculous, both in theme and lack of agency, but 5ed has got it right, IMO, without going too far the other way.
3.5 with the right spalts indeed made bards turly, truly outrageous. In a good way

Also, The Bard has been crapped on since 77 or so.

Every party had at least one character break a Bard's lute because they thought it was funny.
Every party called the Bard the "5th man".
Every party hated that bards sang their magic.
Every party assumed the Bard couldn't do anything but talk and talking was 'useless' in a dungeon.
Every party called the Bard a 'tool' and not in the nice way.

♪ 30 years of crawlin' was bottled up inside him
He wasn't holdin' nothin' back... he let 'em have it all... ♫

Yes, Bard are tools. Multi-tools. Multi-tools come in handy when the bigger tools don't work or aren't available.
And now Bards have become a Leatherman: never leave home without it.

[JellyPooga]

Bards aren't over-rated. Magical secrets is over-rated and that over-rating is carried over to Bards in general. The reasons it's over-rated are:

1. Delayed access.
2. Limited quantity.
3. Spells are ranked by level and spells of the same level that bards already access do not become more powerful by means of additional choices.
4. The spells do not create new abilities. A spell taken from another list is not more effective when a bard casts that spell. Often it is less effective because bards miss out on class or subclass abilities that enhance spells. The only significant advantage is access to paladin or ranger unique spells earlier than those classes gain them but that gets back to 3 above; they aren't more powerful than other spells of the same spell level just because they normally aren't seen in play as early.

Magical secrets allows for customizing the bard spell list at high levels. Nothing more. It's a really nice feature but it is what a person typically over-rates when hyping the bard class. It's also one of the three main draws to the bard class. The others being bardic inspiration dice and skill benefits.

I agree with most of your post, but this I don't so much. It's probably because I favour the Lore Bard, so I'm not constricting MS to higher tier play only, which as a Valour Bard you're not seeing so often and probably aren't so focused on spellcasting anyway.

With that in mind, I'll tackle your points one at a time;

1) Delayed Access. This is a fair point, but consider that it's only one level you have to wait and you'll have level appripriate Bard spells in the mean-time. It's not like you've only got 2nd level spells from 3rd until hitting 6th character level; you still get full spellcasting for the entirety of your career; MS is a bonus on top. Also, for another Class to have similar versatility and access to off-list spells, Multiclassing is far more restrictive. After all, what Multiclass build allows you to cherry pick 9th level spells from three separate lists?

2) Limited Quantity. This is not so big a drawback of the feature. Cleric Domains only offer 10 spells of 5th level or lower, same for Paladin Oaths and Warlock Patrons. Non-Lore Bards start getting MS once they already have access to 5th level spells, so those off-list spells are likely to be equal or higher level than that. That you get around half as many is only, I assume, an attempt to balance this discrepancy.

3/4) These two are largely the same point, but you're right; spells don't somehow get better for being cast by a Bard (except in some fringe cases, like Dispel Magic, which actually is better when a Bard casts it, but I digress). Having said that, I don't think anyone is trying to argue they do, only that the Bard having access to off-list spells is a powerful tool. With concentration mechanics and all, combo-spells are a thing of the past (largely), so having both Haste and Greater Invisibility is not a big deal because they're both buffs. Having the choice between a powerful buff from the Cleric list or a powerful blast from the Sorcerer list, on the other hand, makes the Bard "Johnny on the spot"; maybe he doesn't always have the exact spell needed, but he covers a lot of ground because of MS, allowing the party Cleric or Sorcerer a little more leeway with their own choices; the Bard has got their back.

Is Magical Secrets overrated? Perhaps. Is it a very attractive and unique feature of the Bard Class? Definitely.

[Sigreid]

Also, The Bard has been crapped on since 77 or so.

Every party had at least one character break a Bard's lute because they thought it was funny.
Every party called the Bard the "5th man".
Every party hated that bards sang their magic.
Every party assumed the Bard couldn't do anything but talk and talking was 'useless' in a dungeon.
Every party called the Bard a 'tool' and not in the nice way.

♪ 30 years of crawlin' was bottled up inside him
He wasn't holdin' nothin' back... he let 'em have it all... ♫

Yes, Bard are tools. Multi-tools. Multi-tools come in handy when the bigger tools don't work or aren't available.

To be fair, a lot of people who played bards were people who thought they were being funny and charming and were really just being dorky and annoying.

[Citan]

Before you overreact, let me clarify my intentions of this post.

I am NOT attempting to argue that bards are in any way a weak class. All the bardic subclasses are pretty much excellent, and it's borderline impossible to "screw up" a bard build. They are deserving of their place as one of the top classes of 5e.

I AM trying to argue that bards are actually not as versatile as they are made out to be, on the basis that they are actually somewhat less versatile than some other classes. Additionally, they have a large number of holes in both spell selection and fighting styles which make them not quite the "Martial Class with Full Casting Progression" they are cracked up to be. Furthermore, my intent is not to say bard are badly designed. On the contrary, I think they're an excellently designed class, and the developers did a great job giving them a little bit of everything while still giving them weaknesses. I simply want to highlight these weaknesses so people don't consider Bards to be quite as overpowered as the rumors would have you believe.

Bards are not the most versatile class. There is no most versatile class, as every class must accept some weaknesses and tradeoffs, even when trying to gish. Bards are simply the most accessible and easiest class for achieving versatility, because they can always grab spells they need down the road.
(sorry I cut the middle).
Hi!
Agreed with most of what you point out.
Would argue though that there is a most versatile class, that is Wizard, thanks to the largest spell choice and no limitation of spell known. ;)

But perfectly right on Bard: even Magic Secrets can't transform a Bard into a full-blaster or a top controller. It does allow one to come close enough to be satisfied though. ;)

[Herobizkit]

To be fair, a lot of people who played bards were people who thought they were being funny and charming and were really just being dorky and annoying.Everyone's a critic. :smallwink:

[Ashrym]

I agree with most of your post, but this I don't so much. It's probably because I favour the Lore Bard, so I'm not constricting MS to higher tier play only, which as a Valour Bard you're not seeing so often and probably aren't so focused on spellcasting anyway.

With that in mind, I'll tackle your points one at a time;

1) Delayed Access. This is a fair point, but consider that it's only one level you have to wait and you'll have level appripriate Bard spells in the mean-time. It's not like you've only got 2nd level spells from 3rd until hitting 6th character level; you still get full spellcasting for the entirety of your career; MS is a bonus on top. Also, for another Class to have similar versatility and access to off-list spells, Multiclassing is far more restrictive. After all, what Multiclass build allows you to cherry pick 9th level spells from three separate lists?

2) Limited Quantity. This is not so big a drawback of the feature. Cleric Domains only offer 10 spells of 5th level or lower, same for Paladin Oaths and Warlock Patrons. Non-Lore Bards start getting MS once they already have access to 5th level spells, so those off-list spells are likely to be equal or higher level than that. That you get around half as many is only, I assume, an attempt to balance this discrepancy.

3/4) These two are largely the same point, but you're right; spells don't somehow get better for being cast by a Bard (except in some fringe cases, like Dispel Magic, which actually is better when a Bard casts it, but I digress). Having said that, I don't think anyone is trying to argue they do, only that the Bard having access to off-list spells is a powerful tool. With concentration mechanics and all, combo-spells are a thing of the past (largely), so having both Haste and Greater Invisibility is not a big deal because they're both buffs. Having the choice between a powerful buff from the Cleric list or a powerful blast from the Sorcerer list, on the other hand, makes the Bard "Johnny on the spot"; maybe he doesn't always have the exact spell needed, but he covers a lot of ground because of MS, allowing the party Cleric or Sorcerer a little more leeway with their own choices; the Bard has got their back.

Is Magical Secrets overrated? Perhaps. Is it a very attractive and unique feature of the Bard Class? Definitely.

In order...

1) The delay is in respect to Bards access regardless of multi-classing delays so the one level wait is off. When you bring up clerics and paladins you are missing that delay. The cleric gets all ten of those bonus spells prepared before a bard gets his first two secrets at tenth level. A paladin would have six from oath spells by then to match the bard's eventual total.

Lore bards do gain two earlier but still more slowly than domain, circle, or oath spells. Magical secrets is pretty much the bard version of these abilities trading off access speed for higher spell level options, but even that benefit is mitigated by the limited high level slots. Lower level spells added in such mechanics see more play by being available sooner and in having more slots for their use.

2) As per 1 above, the secrets are applicable less often due to higher level wait in acquiring them and in less slots available for higher spell levels.

Even if a bard spends both secrets on fifth level spells (one of which is meant to be based an a hidden gap in progression outside of secrets compared to locks and sorcs where the gain one on standard progression bards need to cover with secrets) that's the same as the two fifth level already gained by clerics. At fourteenth level the bard table covers half of what a cleric had at ninth level with higher level spells being more of a saving grace than the actual number of secrets gained by that point.

It takes forever to realize significant benefits from secrets.

That's additionally in the face of clerics, druids, and paladins knowledge of the full lists from which to prepare. A fourteenth level cleric prepares nineteen spells on top of the ten domain spells to be well ahead of the twenty-four spells a lore bards knows by twentieth level.

That's the reality of spells known classes vs spell prep classes. The level quality argument is still limited and takes too long to realize. This is particularly true remembering that a higher level spell is still limited by 3/4 below where a seventh level spell (for example) still ranked among seventh level spells already accessed before secrets opened up for that level.

3/4) Even the example with dispel magic is limited in that it exists on the bard list regardless of secrets so counterspell is the relevant example, but both only use an opposed check against higher level spells. Using a higher level slot removes the check for other casters anyway.

Magical secrets is a very attractive feature. It's just over-rated based on the presumption that adding options adds power contrary to the evidence of power rated by spell level. Definitely attractive as a feature and definitely over-rated. ;-)

[Ashrym]

(sorry I cut the middle).
Hi!
Agreed with most of what you point out.
Would argue though that there is a most versatile class, that is Wizard, thanks to the largest spell choice and no limitation of spell known. ;)

But perfectly right on Bard: even Magic Secrets can't transform a Bard into a full-blaster or a top controller. It does allow one to come close enough to be satisfied though. ;)

It disagree with this.

Wizards lack in more areas than people seem to realize. Wizards don't have the largest spell choice. They are limited by what is in the spells book and can only cast what is prepared other than rituals, which is the same as the feat.

Trying to fill a spell book with every spell on the wizard list is an exercise in futility outside of DM gimmee approaches unless it's a party full of wizards taking different spells on level up and scribing from each other.

I find bards more versatile because of the skill and healing options. Versatility isn't about being the best this or that; it's about doing a lot of things well enough. They don't need to be a top notch blaster to launch a fireball or some other aoe. All they need is an aoe. ;-)

[MaxWilson]

I think the reason so many people rate Bards as being an awesome class is because, with Magical Secrets, basically anyone can customize a Bard to become anything they want to use. It satisfies the needs of virtually anyone, and as a result, all the people who play them feel Bards are a really powerful class that lets them do whatever they want to do.

And indeed, while they do have their weak points, overall Bards are really an awesome class.

Whenever I play a Bard or Bardlock, the thing I notice most it the opportunity cost: the fact that I take the spells I really want to learn, cut them to the bare bone, and am still 25% over budget on spells known. So I always end up having to cut stuff that I "cannot possibly live without." (I mean, obviously I can, but...)

Bard > Sorcerer in that at least the Bard has the option to know any given spell he wants, but he still doesn't know very many. I find that it makes more sense to play a bard as a healer/cleric type with a couple of specialized tricks on top, rather than expecting them to fill the utility caster slot.

Bards, druids, and wizard are all my favorite spellcasters, all in different ways. Druids know a ton of great spells. Wizards know some really excellent spells with the potential to someday maybe learn or research even more. Bards know a few of the best spells and a handful of other spells. Bards are narrow but excellent.

[Ovarwa]

So,

If one doesn't value the non-spellcasting aspects of the class, stuff like JoAT, more skills, bardic features, etc, then sure, Bards are underwhelming full-casters compared to the others (except for Warlock, of course).

Anyway,

Ken

[JellyPooga]

(Well thought out post)

I don't particularly have a counter to any of your arguments; I tend to agree with the reasoning, if not your opinion.

Comparing Cleric or Paladin to Bard is, perhaps, a little misleading. As you say, the "divine" casters have full list access they can change daily, while the Bard must stick with what he knows. This gives the "Divines" greater flexibility between adventuring styles than the Bard could ever hope for. Having said that, I still maintain that the additional Domain spells such classes have access to are far more specialised than Magical Secrets; once you've commited to the Light Domain for example, that's it, you're locked in. A Bard who picks Fireball at 6th level, however, is under no compunction to select another flame themed spell at 10th, or anything of the sort. That kind of flexibility is what makes MS a far more versatile ability than any Domain or similar.

Further, the difference between Domains granting low-level spells vs. Magical Secrets granting high level ones also gives rise to misleading conclusions; it's like comparing something like Natural Explorer to Reliable Talent; of course you're going to see more use out of the lower level ability because more games operate at lower level. Which of them is "more powerful" or what-have-you depends on the level, duration and style of play. After all, a Cleric with Fireball as a Domain spell isn't much cop if every fight is against solo foes, while the Lore Bard with Haste is laughing all the way to the bank. Of course, there's very little point in making such distinctions, because every game is different.

There's no fault in rating MS highly as a high level ability; it's without a doubt a powerful tool. It doesn't discredit the ability that there are lower level abilities in other Classes that perform a similar function for lower tiers of play. As has been mentioned, the Bard is a bit of a late-game bloomer as far as personal power is concerned. Until then, they're just another solid support character.

Rating MS as the only thing that makes Bards good is overrating it. Accepting that it's a powerful ability as part of an over-all package is about where I stand.

[Ashrym]

Rating MS as the only thing that makes Bards good is overrating it. Accepting that it's a powerful ability as part of an over-all package is about where I stand.

It is definitely a good ability. It just doesn't exist for the first two tiers of play unless a person plays lore and then it's still only two spells of low levels.

The extra hype tends to stem from a case of schrodinger's because people look at what can be taken before looking at what is taken; the rest is just opportunity cost.

What makes it good is the amount of customization it adds to the core bard list. For the first 9 levels, bards take 12 spells known 100% from the bard list. Lore bards get 2 spells (1/7th of that total) outside of the bard list. From 10th level on, bards get more spells from other lists than their own. They add 6 via secrets and only 4 restricted to the bard list.

Bards end up with a bit better than 1/4 (1/3 lore bard) spells from any list which is great for customization. It just doesn't change the fact that all it is is a broad range of options limited by actual selection of spells rated in power by levels for which the bard has already obtained.

I don't rate bards as good based on magical secrets. I like skill benefits as well, but I rate them well based on bardic inspiration. Bounded accuracy makes a big bonus valuable.

Bards through my eyes:

Tier 1: skill support, spell support, song of rest and occasional BI bonus.

Tier 2: spell support improves with third thru fifth level spell access, BI dice become more prominent with font of inspiration, song of rest and BI dice improve

Tier 3: spell support improves with sixth thru eighth level spells, significant access to spell selection is added via secrets, song of rest and BI dice improve

Tier 4: spell support improves with ninth level spells and more secrets, capstone guarantees one BI die per encounter.

The class is all about ability check bonus, bonus healing on short rests, inspiration dice, and spell variety. The core bard list portrays that spell versatility for the first nine levels and secrets really only expands on what already exists better at high levels.

I consider magical secrets as a good ability and a defining trait of high level bards. It contributes a lot to high level spell choice which in turn opens up variety, versatility, and customized bards.

In the end, however, it's nothing more than an expansive spell list that still requires limited selection. It's not that I disagree with the useful aspects of the ability so much as the hype on how powerful it is.

This post was longer than planned so apologies for excessive talking. I have my character flaws, after all. ;-)

I am hoping it gives readers a better understanding of the class at various tiers so they know what to expect out of the class.

It's the combination of assorted abilities that gives versatility. All bards have skill benefits and a bonus to all ability checks. All bards add healing with or without that spell selection, all bards cast a spells from a wide range of spell types, all bards give a bonus via inspiration dice.

I think we generally agree and it's just how much value we place on secrets that might be different. For me, it's the inspiration that matters more and I have used secrets to add spells from the bard list instead of other lists because there are a lot of spells I want on that list.

[Sigreid]

Everyone's a critic. :smallwink:

'tis but a truth that we all know and usually try to avoid mentioning to the poor sod.