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. This is made infinitely worse prior to level 10. Because before they get magical secrets in a decent amount, their options are extremely limited.

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 in the first 5 levels. Shatter is a decent fallback spell, but its pretty mediocre outside of very weak mooks. It's small aoe and damage means it is the aoe of last resort, really. Realistically, while bards absolutely can contribute to damage, 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).

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. Other base classes technically fulfill more roles than a bard out of the box. Most notably: Moon druids, certain cleric domains, and draconic and divine sorcerers.

[Aett_Thorn]

Most of your arguments really boil down to the fact that a Bard isn't a great 1-4 man on the team. Which I don't think that many people will disagree with. But they're probably the greatest 5th man on the team, which is where they often get suggested. Sure, they don't do anything particularly well, but they don't do anything BADLY, either. They are missing key spells in several areas, but get a great amount of utility and control spells, and can choose which weakness to shore up if they want.

A lot of their versatility also comes from their out of combat abilities, where they really shine. They will have Expertise in several skills, at least half proficiency in everything, and plenty of out-of-combat utility spells that can help the party avoid combat in the first place (Counterspell is useless if you avoid the fight with the wizard in the first place).

If they were also great in combat, they'd be severely imbalanced.

[Specter]

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.

I don't think anyone thinks Bards are supposed to be this, unless they haven't actually played.

[Elminster298]

Most of your arguments really boil down to the fact that a Bard isn't a great 1-4 man on the team. Which I don't think that many people will disagree with. But they're probably the greatest 5th man on the team, which is where they often get suggested. Sure, they don't do anything particularly well, but they don't do anything BADLY, either. They are missing key spells in several areas, but get a great amount of utility and control spells, and can choose which weakness to shore up if they want.

A lot of their versatility also comes from their out of combat abilities, where they really shine. They will have Expertise in several skills, at least half proficiency in everything, and plenty of out-of-combat utility spells that can help the party avoid combat in the first place (Counterspell is useless if you avoid the fight with the wizard in the first place).

If they were also great in combat, they'd be severely imbalanced.

Exactly this. Plus the added fact that, even though the bard is not the best 1-4, it CAN be any of the 1-3(except tank) due to it's versatile nature and 5e design style. Your whole arguement is based off of a false equivalency that is NOT the general population's outlook on the class as a whole. It is almost as if you wrote the whole thing simply as a means to argue without having any idea what point of view you are actually trying to argue.

[BobZan]

Oh! They are certainly not overrated. The Lore Bard as 'high tier' is rated fine.

They have the most awesome style of versatility. Mixing a lot of features from other classes AND being full spellcaster.

You can be a very decent martial full spellcaster if you want as Valor or Swords.

You talk about spells others have that they doesn't. A Lore Bard by level 6 can pick any 3rd level or lower two spells in the game! Bless, Aid, Find Steed, Conjure Animals, Spiritual Weapon, Magic Circle, Counterspell, Haste, Fireball, Spirit Guardian, Aura of Vitality, etc. Plus your entire list of spells. A lot of cool combinations can be made.

Lore Bard has the best Counterspell from 6-9 and the 2nd best Counterspell overall.

They have Expertise. Inspiration/short rest by lv 5.

By lv 10 you have access to Ranger and Paladin full spell list and up to lv 5 spells from other spellcasters.

It's has a lot of juice.

[Garresh]

I'm not saying they're not as good as a specialized class. I'm saying they have too many holes to act as a 5th. A druid does it way better. A divine soul can fill any role except tank(like a bard), but has far greater utility via spell selection. It may not have expertise, but it has subtle spell which opens just as many doors with a little creativity. A light cleric covers everything but social and mobility. This means it has less holes in its roles. And with guidance it still contributes somewhat. Even the wizars actually can cover a surprising array of roles with a little finesse. A dwarven abjuration wizard with booming blade can actually make a decent off tank. It's spell selections while not coverings social by itself can augment and enhance the social abilities of the specialist(isn't that what a 5th man does?). When you open up dips it gets even stranger.

See, all the things the bard does well? Those are things easy to acquire or outclass via dips. Guidance is a cantrip that does what bardic inspiration does except way more often. Bless is a 1st level spell that wipes the floor with inspiration. Expertise can be acquired via a level 1 rogue dip or a feat now. Tanking and healing can be acquired via life cleric dip. Factoring in that other classes often cover most of the bard categories by themselves, most classes are 1 level dip away from surpassing the bard. But the things the bard does poorly? Those tend to require more multiclassing to compensate. The bard is actually a pretty terrible chassis for any sort of multiclassing, and requires just too much to make into any sort of generalist.

For example: A moon druid does not need particularly high physical attributes. A one level dip from moon druid into rogue along with a decent starting charisma creates a surprisingly good face. Wild shape adds a TON of out of combat social/stealth utility. Druids heal on par with bards. They're more mobile. They buff skill checks weaker, but have slightly better buffs otherwise. They also get better stealth via wild shapes, and have better means to gather information via speaking with plants and animals, or taking an unassuming form and doing reconnaissance. They get every good bard debuff save dissonant whispers. But they also get a lot of excellent wall and control spells like fog cloud, entangle, spike growth, and earthbind. They can wild shape to perform off tank and damage roles better than a bard. And their somewhat unnecessary stat gains free them up to grab feats which allow them to further supplement their out od combat utility. By every metric, a druid fulfills more roles than a bard, but without specializing in anything.

It's not that bards can't beat specialists. It's that there are actually better generalists. And given the incredible power of magical secrets and their bonuses to untyped rolls, they actually are the best specialists at counterspelling and shutting down casters. They also via a single level dip are the best healers in the game bar none. Bards can easily be best in class in several categories. But the categories they are weak in cannot be easily compensated without heavy multiclassing. Around level 14 they can fill *most* of their weaknesses, but not all. By that level a druid can cover pretty much any role, while being second best at all of them.

[Garresh]

Oh! They are certainly not overrated. The Lore Bard as 'high tier' is rated fine.

They have the most awesome style of versatility. Mixing a lot of features from other classes AND being full spellcaster.

You can be a very decent martial full spellcaster if you want as Valor or Swords.

You talk about spells others have that they doesn't. A Lore Bard by level 6 can pick any 3rd level or lower two spells in the game! Bless, Aid, Find Steed, Conjure Animals, Spiritual Weapon, Magic Circle, Counterspell, Haste, Fireball, Spirit Guardian, Aura of Vitality, etc. Plus your entire list of spells. A lot of cool combinations can be made.

Lore Bard has the best Counterspell from 6-9 and the 2nd best Counterspell overall.

They have Expertise. Inspiration/short rest by lv 5.

By lv 10 you have access to Ranger and Paladin full spell list and up to lv 5 spells from other spellcasters.

It's has a lot of juice.

The problem is magical secrets is an extremely limited resource. You know how everyone talks about how sorcerers are vad because of limited spell selection? In some ways it's worse for bard. Because I've laid out a ton of categories bards are not viable in. Not second best. They just straight up can't do them. They have to spend every magical secret plugging holes more or less. And even then the druid plays a better 5th wheel.

In my experience, there are tons of situations bards can't really help in. Mind you, they're still the best at shenanigans and getting parties both into and out of problems. I love roleplaying bards actually. But when I want to play a 5th wheel generalist, I find that druids especially, but also clerics and sorcerers are on par if not superior at being a jack of all trades but master none.

Edit: Oh. In the interest of fairness, there is one big hole that druids cannot fill. They have no illusions to speak of, while bards get a pretty decent chunk of Illusions to work with. Illusions can stretch pretty fricken far, so depending on DM bards can stretch a bit farther than I'm giving credit for. But it is pretty situational and heavily dependent on the DM since illusions are handled differently at every table.

[BobZan]

As a Lore Bard you can be party face, dungeon explorer, healer, buffer, debuffer, counter spellcasters and much more. All in one character! Doesn't need to make two or more builds to accomplish all that, and being pretty good on all that.

That said, if you can broaden like that in one single build. Imagine what would you accomplish if you pick only one or two roles to fill.


The problem is magical secrets is an extremely limited resource. You know how everyone talks about how sorcerers are vad because of limited spell selection? In some ways it's worse for bard. Because I've laid out a ton of categories bards are not viable in. Not second best. They just straight up can't do them. They have to spend every magical secret plugging holes more or less. And even then the druid plays a better 5th wheel.

In my experience, there are tons of situations bards can't really help in. Mind you, they're still the best at shenanigans and getting parties both into and out of problems. I love roleplaying bards actually. But when I want to play a 5th wheel generalist, I find that druids especially, but also clerics and sorcerers are on par if not superior at being a jack of all trades but master none.

In my experience they just rock everything out. And not as the 5th. But as a very solid choice for the first 4.

[Aett_Thorn]

I would say that they are MUCH better generalists than you give them credit for. You basically present cases where another class or a dip can cover one area that Bards are weak in, but then forget that those same classes are MUCH weaker in all other areas where a Bard still functions well.

Yes, the Moon Druid can be a good scout or tank with the right subclass. But can't be the party face, skill monkey, or as many control options as a Bard gets. Also, if the Druid is doing one of those things, they're not doing the other, because they have to choose which one they're going to focus on at any given time. Bards have more versatility in function because they can do a great many things all the time. Bards also get access to some of the same Druid spells that you highlight for utility, including Speak with Animals and Speak with Plants. So not sure what you're on about there.

A Life Cleric dip does get you some good options, and so does a Warlock dip, or a Fighter dip, or a Rogue dip. That doesn't mean that the Bard class is weak, it just means that it's versatile and can do a great many things, and can do them even better with a small dip.

Also, if other classes need to take a dip to do things that a Bard can inherently do, I would say that then you're relying on Multiclassing to solve what a single class can already do, which isn't a good argument.

Are Bards going to be the best any anything? No. But they're good at just about everything, depending on subclass. And that is why they shine as a 5th man.

[Garresh]

As a Lore Bard you can be party face, dungeon explorer, healer, buffer, debuffer, counter spellcasters and much more. All in one character! Doesn't need to make two or more builds to accomplish all that, and being pretty good on all that.

That said, if you can broaden like that in one single build. Imagine what would you accomplish if you pick only one or two roles to fill.

Indeed. They remain above average at being a generalist. I would place them in tier 2. But my point is if you want to have a little bit of everything, the bard actually isn't the class you want. If you want to spread thin across pretty much every role like a delicious cream cheese spread, the druid or a sorcerer with subtle spell and a little dipping covers way more surface area. A bard is like a delicious jelly with chunks of fruit in there. It tastes great, but it globs together and falls off your bagel if you spread it too thin. Druids are like cream cheese. You can spread em thin to cover every square inch of bagel, but you lose out on those delicious chunks of fruit and its not as sweet.

[JellyPooga]

- On the Bard spell list.
It's an illusion/enchantment list with healing thrown in. It's not great for buffs, blasting or mobility. That's intentional, but the gaps can be filled, to an extent, by Magical Secrets.

- On Bards as the 5th man.
I disagree that they're not really a 1-4 man. An out-the-box "typical" Bard does an excellent job of replacing the Cleric in the Fighter-Rogue-Cleric-Wizard archetypal party, except where the Cleric supports the Fighter on the front lines, the Bard gives skill support to the Rogue and arcane support to the Wizard. The Bard is also very capable of replacing the Rogue as the skills-guy, again losing combat potential in exchange for healing and arcana. The only role the Bard in deficient as a replacement for any of the 1-4 is the Fighter; which brings me to...

- On Bard as "a martial with magic".
No, they're not. They can be built to be passable as a "martial", perhaps even excellent with some dips and careful selection of feats, but out-of-the-box Bards are pretty bad at bringing the pain with a sharp stick and don't belong on the front line. They're a support character, through and through. This is evidenced most obviously by Bardic Inspiration and its derivatives, but also by the nature of their spell list; it's full of spells that either distract or assist, inflict status effects, or evade encounters altogether. Bards are not "a little bit of everything"; they're the Healer/Support with a side order of Skills, typically filling the same role the Cleric or Druid would in the party, as previously mentioned.

- In summary;
Bards are pretty bad at being Fighters. They're sturdier than a Wizard, flimsier than a Cleric and rubbish at DPR. Aside from that, think of them as a support spellslinger that doesn't like getting too close, but is also a superlative party face, because that's what they are.

[Aett_Thorn]

Indeed. They remain above average at being a generalist. I would place them in tier 2. But my point is if you want to have a little bit of everything, the bard actually isn't the class you want. If you want to spread thin across pretty much every role like a delicious cream cheese spread, the druid or a sorcerer with subtle spell and a little dipping covers way more surface area. A bard is like a delicious jelly with chunks of fruit in there. It tastes great, but it globs together and falls off your bagel if you spread it too thin. Druids are like cream cheese. You can spread em thin to cover every square inch of bagel, but you lose out on those delicious chunks of fruit and its not as sweet.

I have never, ever met a Druid that could 5th man like a Bard can. They also need to spread themselves thin if they want to try. They don't get the right skills, they need to be extremely MAD if they want to be the party face, and lack in great ways to avoid conflicts. Definitely, they are a good 5th man, but I would say that a Bard is way better.

Remember that a Moon Druid can't cast spells in Wild Form until very late. So if they are being the Tank, they can't heal. If they're being the Tank, they can't be a Blaster. If they're using Wild Shape to do some scouting, they'll need to rest or be short of wild shapes in combat. They have more limitations than you're willing to account for, it seems.

I love Druids. I really do. But I also love Bards. And Bards tend to be much better generalists than Druids.

[Garresh]

[QUOTE=Aett_Thorn;22688634

Also, if other classes need to take a dip to do things that a Bard can inherently do, I would say that then you're relying on Multiclassing to solve what a single class can already do, which isn't a good argument.[/QUOTE]

But they can't do it single class. That's my whole point. They have gaping holes in their kit and do a worse job of multiclassing than a sorcerer who has metamagic or a druid who has freed up attributes to spend without going MAD. A lore bard will never function as a melee bruiser. Not particularly well. It needs several levels set aside to multiclass to fill that hole. Wizard can do it in 1,or even without a single level via bladesinger for instance. Sorcs don't even need a multiclass if they pump dex, but they certainly do it better.

If no class covers all roles, then the class that covers the most roles makes the beat generalist, because they have to take fewer steps out of the way to cover those bases. Bards have too many holes in their base kit. How is a bard going to cover mobility without at least 2 levels set aside? Or will you blow magical secrets on mobility spells? Then you're still squishy and have no damage. Or you go valor but then you lose a good chunk of magival secrets.

I like dips and multiclassing, and I like playing 5th wheels. Every time I try to build a bard generalist, it's outclassed by other builds. Have you ever played a dex sorcadin? That hybrid can do damn near anything. Stealth, social, utility, heals, walls, recon, tank, damage, the works. And that's 2 levels in paladin then 18 levels in full caster. I mean what can't that build do? And can a bard fill that many roles with a 2 level dip? Not really. Because while paladins fulfill damage, tank, and heals, they don't cover blasting, or mobility, or the types of utility bards lack. Basically bards strengths gather around areas that are not easy to compensate across all facets. Most of the other classes I mention can compensate *all* weaknesses in a level or 2 of dip.

[Garresh]

- On the Bard spell list.
It's an illusion/enchantment list with healing thrown in. It's not great for buffs, blasting or mobility. That's intentional, but the gaps can be filled, to an extent, by Magical Secrets.

- On Bards as the 5th man.
I disagree that they're not really a 1-4 man. An out-the-box "typical" Bard does an excellent job of replacing the Cleric in the Fighter-Rogue-Cleric-Wizard archetypal party, except where the Cleric supports the Fighter on the front lines, the Bard gives skill support to the Rogue and arcane support to the Wizard. The Bard is also very capable of replacing the Rogue as the skills-guy, again losing combat potential in exchange for healing and arcana. The only role the Bard in deficient as a replacement for any of the 1-4 is the Fighter; which brings me to...

- On Bard as "a martial with magic".
No, they're not. They can be built to be passable as a "martial", perhaps even excellent with some dips and careful selection of feats, but out-of-the-box Bards are pretty bad at bringing the pain with a sharp stick and don't belong on the front line. They're a support character, through and through. This is evidenced most obviously by Bardic Inspiration and its derivatives, but also by the nature of their spell list; it's full of spells that either distract or assist, inflict status effects, or evade encounters altogether. Bards are not "a little bit of everything"; they're the Healer/Support with a side order of Skills, typically filling the same role the Cleric or Druid would in the party, as previously mentioned.

- In summary;
Bards are pretty bad at being Fighters. They're sturdier than a Wizard, flimsier than a Cleric and rubbish at DPR. Aside from that, think of them as a support spellslinger that doesn't like getting too close, but is also a superlative party face, because that's what they are.

Basically. I agree. My point is that if you want w generalist who fills holes, a druid, sorcadin, or something cleric-y does it better. Bards are WAY flashier though and that does count for a lot. More fun to roleplay too. But they're not generalists. They're fairly specialized as a support with a lot of strength in most of the key categories.

[BobZan]

You are comparing MC characaters vs Single class. That's unfair.

Bards can multiclass aswell for more specialized stuff, and they will be beasts.

Bards with 1 cleric dip is a better support then a full cleric.

With 1 level of Rogue, oh boy! Heck of a skill monkey with dungeon prowess while being waaaay more versatile then the Rogue.

You can even go Tank/Nova if you want, while doing other stuff pretty well, with a couple paladin levels AND getting key paladin spells earlier!

A lot of options!

Well, if you toss MC to fill gaps, Bard will still shine or even outshine.

--

Divine Soul sorcerers are great, I love them, but your spell slots won't let you be "that" versatile.

[Garresh]

Wait, how does a druid need to be MAD? They're a single attribute caster. Their wild shapes shift their physical attributes. Hell they get a spell that just sets their AC to a flat decently high number so you could make an argument for dumping dex. The only stat a moon druid needs is Wisdom. You'd be foolish to ignore constitution, but you can if you're ballsy.

A half elf bard can start with 17 cha, 16 wis, 14 con, and 12 dex. You can shift it around a bit to flavor, but if a druid goes into melee he can still dump all 3 physical stats without losing anything. Moon Druids are the most SAD class in the game. They literally do not give a damn about anything but wisdom. So they can just throw attributes at whatever they want without losing out on much. Sure, they won't be as good at social as a bard, but bard is SPECIALIZED at being social. And the druid is a generalist. It's passable. It gets the job done. But it's not flashy.

[Elminster298]

But they can't do it single class. That's my whole point. They have gaping holes in their kit and do a worse job of multiclassing than a sorcerer who has metamagic or a druid who has freed up attributes to spend without going MAD. A lore bard will never function as a melee bruiser. Not particularly well. It needs several levels set aside to multiclass to fill that hole. Wizard can do it in 1,or even without a single level via bladesinger for instance. Sorcs don't even need a multiclass if they pump dex, but they certainly do it better.

If no class covers all roles, then the class that covers the most roles makes the beat generalist, because they have to take fewer steps out of the way to cover those bases. Bards have too many holes in their base kit. How is a bard going to cover mobility without at least 2 levels set aside? Or will you blow magical secrets on mobility spells? Then you're still squishy and have no damage. Or you go valor but then you lose a good chunk of magival secrets.

I like dips and multiclassing, and I like playing 5th wheels. Every time I try to build a bard generalist, it's outclassed by other builds. Have you ever played a dex sorcadin? That hybrid can do damn near anything. Stealth, social, utility, heals, walls, recon, tank, damage, the works. And that's 2 levels in paladin then 18 levels in full caster. I mean what can't that build do? And can a bard fill that many roles with a 2 level dip? Not really. Because while paladins fulfill damage, tank, and heals, they don't cover blasting, or mobility, or the types of utility bards lack. Basically bards strengths gather around areas that are not easy to compensate across all facets. Most of the other classes I mention can compensate *all* weaknesses in a level or 2 of dip.

Stop adding dips and multiclass when you are comparing to classes. You have to compare just single class against single class to argue if one is better than the other. Otherwise you are in a whole different argument. Druids are great 5th man but bards are just better. Action economy is key in 5th ed and bards do that better than druids. Divine sorcs are great 5th man also and have better action economy than druids but have to focus nearly everything they have to become great support. Which they can do, just at the cost of their versatility.

[Garresh]

You are comparing MC characaters vs Single class. That's unfair.

Bards can multiclass aswell for more specialized stuff, and they will be beasts.

Bards with 1 cleric dip is a better support then a full cleric.

With 1 level of Rogue, oh boy! Heck of a skill monkey with dungeon prowess while being waaaay more versatile then the Rogue.

You can even go Tank/Nova if you want, while doing other stuff pretty well, with a couple paladin levels AND getting key paladin spells earlier!

A lot of options!

Well, if you toss MC to fill gaps, Bard will still shine or even outshine.

--

Divine Soul sorcerers are great, I love them, but your spell slots won't let you be "that" versatile.

I'm definitely not. I'm saying a multiclassed bard is less versatile than a multiclassed druid or sorcerer. Remember, the goal is a jack of all trades. You are correctly pointing out a bard with a single dip outclasses specialists. But that's not a jack of all trades. It's a specialist. Which is kind of the opposite of versatile, isn't it? If you want a true jack of all trades, a bard can't hack it unless it dips a lot.

Dip rogue? Best social and skill monkey. Good mobility. No damage. Minimal durability/tank. Still doesn't cover the holes in walling, buffing, and pure utility spells like remove curse and the like.

Dip cleric? Best healer. Not mobile in the slightest. Still awful damage. Can tank now, but has no walling and doesn't have the utility thar cleric wizard and sorc gets around 3rd level spells. Of course magical secrets comes in, but its not enough til level 11 minimum. That's farther than most campaigns reach.

Every bard dip doesn't compensate weaknesses. It amplifies strengths. Massively. Every bard build is a specialist, not a generalist. Every druid build is a generalist. Sorcerers easily fill any role while being inferior as casters to clerics or wizards, and inferior in social to bards. And inferior in tank to martials.

Bards are versatile in the sense that they can specialize in anything. But that generally locks them into that one build. They can't up and decide today they're going to be a tank, or a blaster, or a waller. It has to be decided in build via magical secrets. And then it's locked in.

A druid can throw darts at a board covered in roles, and no matter what it hits its like "Yeah I'm okay at that. Not great. But I can make it work."

[the_brazenburn]

Actually, I was planning on rolling up a (4th level) bard for a campaign I'm about to start.

The rest of the party is Bearbarian, Nature Cleric, and Evocation Wizard.

I was planning on being the face and covering stealthy roles, since we don't have a rogue, but now I'm not sure.

Does this sound like a decent party?

[Aett_Thorn]

Actually, I was planning on rolling up a (4th level) bard for a campaign I'm about to start.

The rest of the party is Bearbarian, Nature Cleric, and Evocation Wizard.

I was planning on being the face and covering stealthy roles, since we don't have a rogue, but now I'm not sure.

Does this sound like a decent party?

The Bard is probably a better choice here. The Totem Barbarian and Nature Cleric will cover the Druid stuff well enough, and you need a face.

[Garresh]

Stop adding dips and multiclass when you are comparing to classes. You have to compare just single class against single class to argue if one is better than the other. Otherwise you are in a whole different argument. Druids are great 5th man but bards are just better. Action economy is key in 5th ed and bards do that better than druids. Divine sorcs are great 5th man also and have better action economy than druids but have to focus nearly everything they have to become great support. Which they can do, just at the cost of their versatility.

Why is multiclassing off the board? It's in the rules. And when discussing balance it comes up all the time. Look at warlocks. You can't talk about they without discussing multiclassing, because they're generally agreed as the best 2 level dip for any charisma based class. They're frontloaded. They make good attachments to other classes. Sorcerers due to metamagic are the absolute BEST class for multiclassing into casters. Because they use other classes spells BETTER than the respective class. Alone that doesn't compensate lack of expertise. But it bridges the gap enough to make them a good generalist.

Classes do not exist in a vacuum. And every guide for a class discusses dips for a reason. Every single one.

Bards who dip become stronger in a single category. Sorcerers, clerics, and druids who dip become more versatile and cover more categories. It's an interesting quirk of the way classes are set up that most dips exponentially jack bards up to OP levels at whatever they feel like being the best at. Other classes can cover almost all their weaknesses in 2 levels. If dips weren't important why does every optimization guide discuss them? Why do builds always discuss multiclass?

Barda are very different as a chassis from druids and sorcerers. They hyperamplify when they dip. Other classes hyperdiversify.

[Garresh]

Actually, I was planning on rolling up a (4th level) bard for a campaign I'm about to start.

The rest of the party is Bearbarian, Nature Cleric, and Evocation Wizard.

I was planning on being the face and covering stealthy roles, since we don't have a rogue, but now I'm not sure.

Does this sound like a decent party?

All my ragging on bards aside, you absolutely should play one. Don't mistake my attacking them as a generalist. If you want to be a stealthy face bards are the premier class for that. Plus they get a lot of good support magic. You might even say they specialize in it. Discussions like these are somewhat pedantic. When you have a good character concept or feel like playing it, optimization has no place. Just do what feels good. One of the most fun characters I've played was a dex based goblin barbarian. And I really think it's impossible NOT to have fun playing a bard.

My argument is not an attack on the class from a fun or design perspective. It's an attack on its reputation as a jack of all trades. Go play a bard and have fun man. They're a really fun class and you'll enjoy them.

[Aett_Thorn]

Wait, how does a druid need to be MAD? They're a single attribute caster. Their wild shapes shift their physical attributes. Hell they get a spell that just sets their AC to a flat decently high number so you could make an argument for dumping dex. The only stat a moon druid needs is Wisdom. You'd be foolish to ignore constitution, but you can if you're ballsy.

A half elf bard can start with 17 cha, 16 wis, 14 con, and 12 dex. You can shift it around a bit to flavor, but if a druid goes into melee he can still dump all 3 physical stats without losing anything. Moon Druids are the most SAD class in the game. They literally do not give a damn about anything but wisdom. So they can just throw attributes at whatever they want without losing out on much. Sure, they won't be as good at social as a bard, but bard is SPECIALIZED at being social. And the druid is a generalist. It's passable. It gets the job done. But it's not flashy.

Yes, Moon Druids CAN dump all physical stats, but if the DM isn't throwing non-combat stuff at you that makes you question your poor choices in dumping Str, Dex, and Con, then they're not doing things right. You're not going to be Wildshaped all the time, and dumping Dex means that you're likely going late in combat, meaning that monsters are going to get their turns before you, and if you get hit with low Con and low AC, you're likely taking some heavy damage. As such, Druids still want a decent Con and Dex value, and shouldn't dump them completely even if they can.

Also, that Bard is good at being Social, but does not need to be specialized in it. They can just as easily specialize in knowledge skills, stealth, trapfinding, or numerous other areas, and can STILL be good at social stuff. Sure, they choose a few areas to specialize in, but they literally have the entire skill section to choose from.

[Garresh]

Yes, Moon Druids CAN dump all physical stats, but if the DM isn't throwing non-combat stuff at you that makes you question your poor choices in dumping Str, Dex, and Con, then they're not doing things right. You're not going to be Wildshaped all the time, and dumping Dex means that you're likely going late in combat, meaning that monsters are going to get their turns before you, and if you get hit with low Con and low AC, you're likely taking some heavy damage. As such, Druids still want a decent Con and Dex value, and shouldn't dump them completely even if they can.

Also, that Bard is good at being Social, but does not need to be specialized in it. They can just as easily specialize in knowledge skills, stealth, trapfinding, or numerous other areas, and can STILL be good at social stuff. Sure, they choose a few areas to specialize in, but they literally have the entire skill section to choose from.

I agree. They can do anything. But they can't do everything. And 14 con is hardly dumping it on a class with a d8 hit die and medium* armor proficiency and shields.

*I'm making a note here because their medium armor proficiency is misleading. The restrictions on metals means its really just light armor proficiency in practice. But with a shield, light armor, and 12 dex it's comparable to a dracon sorc natural armor or a wizard's mage armor. But its more durable due to its larger hit die. Admittedly you're not going to be tanking blows or anything before wild shaping. But unless your DM is meta gaming the **** out of it and trying to drop you in the first round every fight you should have the reasonable assumption of getting a chance to wild shape. The situations where "dumping" con to 14 would screw you would screw ANY class. Except maybe a barbarian because hulk smash.

Oh, and one more point of interest. You can maintain concentration while wild shaped. Most of the best druid spells in my experience are concentration spells you drop and keep going while wild shaped. Now that is a bit... iffy. Because if you're tanking you're making concentration checks like crazy. So it's not entirely honest to say they overlap imho. But if you're dropping control spells you're typically also mitigating incoming damage. Common examples of combos are dropping fog cloud to disable enemy archers then running around as a Hyena(they're faster than other forms) and picking off/tying up people who come out for your party. Another good option is Warding Wind. Really a lot of druid concentration spells also happen to protect somewhat against making concentration checks. Also, concentration checks use current stats. So a druid in animal form uses its constituion over its own. So that's hella useful. Druids can be REALLY good at concentration. It's pretty silly tbh.

[Butler2102]

Lore Bard has the best Counterspell from 6-9 and the 2nd best Counterspell overall.


And then they're the best again at 14, even better than Abjuration Wizard, because they can apply a Bardic Inspiration die to their own check.

[Chaosticket]

I see confusion and backtracking. Everyone here seems to agree that Bards are not the "Master of All" broken class some think they are. They are versatile and customizable without requiring multiclassing.

From the core builds you dont need Strength to be good in melee so its easy to have Dexterity for melee or ranged combat. a Valor college Bard works with this to add proficiencies and Extra Attack so now you are more competent. That doesnt means youre going to out-fight a Fighter. Your other abilities, especially spells like Hold Monster are still your strength.

Its a generally agreed that the Lore college Bard is better as it focuses on enhancing SKills and magic more. a Lore Bard is the best skill character in the game.

Its not the power its the versatility. If anything the Bards worst area is still direct combat. By default you dont gain Fire Bolt/Eldritch Blast and the abilities to keep them scaling high enough to stay useful. Because of Magical Secrets you can of course acquire those spells but they will fade in usefulness. Good thing the Bard can forget old spells.

[Specter]

No druid can ever have a low Constitution.

First of all, concentrationchecks. That requires no further explanation.

Second, HP. Even if you do take the HP of a bear, once it breaks (and it will, especially after 5th level), you're dealing with that with your own pool.

As for the 'face potential' goes, you could start with 14CHA and some skill proficiencies, but the same could be said about any class. And they'd all still be in the Bard's rearview mirror.

[Rerem115]

My experience is that Bards are the Schrödinger's Class of 5e. They exist in a world of potential, and a given Bard can be a tank, a blaster, a controller, a support, a face, a skillmonkey, or even a dps. However, once they pick something, they're pretty much locked into that; their versatility is unmatched, but they can only use so much of it at throughout a given campaign. This makes Bards really good for theorycrafting; they ooze the mentality "ooh, I can take this this this and this so I can do this convoluted crazy build", but the thing is, you're doing that particular crazy build at the expense of all the other crazy builds that have completely different strengths and weaknesses.

[Sariel Vailo]

I recently played a bard for the first time ever and i gotta say spell selection turned me off i only went full class once. But in truth i may want to be a 20th level bard. I usually mc alot.its magical secrets that make it worthwhile also magic initiate.

[mephnick]

Bards are pretty good, but they're nothing crazy.

I still think it was a bad design decision to make them full casters. I'm not really sure what feel the designers were going for, but they've never felt like Bards to me.

They should have actually created a unique spot for the class, like oh I don't know, an arcane half caster instead of being lazy and just giving them full caster progression and going out for drinks.

[TheUser]

The Valor Bard stands out as rather exceptional imho. It has medium armor, shields extra attack and full caster progression along with double proficiencies. While they don't exactly have Magical Secrets until later in the game they are able to make much better use of the spells with Extra Attack and Higher AC (swift quiver much?) and getting hit less allows them to maintain concentration more easily.

Other bards are pretty meh but Valor Bards are bonkers strong.

[mephnick]

Other bards are pretty meh but Valor Bards are bonkers strong.

If you're a ranged character you're pretty good. To have the stats required to fulfill your skill monkey role, full caster and survive in melee is extremely MAD.

I think that's the point of the post, whether I agree or not. People look at the Bard and think "I CAN DO EVERYTHING!", but unless you roll stats and roll extremely well, you're going to have to sacrifice certain roles to maintain others. A melee valor bard with low CON is going to die. A melee valor bard with high Con won't be as good a caster or skill monkey. Etc

[Chaosticket]

My experience is that Bards are the Schrödinger's Class of 5e. They exist in a world of potential, and a given Bard can be a tank, a blaster, a controller, a support, a face, a skillmonkey, or even a dps. However, once they pick something, they're pretty much locked into that; their versatility is unmatched, but they can only use so much of it at throughout a given campaign. This makes Bards really good for theorycrafting; they ooze the mentality "ooh, I can take this this this and this so I can do this convoluted crazy build", but the thing is, you're doing that particular crazy build at the expense of all the other crazy builds that have completely different strengths and weaknesses.

Thats a problem with Feats and its not solved by the new subclass system. Feats are pretty much required and you need a class tailored towards warrior/caster builds. Because of Casters not starting with 18-20 in casting stats like 3.5 that means 2 Feat upgrades are devoted to pumping up the casting stat to get a tier 9 spell bard. So you have 3(4 if youre human) feats. Those cant go to everything so what are you picking? War Caster and likely Resilience so you dont get the spells smacked out of you.

So a Bard that actually wants to use its spells is going to be pretty dedicated. Its just one reason why a Lore Bard is more appealing than a Valor Bard.

In Theory a Bard can end up as an excellent Warrior/Caster. That is by itself not likely as you would have to pick Valor or another more martial college weakening your magic side . Its not impossible to make a good Valor Bard but certainly harder. Do you actually want those higher tier spells and the bonuses from having a higher Charisma to spells and skills?

Its too easy to make either a sub-optimal character by splitting upgrades between the Warrior and Caster builds.

[dejarnjc]

No druid can ever have a low Constitution.

First of all, concentrationchecks. That requires no further explanation.

Second, HP. Even if you do take the HP of a bear, once it breaks (and it will, especially after 5th level), you're dealing with that with your own pool.

As for the 'face potential' goes, you could start with 14CHA and some skill proficiencies, but the same could be said about any class. And they'd all still be in the Bard's rearview mirror.

Utilizing standard array or point buy, a druid can easily have a 13 or 14 CON. The 13 is slightly better IMO because then you can pick up Resilient(CON) at 8th level (about the time that wildshape has really started to fall off in effectiveness).


In regards to 'face potential'... well no class really matches the bard except maybe a rogue or multi-class rogue. Druids are better than most though w/ their spell list which includes Enhance Ability and Charm Person.


Which all kind of speaks to the point. A Bard makes a good specialist, albeit a flexible one as you can build them in any of several directions. Druids and clerics (and specifically built sorcerers) are better generalists.

[BobZan]

Party face, skillmonkey, heals, buffs, debuffs, dungeon explorer and counterspell . All in one, seems pretty generalist to me.

[Aett_Thorn]

If you're a ranged character you're pretty good. To have the stats required to fulfill your skill monkey role, full caster and survive in melee is extremely MAD.

I think that's the point of the post, whether I agree or not. People look at the Bard and think "I CAN DO EVERYTHING!", but unless you roll stats and roll extremely well, you're going to have to sacrifice certain roles to maintain others. A melee valor bard with low CON is going to die. A melee valor bard with high Con won't be as good a caster or skill monkey. Etc

But that's true of every class. I just think that it's easier to overcome with a Bard than on other classes trying to do the same thing. I mean, look at the OPs fascination with Moon Druids. They basically have to dump all of their physical stats to compete on the social side with a Bard, and need to choose between using Wildshape for combat or exploration. Moon Druids, while wildshaped, also can't support the party well, so they need to make that choice as well: Tank or Support.

Bards do a better job, IMO, of being able to do a whole heck of a lot, without needing to make these sacrifices. They can be good at everything, and in exchange, they're not great at anything.

[mephnick]

But that's true of every class. I just think that it's easier to overcome with a Bard than on other classes trying to do the same thing.

Oh I agree.

Also, don't get me started on the internet's fascination with Moon Druids.

[Sception]

I find myself kind of agreeing with OP. Bard's are a perfectly good class, but their spell list is a bit lacking to justify the reputation they have for 'do anything' versatility.

[Tanarii]

Better tl;dr
The cost of a jack-of-all-trades spell list is you're the master of none.

[BobZan]

I think OP overrates Moon Druids.

[dejarnjc]

I think OP overrates Moon Druids.

I think it's mostly the druid spell list to be fair. The moon druid aspect only really allows extra tankiness which bards don't really have access to.

[Chaosticket]

The Wizard is the Ruler of Arcane magic.

The Bards lacking spell list is supposed to be countered by Magical Secrets allowing you to "cherry pick" from other lists like taking Wish and Simulacrum from the Wizard list.

Edit: I dont know if the Bard is actually unique. Its an amalgamation of others classes. Its always nice to have martial, magic, and skills. In earlier editions a Bard was just too weak to Fight well and far below a Wizard as a caster. In 5th its more like a blank slate to shift roles, but mostly use spells and skills. Only the Rogue has comparable skills in 5th.

[lunaticfringe]

Yes I think they are a bit overrated by the Giantitp Forums & General 5e Internet Community. I've had a few players that were disappointed by how they played. That doesn't mean they aren't good, they just will not make you an all powerful Snowflake who always Stands in the Spotlight.

Different classes suit different people. The point of the game is to have fun and enjoy yourself. I'm not a bard guy. I wish I was they have some neat tricks but meh always sets in eventually.

[BobZan]

Until 18th level, the Druid can't both Tank and Cast spells reliably, so you won't be doing both at the same time. Nor can you assume the role or label of party Tank. You can help there, but party will lack the rest of your abilities.

I think it's an excellent class feature, but not as part of the 'generalist' PoV.

[Nidgit]

Bard: you're good at skills, social, and illusions. You're also pretty good at buffs. With MS/subclasses, pick 2 more things to be decent at.

Bards are a support class. They're there to help the rest of the party and shore up whatever's weakest, not to cover everything at once.

[Finger6842]

I agree with the OP that Bards are often overrated. I also believe they are often undervalued due to poor combat potential. Let's face it, many tables focus on combat.

Bards are squishy and will never tank as well as a true tank due to a low HP pool, low AC and no real mitigation skills. Though standing in as a tank for a few rounds is quite easy with a dip or a feat, short of that avoid melee.

They have poor damage potential out of the box and will need a Feat to blast like a Lock. Stabby and range skills are sub-par at best. Though IMO bow skills are nice they don't compete with the blasting potential of a good Sorc, Lock or Wiz.

They don't control the battlefield as well as battlemasters but they can control it well while increasing the potential of everyone around them.

They won't be sneaky like a rogue or disarming traps like a boss but can perform the function quite well in a pinch, better with a little planning.

Selecting the proper race and background for your intended role can really help. For example, the Criminal background is one of several that will really help you fill the Rogue role.

But these are all direct combat comparisons. You will need a dip or a feat to perform well DPR wise. If what you love is damage potential the Bard is way more able than you think but choose something else. While not useless in combat others are far more useful. It's outside of combat, in every other aspect of the game, where the Bard really is irreplaceable out of the box.

Make a skill check of any kind, there's none better. I see a lot of tables where skill checks are infrequent outside combat.
Need a spell that covers a situation, no one has a more comprehensive list short of Wizard and with MS you can cover some key holes.
MS is not a magic bullet that makes the Bard amazing. It is however great for allowing you to fill a role missing from your party or supplement a weak one. This being a team game, Bards make the most versatile teammates. Taking a DIP or picking up a Feat can really change the flavor of the Bard more than I see in other classes where feats are used almost exclusively make them better at what they already do. The only exception to that that I see pretty regularly is any martial that takes spell sniper (which is also amazing for Bards).

Lore Bard is my favorite class, versatile and useful in any role you choose, but not a generalist.

[Beelzebubba]

Druids are great 5th man but bards are just better. Action economy is key in 5th ed and bards do that better than druids. Divine sorcs are great 5th man also and have better action economy than druids but have to focus nearly everything they have to become great support. Which they can do, just at the cost of their versatility.

When you're talking Druid action economy, are you specifically talking Moon, or also Land?

Because I'm running Circle of the Mountain right now and from what I see, the Lore Bard and I are basically equal. His spellcasting is more narrow and less flexible, but when he does have the right spell (like Counterspell) it's a bit more decisive.

Action economy works out a bit in my favor, since I tend to hold one concentration spell that does (stuff) while also plinking away with cantrips / Ice Knife / Longbow or doing non-combat support like opening a door ahead of the party. Having higher AC and being a bit more tank-ey (higher CON for concentration) means I can take more risks.

So, I tend to be doing a couple things at once, where the Bard is one thing at a time. Maybe that's just our group, and maybe for another thread...?

[Socratov]

You know, if you are going to judge a bard at being a wizard, fighter and druid you're gonna have a bad time. As in, really bad.

What the bard actually is not just pretty decent at, but with Lore Bard better then the rogue: being the skillmonkey. Add to that full casting and yo've got a winner.

First, let's discard magical secrets(6) here, as it makes a bard a winner in any kind of role as they can just pick the best one out there and be done with it.

In the wilderness a bard is not very adept. Which is fine. That's what you have druids and rangers for. he is not even the best in dungeon crawls full of combat. What he excels in, however, is every city encounter(1), every puzzle encounter(2), anything involving the application of skills (3) and did I mention party support, both offensive(4) and defensive/medical (5)?


through application of the complete bardic spell list any social encounter becomes moot. Really. Even if Suggestion, and a couple of illusions are all you really need.
see point 3 for why, but you will have the skills to suddenly recall that obscure bit of lore that helps the party along.
let's say you pick the urchin background, half-elf race and lore bard, that gives you 2+6+3 skills, thieves tools, 3 instruments (to make money and get cheap lodging). If that does not enable you to always be relevant you are not trying my friend. Also, htere is this feature called bardic inspiration, you should look it up sometime
Fearie Fire stokes your party fires, some targeted debuffs can really help out versus other enemies and even your offensive cantrip makes sure that, if it sticks, an enemy might as well just not attack. And that is not the end of the litany of offensive support. And lorebard has cutting words which is simply put AMAZING! in play. Really, all it took was an evil oneshot and my bard betraying the party to never -ever (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA4iX5D9Z64), trust me playing evil with bards again. bards can not just hinder the enemies, but completely screw over a complete group of enemies. Bard at that table never got underestimated again. Ever.
You get access to healing spells. You get the Song of Rest. Lorebards get cutting words, Valor bards get add bardic dice to AC, illusions to manage terrain, bardic inspiration dice in general, you name it.
Pick counterspell if you have no abjuration specialist wizard, and something nice that complements your party. If you can't make your party love you using magical secrets, you really, really aren't trying.


Bards are not additive to any party, indeed like you stated, but instead they are multiplicative.

Having said that, a bard is nothing, without a party to back him up. Defence is bad, half his features are better for others then form himself and direct damage is not really his corner. As a solo character he is indeed overrated, as a party member, he is invaluable.

[SharkForce]

if you're trying to say that any given individual bard cannot do everything, well, that's true.

if you're trying to say that you can't build a bard to be really amazing at almost any given thing (they're not likely to ever become truly excellent tanks), i disagree.

a bard, once built, will no longer be able to do everything. but a well-built bard can be among the best, if not the actual best, at almost anything. and that's fine. i don't need a 5th (or for that matter, a second, third, or fourth) character to be able to do everything brilliantly. i'm perfectly happy with a 2nd, 3rd, etc character that can look at the party, figure out what we need most, and do that plus a bunch of other things reasonably well.

the bard can fit well into any party, figure out what roles it needs to excel at, and then probably excel at them. unless your group is changing every week, that is more than enough to make them an extremely strong class that belongs at the top of tier lists (with the understanding that the top of the tier list isn't really *that* far from the bottom, certainly nothing like 3.x was).

[Garresh]

if you're trying to say that any given individual bard cannot do everything, well, that's true.

if you're trying to say that you can't build a bard to be really amazing at almost any given thing (they're not likely to ever become truly excellent tanks), i disagree.

a bard, once built, will no longer be able to do everything. but a well-built bard can be among the best, if not the actual best, at almost anything. and that's fine. i don't need a 5th (or for that matter, a second, third, or fourth) character to be able to do everything brilliantly. i'm perfectly happy with a 2nd, 3rd, etc character that can look at the party, figure out what we need most, and do that plus a bunch of other things reasonably well.

the bard can fit well into any party, figure out what roles it needs to excel at, and then probably excel at them. unless your group is changing every week, that is more than enough to make them an extremely strong class that belongs at the top of tier lists (with the understanding that the top of the tier list isn't really *that* far from the bottom, certainly nothing like 3.x was).

That's exactly what I'm saying. A bard can so anything, but not everything. I have a couple AL characters. My druid can jump into any party and become whatever isn't available. I've never seen a bard do it better. My sorc(not AL) also was best at doing a little of everything with one build.

[Elminster298]

When you're talking Druid action economy, are you specifically talking Moon, or also Land?

Because I'm running Circle of the Mountain right now and from what I see, the Lore Bard and I are basically equal. His spellcasting is more narrow and less flexible, but when he does have the right spell (like Counterspell) it's a bit more decisive.

Action economy works out a bit in my favor, since I tend to hold one concentration spell that does (stuff) while also plinking away with cantrips / Ice Knife / Longbow or doing non-combat support like opening a door ahead of the party. Having higher AC and being a bit more tank-ey (higher CON for concentration) means I can take more risks.

So, I tend to be doing a couple things at once, where the Bard is one thing at a time. Maybe that's just our group, and maybe for another thread...?

I am unfamiliar with Circle of the Mountain but I definitely am not saying druids are bad at all. I am only saying as far as this whole debacle of a post goes attack/spell for an action, inspiration for a bonus action, and cutting words/counterspell for a reaction is a pretty versatile use of all possible actions during a turn.

[polymphus]

Yeah I mean, that's fairly accurate. Bards are a powerful buffer and utility guy, but they're well-designed with certain weaknesses that keep them in line with the other classes. It's 5e -- no class is crazy OP.

The big weakness I've found is the inability to cause damage. Your only damage cantrip is 1d4 and you're extremely limited in terms of evocation spells. Magical Secrets is cool but comes in very late and is still limited in number of spells.

The other issue I've encountered is that the bard spell list is super concentration-heavy, especially in the lower-level slots. Dissonant Whispers is basically your only low-slot non-concentration spell that's useful in a fight -- generally, I'll find myself casting one concentration spell, then darting in and out with a weapon. I MC'd rogue for that sweet Cunning Action, but without it I'd basically be unable to use melee: it's too much of a risk, considering how important it is to maintain concentration.

I love bard and think it's a powerful class. It's also pretty well-balanced. THE BARD IS OP talk needs to chill out and those folks need to actually play one.

[Potato_Priest]

I agree with the OP- in my experience, bards are better for uberspecialization than they are for actual versatility- something like aura of vitality or quick quiver makes an incredible specialist, and expertise is for specializing in grapples or stealth. A wizard with a hefty book of rituals is going to come out ahead in out-of-combat utility, and a druid or cleric is going to outpace the ol’ bard in tanking, healing, and buffs, as well as out of combat skill check assistance through guidance. (Assuming that the bard doesn’t pick one of these to shine at. If they do, they’ll be better at it but little else.)

The bard, though, can be the best at almost any one thing-the opposite of versatility. I suppose that the class is pretty versatile, but an individual bard usually won’t be.

[-̗̀ (ↀωↀ) -̖́]

Their the king of out of combat. In combat not so great but they make a good support. I would'nt say they can be better than any class, but they help even out the edges of your party. Except for the group I am dming where the only full spellcaster is the bard, the healer is the Pally, and the rest is a rogue and a monk and a ranged fighter. However the party has never lost a single member during the entire 7 levels of the campaign so far. The bard uses what spells he has very well, and no matter how hard I try the party has killed every single encounter without really breaking too much of a sweat. I would say bards are a pretty useful class, but not really good at anything. Jack of all trades and as a skill monkey is where they shine. I wouldn't consider comparing different classes always a viable argument unless you're going for pure optimization in your party.

[Chaosticket]

After reading this Im agreeing that the Bard is overrated to to point I think its a trap.

Base Bard has massive potential but you lose both your potential and versatility as you gradually focus. Skills are never useless but is 1 attack per turn still useful when you focus on charisma and casting? Or if you focus on combat do you have high enough charisma and feats to be good at casting?

I think a solid Warrior/mage would need better synergy.

[Garresh]

After reading this Im agreeing that the Bard is overrated to to point I think its a trap.

Base Bard has massive potential but you lose both your potential and versatility as you gradually focus. Skills are never useless but is 1 attack per turn still useful when you focus on charisma and casting? Or if you focus on combat do you have high enough charisma and feats to be good at casting?

I think a solid Warrior/mage would need better synergy.

It's not a trap. It's just false advertising. Valor Bards are...interesting. I actually find they don't function as a gish without multiclassing a bit, but a level in hexblade or 2 in pally does it just fine. Obviously then all the holes in their spell selection and mobility remain. But at high levels they're one of the best gishes. It just doesn't kick in til like level 16, which is a long time to wait.

For the style you're looking for the sorcadin sounds perfect. It's a really fun class combo. Insanely versatile and incredibly powerful. Sorcadin is basically an anime protagonist out of Bleach or something. Dunno. Don't watch much anime. But it is absurd.

[Nidgit]

After reading this Im agreeing that the Bard is overrated to to point I think its a trap.

Base Bard has massive potential but you lose both your potential and versatility as you gradually focus. Skills are never useless but is 1 attack per turn still useful when you focus on charisma and casting? Or if you focus on combat do you have high enough charisma and feats to be good at casting?

I think a solid Warrior/mage would need better synergy.


It's not a trap. It's just false advertising. Valor Bards are...interesting. I actually find they don't function as a gish without multiclassing a bit, but a level in hexblade or 2 in pally does it just fine. Obviously then all the holes in their spell selection and mobility remain. But at high levels they're one of the best gishes. It just doesn't kick in til like level 16, which is a long time to wait.

For the style you're looking for the sorcadin sounds perfect. It's a really fun class combo. Insanely versatile and incredibly powerful. Sorcadin is basically an anime protagonist out of Bleach or something. Dunno. Don't watch much anime. But it is absurd.
Can you two stop wanking each other? You've both come with predispositions and haven't listened to other people's points beyond cherrypicking what helps your own opinion.

The Bard isn't a trap or even false advertising. Any class that tries to be a "generalist" and do everything is bound to underachieve because 5e is a team game. The Bard is a little better at it than other classes because of its skills and MS flexibility, but that doesn't mean it can do everything. In combat, sure, a Druid is often as good as a Bard. Out of combat, as many have said, the Bard is unmatched in social interactions and highly successful for whatever you build for.

To say that a Bard isn't flexible because it chooses to focus on filling a niche is rather myopic. A Fighter has tons of flexibility in combat, but you don't see people calling its flexibility fake once the player starts taking feats around a specific combat style. A party is built around characters fulfilling complementary roles and that's why there are different classes. A Bard can pinch-hit at most of those roles and that's why we consider it flexible. Having the flexibility to grow and meet the party's needs is what the Bard is all about.

You don't criticize a Lore Bard for not being able to martial for the same reason you don't criticize a Land Druid or an Arcane Archer for avoiding melee. That's not their role, and if you wanted to do that then you should have picked a different subclass.

[SharkForce]

i don't know anyone who thinks 5e bards are supposed to be warrior/mage hybrids. with the exception of valour bards, which are sorta decent at it.

everyone i know thinks of 5e bards as a combination of skill monkey and full caster.

[Caelic]

The bard, to me, is the ideal class for an optimizer to play, particularly in a group which includes non-optimizers.

The reason for this is that the bard is the rising tide that lifts all boats. The bard's awesome lies in making others more awesome. Thus, a really well-built and well-played bard won't dominate the game; he'll help the other characters dominate the game.

It's easy to underrate the character whose primary contributions are indirect. So, the cleric might heal more damage, but the bard stopped the damage from happening in the first place with crowd control. The warlock dealt more damage, but the bard, through spells and inspiration, caused enough extra hits to land that the share of the damage for which he is indirectly responsible is higher.

[BobZan]

An optimizer myself, I hate to play with 'broken' builds (sorlock, etc) and I love the support role. Everytime I play as a Cleric, everyone survives. When I play as a Bard, everyone survives and I hear a lot of "did you see what I've done there"? It's cool stuff.

I played a lot of games that I had to fullfil rogue AND cleric roles in a game and did it superb.

Tanking and damage are the only things bards won't shine. Everything else is easily achievable in one single character.

If I know the term 'generalist' well, it fits great for Bards. They cover a broad specter of roles being pretty decent at those. While being excellent in a few.

For a player who likes versatility, that's gold.

[Garresh]

Can you two stop wanking each other? You've both come with predispositions and haven't listened to other people's points beyond cherrypicking what helps your own opinion.

The Bard isn't a trap or even false advertising. Any class that tries to be a "generalist" and do everything is bound to underachieve because 5e is a team game. The Bard is a little better at it than other classes because of its skills and MS flexibility, but that doesn't mean it can do everything. In combat, sure, a Druid is often as good as a Bard. Out of combat, as many have said, the Bard is unmatched in social interactions and highly successful for whatever you build for.

To say that a Bard isn't flexible because it chooses to focus on filling a niche is rather myopic. A Fighter has tons of flexibility in combat, but you don't see people calling its flexibility fake once the player starts taking feats around a specific combat style. A party is built around characters fulfilling complementary roles and that's why there are different classes. A Bard can pinch-hit at most of those roles and that's why we consider it flexible. Having the flexibility to grow and meet the party's needs is what the Bard is all about.

You don't criticize a Lore Bard for not being able to martial for the same reason you don't criticize a Land Druid or an Arcane Archer for avoiding melee. That's not their role, and if you wanted to do that then you should have picked a different subclass.

So... you're mad that in a discussion/debate two people can politely agree on something? Also in what world is acknowledging and disagreeing with people's opinions ignoring them? Like, I'm not tryijg to be rude but a comment like this doesn't add anything to a thread except toxicity.

Anyways, I stand by my original assertion. No one has demonstrated a build or setup for a bard which fundamentally lacks weaknesses and roles it canot fill. A generalist is by design secons best at everything. You keep saying bards are versatile because of how good they are at something.

A goos generalist is like mortar that goes between the stones. It helps to fill in cracks and keep the structure sound, without necessarily stealing the spotlight or stepping on people's toes. Every argument I hear is "look at all these things bards do well". Then when I point out the things they can't do well people say "yes but this specific build also does that well". Show me a build that does everything OKAY and I'll admit defeat and changes my views. I really will. Because after spending a lot of time theorycrafting I found the bard is somewhere around 3rd place in classes that make good generalists. It can do a lot. But other classes can do more. Bards just do what they do better. Also they're fun and flashy and reward creativity, but that's not what this thread is about.

[Nifft]

As far as I can tell, there are three tiers:

Awesome: Lore Bard, Ancients Paladin, Cleric, Druid, (Abjurer / Diviner) Wizard, etc.

Really Good: (practically everything)

Playable but Below Par: Beastmaster Ranger, 4EleMonk, Assassin Rogue, Berserker Barbarian, etc.


Bards are rated high, but they're not over-rated. They're right where they ought to be: Awesome Tier.

[Chaosticket]

I have a high time rating anything "okay" as actually useful in a d20 system. If say a Fighter has a 10 out of 20 to hit that is acceptable. Compare an inferior "okay" character doing the same thing but with reduced abilities and its more like 5 out of 20. Throw in factors like multiple attacks and a Fighter with several Extra Attacks may do 8 times as much damage or more.

In particular I compare the 5th Bard to the Pathfinder Bard. In that you have numerous support abilities including group targeting songs for buffs and debuffs, stacking buffs, so the Bard ends up being a Support/Buffer, enough that it can actually fight pretty well with "finesse" builds and lots of stacking buffs.

Martial Combat is probably the worst Bard area as they dont have the numerous advantages other classes have. In Theory you can have a Valor Bard with ranged weapons and Swift Quiver to shoot 4 times per turn. That may be the peak of the Bard and really specialized. Unless you are a Valor(or that other melee college) then combat skill will probably fall too far behind to be useful making those weapon proficiencies useless.

Inspiration points feel really wasted mostly because you have to trade 1 point for one roll and they only effect one check. Bards dont have dozens of points to make that useful. I would rather have almost any other class feature like the Wizard's Arcane Recovery.

[Garresh]

That may have been true in other editions, but bounded accuracy means "okay" actually means okay. A CR 19 Balor has 19 AC. A wizard with 12 dex at that level hits 40% of the time with weapons. A wizard is hands down the absolute worst option for using martial weapons. So if that's about the worst then mediocre can still function. It's not your first choice, but it is doable. Extrapolating a bit further, max level druid who puts 14 in charisma at a moderate cost to con and dex, then dips rogue, winds up with +14 to persuasion or bluff. A bard will have like +17 and inability to roll low. My point is that being a generalist is truly viable in this edition, and can be in fact quite preferable if you play on AL where who knows what you'll show up with. I actually started my love affair with druids after an AL game where over half the party were druids, and all the other characters were unreliable week to week due to work issues. Pretty much the only issue we had was lack of a face, and once I realized how SAD druids are I realized how easy that is to cover. I opted not to go that route for roleplay reasons, but it remains an option.

[History_buff]

Exactly this. Plus the added fact that, even though the bard is not the best 1-4, it CAN be any of the 1-3(except tank) due to it's versatile nature and 5e design style.

I beg to differ on the “except tank” part. College of swords with a three level fighter MC eldritch knight for shield and absorb elements makes a capable tank. It’s jot optimal but it will get the job done, although it lacks staying power in longer fights.

[SharkForce]

I beg to differ on the “except tank” part. College of swords with a three level fighter MC eldritch knight for shield and absorb elements makes a capable tank. It’s jot optimal but it will get the job done, although it lacks staying power in longer fights.

with spells from 3 levels ago and not particularly awe-inspiring consistent DPR, how exactly are you persuading anyone to ignore the sharpshooter/crossbow expert fighter/rogue multiclass or the control wizard?

being a bit tougher does not make you a tank. a tank needs to be able to gain aggro as well as handle it. proximity only gets you so far.

[History_buff]

with spells from 3 levels ago and not particularly awe-inspiring consistent DPR, how exactly are you persuading anyone to ignore the sharpshooter/crossbow expert fighter/rogue multiclass or the control wizard?

being a bit tougher does not make you a tank. a tank needs to be able to gain aggro as well as handle it. proximity only gets you so far.

Booming blade helps. There are plenty of disruptive bard spells. Hold person can be upcast, fear, hypnotic pattern, heat metal. Warcaster lets you booming blade as an OA. Magical secrets at level 10 bard character level 13 can make you very hard to ignore.

[SharkForce]

Booming blade helps. There are plenty of disruptive bard spells. Hold person can be upcast, fear, hypnotic pattern, heat metal. Warcaster lets you booming blade as an OA. Magical secrets at level 10 bard character level 13 can make you very hard to ignore.

booming blade will work on one target. maybe.

all those bard spells? still 3 levels behind. when you're casting hold person in a level 3 spell slot, the wizard is banishing people from the fight or throwing a no-save wall of force. when you finally get wall of force, the wizard has level 6 & 7 spells.

you're not scarier than the casters as a caster, and you're not scarier than the damage dealers as a damage dealer, except to possibly one target.

why am i going to go after you instead of going after the wizard, or the sorcerer, or even the barbarian?

bards don't make good tanks. much like just about anyone else, they can become moderately tough, but that isn't nearly enough. the only times you're going to be able to draw aggro over the wizard is if the encounter doesn't need the wizard's full resources (in which case, now you're burning your biggest resources on a fight that doesn't matter if you're trying to pull aggro). and if you're trying to compete on a damage perspective, you're only going to be able to do so (maybe) on one enemy.

now, something like a sorcadin, you don't take that down, they can keep bringing people back up on their feet, they can provide one or more defensive auras, their reaction attacks hit like a truck, and work on the first target to move past, not just one specific target, and metamagic means it can be both a spellcaster *and* a melee threat in any given round.

or a totem barbarian can have totems that grant advantage to hit, or the new barbarian subclass (zealot i think?) that can reduce the damage that allies take, etc.

even a battlemaster fighter can threaten a maneuver if you provoke an opportunity attack trying to get past, or can use menacing strike to keep you from moving towards them in the first place. and frankly, i'm not convinced on fighters being truly tanks in the first place either (they're unlikely to be annoying enough to pull aggro, and in any fight where a full spellcaster is really making their presence felt the spellcaster will probably still be a priority target, so the fighter is mostly stuck hoping there are always chokepoints or something).

[Elminster298]

So... you're mad that in a discussion/debate two people can politely agree on something? Also in what world is acknowledging and disagreeing with people's opinions ignoring them? Like, I'm not tryijg to be rude but a comment like this doesn't add anything to a thread except toxicity.

Anyways, I stand by my original assertion. No one has demonstrated a build or setup for a bard which fundamentally lacks weaknesses and roles it canot fill. A generalist is by design secons best at everything. You keep saying bards are versatile because of how good they are at something.

A goos generalist is like mortar that goes between the stones. It helps to fill in cracks and keep the structure sound, without necessarily stealing the spotlight or stepping on people's toes. Every argument I hear is "look at all these things bards do well". Then when I point out the things they can't do well people say "yes but this specific build also does that well". Show me a build that does everything OKAY and I'll admit defeat and changes my views. I really will. Because after spending a lot of time theorycrafting I found the bard is somewhere around 3rd place in classes that make good generalists. It can do a lot. But other classes can do more. Bards just do what they do better. Also they're fun and flashy and reward creativity, but that's not what this thread is about.

I will repeat... You are still under the false assumption that "EVERYONE THINKS BARDS ARE OP STRONGEST EVER PLS NERF NOW!" No one has said that this entire time and, aside from a couple over the top posts on the internet, I have hardly ever heard anyone imply bards are the gods you are basing your argument off of. If you want a more tanky 5th, pick druid. If you want a more blasty 5th, pick sorc. If you want a more skilled 5th, pick bard. It's just that simple. MOST people will rate bard as the better 5th man simply because more of it's abilities are team support and that is GENERALLY the purpose of a 5th man.

You are treating this whole post as a battle and setting the win condition as "someone must change my opinion." You've made it abundantly clear that's not going to happen because you continue to misrepresent other people's opinions and refuse to acknowledge any other point of view other than your own. So have fun with your one man war.

P.S. Theorycrafting!? Seriously? Your whole point of view is based off of theorycrafting!? Your opinion holds absolutely zero weight now. Come back when you've actually played the game. ✌

[Garresh]

Am I taking crazy pills? My argument has never, is not, and never will be about OP or UP in a particular role. Nor does it involve bards as a good or bad class in potency or design perspective. It is about filler characters who operate as fifth wheel generalists, in which they are overrated.

Is there like soke cognitive dissonance going on that people have to get hostile because they're uncomfortable? And in a board where people theorycraft and discusss builds and options how is expecting a counterargument to be based in facts or examples an issue? If you disagree with someone disprove their assertion? Like this is always the case in internet debates. Otherwise you just resort to personal attacks and pointless flame wars.

[BobZan]

By that weird concept of generalist, no one is second best at everything, so there are no generalist class in 5e. Bye.

[Elminster298]

Am I taking crazy pills? My argument has never, is not, and never will be about OP or UP in a particular role. Nor does it involve bards as a good or bad class in potency or design perspective. It is about filler characters who operate as fifth wheel generalists, in which they are overrated.

Is there like soke cognitive dissonance going on that people have to get hostile because they're uncomfortable? And in a board where people theorycraft and discusss builds and options how is expecting a counterargument to be based in facts or examples an issue? If you disagree with someone disprove their assertion? Like this is always the case in internet debates. Otherwise you just resort to personal attacks and pointless flame wars.

Your argument is based on the statement "bards are overrated" specifically as a fifth wheel generalist, correct? Meaning that you think an overabundance of people put the bard at the top of the list by a large margin BECAUSE they believe it's abilities to be far superior to any other class for this purpose. Correct again?

IF that is your argument... Then I say you are flat out wrong from the very start and your argument is irrelevant. With the exception of a handful of posts(usually by people who don't fully understand a role-playing game) few people put the bard as head and shoulders above the rest. Everyone has agreed that there are equally viable 5th wheels to the bard all depending on what you want. YOU are the one with the cognitive dissonance who simply wants to shove your head in the sand and ignore what people are saying so that you can keep spouting out your own personal brand of propaganda. Stop. Just stop. You have no clue how to properly debate and you are just coming across as stubborn and childish at this point. You've had your say. Regurgitating the same sentences over and over is not "refuting evidence". Using your own personal idea of "purpose" to redefine what a "5th wheel"(a D&D trope with a LONG history) is supposed to encompass does not invalidate other people's opinions. As I said, have fun with your one man war. ✌

[Tanarii]

Stop. Just stop. You have no clue how to properly debate and you are just coming across as stubborn and childish at this point.
Wow, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.

[BobZan]

A build that can do everything: Hexblade 2/Lore Bard x with urchin or criminal background and crossbow expert feat (so you can eldritch blast melee)

V. Human: Crossbow Expert.

Use medium armor and shield.

Stats 8 14 14 10 12 16

You can do everything, Ac tank, open locks and disable traps, heal, buff, debuff, party face and decent eldritch blast damage.

Wow... I'll play this next time. Seems solid.

[Contrast]

Anyways, I stand by my original assertion. No one has demonstrated a build or setup for a bard which fundamentally lacks weaknesses and roles it canot fill. A generalist is by design secons best at everything. You keep saying bards are versatile because of how good they are at something.

A goos generalist is like mortar that goes between the stones. It helps to fill in cracks and keep the structure sound, without necessarily stealing the spotlight or stepping on people's toes. Every argument I hear is "look at all these things bards do well". Then when I point out the things they can't do well people say "yes but this specific build also does that well". Show me a build that does everything OKAY and I'll admit defeat and changes my views. I really will. Because after spending a lot of time theorycrafting I found the bard is somewhere around 3rd place in classes that make good generalists. It can do a lot. But other classes can do more. Bards just do what they do better. Also they're fun and flashy and reward creativity, but that's not what this thread is about.

I don't believe anyone does 'can cast spells and be good at skills' as well as the bard. Their gaping weakness is direct damage.

So to answer your question, I don't really think bards are overrated because I don't think people expect them to be good damage dealers. To compensate they are decent in other areas and offer different approaches to problems than a sorc, wizard or druid might. I don't think they're really better, just different.

To quote you:


Bards are simply the most accessible and easiest class for achieving versatility

A lot of the people I play with have, at best, a loose grasp of the rules and an even worse knowledge of spell selections. I agree with you that the bard is the easiest option and that's why it would often be my go to recommendation.

[Chaosticket]

Depending on what hear about the Bard colors their expectations. I expected more from the Bard in 5th edition than from 3.5 at least because of its recommendation from various sources.

In 5th edition some simple changes do a number on it. You cant stack buffs to compensate for individual weakness. You need Feats just as much as older editions, maybe more as Concentration is much harder and you have to split feats with Charisma and/or Dexterity.

I can make A Bard build in Pathfinder that is "your best friend" by buffing everyone enough to be a force multiplier, not okay as a filler but someone invaluable.

So is the Bard still lacklustre? If you could have Lore and Valor at the same time it would be much more the generalist it wants to be.

[Garresh]

A build that can do everything: Hexblade 2/Lore Bard x with urchin or criminal background and crossbow expert feat (so you can eldritch blast melee)

V. Human: Crossbow Expert.

Use medium armor and shield.

Stats 8 14 14 10 12 15

You can do everything, Ac tank, open locks and disable traps, heal, buff, debuff, party face and decent eldritch blast damage.

Wow... I'll play this next time. Seems solid.

Yeah. Hexblade jacked the "dip 2 levels in warlock" bard up to 11. And the spells it gets include expeditious retreat, shield, and wrathful smite. It still leaves them with a super sparse spell list, but that's one of the best options I've seen for a generalist and easily qualifies for category. I think at high levels it actually beats out many of the other classes I listed, but it doesn't come online til 12 to cover all the missing roles. It just sucks the bard spell list has so many holes to fill, but if you choose intelligently you're at full utility by tier 3 it looks like. Not bad at all. I think if you grab a wall and a buff at your level 6 secrets you can meet the qualifications for a generalist.

I think I know what my next bard is gonna do. XD

Edit: I'm going to go over my list tonight when I get off work. The inspiration for this past was me going over making lists of spells that cover different roles and also class features. I was a big lover of the Binder class in 3.5 for both roleplay reasons and the ability to jump into any group and always be second best(but functional) at whatever the party needed.

I think I might have to eat my own words. I hadn't gone through Xanathar's as much as I should have, and I forgot about crossbow expert hexblade. If I go over my lists and it beats out the other builds I ran I might have to push bard back up. It's only one build, but it's a really good one.

[djreynolds]

Bards are a solid class, they're spell list could've included an "attack" cantrip, but again classes are designed for flavor not equality.

And if you find you need some oomph in combat, you can easily multiclass.

Making tiers isn't always fair to the classes, bear totem is awesome but without support they can easily be taken out the fight with fear or banishment. They lack a berserker's mindless rage

[Citan]

Indeed. They remain above average at being a generalist. I would place them in tier 2. But my point is if you want to have a little bit of everything, the bard actually isn't the class you want. If you want to spread thin across pretty much every role like a delicious cream cheese spread, the druid or a sorcerer with subtle spell and a little dipping covers way more surface area. A bard is like a delicious jelly with chunks of fruit in there. It tastes great, but it globs together and falls off your bagel if you spread it too thin. Druids are like cream cheese. You can spread em thin to cover every square inch of bagel, but you lose out on those delicious chunks of fruit and its not as sweet.
This sums it up well. :)
(Although, nothing prevents Bard from dipping -especially with less than awesome capstone- so there is that too ;)).

Actually, I was planning on rolling up a (4th level) bard for a campaign I'm about to start.

The rest of the party is Bearbarian, Nature Cleric, and Evocation Wizard.

I was planning on being the face and covering stealthy roles, since we don't have a rogue, but now I'm not sure.

Does this sound like a decent party?
I'm very late into this discussion so I don't know if you are still looking for opinions, but just in case...
For your party Bard is the perfect pick imo.
Each of your party covers one main stat: besides CHA, only DEX is lacking but if you go as Lore Bard just grab Pass Without Trace as Magic Secrets and that one party weakness is shored up.
So Barb will take care of all physical feats, Cleric can be the perceptive one (and use divination to complement), Wizard take care of all the investigation and monster idenfitication checks...
The party face is lacking: enter Bard!

Barb can take care of the frontline (with help from nature cleric if needed), Cleric can provide healing and a few buffs, Wizard will take care of the blasting and can still dole out a few control spells.
Bard will come in nicely to support healing and complement Cleric and Wizard in buff/control areas.

Then comes the Bard's own greatness: being a bit better at any skill nobody is proficient into, helping people land important hit, making a hard check or avoid dangerous attacks (Bardic Inspiration), helping a bit with resting, and being a natural candidate for one of the five top feats of all game, Inspiring Leader.
Plus, being the best counterspeller (barring Sorcerer for a while) once you pick Counterspell with Magic Secrets, and being the best party face you could ever hope for thanks for naturally high Charisma and Expertise in Persuasion (preferably for G) or Intimidation (preferably for E).

[goatmeal]

An optimizer myself, I hate to play with 'broken' builds (sorlock, etc) and I love the support role. Everytime I play as a Cleric, everyone survives. When I play as a Bard, everyone survives and I hear a lot of "did you see what I've done there"? It's cool stuff.

I played a lot of games that I had to fullfil rogue AND cleric roles in a game and did it superb.

Tanking and damage are the only things bards won't shine. Everything else is easily achievable in one single character.

If I know the term 'generalist' well, it fits great for Bards. They cover a broad specter of roles being pretty decent at those. While being excellent in a few.

For a player who likes versatility, that's gold.

This.

Bard is like the point guard of the basketball team, making everyone else look good on offense, and stopping the opposing plays on defense before they can happen.

[Afrodactyl]

I've found that swords bards cover the generalist role very well. A respectable melee combatant to support the fighter, a respectable healer/supporter to aid the cleric, a respectable blaster to assist the wizard and a face and skill monkey that replaces the need for a rogue.

[djreynolds]

This.

Bard is like the point guard of the basketball team, making everyone else look good on offense, and stopping the opposing plays on defense before they can happen.


I've found that swords bards cover the generalist role very well. A respectable melee combatant to support the fighter, a respectable healer/supporter to aid the cleric, a respectable blaster to assist the wizard and a face and skill monkey that replaces the need for a rogue.

Good perspectives.

If you toss out magic secrets, this what you are left over with, excellent generalists that fill in the gaps of a party.

No ranger, bard can cover down
No rogue, hey the bard could try that
etc.

Always a welcome addition

And the spells cover most bases. Sleep, charm, hold person, restorations, fear, hypnotic pattern

And you can grab a cantrip with magic initiate from warlock or sorcerer.

[Afrodactyl]

Just had a thought as well; at lower levels, polymorph makes for perfectly reasonable tanking, much in the same way as the moon druid, especially when you're using a mammoth, giant ape, tyrannosaur, or to a lesser extent ankylosaur, triceratops, giant crocodile and giant scorpion.

[History_buff]

Just had a thought as well; at lower levels, polymorph makes for perfectly reasonable tanking, much in the same way as the moon druid, especially when you're using a mammoth, giant ape, tyrannosaur, or to a lesser extent ankylosaur, triceratops, giant crocodile and giant scorpion.

Difficulty is keeping concentration and you don’t keep your own mental stats. Giant Ape might be smart enough to fight normally but tactics go out the window as a T-Rex (granted not like they’re needed as a t-rex but...) but concentration also probably won’t last long if you polymorph yourself.

[Malifice]

Surprised no-one has mentioned this.

Bards suck at 'at will' damage. Compared to every other class. In a big way. In a massive way.

It becomes glaring on longer adventuring days, and never goes away. In fact it gets worse.

They have a lot of strengths of course. Buffs, De buffs and utility. Overall they're a great class.

But when it comes to at will damage they lag far behind every other class.

[Socratov]

Surprised no-one has mentioned this.

Bards suck at 'at will' damage. Compared to every other class. In a big way. In a massive way.

It becomes glaring on longer adventuring days, and never goes away. In fact it gets worse.

They have a lot of strengths of course. Buffs, De buffs and utility. Overall they're a great class.

But when it comes to at will damage they lag far behind every other class.

People did. At length and repeatedly. And if I'm not mistaken there are workarounds but ultimately the hivemind decided that the bard's versatility in other areas and expertise in buffs and crowd control was enough to offset it.

[Malifice]

People did. At length and repeatedly. And if I'm not mistaken there are workarounds but ultimately the hivemind decided that the bard's versatility in other areas and expertise in buffs and crowd control was enough to offset it.

Best way to offset it is 2 levels of Paladin (smite) or Warlock (EB+Hex). Nothing stopping your valor bard from picking up Sharpshooter or GWM either.

I just find when they are not dropping a spell (most of which are save or suck) they are quite limited with damaging options. Moreso with at will stuff.

I didnt notice it till actual play, but it's glaring when you DM one.

[Nidgit]

Best way to offset it is 2 levels of Paladin (smite) or Warlock (EB+Hex). Nothing stopping your valor bard from picking up Sharpshooter or GWM either.

I just find when they are not dropping a spell (most of which are save or suck) they are quite limited with damaging options. Moreso with at will stuff.

I didnt notice it till actual play, but it's glaring when you DM one.

Spending an ASI on Magic Initiate for BB/EB is a bit lighter on at-will damage but still brings it in line with other magic users. Magical secrets can do the same but there are usually bigger priorities.

[Socratov]

Best way to offset it is 2 levels of Paladin (smite) or Warlock (EB+Hex). Nothing stopping your valor bard from picking up Sharpshooter or GWM either.

I just find when they are not dropping a spell (most of which are save or suck) they are quite limited with damaging options. Moreso with at will stuff.

I didnt notice it till actual play, but it's glaring when you DM one.


Spending an ASI on Magic Initiate for BB/EB is a bit lighter on at-will damage but still brings it in line with other magic users. Magical secrets can do the same but there are usually bigger priorities.

I found valor bard+swift quiver (which admittantly comes online a bit late) works wonders for an archer bard. Once you get swift quiver off it's easy to not suck at damage.

As for a bard in a team role, I'd like to equate it to being a wizard: a well played bard never has the need to do any direct damage: between altering the terrain, dropping save-or-sucks, giving people (read: your rogue) advantage you can multiply your party's effectiveness. Hell, even the bard-only damaging cantrip Vicious Mockery is less a damage cantrip and more of a bruiser stumper at heart.

That is exactly why bards are very dangerous in a party