Thoughts on Xanathar's College of Whispers?

[white lancer]

I've been playing a "secret agent"-type Lore Bard for a while now (with a dip into Warlock for Disguise Self at will), so I was pretty excited to see the Xanathar version of the College of Whispers as a possible alternative...but I was pretty underwhelmed by it on first glance. Psychic Blades wasn't what I was looking for at all, and Words of Terror just seemed not terribly useful. Mantle of Whispers has some interesting qualities, but again, the whole class felt more assassin-like, which was not the intent behind the character. So I passed on it, since the skill proficiencies from Lore fit the character better.

Now in the game I'm DMing, the Rogue recently indicated a desire to multiclass to Bard. He's an Assassin, so I thought that Whispers would fit him better than it fit my character...but I'm still concerned that the subclass is just too weak to recommend to him in good conscience. Is this class better or more fun than my initial impression of it? Would it be worth it for an Assassin-style Rogue to pursue?

[strangebloke]

I certainly think it's one of the weaker subclasses, yeah.

Bards are typically pretty reliant on their subclass (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?549533-What-Class-Gets-the-Most-from-their-Subclasses) I ranked them as behind only rangers in terms of their subclass reliance.

Consider that Valor bard and Swords bard both get Extra Attack as a class feature, which considered to be on-par with getting access to third-level spells. By that measure, whispers bard is hot, hot garbage. Not to say that it couldn't be fun, but...

You'd be better off, from an optimization perspective, from going warlock for a few levels and picking up mask of many faces, the actor feat, and Detect Thoughts. Combined, those features make you better at espionage than anything that the whispers bard gives you.

[white lancer]

Yeah, I basically decided that Whispers was not what I wanted for my Bard, who was basically built around Mask of Many Faces + Actor. But I'm also questioning whether it would be worth it even for the sort of character for which it seems designed: an infiltration + assassination build. Psychic Blades seems like it would help the Rogue not to fall as far behind in damage output, but is enough to make the subclass worth it?

[Talamare]

I think it's a pretty interesting Subclass
Psychic Blades is something along the lines of Smite crossed with Sneak Attack
It's one of the very few ways to use Inspiration selfishly.
Easily one of the more powerful Subclass Features for ANY Class. Imagine if Fighters or Warlocks (or honestly any other class) got a Sneak Attack-esque feature like this.

Words of Terror is pretty insane, but ending instantly upon attacking any enemy makes it lose a TON of value. It really should have been that it allows them to remake their Save.

Mantle of Whispers is extremely thematic and powerful for social events. Not to mention Scouting.
It has the slight downside of technically being something that is more or less possible to achieve without it.

I find the Subclass has quite a significant balance between Social and Combat which with a lot of novel mechanics.
It's very powerful in an RP heavy campaign, and still has enough features to be powerful in a balanced campaign.



I certainly think it's one of the weaker subclasses, yeah.

Bards are typically pretty reliant on their subclass (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?549533-What-Class-Gets-the-Most-from-their-Subclasses) I ranked them as behind only rangers in terms of their subclass reliance.

Consider that Valor bard and Swords bard both get Extra Attack as a class feature, which considered to be on-par with getting access to third-level spells. By that measure, whispers bard is hot, hot garbage. Not to say that it couldn't be fun, but...

You'd be better off, from an optimization perspective, from going warlock for a few levels and picking up mask of many faces, the actor feat, and Detect Thoughts. Combined, those features make you better at espionage than anything that the whispers bard gives you.

All Full Casters are not reliant on their Subclasses.
They are still Full Casters without their Subclasses.

Also, I looked at your other thread and more or less disagree with everything (or at least a great deal of it)

[Sigreid]

I believe they are meant to be a dark advisor or Rasputin character. I actually think their powers are powerful for a social game. Want someone removed? Make the Lord or king fear they are plotting against him, etc.

[strangebloke]

All Full Casters are not reliant on their Subclasses.
They are still Full Casters without their Subclasses.

Also, I looked at your other thread and more or less disagree with everything (or at least a great deal of it)

I've not seen too many bards in play, but TBH I think you're over valuing psychic blades. It isn't bad at all but the usages other classes get for inspiration are also quite good.

I shouldn't have said reliant. But bards do get a lot of their class features from their subclass, when compared to, say, monks, who get most of their features from their base class.

As to the other thread this isn't the place, but I was surprised that nobody stopped in to argue with me, given that everyone disagrees about how much a given power is worth.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I think it’s a great subclass. Perfect for social heavy campaigns with Loren of intrigue, still good for combat focused campaigns. It’s my go to for Bard. In my opinion it’s better than swords for a Gish who already has extra attack.


I also love the flavor of this type of character. It’s definetly more sinister Bard which I feel is warranted.

I know some say that t can mostly be replicated through spells but consider this. Whispers Bard’s abilities will never be noticed. You have to go subtle spell for that, and while you can certainly throw out some spells, the Whispers Bard can still do that too. His spells will go noticed but he can Layer them on top of his other abilities.

Not only that, but psychic blades is a Psychic Sneak attack, on a full caster which is pretty great just by itself considering how easy it is to use.

It can do a lot and it’s a fun way to do it.

2nd favorite Bard , right behind Satire.

[Errata]

Bardic inspirations is a very limited resource that is already useful for other things (even moreso if you pick a different subclass that gives you more to do with it). Using it to add a small amount of damage a few times a day, minus the utility you'd get for using it other ways, really isn't that great. If you are just imagining going nova for one fight, I guess it's reasonable, but that's not a typical adventuring day, nor is it playing to a bard's strength. There are much better classes for burst damage. Frittering your valuable inspirations this way is a trap option.

Words of Terror, Mantle of Whispers, and Shadow Lore are almost entirely roleplay fluff abilities that don't help in combat. They're fun if you are in that sort of political roleplaying social campaign, and your party is going to indulge a lot of side stories centered around your character that they have limited participation in.

So for roleplay heavy campaigns this might be OK. For combat it's a terrible pick.

In the very specific situation of a multiclass gish who already has an extra attack from another class and won't benefit from that with valor or swords, I guess it's a reasonable alternative to those classes, but it's still probably a waste of inspiration. Especially since with so many levels in another class, the damage scaling with bard level for this ability will lag behind the curve of damage for the level you get it. Other uses of inspiration will inherently scale better with your level and the level of your opponents if they help or hurt rolls rather than adding a fixed amount of damage based on bard level.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Bardic inspirations is a very limited resource that is already useful for other things (even moreso if you pick a different subclass that gives you more to do with it). Using it to add a small amount of damage a few times a day, minus the utility you'd get for using it other ways, really isn't that great. If you are just imagining going nova for one fight, I guess it's reasonable, but that's not a typical adventuring day, nor is it playing to a bard's strength. There are much better classes for burst damage. Frittering your valuable inspirations this way is a trap option.

Words of Terror, Mantle of Whispers, and Shadow Lore are almost entirely roleplay fluff abilities that don't help in combat. They're fun if you are in that sort of political roleplaying social campaign, and your party is going to indulge a lot of side stories centered around your character that they have limited participation in.

So for roleplay heavy campaigns this might be OK. For combat it's a terrible pick.

In the very specific situation of a multiclass gish who already has an extra attack from another class and won't benefit from that with valor or swords, I guess it's a reasonable alternative to those classes, but it's still probably a waste of inspiration. Especially since with so many levels in another class, the damage scaling with bard level for this ability will lag behind the curve of damage for the level you get it. Other uses of inspiration will inherently scale better with your level and the level of your opponents if they help or hurt rolls rather than adding a fixed amount of damage based on bard level.

Huh? Trap option? Lags behind ? It scales like Sneak attack, it’s pretty free extra damage whenever you want. Do you go through ever single encounter using all of your BI ? There are other buff spells bards have access to that can do this, so even if you are being a team player you can use Psychic blades. Your like a Social Fullcasting Rogue and if you think the other bailies are fluff you must not consider Social a pillar of the game.

[A Fat Dragon]

Pardon my naivety, but would it make it so ground-breaking to just add a Bonus Attack to the subclass?

I’m not too good at balancing subclasses and classes. I think I excel more-so in races.

[Errata]

It scales like Sneak attack, it’s pretty free extra damage whenever you want.

Whenever you want? A number of times equal to your charisma modifier. So what, 4? If you're a gish you've got other attributes to balance charisma with. Do you expect to attack more or less than 4 times per rest? How is 4 times spanning across multiple encounters "free extra damage whenever you want?". And if you use all 4 on this damage, that means you use 0 of them on any other bardic inspiration.

Sneak attack is essentially unlimited, since any decent rogue will have ways of getting it more often than not, and it doesn't burn any finite resource like inspirations. If you dip from rogue into bard you're sacrificing sneak attack dice for an occasional extra bonus.


Do you go through ever single encounter using all of your BI ?

Of course not, because I'm planning on fighting more than just the one encounter, and may need them for the next one. That's the problem. You don't get your inspiration back every encounter if you're following the standard of 3 or 4 encounters per short rest. You can't use these extra dice nearly as often as sneak attack.


Lags behind ?

It lags behind the normal curve if you have so many levels in another class that you get an extra attack from elsewhere and won't miss it by not picking valor or swords, because it's the damage progression of a class many levels behind your character level.

If this is your only class, then the damage progression is fine, but you only get one attack, and you'd probably be better off with valor or swords that give you another. That's extra damage that you can use far more often than you can use inspirations for extra damage. Plus you still have the inspirations to use as inspirations.

[Snowbluff]

Pardon my naivety, but would it make it so ground-breaking to just add a Bonus Attack to the subclass?


Actually, at level 10 bards can get Swift Quiver on their list as a 5th level spell. This is actually quite potent when combined with Whisper bard; they can use their smite with this bonus action attack, combined with a spell on their action (bards can get good non concentration spell options, like Bestow Curse and Contagion or even blasting spells), regardless of whether or not they have extra attack.

Bard Smite recovers on a short rest, unlike paladin smite, as well. Unlike Warlock Smite, it doesn't take your spell slots.

Which is to say that the opinion that "Whisper Bard is garbage" is a bit garbage.

EDIT: If I had to pick a beef, it's that it can't get Blade Cantrips in AL, as Sword Coast is a different book. They scale favorably when compare to extra attack for melee characters, especially if you only have a 1/turn damage bonus (like rogue).

[Mortis_Elrod]

It lags behind the normal curve if you have so many levels in another class that you get an extra attack from elsewhere and won't miss it by not picking valor or swords, because it's the damage progression of a class many levels behind your character level.



Whenever you want? A number of times equal to your charisma modifier. So what, 4? If you're a gish you've got other attributes to balance charisma with. Do you expect to attack more or less than 4 times per rest? How is 4 times spanning across multiple encounters "free extra damage whenever you want?". And if you use all 4 on this damage, that means you use 0 of them on any other bardic inspiration.

Sneak attack is essentially unlimited, since any decent rogue will have ways of getting it more often than not, and it doesn't burn any finite resource like inspirations. If you dip from rogue into bard you're sacrificing sneak attack dice for an occasional extra bonus.

Your assuming that it’s suppose to be used with every attack. The best Gish MC with this is the Hexblade which pretty much only needs charisma, get extra attack and has plenty of damage. In this case it’s like getting to smite again when you’re all out. Which is pretty valuable.

If your single classing as a Bard then psychic blades is perfect for when you need to deal damage. It’s not meant to be a Gish by itself and playing it like one won’t work obviously. BI is yours to use as you see fit and not just for the party. You aren’t likely to be using weapons all the time but when you do you can make count. That’s value, and it’s silent. Social infiltration and manipulation is what this is designed to be great in and it does that without having to go full.... well swords or valor. This is the Bard you can send in to whisper to the king in the middle of the night and convince him to change policies.

On the subject of a rogue dipping here, he basically loses nothing more than if he dipped into a different Bard multiclass.
Swashbucklers can find a lot of use out of this subclass, and they already want more charisma, and even better social abilities which is a good part of the theme of a swashbuckler.


Honestly I see nothing wrong with this subclass.

[Talamare]

Whenever you want? A number of times equal to your charisma modifier. So what, 4? If you're a gish you've got other attributes to balance charisma with. Do you expect to attack more or less than 4 times per rest? How is 4 times spanning across multiple encounters "free extra damage whenever you want?". And if you use all 4 on this damage, that means you use 0 of them on any other bardic inspiration.

Sneak attack is essentially unlimited, since any decent rogue will have ways of getting it more often than not, and it doesn't burn any finite resource like inspirations. If you dip from rogue into bard you're sacrificing sneak attack dice for an occasional extra bonus.



Of course not, because I'm planning on fighting more than just the one encounter, and may need them for the next one. That's the problem. You don't get your inspiration back every encounter if you're following the standard of 3 or 4 encounters per short rest. You can't use these extra dice nearly as often as sneak attack.



It lags behind the normal curve if you have so many levels in another class that you get an extra attack from elsewhere and won't miss it by not picking valor or swords, because it's the damage progression of a class many levels behind your character level.

If this is your only class, then the damage progression is fine, but you only get one attack, and you'd probably be better off with valor or swords that give you another. That's extra damage that you can use far more often than you can use inspirations for extra damage. Plus you still have the inspirations to use as inspirations.

Battlemaster Fighter gets 4 Superiority Dice per Short Rest

Having 4 is a good amount. You shouldn't be able to Sneak Attack equally as well as a Rogue, and you shouldn't compare it to being able to Sneak Attack equally well as a Rogue.
Since you know...
This is just a Minor Resource to you.
You're still a Full Caster.

[Errata]

This is just a Minor Resource to you.
You're still a Full Caster.

All the other subclasses are also full casters and get other things to do with those inspirations (unlike your example of Battlemaster which is the only subclass to get that resource so it's strictly a positive). It's not 4 free uses of bonus damage. It's that minus the utility of whatever else you could be doing with it. It's not whether this ability is useful in isolation, but in context with the opportunity cost of subclasses you aren't picking.

To use this extra damage you have to attack. The other two attack focused bard subclasses get an extra attack. If you're choosing this subclass it means you're not choosing those other subclasses. You are losing an extra attack every time you attack for an extra attack that you get to use occasionally AND at the expense of a limited resource that those other subclasses could be using as a bonus action for other things.

The main distinction between this and other uses of inspiration is that you get to inspire yourself. Most other subclasses use it to either buff an ally or debuff an opponent when they may be attacking an ally. Psychologically it may feel like this use is making your character more powerful and the other options aren't, but holistically it's probably not increasing the power of your party as much as other subclasses, on balance.

[Asmotherion]

I generally find it hard to compete with College of Lore; Cherry Picking from any Spell List (Especially wile Building a Bardlock) and Cutting Words set the Bar too high.

Glamour and Wispers are two sides of the same coin; One focuses on more subtle manipulations and adoration, wile the other on fear and breaking the sanity of your enemy, making you a big bully.

The same holds true for Swords and Valor. Swords is more of a Trickster, having moves a bit like a Rogue or Monk, wile Valor is more straightforward, like a Fighter or Barbarian.

[The1exile]

I like whispers bard. I would make NPCs with it as spymasters and wormtongue-esque characters, and it could easily suit anyone I want the players to hate early on, but without being able to do anything about. It doesn’t seem underpowered, but it certainly fills a different niche to the fighter and caster bards or War and Lore.

[Mortis_Elrod]

All the other subclasses are also full casters and get other things to do with those inspirations (unlike your example of Battlemaster which is the only subclass to get that resource so it's strictly a positive). It's not 4 free uses of bonus damage. It's that minus the utility of whatever else you could be doing with it. It's not whether this ability is useful in isolation, but in context with the opportunity cost of subclasses you aren't picking.

To use this extra damage you have to attack. The other two attack focused bard subclasses get an extra attack. If you're choosing this subclass it means you're not choosing those other subclasses. You are losing an extra attack every time you attack for an extra attack that you get to use occasionally AND at the expense of a limited resource that those other subclasses could be using as a bonus action for other things.

The main distinction between this and other uses of inspiration is that you get to inspire yourself. Most other subclasses use it to either buff an ally or debuff an opponent when they may be attacking an ally. Psychologically it may feel like this use is making your character more powerful and the other options aren't, but holistically it's probably not increasing the power of your party as much as other subclasses, on balance.

Yeah i don't see the issue in a trade off. Extra attack is nice but its by no means the bees knees. And the whisper bard does things that can't be easily replaced as his other features, AND you'll find that the rogue does fine without extra attack and psychic blades is a better damage type, easier to use, and still has the same scaling. Psychic blades itself is enough damage to be extra attack, if you want to use it. Yes rogues have infinite use, as they should, but they also don't get the glorious fullcasting of a bard.

So for whispers you essentially get an extra attack option every now and then on a non-martial focused class and subclass. Which is essentially the same thing you get with Swords only swords is less damage and but also gives up potentially 2 subclass features. Later it makes up for it with Infinite use for only 1d6 of damage. Where the Whispers bard only dropped a single feature (not even the whole levels worth of features) to pass in in a fight where he wanted to use a weapon and not his spells, the swords bard is doing the same thing albeit slightly more often which is fine because thats what he's desgined to do. Whispers bard is dabbling and gets alot in return for it without losing flavor or most of the features, AND being great at what he's designed to do.

[strangebloke]

Which is to say that the opinion that "Whisper Bard is garbage" is a bit garbage.

Never said it was garbage. I just think that the subclass is overall not particularly great, and while the inspiration use ability is strong, it isn't anything over-the-top. Talamare was calling it: "Easily one of the more powerful Subclass Features for ANY Class." Which is sorta silly when you can do the same thing with BM dice and boost your damage by a much larger amount. (turning misses into hits.)

All the other subclasses are also full casters and get other things to do with those inspirations (unlike your example of Battlemaster which is the only subclass to get that resource so it's strictly a positive). It's not 4 free uses of bonus damage. It's that minus the utility of whatever else you could be doing with it. It's not whether this ability is useful in isolation, but in context with the opportunity cost of subclasses you aren't picking.

To use this extra damage you have to attack. The other two attack focused bard subclasses get an extra attack. If you're choosing this subclass it means you're not choosing those other subclasses. You are losing an extra attack every time you attack for an extra attack that you get to use occasionally AND at the expense of a limited resource that those other subclasses could be using as a bonus action for other things.

The main distinction between this and other uses of inspiration is that you get to inspire yourself. Most other subclasses use it to either buff an ally or debuff an opponent when they may be attacking an ally. Psychologically it may feel like this use is making your character more powerful and the other options aren't, but holistically it's probably not increasing the power of your party as much as other subclasses, on balance.
Yup.

Let's do a quick comparison of BI usages:
Default: use when you think you're going to fail an attack roll or saving throw. Ridiculously good. Like, even if you 'just' use this to let your fighter/barbarian hit a few extra times, you're getting massive bonus damage for him. Using it to empower a save is a huge bonus, potentially turning a whole encounter around.
Cutting Words(Lore): Same thing, but make an enemy fail a check. Situationally, as good or better than Default, depending on a number of factors. Can't be used on saves, but otherwise it's simply awesome.
Combat Inspiration(Valor):Use to raise AC or add damage. Adding to AC is weaker but sorta comparable to cutting words. Better on the action economy though, since it isn't eating the bard's reaction. Adding damage is sorta weak.
Mantle of Inspiration(Glamor):Immediately heal your whole party and let them move. Simply incredible, particularly if you're good atcoordinating with your team.
Blade Flourish(Swords): deals as much damage as whispers, improves your mobility while fighting, and you can do a lot of other things with it and you actually have proficiencies and extra attack.
Psychic Blades(Whispers):Budget, short-rest-based smite! Better than Blade Flourish at single-target DPR! Except... no extra attack and no weapon or armor proficiencies.

It's not useless, just not anything stand-out. Words of Terror is what they get instead of bonus proficiencies, and its... pretty limited. Once per short rest, if you have someone's attention for a whole minute, you can make them afraid of another character for an hour if they fail a wisdom save... That's a lot of caveats, and that's assuming that 'making a creature afraid of another creatures' is even a viable solution to your problem. It's great, in that narrow circumstance, but the bonus proficiencies that the Valor Bard gets, for instance, will in almost every campaign be useful much more often.

Mantle of shadows is fine-ish, but nothing really remarkable. It's better than alter self in the sense that it's going to hold up to much closer inspection, but is it better than extra attack, something that you can use on every round of combat? Is it better than bonus Magical Secrets, with which you can grab powerhouse spells like Aura of Vitality?

Whispers is incredibly specialized in that every ability is geared to one thing, but the things it gives you are not strong when compared with other options. The class is not garbage, just a bit weaker than average.

[Errata]

Psychic Blades(Whispers):Budget, short-rest-based smite! Better than Blade Flourish at single-target DPR! Except... no extra attack and no weapon or armor proficiencies.

AND Swords has a combat style, so another -2 damage to each attack compared to blade flourish, whether you use inspiration or not, which adds up. Valor gets both medium armor and shields, which is a big difference in survivability for a single class bard.

Whispers has a strong set of roleplaying fluff tools, so depending on the campaign you're in it can be useful for that, it's just the weakest bard subclass in combat. If you think it's strong in combat you're probably missing something.


you'll find that the rogue does fine without extra attack

Because it can sneak attack way more than just a few times. Comparing a bard subclass to a rogue is irrelevant. It matters how it compares to other bard subclasses, and it's pretty much strictly weaker than the rest in combat. Admittedly, it may not feel that way, if you have a preference for seeing yourself do damage rather than helping a party member by what is mathematically worth more damage. Out of combat, it could be interesting if you're willing to make that sacrifice.


Which is essentially the same thing you get with Swords only swords is less damage and but also gives up potentially 2 subclass features.
Swords does less damage for a use of an inspiration, though those inspirations also have side benefits like an AC boost. The Swords damage will be applied on top of an attack action in which you get 2 attacks, and a +2 damage to each whether you use inspiration or not. And the Swords bard can wear medium armor so they can survive being in melee range much better. The Whispers bard is pretty squishy to want to get in melee range to deal damage.

[Talamare]

Never said it was garbage. I just think that the subclass is overall not particularly great, and while the inspiration use ability is strong, it isn't anything over-the-top. Talamare was calling it: "Easily one of the more powerful Subclass Features for ANY Class." Which is sorta silly when you can do the same thing with BM dice and boost your damage by a much larger amount. (turning misses into hits.)

Yup.

Let's do a quick comparison of BI usages:
Default: use when you think you're going to fail an attack roll or saving throw. Ridiculously good. Like, even if you 'just' use this to let your fighter/barbarian hit a few extra times, you're getting massive bonus damage for him. Using it to empower a save is a huge bonus, potentially turning a whole encounter around.
Cutting Words(Lore): Same thing, but make an enemy fail a check. Situationally, as good or better than Default, depending on a number of factors. Can't be used on saves, but otherwise it's simply awesome.
Combat Inspiration(Valor):Use to raise AC or add damage. Adding to AC is weaker but sorta comparable to cutting words. Better on the action economy though, since it isn't eating the bard's reaction. Adding damage is sorta weak.
Mantle of Inspiration(Glamor):Immediately heal your whole party and let them move. Simply incredible, particularly if you're good atcoordinating with your team.
Blade Flourish(Swords): deals as much damage as whispers, improves your mobility while fighting, and you can do a lot of other things with it and you actually have proficiencies and extra attack.
Psychic Blades(Whispers):Budget, short-rest-based smite! Better than Blade Flourish at single-target DPR! Except... no extra attack and no weapon or armor proficiencies.

It's not useless, just not anything stand-out. Words of Terror is what they get instead of bonus proficiencies, and its... pretty limited. Once per short rest, if you have someone's attention for a whole minute, you can make them afraid of another character for an hour if they fail a wisdom save... That's a lot of caveats, and that's assuming that 'making a creature afraid of another creatures' is even a viable solution to your problem. It's great, in that narrow circumstance, but the bonus proficiencies that the Valor Bard gets, for instance, will in almost every campaign be useful much more often.

Mantle of shadows is fine-ish, but nothing really remarkable. It's better than alter self in the sense that it's going to hold up to much closer inspection, but is it better than extra attack, something that you can use on every round of combat? Is it better than bonus Magical Secrets, with which you can grab powerhouse spells like Aura of Vitality?

Whispers is incredibly specialized in that every ability is geared to one thing, but the things it gives you are not strong when compared with other options. The class is not garbage, just a bit weaker than average.

I fully standby it.

Let's take the BM example
For starters only a single BM effect carries the accuracy effect. Every other only adds a single d of damage. While a d8~d12 + Minor Effect is good, it's not close to equivalent to 3d6-8d6.
Addressing the accuracy one specifically, it's still unreliable. You could spend your Resource and still deal 0. BM states you can roll after the Attack, but it doesn't say that you can do it after you know if its a Hit or Miss; so there is a degree of guessing required. Finally, this only really becomes significant if you have GWM; before that it's really weak.

You can't just look at the best case scenario, and call it law.

So, yea. It is easily one of the more powerful Subclass Features for ANY Class.

Let's look again at Inspiration usage.

Default - You need to guess that a creature will need your dice. They may or may not need it. There are a huge amount of conditionals for this ability which means it difficult to use reliably.

Lore - The power of Cutting Words in a Combat situation is the same reason why Valors AC bonus is pretty mediocre. Cutting Words allows you to react to an emergency. If a sudden Assassin appears from the Shadows and hits your Wizard you can react with Cutting Words to protect your Wizard. In non-combat situations it's essentially the same reason why this is so much better than default. You're able to react in a opposing Checks depending on if it is needed.

Valor - Adding the AC is the VASTLY more powerful of the 2 effects. However, it still requires it to be preempted which makes it weak. Adding a piddly amount of damage is pointless.
Lv5 Bard (4 Ins)- Valor = 4d8(18) damage; Whispers = 12d6(42) damage

Glamor - Provides a mediocre amount of protection, not healing. Difficult to get full effect if you have also been using the insanely popular and powerful Inspiring Leader feat. However, it is still useful to have especially with the mobility kicker.

Swords - Adds a piddly amount of damage to your attacks. Has the option to use your resources on an preempted unreliable "Shield Spell", a situational amount of piddly damage aoe, or a single target push and disengage. All 3 effects are mediocre, leaning towards weak. This is a closer parallel to BM Fighter.

[Errata]

For starters only a single BM effect carries the accuracy effect. Every other only adds a single d of damage. While a d8~d12 + Minor Effect is good, it's not close to equivalent to 3d6-8d6.

False equivalence. Comparing to a battlemaster is pointless, just like comparing to a rogue. The comparison is to other bard subclasses and other uses of inspiration. Swords bards gets twice as many attacks and a flat +2 damage to all of them.

So it's something on the order of 2x(1d8 + 3 + 2) + 1d8 + minor effect, vs (1d8 + 3 + 3d6). Or around 23.5 average + minor effect vs. 18 average with no minor effect. So Whispers is great for people who like to look at big numbers without thinking too hard about math, but objectively it's not particularly strong compared to the alternatives.

By the time you get the 8d6 bonus damage, you may have an ASI or so and a magic rapier. So at the upper end, lets say: 2d8+18+1d12 + minor effect vs 1d8+7+8d6, or 33.5 with minor effect vs 39.5 with no effect. Marginally better damage, maybe better if you discout the value of the minor side effects, which I would not. However, on rounds where you don't want to spend your limited inspiration, the swords bard way outclasses you in damage, plus you'll be feeling that difference in AC from not having medium armor. Not only would they have a little more armor, but they could push that enemy away from them and out of OA range to escape after attacking as one of their possible side effects, or just add to their AC so they can hang in melee better.

[strangebloke]

False equivalence. Comparing to a battlemaster is pointless, just like comparing to a rogue. The comparison is to other bard subclasses and other uses of inspiration. Swords bards gets twice as many attacks and a flat +2 damage to all of them.


He said 'any subclass' which I took to mean, 'including subclasses of other classes' which seemed crazy to me because subclasses like BM offer very potent, entirely new resource pools.

But it sort of does work as a comparison. At least the accuracy part, since BI can give accuracy.

Let's say your martials are both dealing 1d10+5 damage per hit, although most martials can do much better than that by level 5 or so. 1d10+5 = 10.5 which is equivalent to 3d6.

Converting a hit to a miss in this case is totally equivalent to using psychic blades, and that's if your martials are dealing pathetic damage. More likely its something like 2d6+4+1.3+10 = 22.3 or 1d10+1d6+4+10=23. Better yet, it's your rogue's sneak attack you're saving, or even your Gish's GFB attack.

So lets say two martials, 2-3 attacks a round, 4 rounds a combat, and 6-8 combats between each long rest. That's 96-182 attacks per long rest. They'll miss by 2 or less something like 10-18 times per long rest, and you can guess the AC reasonably well you can convert those misses into hits with 93% efficiency. Let's say that 75% of the time they miss by 2 or less you give them an inspiration die and it successfully converts a hit to a miss. That's most (8-13) of your inspiration die you're using, and you're getting nearly the same utility out of them that you would if you used psychic knives!*

Accuracy buffs are awesome.

Now, dealing sneak attack damage is fun, and it's greedier, and sometimes the above won't work for various reasons, but you have lots of other default usages, like making sure that your allies don't fail saves. Psychic Dagger is fun. Playing greedy is fun. But as a feature, it doesn't let you do anything you couldn't do before, unlike all the other usages of BI.

And it isn't level 3 where the whispers rogue falls behind. It's everything after.

*In practice, it's a lot more complicated. You can't use BI twice in one attack action, for instance. But I also think I'm being pretty conservative here, since I am only allowing for two martials, whereas in real combat, buffing the accuracy of a spell or cantrip or sneak attack is even better.

[rbstr]

False equivalence. Comparing to a battlemaster is pointless, just like comparing to a rogue. The comparison is to other bard subclasses and other uses of inspiration. Swords bards gets twice as many attacks and a flat +2 damage to all of them.

But this still isn't the whole pciture. You're comparing two Swords bard features (level 3 and 6) to Whispers level 3. So in exchange for more limited combat features the Whispers bard gets like the best disguise feature in the whole game at level 6.
Psychic Blades is a really good damage feature for a single-attack fullcaster class. Particularly since it doesn't give up any higher level features to scale like Swords does.
Strickly speaking, no it's not gonna be a better straight up combatant than the swords bard...but isn't that kinda the point?

IMO it works pretty dang great combined with a Rogue dip...all sorts of funky control spells, cunning action for lots of fun, Greater Invisibility and most of a rogue's sneak attack damage when you do attack.

[Errata]

So in exchange for more limited combat features the Whispers bard gets like the best disguise feature in the whole game at level 6.
A great non-combat feature, no doubt.

Psychic Blades is a really good damage feature for a single-attack fullcaster class.
Good except in comparison to every other possible bard subclass. It's maybe good in some sense in comparison to other classes, just not in comparison to other bards which are even better.

Particularly since it doesn't give up any higher level features to scale like Swords does.
All of which are non-combat features.

Strickly speaking, no it's not gonna be a better straight up combatant than the swords bard...but isn't that kinda the point?

There is no dispute that Whispers fills an interesting non-combat role. What was in question was whether it was on par with other bards in combat. Out of combat it has some quite good roleplaying fluff, which has little defined mechanical benefit apart from what you and your DM choose to make of it. In exchange for that good out of combat utility, you are sacrificing a bit of your combat potential in comparison to other bards. A reasonable tradeoff as long as you know what you're getting into and aren't fooled by a false perspective of the combat numbers.

[Snowbluff]

Never said it was garbage. I just think that the subclass is overall not particularly great, and while the inspiration use ability is strong, it isn't anything over-the-top. Talamare was calling it: "Easily one of the more powerful Subclass Features for ANY Class." Which is sorta silly when you can do the same thing with BM dice and boost your damage by a much larger amount. (turning misses into hits.)

Yup.

Let's do a quick comparison of BI usages:
Default: use when you think you're going to fail an attack roll or saving throw. Ridiculously good. Like, even if you 'just' use this to let your fighter/barbarian hit a few extra times, you're getting massive bonus damage for him. Using it to empower a save is a huge bonus, potentially turning a whole encounter around.
Cutting Words(Lore): Same thing, but make an enemy fail a check. Situationally, as good or better than Default, depending on a number of factors. Can't be used on saves, but otherwise it's simply awesome.
Combat Inspiration(Valor):Use to raise AC or add damage. Adding to AC is weaker but sorta comparable to cutting words. Better on the action economy though, since it isn't eating the bard's reaction. Adding damage is sorta weak.
Mantle of Inspiration(Glamor):Immediately heal your whole party and let them move. Simply incredible, particularly if you're good atcoordinating with your team.
Blade Flourish(Swords): deals as much damage as whispers, improves your mobility while fighting, and you can do a lot of other things with it and you actually have proficiencies and extra attack.
Psychic Blades(Whispers):Budget, short-rest-based smite! Better than Blade Flourish at single-target DPR! Except... no extra attack and no weapon or armor proficiencies.

Except you think extra attack is worth 3rd level spells. The problem with that is that it's way overvaluing the damage a second attack gives. For melee, it's more or less worth a cantrip. After that, extra attack is only as good as your actions available to use it. If you're, for some god awful reason, spending more time attacking than casting, extra attack may very well be worth it, but in general having a smite as a back up or tied to another action is a pretty darn good alternative.

For archers, extra attack is worth more. IDR if either bard gets the style though, so your mileage may vary.

Finally, on an apples and oranges basis, while being of the opinion that Lore Bard and Whisper bard are just better outright can go either way, if you're going for a higher level (IE, spending less time trying to converse spell slot) or multiclassed build (getting multiclass from say, conquest paladin 5 for spiritual weapon and smites, stacking with bard smite would be a brutal combination, both complimenting paladin with a ranged smiting option that also can stack with the melee only paladin one), they're better off.

[Errata]

Except you think extra attack is worth 3rd level spells. The problem with that is that it's way overvaluing the damage a second attack gives.

You have to attack to use the whisper inspiration. Even if that's the only time you ever attack, the extra attack that you're sacrificing to pick that subclass has to be subtracted from the damage of that inspiration. Once you do that, the Swords inspiration's lower damage becomes competitive with, and possibly even better than psychic blades.

Not every attack will hit of course, but that means that with only 1 attack the Whispers bard may end up taking multiple rounds to actually land their smite, which may make it not even worth trying on some opponents. An extra attack is double the chances that one lands.

The chance of missing is one of the reasons that other inspirations, like Lore, are so much stronger than Whispers. The 2 rounds of actions that the Whispers bard may use per smite, vs a bonus action or reaction plus 2 regular actions. A regular bard using their inspiration gets a lot more done. Even if they just do 2 cantrips as their actions in that time, the Whisper smite minus two cantrips and a regular bard inspiration is not impressiive, not at all.

[Snowbluff]

That’s likely a mathematically incorrect statement. Extra attack is about 11 damage. 16 with a maxed out inspiration die. 8d6 is 28 damage.

Throw in a blade cantrip (admittedly has building cost), that’s 3d8 more damage, or 13 more.

noW that you’ve made me run the numbers, you’ve convinced me to avoid sword and valor bard. Lore bard is good though. I like lore bard.

[strangebloke]

That’s likely a mathematically incorrect statement. Extra attack is about 11 damage. 16 with a maxed out inspiration die. 8d6 is 28 damage.

Throw in a blade cantrip (admittedly has building cost), that’s 3d8 more damage, or 13 more.

noW that you’ve made me run the numbers, you’ve convinced me to avoid sword and valor bard. Lore bard is good though. I like lore bard.

Burst versus steady-state.

At 20th level, whispers deal 8d6 on each inspiration die of which he gets 15 (assuming 2 short rests). So that's 120d6 over the course of a day at 20th level, or 420 damage.

At 20th level, swords deals 1d6+2 more damage on every attack, and gets to attack 2 times as often, with each attack dealing 1d8+5+2.

So that's 1d8+2+(1d6+5+2)*.75 = 14.3 extra damage per round. He breaks even with the whispers bard at the 30th round. 6-8 encounters is the balance point, so if you have 6 encounters, each lasting for an average of 5 rounds, the swords bard comes ahead.

But wait! There's more!

Swords Bard here didn't use any of his inspiration die! He still gets to convert hits to misses! In fact, he can do that 15 times! Now, sometimes it won't work, but let's say 65% of the time it does. Let's also assume he's using this to bolster a champion who didn't take GWM, whose weapon attack is (individually) the weakest in the game.

That's a bonus of 11*(2d6+5+1.3)=147. with that factored in, he breaks even with Whispers by the fourth encounter for the day.

In reality, you can convert misses into hits that are much much bigger than this, can do it more reliably than 65%, the swords bard is getting 5.5 extra AC on average and has a 10 foot greater walking speed. If you add in GFB you're now taking a feat, which begs the question "What if your allies take GWM and SS? What if the valor bard does?" I do not think that analysis turns out too favorably for the whispers bard.

If you want to claim that the other tricks that the Whispers Bard has make him better in a social-heavy campaign, sure, I'll agree, at least, if you have a DM who is willing to play ball with you. But he is decidedly weaker in combat.

[Errata]

That’s likely a mathematically incorrect statement. Extra attack is about 11 damage. 16 with a maxed out inspiration die. 8d6 is 28 damage.

You didn't add in the blade flourish in that comparison. You're consistently only looking at one feature or the other at a time, while forgetting that it's actually both at once. Also swords gets a flat +2 to damage, so that's another 4 damage difference. There are 3 relevant features from Swords in comparison to 1 from Whispers.

The total at that level is around 33.5 from Swords vs. 39.5 from Whispers. However, in that round the Swords bard already has higher base AC from wearing medium armor, plus could take an additional +6.5 AC from the blade flourish, or push the enemy out of OA range to safely leave. At level 15 to get 8d6, your opponent is likely to hit you back very hard, and will have a lot more than 40 hps, so the extra 6 points of damage your smite does isn't going to be the thing that drops them.

Is Lore better than Swords or Valor? Absolutely yes. It's just a lot harder to make a direct comparison. But despite not being the best bard, Swords is still better than Whispers. Valor's inspiration is underwhelming, but it doesn't matter because the regular, default bardic inspiration is better than Whispers, and Valor has much better survivability as a single class due to their medium armor and shield. Glamour is also good in combat (and unlike Swords or Valor has an interesting non-combat utility) but it's an even harder direct comparison to make.

[Snowbluff]

You didn't add in the blade flourish in that comparison. You're consistently only looking at one feature or the other at a time, while forgetting that it's actually both at once. Also swords gets a flat +2 to damage, so that's another 4 damage difference. There are 3 relevant features from Swords in comparison to 1 from Whispers.

The total at that level is around 33.5 from Swords vs. 39.5 from Whispers. However, in that round the Swords bard already has higher base AC from wearing medium armor, plus could take an additional +6.5 AC from the blade flourish, or push the enemy out of OA range to safely leave. At level 15 to get 8d6, your opponent is likely to hit you back very hard, and will have a lot more than 40 hps, so the extra 6 points of damage your smite does isn't going to be the thing that drops them.

Is Lore better than Swords or Valor? Absolutely yes. It's just a lot harder to make a direct comparison. But despite not being the best bard, Swords is still better than Whispers. Valor's inspiration is underwhelming, but it doesn't matter because the regular, default bardic inspiration is better than Whispers, and Valor has much better survivability as a single class due to their medium armor and shield. Glamour is also good in combat (and unlike Swords or Valor has an interesting non-combat utility) but it's an even harder direct comparison to make.

Doesn’t blade flourish just add the inspection due? Sorry if I’m mixing up the redundant bard colleges, but I wasn’t ignoring it. We just confirmed whispers does more damage, and until you’ve actually been in enough combat rounds for a bard to expend all of their inspiration as well expending all of their spells that finally, swords/valor has a purpose. As for buffing your AC, kinda sad bard doesn’t get shield, and because of that I don’t think they should be considered a legitimate option as a full time gish to start with.

Obviously, Lore > Whispers (especially if you’ve gotten a melee cantrip) > swords/valor.

[Talamare]

Swords Bard here didn't use any of his inspiration die! He still gets to convert hits to misses! In fact, he can do that 15 times! Now, sometimes it won't work, but let's say 65% of the time it does. Let's also assume he's using this to bolster a champion who didn't take GWM, whose weapon attack is (individually) the weakest in the game.

That's a bonus of 11*(2d6+5+1.3)=147. with that factored in, he breaks even with Whispers by the fourth encounter for the day.

In reality, you can convert misses into hits that are much much bigger than this, can do it more reliably than 65%, the swords bard is getting 5.5 extra AC on average and has a 10 foot greater walking speed. If you add in GFB you're now taking a feat, which begs the question "What if your allies take GWM and SS? What if the valor bard does?" I do not think that analysis turns out too favorably for the whispers bard.

If you want to claim that the other tricks that the Whispers Bard has make him better in a social-heavy campaign, sure, I'll agree, at least, if you have a DM who is willing to play ball with you. But he is decidedly weaker in combat.

Talking about Lv14+ Combat?
Aka, something that is played by the smallest percentage of people?

"my build is so overpowered at lv20"

Scale it back to Lv6-10

---
Edit, Remember as well
The Bard is not a Fighter
He won't spend every single turn in combat auto attacking.
He is also a full Caster, and will spend half his turns casting spells.

That's the true power of Whispers
A Sword Bard gets more value from being a Swords Bard the more time he spends Auto Attacking.
A Whisper Bard attempts to spend the minimal possible time Auto Attacking, and tries to maximize that small amount of time spent.

[strangebloke]

Talking about Lv14+ Combat?
Aka, something that is played by the smallest percentage of people?

"my build is so overpowered at lv20"

Scale it back to Lv6-10

---
Edit, Remember as well
The Bard is not a Fighter
He won't spend every single turn in combat auto attacking.
He is also a full Caster, and will spend half his turns casting spells.

That's the true power of Whispers
A Sword Bard gets more value from being a Swords Bard the more time he spends Auto Attacking.
A Whisper Bard attempts to spend the minimal possible time Auto Attacking, and tries to maximize that small amount of time spent.

You're right that my analysis assumed a lot more attack actions than is reasonable. I will concede the point that at high levels the whispers bard does more damage, if only because bards have better things to do than hit things. More attacks do tend to pair well with high level features like magic swords so that isn't going to be strictly true.

As to your point that I shouldn't be bringing up high level play, i chose that point because I thought it was most unfavorable to swords bard.

At level three, psychic daggers is 6d6 damage per long rest, whereas using default bardic inspiration will give you (2d6+3+1)*3*(BI efficiency). If you can convert misses with 2/3 efficiency, you'll be better off just doing that. You'll also be making the attack action more often than at higher levels, and as a swords bard your default attack action is going to be significantly better, your AC is going to be significantly higher, and if you get into a rough spot you can increase your AC even higher. AC is very important at low levels.

[Temperjoke]

One of the assumptions I see a lot on d&d forums is that every class should be examined from a combat standpoint. Whispers is a weak combat class, but that's okay. It's not intended to be a combat-heavy class, it's primarily an infiltration/social campaign class. So when you compare it to a class that is intended for combat such as Swords Bard, or a flexible class that can be tailored to a campaign's needs, like Lore Bard, it's going to lag behind.

[strangebloke]

One of the assumptions I see a lot on d&d forums is that every class should be examined from a combat standpoint. Whispers is a weak combat class, but that's okay. It's not intended to be a combat-heavy class, it's primarily an infiltration/social campaign class. So when you compare it to a class that is intended for combat such as Swords Bard, or a flexible class that can be tailored to a campaign's needs, like Lore Bard, it's going to lag behind.

There's two halves to the argument here. Argument 1 is that the class is weak(ish) in combat. I think it is,snowbluff doesn't. argument 2 is whether the social powers are enough to compensate.

As to the second... the social powers are the sorts of things a DM might let you do without a class feature (persuade someone that their vizier is out to get them, maintain a decent disguise) and are very situational in any case. How often do your PCs come upon a situation where posing as someone they killed would be all that useful? I run a pretty social campaign, and the warlock with actor and mask of many faces was a lot better at infiltration than a whispers bard would be.

[Temperjoke]

There's two halves to the argument here. Argument 1 is that the class is weak(ish) in combat. I think it is,snowbluff doesn't. argument 2 is whether the social powers are enough to compensate.

As to the second... the social powers are the sorts of things a DM might let you do without a class feature (persuade someone that their vizier is out to get them, maintain a decent disguise) and are very situational in any case. How often do your PCs come upon a situation where posing as someone they killed would be all that useful? I run a pretty social campaign, and the warlock with actor and mask of many faces was a lot better at infiltration than a whispers bard would be.

Social campaigns are pretty dependent on the DM, and the level that you're comparing. Mask of Many Faces is a very powerful ability in part because of how flexible it is. But at level 6, I don't feel it's as strong as Mantle of Whispers, which not only lets you look like a person, but possess some of their knowledge. But if your DM never puts you in a position to need to pass a casual impersonation, then it's weak. It also depends on who you get a chance to impersonate. If you kill a guard, that means you could know the layout of the place you're infiltrating, or at least what that guard had seen. But if the DM doesn't want you to know that, then that guard never went anywhere beyond his post and home. A warlock with the Mask can look like a person, but if the DM doesn't have NPCs challenge it beyond just looks or a casual "Hey, how's it going?", then of course it's going to be better than Mantle of Whispers.

Another thing to consider, your example was a warlock who also took a feat, Actor. A Whisper Bard with that same feat would have had the same advantage, plus an extra bonus to the roll that the level 6 ability provides.

[strangebloke]

Social campaigns are pretty dependent on the DM, and the level that you're comparing. Mask of Many Faces is a very powerful ability in part because of how flexible it is. But at level 6, I don't feel it's as strong as Mantle of Whispers, which not only lets you look like a person, but possess some of their knowledge. But if your DM never puts you in a position to need to pass a casual impersonation, then it's weak. It also depends on who you get a chance to impersonate. If you kill a guard, that means you could know the layout of the place you're infiltrating, or at least what that guard had seen. But if the DM doesn't want you to know that, then that guard never went anywhere beyond his post and home. A warlock with the Mask can look like a person, but if the DM doesn't have NPCs challenge it beyond just looks or a casual "Hey, how's it going?", then of course it's going to be better than Mantle of Whispers.

Another thing to consider, your example was a warlock who also took a feat, Actor. A Whisper Bard with that same feat would have had the same advantage, plus an extra bonus to the roll that the level 6 ability provides.

Mask of Many faces has other advantages, like impersonating someone you haven't killed.

But my general point is that these abilities are weak because they're super specific. 1/sr, if you have a minute to talk with someone, if he fails a wis save, he will be afraid of someone else for 1 hour or until he takes damage. That's got so many caveats. The other ability is alright, but at most it's usually just going to be a scouting ability. Would be awesome if it was at-will.

[Fire Tarrasque]

What if you combined Hexblade's wraith raising ability, the capturing of a shadow, and a really good deception check on a high level Bardlock to convince someone that you are the original and that the character you were playing earlier was a monstrous shadow out to steal your face?
Otherwise, I like the class, and it works really well thematically with many others. I'll find myself going into it for many, many bard multiclasses, because it works thematically with many things. It would meld well with all the dark subclasses sure, but also basically any wizard, wild magic, any rogue, battlemaster, just so much thematic amazingness!
I don't really try to hard on stats. I'm in it for thematics.

[Waazraath]

I'll join the crew that's not impressed. Combat is a trap. Decent extra damage, but with using a limited resource that has great other uses; a chassis that isn't fit for combat, cause very frail; combat requires other ability scores (maxing first dex instead of cha); action economy wise it's terrible, with only 1 attack, fair chance you miss and do nothing (unless 2 weapon fighting, but the chassis really is to weak for melee), and you really can do better things with your action; very few spells that are good for buffing your combat ability, none at the lower levels.

Besides combat being a trap, the rest of the abilities are flavorful, but very situational.

Don't get me wrong, I was impressed at first with the extra damage dice; but thinking it through, just not worth it.

[Errata]

One of the assumptions I see a lot on d&d forums is that every class should be examined from a combat standpoint.

Who is making that assumption here? Most people here are acknowledging that Whispers has some strong non-combat tools. Certainly more than Valor or Swords. That part isn't particularly in debate. Where the disagreement is is that some people here don't seem to share the understanding that with Whispers you are trading away some combat effectiveness for non-combat social utility. Some people are hypnotized by that big pile of damage dice and aren't putting it in context to evaluate where Whispers stands purely in combat ability. I think it's the weakest official Bard subclass in terms of pure combat ability. However, if you factor in the non-combat abilities, there are valid reasons that people may want to take it. As long as they know what they're getting themselves into, which some of them don't.

[scoutsdoitbettr]

So I just started playing a Whispers Bard. I was able to start at level 6. Im not going to argue too much in one way or another, I just want to put it out there that I absolutely love this class. I am using the Shadar-Kai race from UA until it comes out in Mordenkainens, so as a racial I can teleport once a day and gain resistance till end of turn. This is amazing to "sneak attack" someone in order to take their shadow. Also, the psychic blades does not have to be added to a melee weapon attack, you can easily use this with a hand crossbow. I see bards as a support class, yes at times they can be very powerful, but your job is to assist. I use my whispers bard as an assist to our partys rogue. I will stealth right beside him and we both get a sneak attack on a powerful enemy, AND i can follow it up with a cantrip, which will put my damage on par with the rogues 2nd attack normally. Another big thing you are forgetting to mention is that it is PSYCHIC damage, which is on of the least likely to be resisted. A rogues sneak attack is physical which is more likely to be resisted (magic weapon helps). ALSO you can wait to use your BIs for those sweet sweet crits. Im out of alot of my big spells, let me fire a hand crossbow into this dude, oh snap a nat 20! i will use Psychic blades as well! I have 4 uses of BI at 6th level, I may only use 1 or 2 on others, the other 2 i save for my timed weapon strikes.

I look at it like this. 4 uses of inspiration. WHisper bard gets 4 (2d6 psychic) Swords bard gets 4 (+2 AC, +4average) to me the whisper bard takes it, but it all depends on you character.

You can also use the bards "fluff" abilities in combat. Use your imagination, Shadow Lore can effectively take an enemy out of combat for 8 hours without using a spell slot. Just communicate to your team that you are charming said creature and just send him away from the battle. 1 less enemy to deal with, and if it happens to be the big bad then even better. Tell him to go to the edge of a cliff and look at the beautiful sunset with you, PUSH. So what if he isnt charmed any longer, he will be very confused as to why he is falling to his death. The words of terror is AMAZING at getting into places you cant normally get, no need to stealth, no need for mask of many faces, just scare the **** outa the guard and then walk on in.

All in all i do agree that valor and swords make better well rounded melee gish, but there is so much fun you can have with a whispers bard if you just think outside the box. Neither one is better than the other, they both have their uses. Fear is such a great condition, people will likely do just as much for you if they are afraid as they will if you are a friend.

I will be going Archfey patron warlock on this character as well, which will give me even more tools to use in and out of combat.

[Errata]

I look at it like this. 4 uses of inspiration. WHisper bard gets 4 (2d6 psychic) Swords bard gets 4 (+2 AC, +4average) to me the whisper bard takes it, but it all depends on you character.

We've been over (and over) a lot of the reasons that this is not the way to look at it at all. This is the mistake that could easily mislead someone into thinking it's better than it is. I'm glad you're enjoying it. Bards are full casters, so even if you never used the subclass, they'd be reasonable options, therefore you can't go too wrong. But if you think whisper is stronger than the other subclasses in combat, that isn't correct.


You can also use the bards "fluff" abilities in combat. Use your imagination, Shadow Lore can effectively take an enemy out of combat for 8 hours without using a spell slot.

Fair, that is a combat ability, but that's a level 14 ability, and you were just talking about how you were going to multiclass, so even higher. Most campaigns don't get to level 15+, so basing balance on those levels is more hypothetical than practical. Once per day you can do a pretty decent save or suck that would take one target out of the combat as long as you don't attack them. That's fine except for the part where it's at level 14, when you have access to level 7 spells, and this is comparable to a single lower level spell effect. A level 3 spell can take out a group of enemies in a similar manner. It may only last a minute, but not many combats go much more than 10 rounds.

Have you ever looked up the level 14 Swords ability? We've refrained from including that in most of the discussion because it's such a high level as to be irrelevant to a lot of players. But it basically lets them use their ability every round, without using up inspiration.

[scoutsdoitbettr]

We've been over (and over) a lot of the reasons that this is not the way to look at it at all. This is the mistake that could easily mislead someone into thinking it's better than it is. I'm glad you're enjoying it. Bards are full casters, so even if you never used the subclass, they'd be reasonable options, therefore you can't go too wrong. But if you think whisper is stronger than the other subclasses in combat, that isn't correct.
Like I said, it depends on how you play and your character, FOR ME, whisper is stronger. I do not want to get up in someones face and melee with them, having that damage to tack on whenever i want to take a swing at someone is nice for me, and matches my stealthy spy approach to the bard. I dont believe you give it enough credit.


Fair, that is a combat ability, but that's a level 14 ability, and you were just talking about how you were going to multiclass, so even higher. Most campaigns don't get to level 15+, so basing balance on those levels is more hypothetical than practical. Once per day you can do a pretty decent save or suck that would take one target out of the combat as long as you don't attack them. That's fine except for the part where it's at level 14, when you have access to level 7 spells, and this is comparable to a single lower level spell effect. A level 3 spell can take out a group of enemies in a similar manner. It may only last a minute, but not many combats go much more than 10 rounds.

The thing about those lower level spells is that they cant be used if the creature is already hostile to you, and they know you were the one to cast the spell if you fail, your ability is completely secret and can be done whenever. Yes Shadow Lore is 14th level, got it.


Have you ever looked up the level 14 Swords ability? We've refrained from including that in most of the discussion because it's such a high level as to be irrelevant to a lot of players. But it basically lets them use their ability every round, without using up inspiration.
Yes I have, and at 14th level an extra d6 is paltry. Its a "meh" ability, cool, Ill take extra damage, but there are better.

My point to my post was that just because you dont like the whisper bard doesnt mean that it isnt any good. Or that its mediocre. It is a good class, even if its not for you. The whisper bard provides a link to those of us that like to play a more deceitful stealthy character, but are tired of the same old rogue.

When evelauating a class, you need to look at the whole class, not just the first 5 levels. The sword bard does not bring much to the table. Your flourishes are fancy, and the defensive flourish is really the only useful one, Slashing flourish is GFB, why waste a BI. And Mobile flourish is Gust, again why waste a BI. And then at 6th you get an extra attack, which is great for a melee character. 14th level, you get a d6 and use your flourishes all the time. Again, good, but not great. And no shield profs....Swords bard is a decent class to MC with, go Hexblade lock and you have a decent character with flavor and style.

In the end its all personal opinion and I wont knock anyone who feels their class is great. Im only putting out my opinion to contribute to the thought process, whisper bards are not bad.

[Errata]

FOR ME, whisper is stronger.

Except that in combat it's not. You may think so, but you've already demonstrated the flaws in your analysis that might lead you to think that.


I do not want to get up in someones face and melee with them, having that damage to tack on whenever i want to take a swing at someone is nice for me, and matches my stealthy spy approach to the bard.

Yes, a swing, which is just one of your problems. There's a good chance that one swing misses, and you don't accomplish anything at all. Twice the swings is twice the chance for your attempt at using your inspiration to actually land. This is not the only problem with Whispers, mind you, but I don't see the point in retreading it point by point when you made a statement indicating that you haven't read or understood the points made previously.


And then at 6th you get an extra attack, which is great for a melee character.

It really doesn't have much to do with melee vs. ranged, unless you play a single class bard with no racial ability or crossbow feat to get you a better ranged option or bypass the loading restriction. A hand crossbow is less appealing for the swords bard since it lets you use a weapon as a spell focus rather than an instrument. Take a 1 level dip, or a feat, or a variant Half-Elf with weapon training, and extra attack with a bow.

If you're going to count the damage from your inspiration you need to subtract off the damage of a second attack that you're not doing, plus the fixed bonus of a combat style that you don't have (x2 since it's on both attacks). If you don't like attacking much, even better, because the extra attack ensures that you're more likely to actually do anything in just one round rather than having to keep trying.

[Snowbluff]

We've already done the math, Whisper already does more damage. Something some AC is nice, but I think the best plan for a bard is to stay the hell away from attacks to keep your concentration up.

I wouldn't discount the 14th level bonus on Swords. It can give a little AC buff, as long as you're attacking. I don't think it's good enough, but the AC is worth more than the damage it does by far. Of course, is it worth anything at all is the question. You have spells, recover your dice on an SR, and so I wonder if you'll be attacking 5 times between shortrests. XD

[Mjolnirbear]

OMG, please stop measuring your genitals.

Math is a limited way to measure effectiveness. See PHB Ranger for something that's mathematically effective but terribly received.

Fighter, monk, rogue, and barbarian are all great classes that I WILL NEVER PLAY because "I swing my sword again" is not something I enjoy saying every round of combat. Math is not what makes them great. Math is what helps keep them balanced (to a degree).

One likes Whispers. The other likes Swords. Neither is convincing the other and both have already said everything that can be said.

Just agree to disagree and put those bad boys back in your pants.

Yeesh.

[Zene]

It's hard to compare to Lore Bard; Lore is just so good.

Overall? Yeah I'd say Whispers is on the weaker side of bard subclasses. Only slightly though.

Specifically for an assassin? Whispers is great. It's the only bard subclass that will allow his Assassin first-round surprise nova to continue to scale exactly as fast as if he stayed straight assassin (via psychic blades). Yes, it's only a limited number of times per short rest, but how many first-round surprise novas do you need between rests? And in exchange, it's a full caster, gets the skill versatility and extra expertise of the bard class, and has a few nice subclass bonuses on top of it.

I'd highly recommend it as the subclass to pick for an assassin that wants to MC bard.

[Errata]

One likes Whispers. The other likes Swords. Neither is convincing the other and both have already said everything that can be said.

Actually I don't like it that much. It's just the most direct one to one comparison to Whispers. Whispers is the worst bard subclass in combat, and every other subclass is better than it. It's just particularly clear with Swords. Lore is better than Swords, but it's more of an apples to oranges comparison that's easier for people to handwave away if they aren't good with quantitative reasoning.

It doesn't matter if everything has been said if everything has not been read. He jumped into the thread without having read it, rehashing old, debunked points.

[Waazraath]

We've already done the math, Whisper already does more damage.

Lolwut? Really? Must have been in another thread...

[Snowbluff]

OMG, please stop measuring your genitals.

Math is a limited way to measure effectiveness. See PHB Ranger for something that's mathematically effective but terribly received.

Fighter, monk, rogue, and barbarian are all great classes that I WILL NEVER PLAY because "I swing my sword again" is not something I enjoy saying every round of combat. Math is not what makes them great. Math is what helps keep them balanced (to a degree).

One likes Whispers. The other likes Swords. Neither is convincing the other and both have already said everything that can be said.

Just agree to disagree and put those bad boys back in your pants.

Yeesh.
... what? We're trying to gauge the effectiveness of Whisper's bard... how are we supposed to do that without comparing it to the competing options?:smallconfused:



Lolwut? Really? Must have been in another thread...
Last page I threw in the raw damage, other guy did some attack math*. Before (1d12 and about 11 damage on a second attack is17 versus 8d6, which is 28) and after build cost (GWM versus GFB as a feat, as GWM lowers attack but I'm already saying everything hits, and if it does hit 100% that's 37 total additional damage versus 41 for psychic booming blade/GFB WITHOUT a secondary effect trigger), I'm pretty confident Whispers still hits harder after letting swords ignore GMW's penalty for burst damage at the expense of a decent AC buff.

*= Where he makes the assumption that you're attacking 10 rounds after you've expended your inspiration? WTF? Might as well dip paladin if you aren't using those spell slots, buddy. Adding total damage over a day is less valid than round-by round, as you've got way more things you should be doing.

Making a miss a hit for GWM Greatsword with 20 Str is 10+2d6(7) + 5 = 21. 21 is less than 28. Even then, that's probability based and so you're only responsible for a fraction of that directly.

To with, you do 1d6 (you can only flurry once, or only use the same option once or what? I think they mean once)+4 damage per round, plus 2d8+10. 27 damage. At level 10, let's say you take a blasting spell of 3rd level, fireball. That's 28 damage. You have 15 slots that can cast it at 20. That's 15 rounds before you have to hit something with your autoattack. 29 rounds with a single (1) catnap thrown in. Longevity isn't a concern for bard of either variety. Any bard can do this, 4 levels before Swords' get their free die, and they'd be doing more damage for it. At least with whispers bard you need to count the upcasting damage to compete.

[scoutsdoitbettr]

Whispers is the worst bard subclass in combat, and every other subclass is better than it. It's just particularly clear with Swords.

Apparently you are misunderstanding me due to your insistance that whisper bards are the worst subclass and inability to accept that just because YOU think so doesn't make it true for everyone else.

As I've said in both my previous posts, it all depends on how you play your character. Not everyone wants to play a swords bard or lore bard. In which case a whispers bard is a very good option. I'm not arguing that whisper bard is better than swords in straight combat, I'm arguing that you don't give it enough credit for what it does.

Best case scenario, assuming you hit every attack, and let's take out spells.

Lvl3 - WB with a rapier and +3 dex (1d8+3)(2d6) average dpr (13)
Lvl3 - SB with the same (1d8+5)(1d6) +2 AC, average dpr (12)
Very close, whispers wins damage, but the 2 AC is nice

Lvl6 - WB (1d8+3)(3d6) average dpr (16)
Lvl6 - SB (1d8+5)(1d8)(1d8+5) average dpr (22)
This where the swords bard starts to pull away, swords is doing more damage

Lvl10 - WB (1d8+3)(5d6) average dpr (22)
Lvl10 - SB (1d8+5)(1d10)(1d8+5) average dpr (23)
Again it's very close, for a martial fighting bard swords is better because you get the +2AC, but for a bard that doesn't want to fight up close psychic blades is a major boost to a martial attack they can use if they need to.

Now I know exactly what your gonna say, the sustained damage of the swords bard is better, and yes I agree, swords bard is a great option if you want a martial bard. But in no means is it a superior subclass. It all depends on how you want to play. Whisper bards are not bad bards, they are great bards, just like sword bards, and all the other bards.

And in the original post, it was asked if the whisper bard was a good choice for an assassin style rogue to mc into, the answer is yes! And a resounding yes! You get an additional sneak attack that stacks, and you get out of combat support abilities, AND you get spells. Hell yes this is a good mc option.

[strangebloke]

Like I said, it depends on how you play and your character, FOR ME, whisper is stronger. I do not want to get up in someones face and melee with them, having that damage to tack on whenever i want to take a swing at someone is nice for me, and matches my stealthy spy approach to the bard. I dont believe you give it enough credit.


I think I begin to see where our disagreement lies.

Valor/Swords bard have a whole suite of features that allow them to attack nearly every turn and still be effective. In that light, their BI abilities are great. Swords bard's inspiration let's them sustain their presence on the front lines for longer, and Valor bards' abilities make their action economy more efficient (and therefore opens up more actions for attacking people.)

You have stated that you don't want to attack much at all. So yeah, those classes aren't great for you. But I'd argue that, inherently, an ability you use more often in combat is a better combat ability. Psychic Daggers is a "I guess all I can do is hit this guy with my sword... I'll use psychic daggers so that it doesn't suck." Psychic daggers is questionably better than a cantrip, some of the time.

[scoutsdoitbettr]

Psychic Daggers is a "I guess all I can do is hit this guy with my sword... I'll use psychic daggers so that it doesn't suck." Psychic daggers is questionably better than a cantrip, some of the time.
Lol hot damn I think your coming around. I'll take it haha.

I enjoy reading these threads and seeing how other people interpret the abilities and spells. It makes my games that much more fun. I do appreciate your view on the whisper bard, even if I think they are better than you give them credit for ;)

[Snowbluff]

I think I begin to see where our disagreement lies.

Valor/Swords bard have a whole suite of features that allow them to attack nearly every turn and still be effective. In that light, their BI abilities are great. Swords bard's inspiration let's them sustain their presence on the front lines for longer, and Valor bards' abilities make their action economy more efficient (and therefore opens up more actions for attacking people.)

You have stated that you don't want to attack much at all. So yeah, those classes aren't great for you. But I'd argue that, inherently, an ability you use more often in combat is a better combat ability. Psychic Daggers is a "I guess all I can do is hit this guy with my sword... I'll use psychic daggers so that it doesn't suck." Psychic daggers is questionably better than a cantrip, some of the time.

The difference is that Swords/Valor monopolize your action. Extra attack isn't a blessing. You're better of using GFB or Booming Blade. Whisper Bard facilitates that better. Using the Sword Bard ability more often doesn't mean you're getting the most out of your subclass; as shown above, it means you're holding your class back. The only time when this comparison using other sources isn't welcome is in AL, where you can't combine XGtE and SCAG, but even then the above longevity analysis still holds true.

Swords bard is a trap.

[dragoeniex]

I'm playing a Whispers bard lv 9 right now, and I couldn't be happier with the subclass choice. :smallsmile: It's ridiculously fun.

Psychic Blades is a great option for adding damage bursts if you need to be landing a hit, but The Mantle has been by far the most fun ability to get creative with. Very advanced form of disguise self with the added benefit of surface memory access. So far, in my party, this has been used to:

1. Give a town hall speech as the corrupt mayor we'd just taken out, putting someone else in charge (used the mayor's memories of who townsfolk thought well of) "temporarily." Convinced the town the mayor was suffering from long-term illness and needed to head elsewhere to be treated. After disposing of the body, we set up letter correspondence to reach back to the town with a medical official offering condolences, mayor passed away.

2. Got attacked by merfolk on a ship in a storm, and it started going down. Stealing one of the merfolk's shadows, we got access to all the spots of dry land it knew were nearby so we could panic-swim our way toward whichever was closest.

3. Party was on the run from a large army troop of hostile vampires. There were way too many to face head-on without casualties, and we did have a player death.

Angry, we set up a distraction to lure a few soldiers away, and my bard used Mantle to pull the shadow of an officer our blood hunter had just killed.

In the guise of the officer, and using surface memories to see what command phrases were common for this army/how to say those, I commanded a small segment of the troop (including mini boss) to follow me to investigate the ruckus. We then ambushed them.

One soldier got a chance to yell invaders were this way before being dragged off by our fighter. Still as a commanding officer, I ran out and essentially went "You heard him! I need you five over here with me immediately."

So second verse, same as the first. Then the remaining half-ish of the troop was much easier to mop up after.

[strangebloke]

The difference is that Swords/Valor monopolize your action. Extra attack isn't a blessing. You're better of using GFB or Booming Blade. Whisper Bard facilitates that better. Using the Sword Bard ability more often doesn't mean you're getting the most out of your subclass; as shown above, it means you're holding your class back. The only time when this comparison using other sources isn't welcome is in AL, where you can't combine XGtE and SCAG, but even then the above longevity analysis still holds true.

Swords bard is a trap.

I know I shouldn't reply to this after two months, but the thread was necroed, so I'm doing it anyway.

I wasn't very well-spoken in this thread, as a rule. I used bad math and bad ability comparisons. That said, after reading through everything again, here's what I think:

For a melee-focused bard, swords is the best option, because their melee capabilities come with a low opportunity cost. Whispers bard might be a better pick overall if the out-of-combat abilities are relevant to your campaign.

Swords bard is more resilient at every level, for a lower cost. He needs 14 DEX to get 17 AC, and can boost that to 21.5-23.5 with a single inspiration die and can give himself an extra damage die. Whispers bard needs magic initiate:wizard (for mage armor) and 18 DEX to get 17 AC which would put him two ASIs (and therefore, six BI usages) behind the swords bard. If they both max CHA before touching DEX or magic initiate, the Whispers bard will have 15 AC, which is not enough AC to remain in melee safely. The Swords bard has better tools for disengaging, and is more mobile, and at high levels can flourish on every turn that he attacks for 21.5 AC.

Rerunning the numbers on the damage calcs, a Whispers bard with Booming Blade does more damage than the swords bard if the enemy moves and takes bonus damage, and less if he doesn't. For the levels people actually play at (3-11) the swords bard is 5-8 damage per round ahead of the Whispers Bard whose opponent remains stationary, and the Whispers Bard who opponent moves is 0-8 damage per round ahead of the swords bard.

For damage on turns where a BI is expended, a swords bard using slashing flourish does comparable or better DPR than a Whisper bard who uses psychic blades in conjunction with booming blade against a stationary target, until level 11. The Whispers Bard's damage is single-target, and most Swords Bards will use defensive flourish before they use slashing, but the Swords bard will also be able to hit with their flourish more frequently. Overall, the Whispers bard with BB is better at burst damage at levels above than 6.

If the Whispers bard does not have BB or GFB, they fall far behind in steady-state damage and are behind in burst damage as well until level ~15 or so. This analysis assumes that they got the blade cantrips as a racial feature via High elf or vHuman. A whispers bard with the blade cantrips is not an AL legal build.

TL;DR. The swords bard has more AC and deals more steady-state damage without needing feats or DEX boosts. With feat support (or wise racial choice) the Whispers bard becomes better at pure DPR, but remains far more fragile in melee.


I'm playing a Whispers bard lv 9 right now, and I couldn't be happier with the subclass choice. :smallsmile: It's ridiculously fun.

Psychic Blades is a great option for adding damage bursts if you need to be landing a hit, but The Mantle has been by far the most fun ability to get creative with. Very advanced form of disguise self with the added benefit of surface memory access. So far, in my party, this has been used to:

1. Give a town hall speech as the corrupt mayor we'd just taken out, putting someone else in charge (used the mayor's memories of who townsfolk thought well of) "temporarily." Convinced the town the mayor was suffering from long-term illness and needed to head elsewhere to be treated. After disposing of the body, we set up letter correspondence to reach back to the town with a medical official offering condolences, mayor passed away.

2. Got attacked by merfolk on a ship in a storm, and it started going down. Stealing one of the merfolk's shadows, we got access to all the spots of dry land it knew were nearby so we could panic-swim our way toward whichever was closest.

3. Party was on the run from a large army troop of hostile vampires. There were way too many to face head-on without casualties, and we did have a player death.

Angry, we set up a distraction to lure a few soldiers away, and my bard used Mantle to pull the shadow of an officer our blood hunter had just killed.

In the guise of the officer, and using surface memories to see what command phrases were common for this army/how to say those, I commanded a small segment of the troop (including mini boss) to follow me to investigate the ruckus. We then ambushed them.

One soldier got a chance to yell invaders were this way before being dragged off by our fighter. Still as a commanding officer, I ran out and essentially went "You heard him! I need you five over here with me immediately."

So second verse, same as the first. Then the remaining half-ish of the troop was much easier to mop up after.

two-month necro. This is no bueno, my friend.

I will also add here, that no one is arguing that the mantle isn't fun. Just that in combat the whisper's bard is weaker than the other martial bards at combat, and is weaker than the casty bards at casting spells.

[nurotic]

I am choosing my bard college currently, and am probably going to go the whispers route. However, one hangup: my DM wants to make the stolen shadow (from mantle of whispers) visible, as in, my character would have two shadows. Like, on the ground, standing in the sun, he would have two, obviously visible shadows.

Do you all share his interpretation of "shadow?" I was assuming it just meant a vestige of the former being's soul, or some part of their essence. Not an actual shadow, like something from Peter pan.

I mean, if anyone can see a 2nd shadow on the ground, wouldn't that Nerf the sub-class to some degree?

[sophontteks]

I am choosing my bard college currently, and am probably going to go the whispers route. However, one hangup: my DM wants to make the stolen shadow (from mantle of whispers) visible, as in, my character would have two shadows. Like, on the ground, standing in the sun, he would have two, obviously visible shadows.

Do you all share his interpretation of "shadow?" I was assuming it just meant a vestige of the former being's soul, or some part of their essence. Not an actual shadow, like something from Peter pan.

I mean, if anyone can see a 2nd shadow on the ground, wouldn't that Nerf the sub-class to some degree?

As flavor yes (but he would only have one shadow. Two is silly) but you're right to ask if this is going to screw you. Nothing should ever really notice this. And even if they did they wouldn't believe/understand it.

[nurotic]

This is his ruling (hopefully not his final ruling):

"Visible if they succeed a perception check. The DC will depend on how much light there is, if it's full sun it'll be pretty easy ,if it's pretty dark it'll be pretty hard."

Does this seem reasonable?

[sophontteks]

This is his ruling (hopefully not his final ruling):

"Visible if they succeed a perception check. The DC will depend on how much light there is, if it's full sun it'll be pretty easy ,if it's pretty dark it'll be pretty hard."

Does this seem reasonable?
Here's the question.
Who on earth would ever look at one's shadow and suspect something is wrong with it and know what to do with that information.

Even if an NPC notices someone's shadow was strange, they would have to be paranoid to actually believe its anything but a trick caused by light bouncing off of something.

If NPCs are actually rolling these perception checks, he's not being reasonable. They need a reason to suspect something. Now if a guy knows your a whisper bard and he knows what whisper bards can do, he would be checking shadows, otherwise its just too obscure of an ability for the layman.

Also, you can't see shadows in full sun because the sun would be more or less directly over you. Seeing shadows in the day would be a morning/evening thing.

And lastly, shadows are vague. I couldn't tell one person's shadow from another. All humanoid shadows would be pretty much the same. Even with a natural 20 perception, its not a lot of information.

[strangebloke]

This is his ruling (hopefully not his final ruling):

"Visible if they succeed a perception check. The DC will depend on how much light there is, if it's full sun it'll be pretty easy ,if it's pretty dark it'll be pretty hard."

Does this seem reasonable?

I think it's always unreasonable to nerf the capabilities of the player. I might put up with it from a DM if I liked him otherwise, but this is the sort of thing I don't like.

You're literally building your class to be an infiltrator that can't be caught, why is he introducing an effect that makes you relatively easy to catch?

Also, DM rolling against variable DC is just asking for him to cheat, and he will do this at some point.

Finally, he has it backwards. In the full light of day or in a well-lit room, shadows are small and unnoticeable, and can form from multiple directions. It's only when things get darker (campfire, candle, sunset) that shadows become noticeable.

[nurotic]

Thanks guys. This confirms my own feelings on the matter.

This was his final ruling, and unfortunately I may have cemented that in his mind by appealing to this consensus here. He got defensive about running his own campaign (which I get; I shouldn't have made the appeal).

In the end, I chose to go the boring route: Lore. Which is disappointing; I was looking forward to being a shady ****. Just not in the literal way he imagined it.

[strangebloke]

This was his final ruling, and unfortunately I may have cemented that in his mind by appealing to this consensus here. He got defensive about running his own campaign (which I get; I shouldn't have made the appeal).

Yeah, appealing to some guys on the internet is never a good move. Appealing to the arguments we used, before he made his final ruling, might have helped, but honestly it just sounds like he was worried that he wouldn't be able to handle the ability as RAW in his game.

Which is a silly fear, IMO, because it isn't an overpowered ability, even in a social-heavy campaign. There's a lot of DM discretion required to make it work.

[wheelercub]

Yeah that's unfortunate. I've seen a lot of inexperienced DMs try to alter the core game because they think it's unbalanced, underpowered, or overpowered. Most of the time they're not using the myriad of tools at their fingertips and wind up watering down a core class feature accidentally or creating a nightmare for themselves. I've been there myself. In my early days, I added a ton of the 3.5e converted feats from various 5e PDF downloads, before realizing how insanely unbalanced combat became. It forced me to adjust every single monster encounter to have max HP in order to challenge my players. Then I looked closer at the default system rules and started to learn things like Heavy Weapons aren't weak at all. Because players can use the Great Weapon Master with them, gaining powers similar to Power Attack & Cleave, all in one feat that light weapon fighters cannot benefit from (at least with the second ability of the feat). I learned that Rogue sneak attacks are by no means more powerful than a Fighter's ability to attack up to 4x, potentially critting multiple times, and being able to add ability damage from their STR or DEX to each attack; not to mention their Action Surge, which is often a fight ender. I can on and on.

In the example of the College of Whispers, Mantle of Whispers ability, it's already balanced without any fussing around. The skill is very similar to the Assassin's abilities, mixed with the Disguise spell, and by no means foolproof. It also lasts for an hour and then it's gone, meaning that you can't use it for long periods. The ability says that creatures can see through the disguise by with an Insight check vs your Deception check (meaning, they can see the magical shadowy disguise on your face). You gain a +5 bonus to your check, which is the equivalent to having advantage, while still allowing you to use more resources from spells and abilities that can actually give advantage on top of that. It also means you'll likely have to invest in the Deception skill, and actually find a good way to use the ability and not get caught, which may require lining up a lot of ducks, and the use of alot of your resources to guarantee success vs a tough group. In quick practical scenario, you could kill an Bandit Leader, then take on her persona and command the followers to attack an enemy faction. But before you can do that, every single bandit in that group will likely get an insight check when you give an unusual command, thus likely revealing your guise unless you're very lucky. I don't think it's overpowered whatsoever at all, and could be an excellent player tool for driving the story forward. The DM just has to be flexible enough to go with it.

[ProseBeforeHos]

Hey! I wrote a guide on this (see sig).

Long story short: It's real bad. it doesn't have a clear "build path" in the way almost every other bard subclass has.

Lore/Glamor - strait casters, you pump charisma with ASI's, you cast spells and heal in combat and use bonus actions to buff allies with inspiration (or debuff enemies as a lore bard).

Valor/Sword - strait fighters, you pump your fighting attributes with ASI's use attack actions in combat to maximize extra attack and leave your spellcasting for concentration buffs and out of combat healing/utility.

Problem with whispers is that design-wise it's all over the place. Psychic blades suggests that's it's a combat related class that relies on making normal attacks, but unlike valor/swords it never gets extra attack. Meanwhile as a pure caster it's strictly worse than glamor/lore, with most of it's abilities being fairly weak and only effecting humanoids. There's also a real question of which stats to boost with ASI's since whispers bard seemingly needs both charisma and dexterity (outside of some sort of hexblade multiclass build).

The comparison between lore and whispers is especially bad as lore bard does the "spy bard" archetype far better imo.

The good news is that bard is such a strong base class that you can still be quite useful without any subclass options at all, I just wish while designing this subclass they had gone more forcefully down either the "damage dealing assassin" route or the "master of subtly" (e.g. expertise in deception and insight, such as the scout rogue gets) route.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Hey! I wrote a guide on this (see sig).

Long story short: It's real bad. it doesn't have a clear "build path" in the way almost every other bard subclass has.

Lore/Glamor - strait casters, you pump charisma with ASI's, you cast spells and heal in combat and use bonus actions to buff allies with inspiration (or debuff enemies as a lore bard).

Valor/Sword - strait fighters, you pump your fighting attributes with ASI's use attack actions in combat to maximize extra attack and leave your spellcasting for concentration buffs and out of combat healing/utility.

Problem with whispers is that design-wise it's all over the place. Psychic blades suggests that's it's a combat related class that relies on making normal attacks, but unlike valor/swords it never gets extra attack. Meanwhile as a pure caster it's strictly worse than glamor/lore, with most of it's abilities being fairly weak and only effecting humanoids. There's also a real question of which stats to boost with ASI's since whispers bard seemingly needs both charisma and dexterity (outside of some sort of hexblade multiclass build).

The comparison between lore and whispers is especially bad as lore bard does the "spy bard" archetype far better imo.

The good news is that bard is such a strong base class that you can still be quite useful without any subclass options at all, I just wish while designing this subclass they had gone more forcefully down either the "damage dealing assassin" route or the "master of subtly" (e.g. expertise in deception and insight, such as the scout rogue gets) route.

I think the issue here is that you think the bard needs to specialize in any single thing. Whispers Bard is decent at any option he wants while still having a niche.

[Phoenix042]

I know I shouldn't reply to this after two months, but the thread was necroed, so I'm doing it anyway.

I actually came across this thread a short while ago while researching opinions for a bard I'm building. I wanted to post then, but didn't want to necro, and now I'm glad it's been re-animated so I can write on it's haggard, decaying corpse without guilt.



I wasn't very well-spoken in this thread, as a rule. I used bad math and bad ability comparisons. That said, after reading through everything again, here's what I think:

For a melee-focused bard, swords is the best option, because their melee capabilities come with a low opportunity cost. Whispers bard might be a better pick overall if the out-of-combat abilities are relevant to your campaign.

I think a lot of people made half-convincing arguments on both sides so far, but I think I'm beginning to understand the real situation a little better now, and I think everyone's missing a few key points.

First of all:
Cutting words is great in combat. Someone said lore bards were a "non-combat" bard, and lots of people on this forum like to talk about characters that "aren't meant for combat," but that's bull; a character needs to be a competent combatant or it's not a balanced character, and many features can be great in both areas (cutting words, hex, skills, etc).

I'd make the general argument that, no matter your subclass, the most powerful use of a bardic inspiration is often using it to modify d20 rolls. If your swords bard almost always uses his inspiration on his own attacks, he'll be okay at fighting in melee. If he often uses them on other people, he won't be great at melee but he'll be better at it than a lore bard.

Finally, bards often spend lots of their actions casting spells. This brings us to whispers bard.

A whisper's bard could be played like a rogue who has some magic. The player's are off adventuring, the DM rolls a random encounter, combat starts, you go in with a dagger, you stab the bad guy, you add some damage to your rolls.

At that, they are not very good. Sure, they get some bonus damage. But anti-whispers posters here are correct that without supporting defensive and offensive features, whisper's bards make poor combat rogue substitutes. Their other features are terrible for this sort of play, as well.

If you play your whisper's bard that way, and your game works that way all the time, this subclass is terrible.

I'd argue that if instead you just take the initiative and decide to go mess stuff up for the local populace, the whisper's bard becomes very good. You don't need your DM to give you the opportunities to use your powers; make them yourself. That's what whisper's does best. It rewards players who have their own agenda, and aren't just being dragged along the threads of a plot.

I might say: "Imagine that you're about to fight two people in a duel. You get one alone, and you use words of terror on him, and then you go do the duel and you're only really fighting one of them at a time."

And you'd counter with something like "But how often does that happen."

And the problem with your counter is that you assume that it's just happening, that a properly played whisper's bard wanders around, knowing nothing about the world and having no chance to interact with it, until something happens to happen to him.

I'd say a properly played whispers bard will go around finding people that it is useful to scare the **** out of for one reason or another, wearing faces and learning surface information and infiltrating organizations because he decides to, not because it "comes up."

That's the real power of the subclass. Not terrible at all.

I won't argue that it's better than any existing one, just that it isn't much worse than swords or valor, but does different things.



For damage on turns where a BI is expended, a swords bard using slashing flourish does comparable or better DPR than a Whisper bard who uses psychic blades in conjunction with booming blade against a stationary target, until level 11. The Whispers Bard's damage is single-target, and most Swords Bards will use defensive flourish before they use slashing, but the Swords bard will also be able to hit with their flourish more frequently. Overall, the Whispers bard with BB is better at burst damage at levels above than 6.

Swords bard gets three features at third level, and uses them all every turn he spends in melee. The whisper's bard gets two features, and uses one out of combat (but it can affect combat) and the best use of the other is occasional.

I'd say the swords bard captures the swashbuckling charming duelist really well, but the argument that whispers doesn't capture the infiltrator/assassin very well because, in open combat, he has less features that make him strong in melee...

Feels like a flawed argument to me, is all I'm saying.



I will also add here, that no one is arguing that the mantle isn't fun. Just that in combat the whisper's bard is weaker than the other martial bards at combat, and is weaker than the casty bards at casting spells.

Basically what I'm saying is that this depends on how you define "combat." If the only thing that happens that affects combat is the rounds during which combat happens, then yea, whispers isn't as good at those.

But if I can set up a more advantageous combat for my team, that's not necessarily a non-combat ability, and shouldn't be discounted just because it can't happen once initiative has already been rolled.

[dragoeniex]

Yeah that's unfortunate. I've seen a lot of inexperienced DMs try to alter the core game because they think it's unbalanced, underpowered, or overpowered. Most of the time they're not using the myriad of tools at their fingertips and wind up watering down a core class feature accidentally or creating a nightmare for themselves. I've been there myself. In my early days, I added a ton of the 3.5e converted feats from various 5e PDF downloads, before realizing how insanely unbalanced combat became. It forced me to adjust every single monster encounter to have max HP in order to challenge my players. Then I looked closer at the default system rules and started to learn things like Heavy Weapons aren't weak at all. Because players can use the Great Weapon Master with them, gaining powers similar to Power Attack & Cleave, all in one feat that light weapon fighters cannot benefit from (at least with the second ability of the feat). I learned that Rogue sneak attacks are by no means more powerful than a Fighter's ability to attack up to 4x, potentially critting multiple times, and being able to add ability damage from their STR or DEX to each attack; not to mention their Action Surge, which is often a fight ender. I can on and on.

In the example of the College of Whispers, Mantle of Whispers ability, it's already balanced without any fussing around. The skill is very similar to the Assassin's abilities, mixed with the Disguise spell, and by no means foolproof. It also lasts for an hour and then it's gone, meaning that you can't use it for long periods. The ability says that creatures can see through the disguise by with an Insight check vs your Deception check (meaning, they can see the magical shadowy disguise on your face). You gain a +5 bonus to your check, which is the equivalent to having advantage, while still allowing you to use more resources from spells and abilities that can actually give advantage on top of that. It also means you'll likely have to invest in the Deception skill, and actually find a good way to use the ability and not get caught, which may require lining up a lot of ducks, and the use of alot of your resources to guarantee success vs a tough group. In quick practical scenario, you could kill an Bandit Leader, then take on her persona and command the followers to attack an enemy faction. But before you can do that, every single bandit in that group will likely get an insight check when you give an unusual command, thus likely revealing your guise unless you're very lucky. I don't think it's overpowered whatsoever at all, and could be an excellent player tool for driving the story forward. The DM just has to be flexible enough to go with it.

Investment in deception is one of those things to take into consideration here, agreed. But for the record! If you take the jump for expertise on it and max charisma (fun stuff for most bard builds already), then your mid-game +11 or +13 to deception is jumping to +16 or +18 while the shadow's worn. (If you manage late game, you're peaking at +22 to your rolls. Possibly with advantage.)

Having your character stay in-character as the character they're impersonating is also helpful. :P

A DM who doesn't like the ability or has another reason to make investigation rolls for every single NPC you pass probably will get a good enough roll, yeah. But if your DM is cool with this class coming in, that probably won't be an issue. I would get a feel for whether this is the kind of thing the DM can have fun bouncing interactions with you, or if it's something he/she dreads. That colors a lot.



Edit: Ah, necro means it was dead. Sorry, folks! New to the forum, didn't realize that was a faux pas. Will watch in the future!