Why am I seeing so few Bards at AL?

[ZorroGames]

I play and DM and Bards are very seldom seen at our 4+ Tier 1 and our (unsure how many) Tier 2 tables.

Makes me Wonder, “Why?”

Is it because our tables are AL? Is it because of our players lean more towards Barbarian/Fighter/Moon Druid than Bard/Sorcerer types classes?

Is this disparity common in 5e? Are Bards seen as the “little kids” of Full Casters?

Or is just my experiences are just 3rd Sigma compared to the rest of the bell curve?

[Willie the Duck]

Boy, it has petered out a bit, but the online discourse seems to have revolved around, 'aren't bards surprisingly awesome this edition?'

If I would hazard a guess, it might be related to the AL-factor. When you say AL, you mean these are pick-up games, not a consistent group, right? Bards, more so than most classes, are good or bad depending on how well they mesh with the rest of the group. Lore bards are great support classes, but that means you really need a bunch of well built other PCs to support. Valor/swords bards are good mid-rank martials, which need front-liners to hide behind if they've gotten chewed up. Magic Secrets, in particular, is a (nonreversible) class feature that requires careful selection and has an effectiveness determined by how the rest of the party is constructed and played.

I can see why AL games might favor Barbarians, Fighters, Moon Druids, and maybe Clerics and Wizards over something like bards.

[Sigreid]

I think there is a percieved obligation to try to be funny/creative/lively/charming to a greater extent than other classes and people are less likely to be confident doing that around people who don't already like them.

[Belier]

I think there is a percieved obligation to try to be funny/creative/lively/charming to a greater extent than other classes and people are less likely to be confident doing that around people who don't already like them.

+1 this. Don't forget that in AL you are mostly playing with people that you ain't knowing well and many people will feel less confident playing rp heavier character.

I use one of my multiclass that is a bard in AL and he I don't rp him much except that I will disguise self as a girl. When he comes around a group performing in the story, he'll just take is flute and join the party. I don't rp him much in rl, I just call what he is doing at the table, I don't feel obligated to rp him just because there's bard levels into him, but the people appreciate there is somebody doing bard things at the table.

[Talionis]

I don't think its a fear of roleplaying a talented guy when you don't have any talent, though I am sure that might actually be it for a small subset.

I think its closer to the roles that Bards fill... They are not damage dealers. They aren't generally the best scouts, they aren't tanks... While something can be said for a generalist. Unless you have a lot of people at the table you aren't good enough at any of the roles to fill them, unless you optimize for the role and that generally takes levels and is hard when you don't know who you might play with next week.

If you need a meat shield better to have two good ones or none at all and change your playstyle than try to force a Bard into the role of meat shield if the Bard isn't optimized for it.

[Sigreid]

I don't think its a fear of roleplaying a talented guy when you don't have any talent, though I am sure that might actually be it for a small subset.

I think its closer to the roles that Bards fill... They are not damage dealers. They aren't generally the best scouts, they aren't tanks... While something can be said for a generalist. Unless you have a lot of people at the table you aren't good enough at any of the roles to fill them, unless you optimize for the role and that generally takes levels and is hard when you don't know who you might play with next week.

If you need a meat shield better to have two good ones or none at all and change your playstyle than try to force a Bard into the role of meat shield if the Bard isn't optimized for it.

This is logical as well. The bard functions best as "the 5th Beatle". Pretty much every other class knows which Beatle they will be in the group.

[CharonsHelper]

See - while I understand that's what others might be thinking, I always love to play a jack-of-all-trades in organized play games whatever the system.

That way I can at least half-donkey any potential gaps. I dislike specializing too much in organized play.

Plus - with their support/face abilities, everyone is happy when a bard shows up.

[KillingTime]

I think it's probably a combination of the things that have already been pointed at above, namely:
1. Lack of a strongly defined role
2. No consistent DPS
3. Somewhat intimidating roleplay requirements in a pickup environment

What it absolutely isn't anything to do with is how strong the class is.
Bards are amazing.
But I agree that they probably work best in a party where you already have an idea of what the rest of the team looks like.

[Belier]

I think it's probably a combination of the things that have already been pointed at above, namely:
1. Lack of a strongly defined role
2. No consistent DPS
3. Somewhat intimidating roleplay requirements in a pickup environment

What it absolutely isn't anything to do with is how strong the class is.
Bards are amazing.
But I agree that they probably work best in a party where you already have an idea of what the rest of the team looks like.
No constant dps, but with dissenting voice you can set up quite a bomb.

If you get a scag cantrip from half helf variant, you can make quite a lot with a rapier in hand even at low level if you play it well.

[Segev]

Personally, I think Lore Bards fill the role that 3e Sorcerers used to very well. 5e Sorcerers are a quite different beast from 3e ones, having a narrower focus and being the Metamagic Guys. They are, essentially, the 3e concept of "the Mailman" in terms of their easiest role to fill.

Lore Bards are the spontaneous casters with a broad but not unlimited spell selection. They have nearly as many spells known as a wizard has prepared. And their native list picks from some otherwise-exclusive spells of a few other classes, as well as offering Magical Secrets to gain access to even unique spells. Want to play a mage who has a flying mount? You can steal the Paladin's find greater steed spell. Bard is literally the only non-Paladin way to access that!

With native access to animal friendship and conjure fey, and (again) potential Magical Secrets access to other summoning spells, they can be really good minionmancers, especially since their Inspiration can be handed out like candy to their best minions, even if the party isn't living up to the Bard's needs. And if you want a highly-skilled character, Bard and Rogue are your options. Bard is a full caster; Rogue only gets at best to half caster. So a highly-skilled caster type being a Lore Bard (or even a Secrets or Valor Bard) works well.

[MrStabby]

Just luck I would guess.

If we assume that desire to play each class is pretty even and that you play in three games and DM three games and that each game has on average 4 players (excluding DM) per game then we are looking at about 24 players. Odds of seeing no bards are a bit over 12%, odds of seeing 1 or 0 bards is almost 40%.

With thousands of players and DMs out there it is pretty likely that a good number of them will see a small number of bards in their groups, my guess is that you are just one of them.



Now there might be "Reasons" as well. Number of subclasses could be one - people want to play something new, not only that they haven't played before but that they haven't seen played before. Bards have fewer sub-classes in the PHB than the average class so essentially if a player is picking an archetype with equal probability then they are much less likely to pick a bard compared to say, wizard.

[Smitty Wesson]

I think it also shouldn't go unsaid - even if bards are good, that doesn't erase the decade and a half (longer depending on your fandoms) history of mocking bards as silly, useless, and uncool. I have to think that thr class takes a popularity hit because some people are still of the mindset that has been reinforced in just about every D&D parody under the sun.

[Tanarii]

4-8 tables isn't really enough to get a good sample size.

[NaughtyTiger]

Please take ours. Every table at our FLGS has 1-2 bards. And they are all over the top attention hounds.

[CharonsHelper]

I think it also shouldn't go unsaid - even if bards are good, that doesn't erase the decade and a half (longer depending on your fandoms) history of mocking bards as silly, useless, and uncool. I have to think that thr class takes a popularity hit because some people are still of the mindset that has been reinforced in just about every D&D parody under the sun.

Even before 5e, they were pretty dang solid in Pathfinder. (Which is basically D&D 3.75)

[Harrysonford]

I played a bard in a campaign that recently ended. It was a bit annoying because (like many people mentioned) they’re heavy on RP, and everyone got mad when I just tried playing my part.

Additionally, DMs get angry very easily at bards, since they are supposed to be wise crackers and what not.

Also, one of the bard’s key mechanics is being the party face, and in my experience, the whole party tries telling you what to do, and they get mad if you roll poorly.

So yeah, in my experience it’s just a factor of other people not liking the bard, which makes it hard for the bard to like themselves.

[Contrast]

See - while I understand that's what others might be thinking, I always love to play a jack-of-all-trades in organized play games whatever the system.

That way I can at least half-donkey any potential gaps. I dislike specializing too much in organized play.

Plus - with their support/face abilities, everyone is happy when a bard shows up.

I would argue bards aren't really (class feature notwithstanding) that class for AL play.

AL (tends) to focus heavily on the combat pillar of the game and while bards can contribute there, they have a pretty glaring lack of damage potential. Bards shine when you get to dabble in a lot of different things and in my experience AL is usually about getting from one encounter to the next with the minimum of fuss. Not optimising for combat is the niche in this case rather than the other way round :smallbiggrin:

Of course you can still play a bard and it'll be fine but combined that with the stress of being party face in an unfamiliar group and the fact that many people expect a funny joke every turn to accompany Vicious Mockery and you can see why people might just choose another class :smalltongue:

I would also say personally I have tended to be less likely to play spellcasters for AL than in normal play as it means there's less stuff to remember when I rock up with a load of characters and have to choose which one to play.

[Whyrocknodie]

In local games, class mechanics are almost irrelevant to what people decide to play. Bards are rare because they seem to be slightly ridiculous supporting characters rather than heroic archetypes - warriors and wizards and sly thieves are all popular tropes, but 'bards' tend to prance and play some kind of stringed instrument. They get wheeled out for comic effect, I guess? Even Order of the Stick doesn't have more than one bard, and he is exactly that - a clown!

[CaptAl]

The AL tables I've been involved with were mostly loot grabs. Everyone wants to do battle, then get to the next fight. RP is down played a lot and exploration is largely ignored. Bards excel in the two areas that those tables tended to skirt around. The end result is there's not a lot of bards in those games.

I don't know if this is common in AL. But in tables that are more video gamey, bards don't do as well. Not that a combat focused bard can't perform well, it's just harder to do that a great weapon weilding barbarian.

[samcifer]

In my case it was when I was thrown out of an AL session when I had my bard begin to sing 'Talk to Me' by Stephen Lynch...

...No, not really.

[Ogeeogelthorpe]

Responding to the OP, I've also had this issue in AL pickup games. If I'm in my semi-regular AL groups we're a pretty varied-but-balanced bunch and I'll often play my tier 2 goblin valor bard. When I pug it with randoms I'm the only bard in a group with multiple monks, barbarians and sorcadins (ugh) or Pallocks (bigger ugh).
I even had one of the pallocks harass me about my sub-optimal character selection because my character isn't a skill monkey bard and instead focuses on AOE and control spells, which have been very useful to the groups I'm in. You get a lot of these types in AL who look at anyone who does less than 9000 damage in a single nova round as useless to the party, and it can be incredibly frustrating.
Sorry, my bad for making those ice spire ogres waste their turn in a stinking cloud instead of letting them throw head grenades at the party. Even more sorry that my fear spell caused half the enemies to run off the table.

Bards of any type are usually social beasts, and unfortunately AL modules only allow for so much interaction and story development. Hardcovers are excellent territory for bards to fully use their social abilities. Also, with the right group of AL regulars your bardic ways don't go unappreciated. That rogue or sharpshooter ranger will genuinely appreciate your boost to their attack. The squishy caster is going to love you giving him an extra D8 to AC. And who doesn't like temp HP?

[Quoxis]

In my case it was when I was thrown out of an AL session when I had my bard begin to sing 'Talk to Me' by Stephen Lynch...

...No, not really.

The „song of rest“ feature should require the player to perform his „lullaby“. By law.

„Hush, little Dwarf... sweet warlock, don’t cry... tonight. Bardy is here and he‘ll sing you a soft lullaby... tonight.“

[HolyDraconus]

Bards are social. AL ironically isn't very.

[KorvinStarmast]

Bards are social. AL ironically isn't very. When you have a bard, you don't need a rogue as skill monkey. Half Elf Bard, Lore, skill monkey.
Go nuts.

[sithlordnergal]

As someone who plays a Bard in AL there are a lot of things in AL that make it less enjoyable to play Bards. Many of these have already been stated, but here are my thought on the issue:


The Bard lacks a clearly defined roll outside of "Party Face". Bards make fantastic Party Faces, with entire classes revolving around talking with people and RPing. However, you don't need a party face in AL, especially if you are just playing modules. Most AL Modules don't require you to chat with the things you encounter. In fact, most of the conversations in a module happen while you are getting your mission, or are telling you where to go next. Since you are automatically given the info needed to complete your quest, there's literally no point in making a social encounter complex.

Compounding the issue is that most intelligent creatures you run into don't speak common. Now, it makes sense from a lore standpoint, but it is impossible to know every language. Especially when creatures speak languages that aren't listed in the PHB at all. Meaning unless you spend one of your precious few known spells to pick up Tongues, and are willing to spend a 3rd level slot to cast it, you can't talk to anyone in the first place.

For example, I forget the exact name of the module my group is playing. It is a tier 2, 8 hour module. In it you have to deal with a bunch of wild magic. As you go through the dungeon you run into Sauhagin. One of these Sauhagin speaks to you in broken common, and you can choose to become their allies.

Skip down the hallway a bit, and you run into more Sauhagin. Only they can't speak common, and can only speak a special racial language no-one else knows. Comprehend Language lets you understand them, but you can't communicate that you're friends. So you have to either fight your new allies, or come up with a contrived idea using illusions to show that we're friends.

All because no-one had Tongues, and they couldn't speak Common



This sort of goes hand in hand with the not needing a party face, and the next bit. But since AL is such an open style of play, where your party can change between adventures, your DMs can change too. And a party face can only do well if they have a DM willing to work with a party face.

And unless you know all the DMs at your store, you are going to have to learn their little quirks before you get deep into being a bard. For example, my store has two DMs who usually run the games I am in. One DM is pretty good, has poor luck, and clearly lets the dice determine our fate. It can be very useful to have Debuff spells like Bane, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, or Slow, because his enemies will actually be affected by them. Compare that to the other DM. I have played with him for a while, but for some very odd reason debilitating spells done seem to effect his NPCs. Now, once every so often they will...but when the two NPC wizards succeed on a dc 16 Con save against a stinking cloud, the invisible poltergeist saves on two Fairie Fires, and a dang beserker succeeds on DC 16 Dissonant Whispers 4 out of 5 times, you know the DM is cheating.

It is an absolute waste of a spell slot to cast anything that does not do something on a failed save, cause he never fails his saving throws.

So where does that leave the Bard? Most of their spells are saving throws that do nothing if the save is made. And add to that the fact that you could end up with a DM who is not into RPing till it is too late to know.



Now, if most of your AL tables have a defined group, this isn't so bad. However, thanks to AL's open table playstyle you have no idea what you'll end up with. You could have a person like me at the table who carries around 20 different characters ranging from levels 1 to 16. People like me have so many characters that we can fill any role in the party, from tank to dps to skill monkey to healer. And you know what? Our flexibility allows the entire table to bring in whatever they like.

Or, and this is the more common outcome, you end up in a table where everyone has one, maybe two, tier 2 characters. Meaning they're stuck playing two tanks, a caster, and a healer. And your Bard now how to take the role of the Rogue.

So what does that matter to Bards? Simple, since Bards are the most flexible classes in the game you have to stretch yourself out to be able to fill as many rolls as possible. You need to take thieves tools, slight of hand, and perception because you may very well be the only one in the party with those vital skills.

And if there is a Rogue, now you have to make up for them being equally as good in those skills, or better, with your magic. But because you have such a limited number of spells known, you HAVE to make sure every spell you take is capable of doing more. Cause you could easily be the only arcane spell caster. Speaking of which...



When it comes down to it, it is better to play a Wizard in AL then any other arcane caster class. Why? Because of their spell book. One of the big things AL modules reward players with are scrolls and spell books. These are not counted as magic items, so you can keep collecting them forever.

Which is where the Wizard comes in. Since Wizards are able to copy down any spell scroll or spell book they find, they can quickly get every first and second level spell. In addition to this, Wizards can ignore the PHB+1 rule by finding another Wizard and copying their spell book.

I have a friend who exchanges spells with me. By helping him, I have given him every single PHB 1st level wizard spell in the game, and he has given me every single 1st level wizard spell in Xanathars. Even though my wizard was built back when Sword Coast was the only worth-while Splat book to use thanks to Green Flame Blade and Booming Blade. I have all the 1st level Xanathar spells on my Wizard, despite it not being my +1



Finally, last but certainly not least, is how AL rewards the players. Now, good news is they are changing this, but until now you only gained experience for what you killed. Did you manage to circumvent that encounter with a random Fire Giant through a clever use of Persuasion, Illusion, and Role Playing? Congrats, you get no experience because you didn't kill it.

Were you able to negotiate a peace treaty between the Goblins and the Kobolds in Sunless Citadel? Well done, pat yourselves on the back. You wasted all that effort for nothing, because you don't get experience since you didn't kill them. You don't even get RP exp because that is illegal to hand out in AL.

Since you are only rewarded for killing things, you end up with bands of murder hobos. Why bother trying to talk when you know the only way you'l be rewarded is by killing it? Why bother negotiating when you get nothing for it? Why bother RPing an entire awesome segment where you manage to get the leaders of that kobold and goblin tribe together to hammer out a peace treaty that ends their little skirmish peacefully with no loss of life when you know you're going to get shafted because you did jot kill them?

And because the players are taught that the only way to get experience is through killing, you end up with the players who do want to negotiate being out voted cause the party wants exp. Hell, I saw this in action last night. A player at another table literally admitted that they only wanted to open a clearly trapped sarcophagus because they wanted the exp...despite them having RPed to a point where they could have peacefully ended the encounter. Upon hearing "exp", the table nodded, opened the sarcophagus and killed what was inside.

Thankfully this may be addressed in the update when they move to checkpoints over exp. But you never know.

[Tanarii]

When did AL change to only awarding XP for killing things?

They always used to award it like the DMG did, for overcoming or defeating potential combat encounters. That's a totally different thing from killing. It doesn't even require fighting.

They didn't used to allow XP for so-called "RP", or for general non-combat encounters with non-hostile creatures, or puzzles or the like. But that hardly matters, since by the DMG guidelines those are almost exclusively "Easy" encounters, since they don't require resources to overcome.
(Complex enough traps can, of course, be a different matter. They can require significant resources, especially HPs.)

[sithlordnergal]

When did AL change to only awarding XP for killing things?

They always used to award it like the DMG did, for overcoming or defeating potential combat encounters. That's a totally different thing from killing. It doesn't even require fighting.

They didn't used to allow XP for so-called "RP", or for general non-combat encounters with non-hostile creatures, or puzzles or the like. But that hardly matters, since by the DMG guidelines those are almost exclusively "Easy" encounters, since they don't require resources to overcome.
(Complex enough traps can, of course, be a different matter. They can require significant resources, especially HPs.)

I will admit that it depends on each individual module, but from what I have played and run most things only give you exp if you kill them. Though it can also depend on the DM. I know some DMs who will give max exp if they feel the party did really well, even if they didn't fight every encounter. Where as other DMs only reward you for what you killed.

[CharonsHelper]

When did AL change to only awarding XP for killing things?

They always used to award it like the DMG did, for overcoming or defeating potential combat encounters. That's a totally different thing from killing. It doesn't even require fighting.

They didn't used to allow XP for so-called "RP", or for general non-combat encounters with non-hostile creatures, or puzzles or the like. But that hardly matters, since by the DMG guidelines those are almost exclusively "Easy" encounters, since they don't require resources to overcome.
(Complex enough traps can, of course, be a different matter. They can require significant resources, especially HPs.)


I will admit that it depends on each individual module, but from what I have played and run most things only give you exp if you kill them. Though it can also depend on the DM. I know some DMs who will give max exp if they feel the party did really well, even if they didn't fight every encounter. Where as other DMs only reward you for what you killed.

Yeah - that was one thing that I really liked about PFS. You got the same EXP no matter how you completed the objective, whether through trickery or killing everything in sight.

There was even a puzzle/skill module where if you did it right there was no combat at all. It was a fun change of pace.

[NaughtyTiger]

DMs get angry very easily at bards, since they are supposed to be wise crackers and what not.

No, nothing says the bard must be wise crackers and what not. Bards are performers, orators, storytellers, retelling the great histories of heroes, sharing tales of woe and terror. aka LORE.

DMs (me) get annoyed at bards who won't share the social limelight, and assume that a 33 in persuasion will convince an adult green dragon to give up his evil ways.

The idea that bards are only useful in social pillars is bull.

Cutting words is the bardic feature I want at the table, not silly jokes.

[Willie the Duck]

DMs get angry very easily at bards, since they are supposed to be wise crackers and what not.


No, nothing says the bard must be wise crackers and what not. Bards are performers, orators, storytellers, retelling the great histories of heroes, sharing tales of woe and terror. aka LORE.

DMs (me) get annoyed at bards who won't share the social limelight, and assume that a 33 in persuasion will convince an adult green dragon to give up his evil ways.

The idea that bards are only useful in social pillars is bull.

You are both probably right (and NT, to be fair, Harryson never said bards were only useful in the social pillar).

Bards have a high charisma, the potential for expertise and social skills, and an intuitive role that could be used to fill the social-pillar. That's it. Now, if you run a game where the social pillar is not addressed, that potential avenue is a useless potential, just like ranger or outlander background will have wasted potential if all the nature/travel/exploration stuff is glossed over.

What does not follow is that a bard is supposed to 1) crack wise all the time (if it isn't appropriate to the specific game and group), or 2) not share the limelight as NT suggests. I am sure every DM has seen someone playing a bard (or god forfend, a kender bard) where they use 'but I'm just roleplaying my character' as a shield against criticism for them being a brat/spaz/jerk of some kind.

Regardless, bards have all sorts of combat pillar abilities, so if the social pillar falls, they have stuff to fall back on easily. I think probable answers hew much closer to 1)people are still used to useless bards, 2) bards are more party-dependent, 3) AL has more optimization, which favors certain other options like GWM or SS martials, sorcadins, coffeelocks, or whatever.

[Keravath]

I think that part of the reason may be that AL has a stronger focus on combat encounters than on role play. If you look at most of the AL modules, the vast majority of XP is awarded for what you kill.

Skill use appears to mostly be thrown in as an afterthought. Some encounters can be affected by persuasion/deception/intimidation but they are usually very specific to the encounter and in a lot of cases an AL party will just turn around and fight anyway.

There can be an attitude among some AL players towards adopting a scorched earth policy. They kill everything available in order to maximize XP.

AL is quite a different beast from your regular ongoing campaign.

Now enter the bard. Bards tend to be excellent at skills, they can excel at the social aspects of the game, there have a lot of very useful crowd control spells (e.g. hypnotic pattern) and may have access to some interesting spells through magical secrets. However, their fallback direct damage cantrip is vicious mockery which requires a save and only does a base d4 of damage.

In AL, due to the combat focus, doing damage is a very important element.

That said, I have a lore bard/hexblade warlock multi class level 7 (5/2) that I play in AL and I find the character fun to play and very effective. On the other hand, I've recently played several tier 2 modules in which another player was playing a straight level 7 lore bard (these are probably the only two bard characters I have seen in AL).

We had different selections of spells though both of our spells were useful to the party (I used hypnotic pattern, the other player enemies abound ... both to good effect). However, on the turns when I did not have a useful spell to cast which was maybe half the combat rounds ... I was casting eldritch blast + hypnotic pattern sometimes backed up with hex if I wasn't concentrating on something else ... while the other bard was using vicious mockery. Damage wise ... my option was 2d10+2d6+6 max damage vs 2d4. Given the high hit points of many opponents, my options were a lot more effective at removing opponents from the field.

I think the lack of direct damage options in most straight bard builds may be a big factor in why they are less commonly seen in AL since AL has a significant element of combat encounters and you never know what other characters may be in your group. As a player, you feel much more effective being able to have some form of direct damage to fall back during rounds when spells aren't effective or you are already concentrating on an important spell.

[Tanarii]

I will admit that it depends on each individual module, but from what I have played and run most things only give you exp if you kill them. Though it can also depend on the DM. I know some DMs who will give max exp if they feel the party did really well, even if they didn't fight every encounter. Where as other DMs only reward you for what you killed.
To my knowledge, AL DMs that only give you XP for killing or even fighting "combat" encounters were (and are) going against AL guidelines. You only need to overcome / defeat it. That doesn't require fighting, although it does require not just sneaking away undetected or completely bypassing it.

[ProseBeforeHos]

Bards are fantastic, even in "combat focused" games (i.e. all AL).

If people aren't playing them it's probably the 'aesthetics' of the class (effete, singing sops).

Similar thing with druids. Least played class, but certainly not because they are weak.