HELP! Bard or Fighter?

[blackjack50]

So I am set to play a new game. I have 2 characters pre made. The reason for this is so that I can pick according to the party composition. We have a wizard, an archer, and a monk. Then one unknown plus me. So here are my choices (and I will play one or the other).

I have the Faceman Bard. Played as a Merchant and business man. The role play master with all my skills geared at that. Very limited combat utility. He would be something like a shady traveling merchant looking to wheel and deal. He would be a ton of fun for me. And make some fun hijinks too. Knives (things to prod character development) would involve his gray market deals, a family that gets in trouble, cousin who makes deals, and a social slob mother who is the opposite of my character.

On the OTHER hand. I have a Goliath Fighter/battlemaster. He is an oddly philosophical violent sociopathic killer who is trying to turn over a new leaf after getting out of prison. Not for altruistic reasons either. Simply to avoid the pain of being there. He essentially would be a LG background that turned into a CE after trauma. The knives come from that...to his time spent as a leg breaker mercenary/criminal. He would be played as a chaotic neutral trying to avoid going back to prison while working as a bouncer and goon for hire in a totalitarian state. So he would have a strong combat utility with limited social skills (basically...I break your legs if you don’t listen type).

HELP!!! I cannot decide as these both would be super fun for me.

[Mud Puppy]

I think you need to know the unknown character first. Sounds like you have an AoE, a melee fighter and a ranged fighter.... If the unknown is a tankier build like a barb or a paly then I would go with the Bard, but if the unknown is a support caster then go Goliath.

[nickl_2000]

Play which sounds more fun.

The Fighter is more optimized for what the party needs in combat. He can stand and deliver, staying between the squishies and the baddies.
The Bard is more optimized for out of combat interactions. He will be the social butterfly.

So, either of them fit a need in the party. The question goes to this in my mind.


If the game goes to level 5 or more, play the bard and have him be Valor or Swords. The team may struggle in the first two levels, but you can be a melee character very well at level 3. And the bulk of the campaign you can fit both roles.

Level 4 or less, go with the fighter.

[blackjack50]

Play which sounds more fun.

The Fighter is more optimized for what the party needs in combat. He can stand and deliver, staying between the squishies and the baddies.
The Bard is more optimized for out of combat interactions. He will be the social butterfly.

So, either of them fit a need in the party. The question goes to this in my mind.


If the game goes to level 5 or more, play the bard and have him be Valor or Swords. The team may struggle in the first two levels, but you can be a melee character very well at level 3. And the bulk of the campaign you can fit both roles.

Level 4 or less, go with the fighter.

Well. The idea would be to stay away from being a combat oriented player. I guess I did forget to mention that. It does go to level 20 if possible. I talked to the DM too, and if my character doesn’t pan out well...I could drop it and pick up the other. We also expect players to die (our DM has no compunction killing people off in combat).

The thing is...of the people in the group, I think I most enjoy role play. My last game I played a monk who was a spy...but I had crappy social skills. So it ended up hurting my abilities to perform there. I couldn’t intimidate or confide people. Thus the bard and fighter were created for this campaign lol. I suppose I will need to find out if the other players will want to fill in the social role. I suppose I could work towards a more combat role. I just don’t want the bard to lose that truly strong role play ability.

[nickl_2000]

Well. The idea would be to stay away from being a combat oriented player. I guess I did forget to mention that. It does go to level 20 if possible. I talked to the DM too, and if my character doesn’t pan out well...I could drop it and pick up the other. We also expect players to die (our DM has no compunction killing people off in combat).

The thing is...of the people in the group, I think I most enjoy role play. My last game I played a monk who was a spy...but I had crappy social skills. So it ended up hurting my abilities to perform there. I couldn’t intimidate or confide people. Thus the bard and fighter were created for this campaign lol. I suppose I will need to find out if the other players will want to fill in the social role. I suppose I could work towards a more combat role. I just don’t want the bard to lose that truly strong role play ability.

So, you've said a lot in here. Whether you meant to or not. Based on this and the last post I would definitely play a Bard.

There is nothing wrong with have two characters who are good with social skills in a campaign and you clearly want someone with social skills. Play the bard from the beginning, then once you reach level 3 you can choose the subclass that is the most fitting to the role you have been filling in combat. Considering how ridiculously versatility a bard can be, you can fit nearly any role.

[Eldariel]

Bard. It can fight almost as well as a Fighter for as long as fighting matters (around level 10), it brings some of the great divine spells missing from the party to the table and hits a vacant (set of) out-of-combat role(s) notably being the only true skill monkey in the party.

It also adds some irreplaceable spell levels to the mix that the party is sorely lacking for endurance. In general, the party needs crowd control way more than another frontliner. Sleep alone is more than basically anything any other class brings to the table.

Also, your concept sounds sweet. Glamour seems perfect, but Lore and Swords seem like they'd fit well too.

[Man_Over_Game]

Why not both? Play a Paladin a warrior Bard. You can change the lore as needed, and mechanically, it's nothing more than "Tanky Social Melee Warrior".

A Monk would do terribly as the sole melee combatant. Monks are best at countering an enemy's back line, but aren't the best on the front lines (low AC, below-average HD, high mobility, Con-based DCs, powers that counter ranged attacks and hexes). That is, unless your team can utilize a kite-heavy playstyle (using something like Druid/Wizard ground effects), but that'd be very specific and not something I'd recommend without the whole team being aware of it.

If you pick a fighter, you're gonna suck at having RP tools. Period. Beyond 2 extra feats, you don't get much to help with RP events unless you want to be a Banneret (which is probably the weakest Fighter in the game).

If you pick a bard, you're gonna be the next closest thing to a tank in your party beyond the Monk, and that's not a very comfortable place to be (most Bard spells are Concentration).

So I'd suggest a Paladin. Solves all of your problems at once.

[Guy Lombard-O]

I have the Faceman Bard. Played as a Merchant and business man. The role play master with all my skills geared at that. Very limited combat utility. He would be something like a shady traveling merchant looking to wheel and deal. He would be a ton of fun for me. And make some fun hijinks too.

Another vote for bard. And honestly "Very limited combat utility" is something that you'd have to actually work at, as a bard. Sure, you might not want to be a front-liner, and DPR won't be your thing. But most of your spells and abilities will add some serious value to your group's combats.

So get in there first with that bard (who "would be a ton of fun for me"), and let the other guy fill in the martial role.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Another vote for bard. And honestly "Very limited combat utility" is something that you'd have to actually work at, as a bard. Sure, you might not want to be a front-liner, and DPR won't be your thing. But most of your spells and abilities will add some serious value to your group's combats.

So get in there first with that bard (who "would be a ton of fun for me"), and let the other guy fill in the martial role.

The first few levels a Bard will feel like a skilled Dex fighter and be competent in damage with melee attact, Shatter, Thunderwave and the occasional control spell. (And don't forget the OP Healing Word Bonus Action / Vicious Mockery Action turns)

You'll also get to know some battlefield control and count your party member's damage as yours when they're all in melee with a bad guy and you get ALL OF EM opportunity attacks by having the bad guy fail a Dissonant Whispers save.

If you go Lore Bard wait until you can grab Magical Secreta and cast Conjure Animals on your turn, drop Counterspell as a reaction and the next turn cast Dissonant Whispers in an enemy who was in melee with all your low CR Animals and allies.

Man, Phantasmal Force is DM dependent and can cause conversations about being OP also.

Bards rock but you need to pay attention and be creative.

[Sam113097]

I also vote for a mix between the two! I played a Goliath College of Valor Bard in a short campaign once, and he was a lot of fun! I played him as a sort of skald that was equally capable of fighting and being the party face, and it's a class-race combo I very much recommend!

[blackjack50]

Well. We do have a cleric added now. So I’m definitely bard. Now I have to decide on spells and such. I’ve got no real experience with spells and so I will be reviewing. I want as much social utility as possible lol.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Well. We do have a cleric added now. So I’m definitely bard. Now I have to decide on spells and such. I’ve got no real experience with spells and so I will be reviewing. I want as much social utility as possible lol.

Combat minimal list:
Healing Word
Dissonant Whispers
Vicious Mockery

Lore Bard Magical Secrets:
Counterspell
Conjure Animals

Edit: look up evil anagram's bard summary. I find it excellent. For social spells try to read your DM.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?427508-Player-s-Gonna-Play-A-Bard-s-Guide

[Eldariel]

Well. We do have a cleric added now. So I’m definitely bard. Now I have to decide on spells and such. I’ve got no real experience with spells and so I will be reviewing. I want as much social utility as possible lol.

With 20 Cha and Expertise in all social skills, you're well on your way. To add to that, Detect Thoughts is great combined with social skills to trick your conversation partner to think about what you want to know. Charm Person and its ilk are obviously great though a bit crude. Enhance Ability is a must-have; cast it on Cha to never worry about getting Advantage on Cha-checks again. Suggestion is obviously an awesome spell both in and out of combat.

If you want to maximize your social utility, Glamour Bard might be interesting. The Enthralling Performance in particular is amazing; it specifies the targeted creatures don't have any idea even if they make their saves. Mantle of Majesty builds on top of that nicely. It's great specifically for manipulating people without them being aware of it. Lore Bard is another good option as there are always good spells you want to learn, of course. And Cutting Words is great for any opposed skill rolls.

[jaappleton]

Like the OP, I myself have been having a lot of trouble deciding on what to play for my next campaign. I went through tons of builds.... Quite literally over 30.

Tried to work it based on party composition, based on fulfilling a need the party didn't have covered. Then I thought about just playing what I wanted, and screw party composition, go with what sounds more fun.

Honestly? Go with your gut. Don't overthink it. Go with what sounds more FUN. Go with what gets your creative juices flowing, what gets you amped up and excited to play.

Side note, because I don't mean to derail this, but its pertinent to the topic: I actually find Fighters to be terrible. Utterly terrible. Do they work? Absolutely. But I see Fighter and compare it to the Barbarian and the Paladin, and I can't ever recommend picking a Fighter over either if you're going to be melee oriented. Archer? Fighter is damn solid. Melee? I just see what the others bring to the table and think Fighter is quite inferior.

[Eldariel]

Side note, because I don't mean to derail this, but its pertinent to the topic: I actually find Fighters to be terrible. Utterly terrible. Do they work? Absolutely. But I see Fighter and compare it to the Barbarian and the Paladin, and I can't ever recommend picking a Fighter over either if you're going to be melee oriented. Archer? Fighter is damn solid. Melee? I just see what the others bring to the table and think Fighter is quite inferior.

Fighter's thing is mostly Action Surge and Fighting Style, which you can get with two levels. The next nice thing in the core chassis is the 3rd attack on level 11. That's a really long time to be doing your basic stuff. Though Battlemaster does help and is probably the strongest Fighter (up there with Samurai anyways). Outside of Battlemaster though, yeah, I mostly agree; under level 11, most martial classes have Fighter beat, and up until level 20, I'd rather have another class. On level 20, it's true, the class can probably output the highest DPR in the game particularly with 2xShort Rest Action Surge. But level 20 is...highly irrelevant and martials are so bad compared to casters there anyways that I wouldn't put much stock on it. Overall, I kinda agree. Fighter is in a weird place since they get so little...anything. All other classes have more abilities and more interesting abilities. What they get is pretty good for what they do but still, it kinda leaves you at a weird place - kinda like playing a character from a different game.

[jaappleton]

Fighter's thing is mostly Action Surge and Fighting Style, which you can get with two levels. The next nice thing in the core chassis is the 3rd attack on level 11. That's a really long time to be doing your basic stuff. Though Battlemaster does help and is probably the strongest Fighter (up there with Samurai anyways). Outside of Battlemaster though, yeah, I mostly agree; under level 11, most martial classes have Fighter beat, and up until level 20, I'd rather have another class. On level 20, it's true, the class can probably output the highest DPR in the game particularly with 2xShort Rest Action Surge. But level 20 is...highly irrelevant and martials are so bad compared to casters there anyways that I wouldn't put much stock on it. Overall, I kinda agree. Fighter is in a weird place since they get so little...anything. All other classes have more abilities and more interesting abilities. What they get is pretty good for what they do but still, it kinda leaves you at a weird place - kinda like playing a character from a different game.

Exactly.

Just compare it to the others:

Indomitable at 9, once per long rest. Ooooooor Aura of Protection at lv6, is this even a question?

Before lv11, Fighter is great for a 2 or 3 level dip and that's all. I can't ever recommend Fighter for a melee PC, I just can't. That's not to say "You're bad if you play melee Fighter", that's not it at all. Fighters contribute to the party and I won't be a dink and sigh if anyone at my table rolls Fighter, not by a longshot. But when I compare and contrast it to the other classes... Nope. Just not picking it.