Why Are Bards Full Casters?

[Amechra]

One of the things that always bugged me about 5e was how Bards are more magical in this edition than in any of the other editions (other than 1e, where the Bard was a weird option that required you to do some crazy backflips to get access to). They went from a partial-caster skillmonkey to a full-caster skillmonkey. They also minimized the "performance" aspect, which is weird to me - anecdotally, every single Bard I've seen people bring to the table didn't want spells (Swords, Valor, Glamour, and Whispers, by the way).

Am I alone in thinking that the bard would be more popular as an Artificer-style half-caster+ that leaned more heavily on Bardic Inspiration (or a buffed version of the same)?

[Man_Over_Game]

One of the things that always bugged me about 5e was how Bards are more magical in this edition than in any of the other editions (other than 1e, where the Bard was a weird option that required you to do some crazy backflips to get access to). They went from a partial-caster skillmonkey to a full-caster skillmonkey. They also minimized the "performance" aspect, which is weird to me - anecdotally, every single Bard I've seen people bring to the table didn't want spells (Swords, Valor, Glamour, and Whispers, by the way).

Am I alone in thinking that the bard would be more popular as an Artificer-style half-caster+ that leaned more heavily on Bardic Inspiration (or a buffed version of the same)?

If I had to wager a guess, it was either because:

They wanted Magic to no longer be specific to Casters. That is, you're still doing that "bardy" stuff, but now it's using Spell Slots as fuel. Similarly, a Ranger can still be a martial expert if you stop scrutinizing magic so much. This makes balancing/estimating, as well as multiclassing, a lot easier to work with. Having more anomalies in the formula (like Warlocks) makes everything harder to maintain.

OR

They wanted everyone to be relevant in combat, and there's no telling how valuable a half-caster, half-skillmonkey would be, considering skills have hardly any purpose in combat. All of the original half-casters are attackers before casters, and they didn't want the Bard to basically become a more versatile Rogue. Rather than take that risk, they decided full-casting was a better solution, especially since the concept of using a resource inherently limits how effective you are throughout the day (conceptually, anyway).

[carrdrivesyou]

My two cents are these:

1. Previous editions of the bard (3.5 and Pathfinder, in my experience) were crippled by being NOTHING but support. Unless built *specifically* for combat, they were good for buffing others in a fight or being the party face. They were known to be mid-tier classes that really couldn't contribute much outside their specific domains.

2. The idea of a fight breaking out, and you helping your friends by jamming on your lute is ridiculous, even by fantasy standards. I understand that you are "altering the weave of magic with your words and song" but no. Just no. Zero sense gets made. This caused a bit of a chafe when people wanted to play them because they did not fill the role of one of the "core four" roles of: Priest, Thief, Warrior, and Mage.

So in 5e, they gave them more magical powers, gave them abilities to really contribute in their own way, and really chose to reflect the flavor of the class in terms of being a "wandering minstrel with command of powers and tricks, alien to most, but subtle enough to resemble true magic."

The class is no longer "the best 5th man" and can stand alone as their own unique self, while still being able to contribute effectively.

Just my thoughts.

[Dork_Forge]

I think it's just because in 5e they're tending to throw everything into spells to make it easier, the same way we are seeing the Psionics turn into offbrand spellcasting instead of a unique mechanic. It's a more unified system that's easier to learn but strips a lot of identity away, Bards as a half caster with non spell abilities would have made sense.

[stoutstien]

I think it's just because in 5e they're tending to throw everything into spells to make it easier, the same way we are seeing the Psionics turn into offbrand spellcasting instead of a unique mechanic. It's a more unified system that's easier to learn but strips a lot of identity away, Bards as a half caster with non spell abilities would have made sense.

Agreed. Having just about all magical effects fall into one system makes it easier to implement new ideas quickly and with less error.
Saying that I think bards, and artificers for that matter, would have been better off having more of a monk style of features of being magical without being spell casting magic .

[Willie the Duck]

Honestly, there's no 'right' way to do it. Others have said why have them be magical at all and just have Bard be a background or fighter or rogue archetype, and other than knowing full well that that wasn't going to happen (during the playtest the fans rejected hard the idea of the sorcerers potentially being cut, even though wizards aren't specifically Vancian casters anymore, making their original purpose semi-moot) I don't necessarily disagree.

In my perfect world, where 'new to the game gamer confusion' were not a concern, I can imagine lots of classes getting no-casting, 1/3 casting, 1/2 casting and full casting variants. however, I can understand why they didn't go that route.

That said, they chose full caster and I and it seems to work... okay. That the class has to borrow spells from other classes to be viable isn't my favorite mechanic, but it does make the class viable.

What they did that I knew they were going to do was to reduce the whole bardic music aspect (other than instrument as focus), and make inspiration a really straightforward mechanic. Most support was going to get rolled into spells and that was just going to happen, given 5e's design aesthetics.

[Dork_Forge]

Agreed. Having just about all magical effects fall into one system makes it easier to implement new ideas quickly and with less error.
Saying that I think bards, and artificers for that matter, would have been better off having more of a monk style of features of being magical without being spell casting magic .

This is what led to the Alchemist being changed so much, I miss the OG UA version that had the Alchemist Bag, you felt like you were using things you made not just refluffling spell effects.

[Necrosnoop110]

5E Bards are the new 3E Druids. :tongue:

[MrStabby]

I think that part of it is due to the paladin being the new version of the old bard.

Paladins get an effect to bolster those nearby them

Paladins are half caster, half martial

Paladins are charisma casters


Rename the paladin the bard and you are probably close to what you want.

[Willie the Duck]

5E Bards are the new 3E Druids. :tongue:

Hmmm. How do you figure?

[KillingTime]

I think that part of it is due to the paladin being the new version of the old bard....

Rename the paladin the bard and you are probably close to what you want.

Paladins are 100% martial.
They may be half casters, but they're designed to smack things about with a sharpened lump of iron.

Bards are 100% a support class.
Even the most martial subclasses are still designed around support.
Giving them full casting with a limited but effective access to support spells makes a lot of sense given the 5e mechanic.

[Garfunion]

Rename the paladin the bard and you are probably close to what you want.

Hmm

•Give them the same hit die and proficiencies as the current bard
•Give them the same spell progression as the artificer
•Smite is renamed to High-note and does thunder or psychic damage.
•Channel divinity rename to Bardic inspiration
•Auras are renamed to Musical Humming
•Cleansing touch rename to disenchant
•Improved smite is rename to Resonance Weapon does thunder or psychic damage.

[Necrosnoop110]

5E Bards are the new 3E Druids. :tongue:

Hmmm. How do you figure?
Kidding around here but I found that the Druid in 3E to be mostly favored by design decisions to be able to address most build goals with aplomb. A well built 3E Druid could cover a lot of ground. And be able to fulfill a lot of other classes supposed niches better than they can or at least just as well.

While 5E has reigned in most of 3E insanities I find that the Bard has been favored by design with lots and lots of options. Skills. Spells. Face. Even combat when built to accommodate that. And many ways to lift the best from other classes abilities.

[RedMage125]

The class is no longer "the best 5th man" and can stand alone as their own unique self, while still being able to contribute effectively.


I agree with everything carrdrivesyou said (just cut the quote for length).

Also, one thing a lot of people liked about 4e was that other classes besides clerics could fill the role of "party healer". Bards were one of those in 4e. So 5e bards are a class that can replace a cleric in the standard "Warrior/Priest/Mage/Thief" dynamic.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

One of the things that always bugged me about 5e was how Bards are more magical in this edition than in any of the other editions (other than 1e, where the Bard was a weird option that required you to do some crazy backflips to get access to). They went from a partial-caster skillmonkey to a full-caster skillmonkey. They also minimized the "performance" aspect, which is weird to me - anecdotally, every single Bard I've seen people bring to the table didn't want spells (Swords, Valor, Glamour, and Whispers, by the way).

Am I alone in thinking that the bard would be more popular as an Artificer-style half-caster+ that leaned more heavily on Bardic Inspiration (or a buffed version of the same)?

There's a theory that 5e was rushed during the late stages of development. You can see this in some weird places that contradict or just doesn't make sense. The grapple feat and CR system are two of the things pointed out in this theory.

I think at one point there was no half casters, meaning, at one point the Ranger and Paladin was also full casters.

If you look at the Ranger at first level, it's really, really, bad compared to other classes. Full Spellcasting would fix this quite a bit.

The Paladin gets Divine Sense and Lay on Hands at first level. Not as bad as the Ranger, but still lacking compared to other weapon users at first level.

Somewhere does the line, they decided to make half casters a thing, to bring back the look/feel of 3e. However, they only got the Ranger and Paladin changed before they ran out of time. They switch a couple things around at first and second level and we got the Bard.

Honestly, I like the idea of a Spell-less Bard, but I'm biased. I also like the idea of a half caster bard, might need to make one.

[Amechra]

Honestly, that kinda makes sense. Now I'm wondering how hard it would be to create a "full-casting" subclass for half-casters - you'd essentially get 7 extra spell slots and 10 more spells known over the course of your career...

[Man_Over_Game]

Honestly, I like the idea of a Spell-less Bard, but I'm biased. I also like the idea of a half caster bard, might need to make one.

I could dig it, but the trick would be avoiding something as convoluted as the Warlock, without being overly stale. The base Monk is a good example of versatility and simplicity, I think.

Maybe something along the lines of "When you take the Cast a Spell action, you can have your Bardic Inspiration affect one creature you targeted with that spell".

And then have a short list of benefits/deficits you can apply with your Bardic Inspiration, like movement speed or AC changes.


Honestly, that kinda makes sense. Now I'm wondering how hard it would be to create a "full-casting" subclass for half-casters - you'd essentially get 7 extra spell slots and 10 more spells known over the course of your career...

Honestly, probably not too much. Level 6-9 spells would be awkward to figure out, but most classes utilize some kind of limited resource to begin with. Paladins have Divine Sense and Lay On Hands, Rangers basically have survival spells built into their core features, and Fighters have Second Wind and Action Surge.

You might not even need your own spell list. You could just have it so that you have one "Martial Spell list" that every martial class uses, but they all have "full casting" spell slots to fuel their special powers, like how Paladin uses Divine Smite. In this way, you could still have the "Martial Spell List" only go up to 5, and then use the remaining 6-9 spell levels on Martials to fuel other unique effects from the class.

For example, Level 9 spell slot on a Monk could be to cast Fly, Freedom of Movement, and True Seeing on himself without requiring Concentration.

Barbarians would be tricky.

[Makorel]

Hmm
•Smite is renamed to High-note and does thunder or psychic damage.


Unfortunately you can't just reflavor Smite this easily. Not unless your Paladin/Bard/Whatever is knocking enemies out by bashing them on the head with a lute.



Honestly, I like the idea of a Spell-less Bard, but I'm biased. I also like the idea of a half caster bard, might need to make one.

Same. Bardic Inspiration is a really good non-magical ability and the martial purist in me thinks it's a shame you have to take a full progression caster to get it. Some of my dabblings in making my own spell-less Bard include allowing one use to affect people up to Charisma Mod at 11th level (based on another player's misinterpretation of how powerful Bardic Inspiration was). The main thing I run into trouble with is what the Bard should do with their normal action. I feel like I want to give them special songs that can buff or debuff and provide support effects but at a certain point it would just be easier to give them spell casting.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Bards are full casters because balance I feel. But also, they can replace any of the roles in the Warrior, Thief, Priest mage.
They can skillmonkey, blast (Magic secrets lightning bolt/fireball), heal, and even fight decently (Swords bard). Which kind of fits the whole deal. IF they were to make bards half casters, I feel like maybe they should still keep magical secrets because that's just... amazing.

Granted, I have not played previous editions, and I'm mildly biased because BARDS.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I could dig it, but the trick would be avoiding something as convoluted as the Warlock, without being overly stale. The base Monk is a good example of versatility and simplicity, I think.



I love the warlock but yeah, it's convoluted.

I wouldn't actually change much about the Bard, if made into a half caster. Edit: Font of Inspiration would be rolled into Bardic Inspiration... Doesn't really need to be a class feature on its own.

+1 cantrip, this would have to be Vicious Mockery at first level. The other two you gain at second level and can be whatever you like.

I would then add some class features surrounding the use of Vicious Mockery. Give some examples of insults.

Whatever the D&D equivalent of "Your momma so stupid, she thought Cheerios were donut seeds"

Have it where at 5th level you can impose a condition instead of damage, as you gain more levels this condition gets more severe. At late levels you petrify a creature for one turn due to your mockery. Maybe you blind them with rage, literally?

At 7th level you can target multiple creatures with Vicious Mockery, break up the spell like Eldritch Blast.

[Garfunion]

Unfortunately you can't just reflavor Smite this easily. Not unless your Paladin/Bard/Whatever is knocking enemies out by bashing them on the head with a lute.
O ye of little imagination.
You “sing” and your weapon begins to hum with musical energy.
You hit a creature and let loose a terrifying musical note.
You hit a creature as your song enters its chorus/crescendo.
You hit a creature as you deliver a spiteful punchline.

Although having a musical instrument suddenly appear and bash the creatures face in as visual representation of the smite also seems funny.


Classes to me are building blocks, they are not the lore that is connected to them.

[MrStabby]

Although having a musical instrument suddenly appear and bash the creatures face in as visual representation of the smite also seems funny.



Sounds like you took spiritual weapon as a magical secret.

[ezekielraiden]

Definitely don't take your anecdote as data. Bards are quite popular in 2/3 or more of the groups I've spoken to, and specifically their strength as a spellcaster has drawn more than one person to the class. Neither of us is "right" or "wrong" about its status--we just have to avoid making evaluations from anecdotes that represent nothing whatsoever.

Given that WotC has never once mentioned issues with the Bard, at least AFAIK, whereas they have mentioned some kind of issues with almost every other class including Fighter, I don't think a major popularity problem exists. And given that 5e still has some lingering LFQW, even if it's reduced compared to 3.x, I really don't think reducing Bard to half-caster status would have helped its overall popularity. Being perfectly honest, I think that would solely have relegated Bard to being "the other Ranger," the class that makes design assumptions counter to how people want to play it, offloads class features onto optional spells, and generally falls short of designer goals for actual play.

[HPisBS]

Meh. I can see how a spell-less Bard could be cool in its own way... but I've only ever played 5E, so I only know these awesome Bards that can do anything a healer, warrior, thief, or arcane master can do – and I'm all about it.

[Edit:

Definitely don't take your anecdote as data. Bards are quite popular...
Hear, hear. It's among my favorite classes as is, and almost definitely wouldn't be if it weren't a full caster.
/ End Edit]

As a matter of fact, that's a significant part of why I skipped Pathfinder Kingmaker - I saw that Bards in that game are only 2/3 casters. It's a tall order to make other things - particularly other forms of support - feel as great as full casting. Especially late-game. So giving up any degree of that spellcasting for some other more classy features would be a tough sell. (Besides, Druids don't need to give up any of their casting - and they get to Wild Shape into giant eagles, etc - so why should Bards need to, just to put on motivational or distracting performances?)



A few people have already said that 5E Bards are still doing their Bardic support of yore, but are just fueling most of it through spells now. This seems to be widely hailed as a sound design decision.

And I've gotta agree, especially since that UA Variants came out. That took all of those abysmally situational Ranger features and just folded them into spells. And suddenly, everyone's fairly happy with the Ranger. Suddenly, all of those rarely-used features became just more options that you can pull out, like a utility mage who focuses on nature (along with reducing the strain of thinly-spread spells known).

So yeah, I'd firmly maintain that Bards' spellcasting is a non-issue, since what it does is basically still the same. Since the spell list still heavily focuses on buffs / debuffs, all pure Bards still wind up on support duty. That it's done through spell slots instead of mundane performances amounts to a technicality, and can be "fixed" with flavor and fluff.

Suggestion? ♪ You can do it your own way ♪ If it's done just how I say. ♪
Invisibility? ♪ And it's time I disappear ♪
Polymorph? ♪ Boooorn to be wi-i-i-ild ♪
Spiritual Weapon as your magical secret? ♪ You've got Heaven beside you, and Hell within ♪

Leo's Tiny Hut? Obviously, the Bard does an 11 minute long Safety Dance for the ritual

[RedMage125]

Maximum XCrawl, which uses PF system, has a class that's like a spell-less board.

Called the Jammer, I believe.

[Zetakya]

That said, they chose full caster and I and it seems to work... okay. That the class has to borrow spells from other classes to be viable isn't my favorite mechanic, but it does make the class viable.

What they did that I knew they were going to do was to reduce the whole bardic music aspect (other than instrument as focus), and make inspiration a really straightforward mechanic. Most support was going to get rolled into spells and that was just going to happen, given 5e's design aesthetics.

Two things here: I think Magical Secrets is a phenomenal tool for characterising a Bard's spell list. Unfortunately it's also a phenomenal tool for optimization focused stat builds without character.

Full caster slot progression is only half of the equation. The spell list is also important, and the Bard's ability to customise theirs is a really key RP ability. Just be sure to ignore the optimization guides that would have every Bard ever be a Lore Bard with Counterspell.

Secondly, the "instrument as a magical focus" thing implies that the bard is saying the magic words and gestures like a wizard, but while holding a musical instrument instead of a wand/staff/whatever arcane focus. Indeed, rules-as-written a Bard cannot sing a song at the same time as casting a spell with a verbal component.

This is so blatantly unbardic that it should be errataed; Bards should be able to cast - Indeed, possibly required to cast - by weaving the magic within music. That is, the verbal and somatic components of a Bard spell can be fulfilled by the audible music and the physical act of playing.

For that reason as well I think that it's Bards, not Sorcerers, who should have got Subtle Spell.

[Willie the Duck]

This is so blatantly unbardic that it should be errataed; Bards should be able to cast - Indeed, possibly required to cast - by weaving the magic within music. That is, the verbal and somatic components of a Bard spell can be fulfilled by the audible music and the physical act of playing.

I mean, that's certainly one option. If one envisions bards as have music-based-magic then yes, they should go all in on that. I grew up with the 1e and 2e bards, where they were performers (often storytellers more than musicians) who knew magic because they were dabblers at heart, and thus had a little of a wizard's (or druid's, in 1e) schtick (along with a little of a rogue's and a little of a fighter's). Both are reasonable directions to take the class. 5e kind of doesn't quite take a stance (spells are mostly not-music-based, but you can use your instrument as a focus) which I get causes dissonance for any more solid preference.

[ZorroGames]

Then you can take PeteNutButter’s Wardrummer. Mountain Dwarf, start 4 levels of Fighter Champion then go nuts with Swords Bard. Wade into melee with drum beating and play a beat down on your foes.

Edit


You might call this a Wardrummer, or another named based on the particuler performance skills. A wardrummer is a bard who has taken the time to get in depth martial training, gaining the ability to make better use of their weapons and perhaps wear heavier armor.

Dipping fighter offers a lot. The fighter level is best taken as the first level for the character to grant proficiency in con saves and heavy armor, which are both fantastic for any bard. Fighter 2 can be taken immediately or after several bard levels, for action surge. Valor or Swords Bards may be interested in fighter 3-4 for archetype and ASI. Eldritch Knight is a way for a bard to get shield spell, without taking sorcerer levels or using a magical secret, while the other archetypes augment the bard's fighting prowess.
Spoiler: E.g.
Hide
Mountain Dwarf
Champion 4/Swords Bard 6+
17, 8, 14, 8, 10, 15

This wardrummer starts with his first level in fighter for con saves and heavy armor, and then takes bard until extra attack. The champion ability combines well with blade flourish giving them increased crit chance on those extra flourish dice, and potentially doubling that AC boost. First ASI in str and cha makes up for the low starting cha. TWF or dueling style are both available in conjunction with defense fighting style from fighter. He has plenty of buffs for both himself and his team, and he can wade into the front with a couple wardrums strapped to him for added coolness.

[stoutstien]

This is what led to the Alchemist being changed so much, I miss the OG UA version that had the Alchemist Bag, you felt like you were using things you made not just refluffling spell effects.

Aye,I think they missed the boat on that one. even something as simple as allowing them to make as many Alchemist fires or vials of acid equal to their int mod a day and allowed their fifth level feature to apply to them would have gone a long ways.

I'm trying to rewrite The Alchemist using the class chassis provided. I got distracted when the new armorer UA released.

[Nagog]

When comparing classes like this, I don't think chalking it up to "Full Casters" and "Half Casters" does anybody Justice. For example, Wizards and Clerics get the same range of spell levels and spell slots. However, Clerics also get a whole crap ton that Wizards don't, such as armor and weapons proficiencies, channel divinity, potent spellcasting/Divine strikes, and a whole ton more. Wizards get pitifully few class features in comparison. However, Wizards have the largest and most expansive spell list of all. They can learn new spells throughout the adventure, not just on level up, and they have tons and tons of overall potential from their spell choice.

Similarly, Bards have a full 9 spell levels and a slew of subclass features, but their spell list is small and pretty lackluster overall. They have a little bit of everything, but lack the best of anything. Beyond that, they learn spells like Sorcerers. They don't have the versatility of a Wizard's spell book, or better yet the Druid and Cleric full list choices. Despite being full casters, Bardic spellcasting would be entirely unappealing were it not for Magical Secrets.

[stoutstien]

When comparing classes like this, I don't think chalking it up to "Full Casters" and "Half Casters" does anybody Justice. For example, Wizards and Clerics get the same range of spell levels and spell slots. However, Clerics also get a whole crap ton that Wizards don't, such as armor and weapons proficiencies, channel divinity, potent spellcasting/Divine strikes, and a whole ton more. Wizards get pitifully few class features in comparison. However, Wizards have the largest and most expansive spell list of all. They can learn new spells throughout the adventure, not just on level up, and they have tons and tons of overall potential from their spell choice.

Similarly, Bards have a full 9 spell levels and a slew of subclass features, but their spell list is small and pretty lackluster overall. They have a little bit of everything, but lack the best of anything. Beyond that, they learn spells like Sorcerers. They don't have the versatility of a Wizard's spell book, or better yet the Druid and Cleric full list choices. Despite being full casters, Bardic spellcasting would be entirely unappealing were it not for Magical Secrets.

The bard's spell is focused on support/debuff but does get the best of that selection. HP, FF, polymorph, nondetection, plant growth, freedom of movement, and so on are all amazing spells. About the only thing the bard falls short on are direct damage spells which is usually a bad use of a slot most of the time.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

When comparing classes like this, I don't think chalking it up to "Full Casters" and "Half Casters" does anybody Justice. For example, Wizards and Clerics get the same range of spell levels and spell slots. However, Clerics also get a whole crap ton that Wizards don't, such as armor and weapons proficiencies, channel divinity, potent spellcasting/Divine strikes, and a whole ton more. Wizards get pitifully few class features in comparison. However, Wizards have the largest and most expansive spell list of all. They can learn new spells throughout the adventure, not just on level up, and they have tons and tons of overall potential from their spell choice.

Similarly, Bards have a full 9 spell levels and a slew of subclass features, but their spell list is small and pretty lackluster overall. They have a little bit of everything, but lack the best of anything. Beyond that, they learn spells like Sorcerers. They don't have the versatility of a Wizard's spell book, or better yet the Druid and Cleric full list choices. Despite being full casters, Bardic spellcasting would be entirely unappealing were it not for Magical Secrets.

Hey, I've been saying for a while that wizards are poorly designed. Even with full casting, they could use some class features that make them more of a nerd. One of my favorite class features I've given the wizard is the ability to lower the time it takes for them or someone else to perform a ritual casting. For every creature part of a ritual that has a 13 or higher in Int, the ritual takes 1 less minute, to the minimum to 1 minute.

But the features that Clerics gain aren't exactly amazing. Good, but not amazing. Armor just saves a spell slot and weapons are typically more in the "ok" range than anything else. Wizards get a much better range of spells so they rarely have a need for weapons and they do get mage armor.

Some Clerics do get some awesome subclass features, but so do wizards. Wizards get some of the best subclass features in the game. Even the less shiny wizard subclasses are pretty cool.

[diplomancer]

Two things here: I think Magical Secrets is a phenomenal tool for characterising a Bard's spell list. Unfortunately it's also a phenomenal tool for optimization focused stat builds without character.

Full caster slot progression is only half of the equation. The spell list is also important, and the Bard's ability to customise theirs is a really key RP ability. Just be sure to ignore the optimization guides that would have every Bard ever be a Lore Bard with Counterspell.

Secondly, the "instrument as a magical focus" thing implies that the bard is saying the magic words and gestures like a wizard, but while holding a musical instrument instead of a wand/staff/whatever arcane focus. Indeed, rules-as-written a Bard cannot sing a song at the same time as casting a spell with a verbal component.

This is so blatantly unbardic that it should be errataed; Bards should be able to cast - Indeed, possibly required to cast - by weaving the magic within music. That is, the verbal and somatic components of a Bard spell can be fulfilled by the audible music and the physical act of playing.

For that reason as well I think that it's Bards, not Sorcerers, who should have got Subtle Spell.

Nothing in the rules state that casters have only one way of casting spells (and to me the very existence of both foci and component pouches is contrary evidence).

A Bard in combat will probably not use his instrument to cast spells. A Bard out of combat will probably use his instrument to disguise the very fact he IS casting spells.

[Zetakya]

Nothing in the rules state that casters have only one way of casting spells (and to me the very existence of both foci and component pouches is contrary evidence).

A Bard in combat will probably not use his instrument to cast spells. A Bard out of combat will probably use his instrument to disguise the very fact he IS casting spells.

Have you ever read the Deverry Cycle books by Katherine Kerr? There's a scene in one of the later books (part of the Westlands saga) where a Bard is standing atop one of the walls of a city, calling down curses on the barbarians attacking the city by beating a drum and chanting in rhythm with it. It's massively evocative and one of my go-to images for how Bards should be.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Nothing in the rules state that casters have only one way of casting spells (and to me the very existence of both foci and component pouches is contrary evidence).

A Bard in combat will probably not use his instrument to cast spells. A Bard out of combat will probably use his instrument to disguise the very fact he IS casting spells.

I'm sorry, but El Kabong (https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/hanna-barbera/images/b/b6/Hb_el_kabong.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/340?cb=20141009140720) shows that bards should always use their instrument in combat.

[Garfunion]

I'm sorry, but El Kabong (https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/hanna-barbera/images/b/b6/Hb_el_kabong.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/340?cb=20141009140720) shows that bards should always use their instrument in combat.
This is why all Bards should have improvised weapon proficiency (musical instrument).

[SpawnOfMorbo]

This is why all Bards should have improvised weapon proficiency (musical instrument).

Also either the mending cantrip or a specialized cantrip that makes musical instruments indestructible.

[Garfunion]

Also either the mending cantrip or a specialized cantrip that makes musical instruments indestructible.
Hmm. That brings up a good question. Many musical instruments are made out of wood effectively making them an improvised club. Could the shillelagh cantrip work on it?

[Man_Over_Game]

Hmm. That brings up a good question many musical instruments are made out of wood effectively making them an improvised club. Could the shillelagh cantrip work on it?

Clubs are considerably denser than something like a Lute. I might handwave bashing someone with your guitar as an "improvised club" to make the rules easier, so we don't have to look up the Improvised Weapons rules again, but that doesn't mean that a guitar = weapon.

Like, it's cool and all, but Shillelagh is specifically a Druid-specific spell, and having a Bard enchant a piece of machinery to be indestructible to hit someone with doesn't seem particularly bard-y or druid-y. If anything, it'd be something an Artificer or Transmuter Wizard would do.

It feels kinda...campy? Like you're trying to get attention?

It's like trying to steal someone's pants. Or backstab someone with a ballista. But it's not much of an argument against it, and I could easily be swayed otherwise.

[Necrosnoop110]

Similarly, Bards have a full 9 spell levels and a slew of subclass features, but their spell list is small and pretty lackluster overall. They have a little bit of everything, but lack the best of anything. Beyond that, they learn spells like Sorcerers. They don't have the versatility of a Wizard's spell book, or better yet the Druid and Cleric full list choices. Despite being full casters, Bardic spellcasting would be entirely unappealing were it not for Magical Secrets.
Respectfully disagree.

(1) I realize you mention it but spells from any spell list in the game via Lorebard & Magical Secrets if chosen wisely is crazy huge.
(2) The straight Bard spell list has plenty of awesome (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=19525896&postcount=5) and any weakness or desired build goal can be made up Magical Secrets/Feats/Lorebard.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Hmm. That brings up a good question. Many musical instruments are made out of wood effectively making them an improvised club. Could the shillelagh cantrip work on it?

Yes?

I'll allow it.

[Grey Watcher]

Is it bad that I want to glibly answer the question in the thread title with "Because too many of you took Sublime Chord back in 3.5"?

Seriously though, I don't mind that 5e Bards lean more heavily on the magic leg of the stool than their predecessors, but I do strongly suspect that the apparent popularity of "turn the Bard into a full caster" builds had a lot do with why Bard got rounded up to full caster and not down to half (or just remained the only 2/3 caster).

[Garfunion]

Clubs are considerably denser than something like a Lute. I might handwave bashing someone with your guitar as an "improvised club" to make the rules easier, so we don't have to look up the Improvised Weapons rules again, but that doesn't mean that a guitar = weapon.

Like, it's cool and all, but Shillelagh is specifically a Druid-specific spell, and having a Bard enchant a piece of machinery to be indestructible to hit someone with doesn't seem particularly bard-y or druid-y. If anything, it'd be something an Artificer or Transmuter Wizard would do.

It feels kinda...campy? Like you're trying to get attention?

It's like trying to steal someone's pants. Or backstab someone with a ballista. But it's not much of an argument against it, and I could easily be swayed otherwise.
I understand where you coming from and if my DM says no I wouldn’t push the matter any further. However I’m not the kind of player that looks at a spell and say that spell belong to that class’ theme. I have a monk who infuses his bokken(carved club) with Ki or my Tenchi Muyo-ish warlock (before hexblade) activating his tenchi-ken. All casting shillelagh cantrip.
I also view classes in a similar way for example the paladin makes a great sword mage.

So a bard hitting creatures over the head with his lute seems normal to me.

[HPisBS]

Respectfully disagree.

(1) I realize you mention it but spells from any spell list in the game via Lorebard & Magical Secrets if chosen wisely is crazy huge.
(2) The straight Bard spell list has plenty of awesome (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=19525896&postcount=5) and any weakness or desired build goal can be made up Magical Secrets/Feats/Lorebard.

1) Even a Lore Bard (best bard) only gets 8 non-Bard spells.
2) In that linked list, only 5 spells > 3rd level deal their own damage, including Animate Objects (which of course is awesome) and Mordenkainen's Sword (which is decidedly not awesome). There's also both Polymorphs, but even that is back in the realm of support.


So yeah, Magical Secrets is great. It lets you fill in any holes and accomplish whatever build you want. It's... instrumental to doing so.
But let's recognize that, awesome as it is for support & control, there definitely are wide holes to fill in the Bard spell list.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Is it bad that I want to glibly answer the question in the thread title with "Because too many of you took Sublime Chord back in 3.5"?

Seriously though, I don't mind that 5e Bards lean more heavily on the magic leg of the stool than their predecessors, but I do strongly suspect that the apparent popularity of "turn the Bard into a full caster" builds had a lot do with why Bard got rounded up to full caster and not down to half (or just remained the only 2/3 caster).

Never touched that prestige class, I did however play around with the lyrical spell, metamagic song, and Extra Music feats.

:smallbiggrin:

[Daphne]

Because 5e designers are big fans of The Name of the Wind book series.

[Necrosnoop110]

1) Even a Lore Bard (best bard) only gets 8 non-Bard spells.
2) In that linked list, only 5 spells > 3rd level deal their own damage, including Animate Objects (which of course is awesome) and Mordenkainen's Sword (which is decidedly not awesome). There's also both Polymorphs, but even that is back in the realm of support.

So yeah, Magical Secrets is great. It lets you fill in any holes and accomplish whatever build you want. It's... instrumental to doing so.
But let's recognize that, awesome as it is for support & control, there definitely are wide holes to fill in the Bard spell list.

(1) Instrumental. Nice! :)
(2) Yeah, the foundation of the bard is support & control, I agree. But you can do so much with those ~8 non-Bards spells. Even before any sort of multiclass dipping. Eldritch Blast + Fireball alone covers so much ground for damage at low to mid levels.
Conclusion: I mostly agree with you but put more weight on what those non-Bard spells can do, especially before the higher levels. Additionally, much of the failing to achieve an effective role of "blaster" for the Bard is more a failing of the system to favor easy success at blasting for nearly anyone.

[Man_Over_Game]

I understand where you coming from and if my DM says no I wouldn’t push the matter any further. However I’m not the kind of player that looks at a spell and say that spell belong to that class’ theme. I have a monk who infuses his bokken(carved club) with Ki or my Tenchi Muyo-ish warlock (before hexblade) activating his tenchi-ken. All casting shillelagh cantrip.
I also view classes in a similar way for example the paladin makes a great sword mage.

I can agree with that. I just have a hard time understanding why a Bard would go out of his way to get Shillelagh to clobber people with his musical instrument, unless it was some kind of joke.

Monks using their Ki or magical powers to hit people better? Hell yeah.

Paladins actually being mage-knights that generate wards around themselves and answer to nobody? Hell yeah.

But making an instrument into a weapon just feels so far out of left-field that it's....hard to make that normal. The only way I think it could be normalized is if it was some kind of joke or prank. And I get that many people play for those kinds of games, but more tables would be accepting of a serious character with a cool mechanic than a joke character with a gimmicky mechanic.

I feel like that's the crux of it.


Does it require DM fiat? Yeah.
Is it a big deal? Nah.
Does it add to the game? Maybe.


Having an obnoxious player who tries to bash everyone with random objects, trying to get all of the other players to constantly see how funny he is, might not add much enjoyment to the game for everyone.

But maybe that's because I'm cynical and assume the worst-case scenarios with hypothetical players.

[Garfunion]

Does it require DM fiat? Yeah.
Is it a big deal? Nah.
Does it add to the game? Maybe.


Having an obnoxious player who tries to bash everyone with random objects, trying to get all of the other players to constantly see how funny he is, might not add much enjoyment to the game for everyone.

But maybe that's because I'm cynical and assume the worst-case scenarios with hypothetical players.
You’re just cynical.....I’m just joking

I agree with you, a joke like that would wear thin on the players and DM at the table and eventually get tuned out as “the bard attack”.
But as long as the Bard is having fun and the players & DM are ok with it, there’s not really a problem with it. To me.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I can agree with that. I just have a hard time understanding why a Bard would go out of his way to get Shillelagh to clobber people with his musical instrument, unless it was some kind of joke.

Monks using their Ki or magical powers to hit people better? Hell yeah.

Paladins actually being mage-knights that generate wards around themselves and answer to nobody? Hell yeah.

But making an instrument into a weapon just feels so far out of left-field that it's....hard to make that normal. The only way I think it could be normalized is if it was some kind of joke or prank. And I get that many people play for those kinds of games, but more tables would be accepting of a serious character with a cool mechanic than a joke character with a gimmicky mechanic.





El Kabong has been around since 1959, not sure if that's considered left field.





In War of the Spider Queen (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/WarOfTheSpiderQueen), Hallistra Melarn loots a sword from a priestess of nature. The hilt of which is basically a flute. Hallistra, being a bard, uses this power to the fullest.




Also, Dragonzord is called down with a flutedagger.

Shillelagh makes a weapon all magic-ish. Totally going to make me a green ranger.

[Zetakya]

I can see how a Bard attacking with random objects/the environment/custard pies could work if it was a specific kind of campaign, and done by a Satire Bard with intent to pull off a slapstick routine with the objective of making someone look foolish by getting messed with by the court jester.

There are many kinds of Bards.

[Luccan]

The 3e Bard, at least, didn't fit 5e's new way of doing classes (which if nothing else is more consistent about spell progression). It was either give them less casting or give them more. Or, do something entirely new with them. Of the three, the middle option seems the safest. 5e's Bard is massively more capable on its own than before, but so is every non-full caster of previous editions. In some ways, it follows the jack-of-all-trades bit to its 5e conclusion: it's just kind of good at everything. But never so much that it outshines everyone else all the time. Everyone's capabilities got a little broader this edition (except the Ranger, which was cut back to a spells-known caster for no adequate reason), so for the already flexible Bard the only thing to do was go all in on the most versatile mechanic in the game.

It did bother me, when I first came to 5e. But I think I prefer it to the alternatives.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The 3e Bard, at least, didn't fit 5e's new way of doing classes (which if nothing else is more consistent about spell progression). It was either give them less casting or give them more. Or, do something entirely new with them. Of the three, the middle option seems the safest. 5e's Bard is massively more capable on its own than before, but so is every non-full caster of previous editions. In some ways, it follows the jack-of-all-trades bit to its 5e conclusion: it's just kind of good at everything. But never so much that it outshines everyone else all the time. Everyone's capabilities got a little broader this edition (except the Ranger, which was cut back to a spells-known caster for no adequate reason), so for the already flexible Bard the only thing to do was go all in on the most versatile mechanic in the game.

It did bother me, when I first came to 5e. But I think I prefer it to the alternatives.

Half Casters with class features exist in 5e, I'm not sure how the 3e version didn't fit.

[Luccan]

Half Casters with class features exist in 5e, I'm not sure how the 3e version didn't fit.

Because it wasn't a half-caster? That's what I meant by less spellcasting. In 3e it got up to 6th level spells, at a rate completely incongruous with every other class in the game. To follow through on that progression in 5e, it would have cantrips for a couple levels, then suddenly catch up with sorcerers by level 4, slowly fall behind, then remain just a spell level ahead of the actual half-casters.

Edit: To clear up some fuzzy wording, making Bards half-casters in 5e would put them a spell level down from 3e, using their 3e progression would be ridiculous.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Because it wasn't a half-caster? That's what I meant by less spellcasting. In 3e it got up to 6th level spells, at a rate completely incongruous with every other class in the game. To follow through on that progression in 5e, it would have cantrips for a couple levels, then suddenly catch up with sorcerers by level 4, slowly fall behind, then remain just a spell level ahead of the actual half-casters.

Edit: To clear up some fuzzy wording, making Bards half-casters in 5e would put them a spell level down from 3e, using their 3e progression would be ridiculous.

They could have easily have them the same sort of system as the Warlock, at a specific level they gain 6th level spells that work outside their casting system.

Or, and hear me out, they could have left bards at 5th levels slot. Perfectly acceptable 3e to 5e change, much closer than a full caster to say the least.

Especially if they threw in Lyrical Spell via Bardic Inspiration type class features at higher levels.

[Ashrym]

They could have easily have them the same sort of system as the Warlock, at a specific level they gain 6th level spells that work outside their casting system.

Or, and hear me out, they could have left bards at 5th levels slot. Perfectly acceptable 3e to 5e change, much closer than a full caster to say the least.

Especially if they threw in Lyrical Spell via Bardic Inspiration type class features at higher levels.

Could have but was awkward. That's exactly how 3e did it. 3e bards were still full casters because they applied full caster level instead of restricted caster level to spells (unlike rangers and paladins), spells were reassigned to different spell levels dependent on class so bards still got those higher level spells, and the volume of bard songs made up the difference.

Bards were always strong casters. Looking at the max spell level in 3e is misleading because of the split mechanic and isn't different than claiming clerics weren't full casters in earlier editions because of wonky spell level variance rules.

Combining songs and spells into a single mechanic (spells) worked much better. It's easy to use and doesn't require any special multiclassing rules.

It's also much easier to use the full caster bard for the powerful bard magicians in myths and folklore while using a multiclass for a more restricted spell casting identity.

Bards could kill with a poet's curse in old folklore. That's why power word kill is on the list. Some of 5e is based on wider archetypes than "some dude who plays music". ;-)

Short version: simplicity and various legends

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Could have but was awkward. That's exactly how 3e did it. 3e bards were still full casters because they applied full caster level instead of restricted caster level to spells (unlike rangers and paladins), spells were reassigned to different spell levels dependent on class so bards still got those higher level spells, and the volume of bard songs made up the difference.

Bards were always strong casters. Looking at the max spell level in 3e is misleading because of the split mechanic and isn't different than claiming clerics weren't full casters in earlier editions because of wonky spell level variance rules.

Combining songs and spells into a single mechanic (spells) worked much better. It's easy to use and doesn't require any special multiclassing rules.

It's also much easier to use the full caster bard for the powerful bard magicians in myths and folklore while using a multiclass for a more restricted spell casting identity.

Bards could kill with a poet's curse in old folklore. That's why power word kill is on the list. Some of 5e is based on wider archetypes than "some dude who plays music". ;-)

Short version: simplicity and various legends

It would not have been any awkward than what we already have.

Having up to 5th level in vancian casting and then a use of "Bardic Performance" that gives you a 6th level spell usage would have fit right in. Or just not giving the Bard over 5th level casting is fine too since they have other class features.

Pretending that a full caster is the only way to make the Bard is rather short sighted.

[MoiMagnus]

Bards are build around 3 core traits:
1) Being a skill-monkey
2) Being a support (Bardic inspiration, ...)
3) Being versatile (Magical secrets, ...)

However, none of them are "aggressive", and one of the design choice of 5e classes is that they must have as one of their core trait something that can be used to smash the enemy (or at minima incapacitate them).

So the devs were faced with two options:
a) Making the bard a weapon-focussed class. Which mean giving up bardic instruments, and essentially turning it into a rogue-like. And magical secrets would be kind of lame on a half-caster.
b) Making the bard a standard full caster class.

This is obviously a false dichotomy, since many other less obvious choices were possible, like non-standard full casters. They could for example have taken the Warlock spell system and it would have worked without need for new mechanics. But they needed SOMETHING, and it didn't felt right to them to force the "College of Valour" theme, to every bard. While you could blame them for not finding an interesting new idea, the choice of standard full caster totally makes sense.

One can note that PF2e also consider bard as a full caster. As it isn't an isolated choice from 5e, there might be some truth in "because a significant part of the community want them to be full casters".

[Ashrym]

It would not have been any awkward than what we already have.

Having up to 5th level in vancian casting and then a use of "Bardic Performance" that gives you a 6th level spell usage would have fit right in. Or just not giving the Bard over 5th level casting is fine too since they have other class features.

Pretending that a full caster is the only way to make the Bard is rather short sighted.

The attempt in the playtest was awkward. The 3e bard wasn't exactly popular and players wanted more 4e in the bard compared to the attempt to make it more 3e.

Just because going with a full caster might nit have been the only way doesn't mean it wasn't a good way. Thinking bards needed to be more like 3e just because there could be a way of doing so seems more shortsighted to me. ;)