Taking a Feat vs a One Level Dip

[CornfedCommando]

I’m curious as to what everyone thinks about a character creation issue that I am mulling over. In short, is it more advantageous to take a feat over a one level dip when both would essentially accomplish the same thing?

I am creating a level 4 Kalashtar Swords Bard. Without going too far into the character concept, he is essentially a psychically oriented swordsman who is a highly perceptive and streetwise investigator.

This is the crux of my dilemma; as a Bard with a slightly altered Criminal background, he is proficient in Insight, Investigation, Perception, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth. He has tool proficiency with Thieves Tools and speaks Common, Elven, Goblin, and Quori.

At level four, he can take a feat or an ASI. To round out my character concept, I can take Prodigy or Skilled. The former is being made available via DM ruling, but the latter covers what I want as well. I want to pick up proficiency in Deception, a gaming set, and Thieves Cant (again, a DM ruling).

Thing is, I could get what I want by starting out as a level one Rogue. Or, conversely, I could start with the gaming kit proficiency and pick up Thieves Tools by multiclassing into Rogue. Starting as a Rogue and multiclassing into Bard actually would net me an extra skill proficiency to boot. Either way, I’d also get to add +1d6 sneak attack damage.

Obviously, the downside is that doing so slows my Bard progression, which is the main focus of the character. More so if I’m tempted into a second level of Rogue in order to get another set of Expertise and Cunning Action. The Rogue dips would be fairly early on in order to cement the beginning concept.

So, in your collective opinion, which is better, given that both options fulfill my character concept? Is it worth it to burn an ASI on a feat and not slow my Bard progression? Or is it better to get what I want from Rogue (and then some) but at the cost of delayed spell progression, delayed second attack, and delayed Bard features?

Thanks!

[OldTrees1]

As a caster, the Feat is cheaper than the level dip.

So the question is, the Feat or Both?

[CornfedCommando]

As a caster, the Feat is cheaper than the level dip.

So the question is, the Feat or Both?

If I go for the Feat, I’d forgo Rogue entirely unless something comes up in play that would cause me to change course (maybe something entirely different; this is just that starting point after all). I can be Rogue-ish enough as is for the base concept. The spells are important to me.

[BarneyBent]

Just a point of clarification, you get Rogue Expertise at level 1, not 2. So that bumps up the value of the 1 level rogue dip.

However, being a caster, I still would probably still prefer the feat unless you REALLY want more expertise.

[CornfedCommando]

Just a point of clarification, you get Rogue Expertise at level 1, not 2. So that bumps up the value of the 1 level rogue dip.

However, being a caster, I still would probably still prefer the feat unless you REALLY want more expertise.

Good point of clarification there. The Sneak Attack was just an enticing lure that tugged at me once I realized the Rogue dip could net me what I wanted out of Prodigy. Same with Expertise, be it level one or two. I really went down this rabbit hole just to snag those proficiencies. Which then got me thinking about how I could otherwise spend that Feat/ASI at level five. And then got me looking at the cons and so on. The spiral is easy to get caught up in, which is why I tend to avoid multiclassing in the first place. 😄

[diplomancer]

For your character, the feat. The dip gives you one more expertise and 1d6 extra damage but neither are worth it delaying one spellcaster level.

[da newt]

I'd argue the dip is more efficient than the feat. Yes it delays your spell progression by 1 level (the cost), but you gain skills, expertise, SA, and now you can spend your ASI on +2 Cha or RES CON or whatever benefits you the most.

[MrStabby]

In general, there isnt a simple answer. Dipping for a caster is usually pretty costly... but there are exceptions. A single level of another casting class doesn't detract that much from your spell casting for example. Not all classes spell lists are equal either - higher level cleric spells are relatively unexciting to me for example.

In this case I would be asking what I wanted the character to do. Combat with spell support? Total skill focus? Caster with rogue providing versatility? Rogue does fit in well as long as you are OK with less of a spell casting focus.

Personally, I would stick with bard though unless I were to be looking to really change focus to a more martial character.

[Galithar]

I'll disagree with the majority here. The dip is by far more powerful. Yes, in a white room a being a level behind on spells is crippling. In actual play however, the people in my groups tend not to notice/dwell on it.

Not only does the dip give you what you want, it gives a die of sneak attack, and allows a feat/ASI at level 5. that means that from levels 5-7 you're a feat up, then for one level you're tied, then three levels of being up one. In my experience the value of a feat/ASI is superior to being behind one caster level.

Again, my experience has shown me that most full casters have spell slots left after each day (usually not many, but 2-4 slots for mid level casters is not uncommon in my groups) that means the real drawback is just being a spell level behind every other level. Most painful at levels 5-9 in my opinion. Based on your starting level this could be either the first half of your campaign or the majority of it. Again I feel that as long as there is a feat you would like to have (other than Prodigy) then the level dip is worth it. If you would otherwise use it for an ASI than the feat would be more appropriate.

Of course of your group has long adventuring days where mid to high level full casters are actually straining their spell slots, or if you think you'll dwell on the being a spell level behind half the time, then I would have to agree with the above posters that the feat is the way to go.

[MaxWilson]

Bard 5 first to get Hypnotic Pattern and short-rest inspiration online, then Rogue 1. Spend your ASI on Inspiring Leader instead of Skilled or Prodigy.

[1Pirate]

I’d take the feat. In this case, it isn’t just the caster progression that a dip slows down, it’s delaying short rest Inspiration Dice. That’s pretty big and even bigger for a Swords Bard since you can burn through those faster. (And for a Swords Bard, I wouldn’t dip until after you get your 2nd attack).

[FabulousFizban]

Wut R stats?

[Aaron Underhand]

There is no right answer, or more importantly both choices are valid.

To help making decisions in these cases I found a hint from a decision making TED talk useful:

Ask yourself, when you look back on this decision - do you want to be the guy who took the dip, or the guy who took the feat?

Personally in this case I'd take the dip, and I'd actually start rogue and multiclass. It wont be without cost, and I understand mechanically why others are saying wait until 5th. However:

1 The character concept comes on stream fully at 2nd, and just gets stronger level by level from them on

2 I played a Bard n/Wizard 1 up to 11th level. I took the dip at second level, and despite being behind on max spell level every odd character level I never regretted the dip. The delay of bard features also hurts, but it is the comparison with other party casters that can leave you feeling left behind. However the bard is so strong that actually you are effective in the party - more effective given the dip - despite sometimes not having that big spell. You get a big win in flexibility by multiclassing, and you want that win for all your play time.

3 I have recently been playing a lot of adventurer's league. Parties are assembled on the night from the players who have turned up, with the only real selection being tiers. As such you are commonly in a party with characters ahead or behind in levels. This makes that max spell issue moot, except at level 5 and 11 when breaking into a new tier. Once you realise your 6th level character can hang with the 8-9th level guys, or your 2nd level character with those at 3rd and 4th it relaxes your take on level progression.

As for the second level of dip - same argument applies. I had always expected to go Wizard 2 with my bard, the sheer power of Diviner /Portent had me captivated. However the character progression meant I never did that... that 2nd level of wizard would probably have been delayed until 20th!

[CornfedCommando]

My stats are Str 10, Dex 16, Con 12, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 18. The spells I intend to select are all themed towards mind-alteration or psychic damage. We are using the Class Variants UA, so I’m also considering the expanded bard spell list.

Most of what I’m looking at are concentration spells. Given my Constitution score, I understand that I risk losing those if I take a hit. I figure I can use one per combat and whatever mileage I can get out of it is what it is. That said, I do like to mix it up in melee, hence why Sneak Attack drew me in (also why I went with Swords).

I’m not totally opposed to hanging back as circumstances dictate. I like using Dissonant Whispers and even Vicious Mockery. Mind Spike is also available. So I have some ranged direct damage options. I’m not really creating this character to be optimized so much as I am to fit the theme of the character concept.

As for other feats, I was strongly considering War Caster. Inspiring Leader is also on the board. I usually like to grab some sort of utility type feat early on before I start racing towards my ASI’s. I have a really high Cha, so I’m okay for now.

Not sure what the other players are gonna go with. The only other character I know for sure is a Dragonmarked Dwarf Inquisitive Rogue. Our characters are partners. I like having a solid role outside of combat, hence why Prodigy is appealing.

[CornfedCommando]

Personally in this case I'd take the dip, and I'd actually start rogue and multiclass. It wont be without cost, and I understand mechanically why others are saying wait until 5th.

This is actually what I’m thinking. My character’s roguish proclivities developed in early adolescence at the same time as his bard training, so it’s appropriate to the concept. Plus, it gives me an extra skill and proficiency in I t saving throws. Since Int and Cha saves are relatively rare, I’d actually prefer to have both at “decent” instead of one really low and the other really high.

By starting with Rogue 1, all my Rogue stuff comes online right off the bat. Like you said, the concept is then up and running at level 2. So I’m strongly leaning towards this. I fully understand the argument for the Feat, but I really like this route. The delay to Font of Inspiration and Second Attack kind of sucks, but I guess that would essentially be the trade off in my mind.

Edit: Having Sneak Attack would, of course take off some of that edge.

[Aaron Underhand]

...The delay to Font of Inspiration and Second Attack kind of sucks, but I guess that would essentially be the trade off in my mind.

Edit: Having Sneak Attack would, of course take off some of that edge.

Compensates well I'd say. Blade flourish will go from 4/LR to 4/SR, but that 1d6 sneak attack is every turn if you get the tactics right. Plus when you do use a flourish you get both, and when you get the second attack you can choose to combine, or use one on each attack, and save the flourish if the second attack misses...

[diplomancer]

If you are using the class features UA, a good dip would be Ranger (canny); shield proficiency, 2 extra skills (1 with expertise), 2 extra languages, 1/day concentration free, slot free hunter's mark, and you can cast it with your slots and concentration more often if you want, since it becomes one of the spells you know.

[Eldariel]

I'll disagree with the majority here. The dip is by far more powerful. Yes, in a white room a being a level behind on spells is crippling. In actual play however, the people in my groups tend not to notice/dwell on it.

The whole point is the early access to higher level spells and especially Magical Secrets. Bard is probably the caster most hurt by losing a level of spellcasting: not only are the higher level spells a precious commodity for a class with such low number of spells known, Magical Secrets comes on the even levels as what amounts to an entirely new spell level worth of power. So you stand to lose massively on every level you miss out on.

Wizard, Cleric and Druid care little as long as they get to level 9 spells (tho Druid high level features are great) as they know their whole lists but Bards and Sorcs are pretty level-hungry even post-17. White room, actual play or whatever makes absolutely no difference: Bard stands to lose a ton by being a spell level behind at least up until level 19 when they get their final Magical Secrets.

[FabulousFizban]

YOU WILL TAKE WARCASTER. As a swords bard you will have a sword and shield or two swords. In either case your hands are full and you need warcaster to be an effective spellsword. The bonus to concentration saves is just cherry. It is the equivalent of a +8 to your constitution score. You need that. you can't be wasting action economy recasting your buff/debuffs. Swords bard is a striker, to borrow a 4e term, after turn one you should be dealing DPR

[diplomancer]

YOU WILL TAKE WARCASTER. As a swords bard you will have a sword and shield or two swords. In either case your hands are full and you need warcaster to be an effective spellsword. The bonus to concentration saves is just cherry. It is the equivalent of a +8 to your constitution score. You need that. you can't be wasting action economy recasting your buff/debuffs. Swords bard is a striker, to borrow a 4e term, after turn one you should be dealing DPR

The bonus to concentration is very good (though worse than resilient Con starting from level 8, specially if your Con is odd)
A 2-weapon fighting swords bard doesn't gain much from the "hands full" benefit of warcaster; he can have both hands occupied for any spell that has the M component, and, even for those S-Not M spells, he can just put away his off-hand weapon with free object interaction and still have a weapon in hand for Opportunity attacks (this assuming your DM cares; in my experience, few do, and treat component rules more for special situations like bound, gagged, or silenced casters)

[ezekielraiden]

Bard is arguably the class least affected by losing its capstone, because its capstone is...incredibly lackluster. It barely qualifies as a capstone. Getting a single use of BI when you roll initiative, and only if you've already used all (presumably) 5 uses already and haven't found time to short rest? Yeah, that's...really not worthwhile. So at least in terms of "what are you giving up long-term," the answer is "almost nothing."

That leaves the question of the short term. Delaying Bard means delaying Magical Secrets, spell progression, and potentially other class features. Bards generally really want Font of Inspiration, because 3-5 (mostly likely 3) uses of BI per day is a painful restriction and doubling or tripling your number of daily uses is huge. For a Swords Bard taking a dip early on, this means delaying Extra Attack, possibly Blade Flourish, etc.

This must then be contrasted against the benefits, all of which are "up front" for a dip. These are Expertise, Thieves' Cant, and 1d6 Sneak Attack damage. The SA damage can partially compensate for the delayed Extra Attack, especially if you dual-wield (which is a reasonable choice at lower levels or for stuff like Swords/Valor Bards that don't get quite as hefty attacks.)

I recommend, if you're doing this with a character you're currently building as opposed to one already established in play, that you consider taking Rogue as your very first level. The requirements will be the same (you must meet the MC stat reqs for both the class you MC into, and the class you started out with), but you get more total skills this way: being Rogue 1/Bard X gives 4 skills from class and Thieves' tools at first level plus 1 skill from multiclassing, whereas Bard X/Rogue 1 gives 3 skills from class plus 1 skill from multiclassing (and 3 instruments as opposed to just one but...does that matter?) The Bard has no restrictions on what skills can be chosen, but the Rogue list is really good anyway, and Background can address the remainder.

This will delay some of your magical abilities, and you may need to find a solid explanation for how or why you were a Rogue before you became a Bard. But I think this, in the end, will be the strongest choice for you. It's definitely a dashing image, playing into the swashbuckler archetype, which may or may not jive with what you want.

@FabulousFizban: War Caster may not actually be necessary (though still quite useful), because the College of Swords says, "If you're proficient with a simple or martial melee weapon, you can use it as a spellcasting focus for your bard spells." Then, under the Components heading of the spellcasting chapter in the PHB, it says (bolding in original, underline added), "A character can use a component pouch or spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the [material] components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell. [...] A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform the somatic components." Since a proficient weapon counts as a spellcasting focus, and the same hand that holds a focus can be used for the material components, it seems pretty clear to me that a Swords Bard can cast spells while dual-wielding just fine. In short: because they count (proficient) weapons as foci, and you can explicitly hold a focus in a hand used for somatic components, Swords Bards can perform somatic components while wielding a weapon they're proficient with. (Note that Crawford has explicitly supported the general case for this, but not the specific case of Swords Bards: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/01/25/can-you-perform-somatic-components-of-spells-with-a-hand-holding-an-arcane-focus/ )

Obviously, OP, you should consult with your DM for their ruling on this, but it would be pretty crappy to require a feat when that class feature seems to go out of its way to make Swords Bard spellcasting easier.

[Keravath]

1) Starting as a rogue you get 4 skills and 2 expertise.
2) Multiclass to bard and you get ANOTHER skill - so you get more skills by going with rogue first.
3) Level 3 bard and you get expertise to two more skills (so four expertised skills at level 4)

If you are looking to be good with skills you get far more from a one level dip in rogue than taking either the prodigy or skilled feats.

4) As a swords bard you are probably planning to melee as well as cast spells. In the long run, another level of rogue for cunning action and possibly a third level for archetype (perhaps swashbuckler for the charisma synergy and melee abilities) might fit very well with your character though I would wait until after 6 levels of bard for both extra attack and 3rd level spells (so character level 6 - bard 5/rogue 1) before taking additional rogue levels. Swashbuckler also gives the ability to use sneak attack without having an enemy of the target adjacent.

Anyway, depends on which way you see the character developing. If you want to stick with pure swords bard then the feat is worthwhile since it doesn't slow spell progression. If you are playing a one shot at level 4 I would go with the 1 level of rogue over the feat since it gives you a lot more at level 4 ... but will delay your third level spells by one level if it will be an ongoing campaign.

[LudicSavant]

I’m curious as to what everyone thinks about a character creation issue that I am mulling over. In short, is it more advantageous to take a feat over a one level dip when both would essentially accomplish the same thing?

I am creating a level 4 Kalashtar Swords Bard. Without going too far into the character concept, he is essentially a psychically oriented swordsman who is a highly perceptive and streetwise investigator.

This is the crux of my dilemma; as a Bard with a slightly altered Criminal background, he is proficient in Insight, Investigation, Perception, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth. He has tool proficiency with Thieves Tools and speaks Common, Elven, Goblin, and Quori.

At level four, he can take a feat or an ASI. To round out my character concept, I can take Prodigy or Skilled. The former is being made available via DM ruling, but the latter covers what I want as well. I want to pick up proficiency in Deception, a gaming set, and Thieves Cant (again, a DM ruling).

Thing is, I could get what I want by starting out as a level one Rogue. Or, conversely, I could start with the gaming kit proficiency and pick up Thieves Tools by multiclassing into Rogue. Starting as a Rogue and multiclassing into Bard actually would net me an extra skill proficiency to boot. Either way, I’d also get to add +1d6 sneak attack damage.

Obviously, the downside is that doing so slows my Bard progression, which is the main focus of the character. More so if I’m tempted into a second level of Rogue in order to get another set of Expertise and Cunning Action. The Rogue dips would be fairly early on in order to cement the beginning concept.

So, in your collective opinion, which is better, given that both options fulfill my character concept? Is it worth it to burn an ASI on a feat and not slow my Bard progression? Or is it better to get what I want from Rogue (and then some) but at the cost of delayed spell progression, delayed second attack, and delayed Bard features?

Thanks!

It takes a lot for something to be worth a dip for a full caster. I'm not convinced that the multiclass is worth it in this case.

[diplomancer]

This is going to sound odd... but specially in a magic item rich campaign, you are going to want to have those 3 musical instruments, both pipes of haunting and instrument of the bards are top magic items, so starting with Rogue would not be as good.
Rogue 1 dip at first level- 2 extra skills, 2 expertise, 1d6 sneak attack, thieves' tool proficiency, -2 musical instruments; add 2 musical instruments and subtract 1 skill if dipping later
Ranger 1 dip with Canny- 2 extra skills, 1 expertise, hunter's mark (slot and concentration free 1/day), 2 extra languages, martial weapons (rapier, long bows when necessary), shields, 1 more hit point.

I think shields, martial weapons, and the 2 extra languages compensate for 1 less expertise (expertise is one of those very nice things but with diminishing returns- 5 is plenty) and no thieves' tools. Whether hunter's mark is better than sneak attack depends on how your adventuring day goes.

[WaroftheCrans]

I'm the type who plans on a character reaching level 20, as I have that expectation in most of the campaigns I join. Over the long run, when a dip accomplishes what I want from a feat, I tend to take the dip. Especially in this case, you get exactly what you want, and more, it meshes with the character, and the 1 level dip doesn't prevent you from getting your final feat at lvl 19.

The bard capstone is honestly garbage, and as others have said, it may be disappointing that you can't counterspell till lvl 7, but for the most part, that 1 level won't be a killer. Bards, especially sword bards, do have things they can do outside of spellcasting at the highest level.

[CornfedCommando]

I appreciate all the feedback. I was strongly leaning towards the level one Rogue dip to start off but am still on the fence. I’m gonna bounce it off the other players and see what they think.

There is also a very strong possibility that I might be the only full caster, if not the only caster in general. My brother is playing a Dwarf Inquisitive Rogue, who will have a Dragonmark and the Ritual Caster feat for magic. It sounds like one of the other players is looking at being either a Warforged Zealot Barbarian or a Shifter Totem Barbarian. So that leaves one other player, who is still up in the air.

[FabulousFizban]

swords bard eliminates the need for material components
warcaster eliminates the need for somatic components

you need both to cast with full hands

[CornfedCommando]

So, in order to better explain my decision making process in this matter, I suppose I’ll provide a little bit more explanation on my character concept. I’ve kinda put a little bit more thought into how the Prodigy feat would potentially fit the evolution of the character and how it contrasts against taking a level of Rogue to start things off.

The main idea for my character is ripped right from the Eberron entry for the Path of Light, of which my character is an adherent. For those who don’t know the lore, the Path of Light focuses on honing the body and mind through martial arts and development of their inherent psychic aptitude. Those who follow this ideology believe in acting as an inspiration to others though word and deed, in order to end the Age of Darkness and usher in the Age of Light. There is a splinter sect called the shadow watchers who believe that corruption and darkness must be confronted with direct action. My character is a shadow watcher.

Absent a psion class, I believe most people would favor the monk class for this type of discipline. I chose bard instead and feel it is better suited on account of it being able to provide access to enchantment spells for that psychic flavor. All of the bard abilities can easily be reskinned to fit the concept. In particular, Jack-of-All-Trades and Expertise can represent the development of one’s inner potential. Bardic Inspiration perfectly covers the idea of being an inspiration to others. Song of Rest becomes less about music and more about exuding a calming influence that better allows one to rest. So on and so forth.

The character grew up in Wroat and studied at a small kalashtar temple. Outside his studies, he would slip out into Wroat and interact with denizens of the city’s shadier areas. Mostly as an observer, but sometimes as an active participant in order to learn. Kalashtar are emotionally developed at a very young age, so even as a child a kalashtar can easily make his way in the criminal underworld, where he can be mistaken as just another street urchin. So it’s perfect for what he sees as part of his education.

My brother’s dwarf rogue is a House Kundarak Warder. He initially was going to be an Abjuration Wizard, but liked Inquisitive Rogue better. He’s essentially a security consultant and was brought in to beef up the royal dungeons in Wroat during the Last War. Along the way, he meets my character and takes him on as an informal apprentice. In time, they become partners.

So now I think that the Criminal background can cover all the roguish stuff. Deception and Sleight of Hand, Thieves Cant and Gaming Kit. His bard training covers Insight and Perception. Proficiency in Stealth straddles both sides. Prodigy can now cover the training he’s received from a House Kundarak Warder; Investigation (with Expertise), Thieves Tools, and Dwarven.

So now the question is if I cover his background more expansively by starting out as a Rogue. The pros and cons have been very well debated. At one point, I was pretty sold on starting Rogue 1, but now I think I’m going to stick with straight Bard, especially since there may be a dearth of casters. Delaying the bard features and spell progression gives me heartache, so I think I want to be the guy who went with the feat instead of the dip.

Thank you for everyone who provided input on this matter!

[ezekielraiden]

swords bard eliminates the need for material components
warcaster eliminates the need for somatic components

you need both to cast with full hands

Jeremy Crawford straight-up said you can perform somatic components with a hand currently holding a spellcasting focus. Swords Bards treat proficient weapons as foci. What would stop them from casting while they hold a shield and a focus (weapon), or two foci (dual-wielding weapons)?

[OldTrees1]

Jeremy Crawford straight-up said you can perform somatic components with a hand currently holding a spellcasting focus. Swords Bards treat proficient weapons as foci. What would stop them from casting while they hold a shield and a focus (weapon), or two foci (dual-wielding weapons)?

If memory serves, you can use the spellcasting focus to do M,S spells, and M spells, but not S spells. Warcaster allows that final case.

[ezekielraiden]

If memory serves, you can use the spellcasting focus to do M,S spells, and M spells, but not S spells. Warcaster allows that final case.

I see. So we were both a mix of right and wrong. That is, there are plenty of spells (the majority, in fact) on the Bard list that have material components *or* lack somatic components, so it's not true that you *need* Warcaster to cast in the first place; you have a lot of options, some of them really quite good. And Magical Secrets can make that even better. However, I was also wrong to say that Warcaster is merely nice, since having dug into it, I see that there's a definitely non-negligible set of Bard spells that meet this definition. To be specific, 45 spells out of the Bard's total 136, so almost exactly a third. That said, many of the S-but-not-M spells (NOT all, but at least half, I'd say) are not particularly good in-combat spells, and thus the hands-occupied issue is probably moot for that set. Still, things like dispel magic and greater invisibility are pretty important, so getting around the somatic limitation is more than merely "nice to have." (Interestingly, many of the better-in-combat alternatives, like healing word used instead of cure wounds, already avoid this problem to begin with--probably an intentional design decision.)

[WaroftheCrans]

I see. So we were both a mix of right and wrong. That is, there are plenty of spells (the majority, in fact) on the Bard list that have material components *or* lack somatic components, so it's not true that you *need* Warcaster to cast in the first place; you have a lot of options, some of them really quite good. And Magical Secrets can make that even better. However, I was also wrong to say that Warcaster is merely nice, since having dug into it, I see that there's a definitely non-negligible set of Bard spells that meet this definition.

I just would like to stress that the main benefit of Warcaster is not somatic casting with sword and shield. That part of it is essential to some paladin or cleric builds, but tends not to be the reason why arcane casters take it. Arcane casters take it for the other two features, spells as OA's, and advantage on concentration saves. I would say that it's invaluable to a swords bard for those two reasons alone.

[ezekielraiden]

I just would like to stress that the main benefit of Warcaster is not somatic casting with sword and shield. That part of it is essential to some paladin or cleric builds, but tends not to be the reason why arcane casters take it. Arcane casters take it for the other two features, spells as OA's, and advantage on concentration saves. I would say that it's invaluable to a swords bard for those two reasons alone.

Guess that's just one of those viewpoint things. I see all three aspects as potentially useful and important, but none of them so vital as to be "you will take this first," which is the way it was originally presented--emphasis included. War Caster is a strong feat that has a lot of good features for anyone doing the thing it's for (using magic in melee), but I just don't see it as so overwhelmingly, absolutely necessary that one should say "you WILL take this, I will hear zero arguments otherwise." A Swords Bard that doesn't really use concentration spells gets little from the advantage, and one that avoids S-but-not-M spells gains little from the cast-while-holding-a-weapon feature, making the only benefit OA spells. Admittedly, that's still pretty good, but maybe not SO good as to give up ability scores or a feat that isn't as good in an absolute sense but is better due to the specific context of a given campaign or story.