Is the Bard overrated?

[Merudo]

I regularly see the Bard described as being one of the best classes of the game. Usually, the Bard is ranked best or second best class behind the Wizard.

Although I absolutely agree that the Bard is a powerful class, I believe folks oversell the Bard's abilities. In my opinion the Wizard, Paladin, Cleric, and Druid are all better overall choices than the Bard - at least for the levels that see play (levels 1 to 9 in my experience).

My biggest issue with Bards is that they are over reliant on a handful of powerful spells to be effective in combat: Dissonant Whispers, Heat Metal, and Hypnotic Pattern (at lower levels, add Sleep to the list). If a Bard happens to fight enemies that can't be defeated by one of these few spells, they will very often feel useless and underpowered.

It's easy to find examples where those spells are underwhelming:

- Dissonant Whispers mostly shines in melee-centric parties for the OAs it triggers. It will be awesome in a party with a Barbarian, a Paladin, and a GWM fighter, but suck if your party is made of a Wizard, a Sorcerer and a spellcasting Cleric.

- Heat Metal doesn't work on creatures not wearing/wielding metal. Many DMs rule it also doesn't work on monsters immune to fire (think Fire Giants).

- Hypnotic Pattern doesn't work against creatures immune to charm. It is hard to use once the party is engaged in melee. Foes can wake each other up. And if there are a few blasters in your party, it will be hard for them to use their Fireballs without waking the hypnotized creatures up.

In addition, the Bard has the following flaws:

- Abysmal defense. The Bard has the weakest defense of all classes. They can't wear a shield, can't wear medium or heavy armor, and have almost no defensive spells (no Mage Armor, Shield, Armor of Agathys, Absorb Element, Mirror Image, Blink, etc). Anything attacking the Bard is almost guarantee to hit, and the Bard has almost nothing to soften the blow.

- Horrible combat cantrips. Vicious Mockery is basically the only viable choice here, and is only okay against single powerful enemies that have a single attack. By casting Vicious Mockery the Bard hopes that (1) the target fails its saving throw (2) the target performs an attack and (3) the disadvantage makes the target's attack miss. The odds of all three happening is usually quite low. If the target happens to have more than one attack, Vicious Mockery ends up almost always being hurtful to the action economy of the Bard.

- No spell preparation. The Wizard, Druid, Cleric and Paladin can swap out their spells depending on the situation. Going near water? Prepare Water Breathing. Climbing up a mountain? Prepare Thunderwave to knock foes off the mountaintop. Going into town? Prepare Enhance Ability / Zone of Truth. Entering a Wizard's Tower? Prepare Dispel Magic. Need to send a message? Prepare Sending or Animal Messenger. Prepared casters can plan ahead, and pick the best spells for any situation. Meanwhile the Bard is stuck with their picks, and just has to "hope" they happen to have learnt the right spells for the job.

All of this - reliance on a few spells, awful defense, lack of combat cantrips, and lack of spell preparation - means that the Bard is among the weakest and least flexible of the full spellcasters in my opinion.

It's still a good class, mind you (all full spellcasters are excellent) - it's just that unless the party is full of melee martials, the Bard will be outshined by other full casters - at least for level 1-9.

[DeTess]

If you only judge the bard by its spellcasting ability, then yes, it'll be behind the wizard and maybe behind the druid and cleric as well. However, Bard's get a lot of good class features, such as skill expertise, bardic inspiration, a variety of useful songs, etc. Bard is good because it has a jack of all trades chassis with full spellcasting, not just because of the spellcasting.

[Merudo]

If you only judge the bard by its spellcasting ability, then yes, it'll be behind the wizard and maybe behind the druid and cleric as well. However, Bard's get a lot of good class features, such as skill expertise, bardic inspiration, a variety of useful songs, etc. Bard is good because it has a jack of all trades chassis with full spellcasting, not just because of the spellcasting.

Jack of All Trades is I would say the most overrated ability of the Bard. For level 1-8, Jack of All Trades adds a mere +1 to the ability checks for which the Bard is not proficient. That will makes a difference at most 5% of the time - and very often much less than that since other characters in the party may succeed the check anyway. Plus, most optimized Bards have proficiency in the most valuable skills anyway (Perception, Persuasion, and potentially Athletics/Stealth).

[CTurbo]

Seems like you're mostly judging the Bard based on it's DPR, and well, yeah it's probably the weakest class.

But Bards aren't about DPR. but thanks to Magical Secrets, you could solve that problem.

A few Colleges do get Medium Armor and/or shield and Lore Bards have Cutting Words which is extremely defensive.

So yeah I do think the 5e Bard is one of the strongest classes available alongside the Paladin, and funnily enough, the Wizard is the over-rated class to me.

[DeTess]

Jack of All Trades is I would say the most overrated ability of the Bard. For level 1-8, Jack of All Trades adds a mere +1 to the ability checks for which the Bard is not proficient. That will makes a difference at most 5% of the time - and very often much less than that since other characters in the party may succeed the check anyway. Plus, most optimized Bards have proficiency in the most valuable skills anyway (Perception, Persuasion, and potentially Athletics/Stealth).

You'll notice that I didn't actually mention the 'jack of all trades' ability if you read what I wrote again :P Though it has some use, not as a skill booster, but providing a boost to some checks that are hard to improve otherwise, such as initiative, dispelling and counterspelling.

[Merudo]

Seems like you're mostly judging the Bard based on it's DPR, and well, yeah it's probably the weakest class.

Disagree. In my opinion, control is better than DPR for spellcasters. It's just that other spellcasters are as good at control as the Bard is, if not better (Conjure Animals, Plant Growth, Command, Sanctuary, Spiritual Guardians, Web, Slow, Sleet Storm, etc), plus they have good/excellent DPR options as well.


But Bards aren't about DPR. but thanks to Magical Secrets, you could solve that problem.

For levels 1-9, Bards get no magical secrets except for the Lore Bard.


You'll notice that I didn't actually mention the 'jack of all trades' ability if you read what I wrote again :P

My bad, I thought you meant the ability when you spoke of the Bard's "jack of all trades chassis".

[Skylivedk]

Jack of All Trades is I would say the most overrated ability of the Bard. For level 1-8, Jack of All Trades adds a mere +1 to the ability checks for which the Bard is not proficient. That will makes a difference at most 5% of the time - and very often much less than that since other characters in the party may succeed the check anyway. Plus, most optimized Bards have proficiency in the most valuable skills anyway (Perception, Persuasion, and potentially Athletics/Stealth).

It's one of the few things that apply to stuff like initiative and counterspell/dispel magic checks. Later on Telekinesis as well.

The Bard is a super strong class. It does accelerate as you rise in levels (like all full casters), but the skill mastery is arguably higher than that of the rogue early on, the customisation extremely high and a lot of the base spells are top tier. In the beginning, undead are a bit more of a struggle.

Sleep is an encounter ending spell early on, Faerie Fire is useful even against dragons. Thunderwave is amongst the best lvl 1 AoE damage spells, Healing Word is borderline op of your party hasn't restricted yo-yo healing (my tables all run with exhaustion levels from hitting 0 hp), detect magic is useful all game long and you already mention dissonant whispers.

Invisibility, Silence, Phantasmal Force, Heat Metal, Hold Person, Enhance Ability, Pyrotechnics and Shatter are all amongst the best at what they do.

Dispel Magic, Enemies Abound, Fear, Hypnotic Pattern, Major Image and Plant Growth - all top tier. If you are a lore bard, you have your pick of your favourite spells at 6. I'd take counterspell and fireball/conjure animals/spirit guardians normally. Usually probably fireball because you have enough uses of your concentration slot. Without magical secrets, you are short of good dpr spells for spell levels 3 and 4. You do get animate objects though, which is insanely strong in a wide variety of situations.

I really don't see how the class is over-rated. You can even make a fantastic Gish (amongst the best in the game IMO) with Hexblade 1/ Paladin 2 / Sword X.

[Contrast]

I'm currently playing a bard and there certainly are times I've been sitting them looking at my spell list thinking 'hmm...well I can't really do much this combat'. It is a thing and you do have to think very carefully about your spell selections so you have a variety of tools for different situations. That said I've also had that experience as a druid and a sorcerer so I feel thats partially just a spellcaster thing.

While I am inclined to agree that lore bard is the best, I do think people underestimate how powerful glamour bards are. I have high hopes for Eloquence as well though I haven't seen one in play yet so thats just theory at this stage. I do find the other subclasses situational/a little underwhelming.

Bardic Inspiration has a huge impact on how skill checks play out in game. After 5th level in particularly you can throw it around pretty much on a whim, almost all important skill checks should be adding a d8 which is a massive difference.

[diplomancer]

It also depends on magic item availability. Bards are already very strong on their own, but there is simply NO uncommon magic item as strong as an instrument of the Bards. It covers a lot of the "spells known only" weakness of the Bard, and disadvantage on Hypnotic Pattern is absolutely insane. It's been an autowin button so many times that I feel slightly guilty using it.

You are also simply not valuing Bardic Inspiration and Expertise at all, 2 very powerful features.

As to your objections:
1- vicious mockery is the best combat cantrip, with the exception of eldritch blast with invocations. Far better than firebolt or ray of frost, even more at tier 2. It's basically a healing spell disguised as an attack cantrip.
2- at these levels, there are monsters with charm immunity, but not that many. If they don't have it, and you happen to have a Bardic Instrument, the DM might as well just give your party the fight's XP.
3- the Bard defense issues are real, but can be easily solved with dips. Hexblade dips if it REALLY bothers you, Cleric dip if just slightly better defense is enough (I believe that the Cleric dip is the better choice, unless you want to be in melee often. Take it after level 5 or 6). Another option is the V-Human with moderately armored feat. Or being a Valor Bard, which brings me to my next point
4- Specially at these levels, Lore Bard is definitely the best option. Cutting Words is great. Use it on a big monster's initiative and you are basically increasing the initiative of the entire party. Extra Magical secrets at 6th level is THE most versatile feature in the game, whatever your party is missing, you've got it covered. As powerful as theory crafting feels it is, it's even more powerful in actual play. The 3 extra skills are also a tremendous help to cover things your party may be missing.
5- once you get animate objects, or conjure animals, either from Druid or level 6 magical secrets if the party is missing a Druid, dissonant whispers gets A LOT better. 8 velociraptors, (or even better, 4 wolves and 4 velociraptors in an L pattern around your target, so that all opportunity attacks strike at once) getting opportunity attacks with advantage, who needs melee martials?

[MrStabby]

It seems like you are not critiquing the bard, but rather what the bard would be if they got no benefits from their college.

Lore can indirectly fix the issues you mention with magical secrets. Valor more directly boosts at will damage with multiple attacks, weapon proficiency and armour/shields.

You are absolutely right that some bard spells are situational but this means you have to be careful how you build your spell list rather than it being weak. It's pretty hard to go wrong with polymorph after all.

Bardic Inspiration is what tips the balance for me. Bonus action, no concentration, lets you cast spell the same turn, loads of uses per day... passing that critical check or turning misses into hits or just dumping it for extra damage on a critical hit. It is exceptionally versatile and at the right moment is very powerful and the frequency with which you use it is great.

[JellyPooga]

In combat, yes, I'd be inclined to agree, to an extent, with the OP; in combat, Bards can hold their own and at higher levels are decent as full-casters, but at lower levels, their efficiency is sufficient but no more.

That does, of course, ignore the primary focus of the Bard class, which is everything but combat.

So you have a Class that is basically better than any other Class at anything non-combat and they can hold their own in combat too? Yeah, that's what makes them top-tier, grade-A material. Compare that to being good in combat and pretty much obsolete at anything but that, which is what most other Classes are packing.

[LudicSavant]

- Abysmal defense. The Bard has the weakest defense of all classes. They can't wear a shield, can't wear medium or heavy armor, and have almost no defensive spells (no Mage Armor, Shield, Armor of Agathys, Absorb Element, Mirror Image, Blink, etc). Anything attacking the Bard is almost guarantee to hit, and the Bard has almost nothing to soften the blow.

Mage Armor is largely irrelevant if you have Light Armor. And they get better armor than that from two of their subclasses, and are only one half-feat away from Moderately Armored. Many of their class and subclass abilities also provide potent defensive bennies. And potentially any of those spells can be picked up by Magical Secrets (and the most important of them can be picked up by a particularly synergistic 1-level dip).

A Valor Bard is a full caster with medium armor and a shield.
A Swords Bard gets medium armor too, and potent AC-boosting flourishes.
Lore Bard gets Cutting Words and early Magical Secrets (which can be spent on excellent defensive spells). They also can just take Moderately Armored for +1 Dex, Medium Armor, and Shields.
Glamour Bards just get to spam temp HP and kiting movement.

If anything attacking your Bard is almost guaranteed to hit, it's because you chose to build your Bard that way. You can actually make some pretty damn tough party tanks off the Bard chassis.

[stoutstien]

I would say the relative power level and versatility of any of the full casters are about on par with each other if played by reasonably experienced players. I think the big factor that puts bards in a slightly higher position in individual rating system is that they have interesting and interactive features beyond just spell casting.

[diplomancer]

Also, consider a regular 4 man party, 2 martials, 2 casters. You probably want one of those casters to be a Bard, as it's the most versatile and can cover whatever is missing between wizard/druid/cleric. If you had 1 martial and 3 casters, then, MAYBE, you'd be better off with 1 each of Wizard/Druid/Cleric, though, unless the martial was a Rogue, you'll still be missing a skill monkey.

[Dork_Forge]

I don't think it's overrated, it's a very versatile and potentially potent class. Between Jack of All Trades and Expertise it's one of the best skill monkeys (and the bonus to initiative from JoaT is a nice boost), it has a pretty great support spell list with the potentially to cherry pick the best spells from any other class, it has enough proficiencies built in to default to traditional combat if necessary and the subclasses are pretty great.

I'm currently DMing a level 10 Glamour Bard with a +5 Cha, Dissonant Whispers has wrecked a couple bosses (Barbarian and Paladin party members), mobs are easily crowd controled and the sheer amount of temp hp he can hand out makes them all very difficult to drop in a realistic encounter (11 temp hp per Bardic Inpsiration, as a bonus action for each of them AND still casting an Action spell, it's insane).

[Satori01]

I
My biggest issue with Bards is that they are over reliant on a handful of powerful spells to be effective in combat:



It's still a good class, mind you (all full spellcasters are excellent) - it's just that unless the party is full of melee martials, the Bard will be outshined by other full casters - at least for level 1-9.

All spellcasting classes are reliant on a handful of spells to be effective in combat, if one chooses to just rely upon spells.

The Wizard, Sorcerer, and Druid might have access to two handfuls of dynamite, but the bard has a great list of control, buff, and exploration spells.

Ignoring the diversity that Divine Domains bring, most melee cleric or ranged clerics are going to use the same template for spell load outs. In otherwords "the same handful of spells".

Bards also have better weapon proficiencies, and do not have to waste spells slots and spells known/ preparation on Mage Armor.
A bard will often have lower AC then a cleric, but higher weapon damage, and as has been pointed out before, have a good Gish option subclass, and one melee subclass.

The only thing I have ever seen the bard lag behind at compared to *some* other casters is Short Rest spell recovery. A well played Diviner Wizard can cast all day long, a bard or cleric or non-land Druid not so much.

In my experience a cleric tends to burn through their spells faster than a bard, and Channel Divinity is significantly more specialized, and more limited, (in both function and uses), then Bardic Inspiration. A bard without spells slots is generally more effective than a cleric without spell slots.

In terms of Preparation H casters vs Spells known casters...I think a golf analogy is useful. Now I don't play golf, frankly from a social class perspective, I despise it.

That said, a Preparation caster, like a golfer, tend to primarily use the same clubs/spells. When the Preparation caster has some forewarning regarding what they will face (which will not be all the time), said caster can bring one of their more specialized clubs/spells out of their golf bag.

A player that prefers Spells Known Casters, does not want to have a golf bag, does not want to mess with swapping spells daily, nor do they care about the niceties of the game of golf.

For those players, the fun lies in taking a scenario that calls for say a 2 iron club...aka a particular spell, saying "F@ck that, I have a Hockey Stick, a comic book, and some cheese" and then finds a way to succeed with what they have on hand and cleverness.

[Dr. Cliché]

In terms of why the Bard is good, it isn't just because it's a powerful class in its own right, it's because it's perhaps the best 'toolbox' class in the game.

It's a 9th level spellcaster, which is already fantastic in terms of both power and flexibility. But on top of that, you get 3 floating skill proficiencies, and Expertise, and Jack of all Trades (not sure how you can be a Jack of all Trades and also an expert, but that's a discussion for another thread :smallwink:).

Put simply, the Bard is reasonably effective in combat, but combat it's by any means its only strength.

Moreover, one of the key aspects of the Bard is that many of his abilities revolve around making other party members shine. You've got Bardic Inspiration, obviously, as well as Song of Rest (plus college-specific stuff like Mantle of Inspiration). Then there are spells - Vicious Mockery, for example, isn't designed to make the Bard a one-man-army but rather to help other party members survive. Similarly, Dissonant Whispers is an okay spell in and of itself, but it really shines when the fleeing creature provokes attacks of opportunity from other, more melee-focused members of your party.

Put simply, the Bard is a class who can bring an answer to almost any situation, and a great force-multiplier for the rest of the party. It's not the most powerful or flashy class in most roles, but it's definitely one of the most flexible and adaptable.

[Toadkiller]

Bards aren’t really about the math. So for the OP it does sound like you should play something else.

Bards can be great fun for people inclined to play them though. As mentioned above it generally seems like a major component of that is the wide range of options available to the bard character to solve the problems of the adventuring day.

[Satori01]

[QUOTE=Toadkiller;24595766]Bards aren’t really about the math. /QUOTE]

All classes are about the Math! 🔢😀
Since bards often deal counterfactual effects, those contributions can go unnoticed.

A Vicious Mockery that negates a critical hit, but no one knows about, just seems like paltry damage.

It is incumbent on the DM to describe the action so that this contribution is not invisible. If the DM does not have practice doing this, it is then up to the player to inquire.

Cantrips that have attack rolls feel more reliable then Saving Throws. In some ways attack rolls are...more effects enhance attack rolls then Spell DCs.

A bard selecting Eldritch Blast is a good implement for the tool box.

[Keravath]

Personally, I like lore bard mixed with two level of hexblade warlock. It "fixes" most of the "concerns" the OP mentioned with the base bard class while delaying their spell progression by two levels. I have played it to level 16 so far and have enjoyed playing the character a lot. The only challenging level was 6th when the character didn't have 3rd level spells yet and most of the other characters did.

However, I have run into several encounters where either there were a lot of magic resistant creatures, which made a lot of my spell selection much less useful or in which the best action I could take was to maximize my damage output or both. In these cases, agonizng blast and hex were exceptionally useful tools.

[follacchioso]

I am playing a 16th level lore bard who focuses on telekinesis and counterspell, and a 5th level grappler bard with tavern brawler.

Both of these characters are based on ability checks. Telekinesis is very strong combined with glibness and the lore bard features, and grappling is another skill check improved by expertise and the enhance ability spell.

So, bards are strong but they require a good knowledge of the game to be played successfully. There are many situations where you will feel like you can't contribute to the battle at all. You don't have strong offences or defences, and many of your spells will not work against certain types of creatures. It's a difficult way to play, but in a way more spectacular and interesting.

[Potato_Priest]

I'm not sure that the bard is overrated (right behind the wizard isn't a bad place to rank it), but I do feel like a lot of people rate it too highly in areas other classes are best at.

Buffs: I feel like the classic gaming trope of the bard being the buff guy has made people not actually evaluate the 5e bard on its own merit in this department. Wizards have a better spell list for buffs, and clerics are comparable. If a bard wants to specialize in this they're going to need to spend magical secrets (and thereby sacrifice a lot of their much-touted versatility) on it to keep up with the competition.

Debuffs: I believe Merudo touched on this. Again, wizards have a better list here (albeit by a lower margin).

Versatility: While I might agree that the bard class is extremely versatile, the spells-known restrictions on the bard tend to place any individual bard behind an average druid for versatility in my estimation, as any druid can use wildshape for an enormous variety of purposes both in and out of combat, in addition to being able to swap their spells on the fly. I see the best bards as specialists who have used the versatile class mechanics to excel at one or two particular narrower roles.

The main areas where I see the bard actually coming out firmly ahead of other classes are social manipulation (if built properly, but doing so does to an extent preclude other specializations) and counterspelling and other ability check-based spells. (This on the other hand requires minimal build investment).

[diplomancer]

I'm not sure that the bard is overrated (right behind the wizard isn't a bad place to rank it), but I do feel like a lot of people rate it too highly in areas other classes are best at.

Buffs: I feel like the classic gaming trope of the bard being the buff guy has made people not actually evaluate the 5e bard on its own merit in this department. Wizards have a better spell list for buffs, and clerics are comparable. If a bard wants to specialize in this they're going to need to spend magical secrets (and thereby sacrifice a lot of their much-touted versatility) on it to keep up with the competition.

Debuffs: I believe Merudo touched on this. Again, wizards have a better list here (albeit by a lower margin).

Versatility: While I might agree that the bard class is extremely versatile, the spells-known restrictions on the bard tend to place any individual bard behind an average druid for versatility in my estimation, as any druid can use wildshape for an enormous variety of purposes both in and out of combat, in addition to being able to swap their spells on the fly. I see the best bards as specialists who have used the versatile class mechanics to excel at one or two particular narrower roles.

The main areas where I see the bard actually coming out firmly ahead of other classes are social manipulation (if built properly, but doing so does to an extent preclude other specializations) and counterspelling and other ability check-based spells. (This on the other hand requires minimal build investment).

The one really good buff spell that wizards get and bards don't is haste. But I don't think having access to haste is worth more for a buffer than Bardic Inspiration. Or, more situationally, Healing Word (nothing buffs more than "you get to take your action this turn, instead of making a death save").

But the best buffer, IF built for it (and that's a big IF, it has some cost)is actually the Sorcerer. They get very good buff spells, and they get to twin them. That's hard to beat.

[Dork_Forge]

But the best buffer, IF built for it (and that's a big IF, it has some cost)is actually the Sorcerer. They get very good buff spells, and they get to twin them. That's hard to beat.

Divine Soul Sorc is probably the best buffer in the game as long as they're willing to drop the points on it: Aid, Twinned Death Ward, Twinned Haste etc.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I mainly play the bard as a debuffer and utilitie caster.
You can get the needed spells from magical secrets.
As a lore bard you are also more skill monkey and get cutting words which is a game changer.

It is a custom caster with a better spell list to choose from. It may not be the best at everything but it do work.

And about combat cantrip, just use a bow(I prefer a longbow so you could stay away with your greater steed and look at the paladin which your wrote a greater steed scroll for him to use but he failed the spell casting check).

[ezekielraiden]

Disagree. In my opinion, control is better than DPR for spellcasters. It's just that other spellcasters are as good at control as the Bard is, if not better (Conjure Animals, Plant Growth, Command, Sanctuary, Spiritual Guardians, Web, Slow, Sleet Storm, etc), plus they have good/excellent DPR options as well.
First: comparing "is it present on any other list except Bard's" isn't exactly a fair comparison. It is to be expected that a few spells be not inherently on the Bard list that are still good for control.
Second: Conjure animals and sanctuary aren't really control. I suppose you could argue that they're soft control, since one provides incidental area denial via summoning bodies that take up space, and the other forces a Wis save, but those are both rather stretching the point. (It's also worth noting that sanctuary doesn't even necessarily DO anything, even if the target fails the save--a single-target spell or melee attack can be redirected if another target is available, and an AoE spell is simply unaffected to begin with. If anything, sanctuary is more punitive for the recipient, who can perform basically no hostile actions against an enemy and maintain the spell's effect.)


For levels 1-9, Bards get no magical secrets except for the Lore Bard.
And Lore Bard is what you take if you intend to do magical things.

So, in a lot of your comments here, I'm seeing a trend. You seem, on the "anti"-Bard side, to treat any versatility the Bard has as though it is perfectly siloed off into its own thing--e.g., we cannot consider Magical Secrets to apply "early" unless we presume Lore Bard, and we shouldn't presume any subclass. Yet, on the pro-other-classes side, you lump together all possible contrasts, no matter how impossible they might be (e.g. you can't get a character that can cast both spiritual guardians and conjure animals without heavy, high-level multiclassing...unless it's a Bard with Magical Secrets spent on doing so!)

Unless and until you're willing to re-consider this thing--comparing the most minimal set of beneficial Bard traits to the most maximal set of non-Bard traits--it's going to be rather hard to have a conversation about this. But it's not like that sort of thing has ever stopped me before!


My bad, I thought you meant the ability when you spoke of the Bard's "jack of all trades chassis".
Not so much replying to this as using the reference as a jumping-off point: This chassis is exactly why the Bard is so well-loved in 5e, and (ironically) why it was so poorly-received in 3.5e. Because 5e managed to actually make a class that could blend multiple roles together, rather than one that dabbles a bit and never makes up its mind and thus ends up not very good at anything.

The Bard has, hands down, the most flexible spell list in the game, because of Magical Secrets. Yes, as you've said, if we restrict ourselves to single-digit levels, that's not going to apply much. Thing is, the community's perception of the class doesn't have to be limited that way. You may think it's silly, but unless you can actually demonstrate that it is necessary to weight single-digit levels more highly than current, all you're really doing is saying, "Eh, I wish people would play like I do," and that's neither particularly interesting nor does it make much of a statement. Even if we don't count MS though, while the Bard list may not be absolutely comprehensive, it has plenty of good control spells in it--and the UA article proposing changes included a bunch more, including some you mentioned like slow and command. Obviously, UA shouldn't be taken as inherent to the class, but I don't think it should be completely ignored either.

Beyond the spell list, the Bard has almost exclusively good, applicable, useful class features. It has full spellcasting, making it more versatile than the Warlock and pretty well comparable to the Sorcerer; only Wizards, Land Druids, and Sorcs who waste "spend" SP on getting extra slots can exceed their regular number of slots per day, so they're in pretty good shape. Further, the Bard's supportive abilities, with one exception, are always useful. Rests are going to happen, and HP is going to be lost, so making rests more useful is never bad. Bardic Inspiration can't be wasted unless the recipient forgets to use it. Jack of All Trades, while small, is universal--and it applies to Initiative, and all other raw ability checks, which is an almost irreplaceable benefit. Expertise is hard to come by, and never a bad thing to have. The only "useless" Bard class feature is Countercharm, and it's more accurately very niche, rather than totally useless--it just is rather weaker than any of the other features Bards get. And then, as noted, at level 10+ you're getting Magical Secrets on the regular that massively diversify your options.

And then the subclasses just make it that much better. Valor and Swords give you medium armor and Extra Attack only one level later than proper melee characters, and either make BI an offense- or defense-boosting tool or increase your personal fighting capabilities nicely. (Valor is more defense-oriented, Swords more offense-oriented.) Lore gives extra skills (nice but not really amazing) and Cutting Words, which is just delightful, as your BI now becomes either some of the best buffing in the game, or some of the best enemy debuffing in the game. The remaining three are more niche, but having more options is never a bad thing, even if those options aren't as strong as the ones you already could pick from.

All in all, the 5e Bard is never not useful, and often quite useful. At low levels, it's actually at reasonable parity with many other classes purely by having BI dice to throw around, which become plentiful once they refresh on a short rest. Weapon-based Bards are only a single level behind weapon-focused classes (they get EA at 6th instead of 5th), and caster bards are only one daily slot behind the best in the biz (Arcane Recovery gives Wiz level/2 slot-levels back, which will almost always go to your highest slot until you hit the cap of 5th level slots...which doesn't happen until level 9!)

Supreme versatility, especially at high levels. Able to fill--with strong effectiveness, mind--any role in the party except maybe meatshield. (Valor Bards come close, but can't buff their own AC with BI; if they could, they'd be amazing tanks.) Full casting, albeit with the more-limited Sorcerer style of spells known. Literally only two poorly-received class features, one of which is the capstone...that many see as justification for making a quick dip in some other class (Paladin, Warlock, and Sorcerer are all common). And it's not like the other, Countercharm, is actually bad...it's just very niche.

So yeah. Versatility, competence, and customization. The Bard is, more or less, the only place you can get 3.5e-like customization on a class. (Warlock comes close, and would be closer still if it had more Invocations that weren't crappy/mediocre-at-best.) That's why the Bard is, and always will be, among the top-rated classes, alongside Wizard (obvious), Paladin (just a really solid core), Hexblade (Cha-SAD charop), and Moon Druid (at CR spike levels).

[Hael]

Bards are pretty weak in combat in tier one, but they turn on in tier 2 and keep progressing all the way till the end (where they more than hold their own against any class in the game). Even without the hexblade dip.

Clerics and druids tend to fall off a bit as their spell lists don’t quite match the power and versatility of a bard and wizard, which is why tier 3 and 4 is really when they’re at their best.

So I mean, they’re the best skill monkey chassis in the game (sorry rogues), they are great at exploring, buffing, they can heal, they are excellent face characters and they have elite CC. Basically strong in every aspect except tier one play.

Bardic inspiration alone has saved us full party wipes and is probably the single greatest source of effective healing that i know of in the game during combat

[ezekielraiden]

Bards are pretty weak in combat in tier one, but they turn on in tier 2 and keep progressing all the way till the end (where they more than hold their own against any class in the game). Even without the hexblade dip.

Clerics and druids tend to fall off a bit as their spell lists don’t quite match the power and versatility of a bard and wizard, which is why tier 3 and 4 is really when they’re at their best.

So I mean, they’re the best skill monkey chassis in the game (sorry rogues), they are great at exploring, buffing, they can heal, they are excellent face characters and they have elite CC. Basically strong in every aspect except tier one play.

Bardic inspiration alone has saved us full party wipes and is probably the single greatest source of effective healing that i know of in the game during combat

Yeah, Bard is absolutely in a comparatively weak position for the first three to six levels. It's not unrecoverable, but it's definitely a class that doesn't quite gel until at least subclass level. But then again, the designers specifically and explicitly intended for levels 1-2 to be something optional (insert boilerplate grumbles*), so having a good-but-not-crazy start is sort of "working as intended." You're only level 1 relatively briefly (either because you friggin die, or because you survive to level 2), and even level 2 isn't a long stretch. Tier 1 is meant to be pretty quickly passed. (Though, as always, some drag it out far, far longer than its mechanics were designed to support...)

*DMs have a ridiculous hardon for ONLY and ALWAYS starting at level 1. It's not universal, but it's extremely common. Even though the devs literally told us to start at 3rd level once we're comfortable, unless we specifically WANT a hard-fought experience. (Or training wheels, I guess, if the DM fudges away the crazy lethality of the first couple levels/softballs the party.)

[Xenken]

Oh I would definitly call Conjure Animals a control spell. (Blocks movement and sight lines like a wall spell, can inflict conditions like Prone or Poisioned, animals can potentially grapple and directly move people around.)

But no Bards are great. I know a friend's party with a Glamour Bard in it and they litterally cannot die because the Bard's Control effects and Temp HP stacks are too thick.

As for their defenses, I'm sure Moderately Armored has already been mentioned but I'll just mention it again because they're one of the best users of it.

Overall though, Bards are the best hole-fillers in the game. They can't do everything, but no class can. (Except maybe Moon Druid.) And they'll always be able to do the 2 or 3 things the rest of your party just can't. Melee, Ranged, Blasting, Expertise on the Skills no one else has, Counterspelling, Control, Face, Healing, whatever.

A party having it's main weaknesses filled is always going to be exponentially stronger, and Bard can do that while not even necessarily sacrificing all that much in other areas, and that's always going to make it a great class regardless of whatever else we talk about.

[NaughtyTiger]

Jack of All Trades is I would say the most overrated ability of the Bard. For level 1-8, Jack of All Trades adds a mere +1 to the ability checks for which the Bard is not proficient. That will makes a difference at most 5% of the time - and very often much less than that since other characters in the party may succeed the check anyway. Plus, most optimized Bards have proficiency in the most valuable skills anyway (Perception, Persuasion, and potentially Athletics/Stealth).

ASI is I would say the most overrated ablity of a toon. It adds a mere +1 to a roll. That will makes a difference at most 5% of the time.

[LudicSavant]

The Bard has the weakest defense of all classes.

Let's take a moment to examine the notion that Bards have 'the weakest defense of any class.' Your focus seems to be on what happens before tier 3, so I'll just pick out a rather typical Bard at, say, level 8.

Basically just a standard VHuman Glamour Bard
Stats: 13 Dex (14 w/ half-feat), 16 Con, 16 Cha (20 w/ ASIs), enough point buy left over for 2 10s or a 12.
Feats/ASIs: Moderately Armored (VHuman), +2 Cha (L4), +2 Cha (L8)

Defenses:
+19 base AC
+9 max hp compared to a 16 Con Sorcerer or Wizard (due to your HD).
+MoI grants up to an enormous 40 temporary hit points per party member per short rest.
+Bonus action movement + disengage + temp HP boost. And you do this for everyone in the party, so you can totally surround the enemy with whoever's currently most inconvenient for them (and make it even harder for them to reach you if you don't want them to).
+Expertise in Stealth
+3 initiative (you get an extra +1 from JoaT).
+Mantle of Majesty (bonus action Commands for 1 encounter a day, and enemies autofail the save if you already have them charmed, such as from Enthralling Performance)

And I haven't even gotten to this full caster's spells yet. You can grab things like Healing Word, Greater Invisibility, Polymorph, Plant Growth, Dispel Magic, Silence (matched with the ability to surround someone with buffed allies as a bonus action, or even take Expertise on Athletics if you want), Warding Wind, Pyrotechnics, Lesser Restoration, and so forth.

How about if we pick another kind of Bard instead? Well, Valor will have that Shield and Medium Armor natively. Swords will have Medium Armor too, plus defensive Flourishes. Lore will have early Magical Secrets for cherrypicking the very best defensive spells, plus the fantastic Cutting Words (-1d8 to an enemy attack or damage roll, 5 times per short rest, among other uses). The only college in the PHB or XGtE that isn't adding great defensive bennies early on is Whispers.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Bard is a support character, a force multiplier, not a damage dealer. It looks weak if you just want a boring character who only bothers to deal damage round after round, it needs to be played intelligently to be good. Damaging but not killing opponents allows them to retaliate with their own attacks, but if you use a crowd control or debuff to prevent them from effectively fighting back you've contributed more than you would have as a damage-only character, especially if your crowd control hits multiple opponents.

I recently played a v.Human Lore Bard with one level of Life Cleric, Shield Master, high Str, and expertise in Athletics. I'd grapple and shove prone the strongest opponent in literally every encounter. Spells like Healing Word, Dissonant Whispers, Command, Vicious Mockery, and Blindness/Deafness only have verbal components, so it didn't matter that my hands were always full. We found a +1 medium armor fairly early and I was able to trade it for nonmagic plate armor, so I had an AC 20 from around 3rd level, plus I was able to cast Shield of Faith. For DPR we found a +1 longsword nobody needed which I'd use when there wasn't an obvious strongest enemy.

It didn't take any resources for me to run in, grab the most dangerous opponent, and shove them prone. Once I had Cutting Words I literally never lost a check to do any of that. I could disengage and drag the grappled enemy to a better spot, I could dodge if surrounded by opponents while they wasted attacks missing me, and I could use healing word to pick up a downed ally or keep myself topped off if I was in a bad situation. I never dealt much damage to anything, but my character's presence made every fight significantly easier for everyone else in the party.

[Waazraath]

snip

Yeah, a bit, to be honest. It is a good class, with good options in all pillars of play. The thing is though that in most came combat isn't 1/3rd of the game, but much more, and that is where they are weakest (though not 'weak'). Definitely in DPR, but also the spell list is rather limited in what they can do. I thus agree with your assessment, also the 'abysmal defense' part.



Let's take a moment to examine the notion that Bards have 'the weakest defense of any class.' Your focus seems to be on what happens before tier 3, so I'll just pick out a rather typical Bard at, say, level 8.

Basically just a standard VHuman Glamour Bard
Stats: 13 Dex (14 w/ half-feat), 16 Con, 16 Cha (20 w/ ASIs), enough point buy left over for 2 10s or a 12.
Feats/ASIs: Moderately Armored (VHuman), +2 Cha (L4), +2 Cha (L8)

Defenses:
+19 base AC
+9 max hp compared to a 16 Con Sorcerer or Wizard (due to your HD).
+MoI grants up to an enormous 40 temporary hit points per party member per short rest.
+Bonus action movement + disengage + temp HP boost. And you do this for everyone in the party, so you can totally surround the enemy with whoever's currently most inconvenient for them (and make it even harder for them to reach you if you don't want them to).
+Expertise in Stealth
+3 initiative (you get an extra +1 from JoaT).
+Mantle of Majesty (bonus action Commands for 1 encounter a day, and enemies autofail the save if you already have them charmed, such as from Enthralling Performance)

And I haven't even gotten to this full caster's spells yet. You can grab things like Healing Word, Greater Invisibility, Polymorph, Plant Growth, Dispel Magic, Silence (matched with the ability to surround someone with buffed allies as a bonus action, or even take Expertise on Athletics if you want), Warding Wind, Pyrotechnics, Lesser Restoration, and so forth.

How about if we pick another kind of Bard instead? Well, Valor will have that Shield and Medium Armor natively. Swords will have Medium Armor too, plus defensive Flourishes. Lore will have early Magical Secrets for cherrypicking the very best defensive spells, plus the fantastic Cutting Words (-1d8 to an enemy attack or damage roll, 5 times per short rest, among other uses). The only college in the PHB or XGtE that isn't adding great defensive bennies early on is Whispers.

Very 'typical'? A bard that is by accident of that unique variant race that gives a feat at level 1 and then pick a feat that adds +4AC? I mean, yeah, of course you can optimize a build through other features than 'class' but that doesn't have much to do with assessing that class, has it? Add that one subclass from a splatbook that gives loads of temporary hitpoints and yeah, we can pretend that a Bard has decent defenses.

But it really doesn't. Barring racial enhancements (vhuman, tortle, warforged etc.) you have an AC of 12 + dex at level 1 and 2, 14 or 15. You also need max cha, so con won't be through the roof either. Only at level 3 1 subclass gets medium armor, and 1 gets medium armor + shields. Only the latter is somehow reliable. Glamour gives temporary hp and the ability to escape melee, this is probably the strongest defensive feature.

As for defensive spells, the first that really enhances your defenses is improved invisibility at lvl 7, halfway tier 2. Lore bard can get something 1 level earlier, but in general I've rarely seen people advocating defensive spells instead of usuals like fireball, counterspell, fly, spirit guardians, spiritual weapon, find steed, etc.

So yeah, in general, most bards do have an abysmal defense. It's one of the classes I've seen go down (and dead) most easily in 5e.

[ezekielraiden]

Yeah, a bit, to be honest. It is a good class, with good options in all pillars of play.
I fail to see how this is meaningfully different from what most say. When you add "can become very good, even great, at whatever specific thing you want to do," with the addendum of "...without much effort," this would seem to be exactly what the community is saying. You can build a Bard to be basically whatever you want it to be. In some areas, it will be best (it's got very high support/debuff potential for a 5e class), in other areas it will be a strong secondary backup or stand-in for a proper expert. There are effectively no areas it can't eventually do well in.

Isn't that pretty much all you can possibly ask for, short of "brokenly overpowered"? I'm not seeing the community acting like Bard is brokenly overpowered. It's just really quite good, and scratches an itch that few 5e classes do (customizability, which is very popular in general, and particularly on this forum.) In what way would you say the community overrates the Bard? What kinds of statements are you seeing that go beyond what you said plus what I said above (flexible, customizable, solid to high potential in your chosen specialty)?


The thing is though that in most came combat isn't 1/3rd of the game, but much more, and that is where they are weakest (though not 'weak'). Definitely in DPR, but also the spell list is rather limited in what they can do. I thus agree with your assessment, also the 'abysmal defense' part.
As with the OP, it seems to me that you are over-valuing tier 1 at least as much as others are over-valuing tier 3 or 4. It is true that Bards are on the lower end for defenses...but they're not abysmal, there are definitely classes that have worse or comparable defenses at those levels. Consider a Sorcerer or Warlock, who equally must pump Cha, Con, and Dex; or the Wizard, who doesn't even have light armor at level 1 and has arguably even worse subclass options for defenses, unless they blow a precious spell slot on mage armor and thus negate one of their key benefits. So...yeah. Bard is a full caster, and full caster generally means weak in melee. Yet, like the Warlock, it is possible for a Bard to grow into being reasonably effective in melee, if they choose to be. And if they choose not to be, then it is reasonable to expect that that was a conscious choice that the player will account for and build around, which is part of why the class is so well-received.

Now, I will grant at least one possible explanation for why the press is so good for the 5e Bard, which has nothing to do with the class's actual merits and is a way it could be overrated. And that's simply how bad Bards have been, prior to 4e...and 5e clearly cribbed from the 4e Bard even as it tried to pretend 4e didn't exist. For a lot of people who hated 4e or just missed it, the 5e Bard will come across as shockingly competent. When coupled with the aforementioned fact that the 5e Bard is what comes closest to 3.5e/PF customizability that a sizable fraction of the community still longs to regain, and you have a recipe for unusually intense love even though the class itself is merely "good to great," not "omgwtfbbqvcrkfc!!! AMAZONG"

[LudicSavant]

It's one of the classes I've seen go down (and dead) most easily in 5e.

That's a result of the choices of the players you've observed, not the optimization limits of the class. Different, more effective strategies exist.

Sure, you can choose to have an abysmal defense, but you can just as easily choose not to. To say "Bards have an abysmal defense, the worst of any class" suggests it's a limitation of the class as a whole, rather than a particular build or tactical choice the player made, which isn't the case. Bards can get pretty darned tough. Some Bard builds even make excellent primary party tanks.

[Alucard89]

Bards are one of the best classes in 5e. Imo top 3 with Paladin and Wizard.

They are the best "sweet spot" monoclass in game, having the great balance of full casting (any Bard) + best full caster (Lore Bard), defense and damage (Sword, Valor, Whisper) + full casting, awesome roleplay powers (Whisper + Glamour), unique class mechanics (any sublcass has it's own unique mechanics and powers + Inspiration etc.), best skill monkey, best counterspeller and thanks to Magic Secrets: the most flexible caster:

1. You lack cleric or druid? Healing Spirit + Revivify + Healing Word. Later you can have Mass Heal + Aura of Life etc. Just take what you need.
2. You lack Wizard? Haste + Fireball or Fireball + Counterspell.
3. You lack stealth character? Expertise in Stealth, Enchance Ability + Magic Secret: Pass Without a Trace making you at level 6 (If Lore Bard) best stealth character in game. 6 + 3 + 10 + advantage giving you min. of 19 (!) stealth roll + advantage on stealth. You can (I did) go through whole enemy castle without being seen. Second expertise in Sleight of Hands and you are also skilled thief suddenly. And still full caster.
4. You lack melee/tank character? Sword Bard with Haste + Defensive Flourish + Circle of Power giving you high AC tank with 3 attack who is still full caster and skill monkey or High AC tank who has anti-magic aura for whole party.
5. You lack dedicated range DPS character? You can make Bard one of the best (and with right multiclass - the best) range DPR character. While still being full caster.

You have everything in your party? Guess what - you can be what ever you want then. Mix of magic and melee - can be done. Full magic nuker? Sure. Anti-Magic caster? Sure. Conjurer? Sure. Utility? Go for it.

Take Tenser Transformation + GreaterSteed and you can become one of the best melee/range fighters during combat. Or stand back and focus on using spells? Or take Conjure Animals and your pets do the work?

Bard is also one if the best classes for power-builds in game. Take 1 level of Hexblade and 19 levels of Whisper (Maximum damage) or Lore Bard (best caster), Simulacrum, Haste, Greater Steed and Tenser + Crossbow Expert + Elven Accuracy and you have on of the best DPR machine in game who can achieve DPR of 150+ on level 15+. That is not Nova. That is DPR with 98% chance to hit anything below AC 24. Also only 1 level of Hexblade makes suddenly the best flexible caster in game (Lore Bard) into Booming Blade 19 AC + Shield spell + Eldricht Blast + Curse guy who will only scale with CHA. Whishper bard + Hexblade 1 giving him BB + Physic Blades + Curse + 19 AC.

Hell, take 2 levels of Paladin as Sword Bard + spells like Haste, Holy Weapon, Tenser and Simulacrum and you are better Nova smitter than Paladin.... Who eventually can get Wish...

Not to mention you are the best social character because you not only have HIGH cha but you also get expertise. Combine that with Enchance Ability + Whisper/Glamour Bard and you can convience evil Duke to give you his castle and become beggar.

Seriously, if someone doesn't see how Bard is one of the best class in game - he just plays him wrong.

Bards are incredible strong. But there is one rule in any game ever, be it paper RPG, MMORPG, RPG, PvP, MOBA etc:

No matter how strong X class/character is - bad player will never make it work.

[KorvinStarmast]

Jack of all Trades ought to be half proficiency rounded up, right? (Or does bardic inspiration cover this?)

[Waazraath]

I fail to see how this is meaningfully different from what most say. When you add "can become very good, even great, at whatever specific thing you want to do," with the addendum of "...without much effort," this would seem to be exactly what the community is saying. You can build a Bard to be basically whatever you want it to be. In some areas, it will be best (it's got very high support/debuff potential for a 5e class), in other areas it will be a strong secondary backup or stand-in for a proper expert. There are effectively no areas it can't eventually do well in.

...

As with the OP, it seems to me that you are over-valuing tier 1 at least as much as others are over-valuing tier 3 or 4. It is true that Bards are on the lower end for defenses...but they're not abysmal, there are definitely classes that have worse or comparable defenses at those levels. Consider a Sorcerer or Warlock, who equally must pump Cha, Con, and Dex; or the Wizard, who doesn't even have light armor at level 1 and has arguably even worse subclass options for defenses, unless they blow a precious spell slot on mage armor and thus negate one of their key benefits.

...

Now, I will grant at least one possible explanation for why the press is so good for the 5e Bard, which has nothing to do with the class's actual merits and is a way it could be overrated. And that's simply how bad Bards have been, prior to 4e...and 5e clearly cribbed from the 4e Bard even as it tried to pretend 4e didn't exist. For a lot of people who hated 4e or just missed it, the 5e Bard will come across as shockingly competent. When coupled with the aforementioned fact that the 5e Bard is what comes closest to 3.5e/PF customizability that a sizable fraction of the community still longs to regain, and you have a recipe for unusually intense love even though the class itself is merely "good to great," not "omgwtfbbqvcrkfc!!! AMAZONG"

1) point is, in general their weakest point is the combat piller, which is the most important of the 3 in most games. So I follow the OP here (and given that he neither says that they suck in combat or something, I wouldn't know why I would be doing so, or should be saying something very different than most other posters here?)
2) wizard and sorcreres can pick mage armor, at least that's another +1 AC, and have the option of shield. Yeah, it costs slots (why I often consider arcane casters to be pretty weak in tier 1), but at least these classes can prevent to get their but kicked at early levels, even if it means they aren'that useful anymore for the rest of the adventuring day. Clerics and Druids get armor and shield, and warlocks have several ways to to get temporary hp, and can get mage armor from lvl 2. Bards are singulair weak in this respect.
3) "simply how bad Bards have been, prior to 4e."... eh, wait, wut? In 3.5 bards were damn powerful, as soon as you got away from core. Many very powerful feats, spells and prestige classes.


That's a result of the choices of the players you've observed, not the optimization limits of the class. Different, more effective strategies exist.

Wow... can I borrow your crystal ball for scrying? Or are you a player at my tables? If not, that's quite an assumption to make, for situations where you con't have a clue what was happening and what strategies were employed...


Sure, you can choose to have an abysmal defense, but you can just as easily choose not to. To say "Bards have an abysmal defense, the worst of any class" suggests it's a limitation of the class as a whole, rather than a particular build or tactical choice the player made, which isn't the case. Bards can get pretty darned tough. Some Bard builds even make excellent primary party tanks.

Oh come on. We're talking about a class here. You can argue all you want that you can buff up their defenses with feats and races, but that has nothing to do with that the class has abysmal defenses. Why else needing to buff them in the first place? If you take some typical core races that increase cha and another relevant stat (half elf, lightfoot halfling), or by the majority of the (other) bard races that are rated 'amazing' in the handbook on this site (aasimar, yuan-ti) you start the game with a meagre AC of 14 or 15. Yeah, bards have lot of customibility. That doesn't mean that the class in general doesn't have specific attributes. Compensating for them (e.g. having lore bard take defensive spells) has an opportunity cost.


Bards are one of the best classes in 5e. Imo top 3 with Paladin and Wizard.

They are the best "sweet spot" monoclass in game, having the great balance of full casting (any Bard) + best full caster (Lore Bard), defense and damage (Sword, Valor, Whisper) + full casting, awesome roleplay powers (Whisper + Glamour), unique class mechanics (any sublcass has it's own unique mechanics and powers + Inspiration etc.), best skill monkey, best counterspeller and thanks to Magic Secrets: the most flexible caster:

1. You lack cleric or druid? Healing Spirit + Revivify + Healing Word. Later you can have Mass Heal + Aura of Life etc. Just take what you need.
2. You lack Wizard? Haste + Fireball or Fireball + Counterspell.
3. You lack stealth character? Expertise in Stealth, Enchance Ability + Magic Secret: Pass Without a Trace making you at level 6 (If Lore Bard) best stealth character in game. 6 + 3 + 10 + advantage giving you min. of 19 (!) stealth roll + advantage on stealth. You can (I did) go through whole enemy castle without being seen. Second expertise in Sleight of Hands and you are also skilled thief suddenly. And still full caster.
4. You lack melee/tank character? Sword Bard with Haste + Defensive Flourish + Circle of Power giving you high AC tank with 3 attack who is still full caster and skill monkey or High AC tank who has anti-magic aura for whole party.
5. You lack dedicated range DPS character? You can make Bard one of the best (and with right multiclass - the best) range DPR character. While still being full caster.

You have everything in your party? Guess what - you can be what ever you want then. Mix of magic and melee - can be done. Full magic nuker? Sure. Anti-Magic caster? Sure. Conjurer? Sure. Utility? Go for it.

Take Tenser Transformation + GreaterSteed and you can become one of the best melee/range fighters during combat. Or stand back and focus on using spells? Or take Conjure Animals and your pets do the work?

Bard is also one if the best classes for power-builds in game. Take 1 level of Hexblade and 19 levels of Whisper (Maximum damage) or Lore Bard (best caster), Simulacrum, Haste, Greater Steed and Tenser + Crossbow Expert + Elven Accuracy and you have on of the best DPR machine in game who can achieve DPR of 150+ on level 15+. That is not Nova. That is DPR with 98% chance to hit anything below AC 24. Also only 1 level of Hexblade makes suddenly the best flexible caster in game (Lore Bard) into Booming Blade 19 AC + Shield spell + Eldricht Blast + Curse guy who will only scale with CHA. Whishper bard + Hexblade 1 giving him BB + Physic Blades + Curse + 19 AC.

Hell, take 2 levels of Paladin as Sword Bard + spells like Haste, Holy Weapon, Tenser and Simulacrum and you are better Nova smitter than Paladin.... Who eventually can get Wish...

Not to mention you are the best social character because you not only have HIGH cha but you also get expertise. Combine that with Enchance Ability + Whisper/Glamour Bard and you can convience evil Duke to give you his castle and become beggar.

Seriously, if someone doesn't see how Bard is one of the best class in game - he just plays him wrong.

Bards are incredible strong. But there is one rule in any game ever, be it paper RPG, MMORPG, RPG, PvP, MOBA etc:

No matter how strong X class/character is - bad player will never make it work.

I applaud the fandom, but not really convincing. For example, a few healing spells don't make up for not having a cleric or druid, nor does counterspell and fireball a wizard make. "Damage and defense" are still sadly lacking for whisper and mostly also sword bards at most of the levels that games are usually played. Spending ASI's and bardic inspiration to be functional in combat (but still inferior to an optimized fighter) makes the bard not doing the bard stuff that also could have been done and in which it would have been better. Etc. Classy btw, the suggestion that people who do not agree with you or who have other experiences are "bad players" - I think I might best leave it with this.

[diplomancer]

If a class's main issue is easily solvable, that's a plus for the class.
Bard's main problem is their defenses, both AC and saves are among the worst in the game. AC is VERY easy to improve, both feats and dips are easy to get and don't cost much; saves are tougher, though one of the best races for Bards, Yuan-Ti, helps a lot with them.

But if a player, for whatever reason, decides not to do anything about the Bard's poor AC, when it's easily solvable, that's entirely on him.

[Dork_Forge]

Jack of all Trades ought to be half proficiency rounded up, right? (Or does bardic inspiration cover this?)

If you rounded up then it'd be a bit close to proficiency (in tier 3 prof is 3, so a Bard would have a +2 to everything they aren't proficient in, as well as more skills than most classes and Expertise), it would take them from one of the (if not the) best skill monkeys in the game to the best hands down. It also has other ramifications, the increase would also bump their initiative and Dispel/Counter checks higher.

[Alucard89]

I applaud the fandom, but not really convincing. For example, a few healing spells don't make up for not having a cleric or druid, nor does counterspell and fireball a wizard make. "Damage and defense" are still sadly lacking for whisper and mostly also sword bards at most of the levels that games are usually played. Spending ASI's and bardic inspiration to be functional in combat (but still inferior to an optimized fighter) makes the bard not doing the bard stuff that also could have been done and in which it would have been better. Etc. Classy btw, the suggestion that people who do not agree with you or who have other experiences are "bad players" - I think I might best leave it with this.

Yes, they do make up. Cleric doesn't have access to for example Healing Spirit and Druid doesn't have access to Revivify. Bard can have both. And they have Healing Word. They can easy do Cleric job with in-combat "jo-jo healing" and doing Druid great off-combat healing while having access to support spells like Fearie Fire which Clerics don't have or Hypnotic Pattern/Phastasma which Druids and Clerics don't have.

Counterspell and Fireball makes for a lot of Wizard power in tier 1 and 2. Lore Bard also get JoAT and Cutting Words and Expertises that Wizards do not get. Wizards get more spells overall, but you can still get best of them as Bard, while being skill monkey + having access to soem spells Wizards don't have. For example unless Wizard multiclass, Bard will always have Fearie Fire and Healing word to support their team and thonse are one of the top spells in the game, especially in "most of the levels that games are usually played".

Damage is sadly lacking for Whisper Bard and Sword Bard? Really? I am getting more convinced you never actually played those subclasses if you think that. Sword bard can dish out really good damage but more importantly he can have higher AC than Paladin or Fighter, while having access to multiattack and again being skill monkey and best social class and full caster. You can run around with a class that can have on level 6 average 23 AC minimum without multiclassing while being able to drop Hypnotic Pattern or Healing word and having extra attack on top of that? If you think that having higher AC than Fighter or Paladin at same level, with extra attack + being full caster who can CC whole encounter or get your friends up on their feet from 60 feet away is not enough to match let's say "GWM" bonus damage on level 5 then I don't what to tell you.

You may "leave with this", I don't care. Bards were consistently in all polls about best classes in 5e scoring top 3/2 with Wizards and Paladins as community choice. Also you can see the general tone of responses here from people who actually played Bards from Tier 1 to Tier 3/4. But it seems like despite all that you think everyone who think that are wrong, but you are somehow correct. You are getting tons of arguments and yours are "um, no, they don't". Very good ones....

Please remember that many of us here (Including LudicSavant, who is number cruncher #1 on this forum) are powerbuilders and min-maxers. So we are telling you that Bards are awesome.

If you want to look at 5e just from pure DPR perspective, ignoring stuff like utility, expertises, class features, full caster progressions etc. and just go for "AC vs Damage" then I won't be able to do much to convience you otherwise but I can challange your Tier 1 or Tier 2 builds with my Bard builds and show you can absolutely get great damage on Bards if you build them correctly. Just tell me your build, show me calculations and we can compare that.

The main strength of the Bard is that you can be what you want. If you rolled pure Lore Bard and expected him to have great defense and be in front line then sorry but you should have rolled Cleric maybe? Maybe you should have considered Sword Bard if defense was your main concern? Or some multiclass option that with 1 or 2 level dip can make Bards one of the best Tier 1/2 damage dealers?

[Dork_Forge]

Let me preface this by saying that I like Bards and the one I'm DMing for is a lot fo fun and has made the party very difficult to actually challenge.


Yes, they do make up. Cleric doesn't have access to for example Healing Spirit and Druid doesn't have access to Revivify. Bard can have both. And they have Healing Word. They can easy do Cleric job with in-combat "jo-jo healing" and doing Druid great off-combat healing while having access to support spells like Fearie Fire which Clerics don't have or Hypnotic Pattern/Phastasma which Druids and Clerics don't have.

You're presumably talking about a Lore Bard to get out of list spells at a relevant level, you're not accounting for the opportunity cost involved and that whilst you can spend a subclass feature getting more healing spells, a Bard is a patch or yoyo healer at best for the most part. You can try your hardest to make a Healer Bard (without MC'ing), but you're mostly just catching up to the core chassis of Cleric and Druid, not touching on their healing specific subclasses.


Counterspell and Fireball makes for a lot of Wizard power in tier 1 and 2. Lore Bard also get JoAT and Cutting Words and Expertises that Wizards do not get. Wizards get more spells overall, but you can still get best of them as Bard, while being skill monkey + having access to soem spells Wizards don't have. For example unless Wizard multiclass, Bard will always have Fearie Fire and Healing word to support their team and thonse are one of the top spells in the game, especially in "most of the levels that games are usually played".

3rd level spells are what define a caster entering tier 2, so no not tier 1 at all. All you're really saying here is that a Bard is versatile, which I don't think Waazraath ever disputed, it is after all their overarching schtick.


Damage is sadly lacking for Whisper Bard and Sword Bard? Really? I am getting more convinced you never actually played those subclasses if you think that. Sword bard can dish out really good damage but more importantly he can have higher AC than Paladin or Fighter, while having access to multiattack and again being skill monkey and best social class.

You can certainly do decent to good damage as a Swords Bard, but unless you roll high on your BI for the damage you won't ever really stand out damage wise (especially since Flourishes are limited to once per turn). The AC claim is also a stretch, if a Swords Bard takes Half Plate they can go to 17 + BI if they Defensive Flourish, the problem there being they can't do that every turn (and doing so locks them out of other Flourishes and Inspiring others) and they're reliant on a die for their AC boost, which they can easily roll a 1 or 2 on. In comparison a Heavy Armor Paladin that cares about AC can rock plate+shield+Defense for a standard AC of 21 with the option of burning a 1st level slot on Shield of Faith to increase it to 23. So you can have a higher AC... but you're relying on rolling favourable on a die, that you can only use max 5 times per short rest and doens't benefit you unless you hit a creature. So you're actually relying on rolling favourably on two die to achieve a better AC.



Please remember that many of us here (Including LudicSavant, who is number cruncher #1 on this forum) are powerbuilders and min-maxers. So we are telling you that Bards are awesome.

Being able to optimise or min max something does not mean that thing does not have weaknesses in some regard and identifying as a powerbuilding doesn't make you or anyone else correct. You can powerbuild a lot of things to be very effective, the strength of the Bard class lies in versatility and support. The fact that you can "powerbuild" a Swords Bard with a Hexblade dip to increase AC and damage output doesn't mean that the Bard class doesn't inherently support those things particularly well.

I'm a powerbuilder and a minmaxer (and a Bard fan) and I'm telling you that you that whilst Bards are awesome, they're not naturally great, or even good, at everything.


If you want to look at 5e just from pure DPR perspective, ignoring stuff like utility, expertises, class features, full caster progressions etc. and just go for "AC vs Damage" then I won't be able to do much to convience you otherwise but I can challange your Tier 1 or Tier 2 builds with my Bard builds and show you can absolutely get great damage on Bards if you build them correctly. Just tell me your build, show me calculations and we can compare that.

I'm curious more than anything, to see a great damage melee Bard in tier 2 without MC'ing, I'd classify 'Great' as damage comparable to an optimised (including GWM/SS/CBE) martial builds of the same level, also single classed. Let's say level 8?


The main strength of the Bard is that you can be what you want. If you rolled pure Lore Bard and expected him to have great defense and be in front line then sorry but you should have rolled Cleric maybe? Maybe you should have consider Sword Bard if defense was your main concern? Or some multiclass option?

Yes, the main strenght of the Bard is versatility and support., their weakness is specialisation outside of a support or skill monkey roll.

[LudicSavant]

Oh come on. We're talking about a class here. You can argue all you want that you can buff up their defenses with feats and races, but that has nothing to do with that the class has abysmal defenses.

Oh come on, indeed.

Almost all of the options and tools I listed are class features. Even the single feat mentioned is one that is enabled by a class feature (light armor proficiency) and can be taken by any race.

Cutting Words has to do with the class. Mantle of Inspiration has to do with the class. HD size has to do with the class. Expertise has to do with the class. The spell list has to do with the class. Magical Secrets has to do with the class. Armor proficiencies has to do with the class. Stat layout has to do with the class. JoaT has to do with the class. Flourishes have to do with the class.

[Skylivedk]

1) point is, in general their weakest point is the combat piller, which is the most important of the 3 in most games. So I follow the OP here (and given that he neither says that they suck in combat or something, I wouldn't know why I would be doing so, or should be saying something very different than most other posters here?)

Just so we're on the same page:
Bards get top-3 AoE damage spells for level 1 and 2 spells. They get some of the best debuffs as well plus the best healing spell for RAW (healing word). On top of that they have non-concentration buffs.

How is that weak? Check my first post: bards have great combat spells in tier 1. It's more tier 2 (specifically non-lore bards) where they might miss a bit due to them having a more control only themed spell list for spell level 3 and no proper damage on spell level 4 either.



2) wizard and sorcreres can pick mage armor, at least that's another +1 AC, and have the option of shield. Yeah, it costs slots (why I often consider arcane casters to be pretty weak in tier 1), but at least these classes can prevent to get their but kicked at early levels, even if it means they aren'that useful anymore for the rest of the adventuring day. Clerics and Druids get armor and shield, and warlocks have several ways to to get temporary hp, and can get mage armor from lvl 2. Bards are singulair weak in this respect.

level 1 and 2 are apparently supposed to be skipped (quote please? Not at the poster in addressing) and it's pretty damn easy to pick a tougher subclass, most with better options.




Oh come on. We're talking about a class here. You can argue all you want that you can buff up their defenses with feats and races, but that has nothing to do with that the class has abysmal defenses. Why else needing to buff them in the first place? If you take some typical core races that increase cha and another relevant stat (half elf, lightfoot halfling), or by the majority of the (other) bard races that are rated 'amazing' in the handbook on this site (aasimar, yuan-ti) you start the game with a meagre AC of 14 or 15. Yeah, bards have lot of customibility. That doesn't mean that the class in general doesn't have specific attributes. Compensating for them (e.g. having lore bard take defensive spells) has an opportunity cost.

Feat usage and accessibility are a part of a class. Fighters are pretty useless IMO without feats (especially SS or GWM). In this case especially so, since the Bard has an advantage compared to the Wizard and Sorcerer in terms of getting AC. It's part of the class that they can do this at a lower cost.


PS. I can understand you are annoyed about (perceived) presumptions about your table and the people you've seen play bards.

[Willie the Duck]

I think there's a very real point to be explored here, even if the OP didn't make it well. I think a lot of people coming to 5e (as I did when it came out) read the bard and cheered something like 'Bards don't suck this time!' and started playing them. Lore bards were like wizards with all the non-sneak-attack parts of rogues on top. Valor bards were like 2/3-2/4 of a martial class on top of a full caster. Then you get out into real play and... it's not thaaat amazing. The spell selection does leave you with plenty of encounters where you have slots to burn but no spell appropriate to the situation (and highly dependent upon both monsters encountered and your own party composition). Lore bards (which really seem like the one that got the best candy) have pretty moderate at-will options if vicious mockery isn't useful (hordes or multi-attacking creatures). Valor bard class features (at tiers 1-3) are pretty limited to 'high AC' (and they don't let you use your weapon as a focus, making the war caster feat a requirement if you are going to gish it up). None of these problems are false, they're just a pretty reasonable opportunity cost for what otherwise really would be a massively overpowered concept ('the class that can do anything' really needs some constraints).

What I think the real takeaway for the bard is: they are more challenging to play than under- or over-powered. Much like the rogue, they are the kind of class (in the bard's case, the 'all around generalist') that you might think would be a good new-gamer's first class and they really aren't.


That does, of course, ignore the primary focus of the Bard class, which is everything but combat.

Having played bards in 2e AD&D, I really miss a bard who can cast Spiderclimb and Knock and a bunch of the other 'solve physical situation' problems.

[Yagyujubei]

Just throwing in my current personal experience as a 1 knowledge cleric/7 lore bard in my current campaign. I have 18ac, ridiculous skill checks and have been able to act as the sole healer of the party while still locking down encounters with CC.

yeah I do no damage, hell I straight up don't even carry a weapon on me, but being good at pretty much everything but that one aspect is pretty impressive I would say. There are plenty of times where I feel the illusion of not contributing because I'm not rolling tons of huge dice, but the reality is that ive been the difference between our party wiping and living multiple times. Bards are a really really good class.

[Dork_Forge]

Just throwing in my current personal experience as a 1 knowledge cleric/7 lore bard in my current campaign. I have 18ac, ridiculous skill checks and have been able to act as the sole healer of the party while still locking down encounters with CC.

yeah I do no damage, hell I straight up don't even carry a weapon on me, but being good at pretty much everything but that one aspect is pretty impressive I would say. There are plenty of times where I feel the illusion of not contributing because I'm not rolling tons of huge dice, but the reality is that ive been the difference between our party wiping and living multiple times. Bards are a really really good class.

It's important to separate the Bard aspect of your experience from your multiclass, your 18AC for example is because of your Cleric dip, not because you're a Bard, simialr considerations would need to be made with spells known and your skill checks.

[Waazraath]

Oh come on, indeed.

Almost all of the options and tools I listed are class features. Even the single feat mentioned is one that is enabled by a class feature (light armor proficiency) and can be taken by any race.

Cutting Words has to do with the class. Mantle of Inspiration has to do with the class. HD size has to do with the class. Expertise has to do with the class. The spell list has to do with the class. Magical Secrets has to do with the class. Armor proficiencies has to do with the class. Stat layout has to do with the class. JoaT has to do with the class. Flourishes have to do with the class.

Yeah, and a lot of tools you listed I ignored, cause I thought they had precious little to do with bard, or defense. But fine, if you insist: stealth is really stretching it, that's no 'defense' unless your entire party has it. And it won't save your bacon when your in combat already. Initiative (only a +1 extra compared with normal other casters that have 14 or 16 dex) is stretching it as well as "defense"; I see a bunch of subclass options from the subclass that gives the best defensive features, which isn't really strong if you want to make a case about the class. And that leaves the d8... yeah, that is true compared with wiz and sor. But at the same time, both sor and wiz have lot of defensive featues that the bard doesn't have, both in the class itself as in the subclasses, and ignoring subclasses, I really think access to shield, mage armor and absorb elements are a lot stronger than that 1hp.




Just so we're on the same page:
Bards get top-3 AoE damage spells for level 1 and 2 spells. They get some of the best debuffs as well plus the best healing spell for RAW (healing word). On top of that they have non-concentration buffs.

How is that weak? Check my first post: bards have great combat spells in tier 1. It's more tier 2 (specifically non-lore bards) where they might miss a bit due to them having a more control only themed spell list for spell level 3 and no proper damage on spell level 4 either.

Some of these are decent combat spells, fair enough: healing word, sleep, shatter. But 1) that's offense, defensive there's very little 2) some of those are rather selective (sleep and shatter depending on the positioning of foes, heat metal doesn't work on everybody) or work better for other classes than the bard (thunderwave is great on a cleric with heavy armor and shield, less so for a class with low AC cause your practially in melee range). It's not bad (nor am I saying the bard is), but it's not great either. Cleric or Druid for example can do much of the same while wearing medium or heavy armor and having a shield.



level 1 and 2 are apparently supposed to be skipped (quote please? Not at the poster in addressing) and it's pretty damn easy to pick a tougher subclass, most with better options.

Eh, I don't know what this is about, not about the part you quoted?



Feat usage and accessibility are a part of a class. Fighters are pretty useless IMO without feats (especially SS or GWM). In this case especially so, since the Bard has an advantage compared to the Wizard and Sorcerer in terms of getting AC. It's part of the class that they can do this at a lower cost.

PS. I can understand you are annoyed about (perceived) presumptions about your table and the people you've seen play bards.

I don't agree with your take on fighters, but that's not for here. Fighters do get 2 asi's extra, so it's more logical to assume them in their builds. I do see your point that bard's have an advantage over wiz/sor because they already have light armor, and only need 1 feed to get a very decent boost - fair enough. But I don't think the opportunity to take a feat (or specific race for that matter) changes that much on the general classes defenses; the majority of the bards won't have medium armor proficiency at 1 (vhuman) or 4 - I can live with the take that barring this, they have abysmal defenses ;)



Let me preface this by saying that I like Bards and the one I'm DMing for is a lot fo fun and has made the party very difficult to actually challenge.


You're presumably talking about a Lore Bard to get out of list spells at a relevant level, you're not accounting for the opportunity cost involved and that whilst you can spend a subclass feature getting more healing spells, a Bard is a patch or yoyo healer at best for the most part. You can try your hardest to make a Healer Bard (without MC'ing), but you're mostly just catching up to the core chassis of Cleric and Druid, not touching on their healing specific subclasses.


3rd level spells are what define a caster entering tier 2, so no not tier 1 at all. All you're really saying here is that a Bard is versatile, which I don't think Waazraath ever disputed, it is after all their overarching schtick.


You can certainly do decent to good damage as a Swords Bard, but unless you roll high on your BI for the damage you won't ever really stand out damage wise (especially since Flourishes are limited to once per turn). The AC claim is also a stretch, if a Swords Bard takes Half Plate they can go to 17 + BI if they Defensive Flourish, the problem there being they can't do that every turn (and doing so locks them out of other Flourishes and Inspiring others) and they're reliant on a die for their AC boost, which they can easily roll a 1 or 2 on. In comparison a Heavy Armor Paladin that cares about AC can rock plate+shield+Defense for a standard AC of 21 with the option of burning a 1st level slot on Shield of Faith to increase it to 23. So you can have a higher AC... but you're relying on rolling favourable on a die, that you can only use max 5 times per short rest and doens't benefit you unless you hit a creature. So you're actually relying on rolling favourably on two die to achieve a better AC.


Being able to optimise or min max something does not mean that thing does not have weaknesses in some regard and identifying as a powerbuilding doesn't make you or anyone else correct. You can powerbuild a lot of things to be very effective, the strength of the Bard class lies in versatility and support. The fact that you can "powerbuild" a Swords Bard with a Hexblade dip to increase AC and damage output doesn't mean that the Bard class doesn't inherently support those things particularly well.

I'm a powerbuilder and a minmaxer (and a Bard fan) and I'm telling you that you that whilst Bards are awesome, they're not naturally great, or even good, at everything.


I'm curious more than anything, to see a great damage melee Bard in tier 2 without MC'ing, I'd classify 'Great' as damage comparable to an optimised (including GWM/SS/CBE) martial builds of the same level, also single classed. Let's say level 8?


Yes, the main strenght of the Bard is versatility and support., their weakness is specialisation outside of a support or skill monkey roll.

Yes, all of this. Thanks for saving me the bother to respond to the whole of it. I'm optimizing since AD&D, wrote a number of handbooks for 3.5, so I'm not that impressed by the authority argument "I'm a powerbuilder" - did make me chuckle a little though. What I'm really missing in the assessment of Alucard89 is that at the lower tiers, swords and whisper are considered trap options by many (have been plenty of threads on it). To do extra damage (and/or get a little extra AC) you need to spend a limited rescource (inspiratin dice) for badly emulating a fighter, and without the hp and AC to back it up. Further, you have a conflinct in what stat to rise, cause you need Cha for inspiration and spells, and dex for AC and attacking with a weapon. At the same time, you're not saving a party member by making a save instead of failing it (as inspiration dice do normally).



I think there's a very real point to be explored here, even if the OP didn't make it well. I think a lot of people coming to 5e (as I did when it came out) read the bard and cheered something like 'Bards don't suck this time!' and started playing them. Lore bards were like wizards with all the non-sneak-attack parts of rogues on top. Valor bards were like 2/3-2/4 of a martial class on top of a full caster. Then you get out into real play and... it's not thaaat amazing. The spell selection does leave you with plenty of encounters where you have slots to burn but no spell appropriate to the situation (and highly dependent upon both monsters encountered and your own party composition). Lore bards (which really seem like the one that got the best candy) have pretty moderate at-will options if vicious mockery isn't useful (hordes or multi-attacking creatures). Valor bard class features (at tiers 1-3) are pretty limited to 'high AC' (and they don't let you use your weapon as a focus, making the war caster feat a requirement if you are going to gish it up). None of these problems are false, they're just a pretty reasonable opportunity cost for what otherwise really would be a massively overpowered concept ('the class that can do anything' really needs some constraints).

What I think the real takeaway for the bard is: they are more challenging to play than under- or over-powered. Much like the rogue, they are the kind of class (in the bard's case, the 'all around generalist') that you might think would be a good new-gamer's first class and they really aren't.

Having played bards in 2e AD&D, I really miss a bard who can cast Spiderclimb and Knock and a bunch of the other 'solve physical situation' problems.[/QUOTE]

I think this is spot on. They are good, but at the table, they don't outshine other classes. Reason being is that though you can build the bard to be a lot of things, you can't build it to be all of them, so it can do a number of things (quite good) but can't do others. Few spells known takes care of that, as far as the limited spell list doesn't do it already. You don't see it as easily in a discussion like this on the form, where theoretically a bard can do X, Y and Z, but at the table, you see it really is only one of those. Though ymmv, I can imagine that at tier 3 and higher, you can do more, also with smartly picked magical secrets. But barring lore, that's level 10 and later.

btw, what I'm missing is a bard that can Inspire Courage the entire party for +12 to hit and +12 damage... had a mighty nice Bard in my last 3.5 campaign...

[Yagyujubei]

It's important to separate the Bard aspect of your experience from your multiclass, your 18AC for example is because of your Cleric dip, not because you're a Bard, simialr considerations would need to be made with spells known and your skill checks.

I disagree. If MCing is a thing you can do in the game why cant you include it when talking about the class? Part of the power of a class is its ability to mesh with other classes imho, so taking dips into account seems like fair game. yeah i started with a level of cleric to get around some of the drawbacks of playing a pure bard, but it's a really common thing to do and hardly a price to pay for alot of benefit.

[Benny89]

Bard is not overrated "per se". It's just he is in this wierd spot where:

1 level dip of Hexblade makes all Bards absolutely amazing in Tier 1 and Tier 2.

And not multiclassing at all makes them medicore at Tier 1 and Tier 2.

However they are (with Paladin) the strongest multiclass option where whole "optimization" need only 1 level dip (Hex). That is both amazing and frustrating.



So the Core Problem:

*Example no.1:

1 Hexblade/6 Lore Bard is 19 AC guy with Shield + Weapon, with SAD CHA, both GFB and Booming Blade, Shield spell, Hex, possible Haste and Counterspell or Fireball/Something else in back pocket with great Defense, very good potential damag and melee presense, Cutting Words, expertise and best Wizard staff at this level. And he also has Curse to boost his damage or Eldricht Blast.

However, now Lore Bard level 7 is low AC, no shield, no shield spell, no SAD cha, no GFB, no BB wanna-be Wizard.

*Example no.2:

1. Hexblade/6 Sword Bard is all above without 3rd level spells, but with Extra attack and Curse. Hex + extra attacks + dual wielding can really boost his DPR in Tier 1 and Tier 2. He also have flourishes to really boost his AC and is still fullcaster. He is also SAD CHA so he scales as both caster and melee with one stat. With Shield spell and Def. Flourish he can boost his AC to around 29 if needed. Till level 7 he also have BB and GFB to help himself in melee.

6 Sword Bard is... wierd. Has some very good spells, good AC but no spells to boost it. Again, good, but nothing special.

6 Sword Bard/2 Paladin is very good. Later he has so many slots to smite, very good AC and multiattack that he can easly out-smite Paladin (not the same defense level but great offense in melee).


So in my opion well build Bard is top tier. But as monoclass he is just mostly underwhelming till level 10+. He just NEEDS the multiclass.

My opinion only.

[diplomancer]

Bard is not overrated "per se". It's just he is in this wierd spot where:

1 level dip of Hexblade makes all Bards absolutely amazing in Tier 1 and Tier 2.

And not multiclassing at all makes them medicore at Tier 1 and Tier 2.

However they are (with Paladin) the strongest multiclass option where whole "optimization" need only 1 level dip (Hex). That is both amazing and frustrating.



So the Core Problem:

*Example no.1:

1 Hexblade/6 Lore Bard is 19 AC guy with Shield + Weapon, with SAD CHA, both GFB and Booming Blade, Shield spell, Hex, possible Haste and Counterspell or Fireball/Something else in back pocket with great Defense, very good potential damag and melee presense, Cutting Words, expertise and best Wizard staff at this level. And he also has Curse to boost his damage or Eldricht Blast.

However, now Lore Bard level 7 is low AC, no shield, no shield spell, no SAD cha, no GFB, no BB wanna-be Wizard.

*Example no.2:

1. Hexblade/6 Sword Bard is all above without 3rd level spells, but with Extra attack and Curse. Hex + extra attacks + dual wielding can really boost his DPR in Tier 1 and Tier 2. He also have flourishes to really boost his AC and is still fullcaster. He is also SAD CHA so he scales as both caster and melee with one stat. With Shield spell and Def. Flourish he can boost his AC to around 29 if needed. Till level 7 he also have BB and GFB to help himself in melee.

6 Sword Bard is... wierd. Has some very good spells, good AC but no spells to boost it. Again, good, but nothing special.

6 Sword Bard/2 Paladin is very good. Later he has so many slots to smite, very good AC and multiattack that he can easly out-smite Paladin (not the same defense level but great offense in melee).


So in my opion well build Bard is top tier. But as monoclass he is just mostly underwhelming till level 10+. He just NEEDS the multiclass.

My opinion only.

I believe that, unless you are planning to be in melee and/or use the attack action often, the Cleric dip is better for a Lore Bard than the Hexblade dip, at least the one level dip. The 2nd level of hexblade is obviously great, but whether the increased sustained DPR is worth the heavy delay in spellcasting levels will vary according to your role in the party and the campaign- but if what your party really needs is sustained DPR, why are you playing a Bard in the first place?

Cleric: potentially better armor, several good spells that take pressure off Bards' spells known, different domains give you different things according to what the party needs most or what feels best to your story, no spellcasting lost, only delayed at the odd levels, guidance cantrip makes you an even better skill monkey. Slightly MAD, though a 13 is easily doable, even with point-buy.

Hexblade: usually better weapons (which you will hardly ever use, though) SAD on weapon attacks (which, again, not gonna use it that often) Shield spell (good when you need it, which if you avoid melee should not be too often, but strong competition with cutting words and counterspell), Hexblade Curse is good, but not as good for a Bard as it is for a Warlock or Paladin, no MADness. However, other warlock spells are mostly a waste; Hex is good for a warlock, it's a terrible option for a Bard to concentrate on. AND you lose, for good, a spellcasting level.

I also believe it's better to take the dip after level 5.

Finally, I mentioned this before, but people did not address it: there is NO uncommon magic item (you know, those who appear in tiers 1 and 2) that comes even CLOSE to an Instrument of the Bards, powerwise. Be sure to ask Santa for one if you're playing a Bard, quest for it, whatever, just try and get one. People sometimes say "well, we shouldn't consider magical items", but when there is a magic item usable only by one class that is far better than other items in the tiers we're talking about, I believe this should have some weight in class evaluation.

[Dork_Forge]

I disagree. If MCing is a thing you can do in the game why cant you include it when talking about the class? Part of the power of a class is its ability to mesh with other classes imho, so taking dips into account seems like fair game. yeah i started with a level of cleric to get around some of the drawbacks of playing a pure bard, but it's a really common thing to do and hardly a price to pay for alot of benefit.

If you don't distinguish between what's good because you're a Bard and what's good because you're MC'd then your feedback is misleading at best in a discussion about the Bard class.

[Asisreo1]

Bards are the perfect schrodinger's wizard class. All bards have access to every single spell when really, in play, they don't. I value in-play experience more than theoretical decision makings. I also look at the class from a beginner's POV since they're going to try it once and never again if they suck.

They don't suck, though. They're definitely more difficult to master. I have a bard playing alongside my Ranger and he doesn't really do anything impactful in-or-out of combat. I don't look at his character sheet and I wouldn't tell him what spell to cast but he never seems to have any answer for anything. He isn't new to the game either, with 3 years under his belt.

I suspect it's because he doesn't know how to play a bard specifically. He'll cast hex, which is great, then lose concentration before the rest of the party could really capitalize. He then resorts to Vicious Mockery for a possible disadvantage and 1d4 damage that doesn't even land 40% of the time making it feel like he isn't really participating. Sometimes he'll do something really cool and we'll be happy for him but his character is the least dynamic and game-changing over the 2 others, me a Ranger and the other person a paladin. We're level 5 as well.

Maybe if he got into a more natural swing with the bard, he'd be more able to take advantage of their strength. But it's rare to even get a bardic inspiration from him even in very important fights. Maybe he's extra conservative but we get ourselves into a pinch using up resources where he could've helped. His healing would also be nice if he wasn't constantly the first one to drop in combat.

[micahaphone]

Whenever I read optimization guides for wizard, they always seem to suggest going for battlefield control builds (like The God Wizard), and the bard class is mostly battlefield control in combat. With perks to counterspell (hard to get though) and dispel magic.

Their out of combat abilities are great too.


I don't know what bards are missing or what I'd add to bards to make them even better. It seems like the main complaints here are about bards being a spells known class, and does anyone here prefer spells known over spells prepared?

[Wizard_Lizard]

Just from the title, nopenopenope. The answer is nope. The bard is in fact, underrated, and is the most powerful class in dnd. Magical secrets, Jack of all trades, Expertise. Amazing. i love it and it's the best.:smallbiggrin:

[Satori01]

Asisreo1, that isn't the class that is the player.
In my campaign that has been running for 5 years now, the Bard has been the primary spell caster. With foresight (the characteristic not the spell), the bard can control, Raise Dead, blast, shelter, and transport the party, all with one character.

A lore bard can, ironically, easily be the unsung hero of the party.

Song of Healing with a party full of Short Rest heavy martial characters is strong.

Countercharm while situational is good to have, especially if you included a friendly in your Hypnotic Pattern. I houseruled Countercharm to be a Reaction, but reliably having a solid Bonus Action choice in Bardic Inspiration means that when a bards Action is resisted, or they have to take a Dodge or Withdraw Action, the class still contributes meaningfully.

Even with a player new to the hobby, I would imagine, that with the eventual accumulation of experience, and a good spell list to chose from, one can always retrain on level ups to a good build.

In fact, compared to a Sorcerer, the Bard having Ritual Magic can retrain spells that do not age well at higher tiers of play into Ritual spells, which is nice.

If the U/A Alternate Class features becomes official, retraining a spell on a LR is going to really boost the Bard's power.

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

No, it's got a solid chassis and then on top of that each subclass gets some phenomenal benefits some of which cannot be replicated by any other class.



Lore: reduce an attack roll turning a miss into a hit, or reduce their initiative which is phenomenal in a boss fight.
Glamour: Mantle of inspiration is the most potent ally moving ability in the game imo. I've thrown so many different scenario's at my party and the thing that has made the biggest difference is that movement to allow the party to get within effective combat range in the first round.
Eloquence: You get the rogues reliable talent on persuasion and deception checks at level 3. On top of that unsettling words is one of the most broken abilities you can get at third level, the only thing more broken is diviners portent.


These are just in level 3, at level 6 we get



Lore: 2 spells from any list.
Eloquence: If inspiration fails, keep it and use it again extremely useful on saving throws that repeat if you fail.
Glamour: Cast command 10 times for free, Talk about control.

[Barny]

Bard is one of the highly rated classes in 5e, because 5e has three major elements: exploration, RP and combat, and Bard can do well with all three.
It's sad to see that most people only evaluate this class' power in combat.

Remember, A character/class excellent in combat is quite meaningless in 5e. Even your character can kill a Cr30 monster in 1 turn, then your DM can easily place a few CR30 enemies to make the combat longer and manipulate newbie player's war hunger.

For advanced players, exploration and RP always bring more surprises and fun to the table. That's why many experienced players think Bard is highly rated for his great utilities and the potential to bring more fun to the table.

[Dime]

My first 5e character was a Lore Bard, which I played from level 3 to level 7. I didn't use any of the available options to boost defense, so I found that he had to avoid melee, but no more so than the Wizard in the same party. At level 3 the Wizard could have used mage armor, but usually didn't because spell slots were precious. He did use shield when he had to, but again that used up a precious resource. My Bard could use cutting words three times without even touching a spell slot, and he could use it to protect others when he wasn't in danger. As far as damage went, I don't remember anything having more impact than dissonant whispers - it wrecked some of our early boss fights, and only got better after our Druid got Conjure Animals at level 5.

One of the things that I really enjoyed about playing a Lore Bard was how he was always "on". In combat I was watching every turn, Monster or PC, for the right moment to throw out some cutting words to turn aside a big hit, or assist a grapple or shove. Out of combat, inspiration or cutting words could help anything that other player's were trying to do. And once you get to 5th level you have a lot of inspiration to throw around before you even touch a spell slot. It felt like I could influence events no matter who was acting or what pillar of play we were in.

[Merudo]

ASI is I would say the most overrated ablity of a toon. It adds a mere +1 to a roll. That will makes a difference at most 5% of the time.

I'd be tempted to agree, to a point. For spellcasters, the real benefit of increasing your main stats is often not a simple +1 to a roll, but rather being able to prepare an additional spell or having an extra use of bardic inspiration.


Bards get top-3 AoE damage spells for level 1 and 2 spells.

Bards are missing the important Flaming Sphere and Moon Beam, which I consider to be the best level 2 AoE spells in the game.

[Yagyujubei]

If you don't distinguish between what's good because you're a Bard and what's good because you're MC'd then your feedback is misleading at best in a discussion about the Bard class.

I see your point. I just think taking MC into account is worth noting when talking about a class is all

[Asisreo1]

Asisreo1, that isn't the class that is the player.
In my campaign that has been running for 5 years now, the Bard has been the primary spell caster. With foresight (the characteristic not the spell), the bard can control, Raise Dead, blast, shelter, and transport the party, all with one character.

A lore bard can, ironically, easily be the unsung hero of the party.

Song of Healing with a party full of Short Rest heavy martial characters is strong.

Countercharm while situational is good to have, especially if you included a friendly in your Hypnotic Pattern. I houseruled Countercharm to be a Reaction, but reliably having a solid Bonus Action choice in Bardic Inspiration means that when a bards Action is resisted, or they have to take a Dodge or Withdraw Action, the class still contributes meaningfully.

Even with a player new to the hobby, I would imagine, that with the eventual accumulation of experience, and a good spell list to chose from, one can always retrain on level ups to a good build.

In fact, compared to a Sorcerer, the Bard having Ritual Magic can retrain spells that do not age well at higher tiers of play into Ritual spells, which is nice.

If the U/A Alternate Class features becomes official, retraining a spell on a LR is going to really boost the Bard's power.
I agree it was the player. I played high-level bard before and it was fine. I wasn't doing anything I'd consider "spectacular" since bounded accuracy also bounds the guaranteed failure of enemies and there are some limits to things that usually get ignored until real play, but it isn't like Bards are any better or worse than most other classes in the game at their fullest potential.

At higher levels, spellcasters and AoE attacks become more common so when an intelligent creature sees a bard, they'll want to target their wisdom and dexterity. Depending on the effect, it could be debilitating. Noncasters or innate casters are the most frustrating as counterspell isn't much of an option against their AoE.

But that doesn't make them "weak." They're just backliners specifically. Even playing as a Valor Bard, it's hard to justify being on the frontlines with so little features to back you up. It feels more like a "just in case" or something that lets you do good damage while using healing word (HW then Extra Attack is phenominal).

[Merudo]

As far as damage went, I don't remember anything having more impact than dissonant whispers - it wrecked some of our early boss fights, and only got better after our Druid got Conjure Animals at level 5.

[...] or assist a grapple or shove.

I agree that the Bard is excellent in a melee-centrip party. However in a party full of archers and spell casters, dissonant whispers won't do much damage, and grapples/shoves won't happen.

[diplomancer]

I'd be tempted to agree, to a point. For spellcasters, the real benefit of increasing your main stats is often not a simple +1 to a roll, but rather being able to prepare an additional spell or having an extra use of bardic inspiration.



Bards are missing the important Flaming Sphere and Moon Beam, which I consider to be the best level 2 AoE spells in the game.

Flaming sphere is not AoE, and is barely worth the concentration. A phantasmal force is a far better use of it, specially since, if they fail the first save, you can cutting words their intelligence checks afterwards to make sure it sticks.
Moon bean is a good druid-exclusive spell, but it's also only an AoE in very specific conditions (and usually only for the 1st round, unless you're dealing with mindless enemies or a very nice DM)

Dissonant whispers gets better the more melee there are in the party, true. But even 1 melee oriented character is sufficient to make it the best 1st level damage spell. And I've yet to see a party with NO melee characters.

[heavyfuel]

I'm yet to see a Bard in actual play in the hands of a competent player, so take this with a heaping tablespoon of salt, but I can't see the Bard as anything but an astounding class.

Worst defense? You have as much AC and HP as a Rogue. You don't have Uncanny Dodge, but neither do Tier 1 Rogues. Plus, a lot of subclasses offer defensive options starting at level 2.

Spells. You don't have to be a Schrodinger Wizard. You have more spells known than the Sorcerer, and your spell selection isn't as limited as some people make it out to be. Your BFC potential is great, even if your damage sucks. But hey, damage is hardly everything. Use BFC and let your martials shine.

Sleep at level 1 is bonkers, and anything immune to it is probably stupid enough to be fooled by Minor Illusion (elves being the exception). By level 3 you can pick up Phantasmal Force and remove anyone who isn't a Wizard from combat (dumb Undead and Constructs are still fooled by Minor Illusion).

Then you also have 3 skills from a great list, with Expertise just like the Rogue.

And on top of all that, you get what is - in my opinion - a completely bonkers feature called Bardic Inspiration. It boggles my mind how the designers thought this was a good idea. In a game with bounded accuracy, where earning every +1 is an uphill battle and where advantage is the main bonus you get, they let the Bard give an average of +3.5 to any roll, at level 1.

This, along with Guidance, is the kind of thing that has no place if you want to make a game with bounded accuracy. It makes a Lv 1 chump have the same bonus as a Lv 20 hero. Just completely ridiculous.

Like I said in the beginning. Haven't seen a Bard in actual play, so feel free to prove me wrong here.

[Willie the Duck]

Moon bean is a good druid-exclusive spell, but it's also only an AoE in very specific conditions (and usually only for the 1st round, unless you're dealing with mindless enemies or a very nice DM)

Does your game not have chokepoints?

[diplomancer]

Does your game not have chokepoints?

Where a bunch of enemies stay within a 5' radius while being burned for no good reason for more than 1 round? I don't think that ever occurred, that's VERY situational.

[Man_Over_Game]

By level 3, a Bard covers most of the same benefits that a Rogue would, replacing mediocre damage against melee enemies (which is generally the Rogue's primary target) for utility-and-control-oriented fullcasting. Sure, the Rogue can hide better, but the core rules make stealth as a party solution to a problem really friggin' hard. And that's before comparing things like subclass features, in which case the Bard is almost always on top.

Don't get me wrong, Rogues are cool, but they're generally so one-dimensional that I'd normally expect a Bard to do just as well in the same circumstances and still have more options, unless you need someone to take a hit (as Rogues don't use Concentration, generally have a higher Dex/AC, and have Uncanny Dodge - They're better tanks if you need one). Even then, I think I'd still expect a Valor Bard to outperform most other Rogues in almost every way that isn't damage.

[Asisreo1]

By level 3, a Bard covers most of the same benefits that a Rogue would, replacing mediocre damage against melee enemies (which is generally the Rogue's primary target) for utility-and-control-oriented fullcasting. Sure, the Rogue can hide better, but the core rules make stealth as a party solution to a problem really friggin' hard. And that's before comparing things like subclass features, in which case the Bard is almost always on top.

A rogue has Cunning Action, which is extremely effective especially at lower levels. If you can successfully hide, you'll probably not get hit by anything at such a low tier since AoE is rare. If you can't hide, you can dodge which makes dex saves and attacks, the most common thing you'll face in that tier, rarely hit you.

Let's say a goblin wanted to hit you as a rogue while you used cunning action to dodge. You have an AC of 15 at this point. The goblin's DPR without CA is 2.5. The goblin's DPR while your cunning action is 1.25. You've reduced a goblin's DPR by half by using dodge. However, you've also been able to keep your main damage dealing option of attacking and usually using sneak attack.

[Man_Over_Game]

A rogue has Cunning Action, which is extremely effective especially at lower levels. If you can successfully hide, you'll probably not get hit by anything at such a low tier since AoE is rare. If you can't hide, you can dodge which makes dex saves and attacks, the most common thing you'll face in that tier, rarely hit you.

Let's say a goblin wanted to hit you as a rogue while you used cunning action to dodge. You have an AC of 15 at this point. The goblin's DPR without CA is 2.5. The goblin's DPR while your cunning action is 1.25. You've reduced a goblin's DPR by half by using dodge. However, you've also been able to keep your main damage dealing option of attacking and usually using sneak attack.

A Rogue can't use Dodge with Cunning Action, and Hiding requires some form of cover, which is either:

Available, but unlikely for an enemy to engage with you, as most melee attacks against you would already reveal you, and most attacks against you would already have a -2 to hit, and you're likely behind some bottleneck with allies taking point.
Unavailable.


In any scenario where a Rogue would have Cover, so could a Bard, The Rogue would just happen to have Disadvantage to be hit, and it'd almost have to be guaranteed to be a ranged attack in those circumstances. More than likely, though, the Rogue attacked each turn he attempted to Hide, and so is likely not Hidden but behind Cover, and have the same circumstances as the Bard.

Don't get me wrong, Cunning Action is useful, but I see it generally be useful for either melee characters, or a party that doesn't have the means of controlling swarms (which a Bard does), when it isn't being used to spam Advantage attacks.

[Dork_Forge]

By level 3, a Bard covers most of the same benefits that a Rogue would, replacing mediocre damage against melee enemies (which is generally the Rogue's primary target) for utility-and-control-oriented fullcasting. Sure, the Rogue can hide better, but the core rules make stealth as a party solution to a problem really friggin' hard. And that's before comparing things like subclass features, in which case the Bard is almost always on top.

Don't get me wrong, Rogues are cool, but they're generally so one-dimensional that I'd normally expect a Bard to do just as well in the same circumstances and still have more options, unless you need someone to take a hit (as Rogues don't use Concentration, generally have a higher Dex/AC, and have Uncanny Dodge - They're better tanks if you need one). Even then, I think I'd still expect a Valor Bard to outperform most other Rogues in almost every way that isn't damage.

Am I right in reading this as the Rogue doing mediocre damage in tier 1 (and well... at all?)? At 3rd level a Rogue is likely doing 3d6+3 (13.5) a turn, with no resources, that's some of the best melee damage at that level (and certainly the best resourceless damage) with the options of TWF for an additional die or using a Rapier for a larger die for more damage.

Rogues are better skill specialists than Bards overall: they get four skills (vs three) and whilst they both get four Expertise eventually, the Rogue gets their's earlier (having all four by 6th level). Then there's reliable talent... Bards are the best skill generalists but Rogues are the best skill specialists.

Even defensively, a Valor Bard getting medium armour and shields doesn't place them universally ahead defensively, Rogues still have Uncanny Dodge and Evasion (and later on get Wisdom save prof), with Cunning Action giving hit and run and fleeing from too difficult combats more viability.

[Willie the Duck]

Am I right in reading this as the Rogue doing mediocre damage in tier 1 (and well... at all?)? At 3rd level a Rogue is likely doing 3d6+3 (13.5) a turn, with no resources, that's some of the best melee damage at that level (and certainly the best resourceless damage) with the options of TWF for an additional die or using a Rapier for a larger die for more damage.

Yes, but resourceless is quite a qualifier. If you compare a rogues combat damage output to a paladin, barbarian, or fighter's output (including their limited resources such as rages, action surges, smites, etc.), mediocre is a absolutely justifiable term. Add in the lower staying power/having to manage exposure to reprisal, and rogues are clearly in the middle of the pack in terms of combat damage. Which is not a problem, since combat damage is the majority of what most of those other classes get.

[KorvinStarmast]

And on top of all that, you get what is - in my opinion - a completely bonkers feature called Bardic Inspiration. It boggles my mind how the designers thought this was a good idea. In a game with bounded accuracy, where earning every +1 is an uphill battle and where advantage is the main bonus you get, they let the Bard give an average of +3.5 to any roll, at level 1.

This, along with Guidance, is the kind of thing that has no place if you want to make a game with bounded accuracy. It makes a Lv 1 chump have the same bonus as a Lv 20 hero. Just completely ridiculous.

Like I said in the beginning. Haven't seen a Bard in actual play, so feel free to prove me wrong here. You can roll a 1.
It is a limited resource. It doesn't recharge on a short rest until level 5.
I can be great, though, to help a fighter land a hit or to help a party member make a save.
At low levels, the song of rest feature during a short rest can be a really nice assist in keeping the HP resource topped off.

Nobldy needs to 'prove you wrong', since a lot of us have seen bards in play. (In my case, up to level 13, but it's been a party member not me). The Lore bard in our first campaign, once he got into the rhythm, was very timely in his application of cutting words ... it takes some 'learning by doing' I think to develop that knack.

I like having one in the party. The complaint from a friend of mine who started one at level 2 was 'where is my offense' but he's a very innovative sort and he made the bard quite effective once we got that light crossbow for the occasional need to let loose with just a plain attack. He also put Phantasmal Force to good use.

Would I make the bard the primary caster for a three person party? Probably not, but some people will suggest that.

I think Willie the Duck called this one pretty well. Bard is probably a "high skill coefficient" class, in terms of player skill needed to make the bard really shine. You'll get out of it what you put into it. It has a high ceiling.

[Nagog]

The Bard has some of the best class abilities in the game. Skill Expertise, Jack of All Trades, and Inspiration are top of the line abilities for both in and out of combat. Depending on your subclass, you can get great defensive abilities, including but not limited to: Cutting Words, Defensive Flourish, Medium Armor/Shields, and Mantle of Inspiration (Temp HP and free reaction Disengage to yourself/allies). This is similar to saying the Rogue isn't tanky because it doesn't have high AC: when in reality, a Rogue is tanky because they're difficult to pin down.

And for why the bard is the best class in the game (I'd say they surpass Wizards, but that's just me); they can fill literally any role the party needs them to. The aforementioned defensive abilities don't work the same as a Barbarian's Rage, but it works just as well. I had a College of Satire bard with 18 AC that was a front line healer, blaster, and support all at the same time. Outside of combat, they were the party face and skill monkey. To this day they are one of my favorite characters I've ever played, mechanically or narratively.

[Dork_Forge]

Yes, but resourceless is quite a qualifier. If you compare a rogues combat damage output to a paladin, barbarian, or fighter's output (including their limited resources such as rages, action surges, smites, etc.), mediocre is a absolutely justifiable term. Add in the lower staying power/having to manage exposure to reprisal, and rogues are clearly in the middle of the pack in terms of combat damage. Which is not a problem, since combat damage is the majority of what most of those other classes get.

Looking at this at level 3 with all primary stats set at +3:

Rogue w/two short swords: 4d6+3 (17)

Paladin with Greatsword smiting: 2d6+2d8+3 (19) *three per day

Zealot Barbarian with a Greatsword raging: 3d6+6 (16.5) *two encounters per day

Fighter Battle Master longsword w/ Dueling, Action Surge and Maneuvers: 4d8+10 (28) *once per short rest

I don't believe I'm missing anything, so the Rogue comes out just ahead of the damage orientated Barbarian, is pretty on par with the Smiting Paladin (which they can do three times a day assuming they're not casting any spells) and is only really behind the Fighter, notable on the turn they burn Action Surge and Maneuvers.

Fighter vs Rogue as above but over the average 3 round encounter:

Rogue: 12d6+9 (51)

Fighter: 8d8+20(56)

So over an average encounter the gap narrows considerably and would continue to if the combat goes any further than 3 rounds. If there is a second (or more) encounter(s) then the Fighter is reduced to just weapon die+mod.

That doesn't really look mediocre to me at any point, in fact the Rogue is up there with those classes whilst they're using their limited resources (apart from the Figher, but as analysed over an encounter that balances).

The most meh time for a Rogue is 5/6 when the other classes are getting Extra Attack and other goodies (like 2nd level slots for Paladin), but even then the Rogue pulls back at about 7th and can be optimised to compete instead of just keep up (TWF Shadow Blade AT).

[Asisreo1]

A Rogue can't use Dodge with Cunning Action, and Hiding requires some form of cover, which is either:

Available, but unlikely for an enemy to engage with you, as most melee attacks against you would already reveal you, and most attacks against you would already have a -2 to hit, and you're likely behind some bottleneck with allies taking point.
Unavailable.


In any scenario where a Rogue would have Cover, so could a Bard, The Rogue would just happen to have Disadvantage to be hit, and it'd almost have to be guaranteed to be a ranged attack in those circumstances. More than likely, though, the Rogue attacked each turn he attempted to Hide, and so is likely not Hidden but behind Cover, and have the same circumstances as the Bard.

Don't get me wrong, Cunning Action is useful, but I see it generally be useful for either melee characters, or a party that doesn't have the means of controlling swarms (which a Bard does), when it isn't being used to spam Advantage attacks.
Ah, misread the feature.

However, BA disengage is a powerful defensive ability as well, especially at these lower levels. A bard and rogue's worse nightmare is being singled out from their crowd. If a rogue gets singled out, though, they can disengage and prevent another hit from occurring while retreating. Bards have extremely little in "get off me" features, with cutting words being a limited resource that only comes back at a long rest, which also shares the same resource as your primary bard resource.

[Nagog]

And on top of all that, you get what is - in my opinion - a completely bonkers feature called Bardic Inspiration. It boggles my mind how the designers thought this was a good idea. In a game with bounded accuracy, where earning every +1 is an uphill battle and where advantage is the main bonus you get, they let the Bard give an average of +3.5 to any roll, at level 1.

This, along with Guidance, is the kind of thing that has no place if you want to make a game with bounded accuracy. It makes a Lv 1 chump have the same bonus as a Lv 20 hero. Just completely ridiculous.

Like I said in the beginning. Haven't seen a Bard in actual play, so feel free to prove me wrong here.

The biggest drawback to Bardic Inspiration (and Guidance) is that it needs to be used in advance. If the party really believes that the check won't succeed without Inspiration, then the DC is typically high enough that they'd still need to roll well without inspiration to hit it.
Also note that outside of a few subclass outliers, you can't use Bardic Inspiration on yourself, so unless you have another Bard or a Rogue in your party, there likely won't be any Expertise+Inspiration shenanigans going on, and if there is, kudos to creating great party synergy.

[Willie the Duck]

I don't believe I'm missing anything.

You are treating Battlemaster maneuvers as simply damage-on rather than damage-on plus rider, not giving barbarians any increased hit change through reckless assault, and ignoring the bonus actions (or whole rounds) not spent attacking by the rogue because they are busy trying not to be face-to-face with their opponents because they have been chewed up and do not have the rage/second wind/higher AC that those other classes posses. This isn't really my fight, I just don't find mediocre some kind of ridiculous notion.

[Dork_Forge]

You are treating Battlemaster maneuvers as simply damage-on rather than damage-on plus rider, not giving barbarians any increased hit change through reckless assault, and ignoring the bonus actions (or whole rounds) not spent attacking by the rogue because they are busy trying not to be face-to-face with their opponents because they have been chewed up and do not have the rage/second wind/higher AC that those other classes posses. This isn't really my fight, I just don't find mediocre some kind of ridiculous notion.

Yes I was, as this was explicably about damage output and I wasn't considering accuracy, just the amount of damage each can push out under optimal conditions. You seem to be factoring durability in as a damage output factor, which is a little unusual to me in this instance, Rogues are hardly glass cannons with a d8 hit die and a suite of defensive class features. The bonus action to run away concern is addressed by just being a Swashbuckler to get the free disengage, all the damage calculations for the Rogue didn't factor a subclass into it at all.

Mediocre isn't necessarily a bad thing, I just don't believe it's true, in tier 1 Rogues are up there with Monks and TWF style users as high and reliable damage output and they only start looking meh or mediocre in comparison to novas from other classes, which are novas: impressive and short lived.

[heavyfuel]

The biggest drawback to Bardic Inspiration (and Guidance) is that it needs to be used in advance. If the party really believes that the check won't succeed without Inspiration, then the DC is typically high enough that they'd still need to roll well without inspiration to hit it.
Also note that outside of a few subclass outliers, you can't use Bardic Inspiration on yourself, so unless you have another Bard or a Rogue in your party, there likely won't be any Expertise+Inspiration shenanigans going on, and if there is, kudos to creating great party synergy.

Bardic Inspiration is contribuiting more to this combo than Expertise is.

So if someone is arguing that the Bard is overrated, then they don't care about something that's better than Expertise, that can be applied to more than skill checks, and to anyone, without a locked-in choice, which is just an absurd thought.

Bardic Inspiration alone makes the Bard top tier pick. That's also on top of all else that was mentioned.

[Nagog]

Bardic Inspiration is contribuiting more to this combo than Expertise is.

So if someone is arguing that the Bard is overrated, then they don't care about something that's better than Expertise, that can be applied to more than skill checks, and to anyone, without a locked-in choice, which is just an absurd thought.

Bardic Inspiration alone makes the Bard top tier pick. That's also on top of all else that was mentioned.

While it can grant a higher bonus than Expertise, it's a die roll rather than a static bonus, so in most cases it won't. At max level, a skill with expertise will have a +12 proficiency bonus, while the Bard's maximum Inspiration die is a d12. I don't think that's a coincidence. What really makes the ability powerful is that it can stack with Expertise or Proficiency if somebody has it.

I'd also be remiss not to mention that Bardic Inspiration is a resource, rather than a constant bonus like Expertise is. While it's tied to your primary casting stat in uses, a character can only have one Bardic Inspiration die at a time, and in combat (or other Initiative-based scenarios like Skill Challenges), the Bard can only hand out one at a time.


Regardless of where exactly Bardic Inspiration is most powerful, I think we've answered the OP's question of whether or not they're overrated: No, they're not. I'd even wager to say they're underrated (Like, why do people use Sorcadin when Bardadin gives them so much more?)

[heavyfuel]

While it can grant a higher bonus than Expertise, it's a die roll rather than a static bonus, so in most cases it won't. At max level, a skill with expertise will have a +12 proficiency bonus, while the Bard's maximum Inspiration die is a d12. I don't think that's a coincidence. What really makes the ability powerful is that it can stack with Expertise or Proficiency if somebody has it.

You're looking at this wrong. Expertise doesn't give +12, it gives +6. The other +6 comes from proficiency. So Bardic Inspiration always gives an average bonus higher than the Expertise bonus. In most cases, the bonus from BI is higher than the bonus from Expertise.

[Nagog]

You're looking at this wrong. Expertise doesn't give +12, it gives +6. The other +6 comes from proficiency. So Bardic Inspiration always gives an average bonus higher than the Expertise bonus. In most cases, the bonus from BI is higher than the bonus from Expertise.

If that's how you define Expertise, than sure. I've always defined Expertise as being the total bonus added, including the base proficiency bonus.

But if that's how you define it, than I'd also argue that at Tier 1 and 2, the Pact of the Talisman UA is extremely broken, as it adds 1d4 to any skill you aren't proficient in, no setup or resource required. That has the potential to essentially grant you Proficiency in all skills, with a smaller chance to grant more than that.

[heavyfuel]

If that's how you define Expertise, than sure. I've always defined Expertise as being the total bonus added, including the base proficiency bonus.

But if that's how you define it, than I'd also argue that at Tier 1 and 2, the Pact of the Talisman UA is extremely broken, as it adds 1d4 to any skill you aren't proficient in, no setup or resource required. That has the potential to essentially grant you Proficiency in all skills, with a smaller chance to grant more than that.

It's not how I define it. It's how it is. When you get Expertise, you already have the proficiency bonus, so Expertise itself is only adding half the total bonus. If you could get Expertise in skills you're not proficent in, then I'd agree with you.

Look at this way: Say you have 10 dollars, which you invest. You make an excellent investment, and it's now worth 20 dollars. You didn't get 20 dollars from the investment, you only got 10, because you already had the original 10 to begin with. Same goes for Expertise.

I just don't think Pact of the Talisman is broken (though it's certainly very strong) because it doesn't stack with Proficiency/Expertise and it doesn't scale. So it's very strong in Tier 1, but it drops in relative power as the game progresses. Adding a large number of uses per rest, just so that it's not literally infinite, should balance it out. Something like 5 uses per short rest or something.

[Satori01]

This isn't really my fight.
If you were a Rogue, you could have Disengaged from this conversation and still got some parting damage in.....but you are not.....so you didn't. 🤪 😀😁

[Nagog]

It's not how I define it. It's how it is. When you get Expertise, you already have the proficiency bonus, so Expertise itself is only adding half the total bonus. If you could get Expertise in skills you're not proficent in, then I'd agree with you.

Look at this way: Say you have 10 dollars, which you invest. You make an excellent investment, and it's now worth 20 dollars. You didn't get 20 dollars from the investment, you only got 10, because you already had the original 10 to begin with. Same goes for Expertise.

I just don't think Pact of the Talisman is broken (though it's certainly very strong) because it doesn't stack with Proficiency/Expertise and it doesn't scale. So it's very strong in Tier 1, but it drops in relative power as the game progresses.

You can't definitively say that is or isn't how it is, as it is never defined whether Expertise replaces Proficiency or is added to it. Here is the description from the Prodigy feat (I do believe it is stated similarly, if not verbatim, in Bard and Rogue's class descriptions)

"Choose one skill in which you have proficiency. You gain expertise with that skill, which means your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make with it. The skill you choose must be one that isn’t already benefiting from a feature, such as Expertise, that doubles your proficiency bonus."

There are cases for both definitions here. For yours, yes you do need a baseline of proficiency in order to gain expertise. For mine, it defines Expertise as "proficiency bonus is doubled for any check you make with it". Ergo, both of our various definitions could be true.

But because you seem very defensive of your definition being right, we'll go with that one, I don't particularly care anyway (and it makes no difference to the point we were discussing). The point that we got off track of was Bardic Inspiration and how it compares to Expertise. Yes, Bardic Inspiration can give a character the same bonus having proficiency and expertise in that skill can give them. It could also just give a +1 with the same regularity. In contrast, it can also stack with proficiency and expertise bonuses, if you have somebody in the party that has such, to reach phenomenal heights that may not have been accessible otherwise. A powerful ability to be sure, but also one that requires some setup and investment, as is the case with any powerful ability. While "Hard" DCs are typically 25-30, combining Expertise and Bardic Inspiration can give you a bonus of anywhere between 5 (assuming proficiency bonus is 2 and rolling a 1 on the BI dice) and 24 (Assuming proficiency bonus is 6 and rolling max on BI d12 dice). If you set up the skill expertise and get lucky rolling you BI, it's exceptionally powerful. Otherwise it's just really good.

[heavyfuel]

You can't definitively say that is or isn't how it is, as it is never defined whether Expertise replaces Proficiency or is added to it. Here is the description from the Prodigy feat (I do believe it is stated similarly, if not verbatim, in Bard and Rogue's class descriptions)

But because you seem very defensive of your definition being right, we'll go with that one, I don't particularly care anyway (and it makes no difference to the point we were discussing). The point that we got off track of was Bardic Inspiration and how it compares to Expertise. Yes, Bardic Inspiration can give a character the same bonus having proficiency and expertise in that skill can give them. It could also just give a +1 with the same regularity. In contrast, it can also stack with proficiency and expertise bonuses, if you have somebody in the party that has such, to reach phenomenal heights that may not have been accessible otherwise. A powerful ability to be sure, but also one that requires some setup and investment, as is the case with any powerful ability. While "Hard" DCs are typically 25-30, combining Expertise and Bardic Inspiration can give you a bonus of anywhere between 5 (assuming proficiency bonus is 2 and rolling a 1 on the BI dice) and 24 (Assuming proficiency bonus is 6 and rolling max on BI d12 dice). If you set up the skill expertise and get lucky rolling you BI, it's exceptionally powerful. Otherwise it's just really good.

The crux of this discussion, I think, is that you seem to think I'm comparing "bardic inspiration with no proficiency" against "proficiency and expertise", and that's not what I'm doing.

I'm comparing "proficiency + BI" against "proficiency + expertise"

At level 1, with Proficiency but without Expertise you have +2. If you then gain Expertise, you now have +4. How is expertise itself adding +4? If that were the case, you'd have +6 total. No, Expertise only adds +2. Bardic Inspiration adds +3.5 (on average). So BI adds more than Expertise.

Yes, it adds less than proficiency and expertise combined, but it does add more than just expertise (on average).

If one considers Expertise to be a good feature (which it is), then BI is not simply "really good", it's absolutely amazing.

[Nagog]

The crux of this discussion, I think, is that you seem to think I'm comparing "bardic inspiration with no proficiency" against "proficiency and expertise", and that's not what I'm doing.

I'm comparing "proficiency + BI" against "proficiency + expertise"

At level 1, with Proficiency but without Expertise you have +2. If you then gain Expertise, you now have +4. How is expertise itself adding +4? If that were the case, you'd have +6 total. No, Expertise only adds +2. Bardic Inspiration adds +3.5 (on average). So BI adds more than Expertise.

Yes, it adds less than proficiency and expertise combined, but it does add more than just expertise (on average).

If one considers Expertise to be a good feature (which it is), then BI is not simply "really good", it's absolutely amazing.


I fail to see why we're still discussing this. We've come to the same conclusion, just using different definitions of what defines "Expertise", a difference which holds no weight in the discussion.

Regarding each, I'd say the Bardic Inspiration feature and the Expertise feature are about the same in terms of power levels, that reach new heights when used in tandem, for the following reasons:

Bardic Inspiration:
Pros:
Can be added to any skill
Can be applied after seeing the roll (high roll; save for later use)

Cons:
Draws from a limited resource pool
Cannot be used on self (Lore Bard 14 notwithstanding)
Requires Bonus Action to activate
Will more often than not roll lower than maximum
10 minute duration between giving and use, otherwise wasted


Skill Expertise:
Pros:
Added to every use of the skill
No resource cost
Always grants maximum bonus
No setup required

Cons:
Tied to one skill

All in all, I'd rather have Expertise in a skill than a BI dice to add to it, but that's just me.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Funny how this thread gets posted, then shortly after we get this other thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?615397-Translation-from-Chinese-D-amp-D-Forum-Ranking-of-Classes-Based-on-Combat-Effectiveness) in which Bard (Lore) is stated to be one of two classes (four total subclasses) at Tier 0, best of the best at combat. And Bard (Valor) is Tier 1, equal to or better than nearly every other class/subclass at combat. That's coming from a community of optimizers who actually know how to play the class.

At this point anyone who actually thinks Bard is overrated is doing it wrong, or focusing on the wrong things, or both. Even if you've only got the core rulebooks, Bard is literally one of the two strongest classes in the game, regardless of which college you pick.

[Merudo]

Funny how this thread gets posted, then shortly after we get this other thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?615397-Translation-from-Chinese-D-amp-D-Forum-Ranking-of-Classes-Based-on-Combat-Effectiveness) in which Bard (Lore) is stated to be one of two classes (four total subclasses) at Tier 0, best of the best at combat. And Bard (Valor) is Tier 1, equal to or better than nearly every other class/subclass at combat. That's coming from a community of optimizers who actually know how to play the class.

A. My point is that (1) the Bard is usually ranked as the best or second best class, and that (2) doing so is overrating the class. Linking to a list in which the Bard is ranked second best is actually supporting point 1.

B. The list is of poor quality and unprincipled.

[Nagog]

A. My point is that (1) the Bard is usually ranked as the best or second best class, and that (2) doing so is overrating the class. Linking to a list in which the Bard is ranked second best is actually supporting point 1.

B. The list is of poor quality and unprincipled.

I'd say I agree that its often highly rated, and that that list is indeed of poor quality and unprincipled, but they do earn their spot as a high tier class pick. They're at least capable of everything, and excel at a few things. While there will always be points in which another class can do something better than a bard can, there isn't likely to be a situation in which a bard can't do something at least well enough to get the job done.

[Dork_Forge]

Funny how this thread gets posted, then shortly after we get this other thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?615397-Translation-from-Chinese-D-amp-D-Forum-Ranking-of-Classes-Based-on-Combat-Effectiveness) in which Bard (Lore) is stated to be one of two classes (four total subclasses) at Tier 0, best of the best at combat. And Bard (Valor) is Tier 1, equal to or better than nearly every other class/subclass at combat. That's coming from a community of optimizers who actually know how to play the class.

At this point anyone who actually thinks Bard is overrated is doing it wrong, or focusing on the wrong things, or both. Even if you've only got the core rulebooks, Bard is literally one of the two strongest classes in the game, regardless of which college you pick.

If you read through that ranking, it isn't exactly the strongest support for your argument.

[Dime]

I agree that the Bard is excellent in a melee-centrip party. However in a party full of archers and spell casters, dissonant whispers won't do much damage, and grapples/shoves won't happen.
The biggest problem for an all ranged party is opponents closing to melee before the party can position itself. A Glamour Bard can solve that problem four times per short rest without spending a spell slot, while dishing out temp hp. Plus the other casters will love the ability to move friendlies out of the way for AoE spells. In combat this Bard might not do a ton of damage but he will massively increase the survivability and effectiveness of the party, in a way that no other class can match. At the same time he will still be a full caster, and be the best face you can get, and potentially fill a skill gap with expertise in Athletics.

[Skylivedk]

If you don't distinguish between what's good because you're a Bard and what's good because you're MC'd then your feedback is misleading at best in a discussion about the Bard class.
Obviously YMMV, but to me, a class' capacity and meshability with other classes is part of that class - same for Paladins and Sorcerers who also get points in my book for their ability to complement one another (and minus points for the Barbarian who blocks his concentration slot/spell casting with Rage).


I'd be tempted to agree, to a point. For spellcasters, the real benefit of increasing your main stats is often not a simple +1 to a roll, but rather being able to prepare an additional spell or having an extra use of bardic inspiration.



Bards are missing the important Flaming Sphere and Moon Beam, which I consider to be the best level 2 AoE spells in the game.
Again, YMMV. I don't like either much since I prefer using my concentration slots for control normally.


I agree it was the player. I played high-level bard before and it was fine. I wasn't doing anything I'd consider "spectacular" since bounded accuracy also bounds the guaranteed failure of enemies and there are some limits to things that usually get ignored until real play, but it isn't like Bards are any better or worse than most other classes in the game at their fullest potential.

At higher levels, spellcasters and AoE attacks become more common so when an intelligent creature sees a bard, they'll want to target their wisdom and dexterity. Depending on the effect, it could be debilitating. Noncasters or innate casters are the most frustrating as counterspell isn't much of an option against their AoE.

But that doesn't make them "weak." They're just backliners specifically. Even playing as a Valor Bard, it's hard to justify being on the frontlines with so little features to back you up. It feels more like a "just in case" or something that lets you do good damage while using healing word (HW then Extra Attack is phenominal).
Even though I agree with your conclusion, I keep seeing that we don't play the same way. Extra attack is a cantrip substitution for the tier 2 Valor Bard. The Attack action is/was rarely my go to recommendation for any bard.


Ah, misread the feature.

However, BA disengage is a powerful defensive ability as well, especially at these lower levels. A bard and rogue's worse nightmare is being singled out from their crowd. If a rogue gets singled out, though, they can disengage and prevent another hit from occurring while retreating. Bards have extremely little in "get off me" features, with cutting words being a limited resource that only comes back at a long rest, which also shares the same resource as your primary bard resource.
You mean besides Invisibility, Dissonant Whispers and the Glamour Bard Ability? Disengage is great, no doubt. I just find it less than credible that you don't re-evaluate your stance because it's pretty far from being BA Dodge.


Yes I was, as this was explicably about damage output and I wasn't considering accuracy, just the amount of damage each can push out under optimal conditions. You seem to be factoring durability in as a damage output factor, which is a little unusual to me in this instance, Rogues are hardly glass cannons with a d8 hit die and a suite of defensive class features. The bonus action to run away concern is addressed by just being a Swashbuckler to get the free disengage, all the damage calculations for the Rogue didn't factor a subclass into it at all.

Mediocre isn't necessarily a bad thing, I just don't believe it's true, in tier 1 Rogues are up there with Monks and TWF style users as high and reliable damage output and they only start looking meh or mediocre in comparison to novas from other classes, which are novas: impressive and short lived.
We've disagreed on this before. Accuracy in my, and most others' I guess, book and damage are linked. Vice versa of my comment to Asisreo1 though: even though I disagree with some of your arguments, I do agree that rogues fare fairly in early level play and certain subtypes can remain somewhat damage relevant even in later tiers (most notably the Arcane Trickster and Hazard enabled Scout-grapplers).

As for the main topic. I really can't see the Bard being rated anything less than outstanding. In a feat-less of and MC-less game, I can see tier 1 being harder and leaving a negative impression. I rarely play level 1 (and 2), so it doesn't affect my impression much. I also always play with feats and MC allowed, so again that colours my perspective.

It is one of the classes I want to have in my builds the most often, it can arguably fill the most roles of any class and be supreme in the skill monkey roll, especially since it also enables the wider still pool of the party and can approach both out of combat and combat with a powerful mix of unique class features and very strong spells.

[Asisreo1]

Even though I agree with your conclusion, I keep seeing that we don't play the same way. Extra attack is a cantrip substitution for the tier 2 Valor Bard. The Attack action is/was rarely my go to recommendation for any bard.

Extra attack is better than any damaging cantrip available to a bard at all. It's just better to have a longbow with your semi-decent dex.




You mean besides Invisibility, Dissonant Whispers and the Glamour Bard Ability? Disengage is great, no doubt. I just find it less than credible that you don't re-evaluate your stance because it's pretty far from being BA Dodge.

At level 3, invisibility is extremely limited. It's the best "get off me" option, but it's your highest level spellslot. It would definitely be a great loss trading invisibility for a creature's reaction. Dissonant Whispers is okay, but it isn't reliable, it's a save. Same with GB's enthralling perfomance but it also only works with humanoids which makes it even less reliable as a tool.

[/QUOTE]

[Guy Lombard-O]

Extra attack is better than any damaging cantrip available to a bard at all. It's just better to have a longbow with your semi-decent dex.

I always found it so when I played a Valor from 1-13. I even picked up Sharpshooter to add some value.


At level 3, invisibility is extremely limited. It's the best "get off me" option, but it's your highest level spellslot. It would definitely be a great loss trading invisibility for a creature's reaction. Dissonant Whispers is okay, but it isn't reliable, it's a save. Same with GB's enthralling perfomance but it also only works with humanoids which makes it even less reliable as a tool.

Have to agree once again. In fact, I agreed so much that I "wasted" one of my picks on Misty Step. Even the most heavily armored bard rarely wants to stay in melee range with the more dangerous foes, and using your concentration for any magical defense is a bad idea when you're most potent ability is concentration-based debuffs and controls.

[KorvinStarmast]

Funny how this thread gets posted, then shortly after we get this other thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?615397-Translation-from-Chinese-D-amp-D-Forum-Ranking-of-Classes-Based-on-Combat-Effectiveness) in which Bard (Lore) is stated to be one of two classes (four total subclasses) at Tier 0, best of the best at combat. And Bard (Valor) is Tier 1, equal to or better than nearly every other class/subclass at combat. That's coming from a community of optimizers who actually know how to play the class. I find that Tier List to be badly flawed. But I do agree with you that both Lore and Valor bards are good kits.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Even though I agree with your conclusion, I keep seeing that we don't play the same way. Extra attack is a cantrip substitution for the tier 2 Valor Bard. The Attack action is/was rarely my go to recommendation for any bard.



Extra attack is better than any damaging cantrip available to a bard at all. It's just better to have a longbow with your semi-decent dex.



I always found it so when I played a Valor from 1-13. I even picked up Sharpshooter to add some value.


Even as a Lore Bard, I found that my fall-back option on a long adventuring day in T1-2 play was shooting once with a longbow (proficient via Elf, or variant half-elf, or in one case starting my career with a single level of Ranger for RP reasons). At 1d8+3 damage and 150 ft. range, it's a more reliable damage source than any cantrip to which you have native access, up until T3. Even without investment into Sharpshooter/more Dex/martial dip, it's a big step up for at-will damage for the Valor Bard. With that said, it's a testament to how Bard has the worst at-will DPR, at least before investment. Of course, to really get your money's worth, a 2-level Warlock dip for Agonizing EB is better than what a Valor Bard with a bow will ever pull off, due to SADness and a bigger die and scaling into T3-4.

[Dork_Forge]

Obviously YMMV, but to me, a class' capacity and meshability with other classes is part of that class - same for Paladins and Sorcerers who also get points in my book for their ability to complement one another (and minus points for the Barbarian who blocks his concentration slot/spell casting with Rage).


Again, YMMV. I don't like either much since I prefer using my concentration slots for control normally.

I can see that as part of evaluating the class, I don't see any particular synergy with Cleric (which is the MC in question) besides just not delaying slot progression whilst also requiring a 13 Wis. Part of what the poster said however was their AC, which had absolutley nothing to do with being a Bard.




We've disagreed on this before. Accuracy in my, and most others' I guess, book and damage are linked. Vice versa of my comment to Asisreo1 though: even though I disagree with some of your arguments, I do agree that rogues fare fairly in early level play and certain subtypes can remain somewhat damage relevant even in later tiers (most notably the Arcane Trickster and Hazard enabled Scout-grapplers).

I can appreciate accuracy as a factor, however I didn't really feel like going through doing a whole analysis of the 4 classes like that, particularly because if I take the accuracy impact of Reckless into consideration, then I'd also need to evaluate how it reduces the durability of the Barbarian (as durability was one of the things Willie was talking about). Overall accuracy would only really be a concern regarding the Barbarian's Reckless in the analysis I provided (same prime stats, no -5+10 feats etc.), if anything the stereotypical Rogue tactic of hiding for advantage would need to be considered then too. Overall though I never see a Rogue being sub par for damage or even just meh, though I do understand that it can look like that depending on the game (how many encounters per rest etc.).


Separate note, the Glamour Bard in my game has been a force multiplier for the Barbarian/Rogue and Paladin, between the stupid amounts of temp hp, spells and turning into a T-Rex it's been really hard to challenge the party in my eyes (they often finish the last combat of a day with some resources left and with no one going down, but they feel like they were close to dying).[/QUOTE]

[Skylivedk]

Even as a Lore Bard, I found that my fall-back option on a long adventuring day in T1-2 play was shooting once with a longbow (proficient via Elf, or variant half-elf, or in one case starting my career with a single level of Ranger for RP reasons). At 1d8+3 damage and 150 ft. range, it's a more reliable damage source than any cantrip to which you have native access, up until T3. Even without investment into Sharpshooter/more Dex/martial dip, it's a big step up for at-will damage for the Valor Bard. With that said, it's a testament to how Bard has the worst at-will DPR, at least before investment. Of course, to really get your money's worth, a 2-level Warlock dip for Agonizing EB is better than what a Valor Bard with a bow will ever pull off, due to SADness and a bigger die and scaling into T3-4.
In my very first 5e game I did play a Valor Bard and missed having DPR (a Halfling with Crossbow Expert, pretty horrible build by any standard).

I did agree that it's a cantrip replacement for tier 1 and 2 (for Valor bards). It's not free though. You lose 2 ac from your shield (one of the major draws of Valor over Swords) and if you got war caster that sweet AoO goes as well. I would never recommend going Sharpshooter without MC due to the lack of Archery and Dex being a secondary stat. In later experiences, I've found having other uses for my action to be more useful... Whether that's utility items, Dodge, using Help on someone or throwing a cantrip/spell. That being said, my point wasn't that you should never use a longbow (all my characters who can use a longbow will carry one just for its range) just that I don't find it a terribly good option and would never characterise using a longbow with a secondary stat as a power move.


I can see that as part of evaluating the class, I don't see any particular synergy with Cleric (which is the MC in question) besides just not delaying slot progression whilst also requiring a 13 Wis. Part of what the poster said however was their AC, which had absolutley nothing to do with being a Bard.

Agreed on the multiclass with cleric.



I can appreciate accuracy as a factor, however I didn't really feel like going through doing a whole analysis of the 4 classes like that, particularly because if I take the accuracy impact of Reckless into consideration, then I'd also need to evaluate how it reduces the durability of the Barbarian (as durability was one of the things Willie was talking about). Overall accuracy would only really be a concern regarding the Barbarian's Reckless in the analysis I provided (same prime stats, no -5+10 feats etc.), if anything the stereotypical Rogue tactic of hiding for advantage would need to be considered then too. Overall though I never see a Rogue being sub par for damage or even just meh, though I do understand that it can look like that depending on the game (how many encounters per rest etc.).

YMMV, I think my DMs have usually not been happy about rogues hiding the same places and once the -5/+10 feats and team generated advantage kicked in, the rogues were usually markedly behind the heavy hitters.

I have recently finished a campaign where the lore bard had spent a magical secret on getting Eldritch Blast. I never saw that as even close to a good decision.

[EdenIndustries]

I don't know if the Bard itself is overrated, but the thing I do think is overrated related to Bards is Dissonant Whispers. It's talked about as an amazing spell for generating OAs but when the spell Command also exists (uses an enemy action instead of reaction, can be upcast for multiple targets, and probably burns their next action too dashing back into range or just not being able to get into melee range) it pales in comparison to me. And sure I know Bards don't get Command, but even so I feel like people who talk about Dissonant Whispers don't know Command exists...

[Dork_Forge]

I don't know if the Bard itself is overrated, but the thing I do think is overrated related to Bards is Dissonant Whispers. It's talked about as an amazing spell for generating OAs but when the spell Command also exists (uses an enemy action instead of reaction, can be upcast for multiple targets, and probably burns their next action too dashing back into range or just not being able to get into melee range) it pales in comparison to me. And sure I know Bards don't get Command, but even so I feel like people who talk about Dissonant Whispers don't know Command exists...

It's worth keeping in mind that Dissonant Whispers also does damage, if a monster saves against command nothing happens, if they save against Dissonant Whispers they still take half damage (lower level slot needed too).

[EdenIndustries]

It's worth keeping in mind that Dissonant Whispers also does damage, if a monster saves against command nothing happens, if they save against Dissonant Whispers they still take half damage (lower level slot needed too).

It is true that Dissonant Whispers does a bit of damage, but that seems to be pretty insignificant to making an enemy waste at least one turn and maybe two turns (one turn moving away by the fastest possible means, one turn moving back).

They're both first level spells though so I'm not sure I understand your comment about lower level slot?

Anyway to phrase my point a bit differently I wish people would say "I know Command is better for generating OAs and making enemies waste turns, but hey at least Dissonant Whispers does a bit of damage!" It's the seeming blindspot when it comes to Command at all that makes me think Dissonant Whispers is overrated, not that it's a bad spell or anything.

[Nifft]

The 5e Bard might be overtuned.

[Dork_Forge]

It is true that Dissonant Whispers does a bit of damage, but that seems to be pretty insignificant to making an enemy waste at least one turn and maybe two turns (one turn moving away by the fastest possible means, one turn moving back).

They're both first level spells though so I'm not sure I understand your comment about lower level slot?

Anyway to phrase my point a bit differently I wish people would say "I know Command is better for generating OAs and making enemies waste turns, but hey at least Dissonant Whispers does a bit of damage!" It's the seeming blindspot when it comes to Command at all that makes me think Dissonant Whispers is overrated, not that it's a bad spell or anything.

Apologies on the level front, I just misremembered the level and thought it was 2nd. Command can be more potent in some situations but there's the following:

-It isn't on the Bard list, so you either need Magical Secrets or to be a Glamour Bard

-It won't work if the creature is Undead or doesn't understand you (as the Glamour Bard in my game found out to their surprise)

-Flee for OAs can be a little iffy depending on your DM, because it is directly harmful unless the creature disengages

-On a save you've spent an action and resource on nothing unfortunately

[Dime]

It is true that Dissonant Whispers does a bit of damage, but that seems to be pretty insignificant to making an enemy waste at least one turn and maybe two turns (one turn moving away by the fastest possible means, one turn moving back).

They're both first level spells though so I'm not sure I understand your comment about lower level slot?

Anyway to phrase my point a bit differently I wish people would say "I know Command is better for generating OAs and making enemies waste turns, but hey at least Dissonant Whispers does a bit of damage!" It's the seeming blindspot when it comes to Command at all that makes me think Dissonant Whispers is overrated, not that it's a bad spell or anything.
Command is underrated, but for this kind of use the OAs are much less reliable because they happen on the target's turn. If the target dies, or suffers forced movement, or is obscured, or your allies fail to end their turns next to it, then you get no OAs. Dissonant Whispers is better because when the right tactical situation arises you get the impact immediately, before the tactical situation changes.

[EdenIndustries]

Apologies on the level front, I just misremembered the level and thought it was 2nd. Command can be more potent in some situations but there's the following:

-It isn't on the Bard list, so you either need Magical Secrets or to be a Glamour Bard

-It won't work if the creature is Undead or doesn't understand you (as the Glamour Bard in my game found out to their surprise)

-Flee for OAs can be a little iffy depending on your DM, because it is directly harmful unless the creature disengages

-On a save you've spent an action and resource on nothing unfortunately

RAI seems to be that Flee for OAs is legit according to Crawford: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/752599239989993472

And while it's true on a save it does nothing, on a save Dissonant Whispers does an average of 6 damage. Which...is more than 0, yes. But still a pretty brutal result of an action and a spell slot.


Command is underrated, but for this kind of use the OAs are much less reliable because they happen on the target's turn. If the target dies, or suffers forced movement, or is obscured, or your allies fail to end their turns next to it, then you get no OAs. Dissonant Whispers is better because when the right tactical situation arises you get the impact immediately, before the tactical situation changes.

While it's certainly possible that forcing an OA as a reaction *can* be tactically beneficial, it seems just as likely to me that knowing a target failed a save from Command gives your allies a chance to get into position to capitalise on the upcoming OA. That doesn't seem worse to me, just different.

[Dork_Forge]

RAI seems to be that Flee for OAs is legit according to Crawford: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/752599239989993472

And while it's true on a save it does nothing, on a save Dissonant Whispers does an average of 6 damage. Which...is more than 0, yes. But still a pretty brutal result of an action and a spell slot.



6 on a fail isn't bad at all on a failed save, it is the worse case afterall and only a 1st level slot but the primary things here are that it isn't an option for most Bards anyway (so there isn't a conflict of choice to begin with) and Dissonant Whispers is applicable in a lot more situations than Command is.

[EdenIndustries]

6 on a fail isn't bad at all on a failed save, it is the worse case afterall and only a 1st level slot but the primary things here are that it isn't an option for most Bards anyway (so there isn't a conflict of choice to begin with) and Dissonant Whispers is applicable in a lot more situations than Command is.

Well anyway we probably don't need to belabour the point too much. I guess I'll just end by saying over the years I've seen many threads discussing the OA-generating power of Bards and Dissonant Whispers, and nary a mention of Command. And I was almost ready to make a thread expressing my bewilderment about that when this thread was created. So if one were to argue for Bards being overrated (a point I haven't made my mind up about one way or another), it seems to me they could point to that fact in support of their claim.

[Dime]

While it's certainly possible that forcing an OA as a reaction *can* be tactically beneficial, it seems just as likely to me that knowing a target failed a save from Command gives your allies a chance to get into position to capitalise on the upcoming OA. That doesn't seem worse to me, just different.
In my own experience it's just worse. Allies who start next to the target will often want to attack it, running the risk of killing it before Command takes effect. Allies who start away from the target will often not want to move to it, due to the risk of taking OAs or just because they have other plans.

I should add that I think Command is just worse for dealing damage. It's much better than Dissonant Whispers for burning the target's action.

[Nhorianscum]

Bards are great for bardic inspiration and past that they're.... very medium. That said the class offers a ton of role compression and can often fill an "extra" role.

The class is solid but it's... thoroughly unexciting when stood between a sorcerer and an AT.

On the note of command vs disonant....Upcast command is sorta bonkers, it's up there with upcast blindness/deafness.

[EdenIndustries]

On the note of command vs disonant....Upcast command is sorta bonkers, it's up there with upcast blindness/deafness.

Completely agree. Also, it might be the cheapest way to burn Legendary Resistance? Losing even one turn (possibly two if the monster has to run away and then run back) is pretty brutal, I can't see deciding *not* to use LR on that. All for the low, low cost of a first level slot.

[Dork_Forge]

Completely agree. Also, it might be the cheapest way to burn Legendary Resistance? Losing even one turn (possibly two if the monster has to run away and then run back) is pretty brutal, I can't see deciding *not* to use LR on that. All for the low, low cost of a first level slot.

Okay, so using D&D Beyond (which named NPCs as individual entries):

There's 160 Legendary creatures, of which 26 are undead (and thus not valid for Command) and of what remains there's only 79 creatures that understand common or have all languages. Of those 79, 31 are just various types of dragon.

So 16.25% of all legendary creatures are completely invalid.

You're only guaranteed that it can work on 49.3% of monsters (with 19.37% of legendary monsters being just different flavours of dragon)

So you'll most likely need a specific language to make Command work if what you're fighting isn't a Dragon of somekind.

So whilst it can be a cheap way of burning legendary resistances, it's far from the most reliable.

[EdenIndustries]

Okay, so using D&D Beyond (which named NPCs as individual entries):

There's 160 Legendary creatures, of which 26 are undead (and thus not valid for Command) and of what remains there's only 79 creatures that understand common or have all languages. Of those 79, 31 are just various types of dragon.

So 16.25% of all legendary creatures are completely invalid.

You're only guaranteed that it can work on 49.3% of monsters (with 19.37% of legendary monsters being just different flavours of dragon)

So you'll most likely need a specific language to make Command work if what you're fighting isn't a Dragon of somekind.

So whilst it can be a cheap way of burning legendary resistances, it's far from the most reliable.

Good research, thanks for doing that! Although if it's viable on a minimum of 49.3% of legendary monsters, and likely a good chunk more, that still seems pretty darn good. Is it a silver bullet? Surely not. Is it a fabulous trick up your sleeve against likely the majority of legendary monsters? Absolutely!

[heavyfuel]

Completely agree. Also, it might be the cheapest way to burn Legendary Resistance? Losing even one turn (possibly two if the monster has to run away and then run back) is pretty brutal, I can't see deciding *not* to use LR on that. All for the low, low cost of a first level slot.

I'd put Stunning Strike above it, although it doesn't take credit away from DW.

[EdenIndustries]

I'd put Stunning Strike above it, although it doesn't take credit away from DW.

You might be right. I'll revise my statement to best *spell* to drain LR.

[Nhorianscum]

You might be right. I'll revise my statement to best *spell* to drain LR.

Oh the best spells for that IMO are the continual effect nonsense machines that quicken allows. (If for some reason no-save nonsense is off the table)

[Ogre Mage]

The bard has a similar power curve to the wizard. Both classes are mediocre in Tier 1. Their power ramps up in Tier 2. This is most notable with the lore bard who gets magical secrets at level 6. Unsurprisingly, the lore bard is considered by many to be the strongest bard subclass and one of the strongest subclasses in the game. After that they are definitely one of the strongest classes.

The wizard going from so-so in Tier 1 to very strong in the upper levels is well-known in D&D history well before 5E. But the bard being like that is relatively new. Often in past editions they were regarded as weak at any stage. Some people may have read optimization guides about how awesome the bard is now, only to start their bard in Tier 1 and get a rude awakening. Whereas most wizard players probably expect to be mediocre in Tier 1 since that has always been part of the game.

[EdenIndustries]

Oh the best spells for that IMO are the continual effect nonsense machines that quicken allows. (If for some reason no-save nonsense is off the table)

Care to share some of your favourites?

[Waazraath]

The bard has a similar power curve to the wizard. Both classes are mediocre in Tier 1. Their power ramps up in Tier 2. This is most notable with the lore bard who gets magical secrets at level 6. Unsurprisingly, the lore bard is considered by many to be the strongest bard subclass and one of the strongest subclasses in the game. After that they are definitely one of the strongest classes.

The wizard going from so-so in Tier 1 to very strong in the upper levels is well-known in D&D history well before 5E. But the bard being like that is relatively new. Often in past editions they were regarded as weak at any stage. Some people may have read optimization guides about how awesome the bard is now, only to start their bard in Tier 1 and get a rude awakening. Whereas most wizard players probably expect to be mediocre in Tier 1 since that has always been part of the game.

I think you make a good point, but on the bolded part: they always were solid tier 3 in 3.5, with a high optimization ceiling.

[LudicSavant]

I think you make a good point, but on the bolded part: they always were solid tier 3 in 3.5, with a high optimization ceiling.

Yeah you could make some pretty great Bard builds in 3.5e, particularly with supplements.

[BenTheJester]

From my limited play, I found that Bards are quite good at Tier 1, but have a few levels at Tier 2 which aren't good. This, obviously is all combat-wise, since they are great at other pillars.

At levels 1-2 they have sleep which is probably the strongest ability at those levels and maybe even level 3, depending on the encounter. Enemies also have generally low saves so are particularly weak to your save/suck such as Hold Person or Suggestion. Vicious mockery is also good at these levels before enemies get a 2nd attack.

Level 4 to 6 are really subpar IMO. Your buddies get their strongest features at this level. You get Hypnotic Pattern which is strong, but can't use very often. While Lore Bards get their best feature, they have absolutely nothing to do with their action. The only damage cantrip is bad. The damage they do with weapons is minimal and don't have many spell slots.
Valor/Sword have a better at-will option, but its nothing extraordinary.

I haven't played one on later levels, but they do seem to get better action economy with Polymorph, Telekinesis and Bigby's hand.

To people with more experience than me: What are you doing with you action (playing as a Lore Bard) over the course of a day? Cast dissonant whisper every other round? Take Moonbeam/Earthen Grasp/Spectral Weapon as your L6 secret (seems like a bit of a waste of a secret)?

Do you waste a Feat to get Magic Initiate?

[Benny89]

To people with more experience than me: What are you doing with you action (playing as a Lore Bard) over the course of a day? Cast dissonant whisper every other round? Take Moonbeam/Earthen Grasp/Spectral Weapon as your L6 secret (seems like a bit of a waste of a secret)?

Do you waste a Feat to get Magic Initiate?

I never play Bard without 1 level Hexblade dip, so I have Eldricht Blast + Hex + Curse if I need, Booming Blade/GFB if I am in melee (medium armor + shields) or I just take XBE at level 1 so I always have 2 attacks from range if I am out of options.

I can't imagine playing any Bard without Hex dip honestly. It just makes class from Tier B to Tier S instantly.

Sword Bard level 6/1 Hexblade with Hex + dual Scimitars and 18 CHA can deal 3 x (2d6 +4) dmg to single target without counting Curse. Running in Half-Plate, using Defensive Flourish + Shield spell for AC boost. Just an example.

So I say this:

If you want to play a bard - dip something. Hexblade is best overall, but Life Cleric 1 level is also very good.

Bard as monoclass just lacks before level 10.

[MeeposFire]

I think you make a good point, but on the bolded part: they always were solid tier 3 in 3.5, with a high optimization ceiling.

They were also exceedingly potent (and rare) in 1e and extremely good in 4e where it was one of the best leader classes which was the role in the game with probably the most competition for best class in its role (many classes could try to make the claim and each would would do it slightly different).

Heck I like the 2e bard and depending on what and how you are playing it too could be good (the way they are implemented in Baldurs gate and BG2 make them a very solid class to play in that game) but that is the one edition where they have so very little focus and is where I think most of the reputation comes from outside of people thinking the concept is silly.

[SLOTHRPG95]

To people with more experience than me: What are you doing with you action (playing as a Lore Bard) over the course of a day? Cast dissonant whisper every other round? Take Moonbeam/Earthen Grasp/Spectral Weapon as your L6 secret (seems like a bit of a waste of a secret)?

Do you waste a Feat to get Magic Initiate?

Assuming that I haven't dipped Warlock or Sorcerer or Paladin or anything else with better at-will options? Light crossbow (or longbow for elves) is the Lore Bard's standard fallback. That, or taking the Dodge action if you're concentrating on an important buff/debuff, especially in T2. By 11th level, you're probably doing equal/better damage with Vicious Mockery (which has its minor debuff to boot), and you've also got enough spell slots in combat to occasionally blow 1st or 2nd level slots as a "standard" attack unless you're in for a particularly long adventuring day.

[BenTheJester]

If you want to play a bard - dip something. Hexblade is best overall, but Life Cleric 1 level is also very good.

Bard as monoclass just lacks before level 10.

This is pretty obvious. But I hate the Hexblade, as many do, exactly for that reason. You just get so much for so little investment.

I should have specified that I'm looking for actions as a Straight Lore Bard.

This class/subclass is rated amongst the top and has been before Hexblade was even a UA. Was it just theorycrafting? Because yes the class has a very high potential, but dealing 1d8+2 once per turn, for the majority of combats, is not what I would consider Tier 0.

[Benny89]

This is pretty obvious. But I hate the Hexblade, as many do, exactly for that reason. You just get so much for so little investment.

I should have specified that I'm looking for actions as a Straight Lore Bard.

This class/subclass is rated amongst the top and has been before Hexblade was even a UA. Was it just theorycrafting? Because yes the class has a very high potential, but dealing 1d8+2 once per turn, for the majority of combats, is not what I would consider Tier 0.

Lore Bard is az amazing as players idea for a character is.

Look, Lore Bard will never be as cleric and cleric is, as druid as druid is, az blasty as Evocation Wizard and so on.

However, the greatest thing about Lore Bard is ability to build him as you want.

You can be master Thief, Telekinesis master, late game combat monster, mix of Paladin (Aura spells) and Wizard (fireball), mix of Cleric and Paladin maybe?

Lore Bard allows for a lot of customization. You can take Spirit Guardians + Fireball if you want, take 1 dip of Hex or Cleric and be in front line like Cleric but with Fireball behind you and using Booming Blade/GFB at will? There are tons of options.

[Klorox]

I never play Bard without 1 level Hexblade dip, so I have Eldricht Blast + Hex + Curse if I need, Booming Blade/GFB if I am in melee (medium armor + shields) or I just take XBE at level 1 so I always have 2 attacks from range if I am out of options.

I can't imagine playing any Bard without Hex dip honestly. It just makes class from Tier B to Tier S instantly.

Sword Bard level 6/1 Hexblade with Hex + dual Scimitars and 18 CHA can deal 3 x (2d6 +4) dmg to single target without counting Curse. Running in Half-Plate, using Defensive Flourish + Shield spell for AC boost. Just an example.

So I say this:

If you want to play a bard - dip something. Hexblade is best overall, but Life Cleric 1 level is also very good.

Bard as monoclass just lacks before level 10.

Two questions:

1) would you still dip hexblade on a lore bard? I’d actually argue it might be more useful as booming blade, if needed, is better suited for a character who doesn’t get extra attack.

2) if you’re going to make the dip, why not 2 levels? If you want to use eldritch blast, isn’t it really so much better to go for a couple of invocations?

[SLOTHRPG95]

I should have specified that I'm looking for actions as a Straight Lore Bard.

This class/subclass is rated amongst the top and has been before Hexblade was even a UA. Was it just theorycrafting? Because yes the class has a very high potential, but dealing 1d8+2 once per turn, for the majority of combats, is not what I would consider Tier 0.

The strength of a Bard isn't what they do with their action every turn in combat. Starting at 5th level, you have enough slots (and SR-based Inspiration) to provide buffing/control pretty much every combat. That's your primary focus, and any attacks you get in are basically extra. Out of combat, you have the (second-)best skill setup, and access to face-enhancing spells like Disguise Self, Detect Thoughts, Enhance Ability, and Suggestion. As a single-classed Lore Bard, you are killing social and exploration encounters, while still contributing meaningfully in combat. A relative lack of at-will damage isn't the end of the world at that point, since that's what your party members are for.

[Sigreid]

I've not been a fan of the 5e bard. IMO they were just given too many of other people's toys to play with. I don't ban it or anything. And if someone in my group wants to play one, fair enough. I'm just not fond of it.

[Benny89]

Two questions:

1) would you still dip hexblade on a lore bard? I’d actually argue it might be more useful as booming blade, if needed, is better suited for a character who doesn’t get extra attack.

2) if you’re going to make the dip, why not 2 levels? If you want to use eldritch blast, isn’t it really so much better to go for a couple of invocations?

When it comes to me - yes, mostly because It always gives a lot:

1. Eldricht Blast + Hex + Curse is really strong Tier 1/2 option for Lore Bard. On level 5 it's 2d10 + 2d6 + 6 to single target for 10 turns. It's solid option.

2. Medium Armor + Shield + SAD CHA + Booming Blade/GFB is really nice to have. Combine that with War Caster and Dissonant Whisper and you can make quite nasty combo and force rider to proc.

3. Shield spell is too good to pass on Bard. It's full caster with tons of level 1 slots later to burn and Shield is just great.

4. Armor of Agathys is another great spell for late game to have.

5. Being able to use all one-handed martial weapons with CHA is really good option as you never know what magic weapon or shield you will find :)

Why not 2 levels? If you play from level 1 it's huge delay in your caster progression and Magic Secrets. 1 level is max that I can accept here. However If I could play from lets say level 6,7 or 8 then 2 Hex/6 Lore Bard would be very good build. But when you level up from level 1 you really feel that 2 levels of delay and the higher you go (Magic Secrets) the more you will feel it.

However, I build my bards in specific way. I go for Elven Accuracy and RES (CON)/War Caster and then I go for XBE on level 13. Because all my Bard builds abuse broken combo of level 15+ Hexbards which is:

Tenser Transformation + Greater Steed (also has Tenser now) + XBE + Elven Accuracy + Curse + Simulacrum casting haste on you (+ on level 17 Sharpshooter). You can dish out riddiculous DPR (even up to 170 with Whisper Bard at this level) with 4 attacks + 2 attacks from your steed, all dealing extra 2d12 damage. Add armor of agathys for both you and steed and you have quite nasty combo. Sword Bard can even add 2 levels of Paladin after level 15 and dual wield and smite in Tenser.

If you are not interested in that combo or you won't be playing levels 15+ then Cleric dip (Life) is also really good to get for Lore Bard.

For Sword/Valor I always go 1 Hexblade level, since it just works too good with him.

For Whisper I also go 1 Hex + XBE so I have 2 attacks to deal my Physic Blades bonus damage. Fearie Fire + Curse on target + Elven Accuracy + XBE works really well here to crit-fish for that Physic Blades.

[Klorox]

When it comes to me - yes, mostly because It always gives a lot:

1. Eldricht Blast + Hex + Curse is really strong Tier 1/2 option for Lore Bard. On level 5 it's 2d10 + 2d6 + 6 to single target for 10 turns. It's solid option.

2. Medium Armor + Shield + SAD CHA + Booming Blade/GFB is really nice to have. Combine that with War Caster and Dissonant Whisper and you can make quite nasty combo and force rider to proc.

3. Shield spell is too good to pass on Bard. It's full caster with tons of level 1 slots later to burn and Shield is just great.

4. Armor of Agathys is another great spell for late game to have.

5. Being able to use all one-handed martial weapons with CHA is really good option as you never know what magic weapon or shield you will find :)

Why not 2 levels? If you play from level 1 it's huge delay in your caster progression and Magic Secrets. 1 level is max that I can accept here. However If I could play from lets say level 6,7 or 8 then 2 Hex/6 Lore Bard would be very good build. But when you level up from level 1 you really feel that 2 levels of delay and the higher you go (Magic Secrets) the more you will feel it.

However, I build my bards in specific way. I go for Elven Accuracy and RES (CON)/War Caster and then I go for XBE on level 13. Because all my Bard builds abuse broken combo of level 15+ Hexbards which is:

Tenser Transformation + Greater Steed (also has Tenser now) + XBE + Elven Accuracy + Curse + Simulacrum casting haste on you (+ on level 17 Sharpshooter). You can dish out riddiculous DPR (even up to 170 with Whisper Bard at this level) with 4 attacks + 2 attacks from your steed, all dealing extra 2d12 damage. Add armor of agathys for both you and steed and you have quite nasty combo. Sword Bard can even add 2 levels of Paladin after level 15 and dual wield and smite in Tenser.

If you are not interested in that combo or you won't be playing levels 15+ then Cleric dip (Life) is also really good to get for Lore Bard.

For Sword/Valor I always go 1 Hexblade level, since it just works too good with him.

For Whisper I also go 1 Hex + XBE so I have 2 attacks to deal my Physic Blades bonus damage. Fearie Fire + Curse on target + Elven Accuracy + XBE works really well here to crit-fish for that Physic Blades.

I’m considering a lore bard for OotA. I know that goes to level 15.

What would you recommend there?

[Benny89]

I’m considering a lore bard for OotA. I know that goes to level 15.

What would you recommend there?

Do you know rest of the party classes?

[Klorox]

Do you know rest of the party classes?

No, but the bard seems perfect. I like playing support, but I also want to be able to pack a punch when needed.

[Eldariel]

The bard has a similar power curve to the wizard. Both classes are mediocre in Tier 1. Their power ramps up in Tier 2. This is most notable with the lore bard who gets magical secrets at level 6. Unsurprisingly, the lore bard is considered by many to be the strongest bard subclass and one of the strongest subclasses in the game. After that they are definitely one of the strongest classes.

The wizard going from so-so in Tier 1 to very strong in the upper levels is well-known in D&D history well before 5E. But the bard being like that is relatively new. Often in past editions they were regarded as weak at any stage. Some people may have read optimization guides about how awesome the bard is now, only to start their bard in Tier 1 and get a rude awakening. Whereas most wizard players probably expect to be mediocre in Tier 1 since that has always been part of the game.

Wizards mediocre in Tier 1? They have Sleep AKA. "No, you don't get a save or AC or anything".spell. And 3 slots to cast it from on level 1. And Shield if they do get attacked. And familiar aka "Perception Expertise Rogue, eat your heart out" that also can scout at a distance at zero risk, shares sensed and has telepathy and Blindsight/120' Darkvision. And ritual casting and the best world-shaping cantrips in the game (Minor Illusion, Mold Earth, Shape Water, Prestidigitation). What class is better on low levels? Moon Druid maybe and that's about it.

[Benny89]

No, but the bard seems perfect. I like playing support, but I also want to be able to pack a punch when needed.

A lot depends on party composition to build a bard so it's hard to tell you anything. For example if your party won't have Cleric then picking Spirit Guardians + Healing Spirit would be great mix of damage and support + Hexblade dip for BB and GFB. If your party will lack Wizard then Fireball + Counterspell is hard to beat. And so on. Lacking anything stealthy? Pass without Trace + Stealth and SoH expertise to be party scount/thief. And so on.

Lacking Tank? Sword Bard with Sword + Shield + Hexblade dip for Shield spell + Defensive Flourish + War Caster can easy be a main tank of party with very high AC when needed. 2 Levels of Paladin added for smites. Magic Secrets: Circle of Power + Destructive Wave and you have great mix of tank/paladin, support and AOE damage that ignores allies and you have deadly OAs. Or you can ignore Destructive Wave and take Haste for boss fights or maybe Steel Wind Strike to combo with Fearie Fire? All of that with expertises in many skills.

As I said - there tons of ways to build Bard, but Bard are best at fixing holes in Party arsenal.

[Benny89]

Wizards mediocre in Tier 1? They have Sleep AKA. "No, you don't get a save or AC or anything".spell. And 3 slots to cast it from on level 1. And Shield if they do get attacked. And familiar aka "Perception Expertise Rogue, eat your heart out" that also can scout at a distance at zero risk, shares sensed and has telepathy and Blindsight/120' Darkvision. And ritual casting and the best world-shaping cantrips in the game (Minor Illusion, Mold Earth, Shape Water, Prestidigitation). What class is better on low levels? Moon Druid maybe and that's about it.

They also get Dragon Breath + Familiar Combo, Create Bonefire + Thunderwave, Toll The Dead for spammable good damage vs single targets.

[Dork_Forge]

Wizards mediocre in Tier 1? Pretty much yeah, a lot of casters are. You don't know a lot of spells and you don't get to cast much beyond cantrips in a day. A tier 1 Wizard is better off with a crossbow than a cantrip a lot of the time and have enough hp to be killed quickly and a lot of the time, accidentally.


They have Sleep AKA. "No, you don't get a save or AC or anything".spell. Yes, the indiscriminate AOE that ages badly and is a guessing game since it goes off of current hp. You can just as easily cause a death spiral (incredibly easy to do in Tier 1) as end an encounter, not having concentration means once you cast it you're out of control.


And 3 slots to cast it from on level 1. And Shield if they do get attacked. That's part of the problem but also misleading. If you have 3 slots available for Sleep, then you haven't cast Mage Armor, so your AC is abyssmal and your hp put you at near death as a result. If you did cast Mage Armor then you have two slots left over (assuming all of your adventuring fits into an 8 hour window), but since the 3rd at 1st level is coming from Arcane Recovery, you'll likely just have one slot at a time with a short rest between.


And familiar aka "Perception Expertise Rogue, eat your heart out"

I'm guessing this is an Owl that's also benefiting from its Keen Hearing and Sight?


that also can scout at a distance at zero risk,

It has a single hit point and an AC of 11, not only can you easily lose it (requiring a recast you may not have time for, or even money for at low levels), it can give away your presence (it being a bird doesn't make it unusual in a lot of circumstances (are Owls a common bird you see?), but knowledge that familiars exist can hardly be secret).


shares sensed and has telepathy and Blindsight/120' Darkvision

*within 100ft and if you want blindsense that distance gets cut in half from 120 to 60.



And ritual casting and the best world-shaping cantrips in the game (Minor Illusion, Mold Earth, Shape Water, Prestidigitation). What class is better on low levels? Moon Druid maybe and that's about it.

Ritual casting is a great feature, not always time/resrouces for it, but great feature. Those are also fantastic cantrips, though just because it's on the Wizard list doesn't mean the Wizard has them. Assuming they'd want at least one damage based cantrip that leave two utiltiy ones and they best be good, as they'll be what you cast most of the time at low levels.

As for what's better? Druid in general (Wildshape is a great feature on a short rest recharge, bigger hit die, better proficiencies a pretty good spell list with exclusive spells), there's a case at these levels for the Sorcerer (one more cantrip, more universally useful subclass features (available earlier) and flexible casting at 2nd level gives as many slots as the Wizard with metmagic coming in at 3rd level), I actually think overall Bards are pretty good in Tier 1 (Bardic Inspiration, proficiencies and Jack of All Trades goes a long way), Clerics are pretty good at early levels as are Rogues and Monks, actually most classes do pretty well in tier 1, the Wizard falling to the bottom of the barrel since their class feature is basically just spell casting, which they don't have many slots to use in tier 1.

[Eldariel]

They also get Dragon Breath + Familiar Combo, Create Bonefire + Thunderwave, Toll The Dead for spammable good damage vs single targets.

Indeed. Though I generally put a 16 in Dex and use Light Crossbow as my damage cantrip (since Initiative, Stealth, and AC are quite nice anyways, so it's kinda free) for the first 3 levels and pick an actual damage cantrip on level 4. 80'/320' is useful surprisingly often and getting 3 utility cantrips is pretty great.

I intentionally didn't get into everything they can do with spells since there's so much of it and the picks vary from character to character, but we should certainly note Disguise Self, Invisibility and Misty Step from an exploration PoV and Charm Person, Suggestion and Detect Thoughts from a social PoV.

Of course, no Tier 1 Wizard is like to have all of the above, but they are like to have one from each category by level 4 (8 level one spells and 4 level two spells plus any they've been able to scribe, at half price from their specialty).

Of course, there's like 5 obligatory level 1 spells (Mage Armor, Shield, Sleep, Find Familiar, Absorb Elements) with a near-must in Detect Magic, so there's some stiff competition there, but e.g. Absorb Elements can generally be afforded a bit later as a level 1 Wizard isn't that likely to encounter or have to endure elements, and if any of those fall in your specialty, you can probably wait until level 2 to scribe them at half price given semi-reliable access in the campaign settings (excepting Sleep and probably Mage Armor and/or Shield, which you do want on level 1 if you do play it)

[Eldariel]

Pretty much yeah, a lot of casters are. You don't know a lot of spells and you don't get to cast much beyond cantrips in a day. A tier 1 Wizard is better off with a crossbow than a cantrip a lot of the time and have enough hp to be killed quickly and a lot of the time, accidentally.

Yes, the indiscriminate AOE that ages badly and is a guessing game since it goes off of current hp. You can just as easily cause a death spiral (incredibly easy to do in Tier 1) as end an encounter, not having concentration means once you cast it you're out of control.

That's why you aim it behind your allies. There's pretty much never a circumstance where you have to hit an ally. And the guessing game is pretty easy. Fighting a humanoid opponent that isn't obviously ridiculous? Cast sleep. Same with basically anything small. Don't cast it at big things unless they've taken a lot of damage.

No attack on this level has the raw power nor reliability of Sleep. Where martials are rolling one, or maybe two dice (if they have a feator gave up their AC for TWF), at 50/50 odds you are rolling at about 95%+ odds to knock out potentially multiple targets with a single action. Yeah, it falls off, but who cares? We are talking about before it falls off. You don't need to prepare it on tier 2.

It has a single hit point and an AC of 11, not only can you easily lose it (requiring a recast you may not have time for, or even money for at low levels), it can give away your presence (it being a bird doesn't make it unusual in a lot of circumstances (are Owls a common bird you see?), but knowledge that familiars exist can hardly be secret).

*within 100ft and if you want blindsense that distance gets cut in half from 120 to 60.

Yeah, 10gp for "healing" however much damage the attack directed at the familiar did? Cheapest potion ever.

And if the environment is such that it can give you away, keep it near you and just scout around corners and such. You still have eyes 100' further than anyone else and better at that. In fact, you're the only class that can look around corners without risking their own hide.



As for what's better? Druid in general (Wildshape is a great feature on a short rest recharge, bigger hit die, better proficiencies a pretty good spell list with exclusive spells), there's a case at these levels for the Sorcerer (one more cantrip, more universally useful subclass features (available earlier) and flexible casting at 2nd level gives as many slots as the Wizard with metmagic coming in at 3rd level), I actually think overall Bards are pretty good in Tier 1 (Bardic Inspiration, proficiencies and Jack of All Trades goes a long way), Clerics are pretty good at early levels as are Rogues and Monks, actually most classes do pretty well in tier 1, the Wizard falling to the bottom of the barrel since their class feature is basically just spell casting, which they don't have many slots to use in tier 1.

Nah, Wizard has at-will Cantrips, damage cantrip in Light Crossbow for 4 fine at-wills and the most powerful ability on tier 1 in Find Familiar. On top of that they have 2 encounter enders on an average day and ritual casting on top of it. No matter how you spin it, they're near the top. Maybe Druid, though level 1 Druid is comparatively sad while Wizard is THE strongest level 1 class in the game.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

To people with more experience than me: What are you doing with you action (playing as a Lore Bard) over the course of a day? Cast dissonant whisper every other round? Take Moonbeam/Earthen Grasp/Spectral Weapon as your L6 secret (seems like a bit of a waste of a secret)?

Do you waste a Feat to get Magic Initiate?

Depends on race, which depends on the table and its book restrictions. Yuan-ti purebloods and Levistus tieflings get a damage cantrip and a Cha boost; so do UA eladrin and shadar-kai, which are obviously superseded by the ones in MToF. There are other races with damage cantrips that don't have the Cha boost. If I don't have one of those I'll just plink. If you're the primary control caster your first leveled spell of the combat should be the biggest portion of your contribution.

[Dork_Forge]

That's why you aim it behind your allies. There's pretty much never a circumstance where you have to hit an ally. And the guessing game is pretty easy. Fighting a humanoid opponent that isn't obviously ridiculous? Cast sleep. Same with basically anything small. Don't cast it at big things unless they've taken a lot of damage.

This may just be more indicative of your table experience than anything in contrast to mine, having enemies mixed amongst the party (who aren't in a straight line themselves) is far from uncommon if not inevitably the norm in combats with multiple opponents. It's a great spell but certainly has it's hazards, not to mention being useless against undead, elves, anything that's immune to charm and based entirely on dice rolls. You can roll low on sleep, seen it happen quite a few times playing tier 1.


No attack on this level has the raw power nor reliability of Sleep. Where martials are rolling one, or maybe two dice (if they have a feator gave up their AC for TWF), at 50/50 odds you are rolling at about 95%+ odds to knock out potentially multiple targets with a single action. Yeah, it falls off, but who cares? We are talking about before it falls off. You don't need to prepare it on tier 2.


I mean, it better be damn good, it's 1/3 of your theoretically available resources for the day.

In the case of martials, they're also adding their mod to the damage and unlike other spells that have the potential of overkill damage, you could knock down Golbin 1, but instead of getting Goblins 2 and 3 you take down one of your party (assuming perfect aoe placement is nice for praising a spell, though not realistic as a standard).

You're also praising a spell that both Bards and Sorcerers have access to, the Wizard is nothing special in regards to sleep.


Yeah, 10gp for "healing" however much damage the attack directed at the familiar did? Cheapest potion ever.

Thinking of it as a potion is interesting and completely inaccurate, potions don't take an hour and ten minutes of concetration and the amount of damage it takes is entirely irrelevant, it has a single hit point. You're also very casual about 10GP, the richest background is the Noble at 25GP and tier 1 parties are rarely flush with cash (especially the Wizard that's both resummoning a familiar regularly and scribing everything in sight).


And if the environment is such that it can give you away, keep it near you and just scout around corners and such. You still have eyes 100' further than anyone else and better at that. In fact, you're the only class that can look around corners without risking their own hide.


If you're referring to Darkvision, then 60ft better than average Darkvision, or on par with a Drow/Duregar/Deep Gnome/Shadow Sorcerer. If you're talking about it's perception being better, eh? Marginally, it only has a +1 Wisdom, even it's Keen Hearing and Sight (if applicable) only takes its passive up to 18. If a player wanted a good perception then it wouldn't be particularly difficult to beat it in tier 1 and completely outstrip it in tier 2 (ime (passive) perception is rarely a deliberate concern of most PCs), off the top of my head a V. Human Rogue with Observant would hit 19 Passive Perception without even needing a positive Wis mod. Hardly eat your heart out.


Nah, Wizard has at-will Cantrips, damage cantrip in Light Crossbow for 4 fine at-wills and the most powerful ability on tier 1 in Find Familiar.

So the go to damage strategy for a tier 1 Wizard is to be a subpar crossbowman is a highlight to you? I assume 4 fine at wills is in reference to taking 4 non damaging cantrips, if that is the case then I'll just point out you don't get the 4th cantrip until level 4 and if you fill up on non damaging you'll be without a damage cantrip in tier 5 where your eh crossbowmanship falls off.


On top of that they have 2 encounter enders on an average day and ritual casting on top of it. No matter how you spin it, they're near the top. Maybe Druid, though level 1 Druid is comparatively sad while Wizard is THE strongest level 1 class in the game.

A large part of your argument seems to be relying on Sleep, again the Bard and Sorcerer are doing much the same (although with other abilities to actually support them). I'm sorry but you've made no clear case for Wizard being the best level 1 class in the game, if you're looking solely at level 1, I don't even think they'd be in the top half of the rating. Their whole thing is casting, tier 1 (especially level 1) is the weakest point in the game for casters overall vs everyone else, but the Wizard is the only class that doesn't really have anything else to fall back on. You could even argue in early levels a Sorcerer is better off than a Wizard, they do have more cantrips afterall.

[Eldariel]

This may just be more indicative of your table experience than anything in contrast to mine, having enemies mixed amongst the party (who aren't in a straight line themselves) is far from uncommon if not inevitably the norm in combats with multiple opponents. It's a great spell but certainly has it's hazards, not to mention being useless against undead, elves, anything that's immune to charm and based entirely on dice rolls. You can roll low on sleep, seen it happen quite a few times playing tier 1.

You can roll low but it'll still generally get something. More to the point, its odds of working are way higher than that of anything else in the game on this level. Most things are 50-50 at best. Action Surge/TWF/etc? Even landing a single attack is like 75% at best. It's just...yeah, it has a chance of failure and few blind spots but on adventure level, unless you're specifically imprisoned by Drow, it's probably gonna be real good. You don't need all enemies bunched up, you just need two-three in the outskirts and you need to cast the spell early and preferably as high an Initiative as possible since that's how you prevent TPKs.


I mean, it better be damn good, it's 1/3 of your theoretically available resources for the day.

In the case of martials, they're also adding their mod to the damage and unlike other spells that have the potential of overkill damage, you could knock down Golbin 1, but instead of getting Goblins 2 and 3 you take down one of your party (assuming perfect aoe placement is nice for praising a spell, though not realistic as a standard).

Obviously you don't cast it with AOE including a heavily wounded ally. You literally can place a 20' radius sphere anywhere, so unless all enemies are intermingled with your allies and the fight is highly dangerous, you're fine (and if that's the case, you probably should've cast it earlier).


You're also praising a spell that both Bards and Sorcerers have access to, the Wizard is nothing special in regards to sleep.

Aye, I'd say Bard and Sorc are both real good too but Sorc getting the extra spell only on level 2 kinda sucks and Bard defenses are kinda suspect on low levels compared to Wizard (be that Wizard needs to invest a slot in them; Bard doesn't even have the option). The big difference between those two and Wizards is Find Familiar. Familiars are the best thing in the game by a mile on level 1.


Thinking of it as a potion is interesting and completely inaccurate, potions don't take an hour and ten minutes of concetration and the amount of damage it takes is entirely irrelevant, it has a single hit point. You're also very casual about 10GP, the richest background is the Noble at 25GP and tier 1 parties are rarely flush with cash (especially the Wizard that's both resummoning a familiar regularly and scribing everything in sight).

A Potion is 50gp so while 10gp stings, it stings far less than an ally needing a Potion. If an enemy attacks the familiar, an ally is not attacked. Yeah, it might die and yeah, you'll be damn happy it took the hit instead of someone more expensive to patch up.


If you're referring to Darkvision, then 60ft better than average Darkvision, or on par with a Drow/Duregar/Deep Gnome/Shadow Sorcerer. If you're talking about it's perception being better, eh? Marginally, it only has a +1 Wisdom, even it's Keen Hearing and Sight (if applicable) only takes its passive up to 18. If a player wanted a good perception then it wouldn't be particularly difficult to beat it in tier 1 and completely outstrip it in tier 2 (ime (passive) perception is rarely a deliberate concern of most PCs), off the top of my head a V. Human Rogue with Observant would hit 19 Passive Perception without even needing a positive Wis mod. Hardly eat your heart out.

Observant VHuman is literally the only way to even match it. And that's putting all your character building resources into PP specifically (one of your two Expertises, one of your six proficiencies, your only feat, your race). Find Familiar is a footnote in Wizard's spell list and yet outperforms all but the most dedicated builds in that sense. While also having 120' darkvision, which is pretty darn hard for PCs to acquire (yeah, smell-based Perception is outside its purview but most relevant stuff is generally visual or auditory).


So the go to damage strategy for a tier 1 Wizard is to be a subpar crossbowman is a highlight to you? I assume 4 fine at wills is in reference to taking 4 non damaging cantrips, if that is the case then I'll just point out you don't get the 4th cantrip until level 4 and if you fill up on non damaging you'll be without a damage cantrip in tier 5 where your eh crossbowmanship falls off.

The 4 fine at-wills are 3 cantrips and the Crossbow. Crossbow isn't as good as an archery spec Fighter's but competitive with everyone else. Which is what I'd classify as "fine".


A large part of your argument seems to be relying on Sleep, again the Bard and Sorcerer are doing much the same (although with other abilities to actually support them). I'm sorry but you've made no clear case for Wizard being the best level 1 class in the game, if you're looking solely at level 1, I don't even think they'd be in the top half of the rating. Their whole thing is casting, tier 1 (especially level 1) is the weakest point in the game for casters overall vs everyone else, but the Wizard is the only class that doesn't really have anything else to fall back on. You could even argue in early levels a Sorcerer is better off than a Wizard, they do have more cantrips afterall.

Familiar is the big one, Sleep another. Cantrips a third one. Passable damage is just icing on the cake.

[Dork_Forge]

You can roll low but it'll still generally get something. More to the point, its odds of working are way higher than that of anything else in the game on this level. Most things are 50-50 at best. Action Surge/TWF/etc? Even landing a single attack is like 75% at best. It's just...yeah, it has a chance of failure and few blind spots but on adventure level, unless you're specifically imprisoned by Drow, it's probably gonna be real good. You don't need all enemies bunched up, you just need two-three in the outskirts and you need to cast the spell early and preferably as high an Initiative as possible since that's how you prevent TPKs.

So, for all of those reasons Sleep is clearly great, but identical on a Bard and Sorcerer for the most part, but the Sorcerer can Quicken from 3rd onwards to get a cantrip off as well and the Bard can still Inspire people with a bonus action.


Obviously you don't cast it with AOE including a heavily wounded ally. You literally can place a 20' radius sphere anywhere, so unless all enemies are intermingled with your allies and the fight is highly dangerous, you're fine (and if that's the case, you probably should've cast it earlier).

Heavily wounded? At 1st and 2nd level PCs have so few hit points a single bad hit can put them down completely, at any point in tier 1, for anyone except a raging Barbarian, one hit may as well be 'heavily wounded' unless it's a terrible damage roll.



Aye, I'd say Bard and Sorc are both real good too but Sorc getting the extra spell only on level 2 kinda sucks and Bard defenses are kinda suspect on low levels compared to Wizard (be that Wizard needs to invest a slot in them; Bard doesn't even have the option). The big difference between those two and Wizards is Find Familiar. Familiars are the best thing in the game by a mile on level 1.

Only on level 2? It's only one level after the Wizard and the Sorc has more cantrips to play with when slots are out (or to prolong the use of slots). A Bard's defenses being suspect is also kind of eh? They get light armor and they have a bigger hit die, the Wizard gets Shield but it's extremely easy for the Wizard to spend their slots on nothing but keeping them alive. That said any class that doesn't get shields have eh defenses unless they bring something in from a race at that level.

Familiars are good and useful, I don't think it's the amazing defining spell you think it is though. That said if it is that good, then the Wizard's best 'power gap' so to speak at that level is attainable by a Variant Human with a feat at 1st level (or by 3rd for a variety of subclasses). Though if familiars are this awesome I do start to wonder why more noise isn't made of them on the Warlock.


A Potion is 50gp so while 10gp stings, it stings far less than an ally needing a Potion. If an enemy attacks the familiar, an ally is not attacked. Yeah, it might die and yeah, you'll be damn happy it took the hit instead of someone more expensive to patch up.

What? Are you now talking about in a combat situation a monster attacking a harmless familiar instead of a PC trying to kill it? Why on earth would they do that?

I thought you were talking about it scouting up ahead, in which case it getting killed likely indicates the party is rumbled before they even got close to the monsters (whereas otherwise they could have the option of stealthing forwards cautiously).


Observant VHuman is literally the only way to even match it. And that's putting all your character building resources into PP specifically (one of your two Expertises, one of your six proficiencies, your only feat, your race). Find Familiar is a footnote in Wizard's spell list and yet outperforms all but the most dedicated builds in that sense. While also having 120' darkvision, which is pretty darn hard for PCs to acquire (yeah, smell-based Perception is outside its purview but most relevant stuff is generally visual or auditory).

You can literally just put Expertise into something else and have a +2 Wis, as for a proficiency... don't most people want to be proficient in Perception anyway?

Find Familiar is not a footnote in the Wizards spell list at 1st level though, it's one of 6 spells you get and since it's pretty mandatory for most Wizards to take Mage Armor and Shield (if not also Absorb Elements) and Sleep is so important, then it represents a third of your 'free' choices and a significant monetary investment at that level.

120ft Darkvision is not difficult for a PC to acquire at 1st level, there's 3 races and a Sorcerer Subclass that give it. Put it to 2nd and the superior Devil's Sight is in play and 3rd brings Gloom Stalkers with their enhanced Darkvision (90ft on a Darkvision race, but pretty close).


The 4 fine at-wills are 3 cantrips and the Crossbow. Crossbow isn't as good as an archery spec Fighter's but competitive with everyone else. Which is what I'd classify as "fine".

Not just an archery spec Fighter, any Fighter, Ranger or even a Rogue. The Wizard has literally nothing going for them that helps whilst other classes have fighting styles, the option of a Heavy Crossbow/longbow, ability to bonus action hide.


Familiar is the big one, Sleep another. Cantrips a third one. Passable damage is just icing on the cake.

So it's not sleep, the thing that sets the Wizard apart as best at 1st level is the Familiar then, seeing as they are the same if not worse at the rest than other classes. There's also the lower hit die (Sorcerers are in that boat too, but also get a subclass at 1st) and lack of any non casting feature.

[Asmotherion]

Nope. It's a very good class.

You're a Full caster that gets multiple instances of Expertese and eventually get access to a selection of virtually any spell in the entire game. Even more, your key stat is charisma, which enables a ton of multiclass SAD options that can make you even more potent.

[Eldariel]

I'll just stop quoting the full post and address the main points instead since these messages become pointlessly long otherwise.


Not just an archery spec Fighter, any Fighter, Ranger or even a Rogue. The Wizard has literally nothing going for them that helps whilst other classes have fighting styles, the option of a Heavy Crossbow/longbow, ability to bonus action hide.

The differences there are marginal enough outside Archery fighting style that I wouldn't call it and a slightly higher HD worth not having spellcasting, ritual casting & familiar. HD just isn't that big of a deal, though of course it's highlighted on level 1 where it can often mean the difference between being able to take one or two, or two or three hits.


So it's not sleep, the thing that sets the Wizard apart as best at 1st level is the Familiar then, seeing as they are the same if not worse at the rest than other classes. There's also the lower hit die (Sorcerers are in that boat too, but also get a subclass at 1st) and lack of any non casting feature.

This is correct. Familiar is the big one, Sleep the other. Rogue needs Observant to hit that mark and it's impossible to get Observant, Expertise, and 120' Darkvision on the same character. Either way, Wizard can just also take Vuman and pick up some power feat like Alert or Lucky instead (or play one of the Eberron Mark of X races or some such, but Vuman is generally the best pick).

Familiars...I have certainly seen it mentioned a lot. Obviously the spell keeps on giving but it's at its relatively most impactful on Tier 1 because that's where the competition is at its weakest. There are separate sections in many guides for the spell. This system is fundamentally about numbers and getting an extra set of actions is incredible; doubly so when it can die with little repercussions. It can even Help in combat if need be (Owl in particular shines at that due to Flyby) - and if enemy attacks it, it's generally just way worth it for you. The scouting ability is just insanely useful as well: 100' telepathy allows you to gain instantaneous information about any place within that range that's not at direct line of sight (with Mold Earth, you can use it while tunneling to check for good places to rise up at for instance).

Far as Sorc vs. Wizard goes, Sorcerer does indeed get one more cantrip, and has all the good ones (except Toll the Dead for some reason but that isn't so important on this level). But I'd 100% rather have a familiar than an extra cantrip. Wizard can already afford Minor Illusion/Mold Earth and then one more (Prestidigitation or Shape Water generally); the fact that Sorc gets both isn't going to expand their utility by as much as a familiar is going to expand a Wizard's. If Sorc got a familiar via. Ritual Caster, Wizard could get way more in terms of cantrips from Magic Initiate (Sorc could too of course, but in that case you have so many cantrips that you've probably picked all the good ones already) but of course you'd rather just take Alert/Lucky/Res:Con at this point (Res: Con mostly for HP if you have odd Con; this isn't the point where you make heavy use of Concentration spells yet as so many of the low level goodies happen to be Concentration-free).

Though Sorc going Ritual Caster is pretty good (Magic Initiate isn't quite as strong I'd argue; there's very real diminishing returns to cantrips after the first 5-6). Though I'd also argue the low level abilities of the Wizard specialties are broadly stronger than the Sorc ones (though Shadow and Divine Soul do get pretty sweet stuff as well - but generally more limited in scope than the Wizard equivalents) - Divination, Abjuration, War Wizardy/Chronoturgy, Bladesinging, Evocation, Enchantment all have great level 2 features (some schools have not-so-great ones too, of course). And getting to know 6 spells on level 1 is way better than knowing 2 - yeah, you have limited slots but having the option of using Shield if situation does demand it is pretty great for instance.