What's the deal with bards?

[notXanathar]

All the other classes seem to have a good justification for why they're in the game, but I can't really see any for the bard other than that they've been around for too long to scrap. Could you explain why you think bards are their own thing, and cannot be subsumed into another class?

[Mastikator]

Um what? They're the only class that derive their magic from music. If anything it's the barbarians who need to be subsumed into rangers, and paladins subsumed into clerics, and druids subsumed into clerics.

[Willie the Duck]

All the other classes seem to have a good justification for why they're in the game, but I can't really see any for the bard other than that they've been around for too long to scrap. Could you explain why you think bards are their own thing, and cannot be subsumed into another class?

Fundamentally, why any class exists is mostly a matter of game-history/inertia. Excepting hexblades being rolled up into warlock (and I guess the psionic specific classes becoming a bunch of different class archetypes), I can't think of a any example where things have been combined back down.

That said, I don't see that bards are moreso this than most any of the other classes. Druids could have become an archetype of cleric (for that matter, now that being a priest can be dictated by background, the cleric class could have been rolled up with any number of other spellcasters classes). Barbarians, rangers, and paladins as fighters. Monks as... well either fighters or a rogue subtype. Frankly, given the complaints about fighters not having enough to do outside of combat (and the skill system being relatively divorces from class) rogues and fighters could become one contiguous thing. Bards are an arbitrary subdivision among an entire game of arbitrary subdivisions.

[gijoemike]

The bard is the social butterfly and dabbler of a dozen arts one of which is magic.

You have born with Magic - sorc or warlock
You have deal to get magic - warlock
You have prays and serves to get magic - cleric
You have studies 1/2 their life to get magic - wizard.


Then you have the bard who has use magic device and a very limited understanding of magic. Instead uses all that extra time to learn something else.
So the concept of the bard doesn't come close to any other spell casting class.


From a game design perspective the bard is a force multiplier and is the only class that can do it. Cleric has some spells but are more limited that bards. And the whole spell song times per day is outside of spells. They are the only class that does mass group benefits right out of the gate.

[MoiMagnus]

If clerics were priestly characters (no armour, no weapons, scholars expected to have a lot of various knowledges and support powers), I'd say that bards could be merged with clerics. After all, sacred music is something common enough in fantasy, and all the intrigue and scheming that bards are usually associated with could be made reasonably compatible with the theme of clerics/priests, given that in medieval fantasy the religion tends to have a lot of political power.

But that's not what D&D clerics are. D&D clerics are sacred warriors (like Paladins).

The only critic I might have against bard is that there tend to be too much focus on them playing music, which always felt at odds with the usual image that I have of a group of adventurers. In term of aesthetics, I'd say that I prefer them as "roguish character with Charisma and magic instead of Dexterity and sneak attack" rather than "musicians that follows the PCs in the fight rather that remaining at the camp with the cook". But I'm aware that others like the idea of dealing with enemies with magical music.

[Anonymouswizard]

Bards combine a few archetypes that other classes don't. The magical musician and Jack of all trades are most well known, but primarily they're loremasters.

A bard is generally the character who knows the most. They know the theory and practice of magic, but not quite as deeply as a wizard. They have been trained in martial arts, but not to the same degree a Fighter has. And they have a better grounding in most skills than a rogue, with your standard 5e party layout making them the best scholar by default. Even if they don't focus on lore a Bard can probably dredge up some kind of basic information from his memory.

When the Fighter is carousing and the wizard is begging others for a look at their spellbooks the Bard is using their silver tongue to convince people to tell them their legends, the local herbal remedies, what books are in the lord's library, or how to do that cool sword move.

In the current edition the only class that rivals them as learned individuals is the AiME Scholar.

[notXanathar]

If the bard dabbles in so many arts, why is their spell casting on a par with a wizards, when a wizard has to study for their entire life to get their magic? Look at the artificer, which should be comparable.
Alternatively, how is the bard tied to music, and how is that on a par with any other class in terms of level of well definèdness? Surely any other class could be reflavoured to use music in their spellcasting.
I get the argument about druid distinctiveness, and while I want to make some argument in their favour it would take some time to find a satisfactory one. On the other hand, I don't pretend to apply the same standards as rigorously to martial as spellcasters.

[VoxRationis]

One of the issues I think bards have is that they have, from early days, had both spellcasting and musical inspiration abilities, but, starting with third edition, have had lore that has increasingly merged those concepts without concurrent change in the mechanics. WotC missed an opportunity with the new edition to create a bardic magic paradigm that combined bardic inspiration and magic use (like Pillars of Eternity's chanters did). Now bards are mostly primary spellcasters with a handful of bonus dice they can give to members of the party to help things at the margins.

[Anonymouswizard]

If the bard dabbles in so many arts, why is their spell casting on a par with a wizards, when a wizard has to study for their entire life to get their magic? Look at the artificer, which should be comparable.

5e's designers decided that Bards needed more focus (which was true) and decided that focus should be spellcasting. For what it's worth the Wizard does get a broader range of spells, as well as the best access to Ritual Magic and subclasses which all improve their spellcasting abilities (which only some Bard subclassesdo).

Notably in 2e and 3.X Bards were half casters. For 3.X in low to mid-op games that was actually fine, but in high-op they wanted to take a Prestige Class to focus on one area.


As to Druids, there are legitimate arguments for a dedicated shapeshifter class and a dedicated 'nature shaman'* class. Sadly the Druid kind of sucks at being either.

* To separate them from the Cleric you'd focus them more on spirit stuff

[KorvinStarmast]

Um what? They're the only class that derive their magic from music. If anything it's the barbarians who need to be subsumed into rangers, and paladins subsumed into clerics, and druids subsumed into clerics.


All the other classes seem to have a good justification for why they're in the game, but I can't really see any for the bard other than that they've been around for too long to scrap. Could you explain why you think bards are their own thing, and cannot be subsumed into another class? I invite you to read the article in the Strategic Review, Volume 2, Number 1, February 1976, pages 11 and 12. Bards were introduced (as their own proposed class) and some people played them that way until the strange AD&D1e PHB version (the first Prestige class, as I see it) showed up.
They fit into the swords and sorcery / pulp / romances / legends / tropes that inspired the game in the first place. Their dark ages, ancient, and medieval origins were fused into one PC class proposal.


(From the above mentioned Strategic review article, excerpt, written by Doug Schwegman (Italics were in the original)


INTRODUCTION
. . . I believe it is a logical addition to the D & D scene and the one I have composed is a hodgepodge of at least three different kinds, the norse ‘skald’, the celtic ‘bard’, and the southern european ‘minstrel’. The skalds were often old warriors who were a kind of self appointed historian whose duty was to record the ancient battles, blood feuds, and deeds of exceptional prowess by setting them to verse much like the ancient Greek poets did. Tolkien, a great Nordic scholar, copied this style several times in the Lord of the Rings trilogy (for example Bilbo’s chant of Earendil the Mariner). The Celts, especially in Britain, had a much more
organized structure in which the post of Barbs as official historians fell somewhere between the Gwelfili or public recorders and the Druids who were the judges as well as spiritual leaders. In the Celtic system Bards were trained by the Druids for a period of almost twenty years before they assumed their duties, among which was to follow the heroes into battle to provide an accurate account of their deeds, as well as to act as trusted intermediaries to settle hostilities among opposing tribes. By far the most common conception of a Bard is as a minstrel who entertained
to courts of princes and kings in France, Italy and parts of Germany in the latter middle ages. Such a character was not as trust worthy as the Celtic or Nordic Bards and could be compared to a combination Thief-Illusionist. These characters were called Jongleurs by the French, from which the corrupt term juggler and court jester are remembered today . . .

I wanted to put the Bard into perspective so that his multitudinous abilities in Dungeons and Drageons can be explained. I have fashioned the character more after the Celtic and Norse types than anything else, thus he is a character who resembles a fighter more than anything else, but who knows something about the mysterious forces of magic and is well adept with his hands, etc.
A Bard is a jack-of-all-trades in Dungeons and Dragons, he is both an amateur thief and magic user as well as a good fighter. He is supposedly able to extract himself from delicate situations through the use of diplomacy, but since this does not always work he is given the innate ability to charm creatures. A Bard has the thieving abilities of a thief one half his level rounded off to the lower level,
thus a Bard 11th level would have the abilities of a 5th level thief. Elves, Dwarves, and Hobbits may be Bards but cannot progress beyond the 8th level (Minstrel). Elves receive an extra 5% on their charm and lore scores and receive all the extra benefits of an elven thief. Dwarves and Hobbits reveive only their additional thieving benefits. A Bard may use any weapon and for purposes of hit probability he advances in steps based on four levels like clerics. For purposes of saving throws they are treated like clerics as well.

[Pauly]

The Bard exists because it represents a literary/historical archetype that cannot adequately be expressed by the other classes - the traveling performer

People wanted to play this archetype and then the abilities were fitted for it to be a desirable PC class.
Some features that were wanted included.
- keeper and dispenser of old lore picked up through their training.
- wide knowledge of the world picked up through their travels.
- Ability to persuade, charm, distract and bamboozle others.
- To be surprisingly combat effective.

Historical and literary sources include Alan-a-Dale, Scaramouche, Viking Skalds, medieval troubadours, tribal storytellers and court jesters

[MoiMagnus]

The Bard exists because it represents a literary/historical archetype that cannot adequately be expressed by the other classes - the traveling performer

I disagree. "Travelling performer" is more of a background than a class (using 5e terminology), in the same way that there is no class for "travelling sailor". The class in D&D describe how you fight in close combat.

And the remaining of your description, while it doesn't have a specific class dedicated to it, would fall under the umbrella of high-Charisma Rogue (supported by subclasses like the Mastermind in 5e). Well, some things would be a little awkward, but that's mostly because since the Bard exists as a class there was no need to push the Rogue more toward that direction as a possibility.

And in practice, I've seen both Rogues and Wizards be chosen as classes to play exactly the archetype you describe, minus the "actually playing music".

[Note: I'm not saying that Bard shouldn't exists. I'm just criticising this specific argument.]

[Grod_The_Giant]

Honestly, you could make the same argument about most classes in d&d. Hell, why have classes at all? Or levels, or ability scores, or...

The thing is that while D&D might have been a genetic fantasy game once upon a time, the field has grown exponentially since it kicked things off in the 80s. At this point, D&D exists to be D&D, with all of its characteristic features and foibles. Bards are just one more part of the package.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Bard exists because it represents a literary/historical archetype that cannot adequately be expressed by the other classes - the traveling performer And adventurer. That's a key aspect of it, otherwise it's an NPC. There's a novel "All Things are Lights (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/123642.All_Things_Are_Lights)" that captures this a bit.

People wanted to play this archetype and then the abilities were fitted for it to be a desirable PC class.
Some features that were wanted included.
- keeper and dispenser of old lore picked up through their training.
- wide knowledge of the world picked up through their travels.
- Ability to persuade, charm, distract and bamboozle others.
- To be surprisingly combat effective.
That last bullet has been achieved in 5e, not sure about previous editions.

Historical and literary sources include Alan-a-Dale, Scaramouche, Viking Skalds, medieval troubadours, tribal storytellers and court jesters But if the court jester is not out adventuring, he's mostly an NPC. (FWIW).

The thing is that while D&D might have been a genetic fantasy game once upon a time, the field has grown exponentially since it kicked things off in the 80s. Generic fantasy? Actually, 1974, with that bard being introduced in 1976, as I noted above.
At this point, D&D exists to be D&D, with all of its characteristic features and foibles. Bards are just one more part of the package.Agree. Recursion has occurred. :smallsmile:

[Mastikator]

I disagree. "Travelling performer" is more of a background than a class (using 5e terminology), in the same way that there is no class for "travelling sailor". The class in D&D describe how you fight in close combat.

And the remaining of your description, while it doesn't have a specific class dedicated to it, would fall under the umbrella of high-Charisma Rogue (supported by subclasses like the Mastermind in 5e). Well, some things would be a little awkward, but that's mostly because since the Bard exists as a class there was no need to push the Rogue more toward that direction as a possibility.

And in practice, I've seen both Rogues and Wizards be chosen as classes to play exactly the archetype you describe, minus the "actually playing music".

[Note: I'm not saying that Bard shouldn't exists. I'm just criticising this specific argument.]

That can be said for all the classes. Soldier vs Fighter, Sage vs wizard, acolyte vs cleric, folk hero vs paladin, urchin vs rogue, outlander vs ranger, outlander vs barbarian, guild artisan vs artificer, and so on.

[Anonymouswizard]

Yeah, if you want generic fantasy there's many systems that'll do that better. Partially through using less restrictive character building, partially through having magic systems closer to fantasy book/film magic (generally point or fatigue based).

D&D is actually based around supporting a specific playstyle. 0e is based around going to a game, deciding which if your character's fits best with who turned up this week, and trying to get treasure out of the dungeon the DM had prepared. By 2e some of this was still there but there was an assumption of a consistent group instead of pick-up games. 3.X's main failings come from expecting this structure while groups moved more towards linear adventures, 4e was designed for linear combat guantlets and 5e was designed primarily for linear combat guantlets with simple puzzles.

In that early game style a flat percentage change to just climb that wall or charm that monster is very useful. As time went on their unique role became 'supply buffs' and the best access to mundane and magical social skills.

It's why Stars Without Number works, it exports that early D&D playstyle into a different setting, while Low Fantasy Gaming is an attempt to match that more sandbox style with improvements from later editions (features at each level, custom features to allow for more differentiation between characters of the same class, the Cultist using a different resource mechanism to the Magic-User).

[MoiMagnus]

That can be said for all the classes. Soldier vs Fighter, Sage vs wizard, acolyte vs cleric, folk hero vs paladin, urchin vs rogue, outlander vs ranger, outlander vs barbarian, guild artisan vs artificer, and so on.

And indeed, you don't need to Fighter class to adequately represent soldiers, you don't need the Wizard class to adequately represent sages, etc.

The argument of "some standard literary character are similar to a class in D&D, so this class is necessary to represent those characters" would also be a poor argument in favour of keeping the other classes like the Cleric.

[Anonymouswizard]

And indeed, you don't need to Fighter class to adequately represent soldiers, you don't need the Wizard class to adequately represent sages, etc.

The argument of "some standard literary character are similar to a class in D&D, so this class is necessary to represent those characters" would also be a poor argument in favour of keeping the other classes like the Cleric.

Classes are 90% skillset at their fluffiest. Because let's be honest, many players will play a Sorcerer as an academic spellcaster.

It's why I wish there was a dedicated shapeshifter class.

[LibraryOgre]

As always, what edition are you talking about?

1e bards, as weird as they are (one of the first prestige classes, really), come from the idea that there were 3 kinds of druids... Bards, Ovates (often diviners), and Druids.

2e bards were the jack of all trades. They initially didn't learn music magic, they just picked up wizard magic and a few other skills. They had some fighting ability, some thieving ability, and a grab-bag of skills. They were also one of the few classes to really integrate NWPs, and one of the few to have arguably non-magical skills that influenced role-playing. Some later supplements pushed bards more into the "magicial musician" thing; Complete Bards gave some of them magical music... but others got rid of music altogether, and some didn't have magic. Birthright gave them special magics that avoided the usual "divination and illusion" restriction, and S&M gave them some options to use or learn song magic.

3e bards started the "magical music" thing in earnest (though 1e had some aspects of this, with charming music). Subsequent bards have built off this idea... Bards have their own magic, neither wizardly or druidic in nature.

Depending on the edition, Bards can fill a lot of different. A 1e bard could fill a lot of spaces, once they got going. A 2e bard was 2nd best at everything, but that still made them useful, especially in very small or very large parties. The 3e bard was also a jack of all trades, but with their own set of magic.

[tomandtish]

As always, what edition are you talking about?

1e bards, as weird as they are (one of the first prestige classes, really), come from the idea that there were 3 kinds of druids... Bards, Ovates (often diviners), and Druids.



Not to mention that 1e bards were difficult to become. Back in 1e you had multiclass for demi/non-humans and dual class for humans. To be a bard you had to start as a fighter, earn 5-7 levels, then start taking levels as a thief. You had to earn 6-8 levels as a thief (one higher than fighter) and couldn't use any fighter abilities while you did so. You then started taking levels as a bard, where you could use all your fighter/thief abilities as well as bard ones (and bards cast druid spells back then). You also had to have 15+ STR, WIS, CHA, 17+ DEX, 12+ INT and 10+CON. I only ever knew 2 people who intentionally set out to become a bard at level 1.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It's why I wish there was a dedicated shapeshifter class.
I hear there's a fun one in Grod's Guide to Greatness :smallwink:.

[Mordar]

Literary references. Historical references. And Ffllewddur Fflam.

- M

[notXanathar]

Mŷ point is, in any case, that there are certain standards of well definèdness that pretty much any other full caster achieves that the bard does not. That standard (for me) is that the character ought to have a fundamentally distinct, narrative relationship to their magic.
The wizard studies to get their magic. They might go on quests to discover new spells, or find better teachers, they might hoard magical books or share their knowledge with the world.
The sorcerer inherits their magic. Their quests might involve discovering more about their ancestry, or dealing with its' implications. They might see themselves as undeserving, as noble inheritor of a great birthright, or be reckless with their inborn gift.
The warlock gets their magic by making a dark bargain with a strange entity. They might go on errands set by their patron, or try to find ways to get out of doing so. They might regret their decision, or have got something they'd never wanted in the first place, or they might think that eldritch blast really is that cool.
The cleric gets their magic through their faith in a god. Where a warlock has a personal relationship with their deity, a clerics deity tends ti the impersonal. They might go on quests to retrieve holy relics, crusades to conquer sacred lands, build great temples. They might proselytise, taking each opportunity to demonstrate their gods power, or have quiet faith in their gods aid. They might shun other gods, or embrace pantheism. At the extreme end of weird you might have a cleric who worshipped at the altar of progress, whose crosier the wrench, and whose cathedral the train station.
I will admit that the druids case is relatively weak under this model, but bards are weaker. I genuinely can't think of any story that could be told of a bard that couldn't be told as is with a wizard rogue multiclass, keeping the fundamental narrative elements of both.

[LibraryOgre]

I will admit that the druids case is relatively weak under this model, but bards are weaker. I genuinely can't think of any story that could be told of a bard that couldn't be told as is with a wizard rogue multiclass, keeping the fundamental narrative elements of both.

First of all, as noted, this is a very specific style of bard. It doesn't make sense for the 1e or 2e bard, or arguably 4e bard. And, of course, in 2e druids were often priests, and were specifically described as such... in many worlds 'druid' was a specialty priest of a nature deity.

Bards, really, study a primal magic that relies on the harmonies of the universe. If wizard magic is the math of the universe, bardic music is the pentatonic scale described by that math... the song that created the world, and the song that will tear the world apart.

Bardic magic, like wizard magic, stands outside the realm of the Gods. Bardic music is the language that the universe spoke to create itself. It is the weaving of sentience itself. As the 5e PH put it


In the worlds of D&D, words and music are not just vibrations of air, but vocalizations with power ali their own. The bard is a master of song, speech, and the magic they contain. Bards say that the multiverse was spoken into existence, that the words of the gods gave it shape, and that echoes of these primordial Words of Creation still resound throughout the cosmos. The music of bards is an attempt to snatch and harness those echoes, subtly woven into their spells and powers.

Sure, there are lots of stories where you could replace the bard with a wizard/rogue; my first 2e character was, in fact, someone who WILDLY did not qualify for Bard, but was a mage/thief who played the fiddle. But a bard's story can be about understanding the old and the creation of the new. Wizards learn magic; sorcerers come from magic. Bards ARE magic.

[Abracadangit]

Mŷ point is, in any case, that there are certain standards of well definèdness that pretty much any other full caster achieves that the bard does not. That standard (for me) is that the character ought to have a fundamentally distinct, narrative relationship to their magic.
The wizard studies to get their magic. They might go on quests to discover new spells, or find better teachers, they might hoard magical books or share their knowledge with the world.
The sorcerer inherits their magic. Their quests might involve discovering more about their ancestry, or dealing with its' implications. They might see themselves as undeserving, as noble inheritor of a great birthright, or be reckless with their inborn gift.
The warlock gets their magic by making a dark bargain with a strange entity. They might go on errands set by their patron, or try to find ways to get out of doing so. They might regret their decision, or have got something they'd never wanted in the first place, or they might think that eldritch blast really is that cool.
The cleric gets their magic through their faith in a god. Where a warlock has a personal relationship with their deity, a clerics deity tends ti the impersonal. They might go on quests to retrieve holy relics, crusades to conquer sacred lands, build great temples. They might proselytise, taking each opportunity to demonstrate their gods power, or have quiet faith in their gods aid. They might shun other gods, or embrace pantheism. At the extreme end of weird you might have a cleric who worshipped at the altar of progress, whose crosier the wrench, and whose cathedral the train station.
I will admit that the druids case is relatively weak under this model, but bards are weaker. I genuinely can't think of any story that could be told of a bard that couldn't be told as is with a wizard rogue multiclass, keeping the fundamental narrative elements of both.

The druid gets their magic from a nature-based form of mystical animism, where any and all plants, animals, features of terrain, and meterological phenomena house a will and a consciousness that can be reasoned with, convinced, or commanded. Their quests might involve locating and neutralizing threats to entire biomes, like a plague poisoning a forest or some foreign sea monster polluting a coastline, or they might involve a pilgrimage to visit ancient trees/mountains/rivers around the realm to hear their wisdom. They might view themselves as benevolent shamans, tasked with resolving disputes and negotiating accords between humanoid settlements and the spirits that surround them, or they might view themselves as reclusive mystics, who only live in the wild and see other humanoids as self-important and obnoxious compared to the quiet, uncaring solitude of nature.

Okay, headcanonizing a little bit now:

The bard gets their magic from the ambient power dwelling inside a performance, whether that's a song, an oration, a joke, a story, or some other display intended to entertain or entrance. (I know this doesn't square with the Words of Creation thing from the PHB, but bear with me.) Their quests might involve traveling the land looking for new material, new musical/performative styles to adapt or mix into their own repertoire, or merely new friends and experiences to enrich their artistic spirit. They might see themselves as fantasy-world rockstars, regaling taverns with their greatest hits, or they might see themselves as highbrow artists, composing concertos or poetry that challenges tyrants or emboldens a nation.

If you're willing to ignore the in-game lore for bards and kind of spin them into your own thing, you can carve out a niche for them that doesn't feel like it's veering into the wizards' lane. The Words of Creation thing is cool, but then it sounds kind of like a subset/cousin of wizard magic, right. The way I see it, wizard magic is scholarly and academic, written in spellbooks with lots of fancy syntax and long-winded footnotes and arcane formulae, etc, etc. But bardic magic is different -- since it's the magic of a performance, you can't write it in a book. You could write down the musical notation or the words like you might for a mundane song or play, but then if you showed it to a bard and said "Here, learn this new song to make illusions," they'd shrug and say "I can play the notes, but if I don't hear the person play it, I can't reproduce the spell." Performance is the name of the bardic game, with lots of oral traditions, and songs/routines being traded around festivals, or over gambling games at night.

Granted, you could counter me by saying "Well the subclasses/lore in D&D don't really tell that story," and you'd be exactly right. I wish they leaned into that more with the bard subs -- where's my College of Fools for magic jesters, College of Echoes for thunder-damage-spewing metalheads, or College of Tales for storytellers. I know, I know, I can refluff, but still.

In short -- I think there's enough tropey material floating around in the collective RPG consciousness to justify a spot for bards, but D&D as is doesn't hit those notes terribly hard.

[Stonehead]

In addition to the traveling minstrel being an iconic enough character to justify a class, mechanically, Bards are consistently different enough to justify being their own class. Back in 3.5/PF1, "I give a passive bonus to all allies while performing", couldn't be done in a way that feels like playing music with other classes. There also isn't another class that suits the suave face character very well. Rogues are close, but with no Charisma scaling, it doesn't feel as satisfying to put it as your highest attribute.

As support focused characters with Charisma scaling, you could try to bundle bards in with clerics, but you could also bundle barbarians in with fighters or rangers. The two are distinct enough though to justify a full class.

Also, I think the core classes are primarily there to spark creativity in newer players. Long time veterans will have crazy ideas, and search through feats and subclasses to find a way to make it work, but first-time players will look at the basic options, and form an idea around that. That's probably the strongest justification of all. Bards embody a whole host of tropes that spark ideas in new players, unique from the ideas of other classes.

[Anonymouswizard]

Another reason is, honestly, that D&D is not crafted so that everything Makes Sense from either s rules or setting perspective. Because of this the designers just aren't getting rid of anything without outside pressure (especially after 4e, which was carefully crafted but didn't get enough bug testing).

Honestly games where the setting and ruleset match 100% are very rare, and games with no quirks in their ruleset almost as rare. They're just very hard to make, so unless it's you're primary goal you're likely to sacrifice it to fit your chosen goals. One of 5e's design goals was 'do whatever the fans want', which lead to weirdness like some classes having as broad a design space as some subclasses.

[Tanarii]

Bards are inspired by Viking Skalds and Celtic Loremasters/Diplomats.

Or at least they were. Somewhere along the line (aka 2e) they became a troubadour bard, that comes along so the party has their own personal cheerleader and ambient music and soundtrack, sitting it the back making music for some small mechanical bonuses, occasionally tossing off some magic.

That said, while 5e PHB still leans heavy on the troubadour bard lore, at least the two subclasses were Loremaster (Lore) and Skald (Valor). So they clearly were aware of the inspirations and got that right.

[LibraryOgre]

Or at least they were. Somewhere along the line (aka 2e) they became a troubadour bard, that comes along so the party has their own personal cheerleader and ambient music and soundtrack, sitting it the back making music for some small mechanical bonuses, occasionally tossing off some magic.


I disagree with this interpretation of the 2e bard. I played TONS of them, and their inspiring music almost never came up, nor did their countersong; arguably, the 1e bard was MORE of a cheerleader, since they could begin their song in combat, continue it throughout the combat, and gave both a hit and morale bonus, whereas the 2e bard gives one of three.

2e bards were moderate combatants; not as good as fighters, but fairly comparable with clerics (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xGLyIDa5lXHw7NW3B36JmOZlrpcEetkULXMgVY6k5e4/edit?usp=sharing) for a given XP value, with superior weapons choices roughly balancing out superior armor choices. Their ability to cast mage spells could conflict with their armor choice, but specializing in certain spells (i.e. noncombat) could give them a good niche. Your wizard memorized Magic Missile; your bard memorized Alarm. Or, a bard might learn the Armor spell, and have almost as good of AC as they could wear, with an indefinite duration. If you gave one of your two WP over to a good ranged weapon, you could be a functional archer, limiting your relative weakness of armor, but still providing useful support in combat... and if you got in close combat, you could have a good melee weapon, too (no shield meant 2 handed weapon; halberd or two-handed sword).

And their loremaster abilities? Unparalleled. Combine both their own knowledge (5% per level to ID magic items was nothing to sneeze at) and ability to alter encounter reactions meant that they were great at acquiring information from other people if they didn't know it themselves... and it wraps back around to spell choices. PLUS they get Read Languages from the drop, and can hit 100% (i.e. can read all languages) at about level 6 (while the thief specifies a 95% cap, the bard does not, and the ranger will surpass 95%, as can thieves using the "average ability table" from the DMG).

As mentioned above, the countersong and inspiration abilities were kinda weak. But the countersong pretty much never came up (there's a lot less sound-attacking monsters than undead), and the inspiration was just useless unless you had a set-piece battle and a really good feel for when combat was going to start (because the time was so limited).

The Baldur's Gate bard really pushed the "cheerleader" aspect, and it got more pronounced in Icewind Dale (with the improved bard songs), and further emphasized in 3e, where their spell list favored buffs, and their bardic music was more combat-friendly. But the 2e bard, either in PH or Complete Bard, was not simply a musical cheerleader with some magic ability.

I did a post a long time ago (on another message board) comparing a 2e bard to a 1e elven FMT (1e because it allowed FMT to cast spells in any armor, though the lower level limits caused it some problems in comparison; higher level limits in 2e mean that elves keep the advantage in number of attacks, due to the ability to hit 12th level, but lose the armor advantage, since they can't wear AND cast spells). It's lengthy, so it's behind a spoiler, but the TL;DR is that the bard was ahead in number and level of spells, HP, ThAC0, # of weapon proficiencies, and saving throws, with arguable advantage in thieving skills (less variety, better average.

Ok, home and not feeling sick, so let's look at numbers again, with a few modifications.

First, I am going to assume two different attribute spreads. The first is 18 + racial modifiers. The second is 15, 13, 12, 9, 10, 9, arranged to taste. I am also going to play with races a little bit... human v. half elf on the bard, but only elf on the FMT; I was originally going to include half-elves, but they really are inferior to elves, having only slight advantages in the case of straight 18s (those advantages being 1HP per level and a slightly better maximum strength; +2/+4 v. +2/+3 for the elf; assumed XP means their better Fighter level doesn't matter, and that's outweighed by the elf's much better MU level). I am going to assume any mundane equipment, but no magical equipment. Only sources are the PH and DMG of respective editions, with 1e's Deities and Demigods being consulted for Thief Skill adjustments for a 19 Dexterity.

2e Bard
The 2e bard can be either human or half-elf with only minimal change in statistics (the half-elf will be slightly more adept at picking pockets, in addition to the standard half-elf abilities). Because of the minimum requirements for a Bard, the stats must be 12 Dex, 13 Int, and 15 Charisma, with the 9s and the 10 distributed however; it makes little appreciable difference.

2.200.000 xp you have a 20th level bard
Equipment: No armor, no shield any weapon.
Spells: 4/4/4/4/4/3
Average hit points: 75 with an 18 constitution, 55 with a 9 or 10.
Thac0: 11 (10 if an 18 Strength; 9 with a bow or crossbow with an 18 Dexterity)
Weapon Proficiencies: 7
att: 1/1 per round
saves: 9/6/8/12/7; 42 total
Thief Skills: 390 points distributed across 4 abilities; add +10 for being either a half-elf or having an 18 Dexterity, and another 15 for having no armor on. For every thief skill possessed, then, at level 20 they will all average to 100% or more. All skills can be used.

1e F/MU/T
This character is a bit more complex. Attribute spreads become critical to strength, because of level limits.

2.200.000 xp
*Elf with Straight 18s: F7/MU11/T13.
*Elf with arranged stats: F5/MU9/T13. The main change here is fighter level; without the 18 strength, the elf cannot reach 7th level. From a pure numbers standpoint, it is most advantageous to this character to put his highest stat in Dexterity; that will ensure a 10% experience gain in the thief class, and increases to thieving skills, to-hit with missile weapons, and AC. Intelligence would be a second consideration, for the increased spell learning capabilities, but the advantages of Dex really outweigh it. I will be assuming that the 15 has been placed in Dexterity, and the elf +1 added after that.

Equipment: Full Plate Armor, Shield, any weapon
Spells: 4/4/4/3/3
Average hit points: 71.5 HP if you assume straight 18s; 34.83 if you do not. Average Fighter HP is 5.5/3, or about 1.83_. MU HP is 1 per level (assuming a minimum of 1). Thief HP is 3.5/3, or 1.16_. For the straight 18s, I assumed that they did receive full fighter Con Bonus HP on all 11 MU HD.
Thac0: 14; 13 if using an "elf weapon". If you assume straight 18s, it becomes there's a 50% chance you have a 11 with an elf weapon; otherwise, it's a 12. If we are talking ranged attacks, ThAC0 is 13, 12 with an elf weapon, or 11/10 with straight 18s.
Weapon Proficiencies: 5, 6 with straight 18s.
Att: 1/1 with an arranged attribute spread; 3/2 with with straight 18s.
Saves: 10/9/7/11/8; 45 total
Thief Skills: The "array" elf has 680.3 thief points spread across 8 skills, for an average of 85.0375 per skill. The straight 18 elf has 744.3 points, giving an average of 93.0375 per skill. If we factor in skill modifications from the 2e Complete Thieves' Handbook for wearing Plate Armor, the array elf has a mere 70 points across his 8 skills, while the straight 18 has 134.3.

When we look at this, I think the advantage lies with the bard.

*Equipment: Elf. His AC is phenomenal compared to the Bard.
*Spells: Bard. He not only has an additional spell level above the elf, he has 9 caster levels. The bard can start making minor magical items (wands and other charged items); with Globe of Invulnerability, he can actually ignore all but one spell the elf is capable of casting.
*Average hit points: Bard.
*Thac0: Bard, clear and decisive. The straight 18 elf can equal the "array" bard, but cannot surpass him, except with a ranged elf weapon (i.e. a bow). The straight 18 elf will do more damage, naturally, but the array elf will suffer horribly compared to an array bard.
*Weapon Proficiencies: Bard, again clearly.
*Att: Elf, but only in the case of someone with an 18 strength. Otherwise, they're even.
*Saves: Bard. Though the elf is better in 2 saves, the bard is 3 points lower in total
*Thief Skills: Elf, though that's something of a judgment call. The Bard has clearly better averages... 8% better, even when you compare a human array bard to a straight 18 elf without armor penalties. The elf, however, has a much wider array of skills.

The elf has the advantage in 3 of the 8 categories, but two of those advantages are slight or circumstantial... a slight advantage in number of attacks per round IF you have an 18 strength, and an advantage in thief skills IF you abandon most of the advantage of equipment (going from a 6-12 point advantage in AC to a 1-7 point advantage), and consider variety more important than competence. The advantage is, IMO, pretty clearly with the bard.

Bards get a bad rep. 2e bards are frequently maligned, but, IMO, they are maligned unfairly as "musical cheerleaders"... they're a competent character class at all levels, though not the best at everything. And this doesn't even touch on the Complete Bard and their kits.

[Vahnavoi]

The deal with bards changes with each edition, but I've never found any version particularly compelling.

If music is magic, then it's domain of magic-users and clerics. Normal music, on the other hand, can and should be able to be done by everybody. Partitioning socializing to a single class is an even sillier thought - every class has its own social element they should interact with.

Mechanically, a jack-of-all-trades character class is redundant if multi-classing is allowed - if it's NOT, then the prime reason it's NOT is so that no single character can do everything, which a jack-of-all-trades class undermines.

So I don't have bards. A warrior-poet is a fighter who does poetry. A sage invoking powers of nature through music is a magic-user. Someone who records history of the people as part of a priestly caste is a cleric. A scoundrel who travels from place to place seeking fortune and wooing the pants off of ladies and gentlemen is a thief specialist. The end.

[Jophiel]

Art as a source for magic seems as basic as nature as a source. Mankind has always attributed some sort of magical power to art, going back to ritualistic songs and dances, carvings and paintings. Classic mythology gives us the Muses and Orpheus. The word "incantation" comes from the root for singing and the word "spell" derives from proto-Germanic "to tell a tale". It seems fully natural to me that D&D would include a class that taps into the magical power of art & emotion, just as it would tap into nature or a divine pantheon or science/alchemy.

Warlock feels the weakest to me. Warlock isn't a source of magic, it's just a means to an end in getting the magic. A wizard who studies forbidden eldritch texts and makes a pact to unlock their writhing scribbles, a cleric who takes another divine being's offer of faster power (or who takes the tutelage of their own deity's agent), a sorcerer who agrees to marry a fae prince in fifty years in exchange for magic in their veins, a bard with an ancient sentient instrument that teaches her its lore and secrets, etc. Warlock should just be a background, not a class.

[Vahnavoi]

Warlock is outright conceptually redundant with classic takes on magic-users and clerics. Same is true of the sorcerer. Having them as base classes is result of WotCs unwillingness to say "here's an alternate magic system for magic-users and clerics you may opt for".

[KorvinStarmast]

Bards, really, study a primal magic that relies on the harmonies of the universe. If wizard magic is the math of the universe, bardic music is the pentatonic scale described by that math... the song that created the world, and the song that will tear the world apart. Tolkien wasn't the only one who used this kind of basis; Finnish tales have songs and magic fused, Thomas of Covenant '{Stephen R Donaldson} had some music/magic fusion (the gravelingas among others) and there's more in other fantasy works, legends, and myths.

Bards ARE magic. My Lore Bard agrees, but she would, wouldn't she? :smallbiggrin:

[Tanarii]

I disagree with this interpretation of the 2e bard. I played TONS of them, and their inspiring music almost never came up, nor did their countersong; arguably, the 1e bard was MORE of a cheerleader, since they could begin their song in combat, continue it throughout the combat, and gave both a hit and morale bonus, whereas the 2e bard gives one of three.
Okay. It's entirely possible I'm thinking of the 3e Bard, and not the 2e Bard.

Which one was early-strip Elan modeled on? :smallamused:

[LibraryOgre]

Okay. It's entirely possible I'm thinking of the 3e Bard, and not the 2e Bard.

Which one was early-strip Elan modeled on? :smallamused:

Like, the first strip, they upgrade to 3.5.

[Anonymouswizard]

Warlock is outright conceptually redundant with classic takes on magic-users and clerics. Same is true of the sorcerer. Having them as base classes is result of WotCs unwillingness to say "here's an alternate magic system for magic-users and clerics you may opt for".

You cut D&D down to four classes if you want to: fighting dude, full caster, half caster, and skills guy. Because I own games that do this, generally with alternate resource mechanisms.

But then again WotC set up the PHBbthey way it is to try to bank on nostalgia. The only reason a class appears in it is because it appeared in a previous PhB.

As a side note, you don't actually need Wizards and Clerics to be different classes, just a way to stop one caster cherry picking all the useful/powerful spells.

[LibraryOgre]

As a side note, you don't actually need Wizards and Clerics to be different classes, just a way to stop one caster cherry picking all the useful/powerful spells.

I vastly prefer removing clerics as a class, TBH.

[Brother Oni]

You cut D&D down to four classes if you want to: fighting dude, full caster, half caster, and skills guy. Because I own games that do this, generally with alternate resource mechanisms.

Red Box D&D had Fighter, Magic User, Cleric, Thief, Dwarf, Elf and Halfling as classes.

Druid was a flavour only option for Neutral Clerics.

[Vahnavoi]

As a note on bringing up singing as form of spellcasting from Tolkien or Kalevala, the joke is that those were already used as inspiration for a class - namely, the magic-user. That's where verbal and somatic components come from. The idea that you need a separate class for doing magic through poetry, singing, dancing etc. misses that this is already something a magic-user is supposed to do. The archetypical "bard" from Kalevala, Väinämöinen, is also the archetypical sage-slash-wizard, because there wasn't a real distiction between those.

I'm neutral to having magic-user and cleric as separate classes. The split is best justified when there's a distinction between sources of magic, such as profane versus divine magic, or when there's a strong social stigma against one type of magic over others, such as black versus white. If all magic in a setting flows from a single source, then they are best collapsed into one class. The important thing here is that whichever way you cut it, there's no room for warlocks as a distinct concept - either making pacts with otherworldly powers is universal to all magic, or making pacts with profane powers versus divine powers is what sets magic-users apart from clerics, or, if you want to stretch, what sets evil magic-users apart from good magic-users.

[KorvinStarmast]

The important thing here is that whichever way you cut it, there's no room for warlocks as a distinct concept - either making pacts with otherworldly powers is universal to all magic, or making pacts with profane powers versus divine powers is what sets magic-users apart from clerics, or, if you want to stretch, what sets evil magic-users apart from good magic-users.
Or, you make warlocks the only arcane caster (which has a distinct Lovecraftian feel if I try to do this in D&D 5e). Nobody gets to do magic unless they have someone from "out there" who unlocks it for them.
(there is a lot of fiction along those lines, to include Elric)

[tenshiakodo]

{scrubbed}

[Anonymouswizard]

I'd honestly play in a 5e game where Warlocks were the only casters, possibly even basing your casting stat on your patron. It helps make magic feel like something 'not of mortals'.

A theoretical 'divine powers' system for ascended PCs would probably build on this by giving level 6+ Pact Magic slots, with top tier deities potentially having tens to hundreds of level 9 slots. But at that point we're getting into 'turning D&D into Nobilis', which is cool but getting away from what D&D is about. You'd also need to throw together some powers for physical PCs, there's not really any spells for 'throw mountains' or using your fast hands to steal poetically.

[tenshiakodo]

When I bought my 2e PHB, there were these little blue boxes of text that talked about historical and fictional inspirations for the classes.

The Fighter, for example, said "The fighter is a warrior, an expert in weapons, and if he is clever, tactics and strategy. There are many famous fighters from legend: Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John, Tristan, and Sinbad. History is crowded with great generals and warriors: El Cid, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart, and Belisarius. Your fighter could be modeled after any of these, or he could be unique. A visit to your local library can uncover many heroic fighters."

What has struck me over the years is how poorly the fighter class (and physical classes in general) reflect the abilities of these sorts of heroes. In fact, a lot of players are outspoken about their desire to have fighting men (and women and others) be more like John McClane, a hapless normal cop who, when put in an extraordinary circumstance, somehow scales up to any threat, despite not having peak human attributes.

[RedMage125]

On topic:
I prefer a model where the mechanics of the class are subordinate to the narrative.

So in my world, there are Bards who train as "minstrels". Some of them train as "jack of all trades". There are Bards who learn the "Echoes Of Creation" from fey.

But there's also some who are just sort of "gish". In my world, the in game term for those who blend martial skill with magic is "Swordmage". 3 different graduates from the same academy that trains Swordmages might be different classes (an Eldritch Knight Fighter, a Bladesinger Wizard, and a Valor/Swords Bard, for example). Their individual classes represent that individual's speciality and focus, rather than them being beholden to the concept of just being one class or the other.


That can be said for all the classes. Soldier vs Fighter, Sage vs wizard, acolyte vs cleric, folk hero vs paladin, urchin vs rogue, outlander vs ranger, outlander vs barbarian, guild artisan vs artificer, and so on.
I quite agree, and it's one reason I love to break tropes with characters.

An Assassin Rogue with the Soldier background, for example. His skill set comes from being "reconnaissance" for an army, finding and disarming traps, and also being part of an "infiltration" unit. My DM was cool with me trading Theives Cant for another language, since my character was not a criminal at all.

A monk with the Criminal background. He was a scoundrel in his youth, fled from that life to a monastery, where he gained his skills. But he still has some talents and contacts from his old life.

My current character is a Sorlock with the Acolyte background. His history as an acolyte of Mystra is what led to him being granted the Divine Soul abilities, and his Hexblade powers are a result of his first mission in that respect.



Warlock feels the weakest to me. Warlock isn't a source of magic, it's just a means to an end in getting the magic. A wizard who studies forbidden eldritch texts and makes a pact to unlock their writhing scribbles, a cleric who takes another divine being's offer of faster power (or who takes the tutelage of their own deity's agent), a sorcerer who agrees to marry a fae prince in fifty years in exchange for magic in their veins, a bard with an ancient sentient instrument that teaches her its lore and secrets, etc. Warlock should just be a background, not a class.


Warlock is outright conceptually redundant with classic takes on magic-users and clerics. Same is true of the sorcerer. Having them as base classes is result of WotCs unwillingness to say "here's an alternate magic system for magic-users and clerics you may opt for".


The important thing here is that whichever way you cut it, there's no room for warlocks as a distinct concept - either making pacts with otherworldly powers is universal to all magic, or making pacts with profane powers versus divine powers is what sets magic-users apart from clerics, or, if you want to stretch, what sets evil magic-users apart from good magic-users.

I disagree with both of you, here. And I have something I'm copy/pasting from an older "Magical Theory" thread to highlight my point.

As far as Magical Theory, one of the things I use is that Bard magic is different from Sorcerer or Warlock magic drastically. Bards tap into the Echoes Of Creation, the lingering effects of the sounds of the world, and magic itself, being formed. Some Bards claim it was "sung" into existence, others perceive these echoes as the tones that the creation created, like the high-pitched ping of a drop of water striking a pond in a cave. At any rate, it is these echoes that Bards learn to tap in to, attune to, and replicate to a degree. The Seeker of the Song Prestige class in 3.5e was a great example of this, as they learn to more precisely replicate the actual forces and energies of that creation, instead of using those echoes to create distinct spell effects. These echoes are still dependent on "the Weave" (as Forgotten Realms terms it, in any other setting this would just be the flow of magic throughout the multiverse) in order to bring the effect into existence.

Other arcane casters also tap into the Weave. The best explanation for HOW they do it is to compare it to kids in school taking a test. Let's use a math test for the analogy. Wizards are the kids that studied the material and know to get the right answer by following the correct steps. They can show their work and explain the process. Sorcerers just "know" the answers. They just "get it". They go by some instinct, natural knack for the material, and they can get the exact same answers as wizards, but cannot show their work, even for incredibly complex equations. Warlocks...they cheat. They made a shady deal in a back alley, and someone gave them the answers to the test. Or they're schtupping the instructor. Or both. They have the answers (spells), some of the answers anyway. But they have no idea if/how/why they're right.

Divine Magic uses the Weave to work, but the source for the knowledge of it, to include the proper incantations/hand movements, comes from an external source. For Clerics, this is easy. They either get it from an actual divine being of intelligence (a deity), or from the collective unconscious of all those who share similar beliefs (for deity-less Clerics, and the Clerics of quasi-agnostic settings like Eberron). Druids sometimes worship Nature Deities, and for them, their magic works like Clerics' does. Most druids, however, revere Nature as a force in and of itself. The same principle of the Collective Unconscious grants them the knowledge of their magic, too. This comes from other Druids, Fey, Primal Spirits, and even knowledge stored in the very bones of the earth, latent and waiting to be tapped. Rangers tap into this in the exact same manner.

Paladins also tap into the Collective Unconscious of Belief, for the actual knowledge of their spells, but the various editions of D&D have changed what a Paladin even is so much that it requires an edition-by-edition breakdown. Pre-3e paladins: Get their powers, to include their spells, from a devotion to righteousness. As we know that Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are observable, quantifiable, dispassionate cosmic forces in D&D, it is through alignment with the forces of Law and Good that the paladin receives her powers. The immunities, auras, and lay-on-hands powers are no different than the spells in that regard. If they ever strayed from alignment with the forces of Law and Good, to include even one act of intentionally committed evil, they lost the communion with those forces that granted them the powers. 3.x Paladins actually worked the same way, but COULD also get their powers and spells from a deity, much like a cleric. It is a common misconception that 3e Paladins got their powers from gods, I blame the 3.0 supplement Defenders of the Faith. 4e Paladins got their powers from the rituals that invested them as Paladins, same way Clerics worked in 4e. 5e Paladins, now that's a clincher, as they SEEM to be more in common with their pre-4e ancestors, but with no alignment restriction. From all appearances, it would seem that their Devotion to their Oath is what grants them their power. And the knowledge of spells likewise comes from a connection to that ephemeral Collective Unconscious shared by those with the same beliefs.

The Collective Unconscious Of Shared Belief is, by the way, why divine spellcasters of the same class all have the same spell lists. It's kind of based in Jungian principles and theories, but it perfectly explains how a Cleric can choose from ANY Cleric spell EVER when choosing his daily spell allotment.

That's the gist of it. Because of the transactional nature of their magic, they're distinct from both wizards and sorcerers. And it makes sense that they get different class mechanics for that.

[tenshiakodo]

I remember an article from Shadis, I think it was, or maybe KotDT, talking about how 3e Bards were weird, because they used Charisma to cast. The line that stuck with me was, "what, are they Sorcerers who couldn't cut the mustard, or are they channeling power from the Led Zeppelin Material Plane?"

Personally, I liked the old school Bard's Tale games (and the related Wizardry series) where Bards just knew magic songs they could sing to create effects, no spellcasting required- though your throat might get parched!

[Batcathat]

Personally, I liked the old school Bard's Tale games (and the related Wizardry series) where Bards just knew magic songs they could sing to create effects, no spellcasting required- though your throat might get parched!

Speaking of magic music in old school video games, I remember really liking the magic system in Loom, where you learn more and more notes that you can combine into different spells (and playing the song in reverse creates the opposite effect, which I thought was kinda clever). It doesn't develop it very far (if Loom has a fault, it's that it's really short) but I found it more interesting than most similar concepts.

On a unrelated note, am I the only one who keeps hearing the thread title in Jerry Seinfeld's voice?

[tenshiakodo]

Hehe, "Like what's the DEAAAAAL with Bards? Am I right?"

And yeah, Loom and some of the Zelda games touch on music having mystical powers in it's own right. Ed Greenwood used to talk about spellsingers and spelldancers being some of the earliest examples of magic wielders in the Realms.

I always wanted this aspect of Bards to be expanded on, making them full casters using magic song instead of dabblers. Then we got the Sublime Chord, and I was ecstatic.

But now that Bards are full casters in 5e, I feel like, paradoxically, some of the magic is gone- they are back to being dabblers, just REALLY GOOD dabblers.

[Stonehead]

Partitioning socializing to a single class is an even sillier thought - every class has its own social element they should interact with.

I don't think it's any sillier than partitioning "fighting" to a single class, and yet the Fighter is a staple. Bards aren't the only one's allowed to charm the guard, just like fighters aren't the only ones allowed to behead a dragon.

I have 0 interest in playing a gnome, or a tiefling. They don't appeal to me at all. But there's a big difference between "X doesn't appeal to me" and "X serves no purpose in the game". I think the bulk of the comments here have shown there's clearly an audience for the archetypes that bards embody.

[Pauly]

I really don’t think parsing D&D and your head tropes of what does and doesn’t work is a productive excercise. Quite simp,y D&D falls apart if you apply the magnifying glass to it because it isn’t a cohesive system. It’s a grab bag of cool toys and gimmicks that are balanced to be somewhat compatible with each other.
Classes don’t make sense.
Level dipping doesn’t make sense.
Weapon/armor restrictions don’t make sense.
The entire magic system doesn’t make sense.
The combat system is somewhat abstracted if we want to be generous, but doesn’t make a lot of sense.
They do combine to make a good game.

[Telok]

There are many famous fighters from legend: Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John, Tristan, and Sinbad. History is crowded with great generals and warriors: El Cid, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart, and Belisarius. Your fighter could be modeled after any of these, or he could be unique. A visit to your local library can uncover many heroic fighters."

What has struck me over the years is how poorly the fighter class (and physical classes in general) reflect the abilities of these sorts of heroes.

I've long found it worth my while reading the classic foundations of the game. It does, however, make implementation of several classes feel rather... lacking.

El Cid who, at somewhere around 80 in the shade, kept a pet lion in a cage. Well, ok, an untamed lion in a cage it could apparently bash open. Gramps wakes up fron his nap one day to lots of shouting & panic in his castle, but nobody is around. So he goes looking and walks into the lion. Pajamas, unarmed, and he's all like "Oh, yeah. I ought to get around to taming the lion some day.", grabs it by the scruff and hauls it bodily back to the cage. Then goes back to his nap still wondering what all the fuss is about.

But all most D&D fighter types get these days are a pile of hit points and an extra sword swing each round. Lead an army? Takes brains, charisma, and experience. Right? Too bad the fighter's probably only got a reputation for being to stupid or ugly to die. Send in the bard.

[tenshiakodo]

I don't agree that level dipping doesn't make sense. I mean, people cross train skill sets in our world all the time. A world class chef can also be a successful businessman and also a media personality. We don't think of these as "character classes", of course, but that's really all a character class is.

A kid from the streets who ran with gangs and robbed homes and boosted cars (Rogue) turns his life around by joining the military. After serving two tours of duty (Fighter), he suffers injuries and is shipped home. During his recovery, he discovers religion, and trains to become a priest/rabbi/minister/what have you, and devotes his life to helping others (Cleric).

But I'll let someone better at words make my point:

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.

Specialization is for insects.”

~ Robert Anson Heinlein

[RedMage125]

A kid from the streets who ran with gangs and robbed homes and boosted cars (Rogue) turns his life around by joining the military. After serving two tours of duty (Fighter), he suffers injuries and is shipped home. During his recovery, he discovers religion, and trains to become a priest/rabbi/minister/what have you, and devotes his life to helping others (Cleric).


One of the thing I like about 5e is that such a character could also be a single classed Cleric with the Soldier, Urchin, Criminal, or Acolyte Background. Or multiclassed Fighter/Cleric with any of those backgrounds. That way they still have some mechanical tie to those things.

[KorvinStarmast]

Art as a source for magic seems as basic as nature as a source.
There was a book I read 20 or 30 years ago that was set in Rennaisance or Enlightenment era Spain, where the fusion of magic and painting was a core theme. (And someone was trying to capture the soul/life force of someone else, I need to go and figure out what the story was called). Magic and art interwoven with drama pretty well.
ETA: found it.
There it is The Golden Key (Jennifer Roberson, with Melanie Rawn, and Kate Elliott (1996))

[Vahnavoi]

I don't think it's any sillier than partitioning "fighting" to a single class, and yet the Fighter is a staple. Bards aren't the only one's allowed to charm the guard, just like fighters aren't the only ones allowed to behead a dragon

Fighting isn't partitioned to the Fighter class, as you yourself already noted, so you know how and why your supposed counter-argument is based on false pretense. If anything, the Fighter's problem in some editions is that everyone else can do their thing AND fight, sometimes better than the Fighter, so the class which by its name is meant to fight gets left with nothing as its specialty. It's the very opposite problem of a class dominating a niche to the point everyone else might as well not bother.

[Mastikator]

Warlock is outright conceptually redundant with classic takes on magic-users and clerics. Same is true of the sorcerer. Having them as base classes is result of WotCs unwillingness to say "here's an alternate magic system for magic-users and clerics you may opt for".

Hard disagree from me on that one.

While having different mechanic IMO is a good reason to have the extra class the I think they do occupy different thematic space. The warlock has bought their magic and who they bought it from matters thematically and mechanically. A sorcerer is an inherently magical person, and who their supernatural ancestor is matters thematically and mechanically. A wizard is a learned man who has studied the mystic arts, they (unlike sorcerers and warlocks) actually understand the magic they use.

The wizard and sorcerer are very different in my opinion, the one who is the closest to the wizard is actually the bard. The bard is also a loremaster but unlike the wizard who takes an academic approach to magic the bard takes an artistic approach to magic. Honestly I think the bard should have a spellbook and prepare spells like exactly a wizard.

[Abracadangit]

While having different mechanic IMO is a good reason to have the extra class the I think they do occupy different thematic space. The warlock has bought their magic and who they bought it from matters thematically and mechanically. A sorcerer is an inherently magical person, and who their supernatural ancestor is matters thematically and mechanically. A wizard is a learned man who has studied the mystic arts, they (unlike sorcerers and warlocks) actually understand the magic they use.

Agree. If people have a hard time divorcing warlocks from the other magic users, something I recommend is pluralizing the name of the patron at the end of the subclass. Change "Fiend" to "Fiends," "Great Old One" to "Great Old Ones," etc. Then the warlock seems less bound to a single entity and more like a wheeler-and-dealer of magical secrets, learned from many conversations, pacts, and deals with a variety of creatures that fit the patron type. I like warlocks more as carrion birds of forbidden magic traditions, as opposed to straight Faustian (with the option to play them completely Faustian if that's what the player wants), but that's personal preference.

While I agree that sorcerers deserve to have their own island, I do think D&D doesn't know quite how to thematically represent that, since the shift in how spell preparation worked from 3e. I don't personally think metamagic is the way to do it, but I understand that a lot of people find that sorcerous enough, so that's a debate for a different thread.

[KorvinStarmast]

The bard is also a loremaster but unlike the wizard who takes an academic approach to magic the bard takes an artistic approach to magic. Honestly I think the bard should have a spellbook and prepare spells like exactly a wizard. One more reminder to me to get that homebrew together that has bard as the INT half caster. (And yes, I'll include spell books).

[LibraryOgre]

One more reminder to me to get that homebrew together that has bard as the INT half caster. (And yes, I'll include spell books).

Catch up, Korvin, you're behind. (https://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2022/02/5e-bard-college-of-arcana.html) :smallbiggrin:

[RandomPeasant]

Warlock is outright conceptually redundant with classic takes on magic-users and clerics. Same is true of the sorcerer. Having them as base classes is result of WotCs unwillingness to say "here's an alternate magic system for magic-users and clerics you may opt for".

How is that different from another class? It seems to me that if you are doing the work of writing up a whole new magic system, you may as well declare it to be a Warlock or a Sorcerer because people really like classes. If someone wants to be a book-themed Sorcerer, you can write a Book Magic feat or something.


But then again WotC set up the PHBbthey way it is to try to bank on nostalgia. The only reason a class appears in it is because it appeared in a previous PhB.

I don't think that's right. They set up the PHB the way they did because 4e showed that people really hate it when you cut classes. That's not quite the same as nostalgia, because I think 3e showed that people don't care that much if you cut specific classes (and 5e showed it again when no one mourned the Warlord vanishing). If 6e dropped with an Assassin in place of the Rogue, but also with a Marshal and a Shaman, I don't think people would have any inherent issue with that.


While having different mechanic IMO is a good reason to have the extra class the I think they do occupy different thematic space. The warlock has bought their magic and who they bought it from matters thematically and mechanically. A sorcerer is an inherently magical person, and who their supernatural ancestor is matters thematically and mechanically. A wizard is a learned man who has studied the mystic arts, they (unlike sorcerers and warlocks) actually understand the magic they use.

I would go so far as to say that the problem is the Cleric. It conflates a mechanical niche (generally healer and support caster, but it varies a lot) with a social one (priest). That's a bad fit with the rest of the system. The leader of a bugbear ninja squad, an orcish warband, and a elven recon team don't all need to be the same class, despite fulfilling the same social role of "leads a team of culturally-specific elites". We don't need to justify why a Warlock who gets his magic from Orcus is different from a Sorcerer who gets it from their draconic grandmother, we need to justify why priests of Boccob and Obad-hai should be the same.

And that's purely conceptual. There's also the subjective argument for having Warlock and Sorcerer as classes. Namely: people like being Warlocks and Sorcerers, so you should let them do that. If someone wants to write Bard or Scout or Marshal or Assassin or Fire Mage on their character sheet, there's no value to be gained in declaring them must instead write Wizard (Bard subclass) or Rogue (Scout subclass) or Marshal (Fighter subclass) or Assassin (Rogue subclass) or Wizard (Fire Mage subclass) instead.

Indeed, if you are willing to commit to a system where classes are kept distinct, there is even a mechanical gain in separating the Marshal and Fighter, as you can now give the Marshal unique mechanics that make it feel properly like a Marshal rather than a reskinned Fighter. In 3e, people really liked the classes that did their own unique thing. Even classes like the Truenamer (which was absolute garbage mechanically) captured the imagination far more than the Archivist (which was more powerful, but little more than a palette-swapped Wizard).


Honestly I think the bard should have a spellbook and prepare spells like exactly a wizard.

Why? I think it should go in the other direction. The Bard should get some kind of mechanic that feels like you are doing music magic. Maybe you have spells that build into a crescendo, or that flow into other spells, or some other thing that makes a Bard feel like a distinct music-focused mage rather than just a Wizard with some music fluff.


While I agree that sorcerers deserve to have their own island, I do think D&D doesn't know quite how to thematically represent that, since the shift in how spell preparation worked from 3e. I don't personally think metamagic is the way to do it, but I understand that a lot of people find that sorcerous enough, so that's a debate for a different thread.

Honestly, Sorcerers weren't great in 3e either. They just didn't get enough stuff to do for their spontaneous casting to not feel like worse prepared casting. The place D&D got it right was the Warmage-type casters, who had enough range in their abilities to feel diverse, but were focused enough that spontaneous casting didn't just make them broken.

[Abracadangit]

Why? I think it should go in the other direction. The Bard should get some kind of mechanic that feels like you are doing music magic. Maybe you have spells that build into a crescendo, or that flow into other spells, or some other thing that makes a Bard feel like a distinct music-focused mage rather than just a Wizard with some music fluff.

Preeeaaaach. Why do they refuse to do that.

You know what else kills me? How Wizards are the one class with an option to learn new abilities from exploring, baked into the class itself. Wizards can find spells in libraries, or dungeons, or cookbooks or whatever and then learn the spell. Why are they the only one with something like this? You could put this on every class, but say Bards can learn spells from other bards' performances, Druids can learn spells from certain trees/rivers/terrain, etc. Go nuts!


Honestly, Sorcerers weren't great in 3e either. They just didn't get enough stuff to do for their spontaneous casting to not feel like worse prepared casting. The place D&D got it right was the Warmage-type casters, who had enough range in their abilities to feel diverse, but were focused enough that spontaneous casting didn't just make them broken.

They weren't great, but at least the mechanics felt more supportive of the theme. But yeah, they were still less than rad. I honestly think the whole "invocation" idea and Eldritch Blast should be shifted from Warlocks to Sorcerers -- Sorcerers seem more like the type to let loose with bolts of raw arcane energy, plus at-will low-level utility spells just feel innately magical as opposed to learned. You're a trickster illusionist sorcerer, get Disguise Self and Silent Image all the time, whenever you want them. You're an undead-lineage necromancy sorcerer, you get Speak With Dead. You wanna be a loose-cannon conduit for pure arcane power, you have always-on Mage Armor as your personal force field and always-on Detect Magic.

But a lot of that has seeped into the collective D&D consciousness as Warlock stuff, so I don't think we'll ever see a shift that dramatic.

[RandomPeasant]

Preeeaaaach. Why do they refuse to do that.

I have no idea. "Classes that do unique things" were by far the most successful and popular (non-core) classes in 3e. It seems to me that the lesson to draw from that is "classes should work in novel ways, ideally ones that support their themes", but apparently the lesson they drew from it is "spellcasters should all be basically the same". But that seems to have put D&D back on top for them, so who knows.


Why are they the only one with something like this? You could put this on every class, but say Bards can learn spells from other bards' performances, Druids can learn spells from certain trees/rivers/terrain, etc.

I don't think it has to be "learn a new ability" (there are plenty of ways a class could work where that wouldn't really make sense), but the fact that Wizards have consistently been one of the only casters to care about getting loot is a problem as getting loot is one of the core parts of the game and often the reason characters go on adventures.


They weren't great, but at least the mechanics felt more supportive of the theme.

I did not feel that way at all. There's nothing about "magic bloodline" that says "spontaneous caster" to me, and there's extra nothing about it that says "spontaneous caster that gets a totally unrelated set of spells" to me. I could see something in Efreet Bloodline Sorcerers that got fire magic, or Fae Bloodline Sorcerers that got illusion magic, or Vampire Bloodline Sorcerers that got blood magic, but the way the Sorcerer works in 3e encourages you to have as wide a variety of spells as possible, which doesn't really map to any version of "bloodline magic" I've seen but the very loosest "the ability to do magic is inherited" concepts.


I honestly think the whole "invocation" idea and Eldritch Blast should be shifted from Warlocks to Sorcerers -- Sorcerers seem more like the type to let loose with bolts of raw arcane energy, plus at-will low-level utility spells just feel innately magical as opposed to learned.

I could see it going either way. I "you have magic you can do reflexively" feels like innate magic, but so does "your magic bursts out randomly to spectacular effect" also feels like innate magic. I certainly don't think the former is so much a better fit than the latter that it's worth breaking the association between Warlocks and at-will magic that is over a decade old at this point.

[tenshiakodo]

-mourned the loss of the Warlord-

I mean, the Battlemaster is a Warlord-lite, and with inspiring Leader, I could even hand out some temp hps to people in 5e. Still, a full Warlord class would have been fun to play again. Ah well.

As for cutting races and classes, I don't know. Maybe it's just unique to my experience, but I never knew many people to really care a whit about Gnomes until you couldn't play them anymore, and once they came back, I saw, one.

4e Svirfneblin were a different story, I loved the Essentials Druid I played with a Bear companion.

Ah, back to Bards, I think them being full casters is fine, really. They still get the "dabbler in magic" feel, since their choices are more limited, though as I said, magic songs or dances would have been a cooler feel.

But WotC seems to love designing new spells a lot more than new non-spell mechanics. I get it, a spell is self contained, and bite sized compared to a whole slew of "magical effects" Bard could use (which would probably duplicate spells anyways).

The issue with Bards is that they have unprecedented versatility, and they don't seem to have to give up anything to be a "master of none". They can fight with weapons (as all classes can now), they can cast in armor (spend some feats or multiclass to get a bard in plate? Why not?), and Valor Bards can even get a second attack for when they have nothing better to do!

And again, I don't have a problem with this, it doesn't seem unbalanced- but it makes the Fighter and Rogue look shabby by comparison. Which is an old complaint, I know.

[Rynjin]

All the other classes seem to have a good justification for why they're in the game, but I can't really see any for the bard other than that they've been around for too long to scrap. Could you explain why you think bards are their own thing, and cannot be subsumed into another class?

People like them and want to play them.

No other justification needed.

[KorvinStarmast]

Catch up, Korvin, you're behind. (https://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2022/02/5e-bard-college-of-arcana.html) :smallbiggrin: Yes I am, but that one's a bit too fiddly for my taste. it captures the theme I am after, though, but not the half caster (like a paladin) I have in mind for this rewrite. My concept is:
Druid is to Ranger as Cleric is to Paladin as Wizard is to Bard.

[Telok]

I have no idea. "Classes that do unique things" were by far the most successful and popular (non-core) classes in 3e. It seems to me that the lesson to draw from that is "classes should work in novel ways, ideally ones that support their themes", but apparently the lesson they drew from it is "spellcasters should all be basically the same". But that seems to have put D&D back on top for them, so who knows.


People like them and want to play them.

No other justification needed.

I'm always hesitant about assigning quality to D&D stuff. Every edition has been, officially, more successful & sold more & made more money & been "better" than all the ones before. But D&D has also been the biggest thing in the hobby, the best advertised, and the "lazy goto default" for many people.

People will play anything and everything with "D&D" on it. People seriously played truenamers in 3e, dex 10 thieves in 2e, and level limited halfling fighters in 1e. They could put out a "minion of bbeg" class* with d3 hp or a fighter subclass that gave nothing but crap crafting abilities (I see it now: "14th! My 10% discount on oil flasks & acid vials upgrades to 25%!", "Dude, we have 20k gold each and dancing vorpal sunblades. Could you do something useful?") and there are people who would like & play it.

*could actually be funny. "Auto-rez" via bringing in minion Bob #27, #28, #29, etc., after 1d4 rounds every time you die.

[tenshiakodo]

That reminds me of this Prestige Class in, I think it was Savage Species, called the Survivor. It granted no fighting ability whatsoever, just shored up saving throws and granted things like Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, and Damage Reduction- and I had a few people interested in it!

[Mastikator]

Why? I think it should go in the other direction. The Bard should get some kind of mechanic that feels like you are doing music magic. Maybe you have spells that build into a crescendo, or that flow into other spells, or some other thing that makes a Bard feel like a distinct music-focused mage rather than just a Wizard with some music fluff.

For me the obvious solution is that bards should always be required to hold their spellcasting focus (a musical instrument) when they cast a bard spell and the Spellcasting section should add a bit about spells being explicitly produced through music. (similar to artificers are required to always have a tinker's tools or infused item if they wish to cast spells)

[Mordante]

That reminds me of this Prestige Class in, I think it was Savage Species, called the Survivor. It granted no fighting ability whatsoever, just shored up saving throws and granted things like Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, and Damage Reduction- and I had a few people interested in it!

That is why I will play Acolyte of the Skin as soon at I become level 6. Not because it's powerful, but because I like the fluff. Warlock 5/Acolyte 4/Hellfire 3/Acolyte 6/Warlock 2. But getting to level 12 normally takes a few years of play.

[Anonymouswizard]

People will play anything and everything with "D&D" on it. People seriously played truenamers in 3e, dex 10 thieves in 2e, and level limited halfling fighters in 1e. They could put out a "minion of bbeg" class* with d3 hp or a fighter subclass that gave nothing but crap crafting abilities (I see it now: "14th! My 10% discount on oil flasks & acid vials upgrades to 25%!", "Dude, we have 20k gold each and dancing vorpal sunblades. Could you do something useful?") and there are people who would like & play it.

I've seen similar behaviour in other games, including players taking options that give no practical benefit. I'd chalk this up to most people playing what's cool rather than what's good

[QUPTE]*could actually be funny. "Auto-rez" via bringing in minion Bob #27, #28, #29, etc., after 1d4 rounds every time you die.[/QUOTE]

Hide behind the mound of dead bards....

[KorvinStarmast]

For me the obvious solution is that bards should always be required to hold their spellcasting focus (a musical instrument) when they cast a bard spell and the Spellcasting section should add a bit about spells being explicitly produced through music. (similar to artificers are required to always have a tinker's tools or infused item if they wish to cast spells) what if my instrument is a kazoo? :smallsmile: Or a harmonica? And if it's a flute/recorder, I may get asked by some NPC "Is that a recorder (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/15-Baroque-alto-recorder-after-Debey-by-Fred-Morgan-photo-by-Oscar-Romero.jpg/220px-15-Baroque-alto-recorder-after-Debey-by-Fred-Morgan-photo-by-Oscar-Romero.jpg) in your hand or are you just glad to see me?

[Jay R]

All the other classes seem to have a good justification for why they're in the game, but I can't really see any for the bard other than that they've been around for too long to scrap. Could you explain why you think bards are their own thing, and cannot be subsumed into another class?

Because for centuries, bards have been their own thing, not subsumed by any other group.

Taliesin and Dafydd ap Gwilym are bards, different from the Celtic warriors.
Homer is different from Achilles and Oddysseus.
In the Chronicles of Prydain, Fflewdder Fflam is very different from Gwydion, Taran, Eilonwy, or Gurgi.
Cacophonix is different from Asterix and Obelix.

I'm aware that this argument doesn't affect people who got excited by D&D for itself, separate from loving fantasy stories, but that's still why bards exist in D&D.

D&D does a poor job of representing bards, just as D&D wizards fail to simulate any wizard from the stories and legends. But there are bards in D&D because there are bards in many of the stories and legends that a lot of us came here to emulate.

[Stonehead]

Fighting isn't partitioned to the Fighter class, as you yourself already noted, so you know how and why your supposed counter-argument is based on false pretense. If anything, the Fighter's problem in some editions is that everyone else can do their thing AND fight, sometimes better than the Fighter, so the class which by its name is meant to fight gets left with nothing as its specialty. It's the very opposite problem of a class dominating a niche to the point everyone else might as well not bother.

??? That's what I said. I wasn't "basing my argument" off of the Fighter being the only one who can fight, it was an example of something clearly incorrect. Don't dump Cha and put some skill ranks into diplomacy, and you become a good face. If you want to specialize in it, then play a bard.

To say that socializing is partitioned to the bard is just as silly as to say fighting is partitioned to the fighter. Which is to say very silly. Untrue even.

[Kraynic]

what if my instrument is a kazoo? :smallsmile: Or a harmonica? And if it's a flute/recorder, I may get asked by some NPC "Is that a recorder (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/15-Baroque-alto-recorder-after-Debey-by-Fred-Morgan-photo-by-Oscar-Romero.jpg/220px-15-Baroque-alto-recorder-after-Debey-by-Fred-Morgan-photo-by-Oscar-Romero.jpg) in your hand or are you just glad to see me?

I'm trying to envision the singing bard holding his instrument. I'm assuming that looks like the bard is attempting to self-strangle, but I'm not sure...


I"m not sure what the deal is with bards. I'm sure the bards are glad people are talking about them, though. :smallbiggrin:

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm trying to envision the singing bard holding his instrument. I'm assuming that looks like the bard is attempting to self-strangle, but I'm not sure...
Not sure if you've heard Oscar Brand's rendition of The Keyhole in the Door, but as I read that blue text it came to mind.

I'm sure the bards are glad people are talking about them, though. :smallbiggrin: Oh yeah, bards: all about shameless self promotion.:smallsmile:

[Vahnavoi]

How are [variant mechanics for class] different from another class?

What's the difference between a themed card deck with standard four houses, versus a deck with five houses?

---


??? That's what I said. I wasn't "basing my argument" off of the Fighter being the only one who can fight, it was an example of something clearly incorrect. Don't dump Cha and put some skill ranks into diplomacy, and you become a good face. If you want to specialize in it, then play a bard.

To say that socializing is partitioned to the bard is just as silly as to say fighting is partitioned to the fighter. Which is to say very silly. Untrue even.

The degree to which specialization is allowed matters. Due to the way d20 partitioned class skills and handled attributes, it's very hard for a Fighter to contribute to social scenarios. Not dumping Cha and putting some skill points into Diplomacy is not actually enough to remain competitive in a social niche, compared to any class that specializes in social scenarios - at mid to high levels, the gap gets so big even Aiding Another is not worth bothering with. A Fighter's player might as well go to sleep while a Bard's player handles such scenarios.

The reverse is not true. A Bard's player rarely has a chance to sleep during combat while the Fighter's player single-handedly solves it. On the contrary, there are plenty of combat scenarios where a Bard will be more impactful than a Fighter.

That's what I'm referring to, that's what I don't want to happen, and it isn't at all hard to see how bad partitioning of classes and class skills contributes to it.

[tenshiakodo]

The Fighter needs his leadership and tactical skills back in some fashion. He's supposed to be a general, not a guy who "swings sword good".

[MoiMagnus]

I have no idea. "Classes that do unique things" were by far the most successful and popular (non-core) classes in 3e. It seems to me that the lesson to draw from that is "classes should work in novel ways, ideally ones that support their themes", but apparently the lesson they drew from it is "spellcasters should all be basically the same". But that seems to have put D&D back on top for them, so who knows.

One of 5e's goal was to reduce the number of things the GM needs to understand to be able to run the game. Classes that do their unique thing can be a real pain for a new GM, especially if they're supposed to teach them to their players. And that was their strategy: increase the number of peoples who try D&D for the first time.

[The only non-core class is the Artificer, and they did make it very unique, but that's reasonable since it's not expected from new GM to run a game with it.]

By the way, do you have statistics about your claim that unique classes were the most popular? Because if that's from personal experience your experience is probably biased by the fact that you played quite a number of D&D campaign in your life. Unique classes with their own mechanics are only really interesting to peoples who played more than one D&D campaign. And while I don't know what's the proportion of "casual" D&D players in the 3e times, I'm quite sure this proportion is quite high in 5e, and was one of the main target when designing the game.

[Telok]

The reverse is not true. A Bard's player rarely has a chance to sleep during combat while the Fighter's player single-handedly solves it. On the contrary, there are plenty of combat scenarios where a Bard will be more impactful than a Fighter.

While the problem was probably at its worst in late 3e it won't go away as long as there is strong incentive for the warrior types to low ball all the non-physical stats. A primary part of the issue is that D&D combat capability is partially divorced from stats & you can get good combat capability through almost any stat (mainly through casting in D&D) these days. However, D&D noncombat is heavily reliant on stats &or skill slots, and generally locked into one or two stats. This interacts... poorly... with most point buy schemes.

That leads to the fighty types needing stats A, B, & C to maintain good combat effectiveness and survive low levels. While the bard can use stats C & D to be 85% or 90% of the fighty type's combat effect. If the "social" skill set is locked into using stat D nearly all of the time then the fighty type is running at best 30% to 50% of the bard's social effect. And that's just with pure stat+skill numbers, D&D stacks magic on top of the difference.

Possible solutions would be to partially pull the noncombat functions of characters away from stats, spread it across multiple stats, or give the fighty types some sort of built in advantage through class or setting mechanics. But those things are more complicated to design than just a single check of d20+stat+skill vs some number from 10 to 15 +expected stat +level appropriate skill number, roll to totally succeed or totally fail. They are also perceived to fall outside D&D's core game play of combat mechanics, and thus are not considered critical to the game by designers.

[Anonymouswizard]

The Fighter needs his leadership and tactical skills back in some fashion. He's supposed to be a general, not a guy who "swings sword good".

Sadly there are three rough views of what the D&D Fighter should be:
-A dude with a sword
-A girl that can throw mountains
-A being of indeterminate gender leading an army.

These are kind of hard to all have within the same class. 5e tries to do this via subclasses, but it's just kind of completely failed to make a decent 'leader' subclass and the more overtly magical subclasses don't get to the levels of power and utility some people want.

3.X and 4e tried to solve it by adding the Warlord/Marshal and the Warblade. It worked better, but fell victim to the tendency to play PhB-only.

[LibraryOgre]

The Fighter needs his leadership and tactical skills back in some fashion. He's supposed to be a general, not a guy who "swings sword good".

The only place I can think of them having leadership and tactical skills is 2e Dark Sun.

In AD&D, they'd eventually get a small force if they built a castle, but that was the extent of their leadership and tactical skills on paper.

[tenshiakodo]

I was being slightly facetious. The Fighter never really had these, other than the Lord's ability to acquire a standing army.

But the 2e PHB certainly seemed to think this was the Fighter's hat!

"The fighter is a warrior, an expert in weapons, and, if he is clever, tactics and strategy... History is crowded with great generals and warriors: El Cid, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart, and Belisarius. Your fighter could be modeled after any of these..."

But it would be nice if he did! Like a tactical aura that grants allies benefits in combat because he's able to inspire his allies and direct their tactics.

[animorte]

I think the misconception about Bards is this: because they max Charisma and have a lot of charm spells, they must be promiscuous...

They also don't seem to have a primary or direct role to play in a lot of groups. They're often seen as being versatile enough that they can cover for most any other role. They are very supportive characters, but not so directly as being the primary healer (cleric). They are loaded with skills, but not necessarily focused on the stealth/traps/lockpicking skills that are prioritized (rogue).

But look at it this way. Let's say you're in a group of adventurers that are traveling the world seeking renown, hunting down loot, helping people, and defeating great foes! Who better to tell your story than a character who is great with people, a character that can form your long travels into tales of wonder for all to hear? They also happen to be a solid addition to any party because of their versatility.

[tenshiakodo]

Yeah, everyone knows it's the Sorcerers who can't keep it in their pants. How do you think those bloodlines keep perpetuating?

[Anonymouswizard]

Yeah, everyone knows it's the Sorcerers who can't keep it in their pants. How do you think those bloodlines keep perpetuating?

I assumed that was the wizard/druid cross disciplinary projects.

[Stonehead]

The degree to which specialization is allowed matters. Due to the way d20 partitioned class skills and handled attributes, it's very hard for a Fighter to contribute to social scenarios. Not dumping Cha and putting some skill points into Diplomacy is not actually enough to remain competitive in a social niche, compared to any class that specializes in social scenarios - at mid to high levels, the gap gets so big even Aiding Another is not worth bothering with. A Fighter's player might as well go to sleep while a Bard's player handles such scenarios.

The reverse is not true. A Bard's player rarely has a chance to sleep during combat while the Fighter's player single-handedly solves it. On the contrary, there are plenty of combat scenarios where a Bard will be more impactful than a Fighter.

That's what I'm referring to, that's what I don't want to happen, and it isn't at all hard to see how bad partitioning of classes and class skills contributes to it.

Ok, but that has nothing to do with the Bard. A sorcerer who put 1 rank per level into diplomacy will be in basically the same spot as the bard in this example. Depending on the edition, the bard is going to have a helpful class ability or maybe a slightly higher bonus than the sorcerer, not nearly a difference big enough to cause some kind of design issue. In fact, I'd say the d20 distribution (at least when compared to 3d6 at least) is particularly useful for allowing characters to do things they're bad at. If one character succeeds on a nat 9, and a worse character succeeds on a nat 13, their success rates are 60% and 40% with a d20 system. With a 3d6 system, it's 75% and 25%. So in DnD, having a bonus 4 lower than another is way less significant than in a 3d6 system.

More importantly, the analogy isn't "combat vs diplomacy", it's "attack rolls vs diplomacy checks". The fighter is also going to sleep while the rogue sneaks past security, or while the wizard deciphers the magic runes. At this point, the argument is about bigger design issues with class-based systems, not about the bard's utility as a core class.