New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 35
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Apr 2018

    Default QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    I like the bard. I really do.
    But the inherent silliness of a character who doesn't know the difference between a 'musician' and a 'magician', and therefore decides to be both, would be completely inappropriate for a slightly grittier/lower magic campaign.

    So, my question to you is, can you think of, or do you know of, any good ways to:

    1. Take away a bard's spellcasting without making it completely unbalanced?
    I've dug down into the deepest parts of GiantITP's archives, and managed to find a few homebrews, but most of them are either a. Complete rewrites, b. Dauntingly messy or c. Still casters, but with flavour text saying they aren't.
    Are there any that I may have missed, or any that you have created or playtested, and just love?

    2. Make a character that casts like a bard, but has a backstory that makes sense?
    I like that bards have the 'Magical Secrets' ability, making them possibly the most versatile casters in the game. I like that they are illusionists and tricksters, who get some downright wacky spells that, say, a sorcerer wouldn't dare go near. Are there classes/homebrews that have this, but have a more magical or mystical fluff to them? Fluff that doesn't assume a super high magic setting? Does anyone have a hack for this that entails few or no mechanical changes to the bard itself?

    3. Do both?
    More options are better, in my opinion. Especially in the setting I have in mind, where magical options would be more restricted. I would want, however, for the two classes to feel distinct from one another, as if there is a point to both of them.

    The alternative to all this would be to ban them outright, and only allow wizards, clerics, maybe warlocks, and classes that have a primarily martial focus. And, as I said, I like bards, and think they deserve a place in a low magic setting.

    (PS. I'm not entirely sure if this is the right place for my rambling lamentations.)
    Last edited by foL; 2018-07-09 at 04:02 AM.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    nickl_2000's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    1 really isn't a good option to make a bard that doesn't cast. A bards core feature is their spellcasting, without that they are nerfed to the point of being pretty useless. You would be much betting off using a complete re-write of the class or looking for a Homebrew of the Skald from 3.5/Pathfinder. Here is one link that has been posted on here

    http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/Sk7k7QFON-
    Pronouns he/him/his
    Spoiler: 5e Subclass Contest Wins
    Show

    ● IV-Pinball Wizard
    ● VI-Luchador Bard
    ● XIII-Rogue, Tavern Wench
    ● XV-Monk, Way of the Shrine Guardian
    ● XVI-Cleric, Madness Domain
    ● XVIII-Fighter, Chef
    ● XXI-Artificer, Battling Bowman
    ● XXV-Ley Line Sorcerer

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Jul 2018

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    I have similar sentiments about the bard. On the one hand I am very musical and love the idea of magic through music. On the other hand that is ruined for me by the implementation wherein a bard shoots lightning.

    One thing you could do is just modify their spell list to remove the things that go too far for you and restrict the spells they can learn from magical secrets. Maybe your bard doesn't shoot lightning or conjure hands out even do damage. Maybe they just buff allies and control enemies with charms and illusions.

    You can retool buffs and control from other classes where it makes sense and replace the spells you remove.

    Maybe you keep the more magical stuff and just change the flavor to be musical. So stinking cloud could become cacophonous discord, where the bard fills an area with unbearable sounds. Change the save from constitution to wisdom. Thunder wave could be come sonic boom where the bard plays a thunderous chord and deals sonic damage.

    You could also lean more into buffs by giving the bard an action surge that they can grant to other players. This would allow for a bard to still more directly contribute to damage while still not using magic or anything like that. It could be like battle magic from the college of valor, but granted instead of used by the bard. So when they are attempting to mesmerize an enemy, a party member of their choice, inspired by their music, gets to make an attack or cast a cantrip.

    Best of luck to you!

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    #1 really depends on what you define as a "complete rewrite." Spellcasting would need to be replaced by nine or so new features (one for each level of spells), and Magical Secrets would need to be replaced by anywhere from one to three new features. Even if all the other features remain the same, that's a lot of rewriting.

    If I were to actually attempt this, I'd probably make Inspiration more versatile and/or powerful: adding uses per day, increasing the number of creatures affected per use, that sort of thing. I'd also bring back bardic music/performance from 3.p to fill in the gaps. The 5e bard has countercharm already, which could serve as a template for a new performance mechanic.

    No matter how much stuff spellcasting gets relaced with, though, I imagine a lot of people won't be satisfied. Spells (especially 9 levels of them with cherrypicking from other lists) are such a powerful and versatile mechanic that basically anything else is going to look lackluster in comparison.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Blackbando's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Between Conch and Coral
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    I'm gonna personally disagree about the Bard being unable to work in a grittier setting, but if you'd like to remove the musical portion, why make a new class for it? You could just reflavor the bard to not be musical. Perhaps make it sort of commander-y; after all, they inspire their allies, read a lot on "tactics" of other commanders (read: magical secrets spells), and mainly focus on buffing their allies. Maybe even change it to an Intelligence caster, if you're one of the few folks who think we need more of those.

    As for the focus, it'd probably use a war banner or flag of sorts. Change some feature names (Bardic Inspiration to, say, General's Inspiration or something), and voila, you have a grittier bard.

    Alternatively, you could try a non-commander based reflavor; I've seen a lot of cool ideas about bards being magical thieves who steal spells from sources of magic, hence why they get Magical Secrets, so maybe make it some sort of "Reality Thief"? I've got less ideas for that one, but it could work.

    Finally, you could also just make them another regular arcane caster, like sorc or wizard; arcane focus, bardic inspiration being more magical-based, etc.
    Check out my homebrew blog, Bando's Homebrew!

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Paranoia land

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    Bard can be perfectly serious. The music isn't needed for anything, it's just a nice piece of fluff. There's no need to change it at all. From a point of view, any class is ridiculous. A Druid is a magical Animorph, Paladins could be stereotypical justice screamers, a fighter is some guy with a sword, a Ranger can be a loving pet owner, and Barbarians are just anime characters.

    If you have a problem with Bard's magical powers, why shouldn't you have an equal problem with Wizard, Arcane Trickster, and Eldritch Knight?

    I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but Bard can be serious. Instead of a magic musician, what about a wise wanderer, picking up secrets and magic as time goes on, and learning the secrets of how men works? Refluffing Song of Rest as "I know how to medicine" is possibly the most effortless refluff you'll ever encounter. Bardic Inspiration isn't even specified as song, it could easily be words of encouragement tailor made to who they have learned their companions are.
    I actually will say, the original concept of Druids from Ireland are closer to Bards than the actual Druid class. Bard can be many things beyond a musician, and all the refluffing needed is Song of Rest.

    I already made a suggestion for #2, but here's another: A lineage of people, passing on the secrets of magic and mankind to a worthy apprentice. It's not that hard. All you need to do is detach yourself from the stereotype of music.


    (Edit: On the music creating magic thing, why not? If you're using the Weave, what they are doing isn't playing an instrument, they are playing the Weave itself.)
    Last edited by Fire Tarrasque; 2018-07-09 at 11:42 AM.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by foL View Post
    1. Take away a bard's spellcasting without making it completely unbalanced?
    I wrote such a class: a silver tongued socialite who fights with neither magic nor weaponry, but by inspiring and informing allies or manipulating foes. It is, of course, a complete overhaul.

    2. Make a character that casts like a bard, but has a backstory that makes sense?
    I personally think Wizards should cast like them.
    • Preparing spells is thematically appropriate for divine casters, who are literally borrowing them, but wizards study magic and shouldn't need to refresh their memory.
    • The full range of enchantment and illusions should be available to a wizard willing to study them. They're all thematically appropriate for wizards of their respective schools.
    • Magical Secrets should have been, in my opinion, a Wizard feature. Being able to learn not just arcane, but also forms of divine magic without a divinity's support is the mark of a wizard who has mastered the forces of supernature.
    Last edited by GalacticAxekick; 2018-07-09 at 12:47 PM.
    Ongoing 5e Projects:

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Apr 2018

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    As for the focus, it'd probably use a war banner or flag of sorts. Change some feature names (Bardic Inspiration to, say, General's Inspiration or something), and voila, you have a grittier bard.
    It's not that I have an issue with the concept of music as a gimmick in and of itself. It's the idea that they can draw powerful magic from it, on par with a wizard, for example. It wouldn't be so much of an issue if it was more subtle 'magic' that jibes well with the class's main gimmick. (While I don't have a lot of experience with them, some of the ranger's spells come to mind.)
    The issue I have is that the magic isn't adequately explained. I think your 'commander' reflavour is much the same in that regard, really. And just for clarification, I don't only like 'gritty' characters. I just like for them to be able to fit into a gritty setting, if that makes sense.

    Finally, you could also just make them another regular arcane caster, like sorc or wizard; arcane focus, bardic inspiration being more magical-based, etc.
    Yeah, I suppose that wouldn't be ideal, unless they have something that adequately sets them apart from the other classes in the setting.

    If you have a problem with Bard's magical powers, why shouldn't you have an equal problem with Wizard, Arcane Trickster, and Eldritch Knight?
    I don't dislike the idea of characters having access to magic, but I do think that magic has to be 'earned'. Take the seminal example of a D&D magician, the wizard. They learn to tap the well of magic through a lifetime of study and training, and have to actually find copies of spells to be able to learn them. Over the years, they've added extra casting classes, each with their own explanations as to how they got their powers. Warlocks, who make literal deals with devils to get them. Druids, who... I don't know, something about nature? I'm not familiar with druids. I think bards, however, have the weakest explanation of all. "Yeah, I'm a bard and I cast spells because, I don't know, that's what D&D characters do?" Personally, I think D&D is far too dominated by magicians, and that's part of my motivation for this. Besides, if bards are such powerful mages, and all they had to do to become such was learn to play an instrument, it kind of makes warlocks and wizards look like idiots. And, as I said, this is, for the most part, specifically for a grittier setting, one that isn't dominated by magic, and one that may not even have a 'weave'. (I'm sorry, I'm not overly familiar with the weave either.) I think for a high magic setting, they're fine.
    That was just in response to the first part of your post.
    That thing about folklore druids sounds interesting though, I'll have to look into that.

    I know I'm a rambling mess, but I feel like I'm not really getting accross the problem I have with the class.

    EDIT: Also I'm sleep-deprived at the moment.
    Last edited by foL; 2018-07-09 at 12:54 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by GalacticAxekick View Post
    • Preparing spells is thematically appropriate for divine casters, who are literally borrowing them, but wizards study magic and shouldn't need to refresh their memory.
    Spell preparation doesn't involve literally memorizing and forgetting spells, even though those are the terms AD&D used to describe the process. If it actually involved memorization, you wouldn't need to "memorize" a spell multiple times to cast it multiple times. Rather, it involves pre-casting the spell and storing it in the caster's mind; the AD&D PHB talks about "impressing mystical symbols on the brain" and "discharging the stored power, draining the memory of the spell used", while the 3e PHB says that "As she [Mialee, the sample wizard] concentrates, she all but finishes casting each spell that she prepares. Each spell now lacks only its final trigger."; other books in each edition go into more lore detail. Spell preparation took 10-15 minutes per spell level per spell in AD&D (reduced to 1 hour in 3e), further emphasizing that you're not just refreshing your memory about a spell you've cast many times before.

    The ritual rules in 5e, where you can spend 10 minutes to cast a spell from a spellbook or ritual book, are an outgrowth of the AD&D rules that spells took 10-15 minutes per spell level to prepare and that you could cast spells directly from a spellbook as if the spellbook pages were scrolls and of the 3e flavor that spell preparation means casting a spell except for the last few words and gestures to leave the spell "hanging" and storing the dormant spell in a spell slot (and so by extension you could simply finish the casting immediately and not use a slot).

    Meanwhile, clerics didn't need to take a long time to prepare each spell, they simply prayed for a certain length of time and got all their spells, and 3e shortened spell preparation for both divine and arcane casters to 1 hour for simplicity and convenience. So I'd say spell preparation is actually more thematically appropriate for wizards than for clerics, all told.

    Quote Originally Posted by foL View Post
    It's not that I have an issue with the concept of music as a gimmick in and of itself. It's the idea that they can draw powerful magic from it, on par with a wizard, for example. It wouldn't be so much of an issue if it was more subtle 'magic' that jibes well with the class's main gimmick. (While I don't have a lot of experience with them, some of the ranger's spells come to mind.)
    The issue I have is that the magic isn't adequately explained.
    D&D magic is based on magical words and symbols. The vast majority of spells have verbal components, spoken in tongues belonging to ancient and powerful magical beings; you need to know creatures' names to call them specifically with planar binding and similar spells; most magic items have magic words that make them function; power word spells pack the most amount of power into the smallest space (in AD&D, they were very powerful spells given the lower overall monster HP and had ridiculously fast casting times, and in 3e they were no-save spells with proportionally powerful effects) and are explicitly single words with inherent magical power; glyphs, sigils, runes, symbols, etc. are likewise single symbols with intrinsic magical power; and of course spellbooks, ritual books, and scrolls are literally written-down magic.

    One of the introductory paragraphs in the 5e bard flavor mentions something along those lines:
    Quote Originally Posted by 5e PHB, p.51, Music And Magic
    In the worlds of D&D, words and music are not just vibrations of air, but vocalizations with power all 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.
    So while the "harnessing the echoes of creation" bit and the mention of "magic hidden in music" in a later paragraph make it sound as if it's a distinct thing from the mystical languages used by wizards or the fervent prayers used by clerics, that's mostly a matter of the 5e designers not knowing how D&D magic is actually supposed to work taking dramatic license with the class descriptions, and bardic music, wizard chats, and cleric prayers are really all fundamentally the same thing. A bard doesn't even have to use music, as Blackbando noted; plain ol' speech works just fine, as it's the pattern of the words and the symbolism behind them that matter, not the fact that the bard is singing them.

    Druids, who... I don't know, something about nature? I'm not familiar with druids.
    Druids work magic through belief and prayer like other divine casters do, they just revere Nature as an abstract concept (and all the attendant philosophy) and draw upon the ambient power of the Material Plane in the same way that paladins revere Good and Law (in prior editions) or Honor and Oaths (in 5e) as concepts and philosophies and clerics draw power from the Outer Planes.

    I think bards, however, have the weakest explanation of all. "Yeah, I'm a bard and I cast spells because, I don't know, that's what D&D characters do?" Personally, I think D&D is far too dominated by magicians, and that's part of my motivation for this. Besides, if bards are such powerful mages, and all they had to do to become such was learn to play an instrument, it kind of makes warlocks and wizards look like idiots.
    Yeah, making bards full casters alongside wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks was one of the worse decisions in 5e from a flavor standpoint. They've always been a jack-of-all-trades class, from AD&D where they were the first "prestige class" (being a fighter/thief/druid multiclass rather than a base class) through 3e where they were a partial caster with rogue-ish and fighter-ish capabilities to 4e where Skald bards were the only class (that I'm aware of; there may be others) with a dual power source of Martial and Arcane, so in 5e making them a full-on wizard-scale arcanist who can then also be fighter-like or rogue-like doesn't make much sense.

    Rather than removing their casting entirely, it might make more sense to simply reduce their casting to paladin or ranger levels and add a few extra features to the subclasses, making them an arcane/martial or arcane/skills hybrid to go with the martial/arcane Eldritch Knight and skills/arcane Arcane Trickster.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Spell preparation doesn't involve literally memorizing and forgetting spells, even though those are the terms AD&D used to describe the process. If it actually involved memorization, you wouldn't need to "memorize" a spell multiple times to cast it multiple times. Rather, it involves pre-casting the spell and storing it in the caster's mind; the AD&D PHB talks about "impressing mystical symbols on the brain" and "discharging the stored power, draining the memory of the spell used", while the 3e PHB says that "As she [Mialee, the sample wizard] concentrates, she all but finishes casting each spell that she prepares. Each spell now lacks only its final trigger."; other books in each edition go into more lore detail. Spell preparation took 10-15 minutes per spell level per spell in AD&D (reduced to 1 hour in 3e), further emphasizing that you're not just refreshing your memory about a spell you've cast many times before.

    The ritual rules in 5e, where you can spend 10 minutes to cast a spell from a spellbook or ritual book, are an outgrowth of the AD&D rules that spells took 10-15 minutes per spell level to prepare and that you could cast spells directly from a spellbook as if the spellbook pages were scrolls and of the 3e flavor that spell preparation means casting a spell except for the last few words and gestures to leave the spell "hanging" and storing the dormant spell in a spell slot (and so by extension you could simply finish the casting immediately and not use a slot).

    Meanwhile, clerics didn't need to take a long time to prepare each spell, they simply prayed for a certain length of time and got all their spells, and 3e shortened spell preparation for both divine and arcane casters to 1 hour for simplicity and convenience. So I'd say spell preparation is actually more thematically appropriate for wizards than for clerics, all told.
    Its my impressiom that that fluff exists to justify the system and not the other way around.

    If I only told someone "wizards are people who study magic" they wouldn't assume they ready spells in the morning to trigger and unleash later. Only if I said "wizards have the ability to learn a potentially unlimited number of spells, but must have limited options at any given moment for balance reasons" would spell preparation and the related lore come to the table.
    Ongoing 5e Projects:

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by GalacticAxekick View Post
    Its my impressiom that that fluff exists to justify the system and not the other way around.

    If I only told someone "wizards are people who study magic" they wouldn't assume they ready spells in the morning to trigger and unleash later. Only if I said "wizards have the ability to learn a potentially unlimited number of spells, but must have limited options at any given moment for balance reasons" would spell preparation and the related lore come to the table.
    Originally, yes, wizards prepared spells because D&D arose out of the Chainmail wargame and they were analogous to siege weapons (catapults became fireballs, ballistas became lightning bolts, and so on). But spell preparation is actually closer to traditional ideas of how magic functioned (knowing special words and going through complex rituals to achieve the desired effect) than stuff like spell points which works more like a battery and is inspired by new age-y "magic is pure will and you imagine what you want" sorts of magic.

    In Goetic magic, you pull out your musty old tome, inscribe a mystical diagram on the floor, wave your arms in mystic gestures, chant for an hour, call out "Demon, come forth!" and poof, a minor demon from the Lesser Key of Solomon appears in your magic circle. In D&D magic, you pull out your spellbook, inscribe a mystical diagram on the floor, wave your arms in mystic gestures, chant for 50 minutes--then magically lock the current state of the ritual away in your mind instead of finishing it immediately. When you want to complete it, most likely after buffing yourself, double-checking the summoning diagram etc., you wave your arms in mystic gestures, chant 10 minutes, call out "Demon, come forth!" and poof, a low-CR demon from the Monster Manual appears in your magic circle.

    It's possible to have both kinds of magic side-by-side, of course--the Dresden Files series calls quick-and-dirty elemental channeling magic Evocation and ritualized D&D-/European-style magic Thaumaturgy, and wizards in that series can use both while some practitioners can only use one or the other--but if you want the ritualistic feel, Vancian magic is probably the best way to justify combat-time magic in that context.

    And of course now that we're several editions in and have a Grand Unified Theory of D&D magic, you can justify spell preparation for arcane casters, divine casters, and any other sort of magic-using class as long as the flavor fits with that theory, regardless of the specific mechanics.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grod_The_Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by foL View Post
    I like the bard. I really do.
    But the inherent silliness of a character who doesn't know the difference between a 'musician' and a 'magician', and therefore decides to be both, would be completely inappropriate for a slightly grittier/lower magic campaign.
    You could, um, remove the musical instrument proficiencies and change their spellcasting focus. That's...pretty much all you need to do.
    Hill Giant Games
    I make indie gaming books for you!
    Spoiler
    Show

    STaRS: A non-narrativeist, generic rules-light system.
    Grod's Guide to Greatness, 2e: A big book of player options for 5e.
    Grod's Grimoire of the Grotesque: An even bigger book of variant and expanded rules for 5e.
    Giants and Graveyards: My collected 3.5 class fixes and more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Apr 2018

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    You could, um, remove the musical instrument proficiencies and change their spellcasting focus. That's...pretty much all you need to do.
    Yes, well that was my second idea. But that isn't the hard part. The hard part is coming up with a way to replace the fluff with some new creative backstory. Otherwise, what's the point of using bards at all? I've already got wizards to fill the role of 'generic' spellcaster. And I don't need another casting class that doesn't have any flavour at all.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grod_The_Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by foL View Post
    Yes, well that was my second idea. But that isn't the hard part. The hard part is coming up with a way to replace the fluff with some new creative backstory. Otherwise, what's the point of using bards at all? I've already got wizards to fill the role of 'generic' spellcaster. And I don't need another casting class that doesn't have any flavour at all.
    Fair. Without music, Bards basically turn into 3.5 Beguilers, I'd say?

    Quote Originally Posted by PHB 2
    Some hold truth to be the greatest virtue, but it can do
    more damage than fiction. Everyone lives in a constant
    state of deception. White lies, false smiles, and secret
    thoughts keep society running smoothly. Honesty is a virtue
    only up to a certain point. Beguilers understand these ideas
    better than anyone, and they use deception, misunderstanding,
    and secrets as skillfully as a soldier employs weapons
    of war.
    Beguilers see lying and manipulation as tools. Just as a
    hammer can be used to build a house or crack a skull, deceit
    and the ability to control others can be used for good or ill.
    A lie whispered in the right ear can ruin lives, but a dishonest
    smile and honeyed words can open doors, turn foes into
    friends, and even end wars. Beguilers have reputations as
    rakes, thieves, spies, and puppet masters, but they can also
    be diplomats, peacemakers, or heroic leaders who give hope
    in desperate situations.
    Hill Giant Games
    I make indie gaming books for you!
    Spoiler
    Show

    STaRS: A non-narrativeist, generic rules-light system.
    Grod's Guide to Greatness, 2e: A big book of player options for 5e.
    Grod's Grimoire of the Grotesque: An even bigger book of variant and expanded rules for 5e.
    Giants and Graveyards: My collected 3.5 class fixes and more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Paranoia land

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Yeah, making bards full casters alongside wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks was one of the worse decisions in 5e from a flavor standpoint. They've always been a jack-of-all-trades class, from AD&D where they were the first "prestige class" (being a fighter/thief/druid multiclass rather than a base class) through 3e where they were a partial caster with rogue-ish and fighter-ish capabilities to 4e where Skald bards were the only class (that I'm aware of; there may be others) with a dual power source of Martial and Arcane, so in 5e making them a full-on wizard-scale arcanist who can then also be fighter-like or rogue-like doesn't make much sense.
    No... No they weren't. If you're talking about 1st AD&D, I have no experience. But 2nd AD&D... They were a full class, categorized with thief (modern rogue) under the hyperclass (or categorization) rogue. (It's confusing.) I own a 2nd AD&D PH. I'll quote: "The bard is an optional charecter class that can be used if your DM allows." They were a full class. What they also were, however, is a subcaster, moving alongside Paladin and Rogue as the first of their ilk. Back then, they functioned like Wizards in the fluff of their casting. Just do that again.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grod_The_Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Yeah, making bards full casters alongside wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks was one of the worse decisions in 5e from a flavor standpoint. They've always been a jack-of-all-trades class, from AD&D where they were the first "prestige class" (being a fighter/thief/druid multiclass rather than a base class) through 3e where they were a partial caster with rogue-ish and fighter-ish capabilities to 4e where Skald bards were the only class (that I'm aware of; there may be others) with a dual power source of Martial and Arcane, so in 5e making them a full-on wizard-scale arcanist who can then also be fighter-like or rogue-like doesn't make much sense.

    Rather than removing their casting entirely, it might make more sense to simply reduce their casting to paladin or ranger levels and add a few extra features to the subclasses, making them an arcane/martial or arcane/skills hybrid to go with the martial/arcane Eldritch Knight and skills/arcane Arcane Trickster.
    Hmm, didn't notice this comment before, but making Bards another half-caster is an interesting idea... maybe I'll take a stab at some point, it sounds fun.
    Hill Giant Games
    I make indie gaming books for you!
    Spoiler
    Show

    STaRS: A non-narrativeist, generic rules-light system.
    Grod's Guide to Greatness, 2e: A big book of player options for 5e.
    Grod's Grimoire of the Grotesque: An even bigger book of variant and expanded rules for 5e.
    Giants and Graveyards: My collected 3.5 class fixes and more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Tarrasque View Post
    No... No they weren't. If you're talking about 1st AD&D, I have no experience.
    Yep, I was referring to 1e; I should have been more clear. For reference:

    Quote Originally Posted by 1e PHB, APPENDIX II: BARDS
    A bard must have scores of 15 or better in the following abilities: strength, wisdom, dexterity and charisma. Furthermore, a bard must have at least a 12 score in intelligence and a 10 in constitution
    [...]
    Bards begin play as fighters, and they must remain exclusively fighters until they have achieved at least the 5th level of experience. Anytime thereafter, and in any event prior to attaining the 8th level, they must change their class to that of thieves. Again, sometime between 5th and 9th level of ability, bards must leave off thieving and begin clerical studies as druids; but at this time they are actually bards and under druidical tutelage
    So initially bard was a pretty darn exclusive class, requiring all-around high stats and a very specific dual-class combination. Interestingly enough, the minimum entry for a bard was fighter 5/thief 1, so I wonder if that at all influenced the 3e devs to decide that most PrCs should be entered around 5th or 6th level.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Hmm, didn't notice this comment before, but making Bards another half-caster is an interesting idea... maybe I'll take a stab at some point, it sounds fun.
    Indeed. Might even want to make them a divine caster in the process, since (A) they originally had druid casting up to 5th-level spells and (B) having a divine half-caster that casts some arcane spells would set them apart from paladins and rangers on the one hand and eldritch knights and arcane tricksters on the other.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Thanatos 51-50's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    I'm a Protagonist!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    I continue to not see your problem with bards? I see nothing inherently silly in using music as a medium to craft magic, and I don't think it inherently makes Warlocks or Wizards less cool. Music may be tied into the Magic of the world, but that doesn't mean you're suddenly a bard just because you busted out a cool power chord on that guitar you picked up, even if it sounds exactly he same as the power chord that Bard over there used to cast Thunderwave. Bards study how to use their music to manipulate the fabric of the world. My Monk has a proficiency in a musical instrument from his class package, that doesn't mean he can cast spells. Any Warlock with the Outlander background is walking around town with a lute and playing out a tune as good as any Bard, and even casting spells with Charisma, but they're not casting the same spells the same way as a Bard.
    Bardic Magic and Music are linked, but music is not the Magic that anybody could tap into without training and study. Bards still need training and study. Wizards memorize pages of musty tomes and arcane formulas, Bards figure out what music moves the fabric of the world.
    NaNoWriMo Beat Me
    Red and the Phasmavore by LCP

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PirateCaptain

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Unknown
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    1. Remove their Musical Instrument (Tool) Proficiency.

    2. Add "Alchemist/Herbalism Kit" Proficiency.

    3. Remove Lute from starting equipment.

    4. Change name to whatever you want for flavor (Erudite, Factotum, Hedgemage, Witch, etc).

    There. Boom. Done.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zap Dynamic View Post
    Ninjadeadbeard just ninja'd my post. How apt.
    Ninjadeadbeard's Extended Homebrew

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Blackbando's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Between Conch and Coral
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Hmm, didn't notice this comment before, but making Bards another half-caster is an interesting idea... maybe I'll take a stab at some point, it sounds fun.
    While I am not a playtester myself, I heard that in the original 5e playtesting, Bard was a half-caster, and people disliked it due to it lacking a real identity. If you can, I'd recommend trying to track down the playtest version (someone probably has it) and see what they did wrong there, to avoid that yourself.
    Check out my homebrew blog, Bando's Homebrew!

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    I don't remember hearing many complaints about playtest bards, and when I ran some playtest games my group's "always plays bards in every edition" player didn't have any issues with them that I recall, but it's definitely been a while. I saved all the playtest packets, so if Grod or anyone else wants to take a look back I'd be happy to PM them around.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanatos 51-50 View Post
    I continue to not see your problem with bards? I see nothing inherently silly in using music as a medium to craft magic, [...] Wizards memorize pages of musty tomes and arcane formulas, Bards figure out what music moves the fabric of the world.
    For music to move the fabric if the world at all is what's silly, in my opinion.

    Arcane magic, to me, is fantasy science. Wizards have the knowledge it takes to apply arcane magic, like pseudo-scientists. Sorcerers have innate abilities that rely on arcane magic, like most creatures rely on biochemistry. Where does music fit into this?

    Bards make more sense to me as divine casters, using hymns rather than prayers to plead to gods, spirits, and the forces of nature. But then, why make them a distinct class? They're doing the same thing as clerics and druids.
    Last edited by GalacticAxekick; 2018-07-12 at 12:46 PM.

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Over the Rainbow
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by GalacticAxekick View Post
    For music to move the fabric if the world at all is what's silly, in my opinion.

    Arcane magic, to me, is fantasy science. Wizards have the knowledge it takes to apply arcane magic, like pseudo-scientists. Sorcerers have innate abilities that rely on arcane magic, like most creatures rely on biochemistry. Where does music fit into this?

    Bards make more sense to me as divine casters, using hymns rather than prayers to plead to gods, spirits, and the forces of nature. But then, why make them a distinct class? They're doing the same thing as clerics and druids.
    Musical Bards would be considered Acousticians, scientists who specialize in the study of sounds. The reverberations and resonances of various chords and sounds could interact with the physical and metaphysical world similarly to that of a wizard or sorceror.
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanne Collins
    Strange things did happen here, no stranger would it be if we met at midnight in the hanging tree


  24. - Top - End - #24
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PirateCaptain

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Unknown
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by GalacticAxekick View Post
    For music to move the fabric if the world at all is what's silly, in my opinion.
    I would direct you to any Elder Scrolls thread on the internet that goes deep into the Lore to prove how very wrong you are, but I don't have to. I have this:

    Spoiler: WARNING, minor bad language
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Zap Dynamic View Post
    Ninjadeadbeard just ninja'd my post. How apt.
    Ninjadeadbeard's Extended Homebrew

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Composer99's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2013

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by GalacticAxekick View Post
    For music to move the fabric if the world at all is what's silly, in my opinion.

    Arcane magic, to me, is fantasy science. Wizards have the knowledge it takes to apply arcane magic, like pseudo-scientists. Sorcerers have innate abilities that rely on arcane magic, like most creatures rely on biochemistry. Where does music fit into this?

    Bards make more sense to me as divine casters, using hymns rather than prayers to plead to gods, spirits, and the forces of nature. But then, why make them a distinct class? They're doing the same thing as clerics and druids.
    I have to say that, given how music, writing, and lore-gathering - all solidly bardic activities in D&D - were viewed in the sorts of societies that the fantasy genre and games based therein tend to model, the view you have of arcane magic is exceptionally anachronistic.

    While you can, of course, adopt whatever concept of arcane magic you wish, I would suggest that maybe you should first examine your conception and see how it alters your views of arcane magic-users, before looking to make mechanical changes to - or dispense with - a D&D character class.

    I mean, even in our magic-free world, music can have profound effects on people. Imagine those sorts of effects in a fantastic universe permeated with magical power. I don't think it's at all a stretch to imagine that music (and related arts such as dance) could tap into that power.

    Bards as "full casters" aren't a good fit for low- or no-magic settings, I agree. But I see no reason why they wouldn't fit into gritty, dark, or otherwise entirely "non-silly" settings and games.

    Then again, as a professional musician, I might be untowardly biased. ;)
    ~ Composer99

    D&D 5e Campaign:
    Adventures in Eaphandra

    D&D 5e Homebrew:
    This can be found in my extended homebrew signature!

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2018

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    To be perfectly honest, the ideas you suggest feel like significant overkill for what your actual problems with the class are. Those problems seems to boil down to not liking that Bard spellcasting is tied in with music. Ok, that's fair. Now ignoring the introductory flavor text and the flavor text for the subclasses, here's what you'd need to do to entirely divorce Bard spellcasting from music:
    • Change what they can use as a Spellcasting Focus from a musical instrument to an arcane focus
    • Rewrite the first sentence of Bardic Inspiration so it doesn't talk about "stirring words or music".
    • Rename Song of Rest and rewrite the first sentence of its description to no longer mention "soothing music or oration".


    .....Aaaaand that's about it. If you really look at it, there's very little in the mechanics of the Bard class that actually ties their spellcasting to music. This still leaves them as full casters, but if you think Wizards and Sorcerers fit into a low-magic setting fine, then I don't see why a Bard with these changes couldn't.
    Last edited by leogobsin; 2018-07-12 at 03:45 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    AstralFire's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    I am of the opposite opinion; while bards in 5e are tremendously effective, they suffered the most of any class in how much flavor was lost from 3rd and 4th editions. I've found the bard to be an excellent generalist mage or spell sword chassis and not especially tied into music or story telling in presentation, and am confused what deep mechanical elements you're having difficulty divorcing from it to make a more generic magician.


    a steampunk fantasy ♦ the novelthe album

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Thanatos 51-50's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    I'm a Protagonist!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by GalacticAxekick View Post
    For music to move the fabric of the world at all is what's silly, in my opinion.

    Arcane magic, to me, is fantasy science. Wizards have the knowledge it takes to apply arcane magic, like pseudo-scientists. Sorcerers have innate abilities that rely on arcane magic, like most creatures rely on biochemistry. Where does music fit into this?
    Edited for spelling above

    Why? Sound is just vibrations passing through matter. If I yell loudly enough, the walls of my apartment shake. If I play this chord or hum this tune just right and infuse it with a little spark of will and Magic, who is to say that doesn't close a wound or cleanse the air of other magic?
    (For completeness' sake, I find the divide between Arcane and Divine magic to be entirely inconsequential. Call it Arcane or Divine as you like, nobody is going to stop you. Matter of fact: in getting rid of the divide between Arcane and Divine magic -- what, morally, separates Warlocks from Clerics?)
    NaNoWriMo Beat Me
    Red and the Phasmavore by LCP

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanatos 51-50 View Post
    Matter of fact: in getting rid of the divide between Arcane and Divine magic -- what, morally, separates Warlocks from Clerics?)
    Aside from the fact that gods don't make warlock pacts and planar lords like demon princes don't empower clerics (barring the few beings that are both gods and planar lords and in fact can do both), the main difference between them is the same thing that separates mercenaries from loyal retainers. Warlocks make a pact with a being for power and may need to perform services for their patron occasionally, but are under no obligation to find their patron worthy of worship or think or act in accord with its agenda in any way, whereas clerics gain their power through faith and devotion and are expected to uphold its teachings, spread its faith, or the like.

    A cleric of Pelor is expected to heal the wounded, smite the undead, and bring light to the darkness and would lose his powers if Pelor was upset with him or if he lost faith in Pelor's ideals; meanwhile, a hypothetical warlock of Pelor (if Pelor made warlock pacts) could take his granted powers of healing, fire, and light and go burn down some orphanages and at the head of a skeleton army. Pelor would be likely to specify in the warlock pact that the powers are to be used in accordance with Pelor's will, but such an understanding doesn't come with the territory automatically like it does for clerics, and once the warlock has gained a certain amount of power Pelor can't revoke it, just refuse to teach him any more.

    It's not a moral difference any more than the difference between a cleric and a druid is a moral one. Different arrangements with higher beings, different rules, that's all.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    AstralFire's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: QUESTION: More serious bard for 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanatos 51-50 View Post
    Edited for spelling above

    Why? Sound is just vibrations passing through matter. If I yell loudly enough, the walls of my apartment shake. If I play this chord or hum this tune just right and infuse it with a little spark of will and Magic, who is to say that doesn't close a wound or cleanse the air of other magic?
    (For completeness' sake, I find the divide between Arcane and Divine magic to be entirely inconsequential. Call it Arcane or Divine as you like, nobody is going to stop you. Matter of fact: in getting rid of the divide between Arcane and Divine magic -- what, morally, separates Warlocks from Clerics?)
    Arcane Magic is more 'fundamental knowledge', while Divine Magic is more 'received power' -- at a story level this makes Divine Magic a bit less good at 'radically rewriting reality' but can do some neat tricks that Arcane has to expend too much energy inefficiently to do.

    Warlock isn't really either Arcane or Divine by this scheme, because -- as Pair indicates -- divine casters have a necessitated continuing relationship to use their powers. Warlocks received their power, but it can't be taken away from them.


    a steampunk fantasy ♦ the novelthe album

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •