College of Swords with a dip into Hexblade Warlock. If you want a Bard subclass that can offer better support, choose Eloquence for social supports or Lore for more wizard-like supports, though both will eat into your physical damage for the sake of being incredible as a Bard.
If you want to avoid multiclassing, then you don't want to make a melee-based bard. I am currently using a Valor Bard that uses a longbow and has the fighting initiate - archery feat. It's okay physical damage with two attacks per round and being ranged keeps me from taking too much damage myself, but if a Bard is wanting to focus on nice damage per round, that is honestly best accomplished by casting a spell.
EDIT: Here is how I would go about making a Swords Bard that do both damage and provide great support:
Level 1: Start with a bard for level 1. It doesn't matter overly much, but it gets you started in establishing that you are a BARD.
Level 2: Dip Warlock. I would choose Hexblade to compliment a Sword Bard's melee focus most, but you can still be reasonably effective with Archfey, Fathomless, and Genie as well. If you choose Hexblade, you get a Hexblade's Curse, which is pretty baller to put on a big bad for any fight. You also get medium armor, shields, martial weapons, and the ability to use any weapon you are proficient with using your charisma instead of strength or dexterity. Here, you begin to be a pretty mean melee bard. In addition to this, you immediately get access to the spells Shield and Wrathful Smite. I would recommend those spells and/or Armor of Agathy's, Hellish Rebuke, or Hex. Hex is slightly better than Wrathful Smite IMO because it can't be saved against. The chaser feature of the spell isn't as good but it is far more reliable and you can move it to another bad guy. Your Hexblade cantrips should include either Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade but you shouldn't need both. I would also recommend Eldritch Blast.
Level 3: Two options here. Either you go back to Bard and stay there for the rest of your career, or you take one more dip into Warlock to pick up the two invocations. No wrong answer here, so what is suiting your needs. If you do select warlock, I strongly encourage you to take Agonizing Blast because EB scales extremely well and allows you to damage enemies that aren't close to you for your Flourish. The second Invocation should be either one that gives you a spell, one that allows you to cast a spell at will, or something that further augments your EB. All are good options. Since you will get plenty of support options through your bard, I would recommend something to augment your EB like Repelling Blast.
That's it! Once you get Swords Bard, you'll stick with one-handed weapons, so take the Dueling fighting style. Take the Warcaster feat somewhere along the way so you can maintain concentration on your best spells and so you can cast Shield while holding a shield. Also, absolutely take Cartomancer. It is a casting of a bard spell you do not know for 8 hours. It is very much a necessary feat and can be used for any level spell you can cast.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form| Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
fighter 1/swords bard x is a pretty good build for dealing decent melee damage. Start with v.human, go 16 STR, 14 CON, 16 CHA, dump the rest, and take GWM as your starting feat, and start as fighter for armor, weapon, and CON save proficiencies, and defensive fighting style. Then go swords bard the rest of the way through, boosting STR at each given opportunity, or CHA if your DM gives you a pair of STR gauntlets or belts or whatever early on.
+pros:
it's capable of dealing competitive melee damage with GWM and extra attack
the listed gained proficiencies from fighter mean you hold onto concentration pretty well and can confidently wade into melee combat with good AC from defensive flourish, defensive fighting style, and heavy armor.
bard has access to enough spells that don't rely on DC that are still really good and fulfill different functions, like greater invisibility, dimension door, plant growth, enhance ability, so you don't suffer too much for not bumping CHA up later on.
feels like a half-caster martial that actually gets full caster progression for one level of investment
have the option to invest two levels into fighter for action surge for the possibility to cast two spells in one turn or boost melee damage. Gets crazier if you get high enough to access simulacrum.
still feels great in tier 1
that 16 CHA and expertise goes a long way in holding up your ability to still act as the party face, especially if you use enhance ability for those crucial social moments.
being proficient with any weapon means any weapon can act as your focus for spellcasting as per swords bard's features. so, you can cast v/s/m spells even while holding a sword and shield, WITHOUT needing warcaster.
-cons:
lvl 5 ( fighter 1 bard 4) sucks as a puberty stage since you're stuck with 2nd lvl spells, and no extra attack. if your campaign takes a long time to level, you'll feel this puberty stage for a good painful while and it's gonna SUUUCCKK. this issue is alleviated at lvl 6, since then you'd gain access to 3rd lvl spells, and from there things get easier after gaining extra attack, but 5 is notably sucky.
you're not as beefy as a dedicated purebred martial since you're stuck with a 14 CON and d8 hit die for most of your build. you're not super squishy either, but you'll definitely be relying on your defensive flourish to confidently stay on the front lines.
you could also go with paladin instead of fighter as it's a tried and proven build, but it pretty much demands a two level investment as soon as possible, so it takes a while longer to come online compared to my fighter 1 build, and still lacks CON save proficiency so it's more likely to lose concentration on spells.
you could also try to make it into a SS/XBE build where you'd focus on DEX instead of STR. Doing so, you could forgo the first fighter level, but doing so means you're limited to hand crossbows instead of a wider array of ranged weaponry, and you'd miss out on the archery fighting style but if you did skip out on fighter you'd at least be 100% on track for gaining features and spells as intended.
I came up with a concept for a Custom Lineage Melee Bard based on Warcaster, a two level Hex dip (of course!) and Lore Bard for Additional Magic Secrets in order to gain access to Spirit Guardians. It will never get Extra Attack, but it can do reasonable damage with Hex, Hexblade's Curse, Booming Blade and Hex Longsword. Once you get your first Bard level, you can proc Dissonant Whispers to force an Attack of Opportunity on a failed save, where you would cast Booming Blade (Warcaster) to get both the initial and rider damage resulting from your opponent's movement. EB/Agonizing Blast/Hex/Hex Blade's Curse gives you a great ranged option.
Once you get Spirit Guardians at Lore 6/Hex 2, you use Eldritch Blast/Grasp of Hadar to pull opponents into its AoE, and, if your teammates have forced movement options, they can join in the fun. I'd pick up Counterspell as the second Additional Magic Secret.
You get excellent AC with Half Plate, +2 for DEX and Shield, and Warcaster lets you cast Shield with your hands full. You can further increase survivabilty with Aid for more health, Armor of Agathys for temp hit points and more damage, Mirror Image, and Misty Step (from Fey Touched from your first ASI).
You don't get proficiency in CON saves (although Warcaster helps a lot for maintaining concentration), you don't get a Fighting Style, your Bard, ASI and spell progression is delayed, and most of your spell choices and slots will be devoted to combat, but you are still a skill monkey Face doing reasonable damage every step of the way.
You could build almost any Bard this way, but Lore gets the extra proficiencies and Additional Magical Secrets, which brings Spirit Guardians (and Counterspell) on line earlier and at less of an opportunity cost. Since you aren't a Swords Bard, you won't be using your Inspirations to fuel Flourishes, which your party will appreciate.
Swords Bard is a great defensive melee combatant. Here are some options to consider Option 1: Multiclassing. If you multiclass, level 1 as fighter or hexblade is just great. It will delay extra attack, but some of the gains are worth it. With Fighter you get full armor prof, full weapon prof and Con saves. With Hexblade you get eldritch blast/hex/Curse and you are attacking with your charisma which means you can max cha and help spell casting. If you want a strength/GWM or dex/archery/Sharpshooter based build go fighter.
Option 2: Straight swords bard. I would recommend leaning into one of your two options for fighting style dueling or two weapon. Two weapon is a little harder to pull off since you still want to cast spells. You might want the dual wielder feat and warcaster and now you have two feats with no ability score increases. That is difficult. You will need to consider how to manage your AC which puts Dex as the more needed measure. Medium armor proficiency can help solve that by going with dueling/shield and it comes with a +1 to dex. But if you can get your AC into the 17+ range then defensive flourish can really help survive melee. Regardless the standard build here can go two ways: Caster who uses concentration based spells and skirmishes around with them or melee who boosts their damage. There aren't a lot of great melee boosting options on the bard spell list.
I can see the value in this build but GWM is going to seriously reduce the hit percentage of a melee bard in tier 1 and one of the most unfun things about combat is missing. At level 2, the average AC of enemies is going to be 13 and that is a 40% chance to hit using GWM. Assuming they are not rolling stats, they will also only be able to accomplish that stat loadout with pointbuy, meaning they will fail virtually every dex, int, and wis save with a -1 to all those modifiers.
When they get a +1 with GWM, the average AC for enemies will be 15, which means they will suffer a decrease in hit percentage with GWM to 35%, and this happens when every other martial is getting their two attacks per action and hitting almost every time. I will say though, that when they do hit, the bard will be crushing the enemy with an average of 19 damage with a greatsword at level 5, but they will be missing so much, it is hard to imagine them ever using melee when they can just cast a spell that will at least guarantee some damage like Shatter or Thunderwave.
Swords Bard fighting styles won't synergize, so they won't be able to benefit from the Dueling or Two-Weapon Fighting. Flourish will add an average of 3 extra damage and the effect, but only if they hit. So no wading into combat with confidence because the Defensive Flourish won't be active 65% of the time. At level 5, they will also get their first ASI and probably will be forced to put it into the Charisma to boost the spell DC; enemies will start making the saves a lot if they don't and the spells you mentioned that don't worry about DCs won't be available for some time. Plus they want to be able to offer support so they have to invest in DC spells. At level 5 they will have 40 HP and an AC of 17 unless they can buy some plate, which will bring them up to 19 AC. That's pretty good for early tier 2, though the bard is seriously lagging behind everyone who is already enjoying two attacks because that is happening at level 5 for them and level 7 for the bard. A greatsword fighter is going to be hitting more often and doing gobs more damage than the melee bard. The bard won't just suck for damage, they will almost never do damage at all in tier 1. The bard will make almost every con save they have to maintain concentration so it is more likely that they will drop unconscious before losing concentration. That is one benefit. But if the plan is to invest in spells that don't have DCs, then you won't be maximizing that benefit to con.
I think it could be okay as a level 10 build, but in tier 1, they are going to feel like an invalid next to the other players for support and melee.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form| Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
I think it could be okay as a level 10 build, but in tier 1, they are going to feel like an invalid next to the other players for support and melee.
Such charged language, don't you think? I think there's a lot of gross overestimations and exaggerations in this post.
For starters, talk of discrepancy of stats in character creation is a somewhat moot point since every point buy stat build tends to have its ups and downs. A typical lore bard that just wants to min-max its caster gameplay style will likely have nothing (or close to nothing) invested in WIS, INT and STR. So, to point out that this build will have low initiative, or X saves vs Y saves, is kinda irrelevant. Every build's gonna have their weakness, stat-wise. You wouldn't judge a wizard build for being prone to failing virtually every str save, would you?
Secondly, just because you have GWM doesn't mean you have to use that -5/+10 feature all the time. It's a feature you can toggle on or off, after all. In fact, you can benefit off the bonus attack portion mostly in tier 1. Even then, there are ways to use the power attack smartly by understanding AC thresholds or sticking to rules of thumb such as only activating it when advantage is available. When played in this manner, GWM is a strict DPR gain.
Thirdly, the fighting styles can synergize just fine. Again, just because you have GWM doesn't mean you're forced to only equip and use two-handed weapons. You can equip a shield as necessary and thereby benefit from sword bard's dueling fighting style! Why wouldn't you? Again, you can benefit from defensive flourish by using your better judgement to not GWM when you really want to depend on the AC boost from defensive flourish, for example.
Fourth, you still have a 16 CHA from the get-go, so your spell DC isn't actually all that bad if you choose to increase STR instead of CHA when your first ASI presents itself. In fact, the game assumes you have a 16 in tier 1, so you're actually just as effective as any other caster at that point (and other martials for that matter). You can use faerie fire just as well, and hit just as hard as the other dedicated fighter in tier 1 and that's why it feels fantastic! If 16 was bad, then no caster in their right mind would ever select Resilient: Con or Warcaster at lvl 4... and yet, those are competitive choices. You don't have to invest in spell DC to such a degree to remain effective. Having a spell save DC of 14 at lvl 5 isn't the end of the world when fully dedicated casters have a spell save DC of 15 instead. So, you can still use hypnotic pattern effectively when you gain access to third lvl spells. So, for tier 1 and early tier 2, our spell DC is actually perfectly fine. By the time our spell save DC starts to show its age, that's when we access those spells I've mentioned, and then some.
A dedicated fighter will do more damage, this should come as no surprise, especially when you account for their subclass features and extra feats. However, the build proposed is not an attempt to surpass the fighter, but it is an option instead to offer decently good melee damage that contributes to the overall success of the party and can shine in its own right as a multiclass while still being a full bard practically.
So sure, for two levels (5 &6) a fighter will do much more damage... But then the build catches up and stays relatively on par while casting support/utility spells and acting as party face. A full fighter can't do that. A full swords bard can't do as much melee, resource-less damage (unless you play an older version githyanki with a DM who gives everyone a free starting feat, but that's a lot of what-ifs). But this mutliclass can do both things and that's the beauty of it!
I think it could be okay as a level 10 build, but in tier 1, they are going to feel like an invalid next to the other players for support and melee.
Such charged language, don't you think? I think there's a lot of gross overestimations and exaggerations in this post.
For starters, talk of discrepancy of stats in character creation is a somewhat moot point since every point buy stat build tends to have its ups and downs. A typical lore bard that just wants to min-max its caster gameplay style will likely have nothing (or close to nothing) invested in WIS, INT and STR. So, to point out that this build will have low initiative, or X saves vs Y saves, is kinda irrelevant. Every build's gonna have their weakness, stat-wise. You wouldn't judge a wizard build for being prone to failing virtually every str save, would you?
Secondly, just because you have GWM doesn't mean you have to use that -5/+10 feature all the time. It's a feature you can toggle on or off, after all. In fact, you can benefit off the bonus attack portion mostly in tier 1. Even then, there are ways to use the power attack smartly by understanding AC thresholds or sticking to rules of thumb such as only activating it when advantage is available. When played in this manner, GWM is a strict DPR gain.
Thirdly, the fighting styles can synergize just fine. Again, just because you have GWM doesn't mean you're forced to only equip and use two-handed weapons. You can equip a shield as necessary and thereby benefit from sword bard's dueling fighting style! Why wouldn't you? Again, you can benefit from defensive flourish by using your better judgement to not GWM when you really want to depend on the AC boost from defensive flourish, for example.
Fourth, you still have a 16 CHA from the get-go, so your spell DC isn't actually all that bad if you choose to increase STR instead of CHA when your first ASI presents itself. In fact, the game assumes you have a 16 in tier 1, so you're actually just as effective as any other caster at that point (and other martials for that matter). You can use faerie fire just as well, and hit just as hard as the other dedicated fighter in tier 1 and that's why it feels fantastic! If 16 was bad, then no caster in their right mind would ever select Resilient: Con or Warcaster at lvl 4... and yet, those are competitive choices. You don't have to invest in spell DC to such a degree to remain effective. Having a spell save DC of 14 at lvl 5 isn't the end of the world when fully dedicated casters have a spell save DC of 15 instead. So, you can still use hypnotic pattern effectively when you gain access to third lvl spells. So, for tier 1 and early tier 2, our spell DC is actually perfectly fine. By the time our spell save DC starts to show its age, that's when we access those spells I've mentioned, and then some.
A dedicated fighter will do more damage, this should come as no surprise, especially when you account for their subclass features and extra feats. However, the build proposed is not an attempt to surpass the fighter, but it is an option instead to offer decently good melee damage that contributes to the overall success of the party and can shine in its own right as a multiclass while still being a full bard practically.
So sure, for two levels (5 &6) a fighter will do much more damage... But then the build catches up and stays relatively on par while casting support/utility spells and acting as party face. A full fighter can't do that. A full swords bard can't do as much melee, resource-less damage (unless you play an older version githyanki with a DM who gives everyone a free starting feat, but that's a lot of what-ifs). But this mutliclass can do both things and that's the beauty of it!
The invalid is not charged language, it is how players are going to feel when they miss most of the time. That is specifically why the game developers have gone on record saying they tried to shoot for hitting at least 70% of the time; because anything below that leaves players feeling very unsatisfied. Players feel like they build their character wrong if they are hitting 35% while their friends are hitting 70% or better. In short, they feel like an invalid.
These are not overestimation. These are hard numbers based on the averages in official published content. If you feel it is an overestimation, can you explain your reasoning? If the average AC is 13 for CR0 - CR3, then how are they going to crack off a hit more than 40% of the time without being entirely dependent on someone else being the support? Which, I might add, is a role that this player wanted.
Your lore bard example doesn't support your point because a typical lore bard doesn't need INT or STR. The only thing they need is CHA. Your build needs STR to make GWM work, but it ignores all the support that the player has asked for. You need CHA to be a support bard because the only ways to give support with a bard's spells are to buff allies and debuff enemies. Debuff means DCs, which means you need CHA, which means it needs investment to stay ahead of the growing save abilities of the enemies. Your build also invests in CON saves, but your build is intended to have spells that do not require saves, so like, most of the concentration bard spells that would benefit from a high CON.
I wouldn't fault a standard wizard for failing every STR save because that wizard likely has dumped STR and won't be trying to do STR based stuff. The ask is for a damage dealing support bard. I am simply saying that you are not giving the user that bard.
Okay, maybe they don't have to use GWM every attack but what is the point of investing so heavily into the GWM build if you are not going to use it? How can they accomplish the goal of dealing decent damage without it? You only get the BA feature if you reduce a monster to 0 HP or if you crit. Crits happen roughly 5% of the time and if there is another melee fighter, the bard isn't killing anyone before the other martials have cleaned up the map. So the GWM is not used for extra damage and by the time the bard downs an enemy, the rest of the enemies are long dead. Besides, using your BA for the GWM feat means no bardic support for your allies, further reducing support features.
Okay, so you can either use a great weapon and benefit from the beefy damage 35% of the time or you can use a weapon without the heavy feature to use your bardic fighting styles and literally never get the bonus to damage. So... how do they synergize? How is this accomplishing any part of the OP's ask?
The spell DC isn't bad for a starting bard. 16 CHA is perfectly normal. But as you level, you have to invest into your CHA or the 13 spell DC is going to suck. That was my point. Your build can do some decent damage but it fails the second objective of being a good support. There are 55 bard spells of spell level 1 - 2. Of these, 21 require saves. Of the ones that do not require saves, 12 have combat utility and most of those the wizard or cleric absolutely will have prepared instead. So let's assume that the party has no wizard or cleric just to give your build the most utility. That's great but all the best bard spells require saves, so the build deeply falls short of the best support options.
If you use your first ASI for STR instead of CHA, you might as well just forget about being good at support because no, the save is woefully ineffective. At CR 5, the monsters are going to be making the save almost half the time and there is a better than average chance they will be fighting higher CRs at level 5 because CR is underpowered by level. Do you like failing half the time you use a spell? Maybe you think it isn't that bad but as a DM who had watched a player have a broken build while the other players are either functional to excellent, the broken build player spends a lot of their time not having fun. It doesn't have to be a perfect build but it should at least do what the OP has asked. Your build fails across the board.
You won't be using fairie fire just as well once you hit level 5 and you definitely won't be doing as much damage as a fighter even if per attack you do about as much damage (assuming you hit with a great weapon). But your hit percentage is awful if you use your damage dealing feature and you are going to be juggling weapons and shields, or two non-heavy weapons, which take multiple turns to equip by the way.
It isn't about doing as much damage as a fighter. That was nowhere in my post. The goal is to at least do decent damage. How can you do decent damage when you either A) Almost never hit, or B) can't use the features that give you a boost to damage?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form| Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
I think it could be okay as a level 10 build, but in tier 1, they are going to feel like an invalid next to the other players for support and melee.
It isn't about doing as much damage as a fighter. That was nowhere in my post. The goal is to at least do decent damage. How can you do decent damage when you either A) Almost never hit, or B) can't use the features that give you a boost to damage?
This point here is a perfect example of the gross exaggerations I'm referring to. You present some faulty either-or argument, where neither point is true. You hit about as often as other martials, there's nothing inherently wrong with our hit-chance. You can use GWM to boost damage, but it has to be done when conditions are right.
Again, your first ASI doesn't have to be dedicated to increasing your spellcasting stat, because taking a feat is an equally valid that has shown value in other builds for dedicated spellcasters. You wouldn't judge a wizard for taking warcaster at lvl 4 instead of increasing INT, would you? that 13 spell save DC soon turns to 14 with just proficiency bonus alone.
And you know something? If the fighter bard cast hypnotic pattern on 6 targets, and 3 make the save (thus "failing half the time")? that's fine! the MC bard just turned an encounter of vs 6 into an encounter of vs 3 with a single spell slot. Your party, I promise you, will be pleased with being able to save on resources with a properly controlled battlefield. So, while I'm not going to bother with CRs and percentages or hard numbers, and yes, this evidence is entirely anecdotal and Bayesian, it's still a comparison of one point less in spell save DC for later tier 1-early tier 2. If you're fussing that much over a single point in DC, quite frankly I don't think you understand practicality or pragmatism.
This point here is a perfect example of the gross exaggerations I'm referring to. You present some faulty either-or argument, where neither point is true. You hit about as often as other martials, there's nothing inherently wrong with our hit-chance. You can use GWM to boost damage, but it has to be done when conditions are right.
Again, your first ASI doesn't have to be dedicated to increasing your spellcasting stat, because taking a feat is an equally valid that has shown value in other builds for dedicated spellcasters. You wouldn't judge a wizard for taking warcaster at lvl 4 instead of increasing INT, would you? that 13 spell save DC soon turns to 14 with just proficiency bonus alone.
And you know something? If the fighter bard cast hypnotic pattern on 6 targets, and 3 make the save (thus "failing half the time")? that's fine! the MC bard just turned an encounter of vs 6 into an encounter of vs 3 with a single spell slot. Your party, I promise you, will be pleased with being able to save on resources with a properly controlled battlefield. So, while I'm not going to bother with CRs and percentages or hard numbers, and yes, this evidence is entirely anecdotal and Bayesian, it's still a comparison of one point less in spell save DC for later tier 1-early tier 2. If you're fussing that much over a single point in DC, quite frankly I don't think you understand practicality or pragmatism.
The point of this exercise is to build a functional bard that can do damage and support. It is not an exaggeration to say why your build fails in these objectives. It is not a false dichotomy; it is a simple fact that while your build can do damage, it can't hit worth a damn. Meanwhile literally everyone else in the party is dealing damage and hitting at least twice as often, leaving the bard feeling like they are not only failing to pull their weight, but fundamentally incapable of doing so. When asked to justify this build in the face of these shortcomings, your response is to simply not use the feature which is central to the entire build. You will not be hitting as much as other martials at any level if you are using the feature that is core to your build. The only 'either-or' in this discussion is to use or not use the features you invested in. So again, how are they doing decent damage when not using GWM and how are they hitting when they are using GWM?
Using GWM effectively with this build requires that someone else is the support. FAILURE! The OP wants to be good at support. If they need someone else to take on the role, this fails that objective, doubly so when they need that support just to make the build work at all.
Yes, taking a feat is a valid option, but not a very good one with your proposed build. As a bard, they are a dedicated spellcaster. You can't uncouple dedicated spellcasting from the bard as the main class. At least, not if you want to make a build that is fun to play. Your wizard example is nonsensical. A wizard that uses a lot of concentration spells would be making a solid move to take warcaster at some point, but if the wizard is using a lot of spells with DCs and only has a +2 to their INT, they would not be making a very wise choice. You can start with a 17 INT with a wizard with variant human and point buy, so your example is... distressingly uninformed. At level 4, warcaster makes for a decent choice assuming they are making a wizard to do wizardy things.
Again, by the time the DC turns to 14, the average wis save of the monsters also pops up by one, rendering the proficiency bonus moot. Meanwhile every other caster is doing their job and by the look of it, your bard's job too. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hypnotic Pattern is a fantastic example of things that don't actually happen in the game. It's great for white room theory crafting but you are going to be casting Hypnotic Pattern in a way that you doesn't t negatively impact your party unless your definition of 'support' is pissing off your team, which means you are positioning the cube to hit one, maybe two creatures at a time in live play, three in rare chances. If you are only going to be charming one person, you might as well pick a better spell like Hold Person, which is cheaper and effectively does the same thing, or Heat Metal, which is also cheaper, at least avoids an initial save, and depending on the fight, might be better to beat the save.
A single point is the difference between a failed save and a successful one and the probability of hitting those numbers are not insignificant. I suppose if you think I don't understand practicality or pragmatism, based on the babbling I have been reading this evening, I am entirely unbothered by your opinion. The build simply does not do what you have been asked to provide. It just doesn't.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form| Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
I'm astounded by how rare you think a hypnotic pattern situation as the one I described actually is. I'm astounded by what you call "babbling" just because you don't agree with a differing perspective. I'm astounded by your assumption that GWM makes this build unable to hit it's way out of a paper bag or even requires outside assistance to function even when it's STR stays on curve. Would you say the same of a GWM paladin or ranger? You can still act as a support by setting up your big concentration spell for the encounter, be it faerie fire or hold person or hypnotic pattern, then use the subsequent turns to melee to fulfill the damage role.
Fighter 1/wizard X has been a long lauded build. This build takes that same concept and builds upon it even further, with more synergy to boot.
But hey, I extend this humble invitation for you: Try it for yourself. There's enough plenty avenues to readily run it in practice. Play it in AL, play it in BG3, play it wherever, and then see for yourself just how effective it is. It's exactly what I've done and why I can recommend it in good faith while acknowledging any shortcomings it has, of which they are few and fairly easy to work around.
I'm astounded by how rare you think a hypnotic pattern situation as the one I described actually is. I'm astounded by what you call "babbling" just because you don't agree with a differing perspective. I'm astounded by your assumption that GWM makes this build unable to hit it's way out of a paper bag or even requires outside assistance to function even when it's STR stays on curve. Would you say the same of a GWM paladin or ranger? You can still act as a support by setting up your big concentration spell for the encounter, be it faerie fire or hold person or hypnotic pattern, then use the subsequent turns to melee to fulfill the damage role.
Fighter 1/wizard X has been a long lauded build. This build takes that same concept and builds upon it even further, with more synergy to boot.
But hey, I extend this humble invitation for you: Try it for yourself. There's enough plenty avenues to readily run it in practice. Play it in AL, play it in BG3, play it wherever, and then see for yourself just how effective it is. It's exactly what I've done and why I can recommend it in good faith while acknowledging any shortcomings it has, of which they are few and fairly easy to work around.
You seem to be easily astounded.
Unlike you, I actually play this game and the scenario you describe, where all the bad guys are all grouped up and all the good guys are all a safe distance away is not, generally speaking, how things pan out in live play unless you have a DM that has nothing but pity for your poor character build decisions. Is the objective here to build a bard so bad that the DM has to throw you a bone every other fight? If so, then bravo.
I do not see babbling just because I disagree. I see it because you have continuously demonstrated an inability to support your argument in a logical way when presented with very valid, factual criticisms. Instead, you started your very first response with a clear indication that the mere mention of disagreement from others offended you.
Yeah, and you have not been able to provide any evidence that a GWM bard will be able to hit more than 40% of the time from levels 1-4 and 35% of the time at level 5. Tell me what the odds of rolling a 13 or higher is? There are literally free probability calculators available to give you this information. It isn't hard to understand that a bard hitting 40% of the time or less is going to not be having fun. Missing attacks sucks and the only solution to that problem that you have been able to offer is to not use the damage boosting feature that you originally used to sell the feat. If you can't use it, it can't help the bard do good damage and is therefore a broken build that fails to meet the objective.
I would say the same of a ranger if that ranger was doing a flat roll without modifiers at level 1. It's a dumb feat to take at that level if you do not have the stats to insulate you from the negative effects of that -5 to hit. By chance, I did play a ranger with sharpshooter at level 1, but at that time, I had a 17 to dex, giving me a +2 to hit with Sharpshooter. It wasn't great to miss half the shots. What good is bodying fodder if you miss more than half the time? You get occasional gratification but mostly are just clicking your tongue in disappointment. In a vacuum, this isn't so bad, but the problems are glaring when literally everyone else in the party barely misses. It exacerbates the feelings of inadequacy. So I am speaking as a DM and from personal experience. You are advising the OP badly.
Since most of the spells you recommended are to personally augment the bard and not others, there isn't much in the way of support coming from you and while faerie fire is maybe one of the best first level spells a bard gets, if the DC isn't hard to make, you have neutered the impact that spell can have. How are you making a good support if the best spell you got is about as terrible to use as GWM is? Give yourself a poor stat spread and be half the bard you can be with this recommendation.
Less synergy* - the features are in conflict with one another with your bard build. I don't think you know what synergy means. And a fighter/wizard build is lauded for very different reasons than what you are recommending. I think you are confusing my criticisms of your build with criticisms of multiclassing. That is an erroneous understanding of this discussion.
You have actually been extremely resistant to admitting the shortcomings it has.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form| Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
You have actually been extremely resistant to admitting the shortcomings it has.
How? I outlined the shortcomings in my first post with it's most vulnerable point being at the start of tier 2. Am I offended by your disagreement? No, only perplexed by the insensitive, and arguably passive-aggressive language you use. Alas, someone has to be the bigger man around here.
So, let's break down that statement of yours, hitting 40% of the time vs 65% of the time (since +5 would translate to 65% up from 40%). You want factual, valid, evidence? Facts and logic? Ok, here you go:
At the start of tier 2, which is where this build is at its lowest point, this MC bard will have 18 STR and GWM as per my build's steps.
With a greatsword, it'll deal 2d6+4 damage at 65% without GWM, or 2d6+14 at 40% with GWM. Or, 11 vs 21 DPR, but since we factor in chances to hit, DPR is adjusted down to 7.15 DPR vs 8.4 DPR respectively. Thus, using GWM is actually an increase in DPR regardless of how it feels or how often you miss. In the long run, you'll actually do more damage no matter how bad missing attacks feels. If you're thinking about when should one activate GWM? Then, the answer is to mathematically figure it out. At lvl 5, this MC bard can safely leave GWM so long as the target's AC is 17 or less assuming a plain greatsword, and that's assuming our MC bard hasn't found a magical, heavy two-handed weapon (of which there are plenty of!). So long as that's the case, GWM should be actively used, and it will actually benefit us. The moment advantage is introduce (and this bard can easily get advantage via faerie fire early on or greater invisibility later on), all bets are off and using GWM is the smarter choice than forgoing it. Shall I introduce the pointless math? Sure, why not. With advantage that you can easily generate, DPR is 2d6+4 at 87% hit chance without GWM, or 9.6, vs 2d6+14 at 64% hit chance with GWM, or 13.4 DPR. Once it gains extra attack after those painful two levels, just double all the calculations seen here and you'll find it's comparable to other martials of its league. Mind you, none of these calculations take into account the potential bonus action gained from downing an enemy to 0 or critting, which proper focus fire can aid in accomplishing, nor the boost from flourishes which bypass hit chance since they may only be used when an attack connects. But these figures should suffice for a conservative baseline. Compared to another melee martial who attacks twice at 65% with a 4 STR modifier, (~14.3 DPR), this build is behind, but melee isn't its focus in these painful levels, acting as a supportive spellcaster is. Once it unlocks extra attack, it's resourceless sustainable melee damage is in line with other martials.
So, I've supported my argument according to your criteria, at least as far as the bard MC acts as a martial. But, what about acting as a support?
Spells like sleep, healing word, feather fall, long strider, enhance ability, heat metal, locate object, silence, cat nap, tiny hut, plant growth, freedom of movement, dimension door, locate creature... they all are capable of aiding and supporting the team and doing so very effectively, and not a single one has a DC attached (save for heat metal but it's beneficial no matter if they save or not, but you already know this). This isn't even an exhaustive list of all the DC-less spells that can aid the team, but I think I've made my point. Whether or not they're exclusively bard spells is not the point. The point is to be a good support, and there it is. But, if we do decide to use spells that have a DC, such as the aforementioned faerie fire or hypnotic pattern, having a 16 in CHA ensures it's not a wasted effort from tier 1 to early tier 2.
How? I outlined the shortcomings in my first post with it's most vulnerable point being at the start of tier 2.
You listed some shortcomings that you felt confident would not negatively impact the experience and when I listed my concerns, you have refused to acknowledge them or address them in a rational way.
Am I offended by your disagreement? No, only perplexed by the insensitive, and arguably passive-aggressive language you use. Alas, someone has to be the bigger man around here.
See 'irony'. Also, the entirety of my comments have been centered around your build and why it is a problem. You have taken every post to express your indignation that anyone dare challenge your ideas. Disagreeing with you is not a criticism of your intelligence. In fact, I tried to express my concerns delicately in the first response by saying that your build has some value, but you insisted on being upset by my posts simply because I am direct in my argumentation. If you are trying to be the bigger man, the effort is not apparent to me.
So, let's break down that statement of yours, hitting 40% of the time vs 65% of the time (since +5 would translate to 65% up from 40%). You want factual, valid, evidence? Facts and logic? Ok, here you go:
At the start of tier 2, which is where this build is at its lowest point, this MC bard will have 18 STR and GWM as per my build's steps.
With a greatsword, it'll deal 2d6+4 damage at 65% without GWM, or 2d6+14 at 40% with GWM. Or, 11 vs 21 DPR, but since we factor in chances to hit, DPR is adjusted down to 7.15 DPR vs 8.4 DPR respectively. Thus, using GWM is actually an increase in DPR regardless of how it feels or how often you miss. In the long run, you'll actually do more damage no matter how bad missing attacks feels.
Ignoring the fact that you stated that they should NOT use a greatsword in your previous post, if they invest their ASI at level 5 into STR to get them up to 18 as you recommended, then they are only going to fail to hit as often as anyone else in the game. Thankfully, you admit to having absolutely no understanding of how it feels to actually play or concern for how it feels for others to miss. Missing most of the time is not fun. It is even less fun when your peers are hitting… a lot. Players using this build will feel like an invalid; they will feel like they can’t use the features they want well because this build is just not a very good build. In case you are unaware, DPR is 0 when they don’t hit anything. Being able to do mathematically more damage when you can actually hit is irrelevant if your build feels like a drooling vegetable in battle. Occasionally doing good but mostly sucking leaves people with one feeling: their character mostly just sucks. This is not an immaterial factor in making recommendations for others. Further, you have the gall to criticize me over a 1 number difference in a successful save and a failed one, resulting in sweeping differences in battle, while you are trying to celebrate having roughly 1 additional point of damage per round, which has an objectively negligible impact on almost any battle?
Ah, to make your build work, you now propose that the user run complex mathematical and battle scenario computations on the fly to make your build go from sloppy to brilliant? Don’t you think you are burdening the player unreasonably? Much of the information they will need may not be available. How many DMs share AC of enemies? It is not a common thing and in my experience, most players are halfway through big battles before they can tease out the answer or they finish them so quickly it doesn’t matter. If the player is a min/maxer and wanting to make every decision the ‘correct’ decision, they would just play a decent build instead of doing what you propose.
At lvl 5, this MC bard can safely leave GWM so long as the target's AC is 17 or less assuming a plain greatsword, and that's assuming our MC bard hasn't found a magical, heavy two-handed weapon (of which there are plenty of!). So long as that's the case, GWM should be actively used, and it will actually benefit us.
As we have discussed many times already and as you have been resistant to acknowledging, a player will not be able to effectively use GWM for enemies with ACs significantly lower than 17 if they want to do more than burn their entire turn 60% of the time. And yes, you are right about one thing: a DM is going to be heavily pressured to give the bard magical items to make their build not just awful. I think the idea here is to build a functional swords bard though, so by your own inadvertent admission, this build needs a lot of rethinking and reworking.
The moment advantage is introduce (and this bard can easily get advantage via faerie fire early on or greater invisibility later on), all bets are off and using GWM is the smarter choice than forgoing it.
You mean the faerie fire that is going to be easily defeated by most fodder enemies? Sorry, no, the build you have designed is going to miss attacks and enemies are going to beat the saves like it is a joke. This will further frustrate the player. At CR5, the average dex save modifier for monsters is +2. Again, this is going to result in roughly half of the enemies making the save so, effectively, they can reliably get advantage on the noticeably slow and lumbering enemies but that will be all and it is not even guaranteed. It’s not nothing but again, this is half the bard they could be. A straight bard will be giving enemies at this level a a 30% chance to save even if they don’t put their toe on the scale. When I played an eloquence bard, I absolutely did so to make at least the main target guarantee a fail while anyone nearby would have a strong chance of failure. So in addition to this being a terrible martial, it is a laughably bad bard.
Shall I introduce the pointless math? Sure, why not. With advantage that you can easily generate, DPR is 2d6+4 at 87% hit chance without GWM, or 9.6, vs 2d6+14 at 64% hit chance with GWM, or 13.4 DPR.
You mean that you can’t easily generate. If your DC is a pitiful 14, the average dex save for CR 5 is +2, which means they will make it 45% of the time. Considering most DMs give HIGHER CR monsters than the level, this is going to most likely be an even higher dex save modifier average. If magical items are introduced, a DM will have to give at least a +2 to the CR encounters just to make the party feel slightly challenged. You are not considering the real world applications of your build. As I said before, all you are doing is minimum effort white room theory crafting. The OP needs a build to actually use and have fun with. Your proposal fails the fun factor.
Once it gains extra attack after those painful two levels, just double all the calculations seen here and you'll find it's comparable to other martials of its league.
Once the bard gets the second attack, month(s) after other players? And you don’t simply double everything. If each roll is an 40% chance to hit, it does not go to 80%, it goes up to 70%. Your math is sloppy. Even then, they will need that second attack just to be as good as another martial is with one attack. Comparable to other martials of its league? LOL! Pray there is not a fighter in this party…
Mind you, none of these calculations take into account the potential bonus action gained from downing an enemy to 0 or critting, which proper focus fire can aid in accomplishing, nor the boost from flourishes which bypass hit chance since they may only be used when an attack connects.
That’s good, because they will be downing enemies about as often as they crit, which is to say rarely. Your build requires them to rely on a lot of ‘what ifs’, chance, and planning just to make it barely functional, all just so they can feel like they can cut the commoner in half in one hit. By the time GWM starts to feel useful, the extra damage is going to become far less significant because you have failed to account for how much more sturdy monsters get as the CRs go up. So by the time you are hitting by spending at least 2 whole rounds just to get a hit off at 70%, monsters are around 15-16 AC on average and about 128 hit points, up from Tier 1‘s 45 hit point average. At level 5, the average enemies, assuming strict adherence to CR, is going to be AC 14/HP 105. So even on the rare occasion the bard hits with its damage boost, halfway through the fight, it will feel pretty underwhelming. Even if the bard focuses only on junk enemies, they would need to be swarmed to benefit from the secondary feature, which means they are not lasting in combat long because the bard is taking a lot of hits. Want to piss off the healer? Be the one who always is going down and also always failing to hit or contribute to the fight in any meaningful way. The bard is basically just rolling around the field flailing their arms wildly and hitting nothing. You will have a party pressuring the bard to take a step back from melee, you can count on it. The bard will basically only get to use defensive flourish when they even get to use it at all just to keep from being a massive drain on party resources. Again, the point of this exercise is to make a functional bard…
But these figures should suffice for a conservative baseline. Compared to another melee martial who attacks twice at 65% with a 4 STR modifier, (~14.3 DPR), this build is behind, but melee isn't its focus in these painful levels, acting as a supportive spellcaster is. Once it unlocks extra attack, it's resourceless sustainable melee damage is in line with other martials.
These are not conservative estimates. As I have outlined, they are overly generous and fail to account for a variety of real-world factors that don’t just happen, but are common occurences. Further, anything the bard does to the enemy to augment their hit chance, the other martials benefit from as well. So while the bard is barely able to pop a hit off, the other martials are wrecking house at almost 90% chance to hit… per attack. Checking off the support, sure, but still failing to be a good martial. How can that GWM do any good though, when the other martials are killing enemies for the bard whether faerie fire bags an enemy or not? You are forcing the OP to do an awful lot of work just to ultimately hate their character.
Spells like sleep, healing word, feather fall, long strider, enhance ability, heat metal, locate object, silence, cat nap, tiny hut, plant growth, freedom of movement, dimension door, locate creature... they all are capable of aiding and supporting the team and doing so very effectively, and not a single one has a DC attached (save for heat metal but it's beneficial no matter if they save or not, but you already know this). This isn't even an exhaustive list of all the DC-less spells that can aid the team, but I think I've made my point. Whether or not they're exclusively bard spells is not the point. The point is to be a good support, and there it is. But, if we do decide to use spells that have a DC, such as the aforementioned faerie fire or hypnotic pattern, having a 16 in CHA ensures it's not a wasted effort from tier 1 to early tier 2.
I covered this already and in fact, some where my own recommendations to help your build. You are, however, pigeonholing the bard into a very limited set of spells and they are far from the best spells a bard can or should take for support. Half the bard they can be just to avoid a DC. A lot of these are good spells to have in concert with a full, diverse list of bard spells. All these are basically going to only be used to hastily cover up how bad this build is and they wont even do that well. And yes, most of these are good support spells individually, but most are also extremely situational. For example, sleep can’t be used unless the fight is almost over in Tier 2. Maybe even the final round. It is not a great combat spell, it is a spell to make sure you can interrogate enemies after the fight. Feather Fall requires the party be blown off a cliff to benefit them. How many times can you count on that happening? Less often than the bard will be able to hit, to be sure. So they won’t be casting many spells and they won’t be hitting often. An invalid. A spectator. A failure of an adventurer. I have already demonstrated how having a spell DC of 14 in early Tier 2 is a very frustrating experience for the caster. I don’t see the need to retread it since you were unable to counter it other than to say ‘Nu-uh’.
I strongly disagree and have demonstrated why numerous times. If you want to insist on this terrible build, you can go right ahead. The math doesn’t support your claims and the game experience absolutely doesn’t support your claims.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form| Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
A lot of your concerns stem from forcing false dichotomies. Either you're using GWM all the time, or you never benefit from it. Either you're using DC spells, or you're forcing yourself to none. Either you hit all the time, or you're missing all the time. All of these statement examples fail to account for nuance. So, you're right, I won't address any concerns built on weak arguments. A perfect example, you just stated that I advised against using a greatsword but that was never the case, I advised on using what is appropriate for the situation. You pushed a false dichotomy! Either we always use a certain weapon, or I'm advising against its usage. You won't hit all the time, but when you do it'll make up for the misses on average. You won't affect every target on the battle field with your spells, but you'll affect enough at any given moment to make the spell slot and action worth the use. You won't match a pure fighter, but you'll do fine.
I gave the calculation that a 17 AC would act as our upper limit, assuming no relevant +1 weapon has been found up until that point. Chances are you'd have one by then, but who am I to say your DM isn't stingy? If we found one, that AC limit would increase to 18. Do creatures with an AC above 18 exist? Sure, but they won't be the majority of what we encounter. If we do encounter one, the appropriate thing to do is to not use GWM. This is not a fault, but good decision making. Do we know the AC of any given target? Not always, but by the time we finish setting up our initial turn's concentration spell, we'll have a good idea by the 2nd turn, assuming characters have been attacking the creature in question. Plus, not every creature is brand new, not every encounter is a mystery of AC. What reason, then, is there for forgoing GWM if the target's AC is under the stated figure? The argument you present that it'll "burn our turn for 60% of the time" is rather vague. If we know that using GWM with any AC under the threshold constitutes a mathematical gain, why would we forcibly skip over it? I don't believe feelings constitute a good enough reason for ignoring mathematical facts.
Now, at the end of the day, we're talking about a build for 5e. This game is relatively easy and forgiving. Worse builds have succeeded. Why, pure casters who start with a 14 in their main stat have found success. Martials that have multiclassed and delayed extra attack until lvl 8 have found success. I've seen it myself. To insist that this build would make others feel like an invalid, well that's just plain ol' false and in bad taste. You ought to meditate on this.
A lot of your concerns stem from forcing false dichotomies. Either you're using GWM all the time, or you never benefit from it. Either you're using DC spells, or you're forcing yourself to none. Either you hit all the time, or you're missing all the time. All of these statement examples fail to account for nuance.
Again, incorrect. Your build is centered entirely on a yes/no option. It is not a false dichotomy on whether you are using the feature that is core to the build or not. There is literally no third option on the bard's turn. They are either using it or not using it. If you can't use the feature reliably for 7 levels, why bother having it from level 1? Are you even reading your own proposals? If the feature can't be used at level 1, it shouldn't be taken at level 1. It is a bad build for this reason alone but there is plenty more failures that we have covered. I am not sure how you can read 40% chance to hit and understand it as 0%, so I am going to recommend you read my post again. I also never said or implied that this build must either use DCs all the time or never. My posts are not lacking in clarity, so I am simply at a loss as to how you can be coming away from this debate with that understanding. Since there is a clear failure in comprehending my argument for whatever reason, I will address your DC comment specifically. It is not that you are using DC spells or none. In fact, per my last post, I specifically stated the spell you listed must be used in concert with other spells to make a strong support bard. My posts don't fail to take into account nuance. Again, see irony. Did you even read my post?
A perfect example, you just stated that I advised against using a greatsword but that was never the case, I advised on using what is appropriate for the situation. You pushed a false dichotomy! Either we always use a certain weapon, or I'm advising against its usage.
Oh?
just because you have GWM doesn't mean you're forced to only equip and use two-handed weapons. You can equip a shield as necessary and thereby benefit from sword bard's dueling fighting style!
So I am not sure if you know this but you absolutely cannot have a heavy weapon and a shield equipped at the same time. Further, and as I had stated before and which you literally never attempted to address, you cannot juggle weapons effectively, certainly not three items at a time. You can interact with one object for free during your round. So if you are holding your greatsword, you can stow it (interaction) and any other item interaction takes an action. You only get one action, even when your second attack comes online. Pull that shield out and then do literally nothing offensively for the rest of the round. Turn one gobbled up. Then you can pull your one-handed weapon on the second round for free. You can work around this by simply dropping weapons (not taken as an interaction), but then you are not doing anything with that weapon for the rest of the fight. So while you are screwing around in your inventory bag, the rest of the party is neck deep in enemies or taking everyone else down themselves. Are you sure that my posts are the ones that lack nuance? Maybe it is just that I am considering how the game actually works and how people tend to enjoy it. This is not a false dichotomy, this is how your recommendations will work in live play. How is the player going to know when they would better benefit from the +2 to AC instead of a 2d6 in any given fight? By the time they realize they are fighting a heavy damage dealer, they have already eaten a 20 hp hit. Are you actually suggesting that a player eat a monster hit, then spend an entire round doing nothing but fishing out a shield? Which, again, would leave them incapable of fighting back that round.
You won't hit all the time, but when you do it'll make up for the misses on average. You won't affect every target on the battle field with your spells, but you'll affect enough at any given moment to make the spell slot and action worth the use. You won't match a pure fighter, but you'll do fine.
We have already gone over the math. If you use the feat for what it was intended for, you are hitting 40% of the time. 40% of the time does not feel like 50%, it feels like 40% and as someone who has built a PC with that hit percentage and seen others build PCs with that hit percentage, that 10% difference is quite noticable. You might do 1 point of damage more than you would if you did not use the feat overall, but what in the heck is the point? You are supposed to be giving the OP that deals good damage. Is doing one additional point of damage seem to be meeting this objective to you? Why are we scorching a player's play experience for one lousy, poorly-thought build when there are a dozen better options out there that are not only hitting more often, supporting better, doing more damage overall, but feels like they are contributing more to the team and offering a better play experience? If you must ignore the feat to hit 70% of the time, that feat is useless. If you are using it and hitting 40% of the time, that feat is useless. If you have invested in your strength too early, then your DC is useless and you have to avoid relying on it, which guts your spell options and makes you just not a very good support bard. So if by 'fine', you mean practically doing nothing at all, then yes, you'll do fine.
I gave the calculation that a 17 AC would act as our upper limit, assuming no relevant +1 weapon has been found up until that point. Chances are you'd have one by then, but who am I to say your DM isn't stingy?
A build that relies on the DM's generosity is by definition incapable of doing the job they were designed for on their own. Period. We can't assume the DM is stingy or not. We should be making recommendations that allow the player to perform irrespective of the kind of DM they have. And 17 is not the upper limit you could use GWM on effectively. At level 5, the player is not even going to effectively hit an enemy with an AC of 15 with GWM, much less 17.
If we found one, that AC limit would increase to 18. Do creatures with an AC above 18 exist? Sure, but they won't be the majority of what we encounter. If we do encounter one, the appropriate thing to do is to not use GWM. This is not a fault, but good decision making. Do we know the AC of any given target? Not always, but by the time we finish setting up our initial turn's concentration spell, we'll have a good idea by the 2nd turn, assuming characters have been attacking the creature in question. Plus, not every creature is brand new, not every encounter is a mystery of AC.
Again, how are the players going to know the AC of any given enemy? Are you proposing that in order to make this build work, the player should try to meta-game by looking up monsters? That is a terrible recommendation. Some DMs would outright consider it offensive and a breach of the social contracts of the game. Again, as clearly the only DM in this discussion, by the time the players figure out the AC, the battle is largely over or it never mattered to begin with because most are going to be performing well (except the bard, obviously). How is the bard doing 'good decision-making' without the necessary information to make those good decisions? Every recommendation I have seen in this discussion has been awful but now you are making recommendations that run the risk of getting the player into trouble.
What reason, then, is there for forgoing GWM if the target's AC is under the stated figure? The argument you present that it'll "burn our turn for 60% of the time" is rather vague. If we know that using GWM with any AC under the threshold constitutes a mathematical gain, why would we forcibly skip over it?
60% is vague? It is rather clear actually. If you can only hit 40% of the time with your weapon attack, what is the percentage of misses? By the time you get an idea of the AC, you are halfway through the fight, as most encounters are three to four rounds long. Your 'if' is doing some rather heavy lifting in this comment.
I don't believe feelings constitute a good enough reason for ignoring mathematical facts.
This comment is practically a white flag, even if you don't realize it. How the build feels when playing it is infinitely more important than 1 point of damage per round lol. How it feels to play is the sauce. If a build sucks to play, it doesn't matter how it looks on paper. Again, white room theory crafting. If you do not understand that very simple fact, then I can only assume you do not actually play much or you do not really understand people. People like to feel effective. Feelings matter quite a bit.
All that is in addition to the fact that the math doesn't support your argument anyway. You have admitted yourself that in order to hit with any consistency, you have to NOT use the feature that is there to boost damage. You have to not use the core feature of your build, therefore it is a terrible build.
Now, at the end of the day, we're talking about a build for 5e. This game is relatively easy and forgiving. Worse builds have succeeded. Why, pure casters who start with a 14 in their main stat have found success. Martials that have multiclassed and delayed extra attack until lvl 8 have found success. I've seen it myself. To insist that this build would make others feel like an invalid, well that's just plain ol' false and in bad taste. You ought to meditate on this.
Yes, the game is pretty forgiving. In this scenario, it will be forgiving of the ineffective bard on the map because death saves are generous and the bard is playing with a party. But they will not be doing much to pull their own weight and despite how forgiving the game is, this will be abundantly clear to anyone at the table who is failing to contribute.
Why are we suddenly retreating to the argument that 'bad builds don't break the game' anyway? The goal is not to build a garbage PC that will 'succeed' because of the efforts of the rest of the party, but an effective one that can contribute to a party. Since that will not happen with your proposal, this bard build will leave the player feeling like an invalid, whether you think that conclusion is in bad taste or not.
I think all that can be said on this topic has been said, so I don't see much value in responding to whatever you say next. Instead, I will be trying to think of a build that actually helps the OP.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form| Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
Please see my first post here for a detailed start to your journey. I think it meets all of your needs very well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form| Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
Now I really know you were grasping at straws when you take nearly a week to post a swords bard multiclass that's found for pages in google. Then you recommend warcaster, after all the crying about spellcasting DC. It's too rich.
Now I really know you were grasping at straws when you take nearly a week to post a swords bard multiclass that's found for pages in google. Then you recommend warcaster, after all the crying about spellcasting DC. It's too rich.
To be fair you calling out Warcaster in terms of spellcasting DC when you suggested Great Weapon Master is the pot calling the kettle black lol.
Now I really know you were grasping at straws when you take nearly a week to post a swords bard multiclass that's found for pages in google. Then you recommend warcaster, after all the crying about spellcasting DC. It's too rich.
Yes, I have a life outside of this site. For example, I have D&D games that I prep and play. Maybe you have enough time to camp this page and offer nothing of value, but not everyone is so lucky.
The OP didn’t ask for an original build that is fundamentally unworkable. If they need that, they can see your suggestion. My recommendation met the objective, which is a bard that can do damage and support the party.
Warcaster is there to support the investment in spell DCs by giving advantage for maintaining concentration on cast spells. Why do you believe that warcaster fails in this purpose? I thought its value was pretty clear. Are you unfamiliar with the feat?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form| Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
Heya ,
i'm looking for a nice build/spells for a sword bard thats also able to provide good support and still able to dish out some nice dmg per turn
College of Swords with a dip into Hexblade Warlock. If you want a Bard subclass that can offer better support, choose Eloquence for social supports or Lore for more wizard-like supports, though both will eat into your physical damage for the sake of being incredible as a Bard.
If you want to avoid multiclassing, then you don't want to make a melee-based bard. I am currently using a Valor Bard that uses a longbow and has the fighting initiate - archery feat. It's okay physical damage with two attacks per round and being ranged keeps me from taking too much damage myself, but if a Bard is wanting to focus on nice damage per round, that is honestly best accomplished by casting a spell.
EDIT: Here is how I would go about making a Swords Bard that do both damage and provide great support:
Level 1: Start with a bard for level 1. It doesn't matter overly much, but it gets you started in establishing that you are a BARD.
Level 2: Dip Warlock. I would choose Hexblade to compliment a Sword Bard's melee focus most, but you can still be reasonably effective with Archfey, Fathomless, and Genie as well. If you choose Hexblade, you get a Hexblade's Curse, which is pretty baller to put on a big bad for any fight. You also get medium armor, shields, martial weapons, and the ability to use any weapon you are proficient with using your charisma instead of strength or dexterity. Here, you begin to be a pretty mean melee bard. In addition to this, you immediately get access to the spells Shield and Wrathful Smite. I would recommend those spells and/or Armor of Agathy's, Hellish Rebuke, or Hex. Hex is slightly better than Wrathful Smite IMO because it can't be saved against. The chaser feature of the spell isn't as good but it is far more reliable and you can move it to another bad guy. Your Hexblade cantrips should include either Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade but you shouldn't need both. I would also recommend Eldritch Blast.
Level 3: Two options here. Either you go back to Bard and stay there for the rest of your career, or you take one more dip into Warlock to pick up the two invocations. No wrong answer here, so what is suiting your needs. If you do select warlock, I strongly encourage you to take Agonizing Blast because EB scales extremely well and allows you to damage enemies that aren't close to you for your Flourish. The second Invocation should be either one that gives you a spell, one that allows you to cast a spell at will, or something that further augments your EB. All are good options. Since you will get plenty of support options through your bard, I would recommend something to augment your EB like Repelling Blast.
That's it! Once you get Swords Bard, you'll stick with one-handed weapons, so take the Dueling fighting style. Take the Warcaster feat somewhere along the way so you can maintain concentration on your best spells and so you can cast Shield while holding a shield. Also, absolutely take Cartomancer. It is a casting of a bard spell you do not know for 8 hours. It is very much a necessary feat and can be used for any level spell you can cast.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
You can try DDB for free using the Basic Rules, free adventures, MCV1:SC, and homebrew. Answers about physical books, purchases, and subbing.
What is it like to be on the forums.
fighter 1/swords bard x is a pretty good build for dealing decent melee damage. Start with v.human, go 16 STR, 14 CON, 16 CHA, dump the rest, and take GWM as your starting feat, and start as fighter for armor, weapon, and CON save proficiencies, and defensive fighting style. Then go swords bard the rest of the way through, boosting STR at each given opportunity, or CHA if your DM gives you a pair of STR gauntlets or belts or whatever early on.
+pros:
-cons:
you could also go with paladin instead of fighter as it's a tried and proven build, but it pretty much demands a two level investment as soon as possible, so it takes a while longer to come online compared to my fighter 1 build, and still lacks CON save proficiency so it's more likely to lose concentration on spells.
you could also try to make it into a SS/XBE build where you'd focus on DEX instead of STR. Doing so, you could forgo the first fighter level, but doing so means you're limited to hand crossbows instead of a wider array of ranged weaponry, and you'd miss out on the archery fighting style but if you did skip out on fighter you'd at least be 100% on track for gaining features and spells as intended.
I came up with a concept for a Custom Lineage Melee Bard based on Warcaster, a two level Hex dip (of course!) and Lore Bard for Additional Magic Secrets in order to gain access to Spirit Guardians. It will never get Extra Attack, but it can do reasonable damage with Hex, Hexblade's Curse, Booming Blade and Hex Longsword. Once you get your first Bard level, you can proc Dissonant Whispers to force an Attack of Opportunity on a failed save, where you would cast Booming Blade (Warcaster) to get both the initial and rider damage resulting from your opponent's movement. EB/Agonizing Blast/Hex/Hex Blade's Curse gives you a great ranged option.
Once you get Spirit Guardians at Lore 6/Hex 2, you use Eldritch Blast/Grasp of Hadar to pull opponents into its AoE, and, if your teammates have forced movement options, they can join in the fun. I'd pick up Counterspell as the second Additional Magic Secret.
You get excellent AC with Half Plate, +2 for DEX and Shield, and Warcaster lets you cast Shield with your hands full. You can further increase survivabilty with Aid for more health, Armor of Agathys for temp hit points and more damage, Mirror Image, and Misty Step (from Fey Touched from your first ASI).
You don't get proficiency in CON saves (although Warcaster helps a lot for maintaining concentration), you don't get a Fighting Style, your Bard, ASI and spell progression is delayed, and most of your spell choices and slots will be devoted to combat, but you are still a skill monkey Face doing reasonable damage every step of the way.
You could build almost any Bard this way, but Lore gets the extra proficiencies and Additional Magical Secrets, which brings Spirit Guardians (and Counterspell) on line earlier and at less of an opportunity cost. Since you aren't a Swords Bard, you won't be using your Inspirations to fuel Flourishes, which your party will appreciate.
A sample build here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/characters/115619007/sq712I
Swords Bard is a great defensive melee combatant. Here are some options to consider
Option 1: Multiclassing. If you multiclass, level 1 as fighter or hexblade is just great. It will delay extra attack, but some of the gains are worth it. With Fighter you get full armor prof, full weapon prof and Con saves. With Hexblade you get eldritch blast/hex/Curse and you are attacking with your charisma which means you can max cha and help spell casting. If you want a strength/GWM or dex/archery/Sharpshooter based build go fighter.
Option 2: Straight swords bard. I would recommend leaning into one of your two options for fighting style dueling or two weapon. Two weapon is a little harder to pull off since you still want to cast spells. You might want the dual wielder feat and warcaster and now you have two feats with no ability score increases. That is difficult. You will need to consider how to manage your AC which puts Dex as the more needed measure. Medium armor proficiency can help solve that by going with dueling/shield and it comes with a +1 to dex. But if you can get your AC into the 17+ range then defensive flourish can really help survive melee. Regardless the standard build here can go two ways: Caster who uses concentration based spells and skirmishes around with them or melee who boosts their damage. There aren't a lot of great melee boosting options on the bard spell list.
I can see the value in this build but GWM is going to seriously reduce the hit percentage of a melee bard in tier 1 and one of the most unfun things about combat is missing. At level 2, the average AC of enemies is going to be 13 and that is a 40% chance to hit using GWM. Assuming they are not rolling stats, they will also only be able to accomplish that stat loadout with pointbuy, meaning they will fail virtually every dex, int, and wis save with a -1 to all those modifiers.
When they get a +1 with GWM, the average AC for enemies will be 15, which means they will suffer a decrease in hit percentage with GWM to 35%, and this happens when every other martial is getting their two attacks per action and hitting almost every time. I will say though, that when they do hit, the bard will be crushing the enemy with an average of 19 damage with a greatsword at level 5, but they will be missing so much, it is hard to imagine them ever using melee when they can just cast a spell that will at least guarantee some damage like Shatter or Thunderwave.
Swords Bard fighting styles won't synergize, so they won't be able to benefit from the Dueling or Two-Weapon Fighting. Flourish will add an average of 3 extra damage and the effect, but only if they hit. So no wading into combat with confidence because the Defensive Flourish won't be active 65% of the time. At level 5, they will also get their first ASI and probably will be forced to put it into the Charisma to boost the spell DC; enemies will start making the saves a lot if they don't and the spells you mentioned that don't worry about DCs won't be available for some time. Plus they want to be able to offer support so they have to invest in DC spells. At level 5 they will have 40 HP and an AC of 17 unless they can buy some plate, which will bring them up to 19 AC. That's pretty good for early tier 2, though the bard is seriously lagging behind everyone who is already enjoying two attacks because that is happening at level 5 for them and level 7 for the bard. A greatsword fighter is going to be hitting more often and doing gobs more damage than the melee bard. The bard won't just suck for damage, they will almost never do damage at all in tier 1. The bard will make almost every con save they have to maintain concentration so it is more likely that they will drop unconscious before losing concentration. That is one benefit. But if the plan is to invest in spells that don't have DCs, then you won't be maximizing that benefit to con.
I think it could be okay as a level 10 build, but in tier 1, they are going to feel like an invalid next to the other players for support and melee.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
You can try DDB for free using the Basic Rules, free adventures, MCV1:SC, and homebrew. Answers about physical books, purchases, and subbing.
What is it like to be on the forums.
Such charged language, don't you think? I think there's a lot of gross overestimations and exaggerations in this post.
For starters, talk of discrepancy of stats in character creation is a somewhat moot point since every point buy stat build tends to have its ups and downs. A typical lore bard that just wants to min-max its caster gameplay style will likely have nothing (or close to nothing) invested in WIS, INT and STR. So, to point out that this build will have low initiative, or X saves vs Y saves, is kinda irrelevant. Every build's gonna have their weakness, stat-wise. You wouldn't judge a wizard build for being prone to failing virtually every str save, would you?
Secondly, just because you have GWM doesn't mean you have to use that -5/+10 feature all the time. It's a feature you can toggle on or off, after all. In fact, you can benefit off the bonus attack portion mostly in tier 1. Even then, there are ways to use the power attack smartly by understanding AC thresholds or sticking to rules of thumb such as only activating it when advantage is available. When played in this manner, GWM is a strict DPR gain.
Thirdly, the fighting styles can synergize just fine. Again, just because you have GWM doesn't mean you're forced to only equip and use two-handed weapons. You can equip a shield as necessary and thereby benefit from sword bard's dueling fighting style! Why wouldn't you? Again, you can benefit from defensive flourish by using your better judgement to not GWM when you really want to depend on the AC boost from defensive flourish, for example.
Fourth, you still have a 16 CHA from the get-go, so your spell DC isn't actually all that bad if you choose to increase STR instead of CHA when your first ASI presents itself. In fact, the game assumes you have a 16 in tier 1, so you're actually just as effective as any other caster at that point (and other martials for that matter). You can use faerie fire just as well, and hit just as hard as the other dedicated fighter in tier 1 and that's why it feels fantastic! If 16 was bad, then no caster in their right mind would ever select Resilient: Con or Warcaster at lvl 4... and yet, those are competitive choices. You don't have to invest in spell DC to such a degree to remain effective. Having a spell save DC of 14 at lvl 5 isn't the end of the world when fully dedicated casters have a spell save DC of 15 instead. So, you can still use hypnotic pattern effectively when you gain access to third lvl spells. So, for tier 1 and early tier 2, our spell DC is actually perfectly fine. By the time our spell save DC starts to show its age, that's when we access those spells I've mentioned, and then some.
A dedicated fighter will do more damage, this should come as no surprise, especially when you account for their subclass features and extra feats. However, the build proposed is not an attempt to surpass the fighter, but it is an option instead to offer decently good melee damage that contributes to the overall success of the party and can shine in its own right as a multiclass while still being a full bard practically.
So sure, for two levels (5 &6) a fighter will do much more damage... But then the build catches up and stays relatively on par while casting support/utility spells and acting as party face. A full fighter can't do that. A full swords bard can't do as much melee, resource-less damage (unless you play an older version githyanki with a DM who gives everyone a free starting feat, but that's a lot of what-ifs). But this mutliclass can do both things and that's the beauty of it!
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
You can try DDB for free using the Basic Rules, free adventures, MCV1:SC, and homebrew. Answers about physical books, purchases, and subbing.
What is it like to be on the forums.
This point here is a perfect example of the gross exaggerations I'm referring to. You present some faulty either-or argument, where neither point is true. You hit about as often as other martials, there's nothing inherently wrong with our hit-chance. You can use GWM to boost damage, but it has to be done when conditions are right.
Again, your first ASI doesn't have to be dedicated to increasing your spellcasting stat, because taking a feat is an equally valid that has shown value in other builds for dedicated spellcasters. You wouldn't judge a wizard for taking warcaster at lvl 4 instead of increasing INT, would you? that 13 spell save DC soon turns to 14 with just proficiency bonus alone.
And you know something? If the fighter bard cast hypnotic pattern on 6 targets, and 3 make the save (thus "failing half the time")? that's fine! the MC bard just turned an encounter of vs 6 into an encounter of vs 3 with a single spell slot. Your party, I promise you, will be pleased with being able to save on resources with a properly controlled battlefield. So, while I'm not going to bother with CRs and percentages or hard numbers, and yes, this evidence is entirely anecdotal and Bayesian, it's still a comparison of one point less in spell save DC for later tier 1-early tier 2. If you're fussing that much over a single point in DC, quite frankly I don't think you understand practicality or pragmatism.
The point of this exercise is to build a functional bard that can do damage and support. It is not an exaggeration to say why your build fails in these objectives. It is not a false dichotomy; it is a simple fact that while your build can do damage, it can't hit worth a damn. Meanwhile literally everyone else in the party is dealing damage and hitting at least twice as often, leaving the bard feeling like they are not only failing to pull their weight, but fundamentally incapable of doing so. When asked to justify this build in the face of these shortcomings, your response is to simply not use the feature which is central to the entire build. You will not be hitting as much as other martials at any level if you are using the feature that is core to your build. The only 'either-or' in this discussion is to use or not use the features you invested in. So again, how are they doing decent damage when not using GWM and how are they hitting when they are using GWM?
Using GWM effectively with this build requires that someone else is the support. FAILURE! The OP wants to be good at support. If they need someone else to take on the role, this fails that objective, doubly so when they need that support just to make the build work at all.
Yes, taking a feat is a valid option, but not a very good one with your proposed build. As a bard, they are a dedicated spellcaster. You can't uncouple dedicated spellcasting from the bard as the main class. At least, not if you want to make a build that is fun to play. Your wizard example is nonsensical. A wizard that uses a lot of concentration spells would be making a solid move to take warcaster at some point, but if the wizard is using a lot of spells with DCs and only has a +2 to their INT, they would not be making a very wise choice. You can start with a 17 INT with a wizard with variant human and point buy, so your example is... distressingly uninformed. At level 4, warcaster makes for a decent choice assuming they are making a wizard to do wizardy things.
Again, by the time the DC turns to 14, the average wis save of the monsters also pops up by one, rendering the proficiency bonus moot. Meanwhile every other caster is doing their job and by the look of it, your bard's job too. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hypnotic Pattern is a fantastic example of things that don't actually happen in the game. It's great for white room theory crafting but you are going to be casting Hypnotic Pattern in a way that you doesn't t negatively impact your party unless your definition of 'support' is pissing off your team, which means you are positioning the cube to hit one, maybe two creatures at a time in live play, three in rare chances. If you are only going to be charming one person, you might as well pick a better spell like Hold Person, which is cheaper and effectively does the same thing, or Heat Metal, which is also cheaper, at least avoids an initial save, and depending on the fight, might be better to beat the save.
A single point is the difference between a failed save and a successful one and the probability of hitting those numbers are not insignificant. I suppose if you think I don't understand practicality or pragmatism, based on the babbling I have been reading this evening, I am entirely unbothered by your opinion. The build simply does not do what you have been asked to provide. It just doesn't.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
You can try DDB for free using the Basic Rules, free adventures, MCV1:SC, and homebrew. Answers about physical books, purchases, and subbing.
What is it like to be on the forums.
I'm astounded by how rare you think a hypnotic pattern situation as the one I described actually is. I'm astounded by what you call "babbling" just because you don't agree with a differing perspective. I'm astounded by your assumption that GWM makes this build unable to hit it's way out of a paper bag or even requires outside assistance to function even when it's STR stays on curve. Would you say the same of a GWM paladin or ranger? You can still act as a support by setting up your big concentration spell for the encounter, be it faerie fire or hold person or hypnotic pattern, then use the subsequent turns to melee to fulfill the damage role.
Fighter 1/wizard X has been a long lauded build. This build takes that same concept and builds upon it even further, with more synergy to boot.
But hey, I extend this humble invitation for you: Try it for yourself. There's enough plenty avenues to readily run it in practice. Play it in AL, play it in BG3, play it wherever, and then see for yourself just how effective it is. It's exactly what I've done and why I can recommend it in good faith while acknowledging any shortcomings it has, of which they are few and fairly easy to work around.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
You can try DDB for free using the Basic Rules, free adventures, MCV1:SC, and homebrew. Answers about physical books, purchases, and subbing.
What is it like to be on the forums.
How? I outlined the shortcomings in my first post with it's most vulnerable point being at the start of tier 2. Am I offended by your disagreement? No, only perplexed by the insensitive, and arguably passive-aggressive language you use. Alas, someone has to be the bigger man around here.
So, let's break down that statement of yours, hitting 40% of the time vs 65% of the time (since +5 would translate to 65% up from 40%). You want factual, valid, evidence? Facts and logic? Ok, here you go:
At the start of tier 2, which is where this build is at its lowest point, this MC bard will have 18 STR and GWM as per my build's steps.
So, I've supported my argument according to your criteria, at least as far as the bard MC acts as a martial. But, what about acting as a support?
Spells like sleep, healing word, feather fall, long strider, enhance ability, heat metal, locate object, silence, cat nap, tiny hut, plant growth, freedom of movement, dimension door, locate creature... they all are capable of aiding and supporting the team and doing so very effectively, and not a single one has a DC attached (save for heat metal but it's beneficial no matter if they save or not, but you already know this). This isn't even an exhaustive list of all the DC-less spells that can aid the team, but I think I've made my point. Whether or not they're exclusively bard spells is not the point. The point is to be a good support, and there it is. But, if we do decide to use spells that have a DC, such as the aforementioned faerie fire or hypnotic pattern, having a 16 in CHA ensures it's not a wasted effort from tier 1 to early tier 2.
I've advised OP well. Them's the facts, broski.
You listed some shortcomings that you felt confident would not negatively impact the experience and when I listed my concerns, you have refused to acknowledge them or address them in a rational way.
See 'irony'. Also, the entirety of my comments have been centered around your build and why it is a problem. You have taken every post to express your indignation that anyone dare challenge your ideas. Disagreeing with you is not a criticism of your intelligence. In fact, I tried to express my concerns delicately in the first response by saying that your build has some value, but you insisted on being upset by my posts simply because I am direct in my argumentation. If you are trying to be the bigger man, the effort is not apparent to me.
Yes, that would be lovely.
Ignoring the fact that you stated that they should NOT use a greatsword in your previous post, if they invest their ASI at level 5 into STR to get them up to 18 as you recommended, then they are only going to fail to hit as often as anyone else in the game. Thankfully, you admit to having absolutely no understanding of how it feels to actually play or concern for how it feels for others to miss. Missing most of the time is not fun. It is even less fun when your peers are hitting… a lot. Players using this build will feel like an invalid; they will feel like they can’t use the features they want well because this build is just not a very good build. In case you are unaware, DPR is 0 when they don’t hit anything. Being able to do mathematically more damage when you can actually hit is irrelevant if your build feels like a drooling vegetable in battle. Occasionally doing good but mostly sucking leaves people with one feeling: their character mostly just sucks. This is not an immaterial factor in making recommendations for others. Further, you have the gall to criticize me over a 1 number difference in a successful save and a failed one, resulting in sweeping differences in battle, while you are trying to celebrate having roughly 1 additional point of damage per round, which has an objectively negligible impact on almost any battle?
Ah, to make your build work, you now propose that the user run complex mathematical and battle scenario computations on the fly to make your build go from sloppy to brilliant? Don’t you think you are burdening the player unreasonably? Much of the information they will need may not be available. How many DMs share AC of enemies? It is not a common thing and in my experience, most players are halfway through big battles before they can tease out the answer or they finish them so quickly it doesn’t matter. If the player is a min/maxer and wanting to make every decision the ‘correct’ decision, they would just play a decent build instead of doing what you propose.
As we have discussed many times already and as you have been resistant to acknowledging, a player will not be able to effectively use GWM for enemies with ACs significantly lower than 17 if they want to do more than burn their entire turn 60% of the time. And yes, you are right about one thing: a DM is going to be heavily pressured to give the bard magical items to make their build not just awful. I think the idea here is to build a functional swords bard though, so by your own inadvertent admission, this build needs a lot of rethinking and reworking.
You mean the faerie fire that is going to be easily defeated by most fodder enemies? Sorry, no, the build you have designed is going to miss attacks and enemies are going to beat the saves like it is a joke. This will further frustrate the player. At CR5, the average dex save modifier for monsters is +2. Again, this is going to result in roughly half of the enemies making the save so, effectively, they can reliably get advantage on the noticeably slow and lumbering enemies but that will be all and it is not even guaranteed. It’s not nothing but again, this is half the bard they could be. A straight bard will be giving enemies at this level a a 30% chance to save even if they don’t put their toe on the scale. When I played an eloquence bard, I absolutely did so to make at least the main target guarantee a fail while anyone nearby would have a strong chance of failure. So in addition to this being a terrible martial, it is a laughably bad bard.
You mean that you can’t easily generate. If your DC is a pitiful 14, the average dex save for CR 5 is +2, which means they will make it 45% of the time. Considering most DMs give HIGHER CR monsters than the level, this is going to most likely be an even higher dex save modifier average. If magical items are introduced, a DM will have to give at least a +2 to the CR encounters just to make the party feel slightly challenged. You are not considering the real world applications of your build. As I said before, all you are doing is minimum effort white room theory crafting. The OP needs a build to actually use and have fun with. Your proposal fails the fun factor.
Once the bard gets the second attack, month(s) after other players? And you don’t simply double everything. If each roll is an 40% chance to hit, it does not go to 80%, it goes up to 70%. Your math is sloppy. Even then, they will need that second attack just to be as good as another martial is with one attack. Comparable to other martials of its league? LOL! Pray there is not a fighter in this party…
That’s good, because they will be downing enemies about as often as they crit, which is to say rarely. Your build requires them to rely on a lot of ‘what ifs’, chance, and planning just to make it barely functional, all just so they can feel like they can cut the commoner in half in one hit. By the time GWM starts to feel useful, the extra damage is going to become far less significant because you have failed to account for how much more sturdy monsters get as the CRs go up. So by the time you are hitting by spending at least 2 whole rounds just to get a hit off at 70%, monsters are around 15-16 AC on average and about 128 hit points, up from Tier 1‘s 45 hit point average. At level 5, the average enemies, assuming strict adherence to CR, is going to be AC 14/HP 105. So even on the rare occasion the bard hits with its damage boost, halfway through the fight, it will feel pretty underwhelming. Even if the bard focuses only on junk enemies, they would need to be swarmed to benefit from the secondary feature, which means they are not lasting in combat long because the bard is taking a lot of hits. Want to piss off the healer? Be the one who always is going down and also always failing to hit or contribute to the fight in any meaningful way. The bard is basically just rolling around the field flailing their arms wildly and hitting nothing. You will have a party pressuring the bard to take a step back from melee, you can count on it. The bard will basically only get to use defensive flourish when they even get to use it at all just to keep from being a massive drain on party resources. Again, the point of this exercise is to make a functional bard…
These are not conservative estimates. As I have outlined, they are overly generous and fail to account for a variety of real-world factors that don’t just happen, but are common occurences. Further, anything the bard does to the enemy to augment their hit chance, the other martials benefit from as well. So while the bard is barely able to pop a hit off, the other martials are wrecking house at almost 90% chance to hit… per attack. Checking off the support, sure, but still failing to be a good martial. How can that GWM do any good though, when the other martials are killing enemies for the bard whether faerie fire bags an enemy or not? You are forcing the OP to do an awful lot of work just to ultimately hate their character.
You have failed spectacularly to support your argument, actually. Certainly not be my criteria.
I covered this already and in fact, some where my own recommendations to help your build. You are, however, pigeonholing the bard into a very limited set of spells and they are far from the best spells a bard can or should take for support. Half the bard they can be just to avoid a DC. A lot of these are good spells to have in concert with a full, diverse list of bard spells. All these are basically going to only be used to hastily cover up how bad this build is and they wont even do that well. And yes, most of these are good support spells individually, but most are also extremely situational. For example, sleep can’t be used unless the fight is almost over in Tier 2. Maybe even the final round. It is not a great combat spell, it is a spell to make sure you can interrogate enemies after the fight. Feather Fall requires the party be blown off a cliff to benefit them. How many times can you count on that happening? Less often than the bard will be able to hit, to be sure. So they won’t be casting many spells and they won’t be hitting often. An invalid. A spectator. A failure of an adventurer. I have already demonstrated how having a spell DC of 14 in early Tier 2 is a very frustrating experience for the caster. I don’t see the need to retread it since you were unable to counter it other than to say ‘Nu-uh’.
I strongly disagree and have demonstrated why numerous times. If you want to insist on this terrible build, you can go right ahead. The math doesn’t support your claims and the game experience absolutely doesn’t support your claims.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
You can try DDB for free using the Basic Rules, free adventures, MCV1:SC, and homebrew. Answers about physical books, purchases, and subbing.
What is it like to be on the forums.
A lot of your concerns stem from forcing false dichotomies. Either you're using GWM all the time, or you never benefit from it. Either you're using DC spells, or you're forcing yourself to none. Either you hit all the time, or you're missing all the time. All of these statement examples fail to account for nuance. So, you're right, I won't address any concerns built on weak arguments. A perfect example, you just stated that I advised against using a greatsword but that was never the case, I advised on using what is appropriate for the situation. You pushed a false dichotomy! Either we always use a certain weapon, or I'm advising against its usage. You won't hit all the time, but when you do it'll make up for the misses on average. You won't affect every target on the battle field with your spells, but you'll affect enough at any given moment to make the spell slot and action worth the use. You won't match a pure fighter, but you'll do fine.
I gave the calculation that a 17 AC would act as our upper limit, assuming no relevant +1 weapon has been found up until that point. Chances are you'd have one by then, but who am I to say your DM isn't stingy? If we found one, that AC limit would increase to 18. Do creatures with an AC above 18 exist? Sure, but they won't be the majority of what we encounter. If we do encounter one, the appropriate thing to do is to not use GWM. This is not a fault, but good decision making. Do we know the AC of any given target? Not always, but by the time we finish setting up our initial turn's concentration spell, we'll have a good idea by the 2nd turn, assuming characters have been attacking the creature in question. Plus, not every creature is brand new, not every encounter is a mystery of AC. What reason, then, is there for forgoing GWM if the target's AC is under the stated figure? The argument you present that it'll "burn our turn for 60% of the time" is rather vague. If we know that using GWM with any AC under the threshold constitutes a mathematical gain, why would we forcibly skip over it? I don't believe feelings constitute a good enough reason for ignoring mathematical facts.
Now, at the end of the day, we're talking about a build for 5e. This game is relatively easy and forgiving. Worse builds have succeeded. Why, pure casters who start with a 14 in their main stat have found success. Martials that have multiclassed and delayed extra attack until lvl 8 have found success. I've seen it myself. To insist that this build would make others feel like an invalid, well that's just plain ol' false and in bad taste. You ought to meditate on this.
Again, incorrect. Your build is centered entirely on a yes/no option. It is not a false dichotomy on whether you are using the feature that is core to the build or not. There is literally no third option on the bard's turn. They are either using it or not using it. If you can't use the feature reliably for 7 levels, why bother having it from level 1? Are you even reading your own proposals? If the feature can't be used at level 1, it shouldn't be taken at level 1. It is a bad build for this reason alone but there is plenty more failures that we have covered. I am not sure how you can read 40% chance to hit and understand it as 0%, so I am going to recommend you read my post again. I also never said or implied that this build must either use DCs all the time or never. My posts are not lacking in clarity, so I am simply at a loss as to how you can be coming away from this debate with that understanding. Since there is a clear failure in comprehending my argument for whatever reason, I will address your DC comment specifically. It is not that you are using DC spells or none. In fact, per my last post, I specifically stated the spell you listed must be used in concert with other spells to make a strong support bard. My posts don't fail to take into account nuance. Again, see irony. Did you even read my post?
'Accuse your enemy of that which you are guilty yourself'. Not the best tactic to employ but if you insist...
Oh?
So I am not sure if you know this but you absolutely cannot have a heavy weapon and a shield equipped at the same time. Further, and as I had stated before and which you literally never attempted to address, you cannot juggle weapons effectively, certainly not three items at a time. You can interact with one object for free during your round. So if you are holding your greatsword, you can stow it (interaction) and any other item interaction takes an action. You only get one action, even when your second attack comes online. Pull that shield out and then do literally nothing offensively for the rest of the round. Turn one gobbled up. Then you can pull your one-handed weapon on the second round for free. You can work around this by simply dropping weapons (not taken as an interaction), but then you are not doing anything with that weapon for the rest of the fight. So while you are screwing around in your inventory bag, the rest of the party is neck deep in enemies or taking everyone else down themselves. Are you sure that my posts are the ones that lack nuance? Maybe it is just that I am considering how the game actually works and how people tend to enjoy it. This is not a false dichotomy, this is how your recommendations will work in live play. How is the player going to know when they would better benefit from the +2 to AC instead of a 2d6 in any given fight? By the time they realize they are fighting a heavy damage dealer, they have already eaten a 20 hp hit. Are you actually suggesting that a player eat a monster hit, then spend an entire round doing nothing but fishing out a shield? Which, again, would leave them incapable of fighting back that round.
We have already gone over the math. If you use the feat for what it was intended for, you are hitting 40% of the time. 40% of the time does not feel like 50%, it feels like 40% and as someone who has built a PC with that hit percentage and seen others build PCs with that hit percentage, that 10% difference is quite noticable. You might do 1 point of damage more than you would if you did not use the feat overall, but what in the heck is the point? You are supposed to be giving the OP that deals good damage. Is doing one additional point of damage seem to be meeting this objective to you? Why are we scorching a player's play experience for one lousy, poorly-thought build when there are a dozen better options out there that are not only hitting more often, supporting better, doing more damage overall, but feels like they are contributing more to the team and offering a better play experience? If you must ignore the feat to hit 70% of the time, that feat is useless. If you are using it and hitting 40% of the time, that feat is useless. If you have invested in your strength too early, then your DC is useless and you have to avoid relying on it, which guts your spell options and makes you just not a very good support bard. So if by 'fine', you mean practically doing nothing at all, then yes, you'll do fine.
A build that relies on the DM's generosity is by definition incapable of doing the job they were designed for on their own. Period. We can't assume the DM is stingy or not. We should be making recommendations that allow the player to perform irrespective of the kind of DM they have. And 17 is not the upper limit you could use GWM on effectively. At level 5, the player is not even going to effectively hit an enemy with an AC of 15 with GWM, much less 17.
Again, how are the players going to know the AC of any given enemy? Are you proposing that in order to make this build work, the player should try to meta-game by looking up monsters? That is a terrible recommendation. Some DMs would outright consider it offensive and a breach of the social contracts of the game. Again, as clearly the only DM in this discussion, by the time the players figure out the AC, the battle is largely over or it never mattered to begin with because most are going to be performing well (except the bard, obviously). How is the bard doing 'good decision-making' without the necessary information to make those good decisions? Every recommendation I have seen in this discussion has been awful but now you are making recommendations that run the risk of getting the player into trouble.
60% is vague? It is rather clear actually. If you can only hit 40% of the time with your weapon attack, what is the percentage of misses? By the time you get an idea of the AC, you are halfway through the fight, as most encounters are three to four rounds long. Your 'if' is doing some rather heavy lifting in this comment.
This comment is practically a white flag, even if you don't realize it. How the build feels when playing it is infinitely more important than 1 point of damage per round lol. How it feels to play is the sauce. If a build sucks to play, it doesn't matter how it looks on paper. Again, white room theory crafting. If you do not understand that very simple fact, then I can only assume you do not actually play much or you do not really understand people. People like to feel effective. Feelings matter quite a bit.
All that is in addition to the fact that the math doesn't support your argument anyway. You have admitted yourself that in order to hit with any consistency, you have to NOT use the feature that is there to boost damage. You have to not use the core feature of your build, therefore it is a terrible build.
Yes, the game is pretty forgiving. In this scenario, it will be forgiving of the ineffective bard on the map because death saves are generous and the bard is playing with a party. But they will not be doing much to pull their own weight and despite how forgiving the game is, this will be abundantly clear to anyone at the table who is failing to contribute.
Why are we suddenly retreating to the argument that 'bad builds don't break the game' anyway? The goal is not to build a garbage PC that will 'succeed' because of the efforts of the rest of the party, but an effective one that can contribute to a party. Since that will not happen with your proposal, this bard build will leave the player feeling like an invalid, whether you think that conclusion is in bad taste or not.
I think all that can be said on this topic has been said, so I don't see much value in responding to whatever you say next. Instead, I will be trying to think of a build that actually helps the OP.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
You can try DDB for free using the Basic Rules, free adventures, MCV1:SC, and homebrew. Answers about physical books, purchases, and subbing.
What is it like to be on the forums.
Please see my first post here for a detailed start to your journey. I think it meets all of your needs very well.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
You can try DDB for free using the Basic Rules, free adventures, MCV1:SC, and homebrew. Answers about physical books, purchases, and subbing.
What is it like to be on the forums.
Now I really know you were grasping at straws when you take nearly a week to post a swords bard multiclass that's found for pages in google. Then you recommend warcaster, after all the crying about spellcasting DC. It's too rich.
To be fair you calling out Warcaster in terms of spellcasting DC when you suggested Great Weapon Master is the pot calling the kettle black lol.
Yes, I have a life outside of this site. For example, I have D&D games that I prep and play. Maybe you have enough time to camp this page and offer nothing of value, but not everyone is so lucky.
The OP didn’t ask for an original build that is fundamentally unworkable. If they need that, they can see your suggestion. My recommendation met the objective, which is a bard that can do damage and support the party.
Warcaster is there to support the investment in spell DCs by giving advantage for maintaining concentration on cast spells. Why do you believe that warcaster fails in this purpose? I thought its value was pretty clear. Are you unfamiliar with the feat?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
You can try DDB for free using the Basic Rules, free adventures, MCV1:SC, and homebrew. Answers about physical books, purchases, and subbing.
What is it like to be on the forums.