Converting an entire class into a subclass to replace a very fun and interesting subclass is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. If you did that, you'd have to remove basically everything that makes a bard a bard, otherwise it would be stupidly OP. Do you think a 1/3 caster bard missing 75% percent of their features AND all of their fun subclasses sounds fun?
Converting an entire class into a subclass to replace a very fun and interesting subclass is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. If you did that, you'd have to remove basically everything that makes a bard a bard, otherwise it would be stupidly OP. Do you think a 1/3 caster bard missing 75% percent of their features AND all of their fun subclasses sounds fun?
If you have players that want to play a bard in a way that prevents you having fun with the game that is a problem with the group ot a problem with bards.
If you had players that wanted to play a rogue who constantly steals from the rest of the party and the other players hate the player doing it is the solution to get rid of rogues and replace them with valor (or swords) bards?
Before a campaign starts the group need to agree what the characters can and can not do (and the players for that matter), if you have had issues with a player playing a bard and insisting the only way to play it is a way you (or the rest of the group) find objectionable as DM you could say bards are not allowed but if you have a concept of playing that is that different it might just be best not to play together at all.
If you have players that want to play a bard in a way that prevents you having fun with the game that is a problem with the group ot a problem with bards.
If you had players that wanted to play a rogue who constantly steals from the rest of the party and the other players hate the player doing it is the solution to get rid of rogues and replace them with valor (or swords) bards?
Before a campaign starts the group need to agree what the characters can and can not do (and the players for that matter), if you have had issues with a player playing a bard and insisting the only way to play it is a way you (or the rest of the group) find objectionable as DM you could say bards are not allowed but if you have a concept of playing that is that different it might just be best not to play together at all.
Thanks, Dad. Doesn't change my mind. Bard shouldn't exist as a class.
Yes, I think we all understand that you don't think the Bard class should exist. But your only argument in favor of that seems to be "the players", which is not particularly convincing, nor does it give anyone else anything to really discuss with you, so I'm not sure what you're really trying to do here.
If you have players that want to play a bard in a way that prevents you having fun with the game that is a problem with the group ot a problem with bards.
If you had players that wanted to play a rogue who constantly steals from the rest of the party and the other players hate the player doing it is the solution to get rid of rogues and replace them with valor (or swords) bards?
Before a campaign starts the group need to agree what the characters can and can not do (and the players for that matter), if you have had issues with a player playing a bard and insisting the only way to play it is a way you (or the rest of the group) find objectionable as DM you could say bards are not allowed but if you have a concept of playing that is that different it might just be best not to play together at all.
Thanks, Dad. Doesn't change my mind. Bard shouldn't exist as a class.
So you just came here to start an argument without supporting your position (Bards shouldn't exist as a class) in any way, shape or form. Got it. I bet you're real fun to have in a party.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...at worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As a Rogue subclass and the class as a whole be removed. Change my mind.
Converting an entire class into a subclass to replace a very fun and interesting subclass is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. If you did that, you'd have to remove basically everything that makes a bard a bard, otherwise it would be stupidly OP. Do you think a 1/3 caster bard missing 75% percent of their features AND all of their fun subclasses sounds fun?
What is it that you dislike about Bards?
pronouns: he/she/they
Yes.
The players.
...and? What about them?
pronouns: he/she/they
If you have players that want to play a bard in a way that prevents you having fun with the game that is a problem with the group ot a problem with bards.
If you had players that wanted to play a rogue who constantly steals from the rest of the party and the other players hate the player doing it is the solution to get rid of rogues and replace them with valor (or swords) bards?
Before a campaign starts the group need to agree what the characters can and can not do (and the players for that matter), if you have had issues with a player playing a bard and insisting the only way to play it is a way you (or the rest of the group) find objectionable as DM you could say bards are not allowed but if you have a concept of playing that is that different it might just be best not to play together at all.
Thanks, Dad.
Doesn't change my mind. Bard shouldn't exist as a class.
Yes, I think we all understand that you don't think the Bard class should exist. But your only argument in favor of that seems to be "the players", which is not particularly convincing, nor does it give anyone else anything to really discuss with you, so I'm not sure what you're really trying to do here.
pronouns: he/she/they
So you just came here to start an argument without supporting your position (Bards shouldn't exist as a class) in any way, shape or form. Got it. I bet you're real fun to have in a party.
"...at worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."