... Experience playing this game, and DMing for other players, tells you all you need to know about playing a class even if you've never touched it. As surprising as it may be, this game is not hard to figure out. So, even if someone only ever made it to tier 2, their opinion would be valid if it's opinion was based on reasonable grounds.
I really disagree with this statement.
If you have not played a class, then you don't have a feel for how that class plays. I have just started DM-ing my first campaign and although I have read every class description twice in the PHB, and most of them quite a bit more than that, my players point out something I didn't realize. And these were not differences in interpretation; they were straight up misses on my part. I think my experience is not unlike many. Before you have sat at a table playing a character, you have a tendency to read "into" the descriptions things about your playstyle. But when you actually sit down and play the characters, you remember all the little things needed to make the most of them, and you learn some things you thought you could do, but you can't.
For this reason, I think a lot of the "theory crafting" I hear about I take with a grain of salt.
And on the subject of a PCs sexual preferences, I'd like as little of that in D&D as possible. Since that is a no-go subject at my table where teenagers play, and there are no game mechanics that depend on it, I think it would be best to leave that at the door.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Trying to figure out how a class plays by reading the rules is like trying to figure out what a piece of food taste like by reading a list of molecules contained in it
Weather or not people who haven't played a class can reasonably comment on it's power is irrelevant. Everyone talking here has more than sufficient experience with this class to have this conversation.
Party comp - Hexadin, Rune Knight fighter that grapples, Psi Warrior, Heal/Harm Monk, me.
It's a very "non standard" party in which I am called upon to wear many hats. I sometimes wonder if I should have gone with a Divine Soul sorcerer or Light priest or something instead, but I really like the character I'm playing. He just struggles to contribute meaningfully round to round. I still may do a two level dip into Hex Blade for the last two levels of the campaign. Haven't decided yet. 10th level Magical Secrets is too good to delay or pass up.
Weather or not people who haven't played a class can reasonably comment on it's power is irrelevant. Everyone talking here has more than sufficient experience with this class to have this conversation.
Agreed. As the one who initially raised the question, I feel like everybody here has played enough Bard to have an informed opinion. A useful piece of knowledge, because the diversity of experiences is kind of striking. I definitely was assuming at least one or two people here were talking pure theory. That's on me.
I think it's very strange that you'd feel you need to really do damage when you're in a party with 2 Fighters and a Warlock/Paladin. Surely this is the exact kind of "support the DPS" party composition that would make the Bard shine. You mention that your Rune Knight grapples -- is it possible you just don't have a strong DOS in your party? Have people just decided to play weird? Are they all working in tandem to basically cover everything a Bard would usually do?
Conversely, my own party is a Warlock of the Archfey, an Artillerist Artificer, a Life Cleric and a Vengeance Paladin, and my Bard, and I very much do feel like I'm contributing when I use Vicious Mockery. I've got no need to hit harder. I have people for that, lol.
Weather or not people who haven't played a class can reasonably comment on it's power is irrelevant. Everyone talking here has more than sufficient experience with this class to have this conversation.
Party comp - Hexadin, Rune Knight fighter that grapples, Psi Warrior, Heal/Harm Monk, me.
It's a very "non standard" party in which I am called upon to wear many hats. I sometimes wonder if I should have gone with a Divine Soul sorcerer or Light priest or something instead, but I really like the character I'm playing. He just struggles to contribute meaningfully round to round. I still may do a two level dip into Hex Blade for the last two levels of the campaign. Haven't decided yet. 10th level Magical Secrets is too good to delay or pass up.
"Everyone talking here has more than sufficient experience with this class to have this conversation. "
That's unknown.
Whether you've actually eaten scrambled eggs is relevant to whether people should follow your opinion on how to make them
All of these classes do damage directly either with physical attacks that increase in power with higher levels, or through magical attacks that also increase in power with higher levels (or both). Bard is the only class with extremely limited means to natively do damage.
If you're in a party that is already full of damage dealers then the Bard can certainly contribute by boosting allies/hobbling enemies, but if you're not in a party that can deal a lot of damage you aren't going to be helping them much. When I played as a Bard it was in a party of three in Descent into Avernus, where one was a Rogue/Ranger, one was a Wizard, and the other was my Bard.
I ended up going College of Swords, with a one level Hexblade dip, because I usually ended up as the frontliner. With that dip I got eldritch blast, charisma as my main combat stat, and medium armor and shield proficiency, along with the shield spell which is much better on classes with free level 1 spell slots. From Swords I got the dueling fighting style, skills, flourishes, and the Bard spell list. Of course I tried to be sneaky and persuasive, but when it came time to crump heads I could actually do it fairly well.
When I got a +2 longsword (pray at the shrine of Lathandar in Eltural) I actually became the most reliable hitter in our small party.
Even though it is a support class I do think the Bard should have access to a reliable source of damage that doesn't depend on its magical secrets. If I wasn't multiclassing I would probably take the Levistus Tiefling for the ray of frost cantrip. It's not the best, but it's something.
I don't get it. If Bard is the only class that can't do "meaningful damage," then the only time the Bard *needs* to do meaningful damage (aka the rest of the party isn't already doing it) is in an all-Bards party.
And the line separating the Bard's damage from "meaningful damage" is fuzzy at best. It does damage with scaling cantrips the same way Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks do, just... Less. I mean, if there's going to be any differentiation among that aspect at all, then somebody's gotta be at the bottom, right? Why *wouldn't* it be Bard?
I don't get it. If Bard is the only class that can't do "meaningful damage," then the only time the Bard *needs* to do meaningful damage (aka the rest of the party isn't already doing it) is in an all-Bards party.
And the line separating the Bard's damage from "meaningful damage" is fuzzy at best. It does damage with scaling cantrips the same way Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks do, just... Less. I mean, if there's going to be any differentiation among that aspect at all, then somebody's gotta be at the bottom, right? Why *wouldn't* it be Bard?
Well-timed dissonant whispers can do far more damage than any other spell of its level
but like you I'm confused as to why that's not meaningful damage
I don't get it. If Bard is the only class that can't do "meaningful damage," then the only time the Bard *needs* to do meaningful damage (aka the rest of the party isn't already doing it) is in an all-Bards party.
And the line separating the Bard's damage from "meaningful damage" is fuzzy at best. It does damage with scaling cantrips the same way Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks do, just... Less. I mean, if there's going to be any differentiation among that aspect at all, then somebody's gotta be at the bottom, right? Why *wouldn't* it be Bard?
Well-timed dissonant whispers can do far more damage than any other spell of its level
but like you I'm confused as to why that's not meaningful damage
I think the main complaint is that it costs resources ie. a spell slot. The main issue most people on this thread have is the lack of something damaging that's free to use and scales as the game progresses eg. cantrips.
Personally I am fine with the Bard as it is. Every class should have Pros and Cons and the lack of a good damaging cantrip is just a flaw of the Bard class that you can either embrace and play accordingly or let it drive you crazy lol.
I don't get it. If Bard is the only class that can't do "meaningful damage," then the only time the Bard *needs* to do meaningful damage (aka the rest of the party isn't already doing it) is in an all-Bards party.
And the line separating the Bard's damage from "meaningful damage" is fuzzy at best. It does damage with scaling cantrips the same way Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks do, just... Less. I mean, if there's going to be any differentiation among that aspect at all, then somebody's gotta be at the bottom, right? Why *wouldn't* it be Bard?
Well-timed dissonant whispers can do far more damage than any other spell of its level
but like you I'm confused as to why that's not meaningful damage
The phrase was "meaningful on-demand damage." I shortened it in an attempt to make my point more directly. I think they're referring to damage options that don't have a limited number of uses.
I don't get it. If Bard is the only class that can't do "meaningful damage," then the only time the Bard *needs* to do meaningful damage (aka the rest of the party isn't already doing it) is in an all-Bards party.
And the line separating the Bard's damage from "meaningful damage" is fuzzy at best. It does damage with scaling cantrips the same way Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks do, just... Less. I mean, if there's going to be any differentiation among that aspect at all, then somebody's gotta be at the bottom, right? Why *wouldn't* it be Bard?
Well-timed dissonant whispers can do far more damage than any other spell of its level
but like you I'm confused as to why that's not meaningful damage
The phrase was "meaningful on-demand damage." I shortened it in an attempt to make my point more directly. I think they're referring to damage options that don't have a limited number of uses.
All spellcasters depend on resources with limited numbers of uses so basically what they want is to make the Bard more like a fighter. Why steal the fighter's schtick? Unclear Why would anyone want to play a fighter after the Bard stole the fighter's schtick? Unclear.
But all other spellcasters have access to meaningful, scaling damage cantrips that they can draw upon when the need arises, or simply to still be useful and conserve those spell slots for bigger fish that need to be fried.
If for some reason you don't want to play Bard to do what the class is best designed to do, there ARE archetypes that can give that to you. HALF of the Colleges officially printed feature abilities that improve your personal damage output. Spirits lets you add a d6 to any damage spell you cast, Whispers gives you a pseudosmite using your inspirations, Swords and Valour both give you some martial weapon options and extra attack so you can be better than the Ranger while also being a full caster (Seriously I looked at the numbers and you can make a superior Ranger as a Valour Bard with the right skill proficiencies as compared to the PHB version, thanks Tasha's).
None of those are things I personally think you need to be competitive as soon as you realize that what matters isn't the damage you personally deal but the damage that you are responsible for dealing. Dissonant Whispers can easily trigger multiple opportunity attacks from your melee range party members (Warcaster lets casters get in on the fun of bullying with opportunity attacks), all that damage can be considered to be yours since it wouldn't exist without your spell. That crazy GWM Hexblade Paladin damage monster will appreciate your inspirations when it turns that near miss into a devastating blow that wouldn't exist without your buff. Hold Person means that the Rogue's sneak attack auto crits and you have functionally just doubled their damage output. Silence has just enabled the party to break up combats since the group of enemies wasn't able to call for help before you obliterated them. You just landed a disgusting Plant Growth that kept the enemy from charging into your casters and archers, and the party got a few turns of easy chip on your foes etc etc.
I've played in parties where a single Bard has at times more than doubled some members damage outputs, particularly by either enabling extra attacks (Rogues can sneak attack on opportunity attacks and can get booming blade to trigger for even more damage) or increasing the rate of actually landing a hit with inspirations. I've also had bards wipe out the majority of enemies in an encounter with well places AOE debuffs.
If you insist on a self sufficient bard damage dealer instead of just playing something like a Fighter or Paladin, then just go with a Valour college Bard and wait for level 10 to get Swift Quiver 7 levels ahead of the Ranger and shoot 4 attacks a turn. You could also go Lore to steal some better damage spells like Fireball.
But all other spellcasters have access to meaningful, scaling damage cantrips that they can draw upon when the need arises, or simply to still be useful and conserve those spell slots for bigger fish that need to be fried.
And so does the Bard. The only argument that they don't is that Vicious Mockery isn't good enough, AND that the subclass based damage options aren't good enough, AND that taking other cantrips with Magical Secrets and/or feats and/or multiclassing isn't good enough, to qualify as meaningful. And I just don't agree. But if that's your opinion, then I'm done trying to change it.
My bards' sexual preferences are none of your business.
With those social skills and charisma, a bard's sexual preferences are everybody's business
I really disagree with this statement.
If you have not played a class, then you don't have a feel for how that class plays. I have just started DM-ing my first campaign and although I have read every class description twice in the PHB, and most of them quite a bit more than that, my players point out something I didn't realize. And these were not differences in interpretation; they were straight up misses on my part. I think my experience is not unlike many. Before you have sat at a table playing a character, you have a tendency to read "into" the descriptions things about your playstyle. But when you actually sit down and play the characters, you remember all the little things needed to make the most of them, and you learn some things you thought you could do, but you can't.
For this reason, I think a lot of the "theory crafting" I hear about I take with a grain of salt.
And on the subject of a PCs sexual preferences, I'd like as little of that in D&D as possible. Since that is a no-go subject at my table where teenagers play, and there are no game mechanics that depend on it, I think it would be best to leave that at the door.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Trying to figure out how a class plays by reading the rules is like trying to figure out what a piece of food taste like by reading a list of molecules contained in it
Weather or not people who haven't played a class can reasonably comment on it's power is irrelevant. Everyone talking here has more than sufficient experience with this class to have this conversation.
Party comp - Hexadin, Rune Knight fighter that grapples, Psi Warrior, Heal/Harm Monk, me.
It's a very "non standard" party in which I am called upon to wear many hats. I sometimes wonder if I should have gone with a Divine Soul sorcerer or Light priest or something instead, but I really like the character I'm playing. He just struggles to contribute meaningfully round to round. I still may do a two level dip into Hex Blade for the last two levels of the campaign. Haven't decided yet. 10th level Magical Secrets is too good to delay or pass up.
Agreed. As the one who initially raised the question, I feel like everybody here has played enough Bard to have an informed opinion. A useful piece of knowledge, because the diversity of experiences is kind of striking. I definitely was assuming at least one or two people here were talking pure theory. That's on me.
I think it's very strange that you'd feel you need to really do damage when you're in a party with 2 Fighters and a Warlock/Paladin. Surely this is the exact kind of "support the DPS" party composition that would make the Bard shine. You mention that your Rune Knight grapples -- is it possible you just don't have a strong DOS in your party? Have people just decided to play weird? Are they all working in tandem to basically cover everything a Bard would usually do?
Conversely, my own party is a Warlock of the Archfey, an Artillerist Artificer, a Life Cleric and a Vengeance Paladin, and my Bard, and I very much do feel like I'm contributing when I use Vicious Mockery. I've got no need to hit harder. I have people for that, lol.
"Everyone talking here has more than sufficient experience with this class to have this conversation. "
That's unknown.
Whether you've actually eaten scrambled eggs is relevant to whether people should follow your opinion on how to make them
Here's another great example of why the Bard does not need to do damage himself
D&D 5E Advanced guide to Command and Dissonant Whispers - YouTube
If a Bard cannot do meaningful on-demand damage we're left with the rather odd situation that it's the only class in the game that cannot.
Barbarian
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger
Monk (yes even Monk)
Wizard
Sorcerer
Warlock
Cleric
Druid
Rogue
All of these classes do damage directly either with physical attacks that increase in power with higher levels, or through magical attacks that also increase in power with higher levels (or both). Bard is the only class with extremely limited means to natively do damage.
If you're in a party that is already full of damage dealers then the Bard can certainly contribute by boosting allies/hobbling enemies, but if you're not in a party that can deal a lot of damage you aren't going to be helping them much. When I played as a Bard it was in a party of three in Descent into Avernus, where one was a Rogue/Ranger, one was a Wizard, and the other was my Bard.
I ended up going College of Swords, with a one level Hexblade dip, because I usually ended up as the frontliner. With that dip I got eldritch blast, charisma as my main combat stat, and medium armor and shield proficiency, along with the shield spell which is much better on classes with free level 1 spell slots. From Swords I got the dueling fighting style, skills, flourishes, and the Bard spell list. Of course I tried to be sneaky and persuasive, but when it came time to crump heads I could actually do it fairly well.
When I got a +2 longsword (pray at the shrine of Lathandar in Eltural) I actually became the most reliable hitter in our small party.
Even though it is a support class I do think the Bard should have access to a reliable source of damage that doesn't depend on its magical secrets. If I wasn't multiclassing I would probably take the Levistus Tiefling for the ray of frost cantrip. It's not the best, but it's something.
"If a Bard cannot do meaningful on-demand damage we're left with the rather odd situation that it's the only class in the game that cannot."
EveryBard is proficient in a hand crossbow and therefore can do meaningful damage.
It's just not gonna be as meaningful as other options.
Now you're just grasping at straws.
I'm pointing out that the bard has other options besides leadership.
Are those options as good as leadership? No
Should they be? No.
Again, if you wanna play a fighter, then play a fighter
I don't get it. If Bard is the only class that can't do "meaningful damage," then the only time the Bard *needs* to do meaningful damage (aka the rest of the party isn't already doing it) is in an all-Bards party.
And the line separating the Bard's damage from "meaningful damage" is fuzzy at best. It does damage with scaling cantrips the same way Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks do, just... Less. I mean, if there's going to be any differentiation among that aspect at all, then somebody's gotta be at the bottom, right? Why *wouldn't* it be Bard?
Well-timed dissonant whispers can do far more damage than any other spell of its level
but like you I'm confused as to why that's not meaningful damage
I think the main complaint is that it costs resources ie. a spell slot. The main issue most people on this thread have is the lack of something damaging that's free to use and scales as the game progresses eg. cantrips.
Personally I am fine with the Bard as it is. Every class should have Pros and Cons and the lack of a good damaging cantrip is just a flaw of the Bard class that you can either embrace and play accordingly or let it drive you crazy lol.
The phrase was "meaningful on-demand damage." I shortened it in an attempt to make my point more directly. I think they're referring to damage options that don't have a limited number of uses.
All spellcasters depend on resources with limited numbers of uses so basically what they want is to make the Bard more like a fighter. Why steal the fighter's schtick? Unclear Why would anyone want to play a fighter after the Bard stole the fighter's schtick? Unclear.
But all other spellcasters have access to meaningful, scaling damage cantrips that they can draw upon when the need arises, or simply to still be useful and conserve those spell slots for bigger fish that need to be fried.
If for some reason you don't want to play Bard to do what the class is best designed to do, there ARE archetypes that can give that to you. HALF of the Colleges officially printed feature abilities that improve your personal damage output. Spirits lets you add a d6 to any damage spell you cast, Whispers gives you a pseudosmite using your inspirations, Swords and Valour both give you some martial weapon options and extra attack so you can be better than the Ranger while also being a full caster (Seriously I looked at the numbers and you can make a superior Ranger as a Valour Bard with the right skill proficiencies as compared to the PHB version, thanks Tasha's).
None of those are things I personally think you need to be competitive as soon as you realize that what matters isn't the damage you personally deal but the damage that you are responsible for dealing. Dissonant Whispers can easily trigger multiple opportunity attacks from your melee range party members (Warcaster lets casters get in on the fun of bullying with opportunity attacks), all that damage can be considered to be yours since it wouldn't exist without your spell. That crazy GWM Hexblade Paladin damage monster will appreciate your inspirations when it turns that near miss into a devastating blow that wouldn't exist without your buff. Hold Person means that the Rogue's sneak attack auto crits and you have functionally just doubled their damage output. Silence has just enabled the party to break up combats since the group of enemies wasn't able to call for help before you obliterated them. You just landed a disgusting Plant Growth that kept the enemy from charging into your casters and archers, and the party got a few turns of easy chip on your foes etc etc.
I've played in parties where a single Bard has at times more than doubled some members damage outputs, particularly by either enabling extra attacks (Rogues can sneak attack on opportunity attacks and can get booming blade to trigger for even more damage) or increasing the rate of actually landing a hit with inspirations. I've also had bards wipe out the majority of enemies in an encounter with well places AOE debuffs.
If you insist on a self sufficient bard damage dealer instead of just playing something like a Fighter or Paladin, then just go with a Valour college Bard and wait for level 10 to get Swift Quiver 7 levels ahead of the Ranger and shoot 4 attacks a turn. You could also go Lore to steal some better damage spells like Fireball.
And so does the Bard. The only argument that they don't is that Vicious Mockery isn't good enough, AND that the subclass based damage options aren't good enough, AND that taking other cantrips with Magical Secrets and/or feats and/or multiclassing isn't good enough, to qualify as meaningful. And I just don't agree. But if that's your opinion, then I'm done trying to change it.