the bard spell list share a lot of weird spells with the druid spell list that implies the bard has some kind of special connection to nature, stuff like speak with plants, awaken, animal messenger etc.
The bard is also one of the few acrane spellcasters that are able to cast healing spells.
And also the bard is able to use magical secrets to derive a small handful of spells from anywhere, even stuff like divine word and find steed usually restricted to other spellcasting classes.
with this in mind, is it perhaps possible that some bard characters, knowingly or unknowlingly, derives their musical talent from some divine force, be it that they are blessed with magic like an divine soul sorcerer, that they are the incarnation of some god of music, got inspiration for many of their songs from supernatural events linked to other divine spellcasters or that they outright just are devoutly religous, their spells just as divine as any cleric but they channel that divine energy in diffrent ways
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Bards cast arcane spells. There's no secret hidden beyond that. Healing spells were arcane when a bard cast them in 3e, 4e, and 5e. Psuedo-healing spells on the mage list were arcane when bards cast them in 2e.
A spell is neither arcane nor divine in 5e. The way the spellcaster manipulates magic is. Bards are definitely arcane casters.
A DM can change that, of course, but the rules are clear.
I've always taken the diversity in the spell list as going hand in hand with the Jack of All Trades flavor of a bard. No matter what college you go with, bards are masters at being a little bit good at everything. So why not a little bit of spells from over here....a few from over there...
Bards gain their own personal inspiration from all sorts of sources, so why not a divine one! Knowingly or unknowingly! I like the idea of a bard who's also a follower of Melora and so many of their compositions are about the beauty of nature, and this pleases the Goddess so she inspires him by placing more awesome nature scenes on his path. The magic and abilities are still coming from the bard, but the God likes what you're doing and decides to offer a bit of help.
I've always taken the diversity in the spell list as going hand in hand with the Jack of All Trades flavor of a bard. No matter what college you go with, bards are masters at being a little bit good at everything. So why not a little bit of spells from over here....a few from over there...
Bards gain their own personal inspiration from all sorts of sources, so why not a divine one! Knowingly or unknowingly! I like the idea of a bard who's also a follower of Melora and so many of their compositions are about the beauty of nature, and this pleases the Goddess so she inspires him by placing more awesome nature scenes on his path. The magic and abilities are still coming from the bard, but the God likes what you're doing and decides to offer a bit of help.
You can. That's just not the way the default rules are laid out. With the exception of the 1e appendix version, bards were always arcane spell casters.
I've always taken the diversity in the spell list as going hand in hand with the Jack of All Trades flavor of a bard. No matter what college you go with, bards are masters at being a little bit good at everything. So why not a little bit of spells from over here....a few from over there...
Bards gain their own personal inspiration from all sorts of sources, so why not a divine one! Knowingly or unknowingly! I like the idea of a bard who's also a follower of Melora and so many of their compositions are about the beauty of nature, and this pleases the Goddess so she inspires him by placing more awesome nature scenes on his path. The magic and abilities are still coming from the bard, but the God likes what you're doing and decides to offer a bit of help.
You can. That's just not the way the default rules are laid out. With the exception of the 1e appendix version, bards were always arcane spell casters.
i have never heard of melora before, that sounds really cool tho
Bards cast arcane spells. There's no secret hidden beyond that. Healing spells were arcane when a bard cast them in 3e, 4e, and 5e. Psuedo-healing spells on the mage list were arcane when bards cast them in 2e.
A spell is neither arcane nor divine in 5e. The way the spellcaster manipulates magic is. Bards are definitely arcane casters.
A DM can change that, of course, but the rules are clear.
Not that it matters. It's fluff anyway. ;-)
well yeah you might say that, and yeah that is the case, they study and bend the weave just like any wizard, but bards still have some weird influence over nature that no wizard, warlock or sorcerer will ever replicate (unless some future subclass allows it), and so it can be argued that some bards simply get inspiration from divine sources , or that their breed of arcane magic is more "natural" since it is based of the song of creation, the song that sung the universe into creation. Since their magic, derived from the song of creation has literally existed since before time was invented, one might say that the bards magic is unlike the magic of the wizard a form of "natural" magic, they may reshape the weave to their wishes, but the way they do so is still so diffrent that you might call it a little bit closer to divine magic than the others.
Yeah it is really nice now that bards are finally full casters instead of trash becuase it means the magic of song can graduate from being an wizard thing to being something truly special and powerful, very neat indeed
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I've always taken the diversity in the spell list as going hand in hand with the Jack of All Trades flavor of a bard. No matter what college you go with, bards are masters at being a little bit good at everything. So why not a little bit of spells from over here....a few from over there...
Bards gain their own personal inspiration from all sorts of sources, so why not a divine one! Knowingly or unknowingly! I like the idea of a bard who's also a follower of Melora and so many of their compositions are about the beauty of nature, and this pleases the Goddess so she inspires him by placing more awesome nature scenes on his path. The magic and abilities are still coming from the bard, but the God likes what you're doing and decides to offer a bit of help.
You can. That's just not the way the default rules are laid out. With the exception of the 1e appendix version, bards were always arcane spell casters.
i have never heard of melora before, that sounds really cool tho
Bards cast arcane spells. There's no secret hidden beyond that. Healing spells were arcane when a bard cast them in 3e, 4e, and 5e. Psuedo-healing spells on the mage list were arcane when bards cast them in 2e.
A spell is neither arcane nor divine in 5e. The way the spellcaster manipulates magic is. Bards are definitely arcane casters.
A DM can change that, of course, but the rules are clear.
Not that it matters. It's fluff anyway. ;-)
well yeah you might say that, and yeah that is the case, they study and bend the weave just like any wizard, but bards still have some weird influence over nature that no wizard, warlock or sorcerer will ever replicate (unless some future subclass allows it), and so it can be argued that some bards simply get inspiration from divine sources , or that their breed of arcane magic is more "natural" since it is based of the song of creation, the song that sung the universe into creation. Since their magic, derived from the song of creation has literally existed since before time was invented, one might say that the bards magic is unlike the magic of the wizard a form of "natural" magic, they may reshape the weave to their wishes, but the way they do so is still so diffrent that you might call it a little bit closer to divine magic than the others.
Yeah it is really nice now that bards are finally full casters instead of trash becuase it means the magic of song can graduate from being an wizard thing to being something truly special and powerful, very neat indeed
Arcane vs divine is just direct manipulation vs an intermediary of the weave of magic. Bards do what divine casters do by directly manipulating the weave instead of relying on the extra bit. That's the difference between warlocks and clerics too. Warlocks gain direct access to the weave via their pact while clerics do not. Sorcerers do get a few "nature" spells too, like earthquake.
Bards have their roots in druidic origins. That's why they get those spells. In 3e it was no different. Back then the spells could still be considered arcane or divine but the cure light wounds example was a druid or cleric cast a divine version of the spell and the bard cast an arcane version of the spell. Another example is a druid casting wall of fire or a wizard casting wall of fire. There were just arcane and divine versions of spells shared on different class lists.
A spell being arcane or divine is a hold over concept from earlier editions. This is especially true for healing because 1e and 2e held healing in a certain regard. That hasn't been true for more editions that it has been at this point. I don't even worry about labeling something arcane or divine. I call it "druid magic", "cleric magic", "bard magic", "wizard magic" etc. It has less old school baggage.
As for bards as full casters, they were in 3e too but the mechanics made it look different. Higher level spells than 6th level were on the bard list WotC change the level of the spell to match what level they wanted the bard to get it to match closer to other spells casters. The combination of spells and magical songs worked out similar. The DC's on songs could get insane. The caster level mechanics still existed and bards got full spell caster levels when they cast a spell, unlike rangers and paladins. It was just a modified spell caster system instead of a restricted one, much like 5e warlocks. ;-)
2e was even better. Spell level caps by ability score guaranteed bards could cast all their spell levels but clerics usually were restricted to 5th level spells, and bards levelled so much faster than other spell casters with different XP progressions they were usually a couple levels higher than the wizard so the caster level that still mattered then made their spells more effective than a wizard in the party.
5e I don't think they are quite on par with most spell casters much like in 3e as well. That's because they gain benefits with skills and inspiration instead of things like extra spell damage or renewing slots on a rest. There's more to defining what makes a spell caster than just the spell progression.
I've always taken the diversity in the spell list as going hand in hand with the Jack of All Trades flavor of a bard. No matter what college you go with, bards are masters at being a little bit good at everything. So why not a little bit of spells from over here....a few from over there...
Bards gain their own personal inspiration from all sorts of sources, so why not a divine one! Knowingly or unknowingly! I like the idea of a bard who's also a follower of Melora and so many of their compositions are about the beauty of nature, and this pleases the Goddess so she inspires him by placing more awesome nature scenes on his path. The magic and abilities are still coming from the bard, but the God likes what you're doing and decides to offer a bit of help.
You can. That's just not the way the default rules are laid out. With the exception of the 1e appendix version, bards were always arcane spell casters.
i have never heard of melora before, that sounds really cool tho
Bards cast arcane spells. There's no secret hidden beyond that. Healing spells were arcane when a bard cast them in 3e, 4e, and 5e. Psuedo-healing spells on the mage list were arcane when bards cast them in 2e.
A spell is neither arcane nor divine in 5e. The way the spellcaster manipulates magic is. Bards are definitely arcane casters.
A DM can change that, of course, but the rules are clear.
Not that it matters. It's fluff anyway. ;-)
well yeah you might say that, and yeah that is the case, they study and bend the weave just like any wizard, but bards still have some weird influence over nature that no wizard, warlock or sorcerer will ever replicate (unless some future subclass allows it), and so it can be argued that some bards simply get inspiration from divine sources , or that their breed of arcane magic is more "natural" since it is based of the song of creation, the song that sung the universe into creation. Since their magic, derived from the song of creation has literally existed since before time was invented, one might say that the bards magic is unlike the magic of the wizard a form of "natural" magic, they may reshape the weave to their wishes, but the way they do so is still so diffrent that you might call it a little bit closer to divine magic than the others.
Yeah it is really nice now that bards are finally full casters instead of trash becuase it means the magic of song can graduate from being an wizard thing to being something truly special and powerful, very neat indeed
Arcane vs divine is just direct manipulation vs an intermediary of the weave of magic. Bards do what divine casters do by directly manipulating the weave instead of relying on the extra bit. That's the difference between warlocks and clerics too. Warlocks gain direct access to the weave via their pact while clerics do not. Sorcerers do get a few "nature" spells too, like earthquake.
Bards have their roots in druidic origins. That's why they get those spells. In 3e it was no different. Back then the spells could still be considered arcane or divine but the cure light wounds example was a druid or cleric cast a divine version of the spell and the bard cast an arcane version of the spell. Another example is a druid casting wall of fire or a wizard casting wall of fire. There were just arcane and divine versions of spells shared on different class lists.
A spell being arcane or divine is a hold over concept from earlier editions. This is especially true for healing because 1e and 2e held healing in a certain regard. That hasn't been true for more editions that it has been at this point. I don't even worry about labeling something arcane or divine. I call it "druid magic", "cleric magic", "bard magic", "wizard magic" etc. It has less old school baggage.
As for bards as full casters, they were in 3e too but the mechanics made it look different. Higher level spells than 6th level were on the bard list WotC change the level of the spell to match what level they wanted the bard to get it to match closer to other spells casters. The combination of spells and magical songs worked out similar. The DC's on songs could get insane. The caster level mechanics still existed and bards got full spell caster levels when they cast a spell, unlike rangers and paladins. It was just a modified spell caster system instead of a restricted one, much like 5e warlocks. ;-)
2e was even better. Spell level caps by ability score guaranteed bards could cast all their spell levels but clerics usually were restricted to 5th level spells, and bards levelled so much faster than other spell casters with different XP progressions they were usually a couple levels higher than the wizard so the caster level that still mattered then made their spells more effective than a wizard in the party.
5e I don't think they are quite on par with most spell casters much like in 3e as well. That's because they gain benefits with skills and inspiration instead of things like extra spell damage or renewing slots on a rest. There's more to defining what makes a spell caster than just the spell progression.
Bit of a tangent though. Sorry about that.
ah yes, 3.5e, back when the exact same spell could be 3rd level for a cleric and 5th level for a wizard , also i know the difference between arcane and divine magic, i know the diffrence between channeling the weave through an divine proxy and directly plucking strands of the weave are diffrent things i am not an idiot i am not saying that bards are divine, i know that just becuase your magic is derived from an god or semi divine entity does not nessesarily mean they are an divine spellcaster, an celestial warlock is just as arcane as an wizard, all i am saying is that bards may in some cases learn to manipulate the weave from things (the song of creation, nature itself) that are traditionally considered divine, not that bards are divine spellcasters themselves but that they have a bit of an special connection to gods and divine sources, at least compared to the typical arcanist.
That being said also, as you said, divine and arcane has no real mechanics attached to them, and so saying your magic is divine will have no more impact to your game that this particular paladin is actiually an arcane caster
but anyways can you tell me more about the druidic bard? i just kinda stubled across something called druidic bard in some old second edition bard supplement that i read for some god forsaken reason and i am really confused as to what bard have to do with druids just in general
also the skill based abillities end up helping a lot with the bards spellcasting belive it or not, jack of all trades makes dispel magic and counterspell easier, expertise can be used to more easily compel an creature summoned by an infernal calling spell, cutting words can be used to debillitate an enemys abillity to make their saving throws, that combined with the sheer versatillity of their spells leads to them feeling like they can be in some areas far greater spellcasters than others, make really good diviners, illusionists, enchanters
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I've always taken the diversity in the spell list as going hand in hand with the Jack of All Trades flavor of a bard. No matter what college you go with, bards are masters at being a little bit good at everything. So why not a little bit of spells from over here....a few from over there...
Bards gain their own personal inspiration from all sorts of sources, so why not a divine one! Knowingly or unknowingly! I like the idea of a bard who's also a follower of Melora and so many of their compositions are about the beauty of nature, and this pleases the Goddess so she inspires him by placing more awesome nature scenes on his path. The magic and abilities are still coming from the bard, but the God likes what you're doing and decides to offer a bit of help.
You can. That's just not the way the default rules are laid out. With the exception of the 1e appendix version, bards were always arcane spell casters.
i have never heard of melora before, that sounds really cool tho
Bards cast arcane spells. There's no secret hidden beyond that. Healing spells were arcane when a bard cast them in 3e, 4e, and 5e. Psuedo-healing spells on the mage list were arcane when bards cast them in 2e.
A spell is neither arcane nor divine in 5e. The way the spellcaster manipulates magic is. Bards are definitely arcane casters.
A DM can change that, of course, but the rules are clear.
Not that it matters. It's fluff anyway. ;-)
well yeah you might say that, and yeah that is the case, they study and bend the weave just like any wizard, but bards still have some weird influence over nature that no wizard, warlock or sorcerer will ever replicate (unless some future subclass allows it), and so it can be argued that some bards simply get inspiration from divine sources , or that their breed of arcane magic is more "natural" since it is based of the song of creation, the song that sung the universe into creation. Since their magic, derived from the song of creation has literally existed since before time was invented, one might say that the bards magic is unlike the magic of the wizard a form of "natural" magic, they may reshape the weave to their wishes, but the way they do so is still so diffrent that you might call it a little bit closer to divine magic than the others.
Yeah it is really nice now that bards are finally full casters instead of trash becuase it means the magic of song can graduate from being an wizard thing to being something truly special and powerful, very neat indeed
Arcane vs divine is just direct manipulation vs an intermediary of the weave of magic. Bards do what divine casters do by directly manipulating the weave instead of relying on the extra bit. That's the difference between warlocks and clerics too. Warlocks gain direct access to the weave via their pact while clerics do not. Sorcerers do get a few "nature" spells too, like earthquake.
Bards have their roots in druidic origins. That's why they get those spells. In 3e it was no different. Back then the spells could still be considered arcane or divine but the cure light wounds example was a druid or cleric cast a divine version of the spell and the bard cast an arcane version of the spell. Another example is a druid casting wall of fire or a wizard casting wall of fire. There were just arcane and divine versions of spells shared on different class lists.
A spell being arcane or divine is a hold over concept from earlier editions. This is especially true for healing because 1e and 2e held healing in a certain regard. That hasn't been true for more editions that it has been at this point. I don't even worry about labeling something arcane or divine. I call it "druid magic", "cleric magic", "bard magic", "wizard magic" etc. It has less old school baggage.
As for bards as full casters, they were in 3e too but the mechanics made it look different. Higher level spells than 6th level were on the bard list WotC change the level of the spell to match what level they wanted the bard to get it to match closer to other spells casters. The combination of spells and magical songs worked out similar. The DC's on songs could get insane. The caster level mechanics still existed and bards got full spell caster levels when they cast a spell, unlike rangers and paladins. It was just a modified spell caster system instead of a restricted one, much like 5e warlocks. ;-)
2e was even better. Spell level caps by ability score guaranteed bards could cast all their spell levels but clerics usually were restricted to 5th level spells, and bards levelled so much faster than other spell casters with different XP progressions they were usually a couple levels higher than the wizard so the caster level that still mattered then made their spells more effective than a wizard in the party.
5e I don't think they are quite on par with most spell casters much like in 3e as well. That's because they gain benefits with skills and inspiration instead of things like extra spell damage or renewing slots on a rest. There's more to defining what makes a spell caster than just the spell progression.
Bit of a tangent though. Sorry about that.
ah yes, 3.5e, back when the exact same spell could be 3rd level for a cleric and 5th level for a wizard , also i know the difference between arcane and divine magic, i know the diffrence between channeling the weave through an divine proxy and directly plucking strands of the weave are diffrent things i am not an idiot i am not saying that bards are divine, i know that just becuase your magic is derived from an god or semi divine entity does not nessesarily mean they are an divine spellcaster, an celestial warlock is just as arcane as an wizard, all i am saying is that bards may in some cases learn to manipulate the weave from things (the song of creation, nature itself) that are traditionally considered divine, not that bards are divine spellcasters themselves but that they have a bit of an special connection to gods and divine sources, at least compared to the typical arcanist.
That being said also, as you said, divine and arcane has no real mechanics attached to them, and so saying your magic is divine will have no more impact to your game that this particular paladin is actiually an arcane caster
but anyways can you tell me more about the druidic bard? i just kinda stubled across something called druidic bard in some old second edition bard supplement that i read for some god forsaken reason and i am really confused as to what bard have to do with druids just in general
also the skill based abillities end up helping a lot with the bards spellcasting belive it or not, jack of all trades makes dispel magic and counterspell easier, expertise can be used to more easily compel an creature summoned by an infernal calling spell, cutting words can be used to debillitate an enemys abillity to make their saving throws, that combined with the sheer versatillity of their spells leads to them feeling like they can be in some areas far greater spellcasters than others, make really good diviners, illusionists, enchanters
If I gave the impression I was talking down to you I apologize. I get long winded and over-explain. Sometimes it looks like mansplaining but my ex-wife is a better mansplainer than me. ;-)
Plus, I agree that any spell using skills or ability roll benefits do get that bit of oomph from bards. That just doesn't seem as impactful as twin spell or overchannel.
Now prepare from some history, lol. I have been playing for a while....
Historically, bards (using the specific term) were affiliated with druids.
Here is a link with some dry text to go through if you are interested. People argue translations and question some of the Roman and Christian writings on the subjects. I have another book somewhere in my belongings I like on the subject of historical bards I might dig out at some point.
The terms were interchangeable where Amergin, Taliesin, and Merlin (the character is based on Myrddin) were called bards or druids or both at the same time. In old legends the bards learned magic from the druids, and in other stories the druids learned magic from other bards first who in turn retaught it to bards again. That's where 1e got the bards are druids. It's because bards were druids historically and mythologically. Making a bard into a druid subclass would be completely reasonable following that reasoning.
At some point in history there was a separation (druids, bards, ovates). Bardism evolved into maintaining oral history and such (this tends to get a few things intermingled with the filid). The original bard concept for D&D comes directly from the fili, skald, and jongleur where the fili and bard were part of the druid system. Fili is where the word "file" comes from because they were historians, and translated into "seer". One of the roles of the chief bard was seer and that's what Merlin or Taliesin was to King Arthur depending who's writings a person follows.
Bards were historians, magicians, healers, teachers, judges, advisors, linguists, heralds, messengers, and prophets stemming directly from druidic tradition into bardic tradition. They were used by the military and might lead or scout, and held rank. They were praise poets, eulogists (which consisted of a prophesy regarding successors), and genealogists. And they performed too. Bards spent more time in schools learning than a lot of people do in modern times because they were the super scholars of the era. The point of learning songs and poetry was used as a mnemonic tool to aid in memory. Bards told people what they needed to hear and used the stories to remember customary law or teaching through parable. They were more like a Rabbi than an entertainer than that regard.
Time evolved bards. As Christianity became prominent druidism transformed more into bardism to keep oral traditions alive. Bards continued to exist into the 18th century maintaining oral tradition. It wasn't until much later that bards as writers became a trope.
That's not the only concept D&D bard cover, but it's where we see a big influence. Historically bards were the direct products of druids.
. . . I believe it is a logical addition to the D & D scene and the one I have composed is a hodgepodge of at least three different kinds, the Norse ‘skald’, the Celtic ‘bard’, and the southern European ‘minstrel’. The skalds were often old warriors who were a kind of self appointed historian whose duty was to record the ancient battles, blood feuds, and deeds of exceptional prowess by setting them to verse much like the ancient Greek poets did. Tolkien, a great Nordic scholar, copied this style several times in the Lord of the Rings trilogy (for example Bilbo’s chant of Earendil the Mariner). The Celts, especially in Britain, had a much more organized structure in which the post of Bards as official historians fell somewhere between the Gwelfili or public recorders and the Druids who were the judges as well as spiritual leaders. In the Celtic system Bards were trained by the Druids for a period of almost twenty years before they assumed their duties, among which was to follow the heroes into battle to provide an accurate account of their deeds, as well as to act as trusted intermediaries to settle hostilities among opposing tribes. By far the most common conception of a Bard is as a minstrel who entertained to courts of princes and kings in France, Italy and parts of Germany in the latter middle ages. Such a character was not as trust worthy as the Celtic or Nordic Bards and could be compared to a combination Thief-Illusionist. These characters were called Jongleurs by the French, from which the corrupt term juggler and court jester are remembered today . . . I wanted to put the Bard into perspective so that his multitudinous abilities in Dungeons and Dragons can be explained. I have fashioned the character more after the Celtic and Norse types than anything else, thus he is a character who resembles a fighter more than anything else, but who knows something about the mysterious forces of magic and is well adept with his hands, etc.
-- Doug Schwegman (The Strategic Review, Volume 2 Issue 1, February 1976)
That was from the original bard (who cast magic-user spells as well). They had some fighter traits, thief abilities of 1/2 level sans backstab, and cast magic user spells up to 7th level at full caster level; plus bardic lore and charm abilities and some odd song stuff / henchman bonus loyalty. That preceded the 1e PHB version and is considered the original bard.
The 1e bard in the appendix that followed is often referred to as a prestige class because the method of gaining it required taking fighter levels first, dual classing to thief, taking more thief classes than fighter, then taking bard levels. Bard levels gave bards every power druids has but with a slightly different spell table. Those bards had a massive number of hit points because they kept all their hit dice among levels. They had all the thief and druid abilities. They gained bonus languages as they increased in level, and continued with bardic lore and charm percent, bardic inspiration, and counter song. The spell chart went up to 5 druid spells of each level 1st through 5th level spells.
The pita of running through the classes was redesigned in with alternatives in Dragon Magazine to a standard class. Jeff Goelz wrote a version in Dragon Volume 6 Issue 6 (December 1981) that was based on the Welsh Bard and took inspiration from Manawyddan in The Song of Rhiannon. This version was not a thief, wore leather armor and used a wooden shields, used fighter attack progression but did not gain extra attacks, continued with lore and charm abilities, continued with inspiration, continues with countersong, kept the druid's shape change ability but at a higher level and none of the other druid abilities, and was a powerful spell caster. That bard had a spell table for illusionist spells and a separate spell table for druid spells. Illusionist spells were restricted from 1st through 4th levels some other restrictions, and druid spells got the full range of 1st through 7th levels with slight restrictions. It resulted in a lot of lower level spells and few high level spells. I think that was much better than the 1e that gave fighter, thief, druid, and bard abilities all to one class.
2e focused more on the magic dabbling / thief style of bard moving away from the druidic heritage. I think part of that was the 1e PHB bard was OP so the realization that every power from 3 classes and more got cut back too much and I also think it was the desire to fill out categories (rogue in this case) that also impacted that version. 2e acknowledged the term referring to the Celtic poets as historians and messengers etc but went on to include bard as covering the story teller or poet from other cultures. After that the druidic heritage would occasionally come up in supplements.
3e mixing healing spells in was a return to 1e where bards were healers and closer to that druid heritage without tying bards directly to druids for class identity. Roles listed were historical roles, there was a comment on skills to be more in line with rogues skills than 2e was, and 3e reembraced song more than 2e did compared to 1e. The idea was the bard covered more tropes including the Celtic / Nordic / Welsh concepts.
Skip forward to 5e and the easiest way to make a 1e bard is to take the valor college and criminal (spy variant) background then learn druid spells for spells known. It's right there and if a person wants to call them divine instead of arcane it certainly wouldn't hurt a thing.
That might be a lot for "how are bards and druids connected" but it boils down to historical and mythological bards in real folklore, and their historical origins in D&D.
Back to the OP - I see no reason a Bard couldn't focus on the Divine side of things, it would just not fit the norm. I think of the many church musicians I know, very accomplished and devout men, that couldn't play Smoke on the Water or Stairway to Heaven but can still play the heck out of an acoustic guitar when it suits them. So I would model a Divine Bard after that sort of fellow and imagine how he would be as a D&D build. Make sure to build in some clerical behavioral habits and you should be able to make it work. Or, depending on your aim, you could try a multi-class build going heavier on the cleric or bard traits as it suits you. Have fun!
Ashrym, Thanks for the educational post. I appreciate the deeper explanation of the Bard's ties to the game and how he fits into the big picture of the game. I remember the Appendix Bard and hoped I would someday have a DM that would let me go through a campaign that would get me there. But reading the 5e stuff, I think I'm glad I can just Be a Bard right out of the gate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Back to the OP - I see no reason a Bard couldn't focus on the Divine side of things, it would just not fit the norm. I think of the many church musicians I know, very accomplished and devout men, that couldn't play Smoke on the Water or Stairway to Heaven but can still play the heck out of an acoustic guitar when it suits them. So I would model a Divine Bard after that sort of fellow and imagine how he would be as a D&D build. Make sure to build in some clerical behavioral habits and you should be able to make it work. Or, depending on your aim, you could try a multi-class build going heavier on the cleric or bard traits as it suits you. Have fun!
Ashrym, Thanks for the educational post. I appreciate the deeper explanation of the Bard's ties to the game and how he fits into the big picture of the game. I remember the Appendix Bard and hoped I would someday have a DM that would let me go through a campaign that would get me there. But reading the 5e stuff, I think I'm glad I can just Be a Bard right out of the gate.
well yeah but like, there is practically nothing the cleric could give you that the bard does not already grant, if i want armor profíciencies i'd get that with the collage of valor, many cleric spells are already on the bard list, wanna get some more you could just use magical secrets right?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Back to the OP - I see no reason a Bard couldn't focus on the Divine side of things, it would just not fit the norm. I think of the many church musicians I know, very accomplished and devout men, that couldn't play Smoke on the Water or Stairway to Heaven but can still play the heck out of an acoustic guitar when it suits them. So I would model a Divine Bard after that sort of fellow and imagine how he would be as a D&D build. Make sure to build in some clerical behavioral habits and you should be able to make it work. Or, depending on your aim, you could try a multi-class build going heavier on the cleric or bard traits as it suits you. Have fun!
Ashrym, Thanks for the educational post. I appreciate the deeper explanation of the Bard's ties to the game and how he fits into the big picture of the game. I remember the Appendix Bard and hoped I would someday have a DM that would let me go through a campaign that would get me there. But reading the 5e stuff, I think I'm glad I can just Be a Bard right out of the gate.
well yeah but like, there is practically nothing the cleric could give you that the bard does not already grant, if i want armor profíciencies i'd get that with the collage of valor, many cleric spells are already on the bard list, wanna get some more you could just use magical secrets right?
MC bard / cleric adds a lot of spells available over bard spells known, channel divinity, domain features, and adds armor to lore or glamor bards. Not the worst choice.
I would probably just take acolyte baclground and focus on cleric spells. Probably glamor for that divine voice flavor. Bards don't really need much to flavor them given the range of options the class has.
A bard singing praise in service to religion isn't different than sing praise in service to a chief. Singing hymns or choirs are pretty typical.
Bards cover a huge array of flavors players miss in the fluff.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
the bard spell list share a lot of weird spells with the druid spell list that implies the bard has some kind of special connection to nature, stuff like speak with plants, awaken, animal messenger etc.
The bard is also one of the few acrane spellcasters that are able to cast healing spells.
And also the bard is able to use magical secrets to derive a small handful of spells from anywhere, even stuff like divine word and find steed usually restricted to other spellcasting classes.
with this in mind, is it perhaps possible that some bard characters, knowingly or unknowlingly, derives their musical talent from some divine force, be it that they are blessed with magic like an divine soul sorcerer, that they are the incarnation of some god of music, got inspiration for many of their songs from supernatural events linked to other divine spellcasters or that they outright just are devoutly religous, their spells just as divine as any cleric but they channel that divine energy in diffrent ways
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Bards cast arcane spells. There's no secret hidden beyond that. Healing spells were arcane when a bard cast them in 3e, 4e, and 5e. Psuedo-healing spells on the mage list were arcane when bards cast them in 2e.
A spell is neither arcane nor divine in 5e. The way the spellcaster manipulates magic is. Bards are definitely arcane casters.
A DM can change that, of course, but the rules are clear.
Not that it matters. It's fluff anyway. ;-)
I've always taken the diversity in the spell list as going hand in hand with the Jack of All Trades flavor of a bard. No matter what college you go with, bards are masters at being a little bit good at everything. So why not a little bit of spells from over here....a few from over there...
Bards gain their own personal inspiration from all sorts of sources, so why not a divine one! Knowingly or unknowingly! I like the idea of a bard who's also a follower of Melora and so many of their compositions are about the beauty of nature, and this pleases the Goddess so she inspires him by placing more awesome nature scenes on his path. The magic and abilities are still coming from the bard, but the God likes what you're doing and decides to offer a bit of help.
Find me on Twitter: @OboeLauren
You can. That's just not the way the default rules are laid out. With the exception of the 1e appendix version, bards were always arcane spell casters.
i have never heard of melora before, that sounds really cool tho
well yeah you might say that, and yeah that is the case, they study and bend the weave just like any wizard, but bards still have some weird influence over nature that no wizard, warlock or sorcerer will ever replicate (unless some future subclass allows it), and so it can be argued that some bards simply get inspiration from divine sources , or that their breed of arcane magic is more "natural" since it is based of the song of creation, the song that sung the universe into creation. Since their magic, derived from the song of creation has literally existed since before time was invented, one might say that the bards magic is unlike the magic of the wizard a form of "natural" magic, they may reshape the weave to their wishes, but the way they do so is still so diffrent that you might call it a little bit closer to divine magic than the others.
Yeah it is really nice now that bards are finally full casters instead of trash becuase it means the magic of song can graduate from being an wizard thing to being something truly special and powerful, very neat indeed
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Arcane vs divine is just direct manipulation vs an intermediary of the weave of magic. Bards do what divine casters do by directly manipulating the weave instead of relying on the extra bit. That's the difference between warlocks and clerics too. Warlocks gain direct access to the weave via their pact while clerics do not. Sorcerers do get a few "nature" spells too, like earthquake.
Bards have their roots in druidic origins. That's why they get those spells. In 3e it was no different. Back then the spells could still be considered arcane or divine but the cure light wounds example was a druid or cleric cast a divine version of the spell and the bard cast an arcane version of the spell. Another example is a druid casting wall of fire or a wizard casting wall of fire. There were just arcane and divine versions of spells shared on different class lists.
A spell being arcane or divine is a hold over concept from earlier editions. This is especially true for healing because 1e and 2e held healing in a certain regard. That hasn't been true for more editions that it has been at this point. I don't even worry about labeling something arcane or divine. I call it "druid magic", "cleric magic", "bard magic", "wizard magic" etc. It has less old school baggage.
As for bards as full casters, they were in 3e too but the mechanics made it look different. Higher level spells than 6th level were on the bard list WotC change the level of the spell to match what level they wanted the bard to get it to match closer to other spells casters. The combination of spells and magical songs worked out similar. The DC's on songs could get insane. The caster level mechanics still existed and bards got full spell caster levels when they cast a spell, unlike rangers and paladins. It was just a modified spell caster system instead of a restricted one, much like 5e warlocks. ;-)
2e was even better. Spell level caps by ability score guaranteed bards could cast all their spell levels but clerics usually were restricted to 5th level spells, and bards levelled so much faster than other spell casters with different XP progressions they were usually a couple levels higher than the wizard so the caster level that still mattered then made their spells more effective than a wizard in the party.
5e I don't think they are quite on par with most spell casters much like in 3e as well. That's because they gain benefits with skills and inspiration instead of things like extra spell damage or renewing slots on a rest. There's more to defining what makes a spell caster than just the spell progression.
Bit of a tangent though. Sorry about that.
ah yes, 3.5e, back when the exact same spell could be 3rd level for a cleric and 5th level for a wizard , also i know the difference between arcane and divine magic, i know the diffrence between channeling the weave through an divine proxy and directly plucking strands of the weave are diffrent things i am not an idiot i am not saying that bards are divine, i know that just becuase your magic is derived from an god or semi divine entity does not nessesarily mean they are an divine spellcaster, an celestial warlock is just as arcane as an wizard, all i am saying is that bards may in some cases learn to manipulate the weave from things (the song of creation, nature itself) that are traditionally considered divine, not that bards are divine spellcasters themselves but that they have a bit of an special connection to gods and divine sources, at least compared to the typical arcanist.
That being said also, as you said, divine and arcane has no real mechanics attached to them, and so saying your magic is divine will have no more impact to your game that this particular paladin is actiually an arcane caster
but anyways can you tell me more about the druidic bard? i just kinda stubled across something called druidic bard in some old second edition bard supplement that i read for some god forsaken reason and i am really confused as to what bard have to do with druids just in general
also the skill based abillities end up helping a lot with the bards spellcasting belive it or not, jack of all trades makes dispel magic and counterspell easier, expertise can be used to more easily compel an creature summoned by an infernal calling spell, cutting words can be used to debillitate an enemys abillity to make their saving throws, that combined with the sheer versatillity of their spells leads to them feeling like they can be in some areas far greater spellcasters than others, make really good diviners, illusionists, enchanters
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
If I gave the impression I was talking down to you I apologize. I get long winded and over-explain. Sometimes it looks like mansplaining but my ex-wife is a better mansplainer than me. ;-)
Plus, I agree that any spell using skills or ability roll benefits do get that bit of oomph from bards. That just doesn't seem as impactful as twin spell or overchannel.
Now prepare from some history, lol. I have been playing for a while....
Historically, bards (using the specific term) were affiliated with druids.
Here is a link with some dry text to go through if you are interested. People argue translations and question some of the Roman and Christian writings on the subjects. I have another book somewhere in my belongings I like on the subject of historical bards I might dig out at some point.
The terms were interchangeable where Amergin, Taliesin, and Merlin (the character is based on Myrddin) were called bards or druids or both at the same time. In old legends the bards learned magic from the druids, and in other stories the druids learned magic from other bards first who in turn retaught it to bards again. That's where 1e got the bards are druids. It's because bards were druids historically and mythologically. Making a bard into a druid subclass would be completely reasonable following that reasoning.
At some point in history there was a separation (druids, bards, ovates). Bardism evolved into maintaining oral history and such (this tends to get a few things intermingled with the filid). The original bard concept for D&D comes directly from the fili, skald, and jongleur where the fili and bard were part of the druid system. Fili is where the word "file" comes from because they were historians, and translated into "seer". One of the roles of the chief bard was seer and that's what Merlin or Taliesin was to King Arthur depending who's writings a person follows.
Bards were historians, magicians, healers, teachers, judges, advisors, linguists, heralds, messengers, and prophets stemming directly from druidic tradition into bardic tradition. They were used by the military and might lead or scout, and held rank. They were praise poets, eulogists (which consisted of a prophesy regarding successors), and genealogists. And they performed too. Bards spent more time in schools learning than a lot of people do in modern times because they were the super scholars of the era. The point of learning songs and poetry was used as a mnemonic tool to aid in memory. Bards told people what they needed to hear and used the stories to remember customary law or teaching through parable. They were more like a Rabbi than an entertainer than that regard.
Time evolved bards. As Christianity became prominent druidism transformed more into bardism to keep oral traditions alive. Bards continued to exist into the 18th century maintaining oral tradition. It wasn't until much later that bards as writers became a trope.
That's not the only concept D&D bard cover, but it's where we see a big influence. Historically bards were the direct products of druids.
That was from the original bard (who cast magic-user spells as well). They had some fighter traits, thief abilities of 1/2 level sans backstab, and cast magic user spells up to 7th level at full caster level; plus bardic lore and charm abilities and some odd song stuff / henchman bonus loyalty. That preceded the 1e PHB version and is considered the original bard.
The 1e bard in the appendix that followed is often referred to as a prestige class because the method of gaining it required taking fighter levels first, dual classing to thief, taking more thief classes than fighter, then taking bard levels. Bard levels gave bards every power druids has but with a slightly different spell table. Those bards had a massive number of hit points because they kept all their hit dice among levels. They had all the thief and druid abilities. They gained bonus languages as they increased in level, and continued with bardic lore and charm percent, bardic inspiration, and counter song. The spell chart went up to 5 druid spells of each level 1st through 5th level spells.
The pita of running through the classes was redesigned in with alternatives in Dragon Magazine to a standard class. Jeff Goelz wrote a version in Dragon Volume 6 Issue 6 (December 1981) that was based on the Welsh Bard and took inspiration from Manawyddan in The Song of Rhiannon. This version was not a thief, wore leather armor and used a wooden shields, used fighter attack progression but did not gain extra attacks, continued with lore and charm abilities, continued with inspiration, continues with countersong, kept the druid's shape change ability but at a higher level and none of the other druid abilities, and was a powerful spell caster. That bard had a spell table for illusionist spells and a separate spell table for druid spells. Illusionist spells were restricted from 1st through 4th levels some other restrictions, and druid spells got the full range of 1st through 7th levels with slight restrictions. It resulted in a lot of lower level spells and few high level spells. I think that was much better than the 1e that gave fighter, thief, druid, and bard abilities all to one class.
2e focused more on the magic dabbling / thief style of bard moving away from the druidic heritage. I think part of that was the 1e PHB bard was OP so the realization that every power from 3 classes and more got cut back too much and I also think it was the desire to fill out categories (rogue in this case) that also impacted that version. 2e acknowledged the term referring to the Celtic poets as historians and messengers etc but went on to include bard as covering the story teller or poet from other cultures. After that the druidic heritage would occasionally come up in supplements.
3e mixing healing spells in was a return to 1e where bards were healers and closer to that druid heritage without tying bards directly to druids for class identity. Roles listed were historical roles, there was a comment on skills to be more in line with rogues skills than 2e was, and 3e reembraced song more than 2e did compared to 1e. The idea was the bard covered more tropes including the Celtic / Nordic / Welsh concepts.
Skip forward to 5e and the easiest way to make a 1e bard is to take the valor college and criminal (spy variant) background then learn druid spells for spells known. It's right there and if a person wants to call them divine instead of arcane it certainly wouldn't hurt a thing.
That might be a lot for "how are bards and druids connected" but it boils down to historical and mythological bards in real folklore, and their historical origins in D&D.
Back to the OP - I see no reason a Bard couldn't focus on the Divine side of things, it would just not fit the norm. I think of the many church musicians I know, very accomplished and devout men, that couldn't play Smoke on the Water or Stairway to Heaven but can still play the heck out of an acoustic guitar when it suits them. So I would model a Divine Bard after that sort of fellow and imagine how he would be as a D&D build. Make sure to build in some clerical behavioral habits and you should be able to make it work. Or, depending on your aim, you could try a multi-class build going heavier on the cleric or bard traits as it suits you. Have fun!
Ashrym, Thanks for the educational post. I appreciate the deeper explanation of the Bard's ties to the game and how he fits into the big picture of the game. I remember the Appendix Bard and hoped I would someday have a DM that would let me go through a campaign that would get me there. But reading the 5e stuff, I think I'm glad I can just Be a Bard right out of the gate.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
well yeah but like, there is practically nothing the cleric could give you that the bard does not already grant, if i want armor profíciencies i'd get that with the collage of valor, many cleric spells are already on the bard list, wanna get some more you could just use magical secrets right?
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
MC bard / cleric adds a lot of spells available over bard spells known, channel divinity, domain features, and adds armor to lore or glamor bards. Not the worst choice.
I would probably just take acolyte baclground and focus on cleric spells. Probably glamor for that divine voice flavor. Bards don't really need much to flavor them given the range of options the class has.
A bard singing praise in service to religion isn't different than sing praise in service to a chief. Singing hymns or choirs are pretty typical.
Bards cover a huge array of flavors players miss in the fluff.