I strange "off tank" I played one time was a Sword bard 5/hexblade 2 that had Mobility. He would move in boom blade and move out from the opponent. This made him a great off tank as most int. beings do not want to hurt them self unless they must. Mind you the party did have a Barbarian but this would keep a second monster from the reckless attacks on him.
This depends entirely on how you wish to define a "tank" character. We get the term from MMORPGs, but those mechanics don't exactly translate to a TTRPG. And what little does translate, the bard simply cannot do effectively.
If you just want to be a walking fortress, then crank your AC up higher and pick up a shield. The Shield Master feat can also help, but beware of its limitations. You can't add your shield's AC to your Dexterity saving throw against a spell like fireball, but you can still reduce the damage to zero if you pass your saving throw. Medium Armor Master can also boost your AC up slightly; if your Dexterity is high enough (16+).
But if you're looking to keep enemies off your allies' backs, then you've got your work cut out for you. Combat Inspiration can be used by anyone for either attack or defense. Strictly-speaking, it's not a "tanking" feature. Nor do you have any spells that keep an enemy's attention fixed on you, like compelled duel. The bard is a support class, and that makes you a support caster. Choosing for yourself the College of Valor makes you into more of a martial character who can aid more in direct combat and fight on the front lines with more versatility. Even with crap Strength, you gain proficiency with the scimitar, whip, and longbow and can use them all to great effect. But you won't really be able to tailor your fighting style until 10th level when you get your first Magical Secrets.
Your best bet is to focus on control spells, but you won't have a lot to pick from. Spells like earth tremor and thunderwave help with controlling a physical area. Others, like dissonant whispers and Tasha's hideous laughter, can single out specific targets. Later on, you can pick up spells like hypnotic pattern and plant growth. For now, just focus on what you can do to help the entire group with a mix of Spellcasting and Bardic Inspiration. You've got a decent spell list, but it's fairly inflexible. You can't prepare new spells every day, and you can only trade one out per level up, so they're serious decision points and not just choices you can take back later.
Unfortunately, as Jounichi points out, there're not really tanks in D&D because the monsters can just avoid you and attack your allies.
Individual characters can be very hard to kill (Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers (?)) but they can't really protect the rest of your party.
The Sentinel feat, combined with Polearm Master, can make it harder for one enemy a turn to get past you, and Valor Bards are proficient with all martial weapons so could wield a glaive/halberd to keep the foe at bay. On the other hand a Paladin would be much better at doing so.
Perhaps a Paladin with the Entertainer background and the defensive fighting style, and starting with the Polearm Master feat (Variant Human) is a better way to go.
The tank term existed in D&D before MMO's existed and did refer to hard to hurt or kill. The MMO kids can get off my lawn. :P
I tank by placing myself in chokepoints and being hard to hurt. I can also use things like caltrops or ball bearings to restrict opponent movement so they cannot simply walk around me.
There are spells like compelled duel or abilities like the armorer guardian gauntlets that impose disadvantage attacking anyone else so it's a soft control tanking method. 5e definitely has ways to "tank" more like the MMO definition even if those aren't as prominent.
One of the easiest things is with grappler builds to restrain targets. Expertise in athletics and using a spell slot on enhance ability (STR) gives a good bonus with grappling early, grappling doesn't prevent the bard from casting spells while the target is grappled, and the extra attack feature allows for using one of the attacks for the grapple and the other can be made normally. Using one attack for a grapple and another for a shove to knock the target prone also gives the target disadvantage on attacks and allies advantage attacking the prone target.
Grappled targets have a speed of 0 so they aren't going to walk around your bard tank. Prone targets move at half speed or use speed to stand up. Make use of those actions.
I take the hit on DEX early and focus on strength, then take heavily armored at 4th level on this type of build.
I would point out that later when spell DC's are higher and slots are more available the status effects from spells are better. Just adding armor and a shield while using CHA and CC spells works. At 3rd level I would likely carry sleep and use that still.
step 1: start your bard as a fighter for one level
step 2: go swords bard.
There, now you get the benefits of increasing your AC with flourishes while you have proficiencies with heavy armor and shields and all martial weapons, and you get your fighting style right off the bat that'll presumably be defense. Oh, and your concentration's pretty good so you can take a hit and keep your spells up.
step 1: start your bard as a fighter for one level
step 2: go swords bard.
There, now you get the benefits of increasing your AC with flourishes while you have proficiencies with heavy armor and shields and all martial weapons, and you get your fighting style right off the bat that'll presumably be defense. Oh, and your concentration's pretty good so you can take a hit and keep your spells up.
Flourishes are too resource draining until 14th level when bardic inspiration is so useful for the other PC's in the party.
A single level of multi-classing means almost one half of every level in the game the non-splashed bard has access to higher level spells than the splashed bard. Those levels are 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17th while all the other bard abilities are pushed back a level as well. This matters at levels:
1 -- Right off the bat there's no spells available on a class build with spells in mind. That includes cantrip and rituals. There's also no bardic inspiration. Both are a significant loss for the level of fighter gained. The extra skill proficiency is also delayed but that's a minor point.
2 -- Delaying jack-of-all-trades is minor. Delaying song of rest is not. Low levels is where the best returns are on that abillity.
3 -- As mentioned, 2nd-level spells are delayed. I'd be happier with a good spell from that level on a spell casting class than the fighter weapons and armor. Skill expertise also gets delayed here. The subclass options also get delayed here. The swords bards (not a poor choice but resource intensive) would gain the weapon proficiencies likely used here anyway. The valor bard gains all the fighter weapon proficiencies and a shield anyway but doesn't need to spend bardic inspiration for that AC bonus, has almost the same AC as the fighter, and also gains those benefits for other PC's. The fighter splash is still gaining jack-of-all-trades and song of rest. It's a big level to be behind on.
4 -- The splash delayed that 3rd cantrip and, more importantly, the ASI/feat.
5 -- This is another huge level to be behind. This grants 3rd level spells and font of inspiration. That pure valor bard will be using bardic inspiration approximately 3 times as much as your fighter / swords multi-class and have 3rd level spells.
6 -- This is another strong level for bards because this is where the second college feature shows up. So the fighter 1 / bard 5 you proposed sucks compared to the pure valor bard at damage just because of the extra attack feature, and the grappling approach I mentioned above works much more effectively with multiple attacks.
7 -- 4th-level spell slots when the multi-class is getting the extra attack feature that the pure bard already has.
8 -- The multi-class is behind the ASI/feat at this level.
9 -- The pure bard is grabbing 5th-level spell slots while the multi-class bard is grabbing the ASI/feat the pure bard already has.
10 -- The additional cantrip isn't generally much here, but the additional expertise options can be, and the pure bard can grab shield and absorb elements here for better tanking that the multi-classed bard needs to wait for.
11 -- The pure bard is adding 6th-level spells while the multi-classed bard is adding magical secrets.
12 -- This is typically an important ASI/feat because it's the point the caster is adding a feat instead of capping the casting stat for bards who focus on CHA first. Feats can make a big difference.
13 -- The multi-class bard is grabbing the ASI/feat and the pure class is grabbing 7th-level spells.
14 -- This is another important level because it's the final college ability. Battle magic is a good ability. It also allows casting a spell and then grappling with the bonus action attack as described earlier. Plus more magical secrets.
15 -- Your fighter 1 / bard 14 can finally make better use of defensive flourish because of the d6 option but that is still limited to one flourish per turn so it shuts out other options and a bigger die to save on resources. Not that great. The pure bard just added glibness or another good 8th level spell.
16 -- This level isn't too bad. 3 ASI's/feats in this could be another feat but they become less important. It's still an ASI/feat behind, however.
17 -- It really sucks to be a level where other bards can cast 9th level spells. The valor bard who added foresight kicks butt over your build at this level.
18 -- It also really sucks to be gaining foresight when the pure bard already has it but adds wish through magical secrets.
19 -- This is another ASI/feat level, but unlike 16th level pure bard also adds a 6th-level spell slot. I would argue a feat and a high level spell slot out-perform the benefits of a 1st level fighter.
20 -- The bard capstone is no great loss. This is what most people are looking at when they talk about the splash. It's not just the capstone, however; it's also the 7th level spell slot gained at this level.
The only level that is worth trading off for a level of fighter with the long term in mind is 20th level. At almost every level the pure bard has significant advantages over that splash. It's a good splash if a person starts at 20th level but other than that the growing pains getting there impact game play. It's generally a bad idea to multi-class most spell casters because of the slower access to higher level spells; even a 1 level splash.
The final result is a fighter who changed the saving throws, already has heavy armor proficiency, gives a combat style, and a weak second wind. That's not worth the growing pains slower access to higher level spells and other bard abilities creates.
step 1: start your bard as a fighter for one level
step 2: go swords bard.
There, now you get the benefits of increasing your AC with flourishes while you have proficiencies with heavy armor and shields and all martial weapons, and you get your fighting style right off the bat that'll presumably be defense. Oh, and your concentration's pretty good so you can take a hit and keep your spells up.
Flourishes are too resource draining until 14th level when bardic inspiration is so useful for the other PC's in the party.
A single level of multi-classing means almost one half of every level in the game the non-splashed bard has access to higher level spells than the splashed bard.
You know what the biggest error being made here from your opinion? You view things through the lens of "but what about the other caster?" rather than "How's my character performing?" For example, you view the fact that the multiclass misses out on subclass options at 3rd level compared to the pure swords/valor bard as detrimental. Or, even more readily apparent, at 1st level you view the fact that you're not a spellcaster as a detriment. The solution? You come to terms with the fact you're a fighter at first level, and that there's nothing wrong with that. Just play as a fighter at 1st level! However, you fail to account for the fact that when a swords bard does unlock their subclass, they still really can't afford to melee on medium armor alone, and can only use scimitars as an added bonus. The MC can already use shields and heavy armor and access the defense fighting style. Within tier 1, my money's on the MC to survive and stay conscious longer than the pure bard. Is it a level behind? Sure,but it doesn't negate all that the character can do up to that point.
The only level, honestly, that has any real growing pains is 5th level, where upon the entry to tier 2 encounters ramp up to account for 3rd level spells and martials extra attack. However, you're still a spell caster with some decent options. You're still an effective party member for using spell slots on things like faerie fire, healing word, heat metal, hold person, or what have you. And you still have the armor and shields to stay alive. Sure, the pure swords bard unlocked extra attack at 6, but you unlocked 3rd level spells! So, just play as a spellcaster would, no harm no foul. By next level, you've got extra attack with a wider variety of martial weapons to suit your taste. The swords bard still has to conform to "maybe I'll use a scimitar." Now, the MC does the whole gish gig way better. What's that? The party's main martial found himself a neat shiny toy and wishes to pass his hand-me-downs to the bard? the MC will likely be able to take it, if it were something like a +2 halberd or longbow. the purebred couldn't.
Flourishes to increase AC sure are important and maybe resource intensive, but you'll find yourself needing to use them less if your AC is already naturally higher thanks to your armor options. Compared to the purebred, the MC finds themselves with more ample opportunities to use inspirations instead.
Now, let's be clear on something. This thread's about tanking with a bard. Tanking in this game's an abstract concept, but a couple things are certain: your AC's gotta be up to par, and you've gotta be able to take a punch. The pure valor's AC is decent out the gate, but nothing to write home about without a fighting style or flourishes to augment it with. the swords bard would need to take the feat moderately armored, but now's somewhat behind. Most casters take a feat to help their concentration like warcaster or res:con, but again, my MC's got it to start. Mine ticks off the most crucial checkboxes, and it fulfills its intended purpose of tanking!
Now, the other flaw in all of this is this implication you should never multiclass a bard. Oof, if this is your reaction to a single level dip, I'd hate to see your reaction to a level two dip in something like paladin! Relax buddy, an extra 6th level slot or 7th level slot ain't the end of the world. By then, at that 20th level, you've got resources galore to make scrolls. Now slots aren't even that big an issue. Keep in mind, tanking with a bard means you're ultimately going down the gish path. Fact of life, aside from hexblades and bladesingers, a gish will never have the same spell progression compared to the pure spell caster. But, it doesn't need to because it's its own thing. You'd never compare a half-caster to a full caster, for example, because they do different things. Important thing is to ensure it's an effective character. And this build offers just that. Take it or leave it.
No need to get defensive over a difference in opinion.
Bards don't really tank. Multiclassing for one level, which is an optional rule and not every table allows it, won't help with that. Nor will telling the OP to start with a level of Fighter, and then progress via College of Swords, when they're already Valor Bard 3. So even if they did multiclass now, they won't have proficiency with Constitution saving throws or heavy armor. Never mind that they've specifically stated they'd prefer not to multiclass.
If you want to get upset, do so at yourself for not understanding the assignment.
No need to get defensive over a difference in opinion.
Bards don't really tank. Multiclassing for one level, which is an optional rule and not every table allows it, won't help with that. Nor will telling the OP to start with a level of Fighter, and then progress via College of Swords, when they're already Valor Bard 3. So even if they did multiclass now, they won't have proficiency with Constitution saving throws or heavy armor. Never mind that they've specifically stated they'd prefer not to multiclass.
If you want to get upset, do so at yourself for not understanding the assignment.
Defensive? Upset? I'm just addressing flaws in the argument while defending mine, as all discussions should. no need to point fingers, my dude.
Now, OP's post is about a year and a half old by now. Old boy's most likely done with that character! By now it's pointless to abide by the original question posed, and instead simply address the question in general. Now, lots of classes usually don't do a lot of things, but if someone wants to, well, there's a right and wrong way to go about these things. Bards don't really tank? We know. But should we not try? Why not? So if we decide to, here's what I think is the right way to go about it.
But if you don't want to, you don't have to. As I've said before, you can take it or leave it.
step 1: start your bard as a fighter for one level
step 2: go swords bard.
There, now you get the benefits of increasing your AC with flourishes while you have proficiencies with heavy armor and shields and all martial weapons, and you get your fighting style right off the bat that'll presumably be defense. Oh, and your concentration's pretty good so you can take a hit and keep your spells up.
Flourishes are too resource draining until 14th level when bardic inspiration is so useful for the other PC's in the party.
A single level of multi-classing means almost one half of every level in the game the non-splashed bard has access to higher level spells than the splashed bard.
You know what the biggest error being made here from your opinion? You view things through the lens of "but what about the other caster?" rather than "How's my character performing?" For example, you view the fact that the multiclass misses out on subclass options at 3rd level compared to the pure swords/valor bard as detrimental. Or, even more readily apparent, at 1st level you view the fact that you're not a spellcaster as a detriment. The solution? You come to terms with the fact you're a fighter at first level, and that there's nothing wrong with that. Just play as a fighter at 1st level! However, you fail to account for the fact that when a swords bard does unlock their subclass, they still really can't afford to melee on medium armor alone, and can only use scimitars as an added bonus. The MC can already use shields and heavy armor and access the defense fighting style. Within tier 1, my money's on the MC to survive and stay conscious longer than the pure bard. Is it a level behind? Sure,but it doesn't negate all that the character can do up to that point.
The only level, honestly, that has any real growing pains is 5th level, where upon the entry to tier 2 encounters ramp up to account for 3rd level spells and martials extra attack. However, you're still a spell caster with some decent options. You're still an effective party member for using spell slots on things like faerie fire, healing word, heat metal, hold person, or what have you. And you still have the armor and shields to stay alive. Sure, the pure swords bard unlocked extra attack at 6, but you unlocked 3rd level spells! So, just play as a spellcaster would, no harm no foul. By next level, you've got extra attack with a wider variety of martial weapons to suit your taste. The swords bard still has to conform to "maybe I'll use a scimitar." Now, the MC does the whole gish gig way better. What's that? The party's main martial found himself a neat shiny toy and wishes to pass his hand-me-downs to the bard? the MC will likely be able to take it, if it were something like a +2 halberd or longbow. the purebred couldn't.
Flourishes to increase AC sure are important and maybe resource intensive, but you'll find yourself needing to use them less if your AC is already naturally higher thanks to your armor options. Compared to the purebred, the MC finds themselves with more ample opportunities to use inspirations instead.
Now, let's be clear on something. This thread's about tanking with a bard. Tanking in this game's an abstract concept, but a couple things are certain: your AC's gotta be up to par, and you've gotta be able to take a punch. The pure valor's AC is decent out the gate, but nothing to write home about without a fighting style or flourishes to augment it with. the swords bard would need to take the feat moderately armored, but now's somewhat behind. Most casters take a feat to help their concentration like warcaster or res:con, but again, my MC's got it to start. Mine ticks off the most crucial checkboxes, and it fulfills its intended purpose of tanking!
Now, the other flaw in all of this is this implication you should never multiclass a bard. Oof, if this is your reaction to a single level dip, I'd hate to see your reaction to a level two dip in something like paladin! Relax buddy, an extra 6th level slot or 7th level slot ain't the end of the world. By then, at that 20th level, you've got resources galore to make scrolls. Now slots aren't even that big an issue. Keep in mind, tanking with a bard means you're ultimately going down the gish path. Fact of life, aside from hexblades and bladesingers, a gish will never have the same spell progression compared to the pure spell caster. But, it doesn't need to because it's its own thing. You'd never compare a half-caster to a full caster, for example, because they do different things. Important thing is to ensure it's an effective character. And this build offers just that. Take it or leave it.
I'm going to break this down for readability.
You know what the biggest error being made here from your opinion?
It's an opinion. Right or wrong is pretty subjective here. ;-)
I posted details to back up my opinion and hope that illustrates the gap for anyone reading it.
You view things through the lens of "but what about the other caster?" rather than "How's my character performing?" For example, you view the fact that the multiclass misses out on subclass options at 3rd level compared to the pure swords/valor bard as detrimental. Or, even more readily apparent, at 1st level you view the fact that you're not a spellcaster as a detriment. The solution? You come to terms with the fact you're a fighter at first level, and that there's nothing wrong with that. Just play as a fighter at 1st level! However, you fail to account for the fact that when a swords bard does unlock their subclass, they still really can't afford to melee on medium armor alone, and can only use scimitars as an added bonus.
I'm not sure where you get the ideas this is through the lens of other casters. There's a couple of short comments that it's generally not good to multi-class any full caster (bards included) because of the spell level delay but the level by level breakdown is all bard vs your fighter splashed bard.
The options missed on a fighter 1 / bard 2 versus a bard 3 are detrimental. The attack bonus is going to be identical, the weapon selection going valor can be identical, the AC is almost identical, and the fighter didn't grab action surge in your build so we're comparing second wind, a slight AC bonus at that level, and a fighting style to 2nd level spell slots, expertise, and combat inspiration. Those are the same abilities that you are comparing at most levels while the bard with a fighter splash plays catch up on bard abilities.
I agree with the fact that a swords bard relying on medium armor, standard bard weapons, and a few more weapon proficiencies. The valor bard gets the weapons and medium armor and shield, and plays sessions with bard features that the swords bard with a fighter splash waits for. That's for most of the bard's career. That's why I backed the valor bard it this type of build. They have almost everything the fighter gives and keep up with the bard features.
I didn't fail to account for the sword bard's need better armor. I understood that being forced to multi-class to achieve a similar result to going valor is a point against the swords bard in the first place.
There is nothing wrong with playing a fighter at 1st level. Unless the player wanted to play a bard. If I want to play a bard then not playing a bard isn't the best strategy for my enjoyment of the character, even if it's something as short as that first level because I still know I've only made a small improvement when having to wait for the bard abilities I could have had.
Flourishes to increase AC sure are important and maybe resource intensive, but you'll find yourself needing to use them less if your AC is already naturally higher thanks to your armor options. Compared to the purebred, the MC finds themselves with more ample opportunities to use inspirations instead.
Flourishes are very resource intensive, especially at the low levels you are mentioning that fighter added survivability because of the long rest requirement at first. They also suffer from the same complaint as the poor reputation four elements monk or several sorcerer choices where the college adds more uses requiring the same limited resource. The valor bard also has a naturally higher AC due to the armor options but doesn't need to spend bardic inspiration for it, and the bardic inspiration the valor bard provides gives more uses for the rest of the party that the valor bard does not. It's not like the the bardic inspiration being used by other party members isn't a strong option compared to the swords bard increasing his own AC with it.
Adding the fighter to the valor bard helps the swords bard, but it's not worth it in my experience.
The only time the swords bard can use inspiration when the valor bard cannot is when soloing without a summon or something, and that's only for flourishes. Just because the valor bard uses that inspiration on others better and the swords bard can use that inspiration on himself doesn't create a situation where the swords bard can use the resource significantly more often.
Now, let's be clear on something. This thread's about tanking with a bard. Tanking in this game's an abstract concept, but a couple things are certain: your AC's gotta be up to par, and you've gotta be able to take a punch. The pure valor's AC is decent out the gate, but nothing to write home about without a fighting style or flourishes to augment it with. the swords bard would need to take the feat moderately armored, but now's somewhat behind. Most casters take a feat to help their concentration like warcaster or res:con, but again, my MC's got it to start. Mine ticks off the most crucial checkboxes, and it fulfills its intended purpose of tanking!
The AC difference between the fighter and the valor bard is a single point before the fighting style and two points including it. 95% percent of the time that the basic difference ends in the same result. That's 90% of the time including the fighting style. We're also assuming the valor bard doesn't just pick up either or both with feats, but that starts to get into specific builds more and feats can be expensive or later in the game.
The fighting style and heavy armor aren't as significant as you are making them out to be.
The flourish does help. There's no doubt about that. However:
One issue is that every use of that flourish is taking away using bardic inspiration on another party member. "Tanking" also includes protecting other party members and combat inspiration is a fantastic tool for avoiding failed saves or adding AC to avoid being hit. In a party of 4 PC's the swords bard can increase the AC of a single PC and the valor bard can increase the AC of any of the other 3 PC's.
Another issue with flourishes is that the swords bard can only use a flourish as part of the attack action. That means your spell casting bard isn't actually casting spells in combat and using any flourishes. Relying on flourishes is a huge opportunity cost on being able to cast spells or they simply aren't available.
The third big issue with defensive flourish is that it locks out the other flourishes. All flourishes prevent using that action to cast spells. Defensive flourish prevents using that attack for slashing flourish or mobile flourish.
The third big issue with flourishes is that the swords bard cannot use the a flourish if the attack does not hit. Going swords for the AC bonus trying to "tank" just cost the action for using a spell if it misses also lost that AC bonus. It's easier using multiple attacks but part of the point of going fighter was to add the shield and the extra gets delayed.
Combat inspiration can raise the AC of a bigger selection of the party, doesn't require the attack action, works regardless of a successful die roll (the attack), and the PC with the bardic inspiration die can use that for a save bonus instead making it more versatile. Defensive flourish has the advantage of lasting during multiple attacks.
Defensive flourish has quite a few issues and trade-offs.
CON save proficiency is nice but if the PC is attacking instead of casting spells (or the flourishes just aren't available) it's used less for concentration checks, and a PC can be build with little or no concentration spells to avoid the need in the first place. I'd spend the feat but putting that fact out there. I never said there weren't some advantages to the splash; only that the negatives outweigh the positives.
As for checking off the boxes, the valor bard is using combat inspiration to check off the "protecting others" box that the swords bard is missing by using bardic inspiration for AC.
Now, the other flaw in all of this is this implication you should never multiclass a bard. Oof, if this is your reaction to a single level dip, I'd hate to see your reaction to a level two dip in something like paladin!
Never is a strong word. I said it's generally a bad idea, and I have that same opinion on the paladin dip. If I were to dip anything it would likely be 1 level of warlock for hexblade but that still delays gaining abilities and spell levels, and in my experience it's felt at almost every level of play.
Relax buddy, an extra 6th level slot or 7th level slot ain't the end of the world. By then, at that 20th level, you've got resources galore to make scrolls. Now slots aren't even that big an issue.
An extra 6th or 7th level slot is worth more than the fighting style and armor.
A 7th-level spell scroll requires 16 weeks of work, 25000 gp of rare materials, the spell components, and carries 10% chance every week for a complication that has a high likelihood with that many weeks of work.
The valor bard can use that scroll if the resources are as available at your table as you claim and then use battle magic (spell scrolls use the cast a spell action) to make an attack such as the grapple mentioned earlier. The swords bard can either use the scroll and give up flourishes for that turn, or use flourishes for AC and give up the opportunity to cast that spell. If scrolls are that available at your table it's a clear advantage for valor bards over swords bards.
Keep in mind, tanking with a bard means you're ultimately going down the gish path. Fact of life, aside from hexblades and bladesingers, a gish will never have the same spell progression compared to the pure spell caster. But, it doesn't need to because it's its own thing. You'd never compare a half-caster to a full caster, for example, because they do different things. Important thing is to ensure it's an effective character. And this build offers just that. Take it or leave it.
I just gave an example of a gish style with full casting progression. Valor bards are more of the classic gish that uses both spells and combat but not simultaneously (see the original elf and elf multi-class for this style) and then later adds battle magic to cast a spell and make an attacks on the same turn.
The swords bard with a fighter splash isn't the worst way to go and I agree it has it's advantages. I wouldn't call it the best because the trade-offs are too severe with the splash and the flourishes come with their own complications.
I just gave an example of a gish style with full casting progression. Valor bards are more of the classic gish that uses both spells and combat but not simultaneously (see the original elf and elf multi-class for this style) and then later adds battle magic to cast a spell and make an attacks on the same turn.
The swords bard with a fighter splash isn't the worst way to go and I agree it has it's advantages. I wouldn't call it the best because the trade-offs are too severe with the splash and the flourishes come with their own complications.
The trade-offs aren't severe. You're overplaying being a level behind in spell progression far, far too much. You can say valor bards are the classical gish, but there's a reason you almost never see anyone play them when they decide to go the gish route. There's a reason you almost always see a multiclass when the gish is the desired result.
Trade-offs are still trade-offs. Not everyone is comfortable making them. Some people value those spell slots and main class progression more than whatever a single level in another class can grant. And that's fine. 5E is fairly forgiving. I'm not convinced there's a wrong way to do this. Honestly, I don't think any party needs someone to play a tank anyway.
That said, the bard is not a tank. It's a full spellcaster and Leader, to borrow from 4E. Their role is to support the party and make everyone else better. A swords bard that just wants to "tank" can put on some half plate (they gain proficiency with medium armor at 3rd level) and use Defensive Flourish. With feats on the table, they might also take Dual Wielder and Medium Armor Master once their Charisma is suitably high enough. Yeah, I know, the bard with two weapons instead of one is the more defensive option. Seems weird, but it's true. Conversely, a valor bard "tank" might choose Shield Master instead of Dual Wielder and never bother with a weapon; instead keeping an instrument (like a horn) in their other hand.
Bards can certainly be made defensively-minded, but they'll never protect the rest of the party the way other, deliberately tanky classes and subclasses can. They simply lack the tools. But this doesn't mean they can't do a baller job of being exactly what the party needs.
I just gave an example of a gish style with full casting progression. Valor bards are more of the classic gish that uses both spells and combat but not simultaneously (see the original elf and elf multi-class for this style) and then later adds battle magic to cast a spell and make an attacks on the same turn.
The swords bard with a fighter splash isn't the worst way to go and I agree it has it's advantages. I wouldn't call it the best because the trade-offs are too severe with the splash and the flourishes come with their own complications.
The trade-offs aren't severe. You're overplaying being a level behind in spell progression far, far too much. You can say valor bards are the classical gish, but there's a reason you almost never see anyone play them when they decide to go the gish route. There's a reason you almost always see a multiclass when the gish is the desired result.
The trade-offs are severe. AC only gives a small benefit over the valor bard, the 1st level second wind is a minor ability compared to bard healing, the valor bard already gains the weapon proficiencies. The only benefit is the fighting style that you pointed to as more AC for +2 AC better than the valor bard. That is not good enough compared to access to higher level spell slots and spells.
I would go with hypnotic pattern or slow over a bit of AC and a weak healing ability.
The only reason you are adding the fighter is because the swords bard doesn't carry the AC on it's own well enough. The pure valor bard carries enough AC and doesn't lose out on the level advancement.
What evidence have you presented to back up claims of the fighter benefit? "There's a reason you almost always see a multiclass when the gish is the desired result." is an example of appeal to the masses, not actual points to prove your position.
Trade-offs are still trade-offs. Not everyone is comfortable making them. Some people value those spell slots and main class progression more than whatever a single level in another class can grant. And that's fine. 5E is fairly forgiving. I'm not convinced there's a wrong way to do this. Honestly, I don't think any party needs someone to play a tank anyway.
That said, the bard is not a tank. It's a full spellcaster and Leader, to borrow from 4E. Their role is to support the party and make everyone else better. A swords bard that just wants to "tank" can put on some half plate (they gain proficiency with medium armor at 3rd level) and use Defensive Flourish. With feats on the table, they might also take Dual Wielder and Medium Armor Master once their Charisma is suitably high enough. Yeah, I know, the bard with two weapons instead of one is the more defensive option. Seems weird, but it's true. Conversely, a valor bard "tank" might choose Shield Master instead of Dual Wielder and never bother with a weapon; instead keeping an instrument (like a horn) in their other hand.
Bards can certainly be made defensively-minded, but they'll never protect the rest of the party the way other, deliberately tanky classes and subclasses can. They simply lack the tools. But this doesn't mean they can't do a baller job of being exactly what the party needs.
I bolded it.
I can make tankier bards that do well enough, but like most things on bards it's investment to fall behind more focused options. That's why I pointed out the CC and status effects earlier. Bards fit more into a mix of leader / controller than tank.
The trade-offs aren't what you make it out to be, to start off with. The difference isn't +2 AC. The difference is +5, and here's why:
At the start of the very first level, you can't just jump into your valor college. You have to wait until level three to do so! My fighter-soon-to-be-bard, out the gate has 19 AC with chain mail, a shield, and fighting style. A bard, with 16 DEX and starting with leather armor as standard, only has 14 AC. Two whole levels with that big a difference in AC is not a small thing to scoff at. From here on out, any changes in AC are dependent on what loot drops or how generous your DM is, but for simplicity's sake, that's what we'll say we start out with.
But even when you do get your medium armor and shield, a +2 difference in AC is important, as how probability works. Sure, a jump from 10 AC to 12 AC is no big deal, but going from 16 to 18 is. going from 18 to 20 is even more significant. Yet the difference remains 2. The difference is significant because of bounded accuracy! You can't just pretend it's no big deal just because it's some seemingly small number like "2."
So, while a valor bard is decently tanky, what you get from heavy armors and a fighting style is nothing to sneeze at. I also disagree that boosting the AC against one singular attack is that great of a significant boost in survivability for the party. You act like the trade-off is something permanent. You say "i'd rather have hypnotic pattern," well guess what? you'll have hypnotic pattern a level later. It's not the end of the world to wait a little bit longer.
But here's something that's not so nice about the valor bard: it's pressured into the sword-n-board style to stay relatively tanky. Now, I don't know about your opinions, but I don't think sword-n-board does any real damage compared to a GWM build-- which it totally could do thanks to martial weapon proficiency, not saying that it can't-- but if it did so the valor bard would have to accept that their AC will be limited to just medium armor. I wouldn't feel comfortable in that situation. At that point, a valor bard's melee option is merely to do something that's a bit more damaging instead of tossing out VM each turn between concentration spells. However, that melee damage isn't that effective in my opinion, especially without the dueling fighting style (something that swords bard does get, and is even better with the fighter dip). But if that same bard had access to heavy armor+defense fighting style, well, now I'd feel a lot better about my AC's situation, and in the sword bard's case, even better cause defensive flourishes exist (and actually boost my AC for a lot longer than just one attack). Now I'd feel comfortable about laying down the hurt. But not only is my AC better, but if I got hit while concentrating, I'm not going to sweat it that much because i'm proficient in con saves. So, no, while the valor bard may have okay AC under certain circumstances, it doesn't compare to my build's resilience or in its melee options or melee output. Nothing wrong with that, because ultimately the valor bard is just a bard with significantly improved survivability via the medium armor and shield, but it's definitely no real gish, and definitely no tank.
Another consideration: the fighter swords bard has an easier time with spellcasting, because any weapon they're proficient with can be their arcane focus. Being proficient with all martial weapons, any weapon can be your focus. That's neat! So, if my guy went out there with a sword and shield in hand, he could cast VSM spells just fine. If a valor bard tried to do the same, they wouldn't be able to without juggling around items, and the very act itself is something of a controversial thing that some DMs have expressed on these forums as cheesing the rules and disallow it. Your DM may or may not agree, but in either case, the whole thing is a non-issue for my build.
so, I've demonstrated how the AC difference is meaningful due to bounded accuracy, and how my build does better melee damage across varying conditions and set ups, and arguably smoother spellcasting. What more evidence do you want, or are you going to pretend nothing's been said?
Cgarciao, why would you prefer starting as a fighter and then advancing as a bard? How is it better than starting as a Bard and then taking one level of fighter, and then switching back to Bard for all other levels?
Bard - Fighter - Bard ...
Race and Background abilities, tools, etc, ... - Spellcasting - Bardic Inspiration - prof in Light Armor, Simple Weapons, Hand Crossbows, Longswords, Short Swords, Rapiers, Three musical Instruments, Dexterity and Charisma Saving Throws, and Three skill proficiencies, Rapier or Longsword or Any Simple Weapon, Diplomat's Pack or Entertainer's Pack, a Lute or any other Musical Instrument, Leather Armor and a Dagger.
Then add proficiency in medium armor, shields, martial weapons, a Fighting Style and Second Wind @ level 2.
Fighter - Bard - Bard ...
Race and Background abilities, tools, etc, ... - Fighting Style - Second Wind - prof in light armor, medium armor, heavy armor, shields, Simple Weapons, Martial Weapons, Strength and Constitution Saving Throws, (and a list of skills to choose proficiency that are pretty meh for a Bard), Chainmail or Leather armor and a longbow (20 arrows), Martial weapon and a Shield or two Martial weapons, Light Crossbow (20 bolts) or two Hand axes, a Dungeoneer's Pack or an Explorer's Pack.
Then add proficiency in one skill of your choice and one musical instrument of your choice, Spell Casting, Bardic Inspiration @ level 2.
The two significant changes I see at the point you have reached level 2 is the fighter-start gets heavy armor proficiency, different equipment (chainmail and a shield & a different pack) and odd saving throw proficiencies for a bard. While the bard-start gets only medium armor proficiency, Three Skill Proficiencies, a Lute, different equipment (leather armor & a different pack) and appropriate saving throws for a bard. I guess part of the discussion revolves around the question of "Are you going to play a Bard, or are you going to play some kind of massively ****** fighter?" And when you look at the Bard - Fighter - Bard path, it essentially shows that you get nothing other than a fighting style and second wind for choosing this path rather than Valor Bard which provides the same weapon and armor proficiencies as the MC route. The second wind and fighting style come at a cost of the slower progression in everything from there on up. Likewise, since the PC could choose any college for the Bard, College of Valor is heavily ****** and you might well choose Lore, Eloquence or something else; and this might be a positive for the MC route for many folks.
Now heavy armor is pretty near a requirement for a tank, unless you go the magic item path. Second Wind is also helpful for a tank, no doubt. A fighting style that adds AC, well refer to the comment about heavy armor; its pretty near a requirement. I guess what I am thinking boils down to this, if you want to or need to play a tank, why even look at the Bard Class? Every class has to give up something because none can be best or nearly best at everything. Bards are best at a few things. They are nearly best at several other things. I find them to be very compelling for playing a game of D&D without MC. YMMV
You haven't said anything new, so I'm going to ignore it. You don't need to get defensive, yet again, over a difference of opinion. You don't need to write a 757 word essay to try and argue with people. At this point, you're talking past people and not listening to what they have to say. And I think it's safe to say nobody is interested in a one-sided conversation. Nobody likes being talked at.
For someone ignoring my post, you sure are critical of it. I've had to zoom in on the specifics because I was challenged to bring about evidence. The fact I bothered to address their individual points is conclusion enough I'm not ignoring their message. Rather, I'm challenging the notion that we have to settle and conform with what the base subclass has to offer in light of the topic. If you want to believe that bard just shouldn't tank, more power to you. I just disagree.
Cgarciao, why would you prefer starting as a fighter and then advancing as a bard? How is it better than starting as a Bard and then taking one level of fighter, and then switching back to Bard for all other levels?
[...]
if you want to or need to play a tank, why even look at the Bard Class? Every class has to give up something because none can be best or nearly best at everything. Bards are best at a few things. They are nearly best at several other things. I find them to be very compelling for playing a game of D&D without MC. YMMV
Cheers.
Because it's possible with just a few adjustments. I don't feel that the criteria of a tank has to include things like compelled duel or goading attack, for example. In that sense, the proposed build does what it sets out to do to accomplish the goal of tanking. Is it the best? No, but it's something different while still being effective. I mean, hey, the wizard starting as fighter for a level is such a popular, tried and true concept. Why not apply it to other full casters?
The point is, I don't think a player that wanted to play a Bard would enjoy this build, and I know a player that wanted to play a tank wouldn't enjoy this build. So although this approach does give the PC heavy armor, shields, a fighting style that enhances AC and Second Wind, it causes other things to happen that would likely put the player off when trying to be the bard they wanted when they sat down to play D&D.
So to understand why this would arise, I would need to understand why the player was apparently forced to be the tank (or a tank) in the party and still insisted on playing a bard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
You haven't said anything new, so I'm going to ignore it. You don't need to get defensive, yet again, over a difference of opinion. You don't need to write a 757 word essay to try and argue with people. At this point, you're talking past people and not listening to what they have to say. And I think it's safe to say nobody is interested in a one-sided conversation. Nobody likes being talked at.
For someone ignoring my post, you sure are critical of it. I've had to zoom in on the specifics because I was challenged to bring about evidence. The fact I bothered to address their individual points is conclusion enough I'm not ignoring their message. Rather, I'm challenging the notion that we have to settle and conform with what the base subclass has to offer in light of the topic. If you want to believe that bard just shouldn't tank, more power to you. I just disagree.
And after going back to read it, I can see that I was wrong. The length of your diatribe aside, misinformation is always worth addressing. Nobody pointed at you to bring evidence. And you didn't address any of the individual points I raised.
There's more to being a tank than having high AC. We can make a 1st level Forge Domain Cleric with the same AC as your 1st level Fighter and have the benefit of 1st level Spellcasting. There's more to it than that. Tanking is about being annoying. It's about making yourself the most attractive target while also being able to survive that attention.
Attractiveness, generally speaking, is about making others harder to hit or yourself easier to hit. In MMO terms, we'd call this "threat", but that doesn't have a hard mechanical equivalent in 5E. So we use class and subclass mechanics to incentivize these behaviors. Survivability is a bit harder to pin down. Armor Class and Hit Points are part of it, but we don't want AC to be too high. If it is, then that can get in the way of being an attractive target. It needs to be high enough to adequately protect without being so high as to discourage. Unless your goal is to get enemies to give up in frustration; either by fleeing or surrendering.
Artificer (Armorer): They don't have the largest hit die (d8), but heavy armor and a shield goes a long way. With their Guardian model, Thunder Gauntlets impose disadvantage on attacks directed at others. And their Defensive Field gives them several pools of temporary hit points.
Barbarian: The base class has a ludicrous amount of survivability. Their damage reduction from Rage, coupled with their large hit die (d12) gives them, by far, the largest effective pool of hit points. Reckless Attacks both helps deal damage and soak damage by being easier to hit. Danger Sense gives them advantage on saving throws vs things like fireball, so even without proficiency in the save they stand a decent chance of succeeding. And they're proficient in Constitution saving throws, so spells like cone of cold don't bother them as much. Various subclasses, like Ancestral Guardian and Totem Warrior (Bear) give them additional tools; some active while others passive.
Fighter: Two of their Fighting Styles (Defense and Protection) are just the tip of the iceberg. Goading Attack (Battle Master) draws the enemy's attention by penalizing them for not engaging the Fighter. Unwavering Mark (Cavalier) does something similar while also adding more on top.
Monk: Their hit points and AC are comparable to the Armorer at the top of the list, or at least can be. Asking for 20 in two statistics is a lot, so it likely won't be that high. But they can make up for it with Patient Defense, shut down some enemies with Stunning Strike, and eventually become proficient in all saving throws. And some subclasses, like Way of the Kensei, can bolster their defenses even more. To borrow again from an MMO, this are more of an "off-tank".
Paladin: In addition to sharing the two aforementioned Fighting Styles, they also have compelled duel. They tend to have a high AC, get to add a value equal their Charisma modifier to all of their saving throws, and some subclasses, like Oath of the Ancients, give them additional defenses (Aura of Warding) and means of control (ensnaring strike).
The reason I didn't include the Bard in that list is because the Bard, as a class, doesn't have the full kit of tools to do this. It can absolutely get a respectable AC, but it can't properly incentivize behavior. And your suggestion to multiclass won't give them that tool, either. All it does is turn the survivability dial up. That's not enough; it's never enough. You seem to think it is enough, and you're wrong for thinking that. It doesn't do any good just to not get it. I could run an entire campaign without attacking a single character once. That doesn't make them a tank. Attacks need to miss., and to do that you need to give them a reason to attack in the first place. And just standing there isn't good enough, either.
And that's while ignoring that multiclassing is an optional rule, which means the DM doesn't have to allow it. What you have is a "Tank" that began their adventuring career as a Fighter and just happens to mostly be a Bard. But they're not a Bard Tank. (Not that D&D5E parties need someone to play a Tank, but that's another conversation entirely.) And if any of this seems familiar, it's because I've already typed about it before. This is what I meant when I said you were talking past me. If you want to have a meaningful conversation, then you need to pay attention to what others have to say.
If you want to rebut this, then tell us why these mechanics aren't important. Because everyone deals damage. A Valor Bard in chainmail with a greatsword isn't special. They're a level behind in spellcasting, a level behind in getting all of their ASIs, and two levels behind in getting Extra Attack. They'd objectively be better off with a paladin. Or almost anything else, really.
"Hey, guys, I just got Extra Attack!" "That's great! I got mine two levels ago and already have my second subclass feature." "That is my second subclass feature."
If you can't make a compelling argument, you're just wasting everyone's time.
As you've mentioned succinctly, 5e precisely doesn't need someone playing a tank, at least by the MMO-esque terms you seemingly abide by. What good, then, is it to meet your qualifications of an apparently unnecessary position in a game?
From my experience of playing with at least one hundred different tables, online or in person, I've yet to run into a DM who doesn't allow multiclassing. And I've played with some DMs who make questionable choices, such as the banning of certain entire classes or count diagonal movement as 10 ft. But none have disallowed multiclassing. I don't know how much of an argument it makes to mention it's an optional rule, as for me it's just as optional if I even want to play at such a table to begin with. I'm not that desperate to play.
Positioning creates most of the incentive needed to attack or not attack certain party members. If the front liner's in the front, and the back liners in the back, enemy creatures are simply going to attack what's closest 9 times out of 10. It doesn't matter what class I'm playing or what mechanics i've got to force disadvantage on other attackers, if my pc's at the fore front of everything he's probably going to get attacked.
The other reason why the bard tank will likely draw fire is because they're likely concentrating on something. Suppose the bard caught several key targets with bane, or affected a large area with faerie fire or hypnotic pattern. That's not something a DM would just sit by quietly and not attempt to remove. Now, they're incentivized to actually hit your character, the DM's behavior is now changed for it. Especially if the bard is in the frontlines. Now, they could choose to ignore my character, but the consequence for doing so would be maintaining the hindrance on the battlefield I imposed with my spell. Although, a DM could technically ignore whatever disadvantage is imposed on their creatures with subclass features and spells you mentioned and go for the squishy target anyways, it's just the same and just as well.
A fighter bard with heavy armor may not seem all that special, but in a way, their choice to start off in fighter means they're a feat or two ahead of other bards. This build means you don't need to take heavily armored, moderately armored, or resilient: con. That last one's important too, because most casters are going to want to take it or some equivalent at some point in their career. I could choose to take warcaster to augment my concentration even further, or just increase my CHA. Either way, I'm good to go. That's easily worth the slight delay in spellcasting progression, and why you'd choose fighter and not paladin to start (which you'd want at least two levels for the smites and fighting style). So, when the bard is inevitably hit, it's a lot less likely to drop concentration and keep the incentive up for the DM to continue attacking them, even if their AC's high thanks to armor and flourishes.
So, while you're right that you could technically go an entire campaign never once targetting my pc, you'd be punished for doing so one way or another. Positioning and concentration are attraction enough.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I strange "off tank" I played one time was a Sword bard 5/hexblade 2 that had Mobility. He would move in boom blade and move out from the opponent. This made him a great off tank as most int. beings do not want to hurt them self unless they must. Mind you the party did have a Barbarian but this would keep a second monster from the reckless attacks on him.
I spell Goodly.
This depends entirely on how you wish to define a "tank" character. We get the term from MMORPGs, but those mechanics don't exactly translate to a TTRPG. And what little does translate, the bard simply cannot do effectively.
If you just want to be a walking fortress, then crank your AC up higher and pick up a shield. The Shield Master feat can also help, but beware of its limitations. You can't add your shield's AC to your Dexterity saving throw against a spell like fireball, but you can still reduce the damage to zero if you pass your saving throw. Medium Armor Master can also boost your AC up slightly; if your Dexterity is high enough (16+).
But if you're looking to keep enemies off your allies' backs, then you've got your work cut out for you. Combat Inspiration can be used by anyone for either attack or defense. Strictly-speaking, it's not a "tanking" feature. Nor do you have any spells that keep an enemy's attention fixed on you, like compelled duel. The bard is a support class, and that makes you a support caster. Choosing for yourself the College of Valor makes you into more of a martial character who can aid more in direct combat and fight on the front lines with more versatility. Even with crap Strength, you gain proficiency with the scimitar, whip, and longbow and can use them all to great effect. But you won't really be able to tailor your fighting style until 10th level when you get your first Magical Secrets.
Your best bet is to focus on control spells, but you won't have a lot to pick from. Spells like earth tremor and thunderwave help with controlling a physical area. Others, like dissonant whispers and Tasha's hideous laughter, can single out specific targets. Later on, you can pick up spells like hypnotic pattern and plant growth. For now, just focus on what you can do to help the entire group with a mix of Spellcasting and Bardic Inspiration. You've got a decent spell list, but it's fairly inflexible. You can't prepare new spells every day, and you can only trade one out per level up, so they're serious decision points and not just choices you can take back later.
Unfortunately, as Jounichi points out, there're not really tanks in D&D because the monsters can just avoid you and attack your allies.
Individual characters can be very hard to kill (Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers (?)) but they can't really protect the rest of your party.
The Sentinel feat, combined with Polearm Master, can make it harder for one enemy a turn to get past you, and Valor Bards are proficient with all martial weapons so could wield a glaive/halberd to keep the foe at bay. On the other hand a Paladin would be much better at doing so.
Perhaps a Paladin with the Entertainer background and the defensive fighting style, and starting with the Polearm Master feat (Variant Human) is a better way to go.
"You thought it was a Bard, but it is I, Dio!"
The tank term existed in D&D before MMO's existed and did refer to hard to hurt or kill. The MMO kids can get off my lawn. :P
I tank by placing myself in chokepoints and being hard to hurt. I can also use things like caltrops or ball bearings to restrict opponent movement so they cannot simply walk around me.
There are spells like compelled duel or abilities like the armorer guardian gauntlets that impose disadvantage attacking anyone else so it's a soft control tanking method. 5e definitely has ways to "tank" more like the MMO definition even if those aren't as prominent.
One of the easiest things is with grappler builds to restrain targets. Expertise in athletics and using a spell slot on enhance ability (STR) gives a good bonus with grappling early, grappling doesn't prevent the bard from casting spells while the target is grappled, and the extra attack feature allows for using one of the attacks for the grapple and the other can be made normally. Using one attack for a grapple and another for a shove to knock the target prone also gives the target disadvantage on attacks and allies advantage attacking the prone target.
Grappled targets have a speed of 0 so they aren't going to walk around your bard tank. Prone targets move at half speed or use speed to stand up. Make use of those actions.
I take the hit on DEX early and focus on strength, then take heavily armored at 4th level on this type of build.
I would point out that later when spell DC's are higher and slots are more available the status effects from spells are better. Just adding armor and a shield while using CHA and CC spells works. At 3rd level I would likely carry sleep and use that still.
Sleep is fun.
The first game I played with a Bard I put a gang of Bandits to sleep, allowing my party the chance to kill them easily.
how to tank with bard:
step 1: start your bard as a fighter for one level
step 2: go swords bard.
There, now you get the benefits of increasing your AC with flourishes while you have proficiencies with heavy armor and shields and all martial weapons, and you get your fighting style right off the bat that'll presumably be defense. Oh, and your concentration's pretty good so you can take a hit and keep your spells up.
Flourishes are too resource draining until 14th level when bardic inspiration is so useful for the other PC's in the party.
A single level of multi-classing means almost one half of every level in the game the non-splashed bard has access to higher level spells than the splashed bard. Those levels are 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17th while all the other bard abilities are pushed back a level as well. This matters at levels:
The only level that is worth trading off for a level of fighter with the long term in mind is 20th level. At almost every level the pure bard has significant advantages over that splash. It's a good splash if a person starts at 20th level but other than that the growing pains getting there impact game play. It's generally a bad idea to multi-class most spell casters because of the slower access to higher level spells; even a 1 level splash.
The final result is a fighter who changed the saving throws, already has heavy armor proficiency, gives a combat style, and a weak second wind. That's not worth the growing pains slower access to higher level spells and other bard abilities creates.
You know what the biggest error being made here from your opinion? You view things through the lens of "but what about the other caster?" rather than "How's my character performing?" For example, you view the fact that the multiclass misses out on subclass options at 3rd level compared to the pure swords/valor bard as detrimental. Or, even more readily apparent, at 1st level you view the fact that you're not a spellcaster as a detriment. The solution? You come to terms with the fact you're a fighter at first level, and that there's nothing wrong with that. Just play as a fighter at 1st level! However, you fail to account for the fact that when a swords bard does unlock their subclass, they still really can't afford to melee on medium armor alone, and can only use scimitars as an added bonus. The MC can already use shields and heavy armor and access the defense fighting style. Within tier 1, my money's on the MC to survive and stay conscious longer than the pure bard. Is it a level behind? Sure, but it doesn't negate all that the character can do up to that point.
The only level, honestly, that has any real growing pains is 5th level, where upon the entry to tier 2 encounters ramp up to account for 3rd level spells and martials extra attack. However, you're still a spell caster with some decent options. You're still an effective party member for using spell slots on things like faerie fire, healing word, heat metal, hold person, or what have you. And you still have the armor and shields to stay alive. Sure, the pure swords bard unlocked extra attack at 6, but you unlocked 3rd level spells! So, just play as a spellcaster would, no harm no foul. By next level, you've got extra attack with a wider variety of martial weapons to suit your taste. The swords bard still has to conform to "maybe I'll use a scimitar." Now, the MC does the whole gish gig way better. What's that? The party's main martial found himself a neat shiny toy and wishes to pass his hand-me-downs to the bard? the MC will likely be able to take it, if it were something like a +2 halberd or longbow. the purebred couldn't.
Flourishes to increase AC sure are important and maybe resource intensive, but you'll find yourself needing to use them less if your AC is already naturally higher thanks to your armor options. Compared to the purebred, the MC finds themselves with more ample opportunities to use inspirations instead.
Now, let's be clear on something. This thread's about tanking with a bard. Tanking in this game's an abstract concept, but a couple things are certain: your AC's gotta be up to par, and you've gotta be able to take a punch. The pure valor's AC is decent out the gate, but nothing to write home about without a fighting style or flourishes to augment it with. the swords bard would need to take the feat moderately armored, but now's somewhat behind. Most casters take a feat to help their concentration like warcaster or res:con, but again, my MC's got it to start. Mine ticks off the most crucial checkboxes, and it fulfills its intended purpose of tanking!
Now, the other flaw in all of this is this implication you should never multiclass a bard. Oof, if this is your reaction to a single level dip, I'd hate to see your reaction to a level two dip in something like paladin! Relax buddy, an extra 6th level slot or 7th level slot ain't the end of the world. By then, at that 20th level, you've got resources galore to make scrolls. Now slots aren't even that big an issue. Keep in mind, tanking with a bard means you're ultimately going down the gish path. Fact of life, aside from hexblades and bladesingers, a gish will never have the same spell progression compared to the pure spell caster. But, it doesn't need to because it's its own thing. You'd never compare a half-caster to a full caster, for example, because they do different things. Important thing is to ensure it's an effective character. And this build offers just that. Take it or leave it.
No need to get defensive over a difference in opinion.
Bards don't really tank. Multiclassing for one level, which is an optional rule and not every table allows it, won't help with that. Nor will telling the OP to start with a level of Fighter, and then progress via College of Swords, when they're already Valor Bard 3. So even if they did multiclass now, they won't have proficiency with Constitution saving throws or heavy armor. Never mind that they've specifically stated they'd prefer not to multiclass.
If you want to get upset, do so at yourself for not understanding the assignment.
Defensive? Upset? I'm just addressing flaws in the argument while defending mine, as all discussions should. no need to point fingers, my dude.
Now, OP's post is about a year and a half old by now. Old boy's most likely done with that character! By now it's pointless to abide by the original question posed, and instead simply address the question in general. Now, lots of classes usually don't do a lot of things, but if someone wants to, well, there's a right and wrong way to go about these things. Bards don't really tank? We know. But should we not try? Why not? So if we decide to, here's what I think is the right way to go about it.
But if you don't want to, you don't have to. As I've said before, you can take it or leave it.
I'm going to break this down for readability.
It's an opinion. Right or wrong is pretty subjective here. ;-)
I posted details to back up my opinion and hope that illustrates the gap for anyone reading it.
I'm not sure where you get the ideas this is through the lens of other casters. There's a couple of short comments that it's generally not good to multi-class any full caster (bards included) because of the spell level delay but the level by level breakdown is all bard vs your fighter splashed bard.
The options missed on a fighter 1 / bard 2 versus a bard 3 are detrimental. The attack bonus is going to be identical, the weapon selection going valor can be identical, the AC is almost identical, and the fighter didn't grab action surge in your build so we're comparing second wind, a slight AC bonus at that level, and a fighting style to 2nd level spell slots, expertise, and combat inspiration. Those are the same abilities that you are comparing at most levels while the bard with a fighter splash plays catch up on bard abilities.
I agree with the fact that a swords bard relying on medium armor, standard bard weapons, and a few more weapon proficiencies. The valor bard gets the weapons and medium armor and shield, and plays sessions with bard features that the swords bard with a fighter splash waits for. That's for most of the bard's career. That's why I backed the valor bard it this type of build. They have almost everything the fighter gives and keep up with the bard features.
I didn't fail to account for the sword bard's need better armor. I understood that being forced to multi-class to achieve a similar result to going valor is a point against the swords bard in the first place.
There is nothing wrong with playing a fighter at 1st level. Unless the player wanted to play a bard. If I want to play a bard then not playing a bard isn't the best strategy for my enjoyment of the character, even if it's something as short as that first level because I still know I've only made a small improvement when having to wait for the bard abilities I could have had.
Flourishes are very resource intensive, especially at the low levels you are mentioning that fighter added survivability because of the long rest requirement at first. They also suffer from the same complaint as the poor reputation four elements monk or several sorcerer choices where the college adds more uses requiring the same limited resource. The valor bard also has a naturally higher AC due to the armor options but doesn't need to spend bardic inspiration for it, and the bardic inspiration the valor bard provides gives more uses for the rest of the party that the valor bard does not. It's not like the the bardic inspiration being used by other party members isn't a strong option compared to the swords bard increasing his own AC with it.
Adding the fighter to the valor bard helps the swords bard, but it's not worth it in my experience.
The only time the swords bard can use inspiration when the valor bard cannot is when soloing without a summon or something, and that's only for flourishes. Just because the valor bard uses that inspiration on others better and the swords bard can use that inspiration on himself doesn't create a situation where the swords bard can use the resource significantly more often.
The AC difference between the fighter and the valor bard is a single point before the fighting style and two points including it. 95% percent of the time that the basic difference ends in the same result. That's 90% of the time including the fighting style. We're also assuming the valor bard doesn't just pick up either or both with feats, but that starts to get into specific builds more and feats can be expensive or later in the game.
The fighting style and heavy armor aren't as significant as you are making them out to be.
The flourish does help. There's no doubt about that. However:
One issue is that every use of that flourish is taking away using bardic inspiration on another party member. "Tanking" also includes protecting other party members and combat inspiration is a fantastic tool for avoiding failed saves or adding AC to avoid being hit. In a party of 4 PC's the swords bard can increase the AC of a single PC and the valor bard can increase the AC of any of the other 3 PC's.
Another issue with flourishes is that the swords bard can only use a flourish as part of the attack action. That means your spell casting bard isn't actually casting spells in combat and using any flourishes. Relying on flourishes is a huge opportunity cost on being able to cast spells or they simply aren't available.
The third big issue with defensive flourish is that it locks out the other flourishes. All flourishes prevent using that action to cast spells. Defensive flourish prevents using that attack for slashing flourish or mobile flourish.
The third big issue with flourishes is that the swords bard cannot use the a flourish if the attack does not hit. Going swords for the AC bonus trying to "tank" just cost the action for using a spell if it misses also lost that AC bonus. It's easier using multiple attacks but part of the point of going fighter was to add the shield and the extra gets delayed.
Combat inspiration can raise the AC of a bigger selection of the party, doesn't require the attack action, works regardless of a successful die roll (the attack), and the PC with the bardic inspiration die can use that for a save bonus instead making it more versatile. Defensive flourish has the advantage of lasting during multiple attacks.
Defensive flourish has quite a few issues and trade-offs.
CON save proficiency is nice but if the PC is attacking instead of casting spells (or the flourishes just aren't available) it's used less for concentration checks, and a PC can be build with little or no concentration spells to avoid the need in the first place. I'd spend the feat but putting that fact out there. I never said there weren't some advantages to the splash; only that the negatives outweigh the positives.
As for checking off the boxes, the valor bard is using combat inspiration to check off the "protecting others" box that the swords bard is missing by using bardic inspiration for AC.
Never is a strong word. I said it's generally a bad idea, and I have that same opinion on the paladin dip. If I were to dip anything it would likely be 1 level of warlock for hexblade but that still delays gaining abilities and spell levels, and in my experience it's felt at almost every level of play.
An extra 6th or 7th level slot is worth more than the fighting style and armor.
A 7th-level spell scroll requires 16 weeks of work, 25000 gp of rare materials, the spell components, and carries 10% chance every week for a complication that has a high likelihood with that many weeks of work.
The valor bard can use that scroll if the resources are as available at your table as you claim and then use battle magic (spell scrolls use the cast a spell action) to make an attack such as the grapple mentioned earlier. The swords bard can either use the scroll and give up flourishes for that turn, or use flourishes for AC and give up the opportunity to cast that spell. If scrolls are that available at your table it's a clear advantage for valor bards over swords bards.
I just gave an example of a gish style with full casting progression. Valor bards are more of the classic gish that uses both spells and combat but not simultaneously (see the original elf and elf multi-class for this style) and then later adds battle magic to cast a spell and make an attacks on the same turn.
The swords bard with a fighter splash isn't the worst way to go and I agree it has it's advantages. I wouldn't call it the best because the trade-offs are too severe with the splash and the flourishes come with their own complications.
The trade-offs aren't severe. You're overplaying being a level behind in spell progression far, far too much. You can say valor bards are the classical gish, but there's a reason you almost never see anyone play them when they decide to go the gish route. There's a reason you almost always see a multiclass when the gish is the desired result.
Trade-offs are still trade-offs. Not everyone is comfortable making them. Some people value those spell slots and main class progression more than whatever a single level in another class can grant. And that's fine. 5E is fairly forgiving. I'm not convinced there's a wrong way to do this. Honestly, I don't think any party needs someone to play a tank anyway.
That said, the bard is not a tank. It's a full spellcaster and Leader, to borrow from 4E. Their role is to support the party and make everyone else better. A swords bard that just wants to "tank" can put on some half plate (they gain proficiency with medium armor at 3rd level) and use Defensive Flourish. With feats on the table, they might also take Dual Wielder and Medium Armor Master once their Charisma is suitably high enough. Yeah, I know, the bard with two weapons instead of one is the more defensive option. Seems weird, but it's true. Conversely, a valor bard "tank" might choose Shield Master instead of Dual Wielder and never bother with a weapon; instead keeping an instrument (like a horn) in their other hand.
Bards can certainly be made defensively-minded, but they'll never protect the rest of the party the way other, deliberately tanky classes and subclasses can. They simply lack the tools. But this doesn't mean they can't do a baller job of being exactly what the party needs.
The trade-offs are severe. AC only gives a small benefit over the valor bard, the 1st level second wind is a minor ability compared to bard healing, the valor bard already gains the weapon proficiencies. The only benefit is the fighting style that you pointed to as more AC for +2 AC better than the valor bard. That is not good enough compared to access to higher level spell slots and spells.
I would go with hypnotic pattern or slow over a bit of AC and a weak healing ability.
The only reason you are adding the fighter is because the swords bard doesn't carry the AC on it's own well enough. The pure valor bard carries enough AC and doesn't lose out on the level advancement.
What evidence have you presented to back up claims of the fighter benefit? "There's a reason you almost always see a multiclass when the gish is the desired result." is an example of appeal to the masses, not actual points to prove your position.
I bolded it.
I can make tankier bards that do well enough, but like most things on bards it's investment to fall behind more focused options. That's why I pointed out the CC and status effects earlier. Bards fit more into a mix of leader / controller than tank.
The trade-offs aren't what you make it out to be, to start off with. The difference isn't +2 AC. The difference is +5, and here's why:
At the start of the very first level, you can't just jump into your valor college. You have to wait until level three to do so! My fighter-soon-to-be-bard, out the gate has 19 AC with chain mail, a shield, and fighting style. A bard, with 16 DEX and starting with leather armor as standard, only has 14 AC. Two whole levels with that big a difference in AC is not a small thing to scoff at. From here on out, any changes in AC are dependent on what loot drops or how generous your DM is, but for simplicity's sake, that's what we'll say we start out with.
But even when you do get your medium armor and shield, a +2 difference in AC is important, as how probability works. Sure, a jump from 10 AC to 12 AC is no big deal, but going from 16 to 18 is. going from 18 to 20 is even more significant. Yet the difference remains 2. The difference is significant because of bounded accuracy! You can't just pretend it's no big deal just because it's some seemingly small number like "2."
So, while a valor bard is decently tanky, what you get from heavy armors and a fighting style is nothing to sneeze at. I also disagree that boosting the AC against one singular attack is that great of a significant boost in survivability for the party. You act like the trade-off is something permanent. You say "i'd rather have hypnotic pattern," well guess what? you'll have hypnotic pattern a level later. It's not the end of the world to wait a little bit longer.
But here's something that's not so nice about the valor bard: it's pressured into the sword-n-board style to stay relatively tanky. Now, I don't know about your opinions, but I don't think sword-n-board does any real damage compared to a GWM build-- which it totally could do thanks to martial weapon proficiency, not saying that it can't-- but if it did so the valor bard would have to accept that their AC will be limited to just medium armor. I wouldn't feel comfortable in that situation. At that point, a valor bard's melee option is merely to do something that's a bit more damaging instead of tossing out VM each turn between concentration spells. However, that melee damage isn't that effective in my opinion, especially without the dueling fighting style (something that swords bard does get, and is even better with the fighter dip). But if that same bard had access to heavy armor+defense fighting style, well, now I'd feel a lot better about my AC's situation, and in the sword bard's case, even better cause defensive flourishes exist (and actually boost my AC for a lot longer than just one attack). Now I'd feel comfortable about laying down the hurt. But not only is my AC better, but if I got hit while concentrating, I'm not going to sweat it that much because i'm proficient in con saves. So, no, while the valor bard may have okay AC under certain circumstances, it doesn't compare to my build's resilience or in its melee options or melee output. Nothing wrong with that, because ultimately the valor bard is just a bard with significantly improved survivability via the medium armor and shield, but it's definitely no real gish, and definitely no tank.
Another consideration: the fighter swords bard has an easier time with spellcasting, because any weapon they're proficient with can be their arcane focus. Being proficient with all martial weapons, any weapon can be your focus. That's neat! So, if my guy went out there with a sword and shield in hand, he could cast VSM spells just fine. If a valor bard tried to do the same, they wouldn't be able to without juggling around items, and the very act itself is something of a controversial thing that some DMs have expressed on these forums as cheesing the rules and disallow it. Your DM may or may not agree, but in either case, the whole thing is a non-issue for my build.
so, I've demonstrated how the AC difference is meaningful due to bounded accuracy, and how my build does better melee damage across varying conditions and set ups, and arguably smoother spellcasting. What more evidence do you want, or are you going to pretend nothing's been said?
Cgarciao, why would you prefer starting as a fighter and then advancing as a bard? How is it better than starting as a Bard and then taking one level of fighter, and then switching back to Bard for all other levels?
Bard - Fighter - Bard ...
Race and Background abilities, tools, etc, ... - Spellcasting - Bardic Inspiration - prof in Light Armor, Simple Weapons, Hand Crossbows, Longswords, Short Swords, Rapiers, Three musical Instruments, Dexterity and Charisma Saving Throws, and Three skill proficiencies, Rapier or Longsword or Any Simple Weapon, Diplomat's Pack or Entertainer's Pack, a Lute or any other Musical Instrument, Leather Armor and a Dagger.
Then add proficiency in medium armor, shields, martial weapons, a Fighting Style and Second Wind @ level 2.
Fighter - Bard - Bard ...
Race and Background abilities, tools, etc, ... - Fighting Style - Second Wind - prof in light armor, medium armor, heavy armor, shields, Simple Weapons, Martial Weapons, Strength and Constitution Saving Throws, (and a list of skills to choose proficiency that are pretty meh for a Bard), Chainmail or Leather armor and a longbow (20 arrows), Martial weapon and a Shield or two Martial weapons, Light Crossbow (20 bolts) or two Hand axes, a Dungeoneer's Pack or an Explorer's Pack.
Then add proficiency in one skill of your choice and one musical instrument of your choice, Spell Casting, Bardic Inspiration @ level 2.
The two significant changes I see at the point you have reached level 2 is the fighter-start gets heavy armor proficiency, different equipment (chainmail and a shield & a different pack) and odd saving throw proficiencies for a bard. While the bard-start gets only medium armor proficiency, Three Skill Proficiencies, a Lute, different equipment (leather armor & a different pack) and appropriate saving throws for a bard. I guess part of the discussion revolves around the question of "Are you going to play a Bard, or are you going to play some kind of massively ****** fighter?" And when you look at the Bard - Fighter - Bard path, it essentially shows that you get nothing other than a fighting style and second wind for choosing this path rather than Valor Bard which provides the same weapon and armor proficiencies as the MC route. The second wind and fighting style come at a cost of the slower progression in everything from there on up. Likewise, since the PC could choose any college for the Bard, College of Valor is heavily ****** and you might well choose Lore, Eloquence or something else; and this might be a positive for the MC route for many folks.
Now heavy armor is pretty near a requirement for a tank, unless you go the magic item path. Second Wind is also helpful for a tank, no doubt. A fighting style that adds AC, well refer to the comment about heavy armor; its pretty near a requirement. I guess what I am thinking boils down to this, if you want to or need to play a tank, why even look at the Bard Class? Every class has to give up something because none can be best or nearly best at everything. Bards are best at a few things. They are nearly best at several other things. I find them to be very compelling for playing a game of D&D without MC. YMMV
Cheers.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
For someone ignoring my post, you sure are critical of it. I've had to zoom in on the specifics because I was challenged to bring about evidence. The fact I bothered to address their individual points is conclusion enough I'm not ignoring their message. Rather, I'm challenging the notion that we have to settle and conform with what the base subclass has to offer in light of the topic. If you want to believe that bard just shouldn't tank, more power to you. I just disagree.
Because it's possible with just a few adjustments. I don't feel that the criteria of a tank has to include things like compelled duel or goading attack, for example. In that sense, the proposed build does what it sets out to do to accomplish the goal of tanking. Is it the best? No, but it's something different while still being effective. I mean, hey, the wizard starting as fighter for a level is such a popular, tried and true concept. Why not apply it to other full casters?
Cgarciao,
The point is, I don't think a player that wanted to play a Bard would enjoy this build, and I know a player that wanted to play a tank wouldn't enjoy this build. So although this approach does give the PC heavy armor, shields, a fighting style that enhances AC and Second Wind, it causes other things to happen that would likely put the player off when trying to be the bard they wanted when they sat down to play D&D.
So to understand why this would arise, I would need to understand why the player was apparently forced to be the tank (or a tank) in the party and still insisted on playing a bard.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
And after going back to read it, I can see that I was wrong. The length of your diatribe aside, misinformation is always worth addressing. Nobody pointed at you to bring evidence. And you didn't address any of the individual points I raised.
There's more to being a tank than having high AC. We can make a 1st level Forge Domain Cleric with the same AC as your 1st level Fighter and have the benefit of 1st level Spellcasting. There's more to it than that. Tanking is about being annoying. It's about making yourself the most attractive target while also being able to survive that attention.
Attractiveness, generally speaking, is about making others harder to hit or yourself easier to hit. In MMO terms, we'd call this "threat", but that doesn't have a hard mechanical equivalent in 5E. So we use class and subclass mechanics to incentivize these behaviors. Survivability is a bit harder to pin down. Armor Class and Hit Points are part of it, but we don't want AC to be too high. If it is, then that can get in the way of being an attractive target. It needs to be high enough to adequately protect without being so high as to discourage. Unless your goal is to get enemies to give up in frustration; either by fleeing or surrendering.
The reason I didn't include the Bard in that list is because the Bard, as a class, doesn't have the full kit of tools to do this. It can absolutely get a respectable AC, but it can't properly incentivize behavior. And your suggestion to multiclass won't give them that tool, either. All it does is turn the survivability dial up. That's not enough; it's never enough. You seem to think it is enough, and you're wrong for thinking that. It doesn't do any good just to not get it. I could run an entire campaign without attacking a single character once. That doesn't make them a tank. Attacks need to miss., and to do that you need to give them a reason to attack in the first place. And just standing there isn't good enough, either.
And that's while ignoring that multiclassing is an optional rule, which means the DM doesn't have to allow it. What you have is a "Tank" that began their adventuring career as a Fighter and just happens to mostly be a Bard. But they're not a Bard Tank. (Not that D&D5E parties need someone to play a Tank, but that's another conversation entirely.) And if any of this seems familiar, it's because I've already typed about it before. This is what I meant when I said you were talking past me. If you want to have a meaningful conversation, then you need to pay attention to what others have to say.
If you want to rebut this, then tell us why these mechanics aren't important. Because everyone deals damage. A Valor Bard in chainmail with a greatsword isn't special. They're a level behind in spellcasting, a level behind in getting all of their ASIs, and two levels behind in getting Extra Attack. They'd objectively be better off with a paladin. Or almost anything else, really.
"Hey, guys, I just got Extra Attack!"
"That's great! I got mine two levels ago and already have my second subclass feature."
"That is my second subclass feature."
If you can't make a compelling argument, you're just wasting everyone's time.
As you've mentioned succinctly, 5e precisely doesn't need someone playing a tank, at least by the MMO-esque terms you seemingly abide by. What good, then, is it to meet your qualifications of an apparently unnecessary position in a game?
From my experience of playing with at least one hundred different tables, online or in person, I've yet to run into a DM who doesn't allow multiclassing. And I've played with some DMs who make questionable choices, such as the banning of certain entire classes or count diagonal movement as 10 ft. But none have disallowed multiclassing. I don't know how much of an argument it makes to mention it's an optional rule, as for me it's just as optional if I even want to play at such a table to begin with. I'm not that desperate to play.
Positioning creates most of the incentive needed to attack or not attack certain party members. If the front liner's in the front, and the back liners in the back, enemy creatures are simply going to attack what's closest 9 times out of 10. It doesn't matter what class I'm playing or what mechanics i've got to force disadvantage on other attackers, if my pc's at the fore front of everything he's probably going to get attacked.
The other reason why the bard tank will likely draw fire is because they're likely concentrating on something. Suppose the bard caught several key targets with bane, or affected a large area with faerie fire or hypnotic pattern. That's not something a DM would just sit by quietly and not attempt to remove. Now, they're incentivized to actually hit your character, the DM's behavior is now changed for it. Especially if the bard is in the frontlines. Now, they could choose to ignore my character, but the consequence for doing so would be maintaining the hindrance on the battlefield I imposed with my spell. Although, a DM could technically ignore whatever disadvantage is imposed on their creatures with subclass features and spells you mentioned and go for the squishy target anyways, it's just the same and just as well.
A fighter bard with heavy armor may not seem all that special, but in a way, their choice to start off in fighter means they're a feat or two ahead of other bards. This build means you don't need to take heavily armored, moderately armored, or resilient: con. That last one's important too, because most casters are going to want to take it or some equivalent at some point in their career. I could choose to take warcaster to augment my concentration even further, or just increase my CHA. Either way, I'm good to go. That's easily worth the slight delay in spellcasting progression, and why you'd choose fighter and not paladin to start (which you'd want at least two levels for the smites and fighting style). So, when the bard is inevitably hit, it's a lot less likely to drop concentration and keep the incentive up for the DM to continue attacking them, even if their AC's high thanks to armor and flourishes.
So, while you're right that you could technically go an entire campaign never once targetting my pc, you'd be punished for doing so one way or another. Positioning and concentration are attraction enough.