I really don't like the way bards in the playtest have been restricted to arcane spells from a shared list because a versatile spell list is part of the class identity and I felt forced into a specific playstyle of bard.
The class did feel like I was playing a bard, just not necessarily the bard archetype I might prefer. 4 schools of magic was enough to have a decent spell list given the change to prepared spells and continued existence of magic secrets. Inspiration seems to have pros and cons to the changes but overall still effective if overshadowed by divine spells, feats, and heroic inspiration.
But the lack of design flexibility lost in changing from class lists to the arcane shared list irked me to no end and left that icky feeling about the class. After working with it a bit I made these changes:
Give bards a choice of which spell list from which they prepare spells at 1st level. Consider those spells arcane spells cast by the bard. This gives that versatility of build styles for many more archetypes that was missing while still limiting bard spells as intended.
Bards have access to the divination and enchantment schools plus two other schools of their choice other than evocation. This limits access to the spell list as intended and still allows for something like protection spells or breaking enchantments that are iconic some bard archetypes.
Remove Songs of Rest and use the current Song of Rest. This removes the forced healer spells while bards who want to heal can access those spells via spell list and school selection.
I found this felt much more like a 5e bard shifted into the playtest paradigm.
I'm posting this here so other players might try this and give feedback. Hopefully feedback here and possibly on future surveys.
Personally, I've been toying with the idea of keeping the schools selection limitation (though adding Abjuration and removing song of rest), but removing the spell list limitation entirely for bards. Diversity across things other types of casters can do is so iconic for the bard, that limiting them to just one of the three spell-lists feels bad and unbard-like.
Personally, I've been toying with the idea of keeping the schools selection limitation (though adding Abjuration and removing song of rest), but removing the spell list limitation entirely for bards. Diversity across things other types of casters can do is so iconic for the bard, that limiting them to just one of the three spell-lists feels bad and unbard-like.
My concern with that is that it opens up a lot. I agree that the diversity existed but it was more controlled by spells known as opposed to spell prep. Choosing the spell list and schools has that spells known feel.
Bards had a good spell that wasn't fully realized because of spells known. My version also allows for a wide breadth of spells not fully realized because of those choices with enough spells those choices that spell prep and the spells themselves are still useful.
If you were to try my method would it feel like a bard and be reasonably functional?
Personally, I've been toying with the idea of keeping the schools selection limitation (though adding Abjuration and removing song of rest), but removing the spell list limitation entirely for bards. Diversity across things other types of casters can do is so iconic for the bard, that limiting them to just one of the three spell-lists feels bad and unbard-like.
My concern with that is that it opens up a lot. I agree that the diversity existed but it was more controlled by spells known as opposed to spell prep. Choosing the spell list and schools has that spells known feel.
Bards had a good spell that wasn't fully realized because of spells known. My version also allows for a wide breadth of spells not fully realized because of those choices with enough spells those choices that spell prep and the spells themselves are still useful.
If you were to try my method would it feel like a bard and be reasonably functional?
Using your method, I'd still have the problem that whichever spell list I picked I would feel like a slightly variation on the full caster class that already uses that list. Divine spell list - great I'm a pacifist cleric, Primal spell list - I'm a pacifist Druid, Arcane - I'm a pacifist Wizard. Plus there is relatively little reason to take a spell list other than Arcane because the Arcane list has by far the most Echantment spells (and diviniation ones all kind of suck).
PS it seems rather un-bardy to not have any illusion spells.
I really don't like the way bards in the playtest have been restricted to arcane spells from a shared list because a versatile spell list is part of the class identity and I felt forced into a specific playstyle of bard.
The class did feel like I was playing a bard, just not necessarily the bard archetype I might prefer. 4 schools of magic was enough to have a decent spell list given the change to prepared spells and continued existence of magic secrets. Inspiration seems to have pros and cons to the changes but overall still effective if overshadowed by divine spells, feats, and heroic inspiration.
But the lack of design flexibility lost in changing from class lists to the arcane shared list irked me to no end and left that icky feeling about the class. After working with it a bit I made these changes:
Give bards a choice of which spell list from which they prepare spells at 1st level. Consider those spells arcane spells cast by the bard. This gives that versatility of build styles for many more archetypes that was missing while still limiting bard spells as intended.
Bards have access to the divination and enchantment schools plus two other schools of their choice other than evocation. This limits access to the spell list as intended and still allows for something like protection spells or breaking enchantments that are iconic some bard archetypes.
Remove Songs of Rest and use the current Song of Rest. This removes the forced healer spells while bards who want to heal can access those spells via spell list and school selection.
I found this felt much more like a 5e bard shifted into the playtest paradigm.
I'm posting this here so other players might try this and give feedback. Hopefully feedback here and possibly on future surveys.
I disagree with your changes, because Bards shouldn't have easy/unfettered access to schools like Conjuration or Necromancy. Certain subclasses could access these, like Lore / Creation / Spirits, but not every bard. And Illusion + some degree of healing should definitely be a given on all bards.
Personally, I've been toying with the idea of keeping the schools selection limitation (though adding Abjuration and removing song of rest), but removing the spell list limitation entirely for bards. Diversity across things other types of casters can do is so iconic for the bard, that limiting them to just one of the three spell-lists feels bad and unbard-like.
My concern with that is that it opens up a lot. I agree that the diversity existed but it was more controlled by spells known as opposed to spell prep. Choosing the spell list and schools has that spells known feel.
Bards had a good spell that wasn't fully realized because of spells known. My version also allows for a wide breadth of spells not fully realized because of those choices with enough spells those choices that spell prep and the spells themselves are still useful.
If you were to try my method would it feel like a bard and be reasonably functional?
Using your method, I'd still have the problem that whichever spell list I picked I would feel like a slightly variation on the full caster class that already uses that list. Divine spell list - great I'm a pacifist cleric, Primal spell list - I'm a pacifist Druid, Arcane - I'm a pacifist Wizard. Plus there is relatively little reason to take a spell list other than Arcane because the Arcane list has by far the most Echantment spells (and diviniation ones all kind of suck).
PS it seems rather un-bardy to not have any illusion spells.
I'm not clear on why all of those options are pacifist versions of spell casters for you. Wrathful Smite is an enchantment spell, and Thunderous Smite, Glimmering Smite, and Blinding Smite are transmutations per the Druid / Paladin UA.
The most enchantment spells doesn't preclude having access to good spells in the divine list. Those spells include Bane, Bless, Command, Heroism, Wrathful Smite, Hold Person, or Staggering Smite. The primal list does struggle with enchantments and Hunter's Mark as a divination spell doesn't cover much, I agree, but that's why 2 schools are selected instead of chosen by the rules. Abjuration, divination, enchantment, and transmutation from the primal list makes a solid spell list. Divination, enchantment, and illusion do almost nothing from that list and transmutation is largely repetitive from other other lists.
The idea of abjuration, divination, enchantment, illusion, and transformation as bard schools of magic from among all 3 lists covers iconic bard spells mostly but missing things like Bestow Curse or Raise Dead for bards as well. There are iconic spells some bards might want before they need to use magical secrets to access them at higher levels. With magical secrets in the arcane list and primal list there becomes no spell in the game bards cannot access either via secrets or Wish and very few they cannot before that because of the overlap in divine spells with those other lists plus secrets.
I don't agree with giving high level and epic level bards that level of spell access. They don't have it now and have never had it. 1e bards cast druid spells. 2e bards cast wizard spells. 3e, 4e, and 5e bards used a mixed list of spells but selected spells from those lists and never had access to all those spells in game play. When I made a bard in those editions I had access to the spells known, not access to the spell list after I selected those spells known. Using spell prep changes that drastically. That's why I am selecting a spell list; it's similar to selecting spells known to create a specific style of bard. The issue I do find is it takes more system mastery in planning out the available spells.
If you think bards should have access to the illusion school then your bard has that by selecting the illusion school. Not all bards cast illusions, however, getting back to other archetypes for players and choosing spells known looking at mechanical restrictions. Spells known prevents bards from accessing the vast majority of the spell list. My perception of the bard is a bard can learn from a variety of magical spells but doesn't necessarily have access to all of it. I'm basically proposing bards have two thematic schools and tailor their spell list with a choice of two out of five other schools to customize a thematic spell list for that particular bard.
Play one the way I'm describing it and then give feedback on the experience. ;-)
I really don't like the way bards in the playtest have been restricted to arcane spells from a shared list because a versatile spell list is part of the class identity and I felt forced into a specific playstyle of bard.
The class did feel like I was playing a bard, just not necessarily the bard archetype I might prefer. 4 schools of magic was enough to have a decent spell list given the change to prepared spells and continued existence of magic secrets. Inspiration seems to have pros and cons to the changes but overall still effective if overshadowed by divine spells, feats, and heroic inspiration.
But the lack of design flexibility lost in changing from class lists to the arcane shared list irked me to no end and left that icky feeling about the class. After working with it a bit I made these changes:
Give bards a choice of which spell list from which they prepare spells at 1st level. Consider those spells arcane spells cast by the bard. This gives that versatility of build styles for many more archetypes that was missing while still limiting bard spells as intended.
Bards have access to the divination and enchantment schools plus two other schools of their choice other than evocation. This limits access to the spell list as intended and still allows for something like protection spells or breaking enchantments that are iconic some bard archetypes.
Remove Songs of Rest and use the current Song of Rest. This removes the forced healer spells while bards who want to heal can access those spells via spell list and school selection.
I found this felt much more like a 5e bard shifted into the playtest paradigm.
I'm posting this here so other players might try this and give feedback. Hopefully feedback here and possibly on future surveys.
I disagree with your changes, because Bards shouldn't have easy/unfettered access to schools like Conjuration or Necromancy. Certain subclasses could access these, like Lore / Creation / Spirits, but not every bard. And Illusion + some degree of healing should definitely be a given on all bards.
According to whom and why?
Bards already have access to both schools that's being taken away. But only taken away until magical secrets gives the option to open up easy and unfettered access to those spells in the spell list.
Feign Death, Speak with Dead, Raise Dead, etc using the divine or primal lists do not give anything not typical of bards. Curse style spells like Bestow Curse and Eyebite are standard bard spells. Do you think playing music than can animate the dead is somehow not thematic to a bard concept?
The UA spell lists can give all bards access to every school among arcane spells at 11th level.
If I make a bard based on the divine spell list then abjuration and necromancy cover spells that would be normal for bards. If I make a bard based on the arcane spell list then I would need to give up transmutation or illusion to have access to necromancy. The same is true for conjuration.
Bards have access to conjurations already. There's nothing that's not thematic about a bard who uses teleportation style abilities or summons help or casts Heroes' Feast. My changes still have that same opportunity cost in schools selected.
This doesn't look like an issue with the rules I presented. It looks like an issue with you deciding the theme for my character based a couple of spells on the arcane list you don't think are thematic. I've cast Vampiric Touch on many bards. ;-)
I disagree with your changes, because Bards shouldn't have easy/unfettered access to schools like Conjuration or Necromancy. Certain subclasses could access these, like Lore / Creation / Spirits, but not every bard. And Illusion + some degree of healing should definitely be a given on all bards.
According to whom and why?
Bards already have access to both schools that's being taken away. But only taken away until magical secrets gives the option to open up easy and unfettered access to those spells in the spell list.
Feign Death, Speak with Dead, Raise Dead, etc using the divine or primal lists do not give anything not typical of bards. Curse style spells like Bestow Curse and Eyebite are standard bard spells. Do you think playing music than can animate the dead is somehow not thematic to a bard concept?
The UA spell lists can give all bards access to every school among arcane spells at 11th level.
If I make a bard based on the divine spell list then abjuration and necromancy cover spells that would be normal for bards. If I make a bard based on the arcane spell list then I would need to give up transmutation or illusion to have access to necromancy. The same is true for conjuration.
Bards have access to conjurations already. There's nothing that's not thematic about a bard who uses teleportation style abilities or summons help or casts Heroes' Feast. My changes still have that same opportunity cost in schools selected.
This doesn't look like an issue with the rules I presented. It looks like an issue with you deciding the theme for my character based a couple of spells on the arcane list you don't think are thematic. I've cast Vampiric Touch on many bards. ;-)
1) Magical Secrets is neither easy nor unfettered. The late acquisition means in most campaigns bards will be able to prep 2 spells outside their restricted list at most, and a good number won't even get past 10 to begin with.
2) I'm fine with the necro stuff you mentioned - on a bard subclass that is thematically designed for it. Spirits and Whispers come to mind here. I don't think Swords and Glamour bards should go around animating corpses for instance.
3) I'm not the one deciding any themes for you - WotC are the ones who landed on DIET for bards (Divination, Illusion, Enchantment, Transmutation.)
I disagree with your changes, because Bards shouldn't have easy/unfettered access to schools like Conjuration or Necromancy. Certain subclasses could access these, like Lore / Creation / Spirits, but not every bard. And Illusion + some degree of healing should definitely be a given on all bards.
According to whom and why?
Bards already have access to both schools that's being taken away. But only taken away until magical secrets gives the option to open up easy and unfettered access to those spells in the spell list.
Feign Death, Speak with Dead, Raise Dead, etc using the divine or primal lists do not give anything not typical of bards. Curse style spells like Bestow Curse and Eyebite are standard bard spells. Do you think playing music than can animate the dead is somehow not thematic to a bard concept?
The UA spell lists can give all bards access to every school among arcane spells at 11th level.
If I make a bard based on the divine spell list then abjuration and necromancy cover spells that would be normal for bards. If I make a bard based on the arcane spell list then I would need to give up transmutation or illusion to have access to necromancy. The same is true for conjuration.
Bards have access to conjurations already. There's nothing that's not thematic about a bard who uses teleportation style abilities or summons help or casts Heroes' Feast. My changes still have that same opportunity cost in schools selected.
This doesn't look like an issue with the rules I presented. It looks like an issue with you deciding the theme for my character based a couple of spells on the arcane list you don't think are thematic. I've cast Vampiric Touch on many bards. ;-)
1) Magical Secrets is neither easy nor unfettered. The late acquisition means in most campaigns bards will be able to prep 2 spells outside their restricted list at most, and a good number won't even get past 10 to begin with.
2) I'm fine with the necro stuff you mentioned - on a bard subclass that is thematically designed for it. Spirits and Whispers come to mind here. I don't think Swords and Glamour bards should go around animating corpses for instance.
3) I'm not the one deciding any themes for you - WotC are the ones who landed on DIET for bards (Divination, Illusion, Enchantment, Transmutation.)
1) Pretending 10 levels don't exist for a class is a poor argument. Especially considering it's the opposite of the argument players giver regarding how powerful wizards are based on high level spells. It makes more sense that if no one was playing those levels then the developers wouldn't bother with developing them. If you have citations on those statistics I'll look them over, however. Magical secrets with spell preparation becomes much more versatile and it's very easy to add necromancy spells. And bards use necromancy spells. Even 4e bards had necrotic spells. 2e bards had lots of them.
2) What are you basing that comment on? The base class has necromany spells. The previous version of the base class had necromancy spells. The necromancy spells clerics and druids (part of the changes I mentioned) are used for healing and there are many bard healer examples. You haven't given a reason why bards shouldn't access those spells. "Only subclasses" isn't a reason. "I don't think..." isn't a reason. It's you deciding what's thematic for my character and given that it would be my character I would make that decision. There's no need to take that decision away because players who don't think their bard should use necromancy won't choose it.
3) No one from WotC is in here discussing my ideas with me. You are and you don't speak for WotC. The DIET system is an idea that came into playtesting as a concept to be tested and receive feedback. It's brainstorming an idea and getting feedback to find out what we think. That's not telling us anything; it's asking us if that's what we think. Projecting your idea of what's thematic on to that isn't a good argument either.
The only feedback you've given reduces down to what you think a bard is and isn't. I don't agree with you. If I want to make a bard based on the biwa hoshi then I should be able to do so because that concept would fall under the bard umbrella. Your response is effectively "I don't think bards should have the tools to make bard concepts other than how I see bards". What you think is thematic isn't relevant to how someone else sees not your character. ;-)
1) Pretending 10 levels don't exist for a class is a poor argument.
2) What are you basing that comment on? The base class has necromancy spells.
3) No one from WotC is in here discussing my ideas with me. You are and you don't speak for WotC.
1) No it's not, the vast majority of games (including the vast majority of adventure paths) end before 15, so the only MS you're likely to see at most tables is the first one at 11.
2) The base class has evocations too, which your version omits. Some of those were made into transmutations e..g. Shatter, presumably they'd do something similar with the few necromancy spells they think Bards should keep too.
3) I'm attempting to explain to you why they're doing what they're doing. You're welcome to figure it out on your own if you prefer that.
1) Pretending 10 levels don't exist for a class is a poor argument.
2) What are you basing that comment on? The base class has necromancy spells.
3) No one from WotC is in here discussing my ideas with me. You are and you don't speak for WotC.
1) No it's not, the vast majority of games (including the vast majority of adventure paths) end before 15, so the only MS you're likely to see at most tables is the first one at 11.
2) The base class has evocations too, which your version omits. Some of those were made into transmutations e..g. Shatter, presumably they'd do something similar with the few necromancy spells they think Bards should keep too.
3) I'm attempting to explain to you why they're doing what they're doing. You're welcome to figure it out on your own if you prefer that.
1) Statistics and citation, please. But regardless, there are still players who play those levels.
2) The spells in the UA had their schools changed, yes, and that's a lot more work than letting players pick what's thematic for their character. It seems like a complicated way of building class lists hidden within those spell lists. I have been considering just allowing for a selection of two schools and including evocation. Bards did also have evocation spells, particularly my Fireball spells that I was casting at two levels higher than the wizard in the group. Wall of Fire was available in 1e and 2e. Part of the line with 5e was trying to be able to recreate characters from previous editions and the choice of spell list does that fairly well. If I want to try and build someone like Kvothe then evocation is applicable.
3) I don't need help "figuring out what they're doing". They are using the playtest and feed back surveys in the same way focus groups work. Behind the scenes they'll be brainstorming ideas to present. Then they present the ideas to gain feedback that they interpret. After they interpret the feedback they might scrap a concept, adjust it, or move forward with it. That's still them asking us for our opinions, not telling us what our opinions are. ;-)
Being limited to a single list with some schools is the worst approach I've seen for bards in this game (my opinion, oc).
When druids were introduced the spell list was designed as medium between clerics and wizards, which bards claimed. 3e went back to 1e roots with a broad spell list. 4e supported a combination of leader and controller and that provided a broad range. Both 3e and 4e avoided high damage which is why I hesitate with evocation spells. 5e continued the broad spell list without a lot of damaging spells.
2e bards were limited to mage spells but they weren't limited in schools. Those made for a specific style of bard that was fun to play even if that version did not match up with history and folklore. They didn't need to restrict schools because wizards had more spell slots while the XP progression, bonus XP awards, and caster level rules favored bards. Arcane recovery, signature spells, and spell mastery exist in 5e so wizards still have more spell slots; but level progression benefits and caster level progression has disappeared.
A versatile spell list is iconic to the class and schools didn't need to be restricted in the one edition this wasn't true. What we have in the UA bard is the worst of both worlds. There's no access to the full arcane list and the combined spell list is gone. Instead we have a major complaint we saw with 5e sorcerers -- largely the same spell list as wizards but not nearly the full list.
Skill advantages aren't usually that significant outside of a few specific scenarios. They can be useful, for sure, but they are often overstated. JoaT's is a low bonus for a very long time to many things (and it's now picked up later), and expertise is only a small bonus over proficiency until higher levels and only to a couple of skill proficiencies. It's also limited by what bounded accuracy and those DC's allow. Feats like skilled or skill expert marginalize skill benefits as a class feature.
Bardic inspiration can be useful but the number of uses has been pushed back with proficiency bonus instead of CHA bonus and font of inspiration coming later. The divine spell list has a lot of buffs, however; and the bard list lost buffs. The musician feat is a better bonus more often until bardic inspiration gets to a higher level. Advantage on checks from the help action are easy to give without resource management. Inspiring leader was changed so that WIS meets the prerequisite allowing clerics to pick it up easily. Bardic inspiration can be useful but it's also marginalized by other abilities of other classes.
Feats have class group prerequisites so bards (experts) will not have access to feats for spell casters (mage, priest) but paladins (priest) do. This includes epic feats. The iconic abilities of bardic knowledge were removed in 5e but now the cleric has the scholar feature that can replicate the concept. This also gets back to skill benefits consistently being given to other classes to marginalize the skill benefits of the expert class.
If I want to make a bard I'm better off to make a cleric. I can add iconic skill benefits with a better bonus than expertise gives by adding WIS bonus using scholar. The class starts with better armor, adds bonus damage to weapons, adds smite spells or other combat spells, has a full spell list, and offers a lot of buffs and some crowd control. There's no need to add healing spells because those are part of the base class with a better access a level earlier.
If a cleric is a better healer, better buffer, better fighter, better caster, and can access skill benefits in the base class instead of through subclasses would would we expect bards to add abilities through subclasses that should be in the base class? Spell variety is one of the defining features of the class and that's gone in a bad way.
I mentioned earlier that the spell lists are repeating a mistake with the sorcerer. A weak base class that adds it potential through subclasses is repeating the mistake made with rangers. We're heading back into an old bard issue where people expressed that there wasn't much point to play a bard because anything they did another class did better. Why would we repeat the mistakes of the past?
I said during my playtest that I thought Bards were good with the 4 from Arcane, but that they should also get Necromancy and Abjuration from the Primal Spell List. Calling back to their roots with the druid spells. Instead of songs of restoration.
This opens up Spare the Dying and Resistance Cantrip, Cure wounds, Healing word (1st) Gentle Repose, Lesser Restoration, Pass without Trace (this one I don't think should be Abjuration personally I think it should be transmutation), Protection From poison (2nd level) Dispel Magic, Feign Death, Mass Healing Word, Nondetection, Protection From Energy, Revivify (3rd) Freedom Of Movement (4th) Antilife Shell, Greater Restoration, Mass Cure Wounds, Reincarnate (5th) Heal (this may be the big no no, but at this level Bards have Magical Secrets anyway) (6th) Nothing 7, nothing 8, 9 True Resurrection and Power Word Heal.
All very on theme for the Bard, except MAYBE pass without trace. Feign Death is a surprise pick up here that is cool thematically to the bard due to "acting".
2) If you're having fun with bards casting Fireball and Wall of Fire, great! That's what Magical Secrets is for. But that doesn't mean WotC has to make that easy or automatic for them either.
3) I'm glad you're sharing your opinion; I'm doing the same. That's all.
2) If you're having fun with bards casting Fireball and Wall of Fire, great! That's what Magical Secrets is for. But that doesn't mean WotC has to make that easy or automatic for them either.
3) I'm glad you're sharing your opinion; I'm doing the same. That's all.
1) That doesn't mean the other players aren't playing, or that they don't matter, or that those levels don't exist.
2) That's not what magical secrets are for. Magical secrets add spells outside of the basic class and I'm discussing what should be included within the basic class. Not the same thing. There's no reason to load so much into a class like a cleric and force another class like a bard to require the subclasses to do the same.
3) What you decide secrets is for is still just you projecting your idea of what the bard themes are instead of recognizing the other bard themes that I have mentioned. That's the same with spells and other abilities. You haven't given a reason other than that's what you think but I gave several to support what I am doing.
Try playing it and giving feedback instead of poopooing it, lol.
I said during my playtest that I thought Bards were good with the 4 from Arcane, but that they should also get Necromancy and Abjuration from the Primal Spell List. Calling back to their roots with the druid spells. Instead of songs of restoration.
This opens up Spare the Dying and Resistance Cantrip, Cure wounds, Healing word (1st) Gentle Repose, Lesser Restoration, Pass without Trace (this one I don't think should be Abjuration personally I think it should be transmutation), Protection From poison (2nd level) Dispel Magic, Feign Death, Mass Healing Word, Nondetection, Protection From Energy, Revivify (3rd) Freedom Of Movement (4th) Antilife Shell, Greater Restoration, Mass Cure Wounds, Reincarnate (5th) Heal (this may be the big no no, but at this level Bards have Magical Secrets anyway) (6th) Nothing 7, nothing 8, 9 True Resurrection and Power Word Heal.
All very on theme for the Bard, except MAYBE pass without trace. Feign Death is a surprise pick up here that is cool thematically to the bard due to "acting".
I dig that, almost all those spells seem to fit and the one or two that don't are fine to slip in imo.
1) That doesn't mean the other players aren't playing, or that they don't matter, or that those levels don't exist.
2) That's not what magical secrets are for. Magical secrets add spells outside of the basic class and I'm discussing what should be included within the basic class. Not the same thing. There's no reason to load so much into a class like a cleric and force another class like a bard to require the subclasses to do the same.
3) What you decide secrets is for is still just you projecting your idea of what the bard themes are instead of recognizing the other bard themes that I have mentioned. That's the same with spells and other abilities. You haven't given a reason other than that's what you think but I gave several to support what I am doing.
Try playing it and giving feedback instead of poopooing it, lol.
1) It does mean that you can't point to a level 15 feature and be like "see, it gets fun eventually!" when the vast majority of players won't ever see that. Again, most bards will get a single MS list.
2) There absolutely is a reason; the Arcane list is the strongest list in the game. Unless you want Bard to be strictly better than Sorcerer and Warlock, that means some limits on their spell access are needed.
3) I do have a reason besides traditional Bard theme - game balance relative to other arcane classes as mentioned above. Bard already has the built in advantages of armor proficiency, inspiration, healing and high skills - letting them run hog wild with casting from any school of the strongest list in the game is a bridge too far balance-wise, not just thematically. (Though it certainly runs afoul of that, too.)
If the only opinions you want are beatific ones instead of "poopooing" well I'm sorry, but this is an open discussion forum - dissenting opinions are allowed here.
1) That doesn't mean the other players aren't playing, or that they don't matter, or that those levels don't exist.
2) That's not what magical secrets are for. Magical secrets add spells outside of the basic class and I'm discussing what should be included within the basic class. Not the same thing. There's no reason to load so much into a class like a cleric and force another class like a bard to require the subclasses to do the same.
3) What you decide secrets is for is still just you projecting your idea of what the bard themes are instead of recognizing the other bard themes that I have mentioned. That's the same with spells and other abilities. You haven't given a reason other than that's what you think but I gave several to support what I am doing.
Try playing it and giving feedback instead of poopooing it, lol.
1) It does mean that you can't point to a level 15 feature and be like "see, it gets fun eventually!" when the vast majority of players won't ever see that. Again, most bards will get a single MS list.
2) There absolutely is a reason; the Arcane list is the strongest list in the game. Unless you want Bard to be strictly better than Sorcerer and Warlock, that means some limits on their spell access are needed.
3) I do have a reason besides traditional Bard theme - game balance relative to other arcane classes as mentioned above. Bard already has the built in advantages of armor proficiency, inspiration, healing and high skills - letting them run hog wild with casting from any school of the strongest list in the game is a bridge too far balance-wise, not just thematically. (Though it certainly runs afoul of that, too.)
If the only opinions you want are beatific ones instead of "poopooing" well I'm sorry, but this is an open discussion forum - dissenting opinions are allowed here.
1) What does a level 15 feature have to do with anything being fun the rest of the time? Hi levels exist. That's pretty much all there is to it. Dismissing them doesn't make any sense.
2) Bard already have access to the arcane list. There's no reason to think bards having access to more spells on the list would somehow be an issue because, for example, a 3rd level spell is a 3rd level spell because it's as powerful as a 3rd level spell. Vampiric Touch or Animate Dead aren't more powerful than other 3rd level spells like Major Image or Major Image because spell level is how we quantify the power of a spell, not school. What differentiates the warlock or sorcerer or wizard are the abilities those classes have instead of bardic inspiration and skill benefits.
3) Game balance is something you would need to demonstrate instead of state. Light armor isn't better than Mage Armor, clerics and druids have better armor without needing those spell restrictions and also have healing and also have buffs and also have good spells, etc. I already explained all of those things. If that's unbalanced then there are other spell casters very unbalanced. Have you play-tested any of the UA classes? You are also still wrong about thematic bards. I mentioned a few already and will point out that praising and singing to the spirits of the ancestors is very much thematic for bards.
In Songs for the Dead: Afterlife, Bethany is a bard who uses necromancy as well as having an affinity for nature and love for the living and dead. Forcing that into a subclass prevents the choice of lore (more knowledge based) or valor (more warrior based) when both should have access to that trope. People making a bard that follows these tropes are making their characters. It's not up to you to decide the theme they use for their character. Those themes exist whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.
The balance issue you mentioned doesn't exist. At least not until demonstrated.
The theme issue you mentioned definitely doesn't exist.
So I would prefer you to; a) play these classes and give feedback based on that play with examples; b) demonstrate the balance issue you are concerned about; or c) have a good day ;-)
Bethany is a bard who uses necromancy as well as having an affinity for nature and love for the living and dead. Forcing that into a subclass prevents the choice of lore (more knowledge based) or valor (more warrior based) when both should have access to that trope.
Why should they? Defining classes is always equally about what they cannot do and what they can do and quite honestly the design of current D&D is to put specific tropes into subclasses whereas the overall class is a rather generic scaffold. There are a huge number of people who love the "skald" or "bardbarian" trope to the extent that tons of people play or make builds of that MC despite it being terrible. But the official classes and subclasses do not support that trope. There is no obligation by a game to allow everyone to play every kind of character that has existed in any kind of media ever. If you want to play a singing druidic necromancer you can easily do so in One D&D by taking the Musician feat at level 1 and playing a druid and taking one of the skill granting feats at level 4, and/or maybe taking Fey Touched to boost your illusion options.
2) Bard already have access to the arcane list. There's no reason to think bards having access to more spells on the list would somehow be an issue because, for example, a 3rd level spell is a 3rd level spell because it's as powerful as a 3rd level spell. Vampiric Touch or Animate Dead aren't more powerful than other 3rd level spells like Major Image or Major Image because spell level is how we quantify the power of a spell, not school. What differentiates the warlock or sorcerer or wizard are the abilities those classes have instead of bardic inspiration and skill benefits.
3) Game balance is something you would need to demonstrate instead of state. Light armor isn't better than Mage Armor, clerics and druids have better armor without needing those spell restrictions and also have healing and also have buffs and also have good spells, etc. I already explained all of those things. If that's unbalanced then there are other spell casters very unbalanced. Have you play-tested any of the UA classes? You are also still wrong about thematic bards. I mentioned a few already and will point out that praising and singing to the spirits of the ancestors is very much thematic for bards.
In Songs for the Dead: Afterlife, Bethany is a bard who uses necromancy as well as having an affinity for nature and love for the living and dead. Forcing that into a subclass prevents the choice of lore (more knowledge based) or valor (more warrior based) when both should have access to that trope. People making a bard that follows these tropes are making their characters. It's not up to you to decide the theme they use for their character. Those themes exist whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.
2) Bards have access to a limited list, in practice all spells are not equal at a level. But even if that were true access to more spells gives more options which is always more powerful than less options, and even if the spells are balanced the number of spells per school isn't. There are levels in the PH where for example enchantment does not even get a spell so being able to select the schools you want will be a potent ability.
3) arcane spells are by and large better than primal and divine spells those spheres will be better in their specialties but in the more general spell casting list arcane is just better, that is why druids and bards can get by with better armor without being unbalanced, though 1d&D druid is in the same boat as bard there.
I generally agree with your idea that if its not a balance issue then don't argue about the thematic elements of how a player uses it, which is why assuming they balanced ranged and melee combat I am fine with ranged smites, its why I want unarmed and more weapons added to the rogues sneak attack. But access to more spells even if the spells are balanced is a balance issue.
That being said I am not sure your proposal is unbalanced enough to care. Your 2 fixes divination/enchantment are fairly mid you are giving up illusion and transmutation for your flexible slots. Transmutation is probably the best school, illusion is very DM dependent but I can't say that necromancy, conjuration or abjuration is better. It may give a slight boost to bards but they could probably use a slight boost.
The balance issue you mentioned doesn't exist. At least not until demonstrated.
The theme issue you mentioned definitely doesn't exist.
So I would prefer you to; a) play these classes and give feedback based on that play with examples; b) demonstrate the balance issue you are concerned about; or c) have a good day ;-)
I always have a good day 🙂
As for those issues "not existing" - take it up with Crawford, not me. Survey feedback seemed very in favor of the new Bard ("high 70s/low 80s" which clears the threshold.)
2) Bard already have access to the arcane list. There's no reason to think bards having access to more spells on the list would somehow be an issue because, for example, a 3rd level spell is a 3rd level spell because it's as powerful as a 3rd level spell. Vampiric Touch or Animate Dead aren't more powerful than other 3rd level spells like Major Image or Major Image because spell level is how we quantify the power of a spell, not school. What differentiates the warlock or sorcerer or wizard are the abilities those classes have instead of bardic inspiration and skill benefits.
3) Game balance is something you would need to demonstrate instead of state. Light armor isn't better than Mage Armor, clerics and druids have better armor without needing those spell restrictions and also have healing and also have buffs and also have good spells, etc. I already explained all of those things. If that's unbalanced then there are other spell casters very unbalanced. Have you play-tested any of the UA classes? You are also still wrong about thematic bards. I mentioned a few already and will point out that praising and singing to the spirits of the ancestors is very much thematic for bards.
In Songs for the Dead: Afterlife, Bethany is a bard who uses necromancy as well as having an affinity for nature and love for the living and dead. Forcing that into a subclass prevents the choice of lore (more knowledge based) or valor (more warrior based) when both should have access to that trope. People making a bard that follows these tropes are making their characters. It's not up to you to decide the theme they use for their character. Those themes exist whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.
2) Bards have access to a limited list, in practice all spells are not equal at a level. But even if that were true access to more spells gives more options which is always more powerful than less options, and even if the spells are balanced the number of spells per school isn't. There are levels in the PH where for example enchantment does not even get a spell so being able to select the schools you want will be a potent ability.
3) arcane spells are by and large better than primal and divine spells those spheres will be better in their specialties but in the more general spell casting list arcane is just better, that is why druids and bards can get by with better armor without being unbalanced, though 1d&D druid is in the same boat as bard there.
I generally agree with your idea that if its not a balance issue then don't argue about the thematic elements of how a player uses it, which is why assuming they balanced ranged and melee combat I am fine with ranged smites, its why I want unarmed and more weapons added to the rogues sneak attack. But access to more spells even if the spells are balanced is a balance issue.
That being said I am not sure your proposal is unbalanced enough to care. Your 2 fixes divination/enchantment are fairly mid you are giving up illusion and transmutation for your flexible slots. Transmutation is probably the best school, illusion is very DM dependent but I can't say that necromancy, conjuration or abjuration is better. It may give a slight boost to bards but they could probably use a slight boost.
Spell level is how we define the relative power level of a spell.
2) My proposed changes still give a limited spell list. There just more variety in the creation of that limited spell list.
3) If arcane spells are generally more powerful in someone's opinion then changing from arcane to divine or primal would be a trade down in power in making that choice. Equal to or less than doesn't create a balance issue.
The spell access is traded off. I think the other proposed option of adding abjuration and allowing access to all 3 spell lists gives access to more spells than the system I proposed. The thematic part should be a choice of the player. The music is magic concept applied to modern non-mainstream comics like the KISS versions or The Roadie have demonstrated a lot more variety in the tropes than some people think.
Quick question, though: have you tried my changes to see how bards play out under those changes?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I really don't like the way bards in the playtest have been restricted to arcane spells from a shared list because a versatile spell list is part of the class identity and I felt forced into a specific playstyle of bard.
The class did feel like I was playing a bard, just not necessarily the bard archetype I might prefer. 4 schools of magic was enough to have a decent spell list given the change to prepared spells and continued existence of magic secrets. Inspiration seems to have pros and cons to the changes but overall still effective if overshadowed by divine spells, feats, and heroic inspiration.
But the lack of design flexibility lost in changing from class lists to the arcane shared list irked me to no end and left that icky feeling about the class. After working with it a bit I made these changes:
I found this felt much more like a 5e bard shifted into the playtest paradigm.
I'm posting this here so other players might try this and give feedback. Hopefully feedback here and possibly on future surveys.
Personally, I've been toying with the idea of keeping the schools selection limitation (though adding Abjuration and removing song of rest), but removing the spell list limitation entirely for bards. Diversity across things other types of casters can do is so iconic for the bard, that limiting them to just one of the three spell-lists feels bad and unbard-like.
My concern with that is that it opens up a lot. I agree that the diversity existed but it was more controlled by spells known as opposed to spell prep. Choosing the spell list and schools has that spells known feel.
Bards had a good spell that wasn't fully realized because of spells known. My version also allows for a wide breadth of spells not fully realized because of those choices with enough spells those choices that spell prep and the spells themselves are still useful.
If you were to try my method would it feel like a bard and be reasonably functional?
Using your method, I'd still have the problem that whichever spell list I picked I would feel like a slightly variation on the full caster class that already uses that list. Divine spell list - great I'm a pacifist cleric, Primal spell list - I'm a pacifist Druid, Arcane - I'm a pacifist Wizard. Plus there is relatively little reason to take a spell list other than Arcane because the Arcane list has by far the most Echantment spells (and diviniation ones all kind of suck).
PS it seems rather un-bardy to not have any illusion spells.
I disagree with your changes, because Bards shouldn't have easy/unfettered access to schools like Conjuration or Necromancy. Certain subclasses could access these, like Lore / Creation / Spirits, but not every bard. And Illusion + some degree of healing should definitely be a given on all bards.
I'm not clear on why all of those options are pacifist versions of spell casters for you. Wrathful Smite is an enchantment spell, and Thunderous Smite, Glimmering Smite, and Blinding Smite are transmutations per the Druid / Paladin UA.
The most enchantment spells doesn't preclude having access to good spells in the divine list. Those spells include Bane, Bless, Command, Heroism, Wrathful Smite, Hold Person, or Staggering Smite. The primal list does struggle with enchantments and Hunter's Mark as a divination spell doesn't cover much, I agree, but that's why 2 schools are selected instead of chosen by the rules. Abjuration, divination, enchantment, and transmutation from the primal list makes a solid spell list. Divination, enchantment, and illusion do almost nothing from that list and transmutation is largely repetitive from other other lists.
The idea of abjuration, divination, enchantment, illusion, and transformation as bard schools of magic from among all 3 lists covers iconic bard spells mostly but missing things like Bestow Curse or Raise Dead for bards as well. There are iconic spells some bards might want before they need to use magical secrets to access them at higher levels. With magical secrets in the arcane list and primal list there becomes no spell in the game bards cannot access either via secrets or Wish and very few they cannot before that because of the overlap in divine spells with those other lists plus secrets.
I don't agree with giving high level and epic level bards that level of spell access. They don't have it now and have never had it. 1e bards cast druid spells. 2e bards cast wizard spells. 3e, 4e, and 5e bards used a mixed list of spells but selected spells from those lists and never had access to all those spells in game play. When I made a bard in those editions I had access to the spells known, not access to the spell list after I selected those spells known. Using spell prep changes that drastically. That's why I am selecting a spell list; it's similar to selecting spells known to create a specific style of bard. The issue I do find is it takes more system mastery in planning out the available spells.
If you think bards should have access to the illusion school then your bard has that by selecting the illusion school. Not all bards cast illusions, however, getting back to other archetypes for players and choosing spells known looking at mechanical restrictions. Spells known prevents bards from accessing the vast majority of the spell list. My perception of the bard is a bard can learn from a variety of magical spells but doesn't necessarily have access to all of it. I'm basically proposing bards have two thematic schools and tailor their spell list with a choice of two out of five other schools to customize a thematic spell list for that particular bard.
Play one the way I'm describing it and then give feedback on the experience. ;-)
According to whom and why?
Bards already have access to both schools that's being taken away. But only taken away until magical secrets gives the option to open up easy and unfettered access to those spells in the spell list.
Feign Death, Speak with Dead, Raise Dead, etc using the divine or primal lists do not give anything not typical of bards. Curse style spells like Bestow Curse and Eyebite are standard bard spells. Do you think playing music than can animate the dead is somehow not thematic to a bard concept?
The UA spell lists can give all bards access to every school among arcane spells at 11th level.
If I make a bard based on the divine spell list then abjuration and necromancy cover spells that would be normal for bards. If I make a bard based on the arcane spell list then I would need to give up transmutation or illusion to have access to necromancy. The same is true for conjuration.
Bards have access to conjurations already. There's nothing that's not thematic about a bard who uses teleportation style abilities or summons help or casts Heroes' Feast. My changes still have that same opportunity cost in schools selected.
This doesn't look like an issue with the rules I presented. It looks like an issue with you deciding the theme for my character based a couple of spells on the arcane list you don't think are thematic. I've cast Vampiric Touch on many bards. ;-)
1) Magical Secrets is neither easy nor unfettered. The late acquisition means in most campaigns bards will be able to prep 2 spells outside their restricted list at most, and a good number won't even get past 10 to begin with.
2) I'm fine with the necro stuff you mentioned - on a bard subclass that is thematically designed for it. Spirits and Whispers come to mind here. I don't think Swords and Glamour bards should go around animating corpses for instance.
3) I'm not the one deciding any themes for you - WotC are the ones who landed on DIET for bards (Divination, Illusion, Enchantment, Transmutation.)
1) Pretending 10 levels don't exist for a class is a poor argument. Especially considering it's the opposite of the argument players giver regarding how powerful wizards are based on high level spells. It makes more sense that if no one was playing those levels then the developers wouldn't bother with developing them. If you have citations on those statistics I'll look them over, however. Magical secrets with spell preparation becomes much more versatile and it's very easy to add necromancy spells. And bards use necromancy spells. Even 4e bards had necrotic spells. 2e bards had lots of them.
2) What are you basing that comment on? The base class has necromany spells. The previous version of the base class had necromancy spells. The necromancy spells clerics and druids (part of the changes I mentioned) are used for healing and there are many bard healer examples. You haven't given a reason why bards shouldn't access those spells. "Only subclasses" isn't a reason. "I don't think..." isn't a reason. It's you deciding what's thematic for my character and given that it would be my character I would make that decision. There's no need to take that decision away because players who don't think their bard should use necromancy won't choose it.
3) No one from WotC is in here discussing my ideas with me. You are and you don't speak for WotC. The DIET system is an idea that came into playtesting as a concept to be tested and receive feedback. It's brainstorming an idea and getting feedback to find out what we think. That's not telling us anything; it's asking us if that's what we think. Projecting your idea of what's thematic on to that isn't a good argument either.
The only feedback you've given reduces down to what you think a bard is and isn't. I don't agree with you. If I want to make a bard based on the biwa hoshi then I should be able to do so because that concept would fall under the bard umbrella. Your response is effectively "I don't think bards should have the tools to make bard concepts other than how I see bards". What you think is thematic isn't relevant to how someone else sees not your character. ;-)
1) No it's not, the vast majority of games (including the vast majority of adventure paths) end before 15, so the only MS you're likely to see at most tables is the first one at 11.
2) The base class has evocations too, which your version omits. Some of those were made into transmutations e..g. Shatter, presumably they'd do something similar with the few necromancy spells they think Bards should keep too.
3) I'm attempting to explain to you why they're doing what they're doing. You're welcome to figure it out on your own if you prefer that.
1) Statistics and citation, please. But regardless, there are still players who play those levels.
2) The spells in the UA had their schools changed, yes, and that's a lot more work than letting players pick what's thematic for their character. It seems like a complicated way of building class lists hidden within those spell lists. I have been considering just allowing for a selection of two schools and including evocation. Bards did also have evocation spells, particularly my Fireball spells that I was casting at two levels higher than the wizard in the group. Wall of Fire was available in 1e and 2e. Part of the line with 5e was trying to be able to recreate characters from previous editions and the choice of spell list does that fairly well. If I want to try and build someone like Kvothe then evocation is applicable.
3) I don't need help "figuring out what they're doing". They are using the playtest and feed back surveys in the same way focus groups work. Behind the scenes they'll be brainstorming ideas to present. Then they present the ideas to gain feedback that they interpret. After they interpret the feedback they might scrap a concept, adjust it, or move forward with it. That's still them asking us for our opinions, not telling us what our opinions are. ;-)
Being limited to a single list with some schools is the worst approach I've seen for bards in this game (my opinion, oc).
When druids were introduced the spell list was designed as medium between clerics and wizards, which bards claimed. 3e went back to 1e roots with a broad spell list. 4e supported a combination of leader and controller and that provided a broad range. Both 3e and 4e avoided high damage which is why I hesitate with evocation spells. 5e continued the broad spell list without a lot of damaging spells.
2e bards were limited to mage spells but they weren't limited in schools. Those made for a specific style of bard that was fun to play even if that version did not match up with history and folklore. They didn't need to restrict schools because wizards had more spell slots while the XP progression, bonus XP awards, and caster level rules favored bards. Arcane recovery, signature spells, and spell mastery exist in 5e so wizards still have more spell slots; but level progression benefits and caster level progression has disappeared.
A versatile spell list is iconic to the class and schools didn't need to be restricted in the one edition this wasn't true. What we have in the UA bard is the worst of both worlds. There's no access to the full arcane list and the combined spell list is gone. Instead we have a major complaint we saw with 5e sorcerers -- largely the same spell list as wizards but not nearly the full list.
Skill advantages aren't usually that significant outside of a few specific scenarios. They can be useful, for sure, but they are often overstated. JoaT's is a low bonus for a very long time to many things (and it's now picked up later), and expertise is only a small bonus over proficiency until higher levels and only to a couple of skill proficiencies. It's also limited by what bounded accuracy and those DC's allow. Feats like skilled or skill expert marginalize skill benefits as a class feature.
Bardic inspiration can be useful but the number of uses has been pushed back with proficiency bonus instead of CHA bonus and font of inspiration coming later. The divine spell list has a lot of buffs, however; and the bard list lost buffs. The musician feat is a better bonus more often until bardic inspiration gets to a higher level. Advantage on checks from the help action are easy to give without resource management. Inspiring leader was changed so that WIS meets the prerequisite allowing clerics to pick it up easily. Bardic inspiration can be useful but it's also marginalized by other abilities of other classes.
Feats have class group prerequisites so bards (experts) will not have access to feats for spell casters (mage, priest) but paladins (priest) do. This includes epic feats. The iconic abilities of bardic knowledge were removed in 5e but now the cleric has the scholar feature that can replicate the concept. This also gets back to skill benefits consistently being given to other classes to marginalize the skill benefits of the expert class.
If I want to make a bard I'm better off to make a cleric. I can add iconic skill benefits with a better bonus than expertise gives by adding WIS bonus using scholar. The class starts with better armor, adds bonus damage to weapons, adds smite spells or other combat spells, has a full spell list, and offers a lot of buffs and some crowd control. There's no need to add healing spells because those are part of the base class with a better access a level earlier.
If a cleric is a better healer, better buffer, better fighter, better caster, and can access skill benefits in the base class instead of through subclasses would would we expect bards to add abilities through subclasses that should be in the base class? Spell variety is one of the defining features of the class and that's gone in a bad way.
I mentioned earlier that the spell lists are repeating a mistake with the sorcerer. A weak base class that adds it potential through subclasses is repeating the mistake made with rangers. We're heading back into an old bard issue where people expressed that there wasn't much point to play a bard because anything they did another class did better. Why would we repeat the mistakes of the past?
I said during my playtest that I thought Bards were good with the 4 from Arcane, but that they should also get Necromancy and Abjuration from the Primal Spell List. Calling back to their roots with the druid spells. Instead of songs of restoration.
This opens up Spare the Dying and Resistance Cantrip,
Cure wounds, Healing word (1st)
Gentle Repose, Lesser Restoration, Pass without Trace (this one I don't think should be Abjuration personally I think it should be transmutation), Protection From poison (2nd level)
Dispel Magic, Feign Death, Mass Healing Word, Nondetection, Protection From Energy, Revivify (3rd)
Freedom Of Movement (4th)
Antilife Shell, Greater Restoration, Mass Cure Wounds, Reincarnate (5th)
Heal (this may be the big no no, but at this level Bards have Magical Secrets anyway) (6th)
Nothing 7, nothing 8, 9 True Resurrection and Power Word Heal.
All very on theme for the Bard, except MAYBE pass without trace. Feign Death is a surprise pick up here that is cool thematically to the bard due to "acting".
@Ashrym:
1a) D&D Beyond released player stats showing 90% of character in active campaigns are level 10 or lower
1b) The vast majority of published modules end at 14 or lower. This includes the most recent ones like Golden Vault, Radiant Citadel, Netherdeep etc.
2) If you're having fun with bards casting Fireball and Wall of Fire, great! That's what Magical Secrets is for. But that doesn't mean WotC has to make that easy or automatic for them either.
3) I'm glad you're sharing your opinion; I'm doing the same. That's all.
1) That doesn't mean the other players aren't playing, or that they don't matter, or that those levels don't exist.
2) That's not what magical secrets are for. Magical secrets add spells outside of the basic class and I'm discussing what should be included within the basic class. Not the same thing. There's no reason to load so much into a class like a cleric and force another class like a bard to require the subclasses to do the same.
3) What you decide secrets is for is still just you projecting your idea of what the bard themes are instead of recognizing the other bard themes that I have mentioned. That's the same with spells and other abilities. You haven't given a reason other than that's what you think but I gave several to support what I am doing.
Try playing it and giving feedback instead of poopooing it, lol.
I dig that, almost all those spells seem to fit and the one or two that don't are fine to slip in imo.
1) It does mean that you can't point to a level 15 feature and be like "see, it gets fun eventually!" when the vast majority of players won't ever see that. Again, most bards will get a single MS list.
2) There absolutely is a reason; the Arcane list is the strongest list in the game. Unless you want Bard to be strictly better than Sorcerer and Warlock, that means some limits on their spell access are needed.
3) I do have a reason besides traditional Bard theme - game balance relative to other arcane classes as mentioned above. Bard already has the built in advantages of armor proficiency, inspiration, healing and high skills - letting them run hog wild with casting from any school of the strongest list in the game is a bridge too far balance-wise, not just thematically. (Though it certainly runs afoul of that, too.)
If the only opinions you want are beatific ones instead of "poopooing" well I'm sorry, but this is an open discussion forum - dissenting opinions are allowed here.
1) What does a level 15 feature have to do with anything being fun the rest of the time? Hi levels exist. That's pretty much all there is to it. Dismissing them doesn't make any sense.
2) Bard already have access to the arcane list. There's no reason to think bards having access to more spells on the list would somehow be an issue because, for example, a 3rd level spell is a 3rd level spell because it's as powerful as a 3rd level spell. Vampiric Touch or Animate Dead aren't more powerful than other 3rd level spells like Major Image or Major Image because spell level is how we quantify the power of a spell, not school. What differentiates the warlock or sorcerer or wizard are the abilities those classes have instead of bardic inspiration and skill benefits.
3) Game balance is something you would need to demonstrate instead of state. Light armor isn't better than Mage Armor, clerics and druids have better armor without needing those spell restrictions and also have healing and also have buffs and also have good spells, etc. I already explained all of those things. If that's unbalanced then there are other spell casters very unbalanced. Have you play-tested any of the UA classes? You are also still wrong about thematic bards. I mentioned a few already and will point out that praising and singing to the spirits of the ancestors is very much thematic for bards.
In Songs for the Dead: Afterlife, Bethany is a bard who uses necromancy as well as having an affinity for nature and love for the living and dead. Forcing that into a subclass prevents the choice of lore (more knowledge based) or valor (more warrior based) when both should have access to that trope. People making a bard that follows these tropes are making their characters. It's not up to you to decide the theme they use for their character. Those themes exist whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.
The balance issue you mentioned doesn't exist. At least not until demonstrated.
The theme issue you mentioned definitely doesn't exist.
So I would prefer you to; a) play these classes and give feedback based on that play with examples; b) demonstrate the balance issue you are concerned about; or c) have a good day ;-)
Why should they? Defining classes is always equally about what they cannot do and what they can do and quite honestly the design of current D&D is to put specific tropes into subclasses whereas the overall class is a rather generic scaffold. There are a huge number of people who love the "skald" or "bardbarian" trope to the extent that tons of people play or make builds of that MC despite it being terrible. But the official classes and subclasses do not support that trope. There is no obligation by a game to allow everyone to play every kind of character that has existed in any kind of media ever. If you want to play a singing druidic necromancer you can easily do so in One D&D by taking the Musician feat at level 1 and playing a druid and taking one of the skill granting feats at level 4, and/or maybe taking Fey Touched to boost your illusion options.
2) Bards have access to a limited list, in practice all spells are not equal at a level. But even if that were true access to more spells gives more options which is always more powerful than less options, and even if the spells are balanced the number of spells per school isn't. There are levels in the PH where for example enchantment does not even get a spell so being able to select the schools you want will be a potent ability.
3) arcane spells are by and large better than primal and divine spells those spheres will be better in their specialties but in the more general spell casting list arcane is just better, that is why druids and bards can get by with better armor without being unbalanced, though 1d&D druid is in the same boat as bard there.
I generally agree with your idea that if its not a balance issue then don't argue about the thematic elements of how a player uses it, which is why assuming they balanced ranged and melee combat I am fine with ranged smites, its why I want unarmed and more weapons added to the rogues sneak attack. But access to more spells even if the spells are balanced is a balance issue.
That being said I am not sure your proposal is unbalanced enough to care. Your 2 fixes divination/enchantment are fairly mid you are giving up illusion and transmutation for your flexible slots. Transmutation is probably the best school, illusion is very DM dependent but I can't say that necromancy, conjuration or abjuration is better. It may give a slight boost to bards but they could probably use a slight boost.
I always have a good day 🙂
As for those issues "not existing" - take it up with Crawford, not me. Survey feedback seemed very in favor of the new Bard ("high 70s/low 80s" which clears the threshold.)
Spell level is how we define the relative power level of a spell.
2) My proposed changes still give a limited spell list. There just more variety in the creation of that limited spell list.
3) If arcane spells are generally more powerful in someone's opinion then changing from arcane to divine or primal would be a trade down in power in making that choice. Equal to or less than doesn't create a balance issue.
The spell access is traded off. I think the other proposed option of adding abjuration and allowing access to all 3 spell lists gives access to more spells than the system I proposed. The thematic part should be a choice of the player. The music is magic concept applied to modern non-mainstream comics like the KISS versions or The Roadie have demonstrated a lot more variety in the tropes than some people think.
Quick question, though: have you tried my changes to see how bards play out under those changes?