The point of selecting a single list is to make bards customized by style.
Sure, but you're already doing that by choosing schools of magic; so long as you can't choose from too many schools of magic then you're still creating your own customised "Bard" list, but limited by schools of magic rather than Arcane/Divine/Primal.
If the maximum is four schools of magic then while you will have access to (roughly) half of all spells, you still don't have access to the other half (except as Magical Secrets) so you've still got a limited spell list roughly in line with the size of the core spell lists, limited further by the number of spells you can actually prepare. You could limit it to three schools of magic to be sure they can't end up with more (as some schools are over-represented), but I'm not sure that's really needed if evocation isn't a permitted choice.
I think it's the easier way to do it, otherwise players need to deal with the fact that some lists have fewer spells from some schools of magic, which means in practice the choice of which schools to take will feel redundant because each list has its best schools to pick (most spells to choose from or strongest spells) and its worst (poorly represented by that list), so it feels less like a choice in the end.
I also think selecting the spell list emphasizes a the style of bard. Not all bards will have access to healing spells, but bards who want to be healers obviously could.
The "build your own spell list" does seem appealing and thematic to bards.
Some spell lists could be shorter based on spell list but I would expect players to take that into consideration when selecting schools.
What do you think of changing it to something like this....?
Bard Level
Class Features
1
Bardic Inspiration, Spell Casting
The bard can prepare divination or enchantment spells from any spell list. Additionally, the bard may select feats with the “mage” tag.
2
Expertise, Magical Secrets
The bard selects one spell school from one spell list and can prepare those spells.
3
Bard Subclass
4
Feat
5
Font of Inspiration, Jack of All Trade
6
Subclass Feature
7
Magical Secrets
The bard selects one spell school from one spell list and can prepare those spells.
8
Feat
9
Expertise
10
Subclass Feature
11
Magical Secrets
The bard selects one spell school from one spell list and can prepare those spells.
12
Feat
13
14
Subclass Feature
15
Magical Secrets
The bard selects one spell school from one spell list and can prepare those spells.
16
Feat
17
18
Superior Bardic Inspiration
19
Feat
20
Epic Boon
That would slow down the current 4 schools (divination, enchantment, illusion, and transmutation) a bit but give a broader range of divinations and enchantments, and ends up with 6 schools from the lists. That would be building a spell list as the class progresses.
Leave the spell progression as is, leave armor training as light and add shield training.
So, right now, we have a half-caster Divine class (Paladin), a half-caster Primal class (Ranger), and a half-caster Arcane class (Warlock). The Warlock is very different from the other two in that they are NOT "half caster, half martial", but I'm ok with that. I don't think we truly need a half-Arcane/half-Martial class, as long as we end up with an EK, and the AT, I think partial-Arcane casters are covered well enough that I'm not worried about it.
But I do kind of like the idea of a half-caster any-list class. (Weren't Bards half-casters in 3e? or was that more 2e-ish?). Double Down on "Jack of all Trades, Master of None". Get rid of "Songs of Restoration", and "Magical Secrets". Replace them with the ability to pick spells from all 3 of the big lists (Arcane, Divine, Primal). But, they're only half-casters, so they are "Master of None" compared to Clerics, Druids, and Wizards. I think it would really strongly make them the "little bit of everything" highly flexible class.
(Keeping Magical Secrets only makes sense if they're able to use it to learn restricted spells ... which I am not sure is a good idea)
Bards were never "half-casters". That's not even a game term; it's a construct of discussion based entirely on spell progression without acknowledging other factors.
"not even a[n in] game term" -- correct, it's a broad and colloquial term, which therefore doesn't require precision in its application. It merely references that in some way, a given class has half as much potential or progression as the top-line casters of that edition.
"based solely on spell progression without acknowledging other factors" -- and? Every legitimately classified "half caster" class has "other factors" that make up for it. That's a pointless counter to suit your own cherry picking in this conversation.
In previous editions bards cast spells at their class level like clerics, druids, wizards, and sorcerers. Rangers and Paladins cast spells lower than their class levels. Based on caster level instead, bards would be "full casters".
In 2e, maximum spell level was based on caster stat and different classes had different maximum levels in addition to that. Only mages cast spells up to a 9th level spell list and only with much more INT than within standard deviation of the rolling method. All bards could cast 6th-level spells while clerics and druids cast 5th-level to 7th-level spells based on ability score. Based on max spell level we would either reclassify clerics and druids as "half-casters" or acknowledge bards as "full casters".
4e gave bards arcane spells at the same progression as everyone else.
3.x used the combined method of a spell table and a lot of magical songs as a secondary resource. That spell list also gave "bard iconic spells" at the same or similar level to "full casters" by placing the spells at different spell levels for different classes. The combination of the two magical sources was also equivalent to "full casters" by taking that secondary resource into consideration.
In 3x, Bard's progression was severely less steep than a Wizard. Precisely half? No. Close enough? Yes.
In 1e, where Bards make their first appearance, they must first spend 75000 - 200000ish xp (which was the character to character comparison metric, since not all classes had the same cost of levels, so total-levels to total-levels comparisons weren't quite the same) without getting spells at all. By that point, a Magic-User (Wizard), which was the top tier caster of that edition, has 5th level spells. When the Bard gets to their peak spell casting ability, they will be at 3,200,000xp and only have 5th level spells. The Magic-User/Wizard, at that many XP, has 9th level spells. Precisely half? no. But close enough.
In all 3 of those editions (1e, 2e, 3e), Bards peaked at 5th level spells compared to the top line caster(s) peaking at 9th level spells. Roughly half (if you round it up instead of dropping the fraction).
Are Clerics and Druids somewhere in between those, in 1st and 2nd editions? Yes. Does that change anything in this assertion or terminology? No.
Bards didn't have the same spell casting peak until after 3e.
Calling bards "half-casters" is either cherry-picking a single element and ignoring other relevant elements, or being disingenuous, because full caster level, similar spell levels or spells at similar levels (depending on edition), and similar amount of magic by combined magical resources.
"cherry picking a single element and ignoring other relevant elements" -- every class that doesn't have a full emphasis on casting has a similar "other relevant elements". It's a completely pointless counter-argument that doesn't change where a class stands in comparing their _spell_casting_ power relative to other classes. It makes NO claim about the class's overall capabilities. To complain that it doesn't reflect their full capabilities is the only disingenuous argument here.
So, right now, we have a half-caster Divine class (Paladin), a half-caster Primal class (Ranger), and a half-caster Arcane class (Warlock). The Warlock is very different from the other two in that they are NOT "half caster, half martial", but I'm ok with that. I don't think we truly need a half-Arcane/half-Martial class, as long as we end up with an EK, and the AT, I think partial-Arcane casters are covered well enough that I'm not worried about it.
But I do kind of like the idea of a half-caster any-list class. (Weren't Bards half-casters in 3e? or was that more 2e-ish?). Double Down on "Jack of all Trades, Master of None". Get rid of "Songs of Restoration", and "Magical Secrets". Replace them with the ability to pick spells from all 3 of the big lists (Arcane, Divine, Primal). But, they're only half-casters, so they are "Master of None" compared to Clerics, Druids, and Wizards. I think it would really strongly make them the "little bit of everything" highly flexible class.
(Keeping Magical Secrets only makes sense if they're able to use it to learn restricted spells ... which I am not sure is a good idea)
Bards were never "half-casters". That's not even a game term; it's a construct of discussion based entirely on spell progression without acknowledging other factors.
"not even a[n in] game term" -- correct, it's a broad and colloquial term, which therefore doesn't require precision in its application. It merely references that in some way, a given class has half as much potential or progression as the top-line casters of that edition.
"based solely on spell progression without acknowledging other factors" -- and? Every legitimately classified "half caster" class has "other factors" that make up for it. That's a pointless counter to suit your own cherry picking in this conversation.
In previous editions bards cast spells at their class level like clerics, druids, wizards, and sorcerers. Rangers and Paladins cast spells lower than their class levels. Based on caster level instead, bards would be "full casters".
In 2e, maximum spell level was based on caster stat and different classes had different maximum levels in addition to that. Only mages cast spells up to a 9th level spell list and only with much more INT than within standard deviation of the rolling method. All bards could cast 6th-level spells while clerics and druids cast 5th-level to 7th-level spells based on ability score. Based on max spell level we would either reclassify clerics and druids as "half-casters" or acknowledge bards as "full casters".
4e gave bards arcane spells at the same progression as everyone else.
3.x used the combined method of a spell table and a lot of magical songs as a secondary resource. That spell list also gave "bard iconic spells" at the same or similar level to "full casters" by placing the spells at different spell levels for different classes. The combination of the two magical sources was also equivalent to "full casters" by taking that secondary resource into consideration.
In 3x, Bard's progression was severely less steep than a Wizard. Precisely half? No. Close enough? Yes.
In 1e, where Bards make their first appearance, they must first spend 75000 - 200000ish xp (which was the character to character comparison metric, since not all classes had the same cost of levels, so total-levels to total-levels comparisons weren't quite the same) without getting spells at all. By that point, a Magic-User (Wizard), which was the top tier caster of that edition, has 5th level spells. When the Bard gets to their peak spell casting ability, they will be at 3,200,000xp and only have 5th level spells. The Magic-User/Wizard, at that many XP, has 9th level spells. Precisely half? no. But close enough.
In all 3 of those editions (1e, 2e, 3e), Bards peaked at 5th level spells compared to the top line caster(s) peaking at 9th level spells. Roughly half (if you round it up instead of dropping the fraction).
Are Clerics and Druids somewhere in between those, in 1st and 2nd editions? Yes. Does that change anything in this assertion or terminology? No.
Bards didn't have the same spell casting peak until after 3e.
Calling bards "half-casters" is either cherry-picking a single element and ignoring other relevant elements, or being disingenuous, because full caster level, similar spell levels or spells at similar levels (depending on edition), and similar amount of magic by combined magical resources.
"cherry picking a single element and ignoring other relevant elements" -- every class that doesn't have a full emphasis on casting has a similar "other relevant elements". It's a completely pointless counter-argument that doesn't change where a class stands in comparing their _spell_casting_ power relative to other classes. It makes NO claim about the class's overall capabilities. To complain that it doesn't reflect their full capabilities is the only disingenuous argument here.
Disagree.
""not even a[n in] game term" -- correct, it's a broad and colloquial term, which therefore doesn't require precision in its application. It merely references that in some way, a given class has half as much potential or progression as the top-line casters of that edition."
It's not a colloquial term either. It's a reference to the spellcasting progression in a single edition being misapplied to other editions in this case.
""based solely on spell progression without acknowledging other factors" -- and? Every legitimately classified "half caster" class has "other factors" that make up for it. That's a pointless counter to suit your own cherry picking in this conversation."
That comment makes no sense because other classes to which you allude are gaining other factors that are not related to spell casting. I listed other factors specifically applicable to spell casting. Would you like to support your claim that these other factors that actually restricted spell casting for paladins and rangers instead of supported spell casting for paladins and rangers somehow is comparable to the other features bards had that supported them as spell casters?
"In 3x, Bard's progression was severely less steep than a Wizard. Precisely half? No. Close enough? Yes."
Repeating a comment like that completely illustrates my point that your only looking at a single aspect while missing the big picture. Sorcerers were one step behind wizards as well. Does that make them half-casters? Bards were one step behind sorcerers, the same difference as sorcerers were compared to wizards. If you're looking at the top progression as the baseline then other classes fall short, but bards were a lot closer to wizards than paladins and rangers were to bards.
"In 1e, where Bards make their first appearance, they must first spend 75000 - 200000ish xp (which was the character to character comparison metric, since not all classes had the same cost of levels, so total-levels to total-levels comparisons weren't quite the same) without getting spells at all. By that point, a Magic-User (Wizard), which was the top tier caster of that edition, has 5th level spells. When the Bard gets to their peak spell casting ability, they will be at 3,200,000xp and only have 5th level spells. The Magic-User/Wizard, at that many XP, has 9th level spells. Precisely half? no. But close enough."
Bards weren't an official class until 2e. In 1e they were a cobbled PrC type of build that Gygax massively altered from the original from The Strategic Review Volume 2, Number 1. That optional bard was, as I'm pointing out, optional and also not the original class. It was also reimagined in 1e within Dragon Magazine issue 56 that cast up to 7th level spells like the cleric, druid, and illusionist lists.
One of the first thing in the 1e appendix version states, "Even though this presentation is greatly modified from the original bard..." The original bard attacked and saved as a cleric, could use any weapon, and started casting spells at 2nd level like basic DnD clerics. They also advanced up to 7th level spells like almost every other spellcasting class.
The version to which you are referring had the same caster level as a druid, except bards didn't need to fight for higher levels and druids had no option for higher levels until Unearthed Arcana came out. But the Dragon Magazine article was also a significant powerhouse expanding into later class versions. The PHB bard had full druid spell list and cast those spells at a higher caster level than PHB druids could obtain and had mass charm to use like candy that included inflicting a penalty on the save against all those free suggestion spells they could cast on charmed opponents. Plus they could shapeshift like a druid and inspire like bards.
Those 6 low level druid spells and 4 low level magic-use spells rangers had with the caster level cap and lack of spell caster support doesn't remotely compare to those bards. Given your spell progression choice then no spell caster class is a full spell caster because the wizard was the only class with "full progression".
Here is the XP comparison for you:
3.2M XP
Level
Max Spell Level
Avg Max Spell Level
Caster Level
Bard (Appendix)
23
5
5
23
Illusionist
21
7
7
21
Cleric
21
7
5
21
Magic-User
18
9
7
18
Paladin
16
4
4
16
Ranger
16
3
3
16
Druid
15
7
7
15
Caster level was a thing. At the XP you gave bards cast spells at a higher caster level than every other option.
Maximum spell level based on ability scores was a thing. The average ability score spread had bards and clerics both casting 5th level spells at that XP level, and massively better caster level than druids. Illusionists stack rank better than wizards based on spell level and caster level because and the maximum spell level restrictions.
At those levels classes could cast different numbers of spells: cleric (44), druid (42 iirc; didn't pull out the Unearthed Arcana), illusionist (32), wizard (31), bard (25 + massive charm / suggestion), paladin (12), ranger (10). 25 spells plus the SLA's is very close to wizard. Unlike 10-12 spells, which isn't even half of the bard abilities let alone other casters. You can't compare bards to rangers and paladins based on bards compared to wizards without looking at rangers and paladins. GG.
Those optional bards needed to dual class but the XP needed to do so didn't take long. If you want to play a 1e bard like the appendix version then take 5 levels of fighter, 6 levels of rogue, 9 levels of druid, and pick up the musician feat at some point. Then you can be that "half-caster" you want to be. But they very comparable to major spell casters.
"In all 3 of those editions (1e, 2e, 3e), Bards peaked at 5th level spells compared to the top line caster(s) peaking at 9th level spells. Roughly half (if you round it up instead of dropping the fraction)."
The original bards and DrM bards peaked at 7th level spells just like clerics, druids, and illusionists. The multiclass figher/rogue/druid bards were exactly that and not what you think bards are. And again, you're ignoring standard dice rolls that limited spell levels or caster level.
So let's compare 2e like I just did for 1e:
Class (2.2M XP)
Level
Max Spell Level
Avg Max Spell Level
Caster Level
Bard
20
6
6
20
Cleric
17
7
5
17
Wizard
16
8
7
16
Druid
14
7
5
14
Ranger
16
3
3
9
Paladin
16
4
4
8
I gave the XP for peak spells on the table for bards like you did for 1e. Like 1e, 2e had varied XP reqs to level up and caster level was very relevant. Ability scores also determined restricted maximum spell regardless of the class table. Average rolls limited it. Lucky rolls are not the baseline. Bards also gain more bonus XP than other classes so bards would cast spells at higher caster levels than other classes. They uses full caster level like other major caster as opposed to rangers and paladins who were many caster levels below everyone else.
6th level spells compared to 5th level spells (typical rolls) for clerics and druids is better, and 6th level spells compared to 6th level spells with luckier rolls or 7th level with max rolls is more similar to full casters than 3rd or 4th level for rangers and paladins. Like 1e, bards bard could throw out the ability to influence reactions like candy with a penalty against the targets on paralyzation.
The idea that the progression was slower on the table doesn't mean anything when the actual level progression was much faster due to the experience aspect and bonuses to that experience. Wizards could potentially get up to 9th level spells with more time and the lucky rolls but are going to be 7th level spells based on average rolls and are playing catch up in caster level.
Here's 3.x for comparison where class progression ended the XP variation. Here's the 20th level comparison:
Class
Caster Lever
Spell Level
Spells Known / Prepped (+Songs)
Spells Cast (+Songs)
Note:
Cleric
20
9
56
56
Druid
20
9
47
47
+shape*6
Sorc
20
9
43
60
Wiz
20
9
40
40
specialization+10ea
Bard
20
6
37
48
see below
Pally
10
4
12
12
+loh
Ranger
10
4
12
12
Notes on the bard: Spells are separated in class by spell level and the bard has access to some 8th level sorc/wiz spells, and the bard PrC's allow for 9th level spells. The suggestion, and mass suggestion DC's are also similar to 9th level spells, while fascinate has a massively higher save DC. Not all songs or minor abilities were listed in the classes, but you should understand that 3.x bards could cast mass suggestion 20 times per day using songs if they wanted.
3e made bards full casters with the application of song mechanics supporting spell casting. Bards have never peaked at 5th level spells outside of the a single appendix variation in a single edition.
"Are Clerics and Druids somewhere in between those, in 1st and 2nd editions? Yes. Does that change anything in this assertion or terminology? No."
When 1e and 2e clerics and druids were casting spells at 5th level based on average ability score rolling and other 1e bards could cast 7th level spells while 2e bards could cast 6th level spells then your assertion is flawed. When 3.x bards had access to 8th level spells hidden within the spell structure and magical songs to support magic your assertion is flawed. When bards were similar to clerics and druids in 2e, 4e, and 5e but only had a single spell progression that was behind in a single edition that you are using and can only be claimed to be behind by ignoring songs your assertion is flawed.
When you compare the "half-caster" classes of ranger and paladin it's clear that bards are far closer to clerics and druids in every single edition.
"Bards didn't have the same spell casting peak until after 3e."
4e and 5e are half of all the editions bards were an official class. The only difference is they caught up to other major spell casters one edition later than clerics and druids after the songs were added into the spells because those combine as a "full caster".
"every class that doesn't have a full emphasis on casting has a similar "other relevant elements"
Such as? You didn't give any examples outside of incorrect spell levels for bards based on charts while ignoring things like class XP progression, caster level, and magical songs. The other elements for the bard are specifically related to their abilities as a major spell caster.
So, right now, we have a half-caster Divine class (Paladin), a half-caster Primal class (Ranger), and a half-caster Arcane class (Warlock). The Warlock is very different from the other two in that they are NOT "half caster, half martial", but I'm ok with that. I don't think we truly need a half-Arcane/half-Martial class, as long as we end up with an EK, and the AT, I think partial-Arcane casters are covered well enough that I'm not worried about it.
But I do kind of like the idea of a half-caster any-list class. (Weren't Bards half-casters in 3e? or was that more 2e-ish?). Double Down on "Jack of all Trades, Master of None". Get rid of "Songs of Restoration", and "Magical Secrets". Replace them with the ability to pick spells from all 3 of the big lists (Arcane, Divine, Primal). But, they're only half-casters, so they are "Master of None" compared to Clerics, Druids, and Wizards. I think it would really strongly make them the "little bit of everything" highly flexible class.
(Keeping Magical Secrets only makes sense if they're able to use it to learn restricted spells ... which I am not sure is a good idea)
Bards were never "half-casters". That's not even a game term; it's a construct of discussion based entirely on spell progression without acknowledging other factors.
""not even a[n in] game term" -- correct, it's a broad and colloquial term, which therefore doesn't require precision in its application. It merely references that in some way, a given class has half as much potential or progression as the top-line casters of that edition."
It's not a colloquial term either. It's a reference to the spellcasting progression in a single edition being misapplied to other editions in this case.
You can't have it both ways. If it's not an official game term, then it doesn't have a pedantically official meaning, either. And applying terms retroactively is a long honored tradition in analysis between current and past editions. Just because you're butt-hurt about it doesn't mean it's not a legitimate way to communicate a valid concept. And because the multiclass level multiplier directly relates to the maximum spell level of the class (and "adding your class level to a spell" is no longer even a concept in the edition where the term emerged, making that idea irrelevant despite the fact that you keep trying to bring it into the conversation) the term equally applies to:
"the multiclass level multiplier" and "the class's maximum spell level / casting potency"
They're the same thing, because they directly relate to each other.
""based solely on spell progression without acknowledging other factors" -- and? Every legitimately classified "half caster" class has "other factors" that make up for it. That's a pointless counter to suit your own cherry picking in this conversation."
That comment makes no sense because other classes to which you allude are gaining other factors that are not related to spell casting.
The term and conversation aren't about the class's overall potency outside of spell casting. It is ONLY about spell casting. You yourself just said "other factors that are not related to spell casting", which is why all of the other BS you're bringing up is irrelevant to the term "half-caster". That's why my statement and comments make sense, and your comments are irrelevant butt-hurt pedantic BS.
I listed other factors specifically applicable to spell casting. Would you like to support your claim that these other factors that actually restricted spell casting for paladins and rangers instead of supported spell casting for paladins and rangers somehow is comparable to the other features bards had that supported them as spell casters?
"In 3x, Bard's progression was severely less steep than a Wizard. Precisely half? No. Close enough? Yes."
Repeating a comment like that completely illustrates my point that your only looking at a single aspect while missing the big picture.
The term in question is only about a single aspect, and not about "the big picture". Which is why your objection is full of crap.
"In 1e, where Bards make their first appearance, they must first spend 75000 - 200000ish xp (which was the character to character comparison metric, since not all classes had the same cost of levels, so total-levels to total-levels comparisons weren't quite the same) without getting spells at all. By that point, a Magic-User (Wizard), which was the top tier caster of that edition, has 5th level spells. When the Bard gets to their peak spell casting ability, they will be at 3,200,000xp and only have 5th level spells. The Magic-User/Wizard, at that many XP, has 9th level spells. Precisely half? no. But close enough."
Bards weren't an official class until 2e. In 1e they were a cobbled PrC type of build that Gygax massively altered from the original from The Strategic Review Volume 2, Number 1. That optional bard was, as I'm pointing out, optional and also not the original class. It was also reimagined in 1e within Dragon Magazine issue 56 that cast up to 7th level spells like the cleric, druid, and illusionist lists.
Optional is not the same as unofficial. Nothing in the 1e rules states that they were "unofficial". They're also not even actually stated to be optional, just that you don't start out as one.
They were a non-standard class, not an unofficial class. Their status change from 1e to 2e is not "becoming official" nor "becoming non-optional". Their status change is from "not a standard starting class" to "a standard starting class."
Level
Max Spell Level
Bard (Appendix)
23
5
Illusionist
21
7
Cleric
21
7
Magic-User
18
9
Paladin
16
4
Ranger
16
3
Druid
15
7
[eliminating columns that aren't relevant to the assertion -- since the 5e colloquialism of half-caster concisely maps/relates to maximum spell level for the class)
Would you look at that, the maximum spell casting potency for a 1e bard is ... 5. Compared to the top bieng... 9. Half of 9, rounded to the mathematical nearest, is 5. Imagine that.
5 is half. Bards had half the potential of the primary caster class of which there was only 1 at the very top).
"In all 3 of those editions (1e, 2e, 3e), Bards peaked at 5th level spells compared to the top line caster(s) peaking at 9th level spells. Roughly half (if you round it up instead of dropping the fraction)."
The original bards and DrM bards peaked at 7th level spells just like clerics, druids, and illusionists. The multiclass figher/rogue/druid bards were exactly that and not what you think bards are. And again, you're ignoring standard dice rolls that limited spell levels or caster level.
So let's compare 2e like I just did for 1e:
I didn't say 2.2e, I said 2e. Also, fixed the "Cleric" line for you: the table in 2e was for the Priest.
Class
Level
Max Spell Level
Bard
20
6
Priest
17
7
Wizard
16
9
Ranger
16
3
Paladin
16
4
3e:
Class
Caster Lever
Spell Level
Cleric
20
9
Druid
20
9
Sorc
20
9
Wiz
20
9
Bard
20
6
Pally
10
4
Ranger
10
4
The only thing I said that was incorrect was that the Bard peaked at 6, not 5. Off by one. Still significantly less than the primary casting class(es) (where 1e and 2e only had one such class, but 3e expands that to four such classes, and doesn't include the bard). Further, we don't usually talk about "two-thirds casters", just full, half, and sometimes one-third. Is "two-thirds" closer to "half" or "full"? It's not much of a mystery.
"Are Clerics and Druids somewhere in between those, in 1st and 2nd editions? Yes. Does that change anything in this assertion or terminology? No."
When you compare the "half-caster" classes of ranger and paladin it's clear that bards are far closer to clerics and druids in every single edition.
Only if you're incapable of doing math. Looking at the relevant information above, the difference between a Bard and Paladin in the above table for 1e: difference of 1. Difference between the Bard and Cleric or Druid? 2. For a Ranger? 2. So closer to a Paladin than a Cleric or Druid, not closer (and not FAR closer) to a Cleric or Druid than they are to a Ranger.
2e? The thing I actually said is still valid: Priests (Clerics and Druids) are still in between the Bard and the top line (Wizard). 6 for the Bard, 7 for the Priest and Druid, 9 for the Wizard.
For 3e? The difference between a Bard and Ranger or Paladin is 2. The difference between the Bard and the top/full caster classes (Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer and Wizard)? 3. The Bard is closer to the Paladin and Ranger.
Your assertion here barely holds water. It's absolutely not true in every edition, and the thing you replied to was still true even for the one case where you were correct.
"Bards didn't have the same spell casting peak until after 3e."
4e and 5e are half of all the editions bards were an official class.
5/2 = 2.5, which rounds to 3. The Bard was official in all 5 of 1e - 5e, so 4e and 5e are less than half of those editions.
After some thoughts and playing around with it more I came to the conclusion I might be overcomplicating the solution to the issue. Building one's own spell list is appealing, but the issues are a lack of inspiration at low levels and a lack of the typical spell variety from which to choose.
If we leave the class almost exactly as is in the playtest but replace the 3 musical instruments tool proficiency with a free musician feat (a valid 1st level option) then the inspiration plus bardic inspiration as presented makes the class feel more inspirational. Add the option to select feats with the mage tag.
Replace songs of restoration with a choice of thematic spells. Songs of restoration could be one of those choices and other possibilities might be something like these:
Songs of Protection: protection from good and evil, augury, dispel magic, death ward, dispel evil and good
Songs of Nature: animal friendship, locate animals or plants,conjure animals, dominate beast, commune with nature
Songs of the Cursed: hex, crown of madness, bestow curse, compulsion, geas
Songs of the Dead: ray of sickness, ray of enfeeblement, speak with the dead, blight, contagion
Those might need some workshopping but the gist is there.
A preset list of choices added at 2nd level instead songs of restoration removes being forced into healing and give the players that choice on character design, builds towards a theme, and restricts the players from a more open spell list. It also looks marketable with expansion settings if a person can add a thematic list for the setting.
Thoughts? Advice on spell lists? Would it be easier to add a 5th school at 2nd level that applies to all spell lists and allows for one prepared spell at each level within that school from spell levels 1 through 5?
I haven't given up on ways to increase the spell variety withing the bard selection. I still don't like the use of the same list as other arcane spell casters after the versatility of spell lists bard already have.
I like the idea. I like it a lot. Not sure I agree with the Songs of Battle list specifically, but the core idea is definitely a good one. I'm not sure Songs of Battle should just be a bunch of smite spells. Wrathful Smite, Spiritual Weapon, and some other "melee focused" spells would work well, IMO. Haste might be a good one to put in that list as well.
1- a 1st level bonus feat (instead of the 3 musical instruments) definitely promotes the idea of a jack of all trades, and also lets the exact definition of the bard slide a little. 2- The "Songs of ..." spell lists further let the Bard vary their exact role a little better, as well. Not just a secondary healer. Honestly, Songs of Restoration left me a little flat as their substitute for Bards having a spell list with heals on it ... but making the Songs be variable to the Bard's choice of role turns the Feature into one I actually rather like.
That's almost the same list but the names have been altered slightly. The changes to the UA are....
Change tool proficiencies to none.
Add the musician feat to bardic inspiration as a bonus feat. If the character already has the musician feat from another source (like background) then the number of allies to whom the bard can grant heroic inspiration doubles to twice the character's proficiency bonus and the bard does gain 3 additional tool proficiencies regardless of being a non-repeatable feat. What I like about this is that every character has the option to take the feat and inspire others but the bard has that extra benefit with the bardic inspiration die, there's more inspiration to go around, and the feat plus the BI dice have synergy to work together.
Add the ability to select feats with the mage tag to spellcasting. A spellcaster with that spell progression who cannot take those feats seems weird.
Replace songs of restoration with magical secrets. Magical secrets is a selection from a list of thematic spell groups gained at levels 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10 respectively. The names have the potential for thematic characteristics as well.
Songs of Restoration: healing word, lesser restoration, mass healing word, freedom of movement, greater restoration
Chants of Protection: protection from good and evil, augury, dispel magic, death ward, dispel evil and good
Words of Battle: heroism, magic weapon, crusader's mantle, stoneskin, circle of power
Melodies of Nature: animal friendship, locate animals or plants,conjure animals, dominate beast, commune with nature
Riddles of the Cursed: hex, crown of madness, bestow curse, compulsion, geas
Whispers of the Dead: ray of sickness, ray of enfeeblement, speak with the dead, blight, contagion
Improved magical secrets is the same as magical secrets and further magical secrets from the UA. What I like about this is it gives magical secrets a flow that progresses through the class a lot more and leans into a more thematic character.
Rather than a built-in musician feat, I'd actually prefer to see a choice of being a musical or song/voice bard, e.g- at first level you can choose to either use musical instruments, or your voice as a casting focus.
If you choose instruments you would gain one musical instrument proficiency (so there's still an advantage to taking Musician to get more), if you pick voice you get a language but all your spells require a vocal component (if you're silenced, you can't cast).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Rather than a built-in musician feat, I'd actually prefer to see a choice of being a musical or song/voice bard, e.g- at first level you can choose to either use musical instruments, or your voice as a casting focus.
If you choose instruments you would gain one musical instrument proficiency (so there's still an advantage to taking Musician to get more), if you pick voice you get a language but all your spells require a vocal component (if you're silenced, you can't cast).
Do you get to use that vocal component as a replacement for many material components (in the same way that a focus can replace many material components)?
If so, I could get behind that. I've often thought that limiting Bards to music is a little limiting in character concepts. Giving them singing over instrument-playing options is definitely something I would like to see, and also oratory options (motivational speakers, etc.).
You could also allow for ... interpretive dance. I mean ... ok, a little out there (and possibly a little tongue-in-cheek). But, being able to use/require Somatic components as a replacement for Material, in the same way that singing/oratory Bards might use/require Vocal components could be a thing. And maybe require that you burn some movement in order to cast, or have at least one empty space around you, things like that. (and obviously, you can't be grappled or restrained). Imagine a dance based sword bard ... who is quite like a wushu sword performer, which is often silent (of voice) and very dance like. So much so that some other martial artists used to criticize wushu as being more about dancing than fighting.
Do you get to use that vocal component as a replacement for many material components (in the same way that a focus can replace many material components)?
In the same way as a spellcasting focus, yeah, that's the idea; choose your focus at 1st-level.
You could also allow for ... interpretive dance. I mean ... ok, a little out there (and possibly a little tongue-in-cheek). But, being able to use/require Somatic components as a replacement for Material, in the same way that singing/oratory Bards might use/require Vocal components could be a thing.
Ooh, that'd be cool too; proficiency could be Acrobatics in that case?
Though I seem to recall there might be the possibility of Bards getting an official College of Dance sub-class, but I don't remember where I heard or read that. If that is the case though that might be intended to cover it somehow, though it would better to have this handled at 1st-level rather than a sub-class, so you're not stuck with a load of instruments you don't want until 3rd-level.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Do you get to use that vocal component as a replacement for many material components (in the same way that a focus can replace many material components)?
In the same way as a spellcasting focus, yeah, that's the idea.
You could also allow for ... interpretive dance. I mean ... ok, a little out there (and possibly a little tongue-in-cheek). But, being able to use/require Somatic components as a replacement for Material, in the same way that singing/oratory Bards might use/require Vocal components could be a thing.
Ooh, that'd be cool too; proficiency could be Acrobatics in that case?
Though I seem to recall there might be the possibility of Bards getting an official College of Dance sub-class, but I don't remember where I heard or read that. If that is the case though that might be intended to cover it somehow, though it would better to have this handled at 1st-level rather than a sub-class, so you're not stuck with a load of instruments you don't want until 3rd-level.
I agree: requires Acrobatics.
I would probably handle it as a 1st level choice that is comparable to the OneD&D Cleric's 2nd Level Holy Order.
Initial proficiencies are Performance skill, any 1 instrument or skill, and any 2 other skills. (multiclassers get 1 skill and either an instrument or Performance)
At 1st level, you get to pick one of Entertainment paths: Instrumental (pick 2 musical instruments) Vocal (Persuasion) Dance (Acrobatics)
These also determine things about your spell focus types (as we just went over) and spell component benefit/requirement.
So the existing bard build, done as an Instrumentalist gets 3 skills and 3 instruments. It's just that one of those 3 skills is forced to be Performance. They could instead decide to do 4 skills and 2 instruments. Or they can take the non-Instrumentalist paths, and be entirely free of instruments (3 skills + Performance + Persuasion or Acrobatics), or have 1 instrument in place of one of those skills... and the reduction in instruments gets them the ability to use Somatic or Verbal components as a requirement for all of their spells, but also as a substitute for the same Material components that a focus replaces.
Vocal can be explained as Singing, Public/Motivational Speaking, Acting, and/or Comedy.
I think that's the way to do it, though I'd probably allow Performance for Vocal as well (might be more of a singer than a silver tongue), or maybe even all three come to think of it, as Dexterity (Performance) is a possible option to resolve dancing as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Question? Do the bard players you guys play with really limit themselves to just being musicians just because of the class proficiencies? Because in my experience bard players are among the most creative and come up with all kinds of different character concepts, these are what I've seen in my games:
Question? Do the bard players you guys play with really limit themselves to just being musicians just because of the class proficiencies?
Yes and no; in my own characters not really, as I've played a college of eloquence con artisté who only ever carried a flute up his sleeve because I thought he had to (I'd have picked vocal casting if it were an option), a college of swords bardbarian who would suit physical, and a college of whispers spy who would probably also be physical or maybe vocal if these were options.
But I've also seen players who absolutely think of bards as musicians and nothing else, so won't play them even when told otherwise (or offered homebrew options to support other options); and players who gravitated towards bards and then took a load of instruments because it seemed like they were supposed to (whether it fit the character or not). There's no reason we can't have more options to support more builds and playstyles better by default. I had one asking just a few days ago asking how you build a Bard as a singer (hence my post), and my answer was that there's no particular way to do it, but I've seen people use the "voice as a focus, but all spells vocal" homebrew before.
If you compare to the casting focuses for other casting classes though, these are actually fairly broad as while you get a choice of 3-5 distinct types they're just examples; you don't actually need to take one of those, as a holy symbol is "anything that represents a god or pantheon", so it can be whatever you want (DM permitting – apparently it's too much for a religion's holy symbol to be a friendly tarrasque mount named Ser Stomps 😉).
Musical instrument by comparison is more limiting, as while you're free to choose instruments not listed as examples (contrary to D&D Beyond which doesn't let you choose a generic "musical instrument") that same freedom isn't there in RAW. Plus the musical instrument examples in 5e are pretty rubbish – there's like five or six instruments that are basically just variations of lute!
They could maybe just create "bardic focus" as a thing, and have musical instrument be an option within that, but being able to use yourself as a focus via motion or voice is very appealing.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
They could maybe just create "bardic focus" as a thing, and have musical instrument be an option within that, but being able to use yourself as a focus via motion or voice is very appealing.
The thing about the "use your voice/self" as a focus bit is it functionally eliminates any non-priced M component, and those components exist in part to allow for casters to be "disarmed" by the loss of their materials/foci. Also, the Bard class is rather expressly based around being at least partly a performer, so if you really try to remove that element you're basically making them another class, at least from the roleplay perspective.
The thing about the "use your voice/self" as a focus bit is it functionally eliminates any non-priced M component, and those components exist in part to allow for casters to be "disarmed" by the loss of their materials/foci.
Voice as a focus doesn't make you any harder to "disarm", as all that's required is for you to be gagged (unable to speak), just as a physical (somatic) option can simply be bound so they can't perform somatic components.
Also, the Bard class is rather expressly based around being at least partly a performer
Singers, poets etc. perform using only their voice (vocal), just as acrobats, dancers etc. perform only using their body (somatic).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The thing about the "use your voice/self" as a focus bit is it functionally eliminates any non-priced M component, and those components exist in part to allow for casters to be "disarmed" by the loss of their materials/foci.
Voice as a focus doesn't make you any harder to "disarm", as all that's required is for you to be gagged (unable to speak), just as a physical (somatic) option can simply be bound so they can't perform somatic components.
Also, the Bard class is rather expressly based around being at least partly a performer
Singers, poets etc. perform using only their voice (vocal), just as acrobats, dancers etc. perform only using their body (somatic).
It's still explicitly giving them an advantage to their spellcasting no other class gets for free. Also, leaving a character bound and gagged is a lot more restrictive on the player than taking their focus away, so if a DM is looking to disarm the party for a scenario, then one way or another they either have to single out the Bard for special treatment or the Bard is going to have a lot of additional resources they're not intended to have in that scenario. Purely as an abstract concept, the idea of voice/dance makes sense, but within the D&D spellcasting system there needs to be foci or materials to be used with the appropriate spells. It's a part of the system's balance.
It's still explicitly giving them an advantage to their spellcasting no other class gets for free.
I'm not sure what you think is so powerful about this?
The only real advantage of using voice (vocal) or body (somatic) as a focus is that you don't need to dedicate (or keep free) a hand for an object focus, but that's nothing new; a Cleric with a shield can make it their emblem focus in which case they're using a hand that was occupied anyway, and it's not like your average Bard has a lot of ways to exploit a free hand anyway.
Meanwhile making all spells have a vocal or somatic component means they're more vulnerable to anything that interferes with that component, e.g- silence (vocal) or being restrained (somatic). It's also worth noting that the 5e Bard spell list has always had quite a lot of spells that only require vocal or somatic components anyway, so it's not like this is something truly new, it's just making it easier to build for.
Also, leaving a character bound and gagged is a lot more restrictive on the player than taking their focus away, so if a DM is looking to disarm the party for a scenario
It's voice (vocal) or physical (somatic) as proposed; enemies would only need to both bind and gag characters if they don't know how to identify what casting method they use (in which case they'd do this for all potential casters, not Bards explicitly).
If they witnessed or know about which method the Bard uses then being gagged is no worse than having an instrument etc. taken away, and being bound doesn't necessarily mean being hog-tied and then chained down to the floor; a Bard who dances would be just as impeded by a leg shackle.
You seem to think this option is somehow a lot more powerful than it actually is?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The thing about the "use your voice/self" as a focus bit is it functionally eliminates any non-priced M component, and those components exist in part to allow for casters to be "disarmed" by the loss of their materials/foci.
Voice as a focus doesn't make you any harder to "disarm", as all that's required is for you to be gagged (unable to speak), just as a physical (somatic) option can simply be bound so they can't perform somatic components.
Also, the Bard class is rather expressly based around being at least partly a performer
Singers, poets etc. perform using only their voice (vocal), just as acrobats, dancers etc. perform only using their body (somatic).
It's still explicitly giving them an advantage to their spellcasting no other class gets for free.
No other class gets for free? Like the way the Aberrant Mind Sorcerer can cast their subclass spells without any components at all? (I think the Great Old One Warlock can do that too, but I don't recall off the top of my head)
Or how any casting character can pay a small gold piece pittance to have the "component pouch" on them, and then basically not worry about non-valued Material components, which basically duplicates what's being suggested here, only the component pouch doesn't have the limitation of requiring you to use Somatic or Verbal components on all spells, even if the spell doesn't normally require it? While it's not technically free in the money sense, its cost is not a meaningful obstacle either ... and it is free in the sense of class/level/rest generated resources (like ki points, spell slots, sorcery points, etc).
Also, leaving a character bound and gagged is a lot more restrictive on the player than taking their focus away,
So, it's a trade off where an increased ability also has a greater vulnerability ... and it is the player's choice as to whether or not they want to take on that vulnerability. Seems like a fair trade to me.
And the binding doesn't necessarily have to be completely immobile. The entire party might be chained, and possibly chained together, preventing elaborate dancing ... but not requiring basic movement. So it's not necessarily "a lot more restrictive" -- a gagged Bard can still cast Somatic only spells (even if they aren't a dancer). A bound Bard can still cast Verbal only spells only spells (even if they aren't a singer). Restrictive, yeah, but not any more so than a gagged wizard with no focus, or a handcuffed wizard with no focus.
It also seems kind of silly that in one sentence you're complaining about the huge advantage... and in the next talking about the huge burden. As if the idea of these two things balancing out doesn't occur to you.
The thing about the "use your voice/self" as a focus bit is it functionally eliminates any non-priced M component, and those components exist in part to allow for casters to be "disarmed" by the loss of their materials/foci.
Voice as a focus doesn't make you any harder to "disarm", as all that's required is for you to be gagged (unable to speak), just as a physical (somatic) option can simply be bound so they can't perform somatic components.
Also, the Bard class is rather expressly based around being at least partly a performer
Singers, poets etc. perform using only their voice (vocal), just as acrobats, dancers etc. perform only using their body (somatic).
You could just as easily say the dancer-bard uses their shoes as a spellcasting focus, a painter-bard uses a paint brush, a poet-bard uses a quill, a singer-bard uses a book of lyrics, a comedian bard uses a whoopie cushion, a stage-magician bard uses a dorky wand, etc.. etc... it requires no mechanical change at all just a new coat of paint - flavour is free!
Using "yourself" as a focus is not using a focus, it is innate spellcasting that a whole host of creatures get. Also FYI "all spells are vocal" is kind of a silly restriction since there are fewer than 5 spells that aren't vocal already.
I also think selecting the spell list emphasizes a the style of bard. Not all bards will have access to healing spells, but bards who want to be healers obviously could.
The "build your own spell list" does seem appealing and thematic to bards.
Some spell lists could be shorter based on spell list but I would expect players to take that into consideration when selecting schools.
What do you think of changing it to something like this....?
That would slow down the current 4 schools (divination, enchantment, illusion, and transmutation) a bit but give a broader range of divinations and enchantments, and ends up with 6 schools from the lists. That would be building a spell list as the class progresses.
Leave the spell progression as is, leave armor training as light and add shield training.
"not even a[n in] game term" -- correct, it's a broad and colloquial term, which therefore doesn't require precision in its application. It merely references that in some way, a given class has half as much potential or progression as the top-line casters of that edition.
"based solely on spell progression without acknowledging other factors" -- and? Every legitimately classified "half caster" class has "other factors" that make up for it. That's a pointless counter to suit your own cherry picking in this conversation.
In 3x, Bard's progression was severely less steep than a Wizard. Precisely half? No. Close enough? Yes.
In 1e, where Bards make their first appearance, they must first spend 75000 - 200000ish xp (which was the character to character comparison metric, since not all classes had the same cost of levels, so total-levels to total-levels comparisons weren't quite the same) without getting spells at all. By that point, a Magic-User (Wizard), which was the top tier caster of that edition, has 5th level spells. When the Bard gets to their peak spell casting ability, they will be at 3,200,000xp and only have 5th level spells. The Magic-User/Wizard, at that many XP, has 9th level spells. Precisely half? no. But close enough.
In all 3 of those editions (1e, 2e, 3e), Bards peaked at 5th level spells compared to the top line caster(s) peaking at 9th level spells. Roughly half (if you round it up instead of dropping the fraction).
Are Clerics and Druids somewhere in between those, in 1st and 2nd editions? Yes. Does that change anything in this assertion or terminology? No.
Bards didn't have the same spell casting peak until after 3e.
"cherry picking a single element and ignoring other relevant elements" -- every class that doesn't have a full emphasis on casting has a similar "other relevant elements". It's a completely pointless counter-argument that doesn't change where a class stands in comparing their _spell_casting_ power relative to other classes. It makes NO claim about the class's overall capabilities. To complain that it doesn't reflect their full capabilities is the only disingenuous argument here.
Disagree.
It's not a colloquial term either. It's a reference to the spellcasting progression in a single edition being misapplied to other editions in this case.
That comment makes no sense because other classes to which you allude are gaining other factors that are not related to spell casting. I listed other factors specifically applicable to spell casting. Would you like to support your claim that these other factors that actually restricted spell casting for paladins and rangers instead of supported spell casting for paladins and rangers somehow is comparable to the other features bards had that supported them as spell casters?
Repeating a comment like that completely illustrates my point that your only looking at a single aspect while missing the big picture. Sorcerers were one step behind wizards as well. Does that make them half-casters? Bards were one step behind sorcerers, the same difference as sorcerers were compared to wizards. If you're looking at the top progression as the baseline then other classes fall short, but bards were a lot closer to wizards than paladins and rangers were to bards.
Bards weren't an official class until 2e. In 1e they were a cobbled PrC type of build that Gygax massively altered from the original from The Strategic Review Volume 2, Number 1. That optional bard was, as I'm pointing out, optional and also not the original class. It was also reimagined in 1e within Dragon Magazine issue 56 that cast up to 7th level spells like the cleric, druid, and illusionist lists.
One of the first thing in the 1e appendix version states, "Even though this presentation is greatly modified from the original bard..." The original bard attacked and saved as a cleric, could use any weapon, and started casting spells at 2nd level like basic DnD clerics. They also advanced up to 7th level spells like almost every other spellcasting class.
The version to which you are referring had the same caster level as a druid, except bards didn't need to fight for higher levels and druids had no option for higher levels until Unearthed Arcana came out. But the Dragon Magazine article was also a significant powerhouse expanding into later class versions. The PHB bard had full druid spell list and cast those spells at a higher caster level than PHB druids could obtain and had mass charm to use like candy that included inflicting a penalty on the save against all those free suggestion spells they could cast on charmed opponents. Plus they could shapeshift like a druid and inspire like bards.
Those 6 low level druid spells and 4 low level magic-use spells rangers had with the caster level cap and lack of spell caster support doesn't remotely compare to those bards. Given your spell progression choice then no spell caster class is a full spell caster because the wizard was the only class with "full progression".
Here is the XP comparison for you:
Caster level was a thing. At the XP you gave bards cast spells at a higher caster level than every other option.
Maximum spell level based on ability scores was a thing. The average ability score spread had bards and clerics both casting 5th level spells at that XP level, and massively better caster level than druids. Illusionists stack rank better than wizards based on spell level and caster level because and the maximum spell level restrictions.
At those levels classes could cast different numbers of spells: cleric (44), druid (42 iirc; didn't pull out the Unearthed Arcana), illusionist (32), wizard (31), bard (25 + massive charm / suggestion), paladin (12), ranger (10). 25 spells plus the SLA's is very close to wizard. Unlike 10-12 spells, which isn't even half of the bard abilities let alone other casters. You can't compare bards to rangers and paladins based on bards compared to wizards without looking at rangers and paladins. GG.
Those optional bards needed to dual class but the XP needed to do so didn't take long. If you want to play a 1e bard like the appendix version then take 5 levels of fighter, 6 levels of rogue, 9 levels of druid, and pick up the musician feat at some point. Then you can be that "half-caster" you want to be. But they very comparable to major spell casters.
The original bards and DrM bards peaked at 7th level spells just like clerics, druids, and illusionists. The multiclass figher/rogue/druid bards were exactly that and not what you think bards are. And again, you're ignoring standard dice rolls that limited spell levels or caster level.
So let's compare 2e like I just did for 1e:
I gave the XP for peak spells on the table for bards like you did for 1e. Like 1e, 2e had varied XP reqs to level up and caster level was very relevant. Ability scores also determined restricted maximum spell regardless of the class table. Average rolls limited it. Lucky rolls are not the baseline. Bards also gain more bonus XP than other classes so bards would cast spells at higher caster levels than other classes. They uses full caster level like other major caster as opposed to rangers and paladins who were many caster levels below everyone else.
6th level spells compared to 5th level spells (typical rolls) for clerics and druids is better, and 6th level spells compared to 6th level spells with luckier rolls or 7th level with max rolls is more similar to full casters than 3rd or 4th level for rangers and paladins. Like 1e, bards bard could throw out the ability to influence reactions like candy with a penalty against the targets on paralyzation.
The idea that the progression was slower on the table doesn't mean anything when the actual level progression was much faster due to the experience aspect and bonuses to that experience. Wizards could potentially get up to 9th level spells with more time and the lucky rolls but are going to be 7th level spells based on average rolls and are playing catch up in caster level.
Here's 3.x for comparison where class progression ended the XP variation. Here's the 20th level comparison:
Notes on the bard: Spells are separated in class by spell level and the bard has access to some 8th level sorc/wiz spells, and the bard PrC's allow for 9th level spells. The suggestion, and mass suggestion DC's are also similar to 9th level spells, while fascinate has a massively higher save DC. Not all songs or minor abilities were listed in the classes, but you should understand that 3.x bards could cast mass suggestion 20 times per day using songs if they wanted.
3e made bards full casters with the application of song mechanics supporting spell casting. Bards have never peaked at 5th level spells outside of the a single appendix variation in a single edition.
When 1e and 2e clerics and druids were casting spells at 5th level based on average ability score rolling and other 1e bards could cast 7th level spells while 2e bards could cast 6th level spells then your assertion is flawed. When 3.x bards had access to 8th level spells hidden within the spell structure and magical songs to support magic your assertion is flawed. When bards were similar to clerics and druids in 2e, 4e, and 5e but only had a single spell progression that was behind in a single edition that you are using and can only be claimed to be behind by ignoring songs your assertion is flawed.
When you compare the "half-caster" classes of ranger and paladin it's clear that bards are far closer to clerics and druids in every single edition.
4e and 5e are half of all the editions bards were an official class. The only difference is they caught up to other major spell casters one edition later than clerics and druids after the songs were added into the spells because those combine as a "full caster".
Such as? You didn't give any examples outside of incorrect spell levels for bards based on charts while ignoring things like class XP progression, caster level, and magical songs. The other elements for the bard are specifically related to their abilities as a major spell caster.
You can't have it both ways. If it's not an official game term, then it doesn't have a pedantically official meaning, either. And applying terms retroactively is a long honored tradition in analysis between current and past editions. Just because you're butt-hurt about it doesn't mean it's not a legitimate way to communicate a valid concept. And because the multiclass level multiplier directly relates to the maximum spell level of the class (and "adding your class level to a spell" is no longer even a concept in the edition where the term emerged, making that idea irrelevant despite the fact that you keep trying to bring it into the conversation) the term equally applies to:
"the multiclass level multiplier"
and
"the class's maximum spell level / casting potency"
They're the same thing, because they directly relate to each other.
The term and conversation aren't about the class's overall potency outside of spell casting. It is ONLY about spell casting. You yourself just said "other factors that are not related to spell casting", which is why all of the other BS you're bringing up is irrelevant to the term "half-caster". That's why my statement and comments make sense, and your comments are irrelevant butt-hurt pedantic BS.
The term in question is only about a single aspect, and not about "the big picture". Which is why your objection is full of crap.
Optional is not the same as unofficial. Nothing in the 1e rules states that they were "unofficial". They're also not even actually stated to be optional, just that you don't start out as one.
They were a non-standard class, not an unofficial class. Their status change from 1e to 2e is not "becoming official" nor "becoming non-optional". Their status change is from "not a standard starting class" to "a standard starting class."
[eliminating columns that aren't relevant to the assertion -- since the 5e colloquialism of half-caster concisely maps/relates to maximum spell level for the class)
Would you look at that, the maximum spell casting potency for a 1e bard is ... 5. Compared to the top bieng... 9. Half of 9, rounded to the mathematical nearest, is 5. Imagine that.
5 is half. Bards had half the potential of the primary caster class of which there was only 1 at the very top).
I didn't say 2.2e, I said 2e. Also, fixed the "Cleric" line for you: the table in 2e was for the Priest.
3e:
The only thing I said that was incorrect was that the Bard peaked at 6, not 5. Off by one. Still significantly less than the primary casting class(es) (where 1e and 2e only had one such class, but 3e expands that to four such classes, and doesn't include the bard). Further, we don't usually talk about "two-thirds casters", just full, half, and sometimes one-third. Is "two-thirds" closer to "half" or "full"? It's not much of a mystery.
Only if you're incapable of doing math. Looking at the relevant information above, the difference between a Bard and Paladin in the above table for 1e: difference of 1. Difference between the Bard and Cleric or Druid? 2. For a Ranger? 2. So closer to a Paladin than a Cleric or Druid, not closer (and not FAR closer) to a Cleric or Druid than they are to a Ranger.
2e? The thing I actually said is still valid: Priests (Clerics and Druids) are still in between the Bard and the top line (Wizard). 6 for the Bard, 7 for the Priest and Druid, 9 for the Wizard.
For 3e? The difference between a Bard and Ranger or Paladin is 2. The difference between the Bard and the top/full caster classes (Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer and Wizard)? 3. The Bard is closer to the Paladin and Ranger.
Your assertion here barely holds water. It's absolutely not true in every edition, and the thing you replied to was still true even for the one case where you were correct.
5/2 = 2.5, which rounds to 3. The Bard was official in all 5 of 1e - 5e, so 4e and 5e are less than half of those editions.
After some thoughts and playing around with it more I came to the conclusion I might be overcomplicating the solution to the issue. Building one's own spell list is appealing, but the issues are a lack of inspiration at low levels and a lack of the typical spell variety from which to choose.
If we leave the class almost exactly as is in the playtest but replace the 3 musical instruments tool proficiency with a free musician feat (a valid 1st level option) then the inspiration plus bardic inspiration as presented makes the class feel more inspirational. Add the option to select feats with the mage tag.
Replace songs of restoration with a choice of thematic spells. Songs of restoration could be one of those choices and other possibilities might be something like these:
Those might need some workshopping but the gist is there.
A preset list of choices added at 2nd level instead songs of restoration removes being forced into healing and give the players that choice on character design, builds towards a theme, and restricts the players from a more open spell list. It also looks marketable with expansion settings if a person can add a thematic list for the setting.
Thoughts? Advice on spell lists? Would it be easier to add a 5th school at 2nd level that applies to all spell lists and allows for one prepared spell at each level within that school from spell levels 1 through 5?
I haven't given up on ways to increase the spell variety withing the bard selection. I still don't like the use of the same list as other arcane spell casters after the versatility of spell lists bard already have.
I like the idea. I like it a lot. Not sure I agree with the Songs of Battle list specifically, but the core idea is definitely a good one. I'm not sure Songs of Battle should just be a bunch of smite spells. Wrathful Smite, Spiritual Weapon, and some other "melee focused" spells would work well, IMO. Haste might be a good one to put in that list as well.
1- a 1st level bonus feat (instead of the 3 musical instruments) definitely promotes the idea of a jack of all trades, and also lets the exact definition of the bard slide a little.
2- The "Songs of ..." spell lists further let the Bard vary their exact role a little better, as well. Not just a secondary healer. Honestly, Songs of Restoration left me a little flat as their substitute for Bards having a spell list with heals on it ... but making the Songs be variable to the Bard's choice of role turns the Feature into one I actually rather like.
Okay, this is where I'm at with the idea now...
That's almost the same list but the names have been altered slightly. The changes to the UA are....
Change tool proficiencies to none.
Add the musician feat to bardic inspiration as a bonus feat. If the character already has the musician feat from another source (like background) then the number of allies to whom the bard can grant heroic inspiration doubles to twice the character's proficiency bonus and the bard does gain 3 additional tool proficiencies regardless of being a non-repeatable feat. What I like about this is that every character has the option to take the feat and inspire others but the bard has that extra benefit with the bardic inspiration die, there's more inspiration to go around, and the feat plus the BI dice have synergy to work together.
Add the ability to select feats with the mage tag to spellcasting. A spellcaster with that spell progression who cannot take those feats seems weird.
Replace songs of restoration with magical secrets. Magical secrets is a selection from a list of thematic spell groups gained at levels 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10 respectively. The names have the potential for thematic characteristics as well.
Improved magical secrets is the same as magical secrets and further magical secrets from the UA. What I like about this is it gives magical secrets a flow that progresses through the class a lot more and leans into a more thematic character.
Rather than a built-in musician feat, I'd actually prefer to see a choice of being a musical or song/voice bard, e.g- at first level you can choose to either use musical instruments, or your voice as a casting focus.
If you choose instruments you would gain one musical instrument proficiency (so there's still an advantage to taking Musician to get more), if you pick voice you get a language but all your spells require a vocal component (if you're silenced, you can't cast).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Do you get to use that vocal component as a replacement for many material components (in the same way that a focus can replace many material components)?
If so, I could get behind that. I've often thought that limiting Bards to music is a little limiting in character concepts. Giving them singing over instrument-playing options is definitely something I would like to see, and also oratory options (motivational speakers, etc.).
You could also allow for ... interpretive dance. I mean ... ok, a little out there (and possibly a little tongue-in-cheek). But, being able to use/require Somatic components as a replacement for Material, in the same way that singing/oratory Bards might use/require Vocal components could be a thing. And maybe require that you burn some movement in order to cast, or have at least one empty space around you, things like that. (and obviously, you can't be grappled or restrained). Imagine a dance based sword bard ... who is quite like a wushu sword performer, which is often silent (of voice) and very dance like. So much so that some other martial artists used to criticize wushu as being more about dancing than fighting.
In the same way as a spellcasting focus, yeah, that's the idea; choose your focus at 1st-level.
Ooh, that'd be cool too; proficiency could be Acrobatics in that case?
Though I seem to recall there might be the possibility of Bards getting an official College of Dance sub-class, but I don't remember where I heard or read that. If that is the case though that might be intended to cover it somehow, though it would better to have this handled at 1st-level rather than a sub-class, so you're not stuck with a load of instruments you don't want until 3rd-level.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I agree: requires Acrobatics.
I would probably handle it as a 1st level choice that is comparable to the OneD&D Cleric's 2nd Level Holy Order.
Instrumental (pick 2 musical instruments)
Vocal (Persuasion)
Dance (Acrobatics)
So the existing bard build, done as an Instrumentalist gets 3 skills and 3 instruments. It's just that one of those 3 skills is forced to be Performance.
They could instead decide to do 4 skills and 2 instruments.
Or they can take the non-Instrumentalist paths, and be entirely free of instruments (3 skills + Performance + Persuasion or Acrobatics), or have 1 instrument in place of one of those skills... and the reduction in instruments gets them the ability to use Somatic or Verbal components as a requirement for all of their spells, but also as a substitute for the same Material components that a focus replaces.
Vocal can be explained as Singing, Public/Motivational Speaking, Acting, and/or Comedy.
I think that's the way to do it, though I'd probably allow Performance for Vocal as well (might be more of a singer than a silver tongue), or maybe even all three come to think of it, as Dexterity (Performance) is a possible option to resolve dancing as well.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Question? Do the bard players you guys play with really limit themselves to just being musicians just because of the class proficiencies? Because in my experience bard players are among the most creative and come up with all kinds of different character concepts, these are what I've seen in my games:
Yes and no; in my own characters not really, as I've played a college of eloquence con artisté who only ever carried a flute up his sleeve because I thought he had to (I'd have picked vocal casting if it were an option), a college of swords bardbarian who would suit physical, and a college of whispers spy who would probably also be physical or maybe vocal if these were options.
But I've also seen players who absolutely think of bards as musicians and nothing else, so won't play them even when told otherwise (or offered homebrew options to support other options); and players who gravitated towards bards and then took a load of instruments because it seemed like they were supposed to (whether it fit the character or not). There's no reason we can't have more options to support more builds and playstyles better by default. I had one asking just a few days ago asking how you build a Bard as a singer (hence my post), and my answer was that there's no particular way to do it, but I've seen people use the "voice as a focus, but all spells vocal" homebrew before.
If you compare to the casting focuses for other casting classes though, these are actually fairly broad as while you get a choice of 3-5 distinct types they're just examples; you don't actually need to take one of those, as a holy symbol is "anything that represents a god or pantheon", so it can be whatever you want (DM permitting – apparently it's too much for a religion's holy symbol to be a friendly tarrasque mount named Ser Stomps 😉).
Musical instrument by comparison is more limiting, as while you're free to choose instruments not listed as examples (contrary to D&D Beyond which doesn't let you choose a generic "musical instrument") that same freedom isn't there in RAW. Plus the musical instrument examples in 5e are pretty rubbish – there's like five or six instruments that are basically just variations of lute!
They could maybe just create "bardic focus" as a thing, and have musical instrument be an option within that, but being able to use yourself as a focus via motion or voice is very appealing.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The thing about the "use your voice/self" as a focus bit is it functionally eliminates any non-priced M component, and those components exist in part to allow for casters to be "disarmed" by the loss of their materials/foci. Also, the Bard class is rather expressly based around being at least partly a performer, so if you really try to remove that element you're basically making them another class, at least from the roleplay perspective.
Voice as a focus doesn't make you any harder to "disarm", as all that's required is for you to be gagged (unable to speak), just as a physical (somatic) option can simply be bound so they can't perform somatic components.
Singers, poets etc. perform using only their voice (vocal), just as acrobats, dancers etc. perform only using their body (somatic).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It's still explicitly giving them an advantage to their spellcasting no other class gets for free. Also, leaving a character bound and gagged is a lot more restrictive on the player than taking their focus away, so if a DM is looking to disarm the party for a scenario, then one way or another they either have to single out the Bard for special treatment or the Bard is going to have a lot of additional resources they're not intended to have in that scenario. Purely as an abstract concept, the idea of voice/dance makes sense, but within the D&D spellcasting system there needs to be foci or materials to be used with the appropriate spells. It's a part of the system's balance.
I'm not sure what you think is so powerful about this?
The only real advantage of using voice (vocal) or body (somatic) as a focus is that you don't need to dedicate (or keep free) a hand for an object focus, but that's nothing new; a Cleric with a shield can make it their emblem focus in which case they're using a hand that was occupied anyway, and it's not like your average Bard has a lot of ways to exploit a free hand anyway.
Meanwhile making all spells have a vocal or somatic component means they're more vulnerable to anything that interferes with that component, e.g- silence (vocal) or being restrained (somatic). It's also worth noting that the 5e Bard spell list has always had quite a lot of spells that only require vocal or somatic components anyway, so it's not like this is something truly new, it's just making it easier to build for.
It's voice (vocal) or physical (somatic) as proposed; enemies would only need to both bind and gag characters if they don't know how to identify what casting method they use (in which case they'd do this for all potential casters, not Bards explicitly).
If they witnessed or know about which method the Bard uses then being gagged is no worse than having an instrument etc. taken away, and being bound doesn't necessarily mean being hog-tied and then chained down to the floor; a Bard who dances would be just as impeded by a leg shackle.
You seem to think this option is somehow a lot more powerful than it actually is?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
No other class gets for free? Like the way the Aberrant Mind Sorcerer can cast their subclass spells without any components at all? (I think the Great Old One Warlock can do that too, but I don't recall off the top of my head)
Or how any casting character can pay a small gold piece pittance to have the "component pouch" on them, and then basically not worry about non-valued Material components, which basically duplicates what's being suggested here, only the component pouch doesn't have the limitation of requiring you to use Somatic or Verbal components on all spells, even if the spell doesn't normally require it? While it's not technically free in the money sense, its cost is not a meaningful obstacle either ... and it is free in the sense of class/level/rest generated resources (like ki points, spell slots, sorcery points, etc).
So, it's a trade off where an increased ability also has a greater vulnerability ... and it is the player's choice as to whether or not they want to take on that vulnerability. Seems like a fair trade to me.
And the binding doesn't necessarily have to be completely immobile. The entire party might be chained, and possibly chained together, preventing elaborate dancing ... but not requiring basic movement. So it's not necessarily "a lot more restrictive" -- a gagged Bard can still cast Somatic only spells (even if they aren't a dancer). A bound Bard can still cast Verbal only spells only spells (even if they aren't a singer). Restrictive, yeah, but not any more so than a gagged wizard with no focus, or a handcuffed wizard with no focus.
It also seems kind of silly that in one sentence you're complaining about the huge advantage... and in the next talking about the huge burden. As if the idea of these two things balancing out doesn't occur to you.
You could just as easily say the dancer-bard uses their shoes as a spellcasting focus, a painter-bard uses a paint brush, a poet-bard uses a quill, a singer-bard uses a book of lyrics, a comedian bard uses a whoopie cushion, a stage-magician bard uses a dorky wand, etc.. etc... it requires no mechanical change at all just a new coat of paint - flavour is free!
Using "yourself" as a focus is not using a focus, it is innate spellcasting that a whole host of creatures get. Also FYI "all spells are vocal" is kind of a silly restriction since there are fewer than 5 spells that aren't vocal already.