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!
So is supporting more play-styles in the actual rules; we're talking about OneD&D here. Just because I can homebrew anything I want to doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice to see more options supported as standard.
I've already said one alternative is add a specific "bardic focus" as we have for other classes, which can be a catch-all for "whatever you and your DM agree on" in the same way as arcane focus, holy symbol etc., instrument only needs to be an option within that.
But that doesn't solve the side issue of Bards getting music instrument proficiencies as a feature, a feature that is wasted if you don't use it; this needs opening up somehow as well, and doing it as part of a "choose your focus" option makes the most sense to me.
Using "yourself" as a focus is not using a focus, it is innate spellcasting that a whole host of creatures get.
This isn't really the same thing; you're not using just yourself as a focus, you're using your voice or your body as the focus; so unlike innate spellcasting where there's nothing to take away from you, there is still a distinct "thing" that you need (or need to be able to do) to cast any magic at all. Meanwhile the innate caster needs to be fully immobilised (or in an antimagic field etc.) to prevent them from casting any spells.
Also FYI "all spells are vocal" is kind of a silly restriction since there are fewer than 5 spells that aren't vocal already.
There are 33 non-vocal spells, and it's still a limitation that a vocal caster may have to deal with that another wouldn't. There are 73 non-somatic spells for the physical option, but it's also arguably the harder one to restrict (silence, or an environment that prevents sound are automatic, but restraint usually isn't).
Ultimately the point is build options, customisation etc., and so far nobody has demonstrated any way in which this would be in any way too powerful; hell, at worst it's maybe a micro-optimisation but Bard isn't an overpowered class, and people choosing "voice" or "body" purely because it's "better" aren't going to break the game (and aren't really playing it in the first place if that's all they care about).
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 think the Bard could fit well into a half-caster template. Is Expert so get many skill based features, then add this class more combat features as well to be half-caster.
With this, they could have full access to arcane spell list, getting access to other domains with class features and would be balanced this way.
If they get full access to arcane adding all they get, IMO sounds too good.
Bard could work as a half-caster. The main problem with that currently is that they need an at will option that is competitive with extra-attack. I personally don't see bards as weapon users so I wouldn't want the base Bard to be getting Extra Attack and being half-caster / half-martial like Ranger or Paladin. The question is, what is that?
Probably not for all. Maybe the swashbuckler subclass could get it, while others could get a 2nd spell list domain, and things like that. As a person that has seen a lot of world, like the Bard seems to be, it could fit very well as someone that knows about many things.
Bard could work as a half-caster. The main problem with that currently is that they need an at will option that is competitive with extra-attack. I personally don't see bards as weapon users so I wouldn't want the base Bard to be getting Extra Attack and being half-caster / half-martial like Ranger or Paladin. The question is, what is that?
What if they really doubled-down on Bardic Inspiration and other support abilities, e.g- more ways to use Bardic Inspiration, and more dice? So the Bard would be half-caster, half-non-magical support, rather than half-caster/half-martial?
College of Swords/Valor could still utilise the Bardic Inspiration to become half-martial with the help of Extra Attack?
Your choice of spells can then supplement or complement the sub-class side of the equation, so you can go all-in on support spells and abilities, or mix support with control (as a lot of 5e Bards do already) and so-on?
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.
Probably not for all. Maybe the swashbuckler subclass could get it, while others could get a 2nd spell list domain, and things like that. As a person that has seen a lot of world, like the Bard seems to be, it could fit very well as someone that knows about many things.
A longer spell list means nothing when you have so much fewer and so much weaker spell slots. More BI dice still wouldn't cut it b/c as a finite resource they are going to run out and leave you the worst of the worse .. a caster stuck with a 1d4 cantrip and that's it.
Bard as a fullcaster gets to double down on support, battlefield control etc... via their spellcasting. Why develop a new system to mimic that but not be that in order to make Bard a half-caster?
All half-casters (including the one D&D warlock) get an unlimited, Extra Attack-having equivalent of a weapon attack. Only the Alchemist Artificer doesn't and it is well known to be much weaker than all the other Artificers.
So, if we're making Bard a half-caster what do they get to make up for their loss of spellcasting and lack of Extra attack?
Maybe it could be viable with:
unlimited Bardic Inspiration (usable as a Reaction or a BA)
ability to add their CHA modifier to all spells that deal psychic damage
some kind of unlimited Charm ability similar to the Enchantment Wizard with a scaling number of targets
1- Allow them to add their CHA modifier to at least vicious mockery’s damage, but maybe also any damage spell they cast.
2- Allow them to use a BI to cast Vicious Mockery as a bonus action.
3- Allow them to use any/all BI methods, that they have, on themselves, not just on others.
4- Bardic Barbs: once per turn they can use a BI to add damage (equal to their roll of a bardic inspiration die) to the damage dealt to a single target of a cantrip or spell that they cast. The damage type will be the same as whatever type the cantrip/spell already does.
5- Bardic Recovery: You may use a Bonus Action to recover a BI die. You may do this as many times as your CHA modifier. When you complete a long rest, you recover any spent uses.
Probably not for all. Maybe the swashbuckler subclass could get it, while others could get a 2nd spell list domain, and things like that. As a person that has seen a lot of world, like the Bard seems to be, it could fit very well as someone that knows about many things.
A longer spell list means nothing when you have so much fewer and so much weaker spell slots. More BI dice still wouldn't cut it b/c as a finite resource they are going to run out and leave you the worst of the worse .. a caster stuck with a 1d4 cantrip and that's it.
Bard as a fullcaster gets to double down on support, battlefield control etc... via their spellcasting. Why develop a new system to mimic that but not be that in order to make Bard a half-caster?
All half-casters (including the one D&D warlock) get an unlimited, Extra Attack-having equivalent of a weapon attack. Only the Alchemist Artificer doesn't and it is well known to be much weaker than all the other Artificers.
So, if we're making Bard a half-caster what do they get to make up for their loss of spellcasting and lack of Extra attack?
Maybe it could be viable with:
unlimited Bardic Inspiration (usable as a Reaction or a BA)
ability to add their CHA modifier to all spells that deal psychic damage
some kind of unlimited Charm ability similar to the Enchantment Wizard with a scaling number of targets
Non-combat subclasses could get extra slots, and maybe some subclass, the most magical one, could even get a 6th level spell slot, choosing it from its available domains (if multiple).
Also, sadly the comparison are always made with combat combat combat in mind, like if was the only thing. We are talking about utility, so why an extra attack should be better than unlocking a 2nd domain to choose spells? A Bard with its Expertise abilities (skilled character), that can use some attack/utility arcane spells, plus some protection/healing divine spells...sounds very very useful for the party to me. Set the Bard as a true prepared spells (instead known) and let it to change let's say one per long rest choosing from all the available like a Cleric with its divine ones.
Probably the premade adventures have much of the blame, as they seems too focused in combat, giving few other options written. Maybe because some are adapted from old ones when D&D was mainly combat only. It these cases is not easy, but I always give the players the freedom to try whenever they want. For me, the base of role-playing are the skills, and how do you use them. And when the combat is unavoidable, well we have the "Fighter" and maybe some other to do what is supposed to be their job.
I.e. in other games what would be the Druid has nothing harming, but it grants more and better herbs, and healing magic, plus of course the skills that decided to develop. And worked well, the fights for those who are combatant. Role-playing is about playing a character, not killing machines. As said sometimes is not easy to translate it to premade D&D adventures, but I always try my best.
I don't like the idea of a bard on the half caster progression because I still believe they've always been closer to the major spell casters than classes like rangers and paladins. That also fits the tropes very magical bards from folklore and legends.
We had an attempt at a half-caster bard during the 5e playtest and it was rejected. There's backlash in doing that with the current UA warlock. Restricting a bard's spell casting for the sake of restricting a bard's spellcasting seems silly and like we're backpedaling editions. It's a pointless change.
If a person were to try and create a class that could do both then then something similar to the UA warlock would be the way to do it. The half caster progression opens up room for more class based abilities during leveling up, and replacing invocations with inspirations can fill out more martial, more skillful, more inspirational, or more magical directions. Using magical secrets like mystic arcanum does give the potential for high level spells to build into those tropes.
I think there's potential in that chassis to make it work, but there still doesn't seem to be a point in going that route.
Probably not for all. Maybe the swashbuckler subclass could get it, while others could get a 2nd spell list domain, and things like that. As a person that has seen a lot of world, like the Bard seems to be, it could fit very well as someone that knows about many things.
A longer spell list means nothing when you have so much fewer and so much weaker spell slots. More BI dice still wouldn't cut it b/c as a finite resource they are going to run out and leave you the worst of the worse .. a caster stuck with a 1d4 cantrip and that's it.
Sorry, I should have been clearer what I meant by "other support abilities"; if they were to go half-support they would of course need some kind of unlimited core feature(s) on top of limited use Bardic Inspiration (or BI becomes a slightly weaker but unlimited feature on top of different long rest stuff).
I'm thinking along the lines of a Bard using their reaction and/or bonus action most rounds to tweak outcomes, e.g- Bardic Inspiration might start at d4, with an unlimited reaction to apply it as a bonus or penalty to another creature's d20 test, and a limited use bonus action to bestow a dice a target can use itself (as it works in 5e) with the ability to stack them. So on single rolls it can be more powerful (2d4, or as it scales 2d6 etc.) but it requires that combination of prediction and reaction to constantly boost your allies. It should also be possible to bestow as an action (to avoid conflicts with bonus action spells etc.).
For a basic action, I'd be surprised if vicious mockery doesn't get a bump up to d6's now that mind sliver is a thing, and Bards could probably do with some kind of "add Charisma" feature for certain types of spells (maybe psychic, thunder and healing by default, but sub-classes might add or change these?).
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.
Probably not for all. Maybe the swashbuckler subclass could get it, while others could get a 2nd spell list domain, and things like that. As a person that has seen a lot of world, like the Bard seems to be, it could fit very well as someone that knows about many things.
A longer spell list means nothing when you have so much fewer and so much weaker spell slots. More BI dice still wouldn't cut it b/c as a finite resource they are going to run out and leave you the worst of the worse .. a caster stuck with a 1d4 cantrip and that's it.
Sorry, I should have been clearer what I meant by "other support abilities"; if they were to go half-support they would of course need some kind of unlimited core feature(s) on top of limited use Bardic Inspiration (or BI becomes a slightly weaker but unlimited feature on top of different long rest stuff).
I'm thinking along the lines of a Bard using their reaction and/or bonus action most rounds to tweak outcomes, e.g- Bardic Inspiration might start at d4, with an unlimited reaction to apply it as a bonus or penalty to another creature's d20 test, and a limited use bonus action to bestow a dice a target can use itself (as it works in 5e) with the ability to stack them. So on single rolls it can be more powerful (2d4, or as it scales 2d6 etc.) but it requires that combination of prediction and reaction to constantly boost your allies. It should also be possible to bestow as an action (to avoid conflicts with bonus action spells etc.).
For a basic action, I'd be surprised if vicious mockery doesn't get a bump up to d6's now that mind sliver is a thing, and Bards could probably do with some kind of "add Charisma" feature for certain types of spells (maybe psychic, thunder and healing by default, but sub-classes might add or change these?).
There is 0 need to reduce the BI die when making it unlimited. Guidance and Resistance already exist giving unlimited 1d4 bonus to stuff and those are just cantrips not the core feature that the entire class is built around. Likewise Bless is just a 1st level spell. If BI is going to make up for losing ~40% of the Bard's current class features via it's spellcasting it would have to be MUCH more powerful than cantrips / 1st level spells. Alternatively, having BI up scale so at higher levels using it as a BA removes one condition automatically as part of granting the BI is an option to make their support abilities comparable to that of the Mercy Monk.
Another possible option is to make Vicious Mockery scale up both in damage (as it currently is) and in number of targets (like Tasha's Mind Whip) with Bard levels in addition to adding your CHA mod to it to make it comparable in power to typical weapon attacks of other half-casters.
I don't like the idea of a bard on the half caster progression because I still believe they've always been closer to the major spell casters than classes like rangers and paladins. That also fits the tropes very magical bards from folklore and legends.
We had an attempt at a half-caster bard during the 5e playtest and it was rejected. There's backlash in doing that with the current UA warlock. Restricting a bard's spell casting for the sake of restricting a bard's spellcasting seems silly and like we're backpedaling editions. It's a pointless change.
If a person were to try and create a class that could do both then then something similar to the UA warlock would be the way to do it. The half caster progression opens up room for more class based abilities during leveling up, and replacing invocations with inspirations can fill out more martial, more skillful, more inspirational, or more magical directions. Using magical secrets like mystic arcanum does give the potential for high level spells to build into those tropes.
I think there's potential in that chassis to make it work, but there still doesn't seem to be a point in going that route.
I see things on the exact opposite side, I think for most of D&D they were half casters effectively, and the tropes of magical bards from folklore always placed them on the lower tiers of magical power. You wouldn't be restricting it to restrict it but because it fits the class far better than a full caster model. Which isn't to say they need or should go this route, current player satisfaction is a thing. And if the current bard fans would hate it even if it might pick pp 10% overall more fans I don't think its a good choice. Leaving the current fans out in the cold weakens the game as those fans have the option to bow out to a different game entirely.
Probably not for all. Maybe the swashbuckler subclass could get it, while others could get a 2nd spell list domain, and things like that. As a person that has seen a lot of world, like the Bard seems to be, it could fit very well as someone that knows about many things.
A longer spell list means nothing when you have so much fewer and so much weaker spell slots. More BI dice still wouldn't cut it b/c as a finite resource they are going to run out and leave you the worst of the worse .. a caster stuck with a 1d4 cantrip and that's it.
Sorry, I should have been clearer what I meant by "other support abilities"; if they were to go half-support they would of course need some kind of unlimited core feature(s) on top of limited use Bardic Inspiration (or BI becomes a slightly weaker but unlimited feature on top of different long rest stuff).
I'm thinking along the lines of a Bard using their reaction and/or bonus action most rounds to tweak outcomes, e.g- Bardic Inspiration might start at d4, with an unlimited reaction to apply it as a bonus or penalty to another creature's d20 test, and a limited use bonus action to bestow a dice a target can use itself (as it works in 5e) with the ability to stack them. So on single rolls it can be more powerful (2d4, or as it scales 2d6 etc.) but it requires that combination of prediction and reaction to constantly boost your allies. It should also be possible to bestow as an action (to avoid conflicts with bonus action spells etc.).
For a basic action, I'd be surprised if vicious mockery doesn't get a bump up to d6's now that mind sliver is a thing, and Bards could probably do with some kind of "add Charisma" feature for certain types of spells (maybe psychic, thunder and healing by default, but sub-classes might add or change these?).
There is 0 need to reduce the BI die when making it unlimited. Guidance and Resistance already exist giving unlimited 1d4 bonus to stuff and those are just cantrips not the core feature that the entire class is built around. Likewise Bless is just a 1st level spell. If BI is going to make up for losing ~40% of the Bard's current class features via it's spellcasting it would have to be MUCH more powerful than cantrips / 1st level spells. Alternatively, having BI up scale so at higher levels using it as a BA removes one condition automatically as part of granting the BI is an option to make their support abilities comparable to that of the Mercy Monk.
Another possible option is to make Vicious Mockery scale up both in damage (as it currently is) and in number of targets (like Tasha's Mind Whip) with Bard levels in addition to adding your CHA mod to it to make it comparable in power to typical weapon attacks of other half-casters.
Even as a full caster they could go the unlimited route with BI and be fine.
There is 0 need to reduce the BI die when making it unlimited.
I'm thinking in terms of the doubling up, because it's not just the feature on its own, it's the spells you use it with, and the limited use effects you combine it with for double BI dice etc. Plus if it's a bonus or penalty to any d20 test for another creature it becomes really flexible, as you can use it against enemies as a penalty as well (the UA Bard is still bonus only).
So it's not "just" a d4, it's potentially a d4 penalty (arguably more value than a boost in many cases since it can trigger failed saves) or a 2d4 bonus if you double up with limited use bonus action inspiration (or more with bless etc.). Not sure when it would scale but it would quickly become very strong if both both dice scale each time.
I think a Bard being able to fiddle one or two checks per round as standard is plenty strong, it's the scaling that's the key question whether the dice increase quickly or it scales in some other way (e.g- limited us to trigger it more than once in a round or something).
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 think these could make a viable "Jack of all Trades, Master of None" class for the Bard, as well as broadening their entertainer role:
half-caster (MAYBE the ability to pick from Arcane, Divine, or Primal _which_ spell list is your base spell list),
Add to the 1st Level BI options: the ability to use your reaction to add or reduce the damage inflicted on another creature, caused by a spell or cantrip, by the amount of your BI die;
varied spell list options for the Songs of Restoration that fit other themes besides being a backup healer;
remove Expertise* from the base class at 2nd Level (due to being a "Master of None"), but replace it by returning "Jack of All Trades" to a second level benefit;
For the 3 musical instruments: allow each to instead be a language, and/or other form of entertainer's tools (such as a disguise kit for actors costumes, etc.);
Allow their spell casting focus options to include not just musical instruments but also a disguise kit, dance shoes, actors mask, a puppet/marionette, or book;
5th level (Replacing "Jack of All Trades" which moved back to 2nd level):
Improved Bardic Inspiratation
The ability to use BI to cast a cantrip as a bonus action (AND add the BI die roll to the effect of the cantrip),
The ability to add your CHA bonus to the damage you inflict with Vicious Mockery,
and the ability to use your BI options on yourself, not just on others.
(* For the Lore Bard's 3rd level Bonus Proficiencies, instead of 3 proficiencies, give them 2 proficiencies and 1 expertise)
For that spell casting focus book: an actor might choose a book of plays; a poet might use a book of poems; a preacher might use a holy book; a diplomat or courtier might use a history book, geography book, language dictionary, or something similar. You might also allow someone like an archaeologist lore board to use their notebook of travels or a lesser arcane tome as their focus book. Basically it greatly opens up fitting the Bard's role to some subject or other role. It also means D&D finally has an actual diplomat/courtier class that doesn't have to be based on being a musician or criminal.
Preachers, Diplomats, and Archaeologists might also pick Languages over Musical Instruments. Allowing Languages and some other form of entertainer's tools are really about what type of entertainer the Bard might be, instead of being pigeonholed to a musician.
(and, yeah, the puppet/marionette is a highly specific reference; All Hail Banjo the Clown!)
I think the Bard could fit well into a half-caster template. Is Expert so get many skill based features, then add this class more combat features as well to be half-caster.
With this, they could have full access to arcane spell list, getting access to other domains with class features and would be balanced this way.
If they get full access to arcane adding all they get, IMO sounds too good.
Bard could work as a half-caster. The main problem with that currently is that they need an at will option that is competitive with extra-attack. I personally don't see bards as weapon users so I wouldn't want the base Bard to be getting Extra Attack and being half-caster / half-martial like Ranger or Paladin. The question is, what is that?
I don't like the idea of a bard on the half caster progression because I still believe they've always been closer to the major spell casters than classes like rangers and paladins. That also fits the tropes very magical bards from folklore and legends.
We had an attempt at a half-caster bard during the 5e playtest and it was rejected. There's backlash in doing that with the current UA warlock. Restricting a bard's spell casting for the sake of restricting a bard's spellcasting seems silly and like we're backpedaling editions. It's a pointless change.
If a person were to try and create a class that could do both then then something similar to the UA warlock would be the way to do it. The half caster progression opens up room for more class based abilities during leveling up, and replacing invocations with inspirations can fill out more martial, more skillful, more inspirational, or more magical directions. Using magical secrets like mystic arcanum does give the potential for high level spells to build into those tropes.
I think there's potential in that chassis to make it work, but there still doesn't seem to be a point in going that route.
If the bard will have his casting value modified, I would NOT put him as a half caster, in which case I would make him a 2/3 caster, which could benefit some subclasses like sword, and some subclasses (Possibly should be about 40-50% of the bard subclasses) more magical add 1/3 caster to it, to make it a full spellcaster.
In this way, as a monoclass, it wouldn't matter if he was a "full spellcaster" or not until he chose a subclass since he will have the same amount of slots and spell levels in the first 2 levels (2/3 and full spellcaster), being relevant only by choosing it, and if he does not become a full spellcaster, that magic deficiency must be compensated with specialized traits of the subclass along with those of his class, thus being able to maintain logic with him being an EXPERT.
Still, I'm not sure if I want a bard NOT to be a full spellcaster.
Realistically in Ondnd/5eR I think the only casters that might receive Change in scaling are warlocks and possibly artificers. They said they really wanted to address specific issues with the current system not to change the dynamic. I just think changing bard scaling is going to upset basic class expectations too much.
When people debated on spell-less ranger wotc took the route of just clearly establishing their intro lore as a caster.
I don't like the idea of a bard on the half caster progression because I still believe they've always been closer to the major spell casters than classes like rangers and paladins. That also fits the tropes very magical bards from folklore and legends.
We had an attempt at a half-caster bard during the 5e playtest and it was rejected. There's backlash in doing that with the current UA warlock. Restricting a bard's spell casting for the sake of restricting a bard's spellcasting seems silly and like we're backpedaling editions. It's a pointless change.
If a person were to try and create a class that could do both then then something similar to the UA warlock would be the way to do it. The half caster progression opens up room for more class based abilities during leveling up, and replacing invocations with inspirations can fill out more martial, more skillful, more inspirational, or more magical directions. Using magical secrets like mystic arcanum does give the potential for high level spells to build into those tropes.
I think there's potential in that chassis to make it work, but there still doesn't seem to be a point in going that route.
I see things on the exact opposite side, I think for most of D&D they were half casters effectively, and the tropes of magical bards from folklore always placed them on the lower tiers of magical power. You wouldn't be restricting it to restrict it but because it fits the class far better than a full caster model. Which isn't to say they need or should go this route, current player satisfaction is a thing. And if the current bard fans would hate it even if it might pick pp 10% overall more fans I don't think its a good choice. Leaving the current fans out in the cold weakens the game as those fans have the option to bow out to a different game entirely.
I gave a pretty detailed summary earlier of my views on it. Bards used full caster level when caster level was relevant and leveled up faster than paladins or rangers. That faster leveling rate for caster levels gave a very distinct advantage over other magic users. The restricted caster level paladins and rangers have made them far, far less effective spell casters in addition to fewer spells and lower spell level access and much later access to spell casting at all.
All bards could cast 6th level spells in 2e while clerics and druids were casting spell limits typically from 5th level to 7th level spells depending on their ability scores. Spell level and caster level clearly weren't the deciding factors there. 3.x was more like 5e and UA warlocks splitting spell levels with a secondary resource (songs) that could do a lot and the spells that varied spell level with class has bards accessing 8th level spells before PrE's. Song DC's were better than spell DC's and paladins or rangers were still heavily restricted in comparison based on caster level.
Then we had 4e and 5e.
I would argue bards in classic folklore have better examples of magic than wizards.
Bards were simply the low end of the major spell casters. Paladins and rangers added spells on to martial classes in a very restricted way.
I don't like the idea of a bard on the half caster progression because I still believe they've always been closer to the major spell casters than classes like rangers and paladins.
Except they haven't. But that argument was already thoroughly beaten into a dead horse (either earlier in this thread, or in the other OneD&D Bard thread). In much of their history, their spell progression has been closer to a Paladin or Ranger than a top-tier caster ... or half way between the {Paladin, Ranger} and the top-tier caster(s).
In 5e, "1/3 caster", "1/2 caster", and full caster all directly relate to the line of the big spell chart that is your maximum potential, which in turn directly tells you what the class's maximum spell slot is (4 for a 1/3 caster, 5 for a 1/2 caster, 9 for a full caster). The idea about "adding your class level (possibly applying a co-efficient) to the spell's benefit" isn't a thing in 5e, so it has no relevance in applying an informal 5e term to past editions. It's entirely about your top spell slot potential. And Bards have often been more in line with, or at least closer to, or at most half way between, the Paladin and Ranger than they were to any given edition's top-tier casting class(es) in this regard.
I don't like the idea of a bard on the half caster progression because I still believe they've always been closer to the major spell casters than classes like rangers and paladins.
Except they haven't. But that argument was already thoroughly beaten into a dead horse (either earlier in this thread, or in the other OneD&D Bard thread). In much of their history, their spell progression has been closer to a Paladin or Ranger than a top-tier caster ... or half way between the {Paladin, Ranger} and the top-tier caster(s).
Except they have. There's a huge difference between in the caster level mechanic between full class level and restricted class level, and 3.x is still the only edition where bards were behind clerics and druids in the spell levels. And that still requires ignoring the song mechanic as an additional power source or PrC's or the varied spells within levels by class. The spell progression table is only a part of the big picture. Based on that logic clerics and druids weren't full casters either.
Comparing paladins and rangers who cast no spell at all for 7 or 8 levels and then cast very weak ones compared to a bard in 2e is silly. Bards were casting10d6 fireballs when wizards were casting 8d6 fireballs (because of different level progression and xp bonuses), and before paladins or rangers were casting any spells at all.
Paladins couldn't cast spells until 9th level and had a caster level penalty of 8 on their spell casting and had a max 9th level caster. They were limited to combat, divination, healing and protection spheres, and those were also limited to 4th level spells or less. Ranger couldn't cast spell until 8th level and they had a max 9th lever caster. They were limited to plant and animal spheres, and those were also limited to 3rd level spells or less.
Bards would be 11th level with a caster level of 11th level before paladins would be 9th level with a 1st level caster level picking up a single cure light wounds spell. The bard in comparison would have 10 spells memorized from 1st through 4th levels. A wizard would have 12 spells prepared of 1st through 4th level as an 8th level caster. That's the difference in XP progression and bonus XP criteria. The wizard might be 9th level with that one 5th level spell over the bard depending but still be a lower caster level. Your comparison is incorrect.
Most priests could only cast 5th level spells or less because that's the value of a standard ability score array and increasing ability scores didn't exist through leveling. Higher level spells required luck in rolling or a generous DM. The caster level was the same as for bards, but clerics and druids also did not access the full spell list either. They had major spheres and minor spheres depending on deity. Minor access only allows spells up to 3rd level. Druids, for example, had major access to these spheres: all, animal, elemental, healing, plant, weather. They had minor access to divination. A cleric had major access to: all, astral, charm, combat, creation, divination, guardian, healing, necromantic, protection, summoning, sun. They had minor access to elemental. Other specialty priests may have had less and those can be found in the Complete Priest's Handbook.
Most mages could cast 7th level spells or less based on the ability score for the same reason as priests. They could choose to either be general and have access to all spell schools, or specialize and give up 2 spell schools for bonus spell preparation. Bards and non-specialist wizards are the only classes to get full access to the spell list at each spell level, which were also limited by learning checks for both classes. Bards would learn spells wizards failed their checks on too.
Bards leveling up to higher levels faster gave meant being farther along in the spell progression chart, having a higher caster level, and had potential access to all spells. I have to ask if you actually played 2e. Bards were good spell casters with the only drawback being the need to find spells to copy.
Comparing a bard to a ranger who capped out as a 9th caster level accessing 9 total spells with a 3rd level spell cap and access to only animal and plant spheres when the bard caps out at 20th caster level (and has a higher caster level than the ranger's cap before the ranger even starts casting spells) accessing 23 total spells with a 6th level spell cap and access to all spell schools doesn't make an sense. The ranger isn't even half the bard.
Comparing the paladin is a bit better. The paladin also caps out as 9th caster level but has 12 total spells with a 4th level cap and four spheres instead of the ranger's two. That's still half of the bard's ability.
The bard's 6th level spells is more similar to the cleric and druid. The bard's 4 slots per level and access to all schools is more similar to the wizard's access to all schools and 5 slots per level. The XP progression gives a higher caster level and improves the slots to similar values during leveling. Paladins and rangers were half the bard, who was just slightly less than other major spell casters before the XP consideration.
And 4e or 5e was the same progression.
As I pointed out before, 3.x was the only edition were clerics and druids gained the higher spells and bards did not.
Bards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, and wizards all cast spells starting at 1st level. They all used their class level as their caster level. They all had cantrips. Paladins and rangers could not cast spells until 4th level and when they did they used half their class level as their caster level. They did not use cantrips. Paladins and rangers hit 20th level with 12 spells of 1st through 4th level and a 10 caster level. Bards hit 20th level with 28 spells of 0 through 6th level and a 20 caster level plus 20 magical songs with the caveat that some of those were 8th level spells from other classes. Paladins and rangers were less than half of bards in 3rd ed too.
Wizards cast 40 spells of levels 0 through 9th level. With the spell variation among class the highest level spell would be 9th instead of 8th so only a level difference. With bard songs (mass suggestion repeatedly, for example) + spells the bard is 48>40 or 48<50 on a specialist. They have the same caster level. Bards have a similar number of spells plus songs to the number of spells the specialist wizard has.
Paladin and ranger DC's are 14 + mod.
Cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard DC's are 19 + mod.
Bard DC's are 16 + mod (spells), 20 + mod (song sla's), or 23 + mod +10 avg die roll (fascinate)
Bards also have similar DC's to other major spell casters in addition to cantrips, caster level, and spell slots + songs. Separating spells and songs didn't make bards less of a full caster because the spell chart was never the only relevant criteria. We can keep having this discussion but it's not changing the fact that paladins and rangers had far less spells, half the caster level, and lower DC's than major spell casters like bards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, and wizards. 3.x bards were very similar to specialist wizards in those criteria. A person could roll a 1 on the perform check for fascinate and still have the highest DC magical ability in the edition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So is supporting more play-styles in the actual rules; we're talking about OneD&D here. Just because I can homebrew anything I want to doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice to see more options supported as standard.
I've already said one alternative is add a specific "bardic focus" as we have for other classes, which can be a catch-all for "whatever you and your DM agree on" in the same way as arcane focus, holy symbol etc., instrument only needs to be an option within that.
But that doesn't solve the side issue of Bards getting music instrument proficiencies as a feature, a feature that is wasted if you don't use it; this needs opening up somehow as well, and doing it as part of a "choose your focus" option makes the most sense to me.
This isn't really the same thing; you're not using just yourself as a focus, you're using your voice or your body as the focus; so unlike innate spellcasting where there's nothing to take away from you, there is still a distinct "thing" that you need (or need to be able to do) to cast any magic at all. Meanwhile the innate caster needs to be fully immobilised (or in an antimagic field etc.) to prevent them from casting any spells.
There are 33 non-vocal spells, and it's still a limitation that a vocal caster may have to deal with that another wouldn't. There are 73 non-somatic spells for the physical option, but it's also arguably the harder one to restrict (silence, or an environment that prevents sound are automatic, but restraint usually isn't).
Ultimately the point is build options, customisation etc., and so far nobody has demonstrated any way in which this would be in any way too powerful; hell, at worst it's maybe a micro-optimisation but Bard isn't an overpowered class, and people choosing "voice" or "body" purely because it's "better" aren't going to break the game (and aren't really playing it in the first place if that's all they care about).
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 think the Bard could fit well into a half-caster template. Is Expert so get many skill based features, then add this class more combat features as well to be half-caster.
With this, they could have full access to arcane spell list, getting access to other domains with class features and would be balanced this way.
If they get full access to arcane adding all they get, IMO sounds too good.
Bard could work as a half-caster. The main problem with that currently is that they need an at will option that is competitive with extra-attack. I personally don't see bards as weapon users so I wouldn't want the base Bard to be getting Extra Attack and being half-caster / half-martial like Ranger or Paladin. The question is, what is that?
Probably not for all. Maybe the swashbuckler subclass could get it, while others could get a 2nd spell list domain, and things like that. As a person that has seen a lot of world, like the Bard seems to be, it could fit very well as someone that knows about many things.
What if they really doubled-down on Bardic Inspiration and other support abilities, e.g- more ways to use Bardic Inspiration, and more dice? So the Bard would be half-caster, half-non-magical support, rather than half-caster/half-martial?
College of Swords/Valor could still utilise the Bardic Inspiration to become half-martial with the help of Extra Attack?
Your choice of spells can then supplement or complement the sub-class side of the equation, so you can go all-in on support spells and abilities, or mix support with control (as a lot of 5e Bards do already) and so-on?
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.
A longer spell list means nothing when you have so much fewer and so much weaker spell slots. More BI dice still wouldn't cut it b/c as a finite resource they are going to run out and leave you the worst of the worse .. a caster stuck with a 1d4 cantrip and that's it.
Bard as a fullcaster gets to double down on support, battlefield control etc... via their spellcasting. Why develop a new system to mimic that but not be that in order to make Bard a half-caster?
All half-casters (including the one D&D warlock) get an unlimited, Extra Attack-having equivalent of a weapon attack. Only the Alchemist Artificer doesn't and it is well known to be much weaker than all the other Artificers.
So, if we're making Bard a half-caster what do they get to make up for their loss of spellcasting and lack of Extra attack?
Maybe it could be viable with:
Some options:
1- Allow them to add their CHA modifier to at least vicious mockery’s damage, but maybe also any damage spell they cast.
2- Allow them to use a BI to cast Vicious Mockery as a bonus action.
3- Allow them to use any/all BI methods, that they have, on themselves, not just on others.
4- Bardic Barbs: once per turn they can use a BI to add damage (equal to their roll of a bardic inspiration die) to the damage dealt to a single target of a cantrip or spell that they cast. The damage type will be the same as whatever type the cantrip/spell already does.
5- Bardic Recovery: You may use a Bonus Action to recover a BI die. You may do this as many times as your CHA modifier. When you complete a long rest, you recover any spent uses.
Non-combat subclasses could get extra slots, and maybe some subclass, the most magical one, could even get a 6th level spell slot, choosing it from its available domains (if multiple).
Also, sadly the comparison are always made with combat combat combat in mind, like if was the only thing. We are talking about utility, so why an extra attack should be better than unlocking a 2nd domain to choose spells? A Bard with its Expertise abilities (skilled character), that can use some attack/utility arcane spells, plus some protection/healing divine spells...sounds very very useful for the party to me. Set the Bard as a true prepared spells (instead known) and let it to change let's say one per long rest choosing from all the available like a Cleric with its divine ones.
Probably the premade adventures have much of the blame, as they seems too focused in combat, giving few other options written. Maybe because some are adapted from old ones when D&D was mainly combat only. It these cases is not easy, but I always give the players the freedom to try whenever they want. For me, the base of role-playing are the skills, and how do you use them. And when the combat is unavoidable, well we have the "Fighter" and maybe some other to do what is supposed to be their job.
I.e. in other games what would be the Druid has nothing harming, but it grants more and better herbs, and healing magic, plus of course the skills that decided to develop. And worked well, the fights for those who are combatant. Role-playing is about playing a character, not killing machines. As said sometimes is not easy to translate it to premade D&D adventures, but I always try my best.
I don't like the idea of a bard on the half caster progression because I still believe they've always been closer to the major spell casters than classes like rangers and paladins. That also fits the tropes very magical bards from folklore and legends.
We had an attempt at a half-caster bard during the 5e playtest and it was rejected. There's backlash in doing that with the current UA warlock. Restricting a bard's spell casting for the sake of restricting a bard's spellcasting seems silly and like we're backpedaling editions. It's a pointless change.
If a person were to try and create a class that could do both then then something similar to the UA warlock would be the way to do it. The half caster progression opens up room for more class based abilities during leveling up, and replacing invocations with inspirations can fill out more martial, more skillful, more inspirational, or more magical directions. Using magical secrets like mystic arcanum does give the potential for high level spells to build into those tropes.
I think there's potential in that chassis to make it work, but there still doesn't seem to be a point in going that route.
Sorry, I should have been clearer what I meant by "other support abilities"; if they were to go half-support they would of course need some kind of unlimited core feature(s) on top of limited use Bardic Inspiration (or BI becomes a slightly weaker but unlimited feature on top of different long rest stuff).
I'm thinking along the lines of a Bard using their reaction and/or bonus action most rounds to tweak outcomes, e.g- Bardic Inspiration might start at d4, with an unlimited reaction to apply it as a bonus or penalty to another creature's d20 test, and a limited use bonus action to bestow a dice a target can use itself (as it works in 5e) with the ability to stack them. So on single rolls it can be more powerful (2d4, or as it scales 2d6 etc.) but it requires that combination of prediction and reaction to constantly boost your allies. It should also be possible to bestow as an action (to avoid conflicts with bonus action spells etc.).
For a basic action, I'd be surprised if vicious mockery doesn't get a bump up to d6's now that mind sliver is a thing, and Bards could probably do with some kind of "add Charisma" feature for certain types of spells (maybe psychic, thunder and healing by default, but sub-classes might add or change these?).
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.
There is 0 need to reduce the BI die when making it unlimited. Guidance and Resistance already exist giving unlimited 1d4 bonus to stuff and those are just cantrips not the core feature that the entire class is built around. Likewise Bless is just a 1st level spell. If BI is going to make up for losing ~40% of the Bard's current class features via it's spellcasting it would have to be MUCH more powerful than cantrips / 1st level spells. Alternatively, having BI up scale so at higher levels using it as a BA removes one condition automatically as part of granting the BI is an option to make their support abilities comparable to that of the Mercy Monk.
Another possible option is to make Vicious Mockery scale up both in damage (as it currently is) and in number of targets (like Tasha's Mind Whip) with Bard levels in addition to adding your CHA mod to it to make it comparable in power to typical weapon attacks of other half-casters.
I see things on the exact opposite side, I think for most of D&D they were half casters effectively, and the tropes of magical bards from folklore always placed them on the lower tiers of magical power. You wouldn't be restricting it to restrict it but because it fits the class far better than a full caster model. Which isn't to say they need or should go this route, current player satisfaction is a thing. And if the current bard fans would hate it even if it might pick pp 10% overall more fans I don't think its a good choice. Leaving the current fans out in the cold weakens the game as those fans have the option to bow out to a different game entirely.
Even as a full caster they could go the unlimited route with BI and be fine.
I'm thinking in terms of the doubling up, because it's not just the feature on its own, it's the spells you use it with, and the limited use effects you combine it with for double BI dice etc. Plus if it's a bonus or penalty to any d20 test for another creature it becomes really flexible, as you can use it against enemies as a penalty as well (the UA Bard is still bonus only).
So it's not "just" a d4, it's potentially a d4 penalty (arguably more value than a boost in many cases since it can trigger failed saves) or a 2d4 bonus if you double up with limited use bonus action inspiration (or more with bless etc.). Not sure when it would scale but it would quickly become very strong if both both dice scale each time.
I think a Bard being able to fiddle one or two checks per round as standard is plenty strong, it's the scaling that's the key question whether the dice increase quickly or it scales in some other way (e.g- limited us to trigger it more than once in a round or something).
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 think these could make a viable "Jack of all Trades, Master of None" class for the Bard, as well as broadening their entertainer role:
(* For the Lore Bard's 3rd level Bonus Proficiencies, instead of 3 proficiencies, give them 2 proficiencies and 1 expertise)
For that spell casting focus book: an actor might choose a book of plays; a poet might use a book of poems; a preacher might use a holy book; a diplomat or courtier might use a history book, geography book, language dictionary, or something similar. You might also allow someone like an archaeologist lore board to use their notebook of travels or a lesser arcane tome as their focus book. Basically it greatly opens up fitting the Bard's role to some subject or other role. It also means D&D finally has an actual diplomat/courtier class that doesn't have to be based on being a musician or criminal.
Preachers, Diplomats, and Archaeologists might also pick Languages over Musical Instruments. Allowing Languages and some other form of entertainer's tools are really about what type of entertainer the Bard might be, instead of being pigeonholed to a musician.
(and, yeah, the puppet/marionette is a highly specific reference; All Hail Banjo the Clown!)
If the bard will have his casting value modified, I would NOT put him as a half caster, in which case I would make him a 2/3 caster, which could benefit some subclasses like sword, and some subclasses (Possibly should be about 40-50% of the bard subclasses) more magical add 1/3 caster to it, to make it a full spellcaster.
In this way, as a monoclass, it wouldn't matter if he was a "full spellcaster" or not until he chose a subclass since he will have the same amount of slots and spell levels in the first 2 levels (2/3 and full spellcaster), being relevant only by choosing it, and if he does not become a full spellcaster, that magic deficiency must be compensated with specialized traits of the subclass along with those of his class, thus being able to maintain logic with him being an EXPERT.
Still, I'm not sure if I want a bard NOT to be a full spellcaster.
Realistically in Ondnd/5eR I think the only casters that might receive Change in scaling are warlocks and possibly artificers. They said they really wanted to address specific issues with the current system not to change the dynamic. I just think changing bard scaling is going to upset basic class expectations too much.
When people debated on spell-less ranger wotc took the route of just clearly establishing their intro lore as a caster.
I gave a pretty detailed summary earlier of my views on it. Bards used full caster level when caster level was relevant and leveled up faster than paladins or rangers. That faster leveling rate for caster levels gave a very distinct advantage over other magic users. The restricted caster level paladins and rangers have made them far, far less effective spell casters in addition to fewer spells and lower spell level access and much later access to spell casting at all.
All bards could cast 6th level spells in 2e while clerics and druids were casting spell limits typically from 5th level to 7th level spells depending on their ability scores. Spell level and caster level clearly weren't the deciding factors there. 3.x was more like 5e and UA warlocks splitting spell levels with a secondary resource (songs) that could do a lot and the spells that varied spell level with class has bards accessing 8th level spells before PrE's. Song DC's were better than spell DC's and paladins or rangers were still heavily restricted in comparison based on caster level.
Then we had 4e and 5e.
I would argue bards in classic folklore have better examples of magic than wizards.
Bards were simply the low end of the major spell casters. Paladins and rangers added spells on to martial classes in a very restricted way.
Except they haven't. But that argument was already thoroughly beaten into a dead horse (either earlier in this thread, or in the other OneD&D Bard thread). In much of their history, their spell progression has been closer to a Paladin or Ranger than a top-tier caster ... or half way between the {Paladin, Ranger} and the top-tier caster(s).
In 5e, "1/3 caster", "1/2 caster", and full caster all directly relate to the line of the big spell chart that is your maximum potential, which in turn directly tells you what the class's maximum spell slot is (4 for a 1/3 caster, 5 for a 1/2 caster, 9 for a full caster). The idea about "adding your class level (possibly applying a co-efficient) to the spell's benefit" isn't a thing in 5e, so it has no relevance in applying an informal 5e term to past editions. It's entirely about your top spell slot potential. And Bards have often been more in line with, or at least closer to, or at most half way between, the Paladin and Ranger than they were to any given edition's top-tier casting class(es) in this regard.
Except they have. There's a huge difference between in the caster level mechanic between full class level and restricted class level, and 3.x is still the only edition where bards were behind clerics and druids in the spell levels. And that still requires ignoring the song mechanic as an additional power source or PrC's or the varied spells within levels by class. The spell progression table is only a part of the big picture. Based on that logic clerics and druids weren't full casters either.
Comparing paladins and rangers who cast no spell at all for 7 or 8 levels and then cast very weak ones compared to a bard in 2e is silly. Bards were casting10d6 fireballs when wizards were casting 8d6 fireballs (because of different level progression and xp bonuses), and before paladins or rangers were casting any spells at all.
Paladins couldn't cast spells until 9th level and had a caster level penalty of 8 on their spell casting and had a max 9th level caster. They were limited to combat, divination, healing and protection spheres, and those were also limited to 4th level spells or less. Ranger couldn't cast spell until 8th level and they had a max 9th lever caster. They were limited to plant and animal spheres, and those were also limited to 3rd level spells or less.
Bards would be 11th level with a caster level of 11th level before paladins would be 9th level with a 1st level caster level picking up a single cure light wounds spell. The bard in comparison would have 10 spells memorized from 1st through 4th levels. A wizard would have 12 spells prepared of 1st through 4th level as an 8th level caster. That's the difference in XP progression and bonus XP criteria. The wizard might be 9th level with that one 5th level spell over the bard depending but still be a lower caster level. Your comparison is incorrect.
Most priests could only cast 5th level spells or less because that's the value of a standard ability score array and increasing ability scores didn't exist through leveling. Higher level spells required luck in rolling or a generous DM. The caster level was the same as for bards, but clerics and druids also did not access the full spell list either. They had major spheres and minor spheres depending on deity. Minor access only allows spells up to 3rd level. Druids, for example, had major access to these spheres: all, animal, elemental, healing, plant, weather. They had minor access to divination. A cleric had major access to: all, astral, charm, combat, creation, divination, guardian, healing, necromantic, protection, summoning, sun. They had minor access to elemental. Other specialty priests may have had less and those can be found in the Complete Priest's Handbook.
Most mages could cast 7th level spells or less based on the ability score for the same reason as priests. They could choose to either be general and have access to all spell schools, or specialize and give up 2 spell schools for bonus spell preparation. Bards and non-specialist wizards are the only classes to get full access to the spell list at each spell level, which were also limited by learning checks for both classes. Bards would learn spells wizards failed their checks on too.
Bards leveling up to higher levels faster gave meant being farther along in the spell progression chart, having a higher caster level, and had potential access to all spells. I have to ask if you actually played 2e. Bards were good spell casters with the only drawback being the need to find spells to copy.
Comparing a bard to a ranger who capped out as a 9th caster level accessing 9 total spells with a 3rd level spell cap and access to only animal and plant spheres when the bard caps out at 20th caster level (and has a higher caster level than the ranger's cap before the ranger even starts casting spells) accessing 23 total spells with a 6th level spell cap and access to all spell schools doesn't make an sense. The ranger isn't even half the bard.
Comparing the paladin is a bit better. The paladin also caps out as 9th caster level but has 12 total spells with a 4th level cap and four spheres instead of the ranger's two. That's still half of the bard's ability.
The bard's 6th level spells is more similar to the cleric and druid. The bard's 4 slots per level and access to all schools is more similar to the wizard's access to all schools and 5 slots per level. The XP progression gives a higher caster level and improves the slots to similar values during leveling. Paladins and rangers were half the bard, who was just slightly less than other major spell casters before the XP consideration.
And 4e or 5e was the same progression.
As I pointed out before, 3.x was the only edition were clerics and druids gained the higher spells and bards did not.
Bards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, and wizards all cast spells starting at 1st level. They all used their class level as their caster level. They all had cantrips. Paladins and rangers could not cast spells until 4th level and when they did they used half their class level as their caster level. They did not use cantrips. Paladins and rangers hit 20th level with 12 spells of 1st through 4th level and a 10 caster level. Bards hit 20th level with 28 spells of 0 through 6th level and a 20 caster level plus 20 magical songs with the caveat that some of those were 8th level spells from other classes. Paladins and rangers were less than half of bards in 3rd ed too.
Wizards cast 40 spells of levels 0 through 9th level. With the spell variation among class the highest level spell would be 9th instead of 8th so only a level difference. With bard songs (mass suggestion repeatedly, for example) + spells the bard is 48>40 or 48<50 on a specialist. They have the same caster level. Bards have a similar number of spells plus songs to the number of spells the specialist wizard has.
Bards also have similar DC's to other major spell casters in addition to cantrips, caster level, and spell slots + songs. Separating spells and songs didn't make bards less of a full caster because the spell chart was never the only relevant criteria. We can keep having this discussion but it's not changing the fact that paladins and rangers had far less spells, half the caster level, and lower DC's than major spell casters like bards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, and wizards. 3.x bards were very similar to specialist wizards in those criteria. A person could roll a 1 on the perform check for fascinate and still have the highest DC magical ability in the edition.