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.
That is flat out untrue. And it has already been beaten to death.
1e: Cleric and Druid both top out at 7th level spells. The Bard tops out at 5th level (just like a 5e half-caster).
The identifiable difference is not whether or not Bards were half-casters in some past editions (because, using the full meaning of the 5e term, they were in fact comparable to 5e half-casters: they topped out at 5th level spells), the identifiable difference is that Clerics and Druids weren't full casters (meaning that they didn't top out at the same upper potential as the top-tier caster(s) of that edition: Magic-Users at 9th level spells). But there isn't a concept of a 3/4 caster class/subclass in 5e, so there isn't comparable category in the 5e terms for 1/3, 1/2, or full caster that captures early edition Clerics and Druids. Which makes early edition Clerics and Druids, at best, a specious comparison to whether or not Bards were "half-casters", because Clerics and Druids weren't full casters.
So, in summary:
3e was not the only edition where Bards top out on spell slots behind Clerics and Druids.
Bards topped out at 5th level spells in 1e, just like 5e half-casters. Making them comparable to half-casters in at least one earlier edition.
Paladins topped out at 4th level in 1e, meaning that Bards were closer to the top tier of a Paladin (1 spell level difference) than they were to Clerics, Druids, or Magic-Users (2-4 spell levels in difference). Rangers topped out with 3rd level spells (but had two different spell lists to draw from, the other one topping out at 2nd level). That puts them at a 2 level difference from Bards, which is _equal_ to the difference in top potential with a Cleric or Druid ... but it's still a 2 level difference between Ranger vs Bard ... and a 4 level difference for Bard vs Magic-User. That completely and totally refuting the assertion that "they've always been closer to the major spell casters than classes like rangers and paladins". For Paladins: your statement was flat out wrong. For Rangers, it's still wrong, but with a slight bit of nuance.
And in short: your assertion about 3e is wrong, your assertion about "always been closer" is wrong.
(and I skipped the bit about DCs because it's not even remotely relevant to the unofficial 5e term "half caster")
Can we move on to other arguments now, since it's been beaten to death, your counter argument against Bards having effectively been half-casters in the past has been thoroughly refuted, and other people have requested that the argument be put to rest? You're not a necromancer, stop bringing dead arguments back to life.
I'm not sure the clerics topping out at 7th level was meant to reflect them being 3/4 casters or something. Spells that show up on both lists were frequently lower level for clerics/druids, spells that were 7th level in 2e for the cleric may have ended up 8th or 9th level in 3e. Like Gate was a 7th level spell for clerics in 2e but a 9th level spell for wizards, hold person 2/3, animate dead 3/5 etc.. In some respects their magic was weaker, less big booms, less breadth, but in other ways it was more powerful or gained the power earlier. 1e Bards used druid magic(which I always thought fit better but so be it) and it capped out early, 2e bards capped at 6th level. They would not gain 3rd level spells until 7th level at 40k XP where a wizard would be 6th level but wold have had 3rd level spells for a bit now. So at that point a bards fireball would be slightly better, but the wizard would have 2 of them.
It is not clear cut 1/2 caster in the early days but I do think its a bit closer to 1/2 than full. I am not married to the concept either way. Though I suspect changing them to 1/2 now, even if it is more balanced, makes more sense, etc. etc. would cause the same backlash as the warlock, maybe more.
I'm not sure the clerics topping out at 7th level was meant to reflect them being 3/4 casters or something.
That's partly why I said that bringing Clerics into it is a specious comparison; trying to describe what exactly a Cleric or Druid was in 1e, using the 5e {1/3, 1/2, full} terminology doesn't work because Clerics and Druids don't fit those fractions. But Bards in 1e did. Bards were less than all three of Cleric, Druid, and Magic-User/Wizard. In 5e, there is nothing in between "half" and "full". In 5e terminology, the thing that is immediately less than "full" is "half." It also happens that the exact maximum spell level for the Bard happened to match the maximum spell level for a half-caster in 5e. And whether you're talking about 1e or 5e, the Bard's maximum spell level potential is roughly half the spell level potential of the highest caster class (9/2 -> 4.5 -> 5), which is exactly how things go for a half-caster in 5e.
Though I suspect changing them to 1/2 now, even if it is more balanced, makes more sense, etc. etc. would cause the same backlash as the warlock, maybe more.
That might be true, and is a much more reasonable counter-argument: accurate or not, the pushback might be too extreme.
Though I suspect changing them to 1/2 now, even if it is more balanced, makes more sense, etc. etc. would cause the same backlash as the warlock, maybe more.
That might be true, and is a much more reasonable counter-argument: accurate or not, the pushback might be too extreme.
It depends what you get in return; I know that I for one wasn't so much bothered by warlocks becoming half-casters*, as it was that the other half is really just invocations but the only one worth taking is Mystic Arcanums to get your pseudo full-caster progression back. With stronger alternatives to make a lot more builds viable it could be okay though, i.e- letting you double down on hex, invocations that can make a bladelock more like a proper half-martial etc.
*Not that Warlocks becoming half-casters is my preferred option, but I could live with it if done right.
If Bard went half-caster but had a compelling "other half" with strong support abilities (easily repurposed by sub-classes) it could work. You could maybe have College of Lore's Magical Secrets scale up to 9th-level in some limited way so it would still be available to play as a "full caster adjacent" Bard.
I think there's an argument to be made that if we're going down to only three spell lists, then there's a definite need for the class features to do the heavy lifting on making them different, but you can't do as much of that while remaining full-casters when full-casting is essentially a top-tier class feature every two levels with per-level scaling already.
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.
Though I suspect changing them to 1/2 now, even if it is more balanced, makes more sense, etc. etc. would cause the same backlash as the warlock, maybe more.
That might be true, and is a much more reasonable counter-argument: accurate or not, the pushback might be too extreme.
100% disagree, there would be much harsher backlash against downgrading the Bard than the warlock. Warlock works just fine as a 1/2 caster because it was never a fullcaster. It was just a half-caster will a unique spell scaling. Bard is currently a full-caster and honestly it does not matter at all what Bard was / wasn't in previous editions b/c a very large portion of the player / DM / customer base has never played an edition other than 5e - and the other editions still exist for anyone who prefers them to the current edition.
The problem as I stated previously, is that every half-caster has to have a feature / cantrip / ability that is resource-less to use that is equally powerful as Extra Attack as a core part of their class that serves as their "base-line" combat ability - i.e. what they do when they don't have a useful spell for that situation - b/c with the limited spellslots and spells known/prepared every half-caster runs into this situation all the time. Warlock has Eldritch Blast and Pact of the Blade and the associated Invocations for this. The Bard has... nothing.
Though I suspect changing them to 1/2 now, even if it is more balanced, makes more sense, etc. etc. would cause the same backlash as the warlock, maybe more.
That might be true, and is a much more reasonable counter-argument: accurate or not, the pushback might be too extreme.
100% disagree, there would be much harsher backlash against downgrading the Bard than the warlock.
Are you arguing just to argue? Because you "100% disagree", but then in the same sentence go on to agree with exactly what I said: the backlash/pushback for making the Bard into a half-caster might be too extreme.
Warlock works just fine as a 1/2 caster because it was never a fullcaster.
It isn't but it also kind of is in 5e; their spell level progression is the same as a full-caster thanks to pact magic scaling up to 5th-level by level 9, and Mystic Arcanums giving you access beyond that. The oddity with 5e is that how many spells you could cast partly depends on how many short rests you can get; if you can squeeze two into a day (maybe with the help of catnap) you can effectively have twelve 5th-level spell slots.
That's not quite the same ammunition for chaff spells as a proper full-caster gets but I'd say it's pretty comparable when most full-casters only get three 5th-level slots. But they are always at the mercy of that reset, so it leaves them in this weird place where they have the spell levels of a full caster but resources are potentially worse, or potentially a lot better than a half caster depending how many short rests they get.
It's hard to say it's a half caster when it becoming one in the UA means you now need to burn invocations just to keep up with what you had, but that's just the current state of the UA, I'm hoping they'll fix it up considerably.
Point being, I'm not so sure we should dismiss the Warlock as always being a half-caster so it's fine for them to become one, as they were never really that, any more than they were a full-caster, the backlash is more for what's being lost. A Warlock has to burn invocations just to be able to cast 3rd-level spells at the same level a full caster does, but with a lot less freedom than they used to have at the higher end of their casting ability. The compensation is more low level casting, but on a class that encouraged scalable spells, unique spells, or infinite use at-will alternatives is that compensation enough?
Same issue is the key for a Bard being a half-caster; the half-casting isn't the problem if you get enough in return, especially if it's something cool that makes Bards more Bardic rather than being sexy Wizards with fewer magical toys.
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.
Warlock works just fine as a 1/2 caster because it was never a fullcaster.
It isn't but it also kind of is in 5e; their spell level progression is the same as a full-caster thanks to pact magic scaling up to 5th-level by level 9, and Mystic Arcanums giving you access beyond that. The oddity with 5e is that how many spells you could cast partly depends on how many short rests can could get; if you can squeeze two into a day (maybe with the help of catnap) you can effectively have twelve 5th-level spell slots.
That's not quite the same ammunition for chaff spells as a proper full-caster gets but I'd say it's pretty comparable when most full-casters only get three 5th-level slots. But they are always at the mercy of that reset, so it leaves them in this weird place where they have the spell levels of a full caster but resources are potentially worse, or potentially a lot better than a half caster depending how many short rests they get.
It's hard to say it's a half caster when it becoming one in the UA means you now need to burn invocations just to keep up with what you had, but that's just the current state of the UA, I'm hoping they'll fix it up considerably.
Point being, I'm not so sure we should dismiss the Warlock as always being a half-caster so it's fine for them to become one, as they were never really that, any more than they were a full-caster, the backlash is more for what's being lost. A Warlock has to burn invocations just to be able to cast 3rd-level spells at the same level a full caster does, but with a lot less freedom than they used to have at the higher end of their casting ability. The compensation is more low level casting, but on a class that encouraged scalable spells, unique spells, or infinite use at-will alternatives is that compensation enough?
Same issue is the key for a Bard being a half-caster; the half-casting isn't the problem if you get enough in return, especially if it's something cool that makes Bards more Bardic rather than being sexy Wizards with fewer magical toys.
Ironically this new version is also kind of a half-caster but kind of not because of mystic arcanums allowing full caster spell progression up to 9th level. The problem is mystic arcanum is an invocation now and the other invocations don't really compete with it all that well making it feel like an invocation tax.
Point being, I'm not so sure we should dismiss the Warlock as always being a half-caster so it's fine for them to become one, as they were never really that, any more than they were a full-caster, the backlash is more for what's being lost. A Warlock has to burn invocations just to be able to cast 3rd-level spells at the same level a full caster does, but with a lot less freedom than they used to have at the higher end of their casting ability. The compensation is more low level casting, but on a class that encouraged scalable spells, unique spells, or infinite use at-will alternatives is that compensation enough?
That's not the compensation. The compensation is that you now have full access to the Wizard spell list which IS NOT built around scalable spells (which have always been weaker than non-scaling spells), and ability to use them when you find it valuable to do so rather than not knowing when / if you should use them b/c you have no idea when you'll get them back. Even with the 2-SR per day example it's highly unlikely that you'd spend all your 5th level slots in between those rests for combat-stuff because of the unpredictability of when you'll need them. Most likely the party would stop for a SR while you still have 1-2 slots left, you spend them on some utility thing if you bothered to take those spells then do the SR.
The main issue with the One D&D Warlock is that the Invocations now totally suck. I mean, I've never really been that excited by any of the Invocations previously, but making MA a competition for it just highlights how terrible and uninteresting most of them are. They really need a complete overhaul.
Same issue is the key for a Bard being a half-caster; the half-casting isn't the problem if you get enough in return, especially if it's something cool that makes Bards more Bardic rather than being sexy Wizards with fewer magical toys.
Pretty much this. 3.5 did give a lot in the songs. That's part of my argument regarding full caster by combining multiple strong resources. It's why mystic arcanum becoming more versatile works for the UA warlocks. It's the same concept for artificers with the the progression plus infusions. Adding enough in songs to the half spell progression is definitely a feasible concept.
Going that route is backtracking though. It's the same discussion we had in DnD Next when the devs were discussing either going with magic plus magical resource vs more magic and came to the conclusion that combining songs and spells was the better approach.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That is flat out untrue. And it has already been beaten to death.
1e:
Cleric and Druid both top out at 7th level spells.
The Bard tops out at 5th level (just like a 5e half-caster).
The identifiable difference is not whether or not Bards were half-casters in some past editions (because, using the full meaning of the 5e term, they were in fact comparable to 5e half-casters: they topped out at 5th level spells), the identifiable difference is that Clerics and Druids weren't full casters (meaning that they didn't top out at the same upper potential as the top-tier caster(s) of that edition: Magic-Users at 9th level spells). But there isn't a concept of a 3/4 caster class/subclass in 5e, so there isn't comparable category in the 5e terms for 1/3, 1/2, or full caster that captures early edition Clerics and Druids. Which makes early edition Clerics and Druids, at best, a specious comparison to whether or not Bards were "half-casters", because Clerics and Druids weren't full casters.
So, in summary:
And in short: your assertion about 3e is wrong, your assertion about "always been closer" is wrong.
(and I skipped the bit about DCs because it's not even remotely relevant to the unofficial 5e term "half caster")
Can we move on to other arguments now, since it's been beaten to death, your counter argument against Bards having effectively been half-casters in the past has been thoroughly refuted, and other people have requested that the argument be put to rest? You're not a necromancer, stop bringing dead arguments back to life.
I'm not sure the clerics topping out at 7th level was meant to reflect them being 3/4 casters or something. Spells that show up on both lists were frequently lower level for clerics/druids, spells that were 7th level in 2e for the cleric may have ended up 8th or 9th level in 3e. Like Gate was a 7th level spell for clerics in 2e but a 9th level spell for wizards, hold person 2/3, animate dead 3/5 etc.. In some respects their magic was weaker, less big booms, less breadth, but in other ways it was more powerful or gained the power earlier. 1e Bards used druid magic(which I always thought fit better but so be it) and it capped out early, 2e bards capped at 6th level. They would not gain 3rd level spells until 7th level at 40k XP where a wizard would be 6th level but wold have had 3rd level spells for a bit now. So at that point a bards fireball would be slightly better, but the wizard would have 2 of them.
It is not clear cut 1/2 caster in the early days but I do think its a bit closer to 1/2 than full. I am not married to the concept either way. Though I suspect changing them to 1/2 now, even if it is more balanced, makes more sense, etc. etc. would cause the same backlash as the warlock, maybe more.
That's partly why I said that bringing Clerics into it is a specious comparison; trying to describe what exactly a Cleric or Druid was in 1e, using the 5e {1/3, 1/2, full} terminology doesn't work because Clerics and Druids don't fit those fractions. But Bards in 1e did. Bards were less than all three of Cleric, Druid, and Magic-User/Wizard. In 5e, there is nothing in between "half" and "full". In 5e terminology, the thing that is immediately less than "full" is "half." It also happens that the exact maximum spell level for the Bard happened to match the maximum spell level for a half-caster in 5e. And whether you're talking about 1e or 5e, the Bard's maximum spell level potential is roughly half the spell level potential of the highest caster class (9/2 -> 4.5 -> 5), which is exactly how things go for a half-caster in 5e.
That might be true, and is a much more reasonable counter-argument: accurate or not, the pushback might be too extreme.
It depends what you get in return; I know that I for one wasn't so much bothered by warlocks becoming half-casters*, as it was that the other half is really just invocations but the only one worth taking is Mystic Arcanums to get your pseudo full-caster progression back. With stronger alternatives to make a lot more builds viable it could be okay though, i.e- letting you double down on hex, invocations that can make a bladelock more like a proper half-martial etc.
*Not that Warlocks becoming half-casters is my preferred option, but I could live with it if done right.
If Bard went half-caster but had a compelling "other half" with strong support abilities (easily repurposed by sub-classes) it could work. You could maybe have College of Lore's Magical Secrets scale up to 9th-level in some limited way so it would still be available to play as a "full caster adjacent" Bard.
I think there's an argument to be made that if we're going down to only three spell lists, then there's a definite need for the class features to do the heavy lifting on making them different, but you can't do as much of that while remaining full-casters when full-casting is essentially a top-tier class feature every two levels with per-level scaling already.
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.
100% disagree, there would be much harsher backlash against downgrading the Bard than the warlock. Warlock works just fine as a 1/2 caster because it was never a fullcaster. It was just a half-caster will a unique spell scaling. Bard is currently a full-caster and honestly it does not matter at all what Bard was / wasn't in previous editions b/c a very large portion of the player / DM / customer base has never played an edition other than 5e - and the other editions still exist for anyone who prefers them to the current edition.
The problem as I stated previously, is that every half-caster has to have a feature / cantrip / ability that is resource-less to use that is equally powerful as Extra Attack as a core part of their class that serves as their "base-line" combat ability - i.e. what they do when they don't have a useful spell for that situation - b/c with the limited spellslots and spells known/prepared every half-caster runs into this situation all the time. Warlock has Eldritch Blast and Pact of the Blade and the associated Invocations for this. The Bard has... nothing.
Are you arguing just to argue? Because you "100% disagree", but then in the same sentence go on to agree with exactly what I said: the backlash/pushback for making the Bard into a half-caster might be too extreme.
It isn't but it also kind of is in 5e; their spell level progression is the same as a full-caster thanks to pact magic scaling up to 5th-level by level 9, and Mystic Arcanums giving you access beyond that. The oddity with 5e is that how many spells you could cast partly depends on how many short rests you can get; if you can squeeze two into a day (maybe with the help of catnap) you can effectively have twelve 5th-level spell slots.
That's not quite the same ammunition for chaff spells as a proper full-caster gets but I'd say it's pretty comparable when most full-casters only get three 5th-level slots. But they are always at the mercy of that reset, so it leaves them in this weird place where they have the spell levels of a full caster but resources are potentially worse, or potentially a lot better than a half caster depending how many short rests they get.
It's hard to say it's a half caster when it becoming one in the UA means you now need to burn invocations just to keep up with what you had, but that's just the current state of the UA, I'm hoping they'll fix it up considerably.
Point being, I'm not so sure we should dismiss the Warlock as always being a half-caster so it's fine for them to become one, as they were never really that, any more than they were a full-caster, the backlash is more for what's being lost. A Warlock has to burn invocations just to be able to cast 3rd-level spells at the same level a full caster does, but with a lot less freedom than they used to have at the higher end of their casting ability. The compensation is more low level casting, but on a class that encouraged scalable spells, unique spells, or infinite use at-will alternatives is that compensation enough?
Same issue is the key for a Bard being a half-caster; the half-casting isn't the problem if you get enough in return, especially if it's something cool that makes Bards more Bardic rather than being sexy Wizards with fewer magical toys.
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.
Ironically this new version is also kind of a half-caster but kind of not because of mystic arcanums allowing full caster spell progression up to 9th level. The problem is mystic arcanum is an invocation now and the other invocations don't really compete with it all that well making it feel like an invocation tax.
That's not the compensation. The compensation is that you now have full access to the Wizard spell list which IS NOT built around scalable spells (which have always been weaker than non-scaling spells), and ability to use them when you find it valuable to do so rather than not knowing when / if you should use them b/c you have no idea when you'll get them back. Even with the 2-SR per day example it's highly unlikely that you'd spend all your 5th level slots in between those rests for combat-stuff because of the unpredictability of when you'll need them. Most likely the party would stop for a SR while you still have 1-2 slots left, you spend them on some utility thing if you bothered to take those spells then do the SR.
The main issue with the One D&D Warlock is that the Invocations now totally suck. I mean, I've never really been that excited by any of the Invocations previously, but making MA a competition for it just highlights how terrible and uninteresting most of them are. They really need a complete overhaul.
Pretty much this. 3.5 did give a lot in the songs. That's part of my argument regarding full caster by combining multiple strong resources. It's why mystic arcanum becoming more versatile works for the UA warlocks. It's the same concept for artificers with the the progression plus infusions. Adding enough in songs to the half spell progression is definitely a feasible concept.
Going that route is backtracking though. It's the same discussion we had in DnD Next when the devs were discussing either going with magic plus magical resource vs more magic and came to the conclusion that combining songs and spells was the better approach.