On top of my objections to the power of the choice of spell list, I don't like how much it muddies the flavor. I just have a hard time understanding what the differences are between Bards that chose different lists. What is a Divine Bard, and how can it cast commune if it doesn't draw its power from faith? What is an Arcane Bard, and what sets it apart from a Wizard? To me, the only list with a solid foundation flavor-wise is Primal (which, from what I've heard, aligns with the class's roots). But even then, I could see a Druid doing about as good a job of portraying the fantasy.
Read more of my comments on those questions I already made, maybe? :-P
That doesn't muddy the flavor. That facilitates choosing the flavor. What you are doing is rejecting anyone else's idea of flavors in favor of your own.
Bards have been arcane spell casters since 2e so asking that sounds disingenuous. The answer to the "how can they cast commune" is have you seen bards taking commune as a spell on their limited selection of spells known? The would cast commune if they chose it because they learned the magic to make it work.
It's clear you aren't familiar with mythic bards, so what abilities do druids have that seem to portray the fantasy other than casting primal spells?
On top of my objections to the power of the choice of spell list, I don't like how much it muddies the flavor. I just have a hard time understanding what the differences are between Bards that chose different lists. What is a Divine Bard, and how can it cast commune if it doesn't draw its power from faith? What is an Arcane Bard, and what sets it apart from a Wizard? To me, the only list with a solid foundation flavor-wise is Primal (which, from what I've heard, aligns with the class's roots). But even then, I could see a Druid doing about as good a job of portraying the fantasy.
Read more of my comments on those questions I already made, maybe? :-P
That doesn't muddy the flavor. That facilitates choosing the flavor. What you are doing is rejecting anyone else's idea of flavors in favor of your own.
Bards have been arcane spell casters since 2e so asking that sounds disingenuous. The answer to the "how can they cast commune" is have you seen bards taking commune as a spell on their limited selection of spells known? The would cast commune if they chose it because they learned the magic to make it work.
It's clear you aren't familiar with mythic bards, so what abilities do druids have that seem to portray the fantasy other than casting primal spells?
I'd love to read more of your comments, if you would kindly point me to them.
What you call rejecting flavor is what I call supporting class identity. Helping to keep at least some boundaries on what classes have control over what archetypes makes them feel more distinct and special, and helps newer players understand what they're signing up for when they play a class. If you think that anybody's concept should be playable with any class, might as well just let all known casters choose from every spell list.
I thought I read it at some point, so I looked it up. In AD&D 1e, Bards were part Fighter, part Rogue, and part Druid. That's what I meant by the class's roots. I brought up commune because it very clearly assumes you are religious, to exemplify my confusion at how exactly a Bard is accessing a faith-based list despite not necessarily having any faith.
I know some classic bards. The Pied Piper, Orpheus, and other mythical figures. Artists so masterfully attuned to the power of words and/or music that they could alter the world around them. My problem is, I wouldn't put any of them into one of Arcane, Divine, or Primal. I don't really hear about any of them paging through spellbooks, secluding themselves in monasteries, or connecting much more with nature than anybody did at the time. And on the subject of druidic overlap, according to UA 6, Primal Bards "listen to bird song and the music of the wind, associate with Druid circles, and wield primal magic." So just Druid stuff, with a bit of art tossed in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
What you call rejecting flavor is what I call supporting class identity. Helping to keep at least some boundaries on what classes have control over what archetypes makes them feel more distinct and special, and helps newer players understand what they're signing up for when they play a class. If you think that anybody's concept should be playable with any class, might as well just let all known casters choose from every spell list.
I thought I read it at some point, so I looked it up. In AD&D 1e, Bards were part Fighter, part Rogue, and part Druid. That's what I meant by the class's roots. I brought up commune because it very clearly assumes you are religious, to exemplify my confusion at how exactly a Bard is accessing a faith-based list despite not necessarily having any faith.
I know some classic bards. The Pied Piper, Orpheus, and other mythical figures. Artists so masterfully attuned to the power of words and/or music that they could alter the world around them. My problem is, I wouldn't put any of them into one of Arcane, Divine, or Primal. I don't really hear about any of them paging through spellbooks, secluding themselves in monasteries, or connecting much more with nature than anybody did at the time. And on the subject of druidic overlap, according to UA 6, Primal Bards "listen to bird song and the music of the wind, associate with Druid circles, and wield primal magic." So just Druid stuff, with a bit of art tossed in.
I second this across a lot of 5e and OneDnD.
5e is a simplification, and it's beautiful and elegant, but it can't hold all the stuff you want to put into it without a grey goo situation where the subclasses and even sometimes classes feel very same-y. (because the inclination is to steal traits from other classes rather than create new, because creating new means more charts, more tables, more things to track, etc...)
OneDnD is a programmer's version. It's taking that simplified set of mechanics and is trying to codify everything and give it specific traits/features/mechanics that are fairly specific interchangable parts, which is now more like pick and choose your toppings at chipotle than creating something from your imagination.
This build I mentioned in the beginning.... Well, there's about 4 or 5 ways its sparking my ire, but from a spellcaster's class, this is the chipotle burrito hack, where you select extra meat and an extra tortilla and you walk away with 2 burritos for only slightly more than the cost of 1.
The bard is not a weak class, and not even a weak caster as it gets a full 9 level progression, has access to all spells, and then has martial ability.
Honestly, I'd prefer specific spell lists for each class with far less overlap, but I doubt that would happen, especially in a world where the game makers seem to want to codify it as they do/did to their card game.
While I am not sure they are the best caster in the game I think its close enough I wouldn't argue with people too much who say they are. Which just does not feel like a bard to me. And damn college of eloquence on this bard will be insane. Backwards compatibility will create more problems than it solves.
How are bards close enough to other major spellcasters? Bards are barely baseline adequate.
If you can't build a bard that feels like a bard to you that seems like a you issue. I'm not having that issue so I would have to question what you think a bard is and what you think ends up so different from the bard's diverse list in 5e now plus magical secrets versus a less diverse list plus magical secrets.
What spells are they suddenly adding now that are "insane" with eloquence bards?
Not one of the if not best casters in the game. I don't think bards are that, and right now they are. You thinking they are just baseline adequate seems like a you issue as you say,.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Read more of my comments on those questions I already made, maybe? :-P
That doesn't muddy the flavor. That facilitates choosing the flavor. What you are doing is rejecting anyone else's idea of flavors in favor of your own.
Bards have been arcane spell casters since 2e so asking that sounds disingenuous. The answer to the "how can they cast commune" is have you seen bards taking commune as a spell on their limited selection of spells known? The would cast commune if they chose it because they learned the magic to make it work.
It's clear you aren't familiar with mythic bards, so what abilities do druids have that seem to portray the fantasy other than casting primal spells?
I'd love to read more of your comments, if you would kindly point me to them.
What you call rejecting flavor is what I call supporting class identity. Helping to keep at least some boundaries on what classes have control over what archetypes makes them feel more distinct and special, and helps newer players understand what they're signing up for when they play a class. If you think that anybody's concept should be playable with any class, might as well just let all known casters choose from every spell list.
I thought I read it at some point, so I looked it up. In AD&D 1e, Bards were part Fighter, part Rogue, and part Druid. That's what I meant by the class's roots. I brought up commune because it very clearly assumes you are religious, to exemplify my confusion at how exactly a Bard is accessing a faith-based list despite not necessarily having any faith.
I know some classic bards. The Pied Piper, Orpheus, and other mythical figures. Artists so masterfully attuned to the power of words and/or music that they could alter the world around them. My problem is, I wouldn't put any of them into one of Arcane, Divine, or Primal. I don't really hear about any of them paging through spellbooks, secluding themselves in monasteries, or connecting much more with nature than anybody did at the time. And on the subject of druidic overlap, according to UA 6, Primal Bards "listen to bird song and the music of the wind, associate with Druid circles, and wield primal magic." So just Druid stuff, with a bit of art tossed in.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I second this across a lot of 5e and OneDnD.
5e is a simplification, and it's beautiful and elegant, but it can't hold all the stuff you want to put into it without a grey goo situation where the subclasses and even sometimes classes feel very same-y. (because the inclination is to steal traits from other classes rather than create new, because creating new means more charts, more tables, more things to track, etc...)
OneDnD is a programmer's version. It's taking that simplified set of mechanics and is trying to codify everything and give it specific traits/features/mechanics that are fairly specific interchangable parts, which is now more like pick and choose your toppings at chipotle than creating something from your imagination.
This build I mentioned in the beginning.... Well, there's about 4 or 5 ways its sparking my ire, but from a spellcaster's class, this is the chipotle burrito hack, where you select extra meat and an extra tortilla and you walk away with 2 burritos for only slightly more than the cost of 1.
The bard is not a weak class, and not even a weak caster as it gets a full 9 level progression, has access to all spells, and then has martial ability.
Honestly, I'd prefer specific spell lists for each class with far less overlap, but I doubt that would happen, especially in a world where the game makers seem to want to codify it as they do/did to their card game.
Not one of the if not best casters in the game. I don't think bards are that, and right now they are. You thinking they are just baseline adequate seems like a you issue as you say,.