The issue with yanking them down to half caster at this point is defining the other half.
"Jack of all trades, master of none." They're a little bit of everything. For one, none of the other half-casters have access to every spell list (and in 5e, their list was sort of a hybrid of other lists). For two, the Bard already has the "jack of all trades" feature that gets them skills across the board. Their subclasses already do a little bit of finding a niche within their adaptable generalist role. Some fighting ability (more than the full casters before their subclasses are factored in). Some spell ability (in all categories). Some skill ability.
Giving them a full caster progression is kind of the opposite of "master of none". Especially when you combine it with eventually getting all 3 spell lists.
It’s a pithy quote, but as a lot of people who’ve tried going wide via multiclassing will tell you, in play that typically just means that you don’t get many opportunities to shine because anything you can do, someone else can do better. Once again, that was one of the flaws of the half caster Warlock model; Wizards and Sorcerers would be objectively superior casters, and nothing in the Invocation or Pact Boon kit was a truly breakout feature either. A PC needs some form of mastery to meaningfully impact their table.
it seems like an odd thing to choose bard and then expect to do combat, magic, or skills better than a warrior, mage, or expert. if there's something they should master, it'd be charismatic arts: illusion and charm. and maybe necromancy too (arcane research being so akin to grave robbing) which could use a more positive image with regard to player options.
Wizards and Sorcerers get more spellcasting support and quite a few additional spells, any dedicated martial performs better than even the gish subclasses, and Rogues ultimately do better on skill profs. Bards already aren’t the pinnacle of any field, but if they cannot even do any of those well, then you’re just handicapping yourself if you play the class. That’s the flaw in making them half casters, particularly when they can be contrasted against a full casting Bard and all but inevitably be found wanting.
this is so much like saying arts majors aren't valuable because they so rarely diagnose cancer, win sports games, or run car companies. gosh, who would want to live a sub optimal life where they never discover a planet? who would do that to themselves, handicapping their future earning potential for... what, enjoyment? chasing dreams? a sense of worth that's not based on their output?
You do realize I’m talking about a game, not real life, right? It is objectively a fact that many people will not be happy with a class they perceive to be significantly underpowered compared to most others in the game. Making Bards half casters will almost inevitably create that perception, and it will probably be more right than not, regardless of how many Hallmark lines about personal validation people use to justify the idea.
The issue with yanking them down to half caster at this point is defining the other half.
"Jack of all trades, master of none." They're a little bit of everything. For one, none of the other half-casters have access to every spell list (and in 5e, their list was sort of a hybrid of other lists). For two, the Bard already has the "jack of all trades" feature that gets them skills across the board. Their subclasses already do a little bit of finding a niche within their adaptable generalist role. Some fighting ability (more than the full casters before their subclasses are factored in). Some spell ability (in all categories). Some skill ability.
Giving them a full caster progression is kind of the opposite of "master of none". Especially when you combine it with eventually getting all 3 spell lists.
It’s a pithy quote, but as a lot of people who’ve tried going wide via multiclassing will tell you, in play that typically just means that you don’t get many opportunities to shine because anything you can do, someone else can do better. Once again, that was one of the flaws of the half caster Warlock model; Wizards and Sorcerers would be objectively superior casters, and nothing in the Invocation or Pact Boon kit was a truly breakout feature either. A PC needs some form of mastery to meaningfully impact their table.
it seems like an odd thing to choose bard and then expect to do combat, magic, or skills better than a warrior, mage, or expert. if there's something they should master, it'd be charismatic arts: illusion and charm. and maybe necromancy too (arcane research being so akin to grave robbing) which could use a more positive image with regard to player options.
Wizards and Sorcerers get more spellcasting support and quite a few additional spells, any dedicated martial performs better than even the gish subclasses, and Rogues ultimately do better on skill profs. Bards already aren’t the pinnacle of any field, but if they cannot even do any of those well, then you’re just handicapping yourself if you play the class. That’s the flaw in making them half casters, particularly when they can be contrasted against a full casting Bard and all but inevitably be found wanting.
this is so much like saying arts majors aren't valuable because they so rarely diagnose cancer, win sports games, or run car companies. gosh, who would want to live a sub optimal life where they never discover a planet? who would do that to themselves, handicapping their future earning potential for... what, enjoyment? chasing dreams? a sense of worth that's not based on their output?
You do realize I’m talking about a game, not real life, right? It is objectively a fact that many people will not be happy with a class they perceive to be significantly underpowered compared to most others in the game. Making Bards half casters will almost inevitably create that perception, and it will probably be more right than not, regardless of how many Hallmark lines about personal validation people use to justify the idea.
having up-voted in support on many other of your comments, i assumed that you take your same values to any conversation. but, either i'm off track about your position on the dpr-vs-story line or you view the topic of bards as an exception. power in what? exploration? social interaction? out of combat utility? no, i think (and correct me if i'm wrong) you're offering that a half-caster bard would be underpreforming if it was 'significantly underpowered' in combat. if the bard isn't doing anything 'bardish' in combat that sets them apart from other classes as being niche interesting in combat, then the implication is that bard is valued specifically for its spell slots. is spell slot mule a necessary role? a unique role? a fun role?
in a world where the goal and reward largely remain the same but the path to get there is negotiable, why is it acceptable to keep increasing class or party power if the dm must increase encounter challenge by the same amount? same battlefield but power creep inflates the numbers. if bard didn't feel the need to heft fireballs into battle to keep up, if the encounters were allowed to tone down, maybe the bard could do more things in combat that resembled things a 'bard' might do in combat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Combat is a significant consideration, because at its core D&D is a combat-centric game, and even when you’re the face and/or skill monkey, you notice when it’s time to roll initiative and you’re barely contributing a fraction of what other party members are. Sure, some people will be fine with it, but again one of the underlying design principles is that everyone should be at least competent in combat. But, even setting aside combat specifically, as I’ve said before a half caster is objectively unable to contribute via spellcasting utility in a way a full caster cannot do better; they have fewer slots and weaker spells, and so at best they might be able to stand out in one particular niche area, but always with the knowledge that a full caster of equal level can do all of that and more. Bards as they currently are work because they are more than half as good at casting than Wizards and Sorcerers as well as being more than half as good at skills compared to Rogues. If you bust them down to only being half as good at casting at best, then the entire performance of the class drops unless you bump skills up to compensate, at which point you’ve substantially just redone the Arcane Trickster. It’s the synthesis of high end casting and skill boosts that makes Bards function in D&D, and if you’re going to alter that balance while maintaining Bards as a distinct class you ultimately have to alter the whole structure of classes to avoid just pushing them into someone else’s niche.
Combat is a significant consideration, because at its core D&D is a combat-centric game, and even when you’re the face and/or skill monkey, you notice when it’s time to roll initiative and you’re barely contributing a fraction of what other party members are. Sure, some people will be fine with it, but again one of the underlying design principles is that everyone should be at least competent in combat. But, even setting aside combat specifically, as I’ve said before a half caster is objectively unable to contribute via spellcasting utility in a way a full caster cannot do better; they have fewer slots and weaker spells, and so at best they might be able to stand out in one particular niche area, but always with the knowledge that a full caster of equal level can do all of that and more. Bards as they currently are work because they are more than half as good at casting than Wizards and Sorcerers as well as being more than half as good at skills compared to Rogues. If you bust them down to only being half as good at casting at best, then the entire performance of the class drops unless you bump skills up to compensate, at which point you’ve substantially just redone the Arcane Trickster. It’s the synthesis of high end casting and skill boosts that makes Bards function in D&D, and if you’re going to alter that balance while maintaining Bards as a distinct class you ultimately have to alter the whole structure of classes to avoid just pushing them into someone else’s niche.
i disagree that changing bard requires altering all classes. removing inequality between classes contributed strongly to 4e so beige and unloved. but if change is inevitable, then keeping bards the same seems to speak more to a change in other classes: if spellcasting is so important to not feeling left behind, then perhaps the fix for monks is spellcasting. valor and dance bards are pretty martial, and they require full caster to stay relevant, right?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Monks are a pure martial build, so that comparison is apples to oranges; the largest issue with Monks is just resource management and the variable occurrence of short rests, not their kit itself. There’s really nothing to compare between the two cases.
The issue with yanking them down to half caster at this point is defining the other half.
"Jack of all trades, master of none." They're a little bit of everything. For one, none of the other half-casters have access to every spell list (and in 5e, their list was sort of a hybrid of other lists). For two, the Bard already has the "jack of all trades" feature that gets them skills across the board. Their subclasses already do a little bit of finding a niche within their adaptable generalist role. Some fighting ability (more than the full casters before their subclasses are factored in). Some spell ability (in all categories). Some skill ability.
Giving them a full caster progression is kind of the opposite of "master of none". Especially when you combine it with eventually getting all 3 spell lists.
It’s a pithy quote, but as a lot of people who’ve tried going wide via multiclassing will tell you, in play that typically just means that you don’t get many opportunities to shine because anything you can do, someone else can do better. Once again, that was one of the flaws of the half caster Warlock model; Wizards and Sorcerers would be objectively superior casters, and nothing in the Invocation or Pact Boon kit was a truly breakout feature either. A PC needs some form of mastery to meaningfully impact their table.
it seems like an odd thing to choose bard and then expect to do combat, magic, or skills better than a warrior, mage, or expert. if there's something they should master, it'd be charismatic arts: illusion and charm. and maybe necromancy too (arcane research being so akin to grave robbing) which could use a more positive image with regard to player options.
Wizards and Sorcerers get more spellcasting support and quite a few additional spells, any dedicated martial performs better than even the gish subclasses, and Rogues ultimately do better on skill profs. Bards already aren’t the pinnacle of any field, but if they cannot even do any of those well, then you’re just handicapping yourself if you play the class. That’s the flaw in making them half casters, particularly when they can be contrasted against a full casting Bard and all but inevitably be found wanting.
this is so much like saying arts majors aren't valuable because they so rarely diagnose cancer, win sports games, or run car companies. gosh, who would want to live a sub optimal life where they never discover a planet? who would do that to themselves, handicapping their future earning potential for... what, enjoyment? chasing dreams? a sense of worth that's not based on their output?
You do realize I’m talking about a game, not real life, right? It is objectively a fact that many people will not be happy with a class they perceive to be significantly underpowered compared to most others in the game. Making Bards half casters will almost inevitably create that perception, and it will probably be more right than not, regardless of how many Hallmark lines about personal validation people use to justify the idea.
Yes, a Role Playing Game. One in which people can play any myriad of characters. One which does not have to be played with combat as a core, or even main, focus.
And also one in which players don't have to pick every class .. ever in their entire career. If they find that the Bard is spread too thin for their preference: they don't have to play the Bard. Not every class has to appeal to every player, nor does its bread and butter have to be combat utility.
Monks are a pure martial build, so that comparison is apples to oranges; the largest issue with Monks is just resource management and the variable occurrence of short rests, not their kit itself. There’s really nothing to compare between the two cases.
wizard is pure caster while bard gets dirty with sword/valor/dance, but there wasn't an objection to comparing those. as for monk, i didn't pull that class comparison out of thin air: the word 'monk' comes up 28 times on page 1 of this thread discussing a non-monk subclass. if monk and bard don't compare, it is explicitly because one has spell slots and the other doesn't.
so if we add half-caster, that under-powered thing, to open-hand monk? then we can compare. where would half-caster monk compare to the dance bard? i feel like there'd be a lot of shield spells...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Monks are a pure martial build, so that comparison is apples to oranges; the largest issue with Monks is just resource management and the variable occurrence of short rests, not their kit itself. There’s really nothing to compare between the two cases.
wizard is pure caster while bard gets dirty with sword/valor/dance, but there wasn't an objection to comparing those. as for monk, i didn't pull that class comparison out of thin air: the word 'monk' comes up 28 times on page 1 of this thread discussing a non-monk subclass. if monk and bard don't compare, it is explicitly because one has spell slots and the other doesn't.
so if we add half-caster, that under-powered thing, to open-hand monk? then we can compare. where would half-caster monk compare to the dance bard? i feel like there'd be a lot of shield spells...
Okay, now I have no idea what your point is at all. I thought we were discussing the concept of Bards being downgraded to half caster as a segue from the original discussion of the Dance Bard. I don’t know why Monks would be relevant to that.
And regarding Bard gishes, Wizards have that too, so it doesn’t undercut the comparison.
Okay, now I have no idea what your point is at all. I thought we were discussing the concept of Bards being downgraded to half caster as a segue from the original discussion of the Dance Bard. I don’t know why Monks would be relevant to that...
you took issue with "jack of all trades, master of none," saying that it's no fun to be out-shined by masters-of-some in the party. i wondered why someone who wished to be a master of something would pick a thematically master-of-none class. you replied that, although already out-shined by more-masterful spellcasters, if bard lost any further value in spellcasting it would then be of no worth to serious players. i imagined someone asking "why would you play that class, it can't dpr" and it was a lot like asking why someone's getting a degree in Music if that degree would never make them look rich on instagram. you replied asking, "are you high?" ignoring that, i remarked that there's more to D&D than combat. and more to combat than dpr. and could there be anything less Bard than showing up on time, following the plan, and carefully managing their damage per round? the journey is a collaboration, i continued, and the tollgates only tax as many spell slots as you (and the dm) decide they do.
the point i've been dancing about is that 5e full-caster master of the three colors of magic bard doesn't feel like a clever, subtle, silver-tongued strummer of the cords of the cosmos, singer of the primordial words of creation when you rise to defend it here. you say it cannot be compared to this or that class while on the other hand saying that it must 'contribute' and not be 'out-shined' which is itself a comparison of outputs. i was hoping to draw out from you a considered discussion of combat and non-combat efficacy with regards to the thread's subject subclass. i'll be happy to follow-up and click the like button for any meaningful contributions to that end but i think i'll abstain from contributing further.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
You do realize I’m talking about a game, not real life, right? It is objectively a fact that many people will not be happy with a class they perceive to be significantly underpowered compared to most others in the game. Making Bards half casters will almost inevitably create that perception, and it will probably be more right than not, regardless of how many Hallmark lines about personal validation people use to justify the idea.
having up-voted in support on many other of your comments, i assumed that you take your same values to any conversation. but, either i'm off track about your position on the dpr-vs-story line or you view the topic of bards as an exception. power in what? exploration? social interaction? out of combat utility? no, i think (and correct me if i'm wrong) you're offering that a half-caster bard would be underpreforming if it was 'significantly underpowered' in combat. if the bard isn't doing anything 'bardish' in combat that sets them apart from other classes as being niche interesting in combat, then the implication is that bard is valued specifically for its spell slots. is spell slot mule a necessary role? a unique role? a fun role?
in a world where the goal and reward largely remain the same but the path to get there is negotiable, why is it acceptable to keep increasing class or party power if the dm must increase encounter challenge by the same amount? same battlefield but power creep inflates the numbers. if bard didn't feel the need to heft fireballs into battle to keep up, if the encounters were allowed to tone down, maybe the bard could do more things in combat that resembled things a 'bard' might do in combat.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Combat is a significant consideration, because at its core D&D is a combat-centric game, and even when you’re the face and/or skill monkey, you notice when it’s time to roll initiative and you’re barely contributing a fraction of what other party members are. Sure, some people will be fine with it, but again one of the underlying design principles is that everyone should be at least competent in combat. But, even setting aside combat specifically, as I’ve said before a half caster is objectively unable to contribute via spellcasting utility in a way a full caster cannot do better; they have fewer slots and weaker spells, and so at best they might be able to stand out in one particular niche area, but always with the knowledge that a full caster of equal level can do all of that and more. Bards as they currently are work because they are more than half as good at casting than Wizards and Sorcerers as well as being more than half as good at skills compared to Rogues. If you bust them down to only being half as good at casting at best, then the entire performance of the class drops unless you bump skills up to compensate, at which point you’ve substantially just redone the Arcane Trickster. It’s the synthesis of high end casting and skill boosts that makes Bards function in D&D, and if you’re going to alter that balance while maintaining Bards as a distinct class you ultimately have to alter the whole structure of classes to avoid just pushing them into someone else’s niche.
i disagree that changing bard requires altering all classes. removing inequality between classes contributed strongly to 4e so beige and unloved. but if change is inevitable, then keeping bards the same seems to speak more to a change in other classes: if spellcasting is so important to not feeling left behind, then perhaps the fix for monks is spellcasting. valor and dance bards are pretty martial, and they require full caster to stay relevant, right?
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Monks are a pure martial build, so that comparison is apples to oranges; the largest issue with Monks is just resource management and the variable occurrence of short rests, not their kit itself. There’s really nothing to compare between the two cases.
Yes, a Role Playing Game. One in which people can play any myriad of characters. One which does not have to be played with combat as a core, or even main, focus.
And also one in which players don't have to pick every class .. ever in their entire career. If they find that the Bard is spread too thin for their preference: they don't have to play the Bard. Not every class has to appeal to every player, nor does its bread and butter have to be combat utility.
wizard is pure caster while bard gets dirty with sword/valor/dance, but there wasn't an objection to comparing those. as for monk, i didn't pull that class comparison out of thin air: the word 'monk' comes up 28 times on page 1 of this thread discussing a non-monk subclass. if monk and bard don't compare, it is explicitly because one has spell slots and the other doesn't.
so if we add half-caster, that under-powered thing, to open-hand monk? then we can compare. where would half-caster monk compare to the dance bard? i feel like there'd be a lot of shield spells...
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Okay, now I have no idea what your point is at all. I thought we were discussing the concept of Bards being downgraded to half caster as a segue from the original discussion of the Dance Bard. I don’t know why Monks would be relevant to that.
And regarding Bard gishes, Wizards have that too, so it doesn’t undercut the comparison.
you took issue with "jack of all trades, master of none," saying that it's no fun to be out-shined by masters-of-some in the party. i wondered why someone who wished to be a master of something would pick a thematically master-of-none class. you replied that, although already out-shined by more-masterful spellcasters, if bard lost any further value in spellcasting it would then be of no worth to serious players. i imagined someone asking "why would you play that class, it can't dpr" and it was a lot like asking why someone's getting a degree in Music if that degree would never make them look rich on instagram. you replied asking, "are you high?" ignoring that, i remarked that there's more to D&D than combat. and more to combat than dpr. and could there be anything less Bard than showing up on time, following the plan, and carefully managing their damage per round? the journey is a collaboration, i continued, and the tollgates only tax as many spell slots as you (and the dm) decide they do.
the point i've been dancing about is that 5e full-caster master of the three colors of magic bard doesn't feel like a clever, subtle, silver-tongued strummer of the cords of the cosmos, singer of the primordial words of creation when you rise to defend it here. you say it cannot be compared to this or that class while on the other hand saying that it must 'contribute' and not be 'out-shined' which is itself a comparison of outputs. i was hoping to draw out from you a considered discussion of combat and non-combat efficacy with regards to the thread's subject subclass. i'll be happy to follow-up and click the like button for any meaningful contributions to that end but i think i'll abstain from contributing further.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
how do i find the detail sheet to this content id like to read it through. interesting looking subclass
It’s in the playtest document here
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/ua/ph-playtest-6