WotC Bard is the biggest mystery in the 5.75e PHB

[James Gasik]

I don't know, I'm from an older era, my Bards can wield longswords and wear chainmail.

 

[Kobold Stew]

My biggest concern about the Bard in the UA, is when they tried to streamline weapon proficiencies in all classes, harming the Rogue and the Bard. Currently Bard's don't get proficiency in Rapier, Hand Crossbow, Shortwords or Longswords, as they only get Simple Weapon Proficiency and nothing else. Yes I know that backgrounds are more likely to grant proficiencies in weapons now, but a Bard using a Rapier is very much something that exists in my concepts of a Bard.

I don't know, I'm from an older era, my Bards can wield longswords and wear chainmail.

...and these are still a thing for the Valor Bard (in Playtest 6). I'm actually fine with that.

 

[James Gasik]

It's strange, ever since 3.5 have a prestige class that expanded bard casting to level 9 (I think it was the Sublime Chord, but I don't know for sure), I wanted a 9 level caster that focused on music and I'd be happy to lose some of the Bard's skill stuff and second tier combat to get it.

5e comes out with a 9 level caster bard and the only thing they really lost that I cared about is the Inspire Courage group buff, which took a few levels or optimization to really make a huge difference anyways, and yet, it's been 10 years now and I've yet to actually play a Bard. I love the class, been playing Bards since 2e, my 4e Bard is one of my favorite characters...but...

I've seen them played a lot, they seem to do a lot of cool stuff, and can even poach spells from other classes, and yet, when it's time to make a character I look at Bard and go "nah". The subclasses never excite me.

For the life of me, I don't know what's wrong, on paper it seems like a powerhouse. Maybe the idea of throwing dice around and patiently having to remind people about them is the issue, but no, there's subclasses where you use them for yourself!

I keep hoping the new Bard will be fantastic, but I couldn't for the life of me say what I'd want them to do differently. Heck, I'm not sure what other people would really want, even after following this thread (beyond the people who want them to lose their full casting, but I think that's just wanting to dial back 5e's magic a bit- these might be the same people who want a spell-less Ranger for all I know).

 

[Henadic Theologian]

That's an AL quirk, doesn't really mean much of anything for the hobby in general.

.it was also in Xanthars.

 

[Parmandur]

.it was also in Xanthars.

As a suggestion. It was never a rule or all that important outside organized play circles. People complained about it for years in those circles to boot.

It doesn't signal a "5.5" or anything. It was just a change of a table rule for a shared campaign.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

As a suggestion. It was never a rule or all that important outside organized play circles. People complained about it for years in those circles to boot.

It doesn't signal a "5.5" or anything. It was just a change of a table rule for a shared campaign.

The fact that the rule was none functional after Tasha's, but could work before shows that it was 5.5e.

 

[Parmandur]

The fact that the rule was none functional after Tasha's, but could work before shows that it was 5.5e.

It could work, but AL decided they didn’t want to anymore. It really isn't a big deal.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

It could work, but AL decided they didn’t want to anymore. It really isn't a big deal.

No, the power and vestility gape is too large, it'd be a mess.

 

[Parmandur]

No, the power and vestility gape is too large, it'd be a mess.

No, not really. Fans were just tired of not being able to use different Races along with new Subclasses or Feats. There wasn't anything broken at all, that's why they did away with Core + 1: it was always about convenience for running organized play, not about power.

 

[James Gasik]

Henadic, are you replying to someone who has me blocked? Some of your posts seem to be non-sequiturs.