Hey, I have a question for you guys: should the 5e bard be a full caster?
So, for those of who don’t know, I’m a pathfinder boi. That was my first ttrpg system, and it is still my one of my favorites. This has made it so that I tend to judge 5e by a lot of pathfinder standards, which I am aware and always remind myself when I think “man, that 5e thing is fucking stupid”.
But, this is sometimes well founded. One of my friends plays both systems, and while he prefers 5e cause it’s more streamlined, he thinks a lot of its design decisions are stupid as shit. He absolutely hates truestrike (though, after talking with some other people, everybody seems to hate truestrike). He thinks a lot of the standard animals aren’t very great (the one that he talked about for a while was the hyena, cause its stats don’t really make sense when looking at what the animal can do and the role it fills, even when considering balance). And I agree with him. I think 5e is a pretty good game, but it’s got some big flaws*. But the biggest one to me is the bard.
Ok, so, let’s look at the bards basic design. They have a pretty nice selection of weapon and armor proficiencies. Combine this a d8 hit dice, that makes them a decent front line fighter to help supplement that role in the party. They have a few skills they get to be proficient with (playing a human or half-elf only makes this crazier), and after a few level s they get expertise and jack-of-all-trades, which makes them literally the best skill monkeys. That’s real fucking dope, as that’s the role they’ve been filling for several editions at this point.
They also get their bardic colleges that turns them into a psuedo of other classes, allowing them to be a little more specialized in a wider range of roles. That’s really fucking good (just really love the sub-class thing 5e does and hope to see more d20 games do it).
But...then they get full casting ability, and that part is what bothers the ever living shit out of me. The bards is supposed to be a supporting class, not a guy who can take over a role in the party whole sale. With full casting, they can replace the wizard or sorcerer. And I mean...it wouldn’t be so bad if that was how they where built, but they have all the other stuff I talked about before. A full caster that’s a decent fighter, a fantastic skill monkey, and who can also be a able to do some of the things that the other classes can do? That doesn’t strike anybody else as a little much or a little over powered?
Like I said, I’m aware that me being introduced to this kind of thing from pathfinder is shaping how I think about this, but I still that making that bard a full caster is overkill. Midcaster at most, this way they still get up to 6th level spells and are still pretty good casters, but just like with their weapon and armor stuff, they aren’t a perfect replacement, and instead are supplemental to the classes whose main role is to be a fullcaster.
But, what do you guys think? Do you think that I’ stupid and that the bard should be a master-of-all-trades (as one of my friends thinks they should be cause they’re supposed to be highly versatile), or do you agree with me and that they should lose those last 3 spell levels cause they already have enough? Let me know and thanks for listening to me ramble.