D20 Monkey gives us a preview of the Bard.
http://www.d20monkey.com/2014/07/28/the-bard/
Looks damn cool! up to 9th level spells too, sweeet
That is beautiful art. I love the colors, and it has the vibe of a renessaince fair.
Nice.
3 sub-class features (3, 6, 14).
5 ability bumps.
insperation die (1d6->1d12), which was explained. (give it to someone to add to any d20).
song of rest, presumably adds to healing during a short rest.
"magic secrets" is unknown. But i'm guessing that it let's you learn a spell from any class. (it coincides with "spells known" bumps).
But most things are hidden under "spells".
Vicious mockery cantrip sounds fun.
That's interesting. They start their spellcasting at level 1 instead of level 2 like they did in the playtest. I wonder if they did the same thing for the ranger and paladin.
Love the art. Love that Vicious Mockery (OMG we can pun people to death the dissociation the WORLD WILL END) is back, thoguh we don't yet know, I don't think, what it does. Find it bizarre that the equipment list felt it necessary to say 'a: a lute or b: any other musical instrument. Why the artificial distinction? Why not just say 'a musical instrument'?
MrHotter wrote:
Here's a link to the L&L.
Hmmm..... interesting. They seem to know far more spells than sorcerer, though far different ones, and a few less than the warlocks (19-27 spells, depending on invocations; far less with ritualist). Naturally, blown out of the water by wizard.
Expertise combined with spells make bards insanely good sneaks and diplomats; that said, Inspiration means they can make everyone else better at those skills too.
Specializing in beguiler magic, sounds like. I wonder if we have any of the druid spells from the playtest making its way into the spell list, which would be awesome for those who want a druid-themed bard. Also, given how much the magic feels very elvish to me, I would love to have the elven bladesinger be a bard now.
Font of Inspiration sounds like something related to their Bardic Inspirations.
Actually, the first thing that struck me was the first four paragraphs. "Scholar, skald, or scoundrel." I wonder, even if there's no third subclass, there are builds that make a scoundrel bard stand out more than being Lore or Valor. The half-elf example was a scholar, the second a war skald; the third is the scoundrel? Just someone who chooses to focus on all the skills and spells to enhance those skills?
The second thing? "Words of Creation." Will the bard get a True Name caster subclass? All the Power Word spells?
Finally - I still want the bard to get a Factotum subclass. Versatility, thy name is bard.
Orzel wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Orzel wrote:
mellored wrote:
That document you don't really trust, Mephi (which is almost identical to what is here, save one less cantrip, which seems across the board a reduction; Warlock and Sorcerer also lost their lv 16 cantrip), suggests that Bards will get every Power Word spell.
Mellored: personally, I don't think College of Valour fits the Scoundrel Bard as much as College of Lore, but then again, College of Lore can't use Bows, despite it fitting the Prescient Bard a lot more thematically than the College of Valour. My Prescient Bard feels lost, having to eat a feat in order to play the character he actually is.
Marandahir wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
mellored wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Prescience related to lore and wisdom and seeing the truth beyond the veil. The Prescient Bard played out a lot like a storyteller who knew the past and the future, and that's more buidable with the Lore Bard. Of course, a lot of people PLAYING Prescient Bards wore heavier armour, but that was because Cha-Wis meant your other defenses were sub-par, so you went for armor for protection.
I forgot that the Shortbow was a simple weapon now (and thus is simpler than the Hand Crossbow and the Heavy Crossbow, which is pretty ridiculous, in my opinion, since it takes decades to train to use a bow and a crossbow is more like a gun; anyone and her mother can kill with these). I guess I can build my Bow-Bard decently with that, though I miss the Longbow proficiency. Maybe I'll take the feat later on, but there are a lot of feats I need to take for this guy anyway to actually approach the sort of things he could do (Lucky, for example, to represent the prescient fateturning abilities).
Marandahir wrote:
And it looks like all classes get one strong save (Dex, Con, or Wis) and one weak save (Str, Int, or Cha).
I'm really enjoying these class write ups. They're very evocative and inspiring. I'm imagining a campaign where a book makes it's way to the PCs which recounts in flowery prose about a journey a group of heroes go on beyond the known world and the threats they face along with the treasures they find. With the ending incomplete and leaving the reader on a cliffhanger. It'd be a great way to foreshadow several events and also put the PC's on a railroad of their own choosing as they follow the journey of the heroes.
i certainly never got that from reading 4th ed or Pathfinder's class write ups.
As much as I like the flavor and mechanics as far as we've seen, that black guitar (IT'S A GUITAR COME ON) is terrible. It's like he had to be wielding a sword and they photoshopped Guitar Hero's interface on it.
JohnLynch wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
Lore bard, from the sounds of it, is a mix of the Sublime Chord and Virtuoso PrCs from 3.x, and the Cunning Bard from 4e.
The Valor bard (aka skald) is a really just taking the classic gish-bard from 2-3, and the valor/skad bards from 4e, and putting it into a subclass.
I really don't think there's much room left here for a luck bard in either subclass.
Emanuele_Galletto wrote:
Well, Prescient Bard was less "lucky" in the sense of the Wild Sorcerer, and more like granting a bunch of rerolls. It was a mixture of ideas – Loremaster, Storyteller, Archer, knower of the past, present, and future. Spell choice is obviously going to play into this, and choosing more divination and abjuration spells, rather than enchantment and illusion spells, would help. But I agree, neither subclass quite represents what the Prescient Bard did.
Also, masterfat78, that's a good suggestion, but my character is no elf (he was a Tuathan half-elf; which makes it even harder to represent because that theme, while not "useful" from a 4e character optimization sense, was a VERY flavourful and power-ridden theme that doesn't properly translate to anything any race, background, or class can do).
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
I find it odd that the Bard, Sorcerer, and Warlock are all Charisma based Arcane spellcasters with very similar spell lists (and perhaps identical, in the case of the Sorcerer/Wizard). In particular, there's a ton of overlap between the Bard, Sorcerer, and the Int based Wizard. They might modify spells in slightly different ways, and manage their spell resources in slightly different ways, but the end product for all three is basically the same. 1st through 9th level Arcane spells.
It seems like the Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard, and Warlock should have all been subclasses of a Magic User or Magician or whatever base class.
Class looks cool. Once again, really not a fan of the art at all.
Person_Man wrote:
Very cool, thanks for sharing!
Person_Man wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Thank the gods the Bard has a d8 hit die. I was very worried there.
Brock_Landers wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
mellored wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
mellored wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
mellored wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Emanuele_Galletto wrote:
My bard, Falsetto Jones, plays a haunted glockenspiel.
Personaly i'm not a fan of this bard.
During the playtest when they gave us the bard i diden't like it being another full caster I had actualy hoped they would be moving the bard to less spellcasting instead of more.
Along the same line i diden't like the paladin and ranger being spellcasters from low level.
To me spelcasting just doeen't feal like what the ranger,paladin and bard classes are about.
Especialy the ranger and paladin whuodiden't get spells untill level 8+ in ADnD 2nd (and if you used kits usualy traded in that spelcasting for other abilities)
of the 4 non casters left in 5th (Barbarian,fighter,rogue and monk) 2 seem to have a sublcass to turn them into casters.
The class list just seems way to caster heavy for my liking at this point.
Well, what is your preference for a bard, then? Spell free battle leader? If so, perhaps the Battle Master warlord build may suit you better?
The core Fighter and Rogue want to be entirely non-magical classes, so a charismatic version of one of those may be more appealing to your tastes?
So has anyone picked a sex for this bard? I actually can't tell; androgynous elves for the win. That is a badass lute too. This is probably the most fancy yet badass someone can look while carrying a lute and a recorder.
Also, the "creating a bard" section makes me want to channel Heath Ledger's Joker and make up a different creepy backstory every time I have a chance.
Mephi1234 wrote:
For those that like the art, the original image is here:
http://www.deviantart.com/art/Bard-Dungeons-and-Dragons-454305548
apparently it's male.
edwin_su wrote:
aleatoric wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
mellored wrote:
What I feel the most pained is the separation of sword and spell (or bow and spell and so forth). Bards in 4e cast a lot of their cool powers as magically enhanced weapon attacks, or spells cast using their weapons as implements. Rangers and Paladins have got a number of these (the Smite Spells and a handful of Ranger spells that use a Quiver as a focus), but the Bard is missing these. Eldritch Knight, Blade Warlock, and Skald Bard can all KINDA do this with casting and striking in the same turn, but it's too little too late – 14th level cast and strike in one action. I'm missing the arcane spells AS strikes.
Marandahir wrote:
I was never really a fan of bards before. In AD&D 1E and 2E they were overpowered. In 3e they were pathetic. 4E came close but there were other 4E classes that to me were just more fun to play. This version of the bard is very intriguing. If I could swipe mage armor with magic secrets I could envision my halfing bard of lore dressed as a jester. I would name him Chuckles as he would always try to inspire one. I could see him being the clown and trickster using his charm and rakish personality to keep both friend and foe entertained.
Ashrym wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
There's something wierd going on with the spells known.
Starts at 4, ends at 22. So it should be linear, with 2 levels with no gain. Could have them at 10 and 20, or at 19 and 20 like they are now, whatever.
But then you look at the list and it has things like:
- 11, 12, 14, 15, 15, 16 ... why is this not 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.
- Then again at 15, 16, 18, 19, 19, 20. Why would you skip a number only to use the same number twice right afterwards.
At 10th level (the 12-14 jump), you get another 5th level slot, a cantrip, upgraded inspiration (d10), expertise, and magical secrets.
Then at 12th, you get an ability score improvement, and nothing else (other than more health).
16th level is the same, just a stat bump or feat and nothing else.
19th level you get a stat bump and another 6th level slot.
The 4th and 8th level stat bumps both come with a cantrip and a new spell slot of the highest available level.
Its obviously not like a stat/feat is so valuable that you can't get anything else with it, because 3/5 of them do come with other things. So why do they screw up a perfectly simple linear sequence by giving it big gaps followed by periods of stagnation?
Orzel wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
So they not only gave bards 9th level spells (in addition to all of the versatility they already had), but they also know about 50% more spells than the sorcerer? What happened to the bard being the jack of all trades?
FallingIcicle wrote:
I suspect Bards will also have a pretty restricted spell list to choose from (illusion, enchantment, divination style mostly). They'll know more spells than a sorceror, but the sorceror will have a wider range of spells to choose to learn from, and metamagic.
To me, the art screams Rush's 2112.
Psikerlord wrote:
That lute needs a battleaxe blade attached.
I need to see more mechanics, but so far, I like what I'm seeing.
And as for the arguements... You could make every class a sub-class of a single generic class. Why not? They all do things that result in things happening. That's similar enough to be almost the excat same class, right?
Oh wait, that was 4E, where the only difference was the fluff of your powers. I'm surprised 4E actually allowed choice in what you could even think of doing with your character, and I don't want that in 5E.
What makes a concept a good class, instead of a sub-class? Can you make a sub-class for the concept? If yes, then it is thematically different enough that you can make a class out of that concept, and make sub-classes for it (variations on the concept), with a unique mechanic that the class uses. If no, then make the concept a sub-class of the most appropriate class.
Tada.
I'm not sure if the art is good or not, from a technical perspective, but Pelor help me it inspires ideas, which means it's great RPG art.
THEMNGMNT wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Looks good to me.
Bard's might know more spells than a wizard can prep depending on how many spells are known with magical secrets. At least 3 puts them up to 25. If wizards, clerics, and druids are all class level plus spell ability modifer and the bonuses for domains and circles are the same it's: Clerics 35 (level plus WIS mod plus domains), Druids 33 (level plus WIS mod plus circle), Paladins 25 (half level plus CHA mod plus oaths), Bards at least 25 (22 plus at least 3 secrects), Wizards 25 (level plus INT mod), Rangers 15 (half level plus WIS mod) , Sorcerers 15, and Warlocks between spells known, arcanum, pacts spells, and invocations are likely looking at a crapton of options even with the limited slots for using them.
Rangers and Sorcerers are the 2 classes that seem restricted in spells known/prepped. That might fit better in with the lower magic ranger a lot of ppl were asking for and those sorcery points must be something else to offset the lower number of spells unless there is some way for them to increase their spells known.
FallingIcicle wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
To those who replied to my (slightly angry, I admit) guitar hero joke: I know that it's a lute, but honestly, while I found the renaissance fair-like background lovely, that black instrument with blue decors doesn't fit well in the D&D look, from my point of view. The art is well done, and it tells a story, yes, but it's a story I'd expect from Anima: Beyond Fantasy, not the core D&D rules. I apologize if, to some, this seems bigot or anything, but I just find it out of place. Had the lute been a reddish brown, no problem, but as it is, it reminds me of Jables' guitar from Tenacious D.
Marandahir wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Joe_the_Rat wrote:
One thing I'm really hoping that changed between the Alpha and the final version is the inclusion of the aura spells in the Bard spell list. In the leaked Alpha, they're only on the Paladin spell list (save for the aura of invisibility spell, which did make it on the Bard list, as well as a bunch of other illusionist-type lists), but aura of vitality and aura of life, at the very least, make just as much sense for the Bard (aura of purity is specifically holy power, and thus doesn't make as much sense for the Bard, though with a little change in flavour text, it might as well). If they don't, I might have to make that a little houserule in games I DM, since aura spells, with their radiating features, their leadery-role, and their only-verbal spell components, fit in perfectly for the Bard class. In addition, aura of life would go a long way for allowing Bards to replace the Cleric or Druid in the party, since Bards don't get any raising spells either.
Marandahir wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
OK, and just how many other classes are going to take the Ritual Caster feat specifically? Probably not many, if any, if the Alpha was anything to go by. There was always something better.
Ashrym wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Ooops. So you're right. When I copied the spells over into an excel spreadsheet, I forgot to include raise dead on the Bard list. D'oh.
I'm really happy about scaling spells. There are few spells at high levels, making not that many "new spell" choices, but you can always cast an old, lower-level spell at the higher level. I say good-riddence to things like cure light wounds. The only spell-families that should exist are when it fundamentally changes something about the spell, like mass cure wounds or such. I'm quite happy with how that turned out.
eberg wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
I was thinking about the spells known a bit more, and going by 2 spells known from other lists using magical secrets counted in the spells known already, that means a big percentage of bard spells known are from any list. 6 warlock spells and 16 bard spells makes for some interesting background stories. 
Love the artwork, but the way he/she has that guitar I can't help but think of El Kabong!
Nice instrument.
I can see it now.
Bard - "The pen is mightier than the sword my friend!"
Barbarian - "That's hogwash, I see an enemy and they know their death has come.... they see you and the worst they can hope for is a 3 hour negotiation..."
Bard - "Is that right?"
Barbarian - "Yes, you need proof - HERE!"
*Barbarian swiftly snatches his greataxe from his back and fluidly swings it in a powerful arc, smashing it into the iron banded oaken table he stands in front of, cleaving it entirely in two*
Barbarian - "If you can match that with a swing of your arm and a pretty word, then you drink for free for the rest of the week on my purse!"
Bard *smirking* - "Oh, you want the direct approach do you?... fine!"
*Bard lifts his right arm high, fingers flexed, sliding his guitar into position on his hip in the same movement. He brings his arm down and bends his knees, widening his stance and shifting to face towards the empty Inn's common room, speaking a single arcane phrase. A clashing thunderous chord distorts the air in front of him and every chair and table is thrown voilently against the far wall, several of them shattering. The chord echoes for a few seconds around the room and small debris rains down with the dust and straw lifted by the thunderous sound*
Bard - *looking at the Barbarian* - "MY axe is mightier than yours..*
*Bard turns to the bar and throws a pouch of gold into the top, then speaks pointedly to the stunned open-mouthed barkeep* - "That's for the furniture my good man, and as for my friend here, he's about to buy me what I suspect will be your entire supply Valonian Dry White... ."
ittyan wrote:
How about this instrument
Kill monsters and lute their corpse. 
I have now also used a book for an improvised weapon. Any spiked tome pics out there?
I have this: http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Book_smash_6137.jpg
Azzy1974 wrote:
Why is that elf pink?
R_Dragoner wrote:
The elf is pink! Has no one noticed the elf is pink?
What happened to that poor elf?
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Ah, so you're just trolling, then.
Marandahir wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
That's a really cool idear right there.
Back on the Bard, I think this one looks cool enough to go in my "awesome inspiring fantasy art" folder. Which is nice, because not many Bards make it there, despite Bard being my favourite class.
Ashrym wrote:
Maybe it is albino? /shrug
MechaPilot wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
This bard seems to be pretty scary...
ChrisCarlson wrote:
If I ever play a bard (again), I'll be playing this guy!
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I did find a half-orc bard that I like.
Looks good, I've always liked Bards myself
MechaPilot wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
MechaPilot wrote: