WanderingMystic
Adventurer
The big problem with flourishes is that you are not helping your ally. The Valor bard is supposed to be the bard who is fighting on the battlefield inspiring his comrades while the sword bard is just showing off.
I'm not a big fan of the Sword bard's flourishes. I think they miss the point of the bard class in general. Bards are meant to be a support and control class. They screw with the opposition and boost their allies. But the Sword bard is selfish. Their bardic inspiration gets spent on letting themselves make stronger attacks instead of helping their allies.I mostly meant that I expected them to replace Combat Inspiration (pretty bad) with the Sword bard's flourishes (pretty good).
Considering most people will use the same weapon for the majority of their carear, that's actually quite a significant upgrade. Its not "just 1 weapon mastery", its "you gain the full power of the weapon mastery system".The one thing I wish the Valor got more than anything else (and this goes for war cleric and blade warlock) was 1 weapon mastery.
It is a power boost I will agree with you on that. Now that the bard can use one of his two attacks as a cantrip I do not feel like they need it as much as they used to. I do feel though that they are just as martial as the rogue is so in my head it makes sense to me that they should have it. As far as warlock they don't need it since it has been all but confirmed that they will be getting the third attack but I think it would make for a great invocation. War clerics and forge clerics to me it makes sense that they would be granted something like that.Considering most people will use the same weapon for the majority of their carear, that's actually quite a significant upgrade. Its not "just 1 weapon mastery", its "you gain the full power of the weapon mastery system".
Push on tap, advantage on a lot of attacks, constant proning, etc etc.
I would argue it’s less martial and more a gish. And sure you could take a level of fighter but bard levels look quite good and you sacrifice spellcasting power. A reasonable option for sure, “mandatory”…it’s a bit early to say thatThe reason I don't like these very martial options not getting it is that it makes a 1 level fighter dip almost mandatory imo.
End result is pretty much the same.
You pick from +2 to hit with ranged attacks, +1 AC, +modifier damage when you two weapon fight, ect...
Protection got buffed somehow.
They have just shuffled into feats.
Kind of like how ability score boost have moved from race to background, but the total is still the same.
They are on the class table, just as before. Fighter at 1, Paladin and Ranger at 2, Champion gets an extra (6?).I meant I don’t really know how you get those Feats, or who gets them (automatically?), or who CAN get them, or when.
Agreed.I also disagree that the Swords Bard’s flourishes go against what a Bard is “supposed to” be or do, because I think any such notions are entirely subjective.
IMO, combat actions/DCs in D&D should not be based on opposed ability/skill checks. Ability/Skill checks scale way beyond bounded accuracy to base DC's on, let alone variable DCs, making the effectiveness both wildly variable, and very min-maxable.Well, they’ve made some improvements but I think they’re fatally hamstrung by the decision not to just junk the fatally flawed 2014 bard and start again from scratch. Bards shouldnt be full casters, and bardic abilities being completely divorced from the Performance skill (or other skills, in the case of niche bards like Eloquence) is just ridiculous.
There’s a common saying about the futility of polishing certain objects which seems appropriate here.