PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next A bardic cantrip: Bass (edited)



Sindal
2019-03-29, 12:14 PM
(psst! This version of the spell is outdated!
Scroll down to see the most current version of this spell)

So I was sitting around thinking about classes.
and it fell on bard. And I thought

"Well, bards are a supportish kinda caster so they're not exactly expected to do it, but they don't really have anything punchy if they ever do it need to whip out a bit of damage.
Unless they're a sword bard or something."

And I really dig the idea of, say, a bard who spends most of his or her time actually playing their instrument instead of humbling back and forth between a weapon because vicious mockery has a really good ribbon, but doesn't hurt much.

So, I made this cantrip:

*Performance*
-Cantrip
-Verbal
-Range 60ft
-1 Action

-You play or sing a magically enhanced tune, making it solid enough to collide with something. Make a ranged spell attack against a target. The target takes 1d6 force damage on hit.
-If you had cast this cantrip on your previous turn, the damage for this spell is instead 1d8.
-The damage increases by 1d6 and 1d8 respectively when you reach 5th, 11th, and 17th level"

Thoughts?
I know it's just 'a sorta kinda ****tier eldritch blast' in practice but it's still nice n thematic
They get a bonus on their next turn because they're still 'playing' the music, so it's easier.
(I had contemplated the second turn effect turning it into a bonus action but I feel like that might be a bit much)

Garfunion
2019-03-29, 02:28 PM
I would make it do Thunder damage, and call it Sonic Riff

Vogie
2019-03-29, 02:53 PM
Despite the fact that it's called "performance", it doesn't really fit the whole bard thing - there's a reason they don't have many attack spells or cantrips, because they're supposed to be controllers and disrupters rather than blasters. This is because they are to be set apart from the other 2 charisma-based casting classes, which are blasters. They can pick up attack cantrips with Magical secrets at level 10 (or 6 if they're Lore).

That being said, I could certainly see a magic item that upgrades the Bard's main magical damage source, Vicious Mockery, something better:

Give it a scaling die like that. It'll act in the same way, a d4 on the first cast, then d6, d8, and capping out at a d10. You can require them to cast them sequentially, or have the effect linger over a small amount of time, such as a minute.
Allow it to count or tie it into the activation of your other bard abilities, such as the countercharm performance or immediately after using Bardic Inspiration.
Give it an "agonizing mockery" ability, adding your charisma to the damage.
Allow it to key off of the conditions you can place on your targets, like double damage on creatures with a condition like frightened, charmed, prone, or restrained.
You can use the collection of arcane foci ideas from WGtE as a reference.

Aquillion
2019-03-29, 03:16 PM
There's nothing inherently wrong with it balance-wise. As people have said, Bards aren't really intended to be damage-dealers without using their Magical Secrets on it; but it pays for this by being horribly weak.

That said, I don't like it. For people who want to deal damage as a bard, it's a trap option - they're going to suck if they rely on this; they need to spend a Magical Secret or take Magic Training or Spell Sniper instead. And for all other purposes it's boring and useless.

I feel like your basic argument for this is misguided. Bards don't do damage innately because they're not supposed to do damage innately - it's like saying "hey, wizards don't have much healing, so let's give them a much weaker Cure Light Wounds as a level 1 spell!"


Bards do have a few damaging spells, but they tend to fall into a few categories:

1. Doing damage indirectly (Animate Objects, Cloud of Daggers)

2. Doing less damage than you would expect at that spell level, but with a useful side-effect (Vicious Mockery, Dissonant Whispers, Synaptic Static.)

I would suggest you go for one of those. Just "damage, but weaker" doesn't really have a place.

(The "repeat for more damage thing" isn't very interesting, since even with that the damage is still very low.)

Also, you shouldn't give a spell the same name as a skill - that would just get confusing.

Bjarkmundur
2019-03-29, 03:58 PM
If you want to give your bard some dpr, I don't mind.
2d4 thunder damage sounds about right, or simply "your Vicious Mockery deals double damage, but no longer applies disadvantage". Could make it a feature called "Power Chord"

Heck, most tables won't mind small changes like "at x level, you can add your Charisma modifier to the damage roll of your Vicious Mockery"

But I don't think you should incentivise against utility, by making the cantrip scale between turns.
It makes it less desirable to stop the channel and do bard things, and more disireable to just use the same cantrip over and over again.

Sindal
2019-03-29, 04:03 PM
I would make it do Thunder damage, and call it Sonic Riff

They already have a thunder damage cantrip. So i picked a different element

Bjarkmundur
2019-03-29, 04:05 PM
Heck, I don't think anyone would complain at your table if the bard deals 3d4 on their Vicious Mockery. People will say I'm crazy, but trust me. Your table might not even notice the change. Changing a feature is usually less invasive than adding them, when group morale and such is taken into account.

Sindal
2019-03-29, 04:12 PM
There's nothing inherently wrong with it balance-wise. As people have said, Bards aren't really intended to be damage-dealers without using their Magical Secrets on it; but it pays for this by being horribly weak.

That said, I don't like it. For people who want to deal damage as a bard, it's a trap option - they're going to suck if they rely on this; they need to spend a Magical Secret or take Magic Training or Spell Sniper instead. And for all other purposes it's boring and useless.

I feel like your basic argument for this is misguided. Bards don't do damage innately because they're not supposed to do damage innately - it's like saying "hey, wizards don't have much healing, so let's give them a much weaker Cure Light Wounds as a level 1 spell!"


Bards do have a few damaging spells, but they tend to fall into a few categories:

1. Doing damage indirectly (Animate Objects, Cloud of Daggers)

2. Doing less damage than you would expect at that spell level, but with a useful side-effect (Vicious Mockery, Dissonant Whispers, Synaptic Static.)

I would suggest you go for one of those. Just "damage, but weaker" doesn't really have a place.

(The "repeat for more damage thing" isn't very interesting, since even with that the damage is still very low.)

Also, you shouldn't give a spell the same name as a skill - that would just get confusing.

To be fair:
Healing is something that not everyone needs.
but almost everyone needs to do damage.

Noted on the performance thing. That makes sense

It's true, trying to get bards to do stuff 'other than bard stuff' may lead people astray

What about the other rider that i mentioned then:
The one where if you cast it the turn before, you can cast it this turn as a bonus action instead.
Does that teeter into the 'too strong' area?
Pumping out an extra low scaling cantrip while they continue to do other bard stuff sounds neat for bards

Aquillion
2019-03-29, 05:08 PM
To be fair:
Healing is something that not everyone needs.
but almost everyone needs to do damage.I don't agree. Every party needs damage dealers, but the whole concept of the Bard is based around providing support and control for the damage-dealers; the class isn't supposed to be doing damage itself. It can be built that way, because it's flexible, but you can also build a Bard that does no meaningful damage - doing so is common and entirely reasonable, not something strange.

Quillblade
2019-03-30, 06:07 AM
To be fair:
It's true, trying to get bards to do stuff 'other than bard stuff' may lead people astray


I don't really buy the argument of "oh, but they're supposed to only do x, that's why they can't do y very well". That argument appears to stand... right up until canon offerings derail it ;)

The College of Swords (XGTE) is an excellent example of 5E changing the way bards play at the table, letting them use their inspiration dice on themselves in order to fight better. The Divine Soul (XGTE) has a similar effect on sorcerers, allowing them to be healers as well as blasters. Light Domain (PHB) clerics are amazing blasters already, possibly better than a sorcerer depending on how you play them. The Bladesinger (SCAG) allows wizards to pick up a weapon and deal damage in melee. I've played all of these to one extent or another, and they are solid subclasses that challenge the established perceptions of what the class is about and how it is played in 5E.

I'm in favor of cantrips that allow a bard player to deal damage if they want to do that (I believe they even gave the bard 'thunderclap' in XGTE). It shouldn't be big dice or the best damage type, however; bard cantrips typically have a lower damage die because they use damage types that are more rarely resisted (psychic, thunder), and/or because they have a secondary effect. On that note, I agree that 'performance' probably should deal thunder damage, not force ;)

Bjarkmundur
2019-03-30, 01:47 PM
Yeah, man, go for it. You can even make a change to a subclass, make a blaster-bard subclass. I'd play that.

Aquillion
2019-03-30, 03:57 PM
The College of Swords (XGTE) is an excellent example of 5E changing the way bards play at the table, letting them use their inspiration dice on themselves in order to fight better. The Divine Soul (XGTE) has a similar effect on sorcerers, allowing them to be healers as well as blasters. Light Domain (PHB) clerics are amazing blasters already, possibly better than a sorcerer depending on how you play them. The Bladesinger (SCAG) allows wizards to pick up a weapon and deal damage in melee. I've played all of these to one extent or another, and they are solid subclasses that challenge the established perceptions of what the class is about and how it is played in 5E.

I'm in favor of cantrips that allow a bard player to deal damage if they want to do that (I believe they even gave the bard 'thunderclap' in XGTE). It shouldn't be big dice or the best damage type, however; bard cantrips typically have a lower damage die because they use damage types that are more rarely resisted (psychic, thunder), and/or because they have a secondary effect. On that note, I agree that 'performance' probably should deal thunder damage, not force ;)The difference is that a subclass requires sacrificing other features. A cantrip is just saying "all bards are now damage-dealers now."

(Unless you intentionally weaken it - and this one is weak - but then, what's the point?)

Also, Swords bards are still merely ok damage dealers at best unless you go for one of a handful of really focused damage builds; and those builds require significant sacrifices, either by multi-classing or sacrificing your casting stat to max dex. Unless you completely build around Swift Quiver, which requires intense optimization and sacrificing your casting stat (and only comes online at level 10), a Swords Bard is going to be noticeably worse at dealing damage than almost any other class - wizards and sorcerers get more blasty spells and features to support them; warlocks get much better cantrip damage; and everyone else gets much better boosts to their attack damage. Blade Flourishes aren't terrible, but they don't compare to Sneak Attack, or Rage, or Smite or so on.

Sindal
2019-03-31, 04:24 AM
Hi all,

Thanks all for your feedback and your opinion.
So I've come up with a modified version of this spell.

*Bass*(changed because the performance thing is valid
-Cantrip
-Verbal
-Range 60ft
-1 Action

-You play or sing a magically enhanced tune, making it solid enough to collide with something. Make a ranged spell attack against a target. The target takes 2d4 thunder damage on hit.
-If you had cast this cantrip on your previous turn, you may choose to cast it as a bonus action and halfing the number of damage dice (1d4 instead, for example). If you choose to do so, you cannot cast bass again this turn.
-The damage increases by 2d4 when you reach 5th, 11th, and 17th level"

I kinda like this.
A lord bard, for instance, could cast bass on his first turn then then use his bonus action to cast healing word or bardic inspiration or something.
then the next turn, he can could cast a larger spell, cast Bass for half the damage, and still use his bardic inspiration for his reactions.

It gets that feeling that a magical bard is 'always' playing music or singing.
This arguably steps on sorcerer's toes a bit with their quickened spell, But sorcerers have A LOT more control over it, and can choose to cast it anytime they wish provided they have the sorcery points for it. Bards would 'have' to cast bass first, and then reap the rewards later.

All I really need is for people to test it.


The difference is that a subclass requires sacrificing other features. A cantrip is just saying "all bards are now damage-dealers now."

(Unless you intentionally weaken it - and this one is weak - but then, what's the point?)

Also, Swords bards are still merely ok damage dealers at best unless you go for one of a handful of really focused damage builds; and those builds require significant sacrifices, either by multi-classing or sacrificing your casting stat to max dex. Unless you completely build around Swift Quiver, which requires intense optimization and sacrificing your casting stat (and only comes online at level 10), a Swords Bard is going to be noticeably worse at dealing damage than almost any other class - wizards and sorcerers get more blasty spells and features to support them; warlocks get much better cantrip damage; and everyone else gets much better boosts to their attack damage. Blade Flourishes aren't terrible, but they don't compare to Sneak Attack, or Rage, or Smite or so on.

To be honest.
I didn't want to make them blasters.
I wanted to give them an option to take 'the offensive version of vicious mockery' if they decided they wanted to support the party with a little more damage instead of hurling insults every turn to impose disadvantage.

Just like a sword bard, this cantrip is 'merely ok' at doing a bit more damage than usual. A sorcerer, wizard or warlocks are still able to outblast them. Great for them. It's not meant to elevate them out of support status but more to help them feel like they CAN contribute to damage if that's what the party needs right now. And the argument of "You picked the wrong class then" doesn't feel right to me.

Because clerics exist. And clerics can kick your teeth in if they wanted to, despite supposing to be one of the main support classes of DnD.

Bjarkmundur
2019-03-31, 09:27 AM
This is actually quite interesting. It incentivises bonus action spells and concentration, which is a very interesting playstyle.

I like this idea, and I want to use it on my valor bard. I hate having to use Vicious Mockery or crossbows, but I love concentration and utility spells.

Now I just need to find a way to get bless on my Bard....Magic Initiate, here I come!

Crisis21
2019-03-31, 10:32 AM
Wording change suggestion:

-The damage increases by 2d4 and 1d4 respectively when you reach 5th, 11th, and 17th level"

to

-The damage increases by 2d4 when you reach 5th level and 1d4 when you reach 11th and 17th level"

Alternatively:

-The damage increases by 1d4 when you reach 5th and 17th level and 2d4 when you reach 11th level"