why can every class casts spells?

[pika]

i find it quite odd that a ranger, warlock, paladin etc. can casts spells. i don't think this was the case in baldurs gate 1 and 2. what the point of having a wizard when you can just make a tanky warrior and give them some needed spells. i'm just asking, not bashing the game!

[seandeven]

Originally posted by Hex:

Originally posted by seandeven:

Lore Bards are a valid full caster class.

Trickster and Knight are not

Absolutely no reason to play a caster bard over Sorc. That's like playing a Caster Ranger instead of Druid, utterly pointless.

Yes there are reasons, you just don't accept them. Rangers do not have a full spell progression they are what is called half-casters, so quit comparing apples to socks. Half-casters are better equipped to capitalize on the lo level spells.

Bards have a unique spell list, which is what limits them, so no I don't say they are better casters than sorcerers.
I say that bards are full casters and Lore Bards in particular are a valid primary magic class.
Sorcerers are by far the superior casters but Bards get inspirations armor and weapons, calling for no reason to play Bards is as silly as Larian squirrels.

[RealDealBreaker]

Originally posted by Hex:

Originally posted by seandeven:

Lore Bards are a valid full caster class.

Trickster and Knight are not

Absolutely no reason to play a caster bard over Sorc. That's like playing a Caster Ranger instead of Druid, utterly pointless.

Bards are full casters in 5e. Yeah, playing a 'caster' bard in 2e was not great because they had slow spell progression. But in 5e that isn't a problem for bards.

Also, you would pick a bard over a sorcerer for a couple reasons:
1) You really want to be succeeding skill checks. Between expertise, jack of all trades, and bardic inspiration, a party with a bard should rarely fail a skill check.
2) Bards are more versatile than sorcerers. They know more spells (bards get 22 + their magical secrets; Sorcerers get 18 but some of the newer subclasses do get subclass specific spells that are added to their list) and they can access a few key spells from ANY spell list via magical secrets.
3) You prefer control, buff, or debuff spells over direct damage. A Sorcerer will almost certainly to be a better blaster but their spell list has fewer control type spells and knowing fewer spells overall makes it 'harder' to pass on a big damage spell.

[Dragon Master]

Originally posted by Hex:

Originally posted by seandeven:

Lore Bards are a valid full caster class.

Trickster and Knight are not

Absolutely no reason to play a caster bard over Sorc. That's like playing a Caster Ranger instead of Druid, utterly pointless.

No, there are reasons to play a Lore Bard over a sorcerer.

Bardic Inspiration- Cutting words where you can use your bardic inspiration dice to reduce the rolls an enemy makes in their attack rolls against you.

The ability to learn any spell from any class thanks to magical secrets.

Being BETTER at persuasion than a sorcerer because bards can get expertise like a rogue.

[Hex]

It doesn't matter how many spells Bards gets, they can't actually land said spells on anything worth using spells. That's the problem. It's a skill monkey and a buffer, like it always has been, no matter how wide the selection. Offensively, you're still better off giving someone an advantage in melee or using a bow.

Whereas Warlocks Assblaster can do great things, that was my point.

[KingOfFriedChicken]

Originally posted by RealDealBreaker:

Originally posted by Hex:

Absolutely no reason to play a caster bard over Sorc. That's like playing a Caster Ranger instead of Druid, utterly pointless.

Bards are full casters in 5e. Yeah, playing a 'caster' bard in 2e was not great because they had slow spell progression. But in 5e that isn't a problem for bards.

Also, you would pick a bard over a sorcerer for a couple reasons:
1) You really want to be succeeding skill checks. Between expertise, jack of all trades, and bardic inspiration, a party with a bard should rarely fail a skill check.
2) Bards are more versatile than sorcerers. They know more spells (bards get 22 + their magical secrets; Sorcerers get 18 but some of the newer subclasses do get subclass specific spells that are added to their list) and they can access a few key spells from ANY spell list via magical secrets.
3) You prefer control, buff, or debuff spells over direct damage. A Sorcerer will almost certainly to be a better blaster but their spell list has fewer control type spells and knowing fewer spells overall makes it 'harder' to pass on a big damage spell.

They have less overall control spells but with sorcerer points you can make some spells much better at control then other classes. I have actually played a crowd control sorcerer in solasta as an example, you can twin spell stronger control spells like hold monster or dominate person, you can cast a larger slow like icestorm which creates rough terrain with Quickened spell and then still cast a cantrip, so while bard has a different list of spells and has more utility then blasting it doesn't invalidate the sorcerer as a class for that use, and If you drop in wild magic who knows how you will help or hinder lol

[Yojo0o]

Originally posted by Hex:

It doesn't matter how many spells Bards gets, they can't actually land said spells on anything worth using spells. That's the problem. It's a skill monkey and a buffer, like it always has been, no matter how wide the selection. Offensively, you're still better off giving someone an advantage in melee or using a bow.

Whereas Warlocks Assblaster can do great things, that was my point.

What in the damn hell are you talking about? Bards have the same spell save DC progression as any other caster, as well as a full caster spell level and slot progression.

Entirely baffled here by what you're trying to say. Bards are full casters in 5e. Are you thinking of a different class or something?

[Vixziค็็็็็n]

I'm kinda with you on this rodent. The short answer if we're being completely honest is that 'players like spells' coupled with 'spells is generally greater than martial abilities' let's be honest.

I've always felt like the martial classes always get the short end of the stick, meanwhile casters can basically almost eliminate all of their shortcomings with spells making them basically OP. Their weakness SHOULD be that they can't defend against melee buuuuut because magic...that's no longer the case. It's pretty silly if you ask me.

[Yojo0o]

Originally posted by rödent:

i find it quite odd that a ranger, warlock, paladin etc. can casts spells. i don't think this was the case in baldurs gate 1 and 2. what the point of having a wizard when you can just make a tanky warrior and give them some needed spells. i'm just asking, not bashing the game!

To answer your example direction: Because a Fighter is never going to have nearly as many or as powerful spells as a wizard. Eldritch Knight has roughly 1/3 the spell progression of a wizard, not starting until level 3, and probably doesn't have the intelligence score to back it up either.

BG3 classes are as magical as BG 1-2 classes were, more or less. Paladins and Rangers were always magical classes, though by 2e rules they didn't start gaining spells for several levels, which winds up being most/all of BG1. Warlocks weren't in BG1-2. Not otherwise sure what you're making this comparison from.

[Hobocop]

Originally posted by Yojo0o:

What in the damn hell are you talking about? Bards have the same spell save DC progression as any other caster, as well as a full caster spell level and slot progression.

Entirely baffled here by what you're trying to say. Bards are full casters in 5e. Are you thinking of a different class or something?

They're also the premiere users of Dispel Magic and Counterspell thanks to Jack of All Trades.

[Yojo0o]

Originally posted by Hobocop:

Originally posted by Yojo0o:

What in the damn hell are you talking about? Bards have the same spell save DC progression as any other caster, as well as a full caster spell level and slot progression.

Entirely baffled here by what you're trying to say. Bards are full casters in 5e. Are you thinking of a different class or something?

They're also the premiere users of Dispel Magic and Counterspell thanks to Jack of All Trades.

Absolutely. A fact that has been incredibly important in my current campaign, actually. A first-time player just saved the whole party last month by getting her Dispel Magic to remove a level 8 Maddening Darkness that likely would have killed the paladin and barbarian who were stuck inside it. Level 6 bard shut down a level 15+ warlock boss. Jack of All Trades gave her the boost necessary to hit that 18 on the Charisma check.

[Hex]

Originally posted by Vixzian:

I'm kinda with you on this rodent. The short answer if we're being completely honest is that 'players like spells' coupled with 'spells is generally greater than martial abilities' let's be honest.

I've always felt like the martial classes always get the short end of the stick, meanwhile casters can basically almost eliminate all of their shortcomings with spells making them basically OP. Their weakness SHOULD be that they can't defend against melee buuuuut because magic...that's no longer the case. It's pretty silly if you ask me.

The balance used to be their limited spell casts per day and resting was supposed to be dangerous or outright not an option so a caster couldn't do much outside of the most important encounters. There is supposed to be an element of resource management.

[Hex]

Originally posted by Yojo0o:

Originally posted by Hex:

It doesn't matter how many spells Bards gets, they can't actually land said spells on anything worth using spells. That's the problem. It's a skill monkey and a buffer, like it always has been, no matter how wide the selection. Offensively, you're still better off giving someone an advantage in melee or using a bow.

Whereas Warlocks Assblaster can do great things, that was my point.

What in the damn hell are you talking about? Bards have the same spell save DC progression as any other caster, as well as a full caster spell level and slot progression.

And how does those control spells work against something like a Dragon or a Lich?

Oh yeeeah

[Quillithe]

Originally posted by Hex:

Originally posted by Vixzian:

I'm kinda with you on this rodent. The short answer if we're being completely honest is that 'players like spells' coupled with 'spells is generally greater than martial abilities' let's be honest.

I've always felt like the martial classes always get the short end of the stick, meanwhile casters can basically almost eliminate all of their shortcomings with spells making them basically OP. Their weakness SHOULD be that they can't defend against melee buuuuut because magic...that's no longer the case. It's pretty silly if you ask me.

The balance used to be their limited spell casts per day and resting was supposed to be dangerous or outright not an option so a caster couldn't do much outside of the most important encounters. There is supposed to be an element of resource management.

Mechanically that's never going to work well in modern crpgs at least, they've been heavy into the decisive battle paradigm instead of the attrition one since before Baldur's Gate 1.

[Yojo0o]

Originally posted by Hex:

Originally posted by Yojo0o:

What in the damn hell are you talking about? Bards have the same spell save DC progression as any other caster, as well as a full caster spell level and slot progression.

And how does those control spells work against something like a Dragon or a Lich?

Oh yeeeah

Exactly as well as they would be if cast by a wizard, sorcerer, cleric, or druid.

My guy, I fundamentally do not understand what you are saying, and I'm far from alone. Would you care to clarify your position, instead of replying with gotcha attempts like this? Bards are full-progression casters with wide and diverse spell lists, including the ability to borrow spells from the lists of other casters. If they're not to your style or preference, then by all means, you are welcome to your opinion. But to suggest that they're... not spellcasters? To suggest that warlocks are somehow a "spellcaster equivalent of a bard"? To suggest that their spells are less likely to affect enemies than other spellcasters? To suggest that playing a bard as a spellcaster is akin to playing an Eldritch Knight or an Arcane Trickster as a spellcaster?

Everything you're saying is wildly removed from the game the rest of us are playing, and I have no idea why.

[Vixziค็็็็็n]

Originally posted by Hex:

Originally posted by Vixzian:

I'm kinda with you on this rodent. The short answer if we're being completely honest is that 'players like spells' coupled with 'spells is generally greater than martial abilities' let's be honest.

I've always felt like the martial classes always get the short end of the stick, meanwhile casters can basically almost eliminate all of their shortcomings with spells making them basically OP. Their weakness SHOULD be that they can't defend against melee buuuuut because magic...that's no longer the case. It's pretty silly if you ask me.

The balance used to be their limited spell casts per day and resting was supposed to be dangerous or outright not an option so a caster couldn't do much outside of the most important encounters. There is supposed to be an element of resource management.

Completely agree which is also why spell components used to be a thing. But I'm seeing this trend where CRPG is the new baseline for RPGs rather than tabletop so it's obvious what drives the decision making.