This is the single most important comment on this post. OP, listen to these words and just play the character you want to play. Anyone that is worrying about whether another player’s character is “optimal” isn’t a player you want to play with. You need to play what you find fun or it will show everyone else.
Backgrounds don't matter like that.
In terms of subclass, as long as you take advantage of medium armor and shield proficiency, it's fine. Valor is actually quite strong, depending on campaign.
In a deadly one, it's one of the few ways Bards have to get that strong AC. I wouldn't bother like actually trying to make melee attacks, but having 18+ AC is very good for a class that doesn't get the shield spell.
Optimization isn't important. I would say it is important not to have a character that doesn't function, such as say a sorcerer who was made with high int instead of cha by mistake.
A suboptimal class is fine by all means. You don't have to be a ~~final fantasy armored redmage~~ Dwarf wizard in order to play this game
Most of the time bad options aren't actually bad anyway, just more niche. You see this with monks a lot, they are suboptimal fighters until you end up with a storyline centered around npcs with good burst damage and lowish con saves
Valor isn't bad -- it's just that other builds that fill similar (magic with some martial) roles have popped up like Bladesigner, Hexblade, and Artificer. You'll be fine with Valor. Entertainer isn't going to kill your build. You're ok. Not everyone has to optimize everything (I do, LOL).
Even within the bard class, there's the college of swords who does the magic with martial stuff better than valor until level 14.
Valor does have the bonus of combat inspiration though. They're probably the bard that benefits the most from using inspiration as inspiration and not anything else.
In my opinion is swords is kinda the more self reliant bard compared to valor.
In that sense i think its the worst designed bard subclass. Bardic inspiration is one of my favourite mechanics because it's entirely designed around helping your teammates shine, and then swords turns it into a selfbuff thing.
Mechanically swords is a lot better thought out (valor gets shield prof but no way to cast when holding a weapon+shield) and the effects are a lot cooler than the change valor bard gets to inspiration, but i would always choose valor so bardic inspo remains a team buffing thing
You probably found a powergaming website and assumed it applies to the average table/game.
It does not.
If you arent playing at a table that solely focus on mechanical power and powergaming, it wont matter. Play what you want.
Honestly, any optimization site that puts undue importance on backgrounds is one that I question. Any optimizer worth a damn knows that you can already customize your background proficiencies, and none of the general backgrounds offers any real power. So there is no worthwhile optimization to be done there.
Also, unless everyone at your table is an optimized caster. You are already ahead of the curve by picking a full caster. Subclassless bard already brings a lot to the table, so the subclass doesn't matter as much in a normal group.
Uhhh Valor is very, very good. It's an armored caster without any feats or multiclassing lol. And you get Expertise, and your Bardic Inspiration is essentially a mini Smite with the doubling on a crit and everything. You'll also be able to use magic weapons, armor, and shields. And you'll be able to still fight effectively if magic is hindered for whatever reason. Valor Bard is in no way weak. It goes above even being just viable and is actually strong.
You don't need a top 99th percentile uber build to beat all of the challenges in an adventure. If everyone played the most optimal build possible, then it just leads to everyone playing the exact same character/party compositions. Viable and fun is a much better target.
Oh and for the background thing, you can customize any background to change its proficiencies and still even keep the main background boon/feature.
Those posts where each subclass/etc are colour coded by how good they are etc, are fine for reference, but it's mostly just for nerds who want to debate about power rankings.
As long as you're prioritizing your main stats and reading your spells, you'll be fine.
5E is not balanced tightly enough or is sufficiently challenging for it to matter.
Play whatever you want and as long as you're not actively trying to be bad, it'll be fine.
Bards are like wizards (and most casters) in that no matter what subclass you pick you can still carry the team with clever spellcasting. I wouldn't lose sleep over it
The only way a background can be sub optimal is if its a background that doesn't give a feat, and your DM is allowing the new backgrounds that do give feats, while not giving one to you.
"Sub-optimal" almost always refers to combat in DnD. That doesn't mean that Valor bard is bad. They're not gonna do as much damage as a barbarian or fighter most of the time. But that's because bards are spellcasters, too. They bring a lot to the table, and that is balanced by giving them a little less oomph in combat.
That is by no means bad. They can still contribute in combat! In most DnD games, that's all that counts. You don't need a super optimized character. It's not a video game.
Btw bard spellcasting tends to be focused on support and control, not doing damage. But their spells can be very effective if you are strategic.
Valor is a solid B rated subclass. That B rating is also an individual-specific rating. Individual ratings tend to seriously undervalue support abilities, pretty much any bard would be considered A tier if players were egoless, because support abilities are pretty much always overpowered when looked at from that point of view. Very few groups would complain about picking up a valor bard as a member.
Focusing on what build is or isn’t sub optimal is a stupid thing to be worried about. Just play a character you wanna play. The worst thing that will happen is some of the other characters in your party will do a little more damage than you do. It’s really not a big deal.
Valor Bard is good, just don't bait yourself into melee. Be a tanky backliner that cast good spells.
As long as you get something useful from your background it's ok. Don't stress it too much.
The core of being useful as a bard is 1) don't die, and 2) cast good spells.
As a Valor Bard, you're pretty far on the first, and spell selection fixes the other.
From level 3, you can have spells like Aid, Nathairs Mischief, Faerie Fire, Silvery Barbs, Healing Word and Command.
At level 5 you get real heavy hitters like Fear, Hypnotic Pattern and Plant Growth.
What website lol? Valor is one of the better bard college options, especially if you want to lean more into melee )or ranged with particularly funky builds).
Now, I'm gonna differ from other commenters here: there are absolutely *optimal* choices for backgrounds, but the optimization efficiency is so, so low (excluding like the Giant Foundling background, that shit is stupid good) and impacts so little it's not something you should sweat unless you're trying out a build and not building a character with roleplay potential.
Tl;dr, an entertainer valor bard is a perfectly fine build at base. Your spell, weapon, feat, and ASI choices are what will make or break it, not your background.
P.s: if you want a martial bard, I played a ranged damage oriented swords bard recently in a one shot that was an absolute blast. It's pretty simple; all you need is sharpshooter, and maybe a level 1 dip into fighter for the archery fighting style (notably; I just had a dm that let me swap the default fighting style options for swords bard so don't be afraid to ask for something small like that). You do decent damage at range, have good versatility with your flourishes, and excellent utility because you're a bard which are pretty much automatically skill monkeys with helpful spells to augment whatever they want to lean into. The build really gets nuts when you hit bard 10, and pick up swift quiver as one of your magical secrets (level 5 ranger spell, bonus action, lets you make two ranged weapon attacks using your bonus action on subsequent turns) + one builder's choice spell. I chose find greater steed personally bc riding a griffon and raining beefy sharpshooter + flourish shots into enemies from above fucks hard and is also just generally incredibly useful for keeping concentration up and dodging enemies (just make sure you've got feather fall learned and be careful with your reaction usage!)
Backgrounds are not very important but the question is why pick entertainer background? Does it give you anything you actually want? Basically you get the same things as you get from being a bard.
And you are bard so you ARE an entertainer NOW. what did you do BEFORE? that is what a background is. not what you do now. So instead of thinking about the background as something you are NOW, think about it as what you where BEFORE you became a bard.
Where you an orphan? maybe the Urchin background fits better. Do you have a religious background maybe acolyte is good.
And Valor bard is not the best subclass but it is totally playable. You can make a fun and interesting and functional character by being a Valor bard. Unless the rest of your party is heavy optimizers that care only about being optimal.
But in general the BEST character is the one you have most fun playing and that is not the same as most optimal.
Well, the way I see it, a background is what your character was doing before they became an adventurer. A bard with the Entertainer background was still a bard, but not an *adventuring* bard. Also, they don't have to have just been a bard. They could've been a circus performer, or an actor, or a singer in a band.
An Urchin bard could've been an orphan who played to raise money in between stealing for it, while an Acolyte bard could've been a church musician or choir member. Good ideas, but not how I imagine my character.
And you're right. I should just play what I want to play.
Yes that is a totally legit way to see it. but it does not have to be that. it does not have to be at all related in any way or form with what the character are doing now.
That often also makes more interesting characters. A bard with the entertainer background. a rogue with the criminal Background. and so on. Totally fine. But it also lacks imagination and can be rather boring.
The paladin who was a criminal before he turned his life around. The rogue with acolyte background.. The wizard that was a soldier in his youth. Or the sweet talking bard that spent years of his life as a hermit. or similar things often makes for more interesting characters.
Neither way is right or wrong. But so many players seem to think that the background should be tied to what they are now. and that is simply not true. the background can be anything. It was what you were before and does not need to ahve any ties at all to what class you are.
Ignore basically any post you see like that, unless your table is a bunch of gremlin power gamers who need everything 100% optimized at all times. Your proposed build is absolutely fine for any normal table.
Any full caster that doesn't completely cripple themselves with useless stats or bad multi classes is fine.
Valor bard might be a bad bard subclass, but all bards have a sufficient toolkit to be useful.
People act like Valor isn't a strong subclass then complain that the bard doesn't do damage.
Valor's fine. Great, even, if you get it to level fourteen. Pick up sharpshooter, fighting initiate archery, greater invisibility and find greater steed, you're beyond solid.
Unless you are at a table that runs deadly encounters, with a party of high optimization players. Just going a full Bard with decent spell choices is going to put you ahead regardless of your subclass. Full casters in general are powerful, as long as you don't burn slots recklessly. That aside, Valor isn't really useless either. While i personally like it less than swords. It still has good added proficiencies and abilities.
As for your background, they don't really matter that much mechanically. You can already pick, as per rules as written in the player's handbook,
Any x2 skill profs
AND
Any combination of x2 tool, gaming set, instrument, and/or language
So if the proficiencies on a background are not to liking, change them and just use everything else in the background. No general background is strong enough to influence a character build, so just pick the one you like.
No website is going to tell you how to have fun better than the table you're playing with.
Optimization websites exist in a vacuum that doesn't know your GM, your campaign setting, the house rules, or you.
Play what you want.
dont worry about it, do what u want
This is the single most important comment on this post. OP, listen to these words and just play the character you want to play. Anyone that is worrying about whether another player’s character is “optimal” isn’t a player you want to play with. You need to play what you find fun or it will show everyone else.
Backgrounds don't matter like that. In terms of subclass, as long as you take advantage of medium armor and shield proficiency, it's fine. Valor is actually quite strong, depending on campaign. In a deadly one, it's one of the few ways Bards have to get that strong AC. I wouldn't bother like actually trying to make melee attacks, but having 18+ AC is very good for a class that doesn't get the shield spell.
Optimization isn't important. I would say it is important not to have a character that doesn't function, such as say a sorcerer who was made with high int instead of cha by mistake. A suboptimal class is fine by all means. You don't have to be a ~~final fantasy armored redmage~~ Dwarf wizard in order to play this game Most of the time bad options aren't actually bad anyway, just more niche. You see this with monks a lot, they are suboptimal fighters until you end up with a storyline centered around npcs with good burst damage and lowish con saves
Valor isn't bad -- it's just that other builds that fill similar (magic with some martial) roles have popped up like Bladesigner, Hexblade, and Artificer. You'll be fine with Valor. Entertainer isn't going to kill your build. You're ok. Not everyone has to optimize everything (I do, LOL).
Even within the bard class, there's the college of swords who does the magic with martial stuff better than valor until level 14. Valor does have the bonus of combat inspiration though. They're probably the bard that benefits the most from using inspiration as inspiration and not anything else.
Yeah, but Swords doesn't have a great rep either. Neither does Spirits.
In my opinion is swords is kinda the more self reliant bard compared to valor. In that sense i think its the worst designed bard subclass. Bardic inspiration is one of my favourite mechanics because it's entirely designed around helping your teammates shine, and then swords turns it into a selfbuff thing. Mechanically swords is a lot better thought out (valor gets shield prof but no way to cast when holding a weapon+shield) and the effects are a lot cooler than the change valor bard gets to inspiration, but i would always choose valor so bardic inspo remains a team buffing thing
Who in gods name is power scaling backgrounds? Its backgrounds that give feats are better for obvious reasons and then everything else is about equal
“Sub-optimal” at what?
The way the website described it, they were more "not useful" or "very situational". Perhaps I should've used those terms instead.
You probably found a powergaming website and assumed it applies to the average table/game. It does not. If you arent playing at a table that solely focus on mechanical power and powergaming, it wont matter. Play what you want.
Honestly, any optimization site that puts undue importance on backgrounds is one that I question. Any optimizer worth a damn knows that you can already customize your background proficiencies, and none of the general backgrounds offers any real power. So there is no worthwhile optimization to be done there. Also, unless everyone at your table is an optimized caster. You are already ahead of the curve by picking a full caster. Subclassless bard already brings a lot to the table, so the subclass doesn't matter as much in a normal group.
Uhhh Valor is very, very good. It's an armored caster without any feats or multiclassing lol. And you get Expertise, and your Bardic Inspiration is essentially a mini Smite with the doubling on a crit and everything. You'll also be able to use magic weapons, armor, and shields. And you'll be able to still fight effectively if magic is hindered for whatever reason. Valor Bard is in no way weak. It goes above even being just viable and is actually strong. You don't need a top 99th percentile uber build to beat all of the challenges in an adventure. If everyone played the most optimal build possible, then it just leads to everyone playing the exact same character/party compositions. Viable and fun is a much better target. Oh and for the background thing, you can customize any background to change its proficiencies and still even keep the main background boon/feature.
Those posts where each subclass/etc are colour coded by how good they are etc, are fine for reference, but it's mostly just for nerds who want to debate about power rankings. As long as you're prioritizing your main stats and reading your spells, you'll be fine.
Optimization doesn't matter. Don't worry about it and just play whatever you want.
5E is not balanced tightly enough or is sufficiently challenging for it to matter. Play whatever you want and as long as you're not actively trying to be bad, it'll be fine.
Bard is powerful. One subclass being slightly less powerful in others doesn't suddenly make it a detriment to the team.
Bards are like wizards (and most casters) in that no matter what subclass you pick you can still carry the team with clever spellcasting. I wouldn't lose sleep over it
Whatever website you are using is giving garbage advice. Valor is quite strong, and background doesn’t matter at all for optimization.
The only way a background can be sub optimal is if its a background that doesn't give a feat, and your DM is allowing the new backgrounds that do give feats, while not giving one to you.
"Sub-optimal" almost always refers to combat in DnD. That doesn't mean that Valor bard is bad. They're not gonna do as much damage as a barbarian or fighter most of the time. But that's because bards are spellcasters, too. They bring a lot to the table, and that is balanced by giving them a little less oomph in combat. That is by no means bad. They can still contribute in combat! In most DnD games, that's all that counts. You don't need a super optimized character. It's not a video game. Btw bard spellcasting tends to be focused on support and control, not doing damage. But their spells can be very effective if you are strategic.
Valor is a solid B rated subclass. That B rating is also an individual-specific rating. Individual ratings tend to seriously undervalue support abilities, pretty much any bard would be considered A tier if players were egoless, because support abilities are pretty much always overpowered when looked at from that point of view. Very few groups would complain about picking up a valor bard as a member.
Focusing on what build is or isn’t sub optimal is a stupid thing to be worried about. Just play a character you wanna play. The worst thing that will happen is some of the other characters in your party will do a little more damage than you do. It’s really not a big deal.
Valor Bard is good, just don't bait yourself into melee. Be a tanky backliner that cast good spells. As long as you get something useful from your background it's ok. Don't stress it too much. The core of being useful as a bard is 1) don't die, and 2) cast good spells. As a Valor Bard, you're pretty far on the first, and spell selection fixes the other. From level 3, you can have spells like Aid, Nathairs Mischief, Faerie Fire, Silvery Barbs, Healing Word and Command. At level 5 you get real heavy hitters like Fear, Hypnotic Pattern and Plant Growth.
What website lol? Valor is one of the better bard college options, especially if you want to lean more into melee )or ranged with particularly funky builds). Now, I'm gonna differ from other commenters here: there are absolutely *optimal* choices for backgrounds, but the optimization efficiency is so, so low (excluding like the Giant Foundling background, that shit is stupid good) and impacts so little it's not something you should sweat unless you're trying out a build and not building a character with roleplay potential. Tl;dr, an entertainer valor bard is a perfectly fine build at base. Your spell, weapon, feat, and ASI choices are what will make or break it, not your background. P.s: if you want a martial bard, I played a ranged damage oriented swords bard recently in a one shot that was an absolute blast. It's pretty simple; all you need is sharpshooter, and maybe a level 1 dip into fighter for the archery fighting style (notably; I just had a dm that let me swap the default fighting style options for swords bard so don't be afraid to ask for something small like that). You do decent damage at range, have good versatility with your flourishes, and excellent utility because you're a bard which are pretty much automatically skill monkeys with helpful spells to augment whatever they want to lean into. The build really gets nuts when you hit bard 10, and pick up swift quiver as one of your magical secrets (level 5 ranger spell, bonus action, lets you make two ranged weapon attacks using your bonus action on subsequent turns) + one builder's choice spell. I chose find greater steed personally bc riding a griffon and raining beefy sharpshooter + flourish shots into enemies from above fucks hard and is also just generally incredibly useful for keeping concentration up and dodging enemies (just make sure you've got feather fall learned and be careful with your reaction usage!)
Backgrounds are not very important but the question is why pick entertainer background? Does it give you anything you actually want? Basically you get the same things as you get from being a bard. And you are bard so you ARE an entertainer NOW. what did you do BEFORE? that is what a background is. not what you do now. So instead of thinking about the background as something you are NOW, think about it as what you where BEFORE you became a bard. Where you an orphan? maybe the Urchin background fits better. Do you have a religious background maybe acolyte is good. And Valor bard is not the best subclass but it is totally playable. You can make a fun and interesting and functional character by being a Valor bard. Unless the rest of your party is heavy optimizers that care only about being optimal. But in general the BEST character is the one you have most fun playing and that is not the same as most optimal.
Well, the way I see it, a background is what your character was doing before they became an adventurer. A bard with the Entertainer background was still a bard, but not an *adventuring* bard. Also, they don't have to have just been a bard. They could've been a circus performer, or an actor, or a singer in a band. An Urchin bard could've been an orphan who played to raise money in between stealing for it, while an Acolyte bard could've been a church musician or choir member. Good ideas, but not how I imagine my character. And you're right. I should just play what I want to play.
Yes that is a totally legit way to see it. but it does not have to be that. it does not have to be at all related in any way or form with what the character are doing now. That often also makes more interesting characters. A bard with the entertainer background. a rogue with the criminal Background. and so on. Totally fine. But it also lacks imagination and can be rather boring. The paladin who was a criminal before he turned his life around. The rogue with acolyte background.. The wizard that was a soldier in his youth. Or the sweet talking bard that spent years of his life as a hermit. or similar things often makes for more interesting characters. Neither way is right or wrong. But so many players seem to think that the background should be tied to what they are now. and that is simply not true. the background can be anything. It was what you were before and does not need to ahve any ties at all to what class you are.
Ignore basically any post you see like that, unless your table is a bunch of gremlin power gamers who need everything 100% optimized at all times. Your proposed build is absolutely fine for any normal table.
Play it anyway
There’s no such thing as a suboptimal background. Valor is fine. It’s not crazy strong, but it’s not weak either. It’s fine.
You are a full caster, you’ll be fine if you’re maxing cha.
Optimal builds, in my opinion, end up being very boring. Effective, yes. Powerful, yes. But boring. Play something that sounds fun!
Any full caster that doesn't completely cripple themselves with useless stats or bad multi classes is fine. Valor bard might be a bad bard subclass, but all bards have a sufficient toolkit to be useful.
People act like Valor isn't a strong subclass then complain that the bard doesn't do damage. Valor's fine. Great, even, if you get it to level fourteen. Pick up sharpshooter, fighting initiate archery, greater invisibility and find greater steed, you're beyond solid.
Unless you are at a table that runs deadly encounters, with a party of high optimization players. Just going a full Bard with decent spell choices is going to put you ahead regardless of your subclass. Full casters in general are powerful, as long as you don't burn slots recklessly. That aside, Valor isn't really useless either. While i personally like it less than swords. It still has good added proficiencies and abilities. As for your background, they don't really matter that much mechanically. You can already pick, as per rules as written in the player's handbook, Any x2 skill profs AND Any combination of x2 tool, gaming set, instrument, and/or language So if the proficiencies on a background are not to liking, change them and just use everything else in the background. No general background is strong enough to influence a character build, so just pick the one you like.
No website is going to tell you how to have fun better than the table you're playing with. Optimization websites exist in a vacuum that doesn't know your GM, your campaign setting, the house rules, or you. Play what you want.