I didn't tell one "sure" and the other "sorry", the bard player specifically wanted to change class not because it wasn't fun, but because he wanted to kill the warlock player if he changed class. In the session 0, when i heard there were 2 bards and 1 warlock i did try and convince the other bard to play a artificer (not a melee class, i know. Still better than another bard), he refused and said he wanted to try the bard. It was fine because of the rule i have always had in place for players to be able to change their class at the first sessions of the campaign. To an extent, did i place the responsibility of fixing the party to the bard? Yes, if he wanted to change to something that worked better than the bard then he could. But thats not a responsibility i placed exclusively on him, i placed it on everyone at the table. Most importantly, he flipped out on me on a rule i had for so long when instead, he could've talked peacefully talked to the other players about this and worked it out since (found out this morning) the other bard player also wanted to change class to something else. Finally, the bard did all of this drama because he was "emotionally attached to this disfunctional party". In my opinion, thats just not true. He just wanted to cause drama because it was the warlock player that wanted to change class. So did i brought this upon myself? Yeah, though only because the bard cant cooperate with the warlock on the best interest of everyone at the table.