| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| TalinXT10-26-03, 02:42 AM | "Bards can suck it." "You can't fight worth a lic you're useless." Your bard can shove it." All this and more were heard tonight at y gaming session tonight. All this was said as these people rolled diplomacy checks lower then what I had "Without rolling". All this while faling knoweldge checks that would have been ridiculously easy for my bard. Total monster encounters; 0 Total times where a knowledge or charisma check may have saved us from losing a great deal of money: too many to count. Number of times someone undercut the Bard while they were trying to do these things: too many to count. SO am I a little more then ****** at y party for doing stupid things or for doing all the talking and telling me to shut up when they say something absolutely stupid and fail checks left and right in things that bards specialize in? Absolutely. That brings me here. You see I see a lot of Bard hate here from the hack n' slashers here on the boards. When I was attempting to talk our way out of robberry charges the cleric steps in front and does soemthing stupid the first thing I thought about was those people. I think it's a bad attitude to have to think of any character class as useless. For the moment you are without that chracter class when such capabilities are needed then you regret it. SO I suppose in conclusion I think the attitudes towards Bards, or rather anyclasses, uselessness is unfounded and rather stupid. Thanks to the attitudes towards hack n slash play my Bard has been tried and found guilty for highway robbery ina situation where a simple diplomacy check would have done it. Instead my party dragged the old man and child off there wagon and tied them to a tree suspecting foul play (when it turns out there was none) and then let them go to go telling the town guard how they were robbed. Anyway, please understand that not all of Dand D is hack n slash, find the trap and slay the evil wizard type play. for many DM's it's not what you kill, but what you're doing before afer the killing starts that matters, and in those cases a Bard will be the best powergamer out there. So what I guess I'm trying to say is don't let your preconceptions of Bards follow you through every situation or you will regret it very quickly. |
| BlaineTog10-26-03, 03:16 AM | I agree with you. The bard is a great class that i would Love to play (and probably will, next chance I get). The problem, my friend, is what is called the "Final Fantasy Formula." Essentialy, it's a series of minor combats agaisnt progressively stronger bag guys until the final fight with the BBEG, the strongest baddy in all the lands. It's practically the base for all RPGing, and you can find a rant agaisnt it here. (http://www.members.aol.com/KismetsDandD/DMFFFormula.html) For the record, this person also likes bards a lot, too, and has another page about them here. (http://www.members.aol.com/KismetsDandD/DandDBard.html) You see, the problem with this is that it's combat-centric, which is kinda silly when you think about all the other things you can do. My currect character, a 6th level True Neutral Sorcerer, always tries to talk his way out of combat befor resorting to fireballing the heck out of the baddies :D. The bard is clasified as "The jack-of-all-trades, master one none" which is true in the same way that the sorcerer is simply "a moving artilery platform." Neither are completely accurate. The Bard, with its Skill points ad nClass Skills, is really, really handy out of combat. With its nice selection of weapons, ability to wear light armor, spell selection (albeit a small one), and it's music (the bard's claim to fame), the bard can very quickly becoem indespencsible in battle. It can't compete with a Wiz/Sor for firepower, but it's not dead in melee, and can cast Cure Spells! It can't slash it's way through an army of goblins with the fighter, but it has a plethora of options open to it outside of combat (inclduing its skills and tool-based magic). I LOVE the bard, almost as much as I love the sorcerer (which may just be because, as I said, I haven't had a chance to play a bard yet). here. (http://www.members.aol.com/KismetsDandD/DandDBard.html) |
| Sildatorak10-26-03, 04:48 AM | TalinXT, your gaming buddies are morons, plain and simple. The cleric trying to do diplomacy instead of the bard is like asking the wizard instead of the fighter to go toe-to-toe with a heavily armored knight. You obviously have a DM who cares enough to make the game more than hack-n-slash (otherwise you wouldn't have a quest where you don't fight monsters), but it seems your fellow players are lacking some maturity. I suggest having your bard get fed up with this kind of treatment and start taking the lead in non-combat situations. Unless they physically restrain your character, what can they do about it? |
| TalinXT10-26-03, 02:14 PM | Originally posted by Sildatorak what can they do about it? Get Loud tell me to shut up and cause a fight while the DM has to step in and do something.I won't say everything they've done is bad some of what they did wasn't so bad. We do have some incredibly stupid people in our party the rest are just too ingrown into hack n slash play. This campaign wasn't mosterless but the number of times the Dwarves axe came in handy was tottally outnumbered by the number of timesa diplomacy or bluff check would have saved us. Thanks to that ignorance our monk is now an EX-Monk and our Cleric has tp pay atonement to Boccob for being stupid. I've already talked with one of my party members and I think they understand. I'll try talking to the others see if I can't get some sense knocked ino teir thick armor plated skulls. |
| Daybreaker10-26-03, 03:16 PM | Personally, I think that 3.5 Bards are pretty darn cool. I'm enjoying playing mine. For sheer versatility and 'what the heck is he gonna do next,' you can't beat a Bard. |
| Nameless One Jr.10-26-03, 03:52 PM | I love the bard. My first 3.0 character was a bard, and still remains one of my favorite characters to this day. On our first venture out of the little village we started in, we were accosted by bandits. Being the local boy, I managed to start a dialogue with their leader, before melee broke out. Meanwhile, the fighters grumbled and fingered the hilts of their weapons, chomping at the bit to jump in and spill some blood. Luckily for them, I managed to use Diplomacy (combined with a Bluff check) to get the bandits to stand down, and we managed to do them a favor which got them out of our hair for good. A good thing, too, as hidden amongst the trees they had a half-ogre fighter as back-up, who could very nearly stomped us by himself... I think TalinXT's DM needs to take charge and tell the other players to back off a bit. No one needs to suffer constant verbal abuse concerning their character's effectiveness, especially when it's entirely undeserved. It takes the enjoyment out of the game, and that's top priority. |
| Luminous Crayon10-26-03, 06:22 PM | That's precisely why I don't game with idiots. |
| Donnavin Snowolf10-26-03, 07:21 PM | Well, you can always turn on them Remember, if you use diplomacy and bluff, they don't 'know' if they've failed their save. The bard is also the penultimate mischief maker. Charm spells and illusions, bluff and diplomacy skills. If you're DM will remind them "You're character does not know anything except that the bard says he caught the wizard stealing, and you believe him damnit." Course its not the most mature way of handling it. But maturity is overrated. |
| detectevil10-26-03, 07:27 PM | Ok, no good may come from a one-sided discussion, so, as a born warrior, I'll add my coppers (I can't believe that lame expression finally caught up to me) It's not that I hate the bard. But he is no class for basic D&D adventures. For games that follow the "Final Fantasy Formula" the bard is just not a good choice. The fighter fights better, the cleric heals better, the rogue is more skilled, and the wizard casts much, much better spells. So, where does the bard excel? In social situations. But social situations are not that common in most dungeons and dragons games. As an example, Let's mention the most Social Intensive RPG today... Vampire. If you want a political campaign, about intrigue and things like that, you can play a toreador, a ventrue, a tremere... but Gangrels, Brujah and even nosferatu still have a shot in those games, because there are no classes limiting their abilities. But in D&D, if you make a campaign based in intrigue and social interaction, teh Bard can go crazy, and so can the rogue. And the paladin can avoid being totally run over with Diplomacy and Sense Motive. But all other classes would suck. So most DM's prefer not to follow that formula. I wish the bard were better in Dungeon situations. Not that he is useless, but is definetly weaker. But at least, in my group, every time someone is willing to play a bard, we all like it. More morale bonus for us... but we still don't like the bard. I do agree, though, that nobody is allowed to talk cr#p about other players characters. One of my players left my campaign because of that kind of thing, and it's a lost for everyone. |
| BlaineTog10-26-03, 11:19 PM | Again, it's the FFF that's taking the oompf out of your bard. I'd suggest talking to your DM about and ask him to read the article. Personally, I would be really pleased if my campaign were to go in the social sirection (i play a sorcerer). Then I could start thinking about the really cool spells as viable options (as apposed to jumping of Fireball as soon as i get 3rd level spells). I disagree with your assertion that only the bard and theif would have a short in social situations. I can see political scenarios which would require a cleric, for instance, instead of a Bard. While it's true that combat-oriented classes, such as the fighter, might not be as optimal in these situations, they still ahve their purposes. Mabye the fighrter could stand menacingly in the back, and if the Bard is at a loss, the fighter could step forward ominously and Intimidate the little ***** that's causing trouble. Again, the problem is not with the game, it's with the DMS and the players. The Core books contain enough flexibilty to allow for pretty much any campaighn (the DMG has contingencies for Modern or futuristic play, for example). |
| Lago AM3P10-26-03, 11:22 PM | I just wish they gave the bard a TINY bump in power. Not much. I'm just saying that if they had divine favor or divine power, or had better shadow magic or illusions, or more 'utility' magic, or had more bardic music, or got more bonuses to skill checks, or the 'disable device' skill, or a familiar, or the ability to know all the spells on their list at once (my favorite), or had a tiny sneak attack progression, or SOMETHING. Just to make their power a little more obvious, which is always a good thing. Not that they suck without it, but still. Though, I'm a little ticked off that my gnome cleric/virtuoso is basically useless in this edition. But, the bard DOES get acess to: Expeditious Retreat, Silent Image, Locate Object, Silence, Greater Invisibility, Clairvoyance/Audience, Dispel Magic, Scrying, and Leomund's Tiny Hut (which is actually an OMG combat spell for ranged encounters). Which, of course, gives the rogue a run for their money on the whole stealthy trap-disabler schtick. |
| mercurywyrm10-26-03, 11:57 PM | Beware the combat bard, not only do they get adverage base attack, some OK weapon proficiencies, scaling enhancements to attack and damage like the barbarians that affect the whole party, heal, and do everything outside of combat to boot, but mine fight with two weapons and outfight the entire rest of the party combined! :smirk: Ha, Ha, Ha! However you need to match your own bard's charisma! If other players tell you to shut up you are not playing your bard correctly! The player playing the bard should be skilled at being everybodies friend and should be the one defered to anyway in scocial situations. No matter what class I play I am allways the party leader, wheather bard, palladin, fighter, wizard, scorcerer, monk, or whatever else. I often have the highest ranks in bluff and am the first one asked when players have OOC scocial problems. The tough stuff occurs when an unliked player is delegated to being the bard, the others always want to take over, to them the bard is there to heal them and increase their attack and damage in combat. If however they allready see the player playing bard as a leader they see the bard as an arbiter who keeps the peace, solves problems in a productive and usually non-violent way, charms their enemies, keeps their allies, and generally makes life easier for them in social matters they wish didn't exist. I usually discourage all but the most scociable of my players from being a bard, most D&D players who could be a good bard are the DMs. A bad DM is either one that would play a poor bard or one that has a poor grasp of math or fantasy settings. The best GMs are also the best bards, or other class for that matter. The skills are just a cop out on role playing that puts statisics over actual matters. For instance, you don't gamble(roll a dice) when trying to convince someone, instead you find out what they want and apply it to what you want in a way that appeals to them. Otherwise you may as well just threaten them with intimidate or hope they get stupid and love you so much they would do whatever you say! The bard is they speaker with the power of rhetoric and the true mover and shaker of the role playing game because they play a truly strong leadership role. A bard does not adventure with people who hate them. They will strike out on their own before that! However they are very good at getting people to like them so you should exercize your personal bardic skills and turn you friends into followers! |
| Donnavin Snowolf10-27-03, 12:59 AM | I would like to see more Bardic music abilities. The idea itself is so cool and unique I think its a waste to only have seven (or what, 9 maybe?) Bardic Music options. Of course, technically the spells are also 'bardic music' but bardic music isn't dispelled by an Anti-magic shield, and must more realistic than "I'll sing you a song from Istanbul, and its gonna make you invisible." I like their morale affecting coolness. |
| Riznar10-27-03, 01:12 AM | I have to agree with mercurywyrm, you gotta be the bard. Also, don't take that crap from the other players; all you have to do is make a large enough impression once. Incidentally, because DMs make the best bards, bards make the best villains. At least I think so. :D I like Final Fantasy :( |
| detectevil10-27-03, 07:08 AM | Yes, the final fantasy formula. Because, without it, all we have is the Vampire formula. Social interaction, social interaction, bodyguards do something, more social interaction, problems with the police, more bodyguards action. You see? In this situation, it's the fighters and barbarians who would be said useless. They would serve just to give bards an Intimidation bonus. Clerics would serve just to give bards a diplomacy bonus. Only the bard would be playable. It's exactly what happens with Oriental Adventures, if the DM decides to play a more political campaign. Works great using L5R, sucks using D20. Bards would probably be a success in Live Actions. |
| Tzor10-27-03, 09:32 AM | Bards have a use even in the hack and slash campaigns. To use a baseball analogy they may not have a high on base percentage, but if they manage to hit one home run at a critical point in the game then they have earned their pay. Currently I'm playing a bard in a PBEM game. He's definitely out of his element ... he's currently in the deep forest and it seems that a lot of the monsters so far has been plants. "Trees, why does it always have to be trees." It's not that his class is a problem, it's that short swords aren't designed to chop down trees. ;) Depending on the circumstances he can go into several modes and each mode might be very important to the party at the time. He can go into psudo-cleric mode, healing everyone as needed. He can go into diplomat mode, preventing an encounter that might occur due to misunderstandings. He can go into combat support mode casting at the enemy, and throwing daggers or even using the short sword to promote combat opportunities for the fighters. Finally he can go into cheerleader mode. No other class can be so versitile in the combat situation. In short a well used bard can be the foil to any successful character. To allow the rogue to flank, or the fighter to fight. But thre are times when every character can be near useless. The out of spells wizard, the low HP fighter, and the mismatched bard. |
| Nameless One Jr.10-27-03, 10:47 AM | Let's also remember the abilities that a bard has that are useful during dungeon situations. First, the inspire courage ability. At low levels, a +1 to hit and damage is nothing to laugh at, especially when it stacks with bless. Inspire competence might be just what the party's rogue needs to disable that nasty trap and avoid damage or death for himself and/or the party. The bard's spells can't be counted out. Expeditious retreat is a great spell for anyone. Improved invisibility is the rogue's best friend. Some extra healing spells means that the cleric can keep a few good spells instead of having to spontaneously cast them just because the fighters are whining about their hit points again. Not every character in the game is supposed to be a min/maxed death machine...unless that's the type of gaming group you've hooked up with. In that case, a change of crew might be a good option. |
| Xorial10-27-03, 10:58 AM | Here's something to try with your DM. Next time the party goes to town to by supplies, try to let the DM take you aside & buy your bard's supplies without the party seeing. Use your Bluff, Sense Motive, & Diplomacy checks to haggle YOUR costs down. Then brag to the party about you discount, letting them get mad at not letting you haggle for al your supplies. :angel: |
| Sir Ferdinand10-27-03, 11:17 AM | I liked 3rd edition Bard and had some of the most fun playing as it. People complained how weak they were, but in reality they were great diplomatics and Bards are full of knowledge. And it helped us many many times. Sure 3rd edition Bards weren't masters in combat, but so what? Now in 3.5 edition, Bards are pretty good in melee too, and on top of that they're even better diplomatics and they have even more varied support spells and abilities. So I really can't understand what's the problem with some people with Bards. |
| Xorial10-27-03, 11:24 AM | I find that that there are usually, but not always, 2 varieties of anti-bards. 1) They want a truly focused class. The bard has the feel of a multiclassed character. He dabbles at alot of things. 2) They like to multiclass. The bard is only good to multiclass with a PrC that fits your character view. Otherwise, you lose too much when you multiclass. I like the bard. If I multiclass, I find some of the bardic PrCs to go into/ |
| Kalanth10-27-03, 11:53 AM | Remember, power percieved is power gained. Maybe in the next encounter you can use some of your charismatic charm to do something that the last bard in my campaign did quite frequently. He would cast ghost flame on his sword simply for effect, then intimidate the opponent into thinking he had a very powerful artifact. That or he would convince the two goblins that he saw the other steeling from his pocket as they approached. Basically, show them that you can defeat every enemy you fight without physical violence, and if they continue to tell you to shut up, then leave the game. If they are not going to let a player actually play their character, then there is no reason to be sticking around the party. |
| detectevil10-27-03, 01:01 PM | Originally posted by Nameless One Jr. Let's also remember the abilities that a bard has that are useful during dungeon situations. First, the inspire courage ability. At low levels, a +1 to hit and damage is nothing to laugh at, especially when it stacks with bless. Inspire competence might be just what the party's rogue needs to disable that nasty trap and avoid damage or death for himself and/or the party. The bard's spells can't be counted out. Expeditious retreat is a great spell for anyone. Improved invisibility is the rogue's best friend. Some extra healing spells means that the cleric can keep a few good spells instead of having to spontaneously cast them just because the fighters are whining about their hit points again. Not every character in the game is supposed to be a min/maxed death machine...unless that's the type of gaming group you've hooked up with. In that case, a change of crew might be a good option. As you see, the bard class is excelento to make everyone else shine. Except himself. I'm not saying that is not exactly as it should be. You don't see a bard leading great epic tales... he is always there, in some corner, exalting the deeds of others. And a lot of players don't like this roll. They play to be the hero. They want to be Batman, and Optimus Prime, and Indiana Jones... the bard is like Robin, Bumblebee or that little kid that helps Indy in The Temple of Doom |
| Karrde10-27-03, 02:51 PM | using a bard is like being able to do a little bit of everything. They will never heal as well as clerics, they will never fight as well as barbs or fighters, their magic will never overpower a sorc or wizard, and their pickpocket and other such abilities will never be as good as a rouges. I've heard a great quote, "Over specialise and you breed in weakness" To this I add my own, "But over generalise and you breed out strength." Play bards if you want, and if you have fun, good for you. But I'll personally keep to my arcane duelist / fighter swordsman. :angel: |
| LoricDAHPaladin10-27-03, 03:23 PM | Originally posted by Karrde my own, "But over generalise and you breed out strength." Bravo, Karrde. I hate bards, but I recognize people like to play them. Some of my friends, grrr, like to play them...well, one really. I have no point here. I would, however, like to make THIS point: bards are NOT the only individuals capable of handling social situations, and I resent the implication that they are. It is obvious that the bard class was intended for interaction, but I feel that if you rely too heavily upon charms and illusions you have hamstrung your RP opportunities. The crutch of "special abilities" does not, a good roleplayer, make. I typically roleplay out the situation, regardless of my absurdly high diplomacy score, and if my DM thinks a diplomacy check is warranted he forces the NPC to make one against me. It is that simple. Loric uses no flash or magic. Just simple RP on my part and a DM with a keen understanding of how and when to use skills makes all the RP very satisfying. |
| TalinXT10-27-03, 06:20 PM | Well my problem is not is not the Dm but rather my compatriots. Whom aren't all that rbight anyway. Hack and Slash people with an RP DM. So far, we've been arrested, fined, diseased, and because we were arrested screwed out of oru quest reward. In each and every situation my compatriots decided to brandish weapons and spells rather then simply speak. Our Dwaf fighter pulled an old man off a wagon the second he loked nervous then our Half-Orc fighter beat the crap out of the old man and the child. I admit I should've spoke louder should've forced my full plated brainless friend back and spoke to the old man. However It was the hack and slash, dont trust anybody thats not a pc, atitude that has screwed my party and especially myself. I read one quote here which I will have to politely disagree with "Over generalize and you breed otu strength." I think thats a lie especially when applied to BArds. Generalization gives the ultimate strength, Adaptability. |
| StormKnight10-27-03, 07:09 PM | Slightly off topic, but I find it amusing. What does a bard in D&D do? Well, they cast some spells, but not as well as a wizard, know how to fight but not as well as fighers, and have a variety of skills, but not as much as fighters. And I get the idea lots of people don't like them. Now, take a different fantasy RPG - Dragonstorm. What does a bard in Dragonstorm do? Well, they sing, tell stories, play music, and get bonuses to oratory and persuasions since they are skilled with it. And they are very popular to play. Note no magic or extra fighting at all. Just food for thought... |
| Karrde10-27-03, 07:48 PM | Bards are, as far as i can tell, only good in towns. They are NOT the only characters who can use skills such as diplomacy, the rouge can use every skill they can as a class skill and is a much better warrior. Their singing bonuses are, how can i put this, minor? The're an asset surely, and if you like to play bards, then great for you :) but i still perfer other classes. |
| TalinXT10-28-03, 12:11 AM | Originally posted by Karrde They are NOT the only characters who can use skills such as diplomacy, the rouge can use every skill they can as a class skill and is a much better warrior. Their singing bonuses are, how can i put this, minor? Thats a bad point. ANYONE can use diplomacy but NONE would be as good as the BArd. A Rogue by it's very nature is not trustworthy, plus in order for them to be the better warriors you make them out to be they have to put skill points in a lot of other abilities leaving little room for Diplomacy. Plus, depending on the ype of rogue, there highest stats won't be Charisma with which a lot of diplomacy and bluff checks rely on but Dexterity. This was the argument I was trying to amke with Clerics and Fighters cutting in when I'm doing these kinds of Dialogue. Sure they can do it but they don't specialize in it. As for being useless in BAttle... I cast Sleep then walk up and Coup De Gras the lot of them with my Longsword while using the Cleave feat.As I'm doing this I'm singing Inspire Courage to increase my Parties Attack and Damge Rolls and Preventing them from being charmed or wussing out. *plays in the blood* |
| Ithilorien10-28-03, 01:19 AM | Originally posted by detectevil: It's not that I hate the bard. But he is no class for basic D&D adventures. For games that follow the "Final Fantasy Formula" the bard is just not a good choice. I disagree strongly. I believe it was Rathanas (spelling?) on these boards who always makes this great point which I will repeat: D&D from its earliest incarnations has had four expected roles for a group to have filled: combat specialist (fighter), skill specialist (rogue), arcane specialist (wizard), divine specialist (cleric). In a party of three or less characters, the bard is a great choice, because their wide degree of versatility allows them to fill more than one of these roles. In a party of four characters the bard is best left out in favor of a class that specializes in one of these four areas. In a party of more than four characters a bard is a terrific addition because of their ability to fall into second-string support of any of the four basic roles. They also provide superior social skills and make all the other characters more effective through their music. It is, however, this factor which forms the basis for my gripe about bards - they take the class which I'd say is inherently the most attractive to players who love the spotlight and then demotes them to the role of playing second string and helping everyone else be better. The versatility and support element are enjoyable in and of themselves but there will be times (especially in a FFF campaign) where the bard may not get the chance to shine out. Originally posted by Lago AM3P: I'm just saying that if they had divine favor or divine power, or had better shadow magic or illusions, or more 'utility' magic, or had more bardic music, or got more bonuses to skill checks, or the 'disable device' skill, or a familiar, or the ability to know all the spells on their list at once (my favorite), or had a tiny sneak attack progression, or SOMETHING. Just to make their power a little more obvious, this is always a good thing. Not that they suck without it, but still. My DM and I discussed this at length, because we both agreed that while a great class the bard lacked obvious "oomph." I agree that allowing bards to "know" all the spells on their list like a cleric is very attractive, but probably because it is rather overpowering to do so. My DM and I decided that the primary focus of the bard was as a versatile character but also as a spellcaster (they have less magic options than pure casters, but far more than the other hybrids - paladins and rangers). Thus we agreed on a compromise to boost my bard's power level/versatility slightly: we added 2 spells per level to the bard spells known chart, allowing him to have slightly more spellcasting versatality while still not making him incredibly overpowered. So, my final take on the bard is that it is a terrific class capable of wearing many hats in the group and making all the other characters more effective. They also do have a particular focus - social skills, bardic performance, support, and versatility. A very flexible and useful addition to most parties, provided that the player knows how to use the bard. For those who complain that bards are terrible because they don't fight like a fighter, cast like a wizard/cleric, or use skills like a rogue I say: * Bards have better BAB than wizards and sorcerers, 3/4 to be precise, making them just as capable at hitting things as monks, rogues, clerics, and druids. * Bards have strong Will and Reflex saves, making them better equipped in terms of resistance than barbarians (fort only), fighters (fort only), paladins (fort only), rogues (reflex only), sorcerers (will only), and wizards (will only). * Bards have better hit points than wizards and sorcerers. To be precise, d6 hit points, equal to a rogue. * Bards have more skill points than barbarians, clerics, druids, fighters, monks, paladins, sorcerers, and wizards. * Bards cast much better than rangers and paladins and only slightly worse than wizards or sorcerers (provided that the player knows how to use enchantments and illusions properly). * Bards are the only (core) class capable of arcane healing. * Bards are the best for social skills. * Bards are the only (core) class with bardic knowledge and bardic performance. * Bards are the only (core) class capable of arcane casting in armor. * Bards gain a handful of useful weapon proficiencies (including exotics such as the whip). * Bards can buff the entire party while still fighting at the same time. * Bards are, more or less, moderately good at everything making them highly flexible and great for patching holes in a party and getting things done in a pinch. And, finally, chicks dig artists. :D |
| BlaineTog10-28-03, 02:52 AM | Points noted and taken to heart. Thanks in part to this thread, I am seriosuly considering switching my current Sorcerer for a new Bard. My sorcerer contracted lycanthropy, and If I can't ditch/controll it (and even then, if my DM decides to enforce the ALighnment-change and Level Adjestment rules), I'm switching to bard. Question: pros and cons of a Musical Instrument vs. singing? If I use a wind (or, any, for that matter) instrument, can I still use bardic Music as a free action? How about Comedy? Do any of these function differntly? Thanks. Also: how does this sound for a feat-build of a 6th level human bard: Flaming-Shocking Rapier (thats my weapon), Weapon FInnesse, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization (all w/ the rapier, obviously), and Improved Initiative? Again, thanks. |
| Sir Ferdinand10-28-03, 05:02 AM | Question: pros and cons of a Musical Instrument vs. singing? If I use a wind (or, any, for that matter) instrument, can I still use bardic Music as a free action? How about Comedy? Do any of these function differntly? Thanks. No matter what you use, BM isn't free action. It's stated in PHB. Also: how does this sound for a feat-build of a 6th level human bard: Flaming-Shocking Rapier (thats my weapon), Weapon FInnesse, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization (all w/ the rapier, obviously), and Improved Initiative? Again, thanks. You can't take Weapon Specialization with Bard, because it requires Fighter levels. So you could change that feat to Quick Draw for example. It comes handy in combat when you must change between an instrument and a weapon. BTW how does your DM just let you pick such a magical weapon? It's very strong weapon for a 6th level character. |
| CaoSlayer10-28-03, 07:33 AM | The bard it is without a doubt the king of diplomacy, yeah a rogue can have the same skill points... but that it is the only thing. 1º: Bards can get more advantages from a high charisma that a rogue. (magical Perform checks and spellcasting). 2º: Languages, you cant negociate with someone that you dont understand, a bard can know easily more languages that a rogue (speak languages it is a class skill only for bards) and also, the spells compr. language and Tonges gives him the change to speak with anything. 2º: Apearance, an elven rogue it is an awful diplomat to deal with drows and orcs, they will surely attack him at sight. An elven bard can use diguise self or alter self to adquire the apearance of a true orc or drow, being the best spy ever. 3º: Extra help: some bardic spells are great for boosting skills, there is glibness and this +30 to bluff checks, improvisation for a 2*caster level bonus to any skill or ever detect throught for knowing that it is thinking the other person. ------------- A bard isnt just only or a spellcaster, or a skilled one, or a warrior. The bard it is the three things, and if you combine them, you get much better. |
| Kage Wellby10-28-03, 08:41 AM | Personally, I don't put up with people like that, not in any facet of life. I'd rather NOT play D&D than play it with imbeciles who don't let the strongest character in a situation take the lead. I quit playing EQ because it seemed like that very thing overcrowded it. Yes, Bards are weak gimps in combat, until they turn that ferocious dragon whose lair you were plundering into a raving mad fan (see Epic Book, look up Diplomacy skill). I'm not entirely sure what would be scarier: a magically skilled Snoop Dawg with a horde of raving fans, or a Paladin with a horde of followers... |
| Karrde10-28-03, 02:31 PM | Of course you let the bard take the lead in the situation hes best at. But honestly, if your dm could let any dragon who was old enough to be dangerous to a epic level character be turned aside by something as small as a persusaive bard, who he had caught robbing him, he'd better have rolled a natural 1 on his will check . . . |
| LoricDAHPaladin10-28-03, 04:58 PM | Originally posted by Karrde he'd better have rolled a natural 1 on his will check . . . ...after he had a Divinely sent stalactite pierce his brain. No bard, under most circumstances, would do well with my Paladin if he were used as an NPC. Not because he hates bards ( though he thinks they are foppish and little short of fools ) but because he finds all arcane casters suspect. Where he did not know it was a bard, he would likely guess because bards are, in my RP experience, sycophants. Ya gotta know with whom you are dealing before you can attempt to use diplomacy. I just find it difficult ( nigh impossible ) to envision a bard speaking with verility and presence. Some want to deal with a plainly spoken, succinct person, while another may want the flowery, verbose and completely deferent emissary. There are shades upon shades of personalities adnauseam. Simply because bards have diplomacy as a class skill does not make them more or less able to negotiate their ways through life than any other class with the same class skill. I believe that Paladins have diplomacy as a class skill. If you cite the useage of spells then that is not RP, as you are simply giving the DM instructions for the effects you wish to have placed upon the NPCs, it is trickery. No, I could not claim the use of spells in this situation as roleplaying any more than I could count melee as roleplaying simply because that is what a particular character might do at that time. In the strictest sense, yes, but in the spirit of this discussion spells and melee because it is "what the character would do" is not roleplaying. |
| Ithilorien10-28-03, 05:46 PM | My pardon, Sir Paladin, but perhaps you have noticed there are social skills other than Diplomacy? Bards are better at dealing with others than paladins because they also have bluff, intimidate, and sense motive as class skills. Knowing when someone is lying to you is a very important part of negotiations. Edit: and using trickery when you are playing a tricky character most certainly is roleplaying. |
| LoricDAHPaladin10-28-03, 06:30 PM | What I am suggesting is that people who use the abilities, granted a character class, as the sole means by which they accomplish anything in roleplay, that they are not truly roleplaying. As an example, I encountered some dragons in a forest on my way ( with the gaggle of friends that I write about from time to time ) to...somewhere, I forget, and I was attempting to talk them down from lunching on us. I thought Bandag and I could take them alone, but I did not wish to risk my cohort or our Angel friend. Well, started to explain to the dragons where we were from, and what our accomplishments in this area had been. The dragon was able to "read" that I was not bluffing, and then the DM forced intimidation ( which I had not declared as my intent ) on the dragons, and combat ensued. It turned out to be the opposite of my desire, but I roleplayed the situation. We parleyed quite a bit. I did not simply talk to the DM and tell him that I was attempting to intimidate the dragons, and make a roll. |
| Karrde10-28-03, 06:38 PM | True about the other skills, but go and look at the skills list again. Rouges have everything that a bard does as a class skill, and are better in combat. Even if they dont have the same benifit from the high cha, the +2 a rouge might have instead of +4 bonus a bard would have is insignificiant. Also, the paladin brings up a good point. I generally would think of a bard as one of sir robin's minsterils from monty python and the holy grail, instead of someone you would actually take seriously in a negociation. A paladin, cleric or monk would be more trustworthy to me . . . |
| BlaineTog10-28-03, 07:27 PM | You can't take Weapon Specialization with Bard, because it requires Fighter levels. So you could change that feat to Quick Draw for example. It comes handy in combat when you must change between an instrument and a weapon. It isn't? Aww... I thought it was, or at least, thats what it sounded like... oh well. Yeah, I was considering that feat after looking throug the SRD, which, incidentally, doesn't differentiat between Class-only feats and generals feats. I'll certainly consider Quick draw. He doesn't. This is the first time I've played a non-sorcerer character with a high-enoguh level to have the opportunity of magic weapons, and I was Unaware that you can't add elemental magic to a weapon that wasn't already a magic weapon. I'll probably just go w/ Flaming, or mabye I'll peruse the possible enhancements again. I rolled up my stats today for my bard, and where would you suggest I put them?: 17, 17, 14, 12, 10, 8. I'm not positive, but isn't Wisdom a good "dump" stat for the bard? |
| Ithilorien10-28-03, 09:04 PM | Originally posted by Karrde True about the other skills, but go and look at the skills list again. Rouges have everything that a bard does as a class skill, and are better in combat. Even if they dont have the same benifit from the high cha, the +2 a rouge might have instead of +4 bonus a bard would have is insignificiant. Also, the paladin brings up a good point. I generally would think of a bard as one of sir robin's minsterils from monty python and the holy grail, instead of someone you would actually take seriously in a negociation. A paladin, cleric or monk would be more trustworthy to me . . . Rogues have access to the same skills but also have a lot of other skills they'd be more wise to focus on - hide, move silently, search, spot, listen, disable device, open lock, and sleight of hand are all more or less must haves for a rogue. "More useful in combat" is also shakey. Sure the rogue can eventually drop insane amounts of sneak attacks, but a bard can summon extra allies, charm the enemies to fight for him, or use illusions or bard song to avoid the combat completely. Sneak attack is also frequently ineffective (plants, cosntructs, undead, fortification, uncanny dodge, etc) a bard can pump his allies with inspire courage at any time. And whether or not the rogue is more useful in combat is inconsequential. I'm not saying you should always have a rogue over a bard, but if you already have one in your party a bard might make a far more synergistic addition. As for the Sir Robin's Minstrel comment: your lack of imagination is no reason for other classes to be given preference over bards. Why don't I say rangers can never be evil because I generally think of them as Aragorn, or all elves are pretty because they make me think of Legolas? That makes for a really rich, varied game . . . :rolleyes: A bard, like any other character, is what the player decides to make of it. Originally posted by LoricDAHPaladin I did not simply talk to the DM and tell him that I was attempting to intimidate the dragons, and make a roll. No, simply making the roll is not roleplaying, but neither is it roleplaying to simply talk through a situation without ever rolling. A person's abilities to talk their way out of a situation are not synonymous with their character's and such decisions should be made based upon the skills and abilities of said character. |
| mercurywyrm10-28-03, 09:23 PM | I belive some statements being said here are right. It is truly the player's role playing ability that determine's their scocial standing in the game. A player could for instance, decide to mug the man driving a coach who he suspects of trickery, or he could use detective work and subtle conversation to get the information out of the sourse himself if the source dosn't realize the information he is giving away that he knows is relevant. The charcter with truly "bardic" skills is not the bard but the player who knows how to play one when they play any character. However, if you play the character like a bard, ie you are a muticlass scorcerer/rouge/cleric with bard like spells and lots of ranks in perform which you use during combat and strong scocial skills, then quite obviously you are a bard. However, it is not just the player that determines a character's scocial skills. The reason for there even being a charisma stat is sometimes the character simply does not do as well as the player in doing some scocial action. For instance the character could raise their voice tward some children they were telling a poem to, or could stutter when trying to intimidate an mercenary. This is why you role play according to your character's role, if you roll well on a check of knoledge nobility you might for instance remember to bow with left ear raised to the queen of Sabinokira as a sign of extream gratitude. The bard class is more for those who wish to use more than just the player infulence but want to use some of the bardic abilities to extend things further. For instance the example I saw earlier here about using change self to look like an orc, even though your are an elf, or using toungs to understand the language of your enemies, sometimes GM knoledge you belive your character adept in cultural knoledge should know and thus you need bardic knoledge. Sometimes you have a character that is so exelent with music it ispires others beyond the point of just wanting to battle for your cause but actually fight and concentrate better due to the awakening melody of your music. This is when you should play a bard, it should not be to make up for non-existant Role Playing and scocial skills for checks but to use the bardic abilites as a bard would, or because you want to play your character who is scocially adept and belive that means you should play a bard. |
| Karrde10-28-03, 10:37 PM | There are a number of reasons why the rouge class outshines the bard. In fact, there are a number of reasons that the bard class is completely unnecessary to the world of D&D. The rouge has every skill the bard does as a class skill, and therefore could match the bard in diplomacy and the like while still gaining the bonus’s of sneak attack and uncanny dodge. The bards do gain their music, but with the possible exception of Inspire Greatness, all of them are ridiculously weak. The only place the bards could possibly out do the rouge is in their spells, but I’ll get to that later. There is a common misperception that bards are the only character class who can interact with the rest of the NPC’s. The rouge matches them in every necessary skill, and I know a great many DM’s who alter the DC of a successful check depending on who you are talking to. For example, if you run across a small town of religious fanatics who worship Pelor, they are going to be much more interested in what your cleric may have to say than the bard, therefore lowering the DC. On the other hand, if the cleric in your party is a necromancer, it would lead to friction and even violence, raising the DC. I have yet to meet a DM who believes that a singing and dancing outsider would get along with a group better than the person who already has something in common with them. I have also been accused of ‘lacking imagination’ because I characterized a bard as a minsterial who does nothing but stand in the back singing annoying songs. I would like to say to the shortsighted person who said this that it is because of your lack of imagination that you believe that a rouge cannot be a good communicator with NPC’s. Take this, for example. My rouge is a leader of rouges. A ‘king of thieves’ if you will. He would benefit from being able to read the people he was trusting to be his bodyguards, and therefore would probably invest a lot of skills in sense motive. He would also be better off being able to negotiate illegal trades with other leaders, and would probably have a high diplomacy. The fact that you don’t have enough imagination to imagine a rouge as anything other than an adventurer running through the caverns ahead of the rest of his party, checking for traps and looking for other threats, is proof that you have not thought your turn of phrase through thoroughly. It’s like the pot calling the kettle black. Not a good way to persuade someone of your point of view. Anyway, back to the main subject. The bard could cast a number of spells, but look them over for a moment. They are almost all very chancy spells. There are a lot of illusions, as well as many Enchantments. I personally would be much more worried about having to fight a wizard or sorcerer, who would not just be able to mess with my head, but would be able to blow it off too. This leads to my next point, the fact that the bard class, as it is, is unnecessary. They have effective no special characteristics that put them apart from any other class. They cannot fight as well as fighters or barbs, they cannot use spells as well as sorcs or wizards, and every one of their diplomatic abilities can be easily matched by a rouge, with little or no loss to the character. It makes me think of “Anything you can do I can do better . . .”; While there is no single class as diverse as the bard, the fact that it never gains enough power to compete against specialists and has no special abilities worth keeping makes be believe that as long as you have an averagely diverse party there is no place for the bard. In conclusion, the bard class is overrated as long as you have a diverse party. While there always should be one PC who is excellent as conversing with the locals, there is no reason why this must be a bard. If you are a bard you never gain enough strength to become a central part of the party. You can be used as support, and even in that area your powers are limited. Bad defense, horrible offence, average spells, no worthwhile special abilities and no skills which cannot be gained by a better class sums up the bard class quite nicely. Thank you for your time, Karrde Yes, i am strongly opinionated. Agree with me, dont agree with me, i honestly dont care. But this is the summation of my views on bards, and i wont take back any of it. Feel free to attack it though, in fact please do. Just because i dont think bards are usefull now dosent mean that i will never think they are. Come up with good counter examples to my statements and show me them. I'll look forward to it! |
| BHC_Crow10-28-03, 10:50 PM | Who Cares how powerful a bard is or isnt. We all know Bards are not normally the heavy hitters in a stroke fest, but Bards have their place too. You have to want to roleplay one (Hence the name RPG). Ive got some real Brutes that I DM. (one is a body builder). The fact is he normally likes to play warriors of some sort. but he rolled up and played a halfling bard. and lo and behold. Did a ........ Good job. In fact he loves the little Character. Name: (Elspith PiddlePaddle). Who happens to be on her way to being one of the best characters ive ever seen. Im somewhat of a hack n' slash DM with hack n' slash players. but..... characters like whats stated above is as fun as any other in the right hands. I have one rule and one rule only when my players roll up characters together. They have to be compatible. No: LG monk, NG Sorc, CE Drow, NE rogue . in the same party. As long as they are compatible I could care less what they roll up. I design the game based off their party. If there is anything that would make me box my books up in storage its characters at each other throats. Ive seen it in others games and wont tolerate it. rollplaying or not. but other than that. who cares what somebody plays. my players win together and loose together. Heck I might have to roll up a NPC: with these stats just because of this thread: Jessara Sellua of Westgate. Class: Barmaid/smooth talker (2nd lvl bard) lol Str 8 Dex 11 Con 13 Int 12 wis 13 Chr 17 (and the CHR is totally based off her wits not looks) proficient in beer mugs, and kitchen knives. Play on....... :bounce: :rolleyes: |
| Ithilorien10-28-03, 11:18 PM | And attack I will. You cannot fault the bard for not having the sneak attack of a rogue or the spells of a wizard because the bard is neither of these classes, instead they take skills nearly comparable to the rogues and combine them with spells nearly comparable to the wizard's. A bard certainly casts better spells than a rogue and sneaks better than a wizard. Bad defense, horrible offence, average spells, no worthwhile special abilities and no skills which cannot be gained by a better class sums up the bard class quite nicely. The bard is not bad defense, bad offence - it is average defense, average offence. And it offers two skills no other class may use - bardic knowledge and bardic music. One can essentially count as having every knowledge skill and the other which allows the bard to grant every party member bonuses to nearly every roll while still swapping blows. The bard is a support character. He is second-string everything. Flexibility and improvisation are the basis of the class. He may not fight as well as the fighter, but certainly does better than the wizard (and try pitting him against the rogue once he uses displacement, rage, and inspire courage, that is if he hasn't just cast hold person on the low will save rogue and coup d'graced it). Take the Requiem feat and a bard can even turn undead (fascinate them, then suggest that they go away). Sure, if you take a class focussing on a single approach they'll do it better than the bard, but it is a single class. You can't discredit them by making statements which make it seem as if you play four characters yourself - a cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard, respectively. In a party of less than four characters a bard is a great choice. In a party of five or more he makes everyone better. I personally would be much more worried about having to fight a wizard or sorcerer, who would not just be able to mess with my head, but would be able to blow it off too. Except when they mess with the party rogue's head and have him unleash all his sneak attacks on you from a comfortable distance. Once again I'll accuse you of a lack of imagination - this time because you choose to ignore perfectly viable applications of enchantments and illusions which help to make the bard powerful. I have yet to meet a DM who believes that a singing and dancing outsider would get along with a group better than the person who already has something in common with them. Bard's instantly have something in common. What culture does not have poetry, stories, or music? Everyone wants entertainment, our society is based entirely off of enterntainment. The bard, as an entertainer has an instant "in" with just about anyone. Your social-skilling rogue would probably get along with others much better by pretending to be a bard rather than a "King of Thieves." I never said the rogue could not be a good communicator, but the bard is better one. His songs have the instant ability to improve reactions, and he can always throw out spells such as charm person, friends, glibness, eagle's splendor, and songbird as well. Bards also will tend to have a far higher charisma score than a rogue, unless he gives up focussing on dexterity to improve your highly touted sneak attack and evasion to do so. We're only talking about a difference between +2 and +4 at the lowest of levels, at higher ones the difference grows to something more along the lines of +2 and +10. If you refuse to see flexibility as a strength and illusions and enchantments as useful then no, there is no way to make you see the bard as viable class. But I see these flaws as being in your own perceptions rather than in reality. The fact that you don’t have enough imagination to imagine a rouge as anything other than an adventurer running through the caverns ahead of the rest of his party, checking for traps and looking for other threats, is proof that you have not thought your turn of phrase through thoroughly. And how does this socially focussed rogue fit into your well-diversified party? They suddenly need someone who can run through the caverns checking for traps and thus need another rogue. Why not have the class made for being the face of the party take on that first role? You do, after all, seem to want the best person for every job, and in this case that person is the bard. |
| BHC_Crow10-28-03, 11:32 PM | Bard's instantly have something in common. What culture does not have poetry, stories, or music? Everyone wants entertainment, our society is based entirely off of enterntainment. The bard, as an entertainer has an instant "in" with just about anyone. Your social-skilling rogue would probably get along with others much better by pretending to be a bard rather than a "King of Thieves." good point.. Ithilorien. Even the Army Special Forces soldier (aka say... 3rd/4th lvl fighter) would be totally drawn to a Comedian say... Robin Williams at a USO concert (aka high level bard). |
| BlaineTog10-29-03, 12:24 AM | Karrde, You have obviously made your decision. You are loyal to your favorite class; that's a good thing. But why do you feel the need to decry the Bard? Noone is saying that the Bard makes a better rogue than a rogue. In fact, we have said the exact opposite. The other problem with your "argument" (if it can be called thet. It essentially consisted of "I'm better than you are!") is that you ring of a powergamer. "The bard is worthless! It has no place! It's a worthless class that no one will ever play!" Because it is not as polarized to one specific role makes is worthless? No. It is a highly enjoyably class to ROLLplay, although it may not be the stronggest one. If you went by that logic, everyone would pick either a Wizard, Sorcerer, or Cleric all the time. Look, please stop slandering the bard. It may not be the best fighter, or rogue, or spellcaster, but it's a little bit of all these geared towards social skills. In Hack 'n Slash, it's underpowered. But in social-heavy situations, the Bards can do much better than the all powerful rogue (if for no other reason, because the Bard does not have Disable Device and Open Lock skills.). Does the rogue have the potential to fill tihs slot? Sure. But it's not what the rogue was intended to do. |
| Nameless One Jr.10-29-03, 01:14 AM | Originally posted by Karrde Also, the paladin brings up a good point. I generally would think of a bard as one of sir robin's minsterils from monty python and the holy grail, instead of someone you would actually take seriously in a negociation. A paladin, cleric or monk would be more trustworthy to me . . . I'd have to say that it's not all that good a point, just a narrow view of things. Historically speaking, bards have always been (with the possible exception of English views of Irish and Welsh bardic tradition) held in high esteem by their cultures. Bards are the keepers of tradition and history. They are the vehicles by which culture is passed from one generation to another. Their tales not only entertained, but reminded people of where they came from. Skald, bard, whatever you want to call them, they aren't simply prissy entertainers with a few magical tricks. |
| TalinXT10-29-03, 01:54 AM | The more I think about it the more I see the traveling Bard as a much better socializer then even a Paladin. A Paladin isn't going to get much of a following talking to thieves. Hell by his very nature a Paladin must eradicate thieves or at least make some heavy justifacation for allowing them to live. He'll be great amongst the common folk who revere such honor and bravery but royalty may see him as a danger since such a valiant person may make the people reballious and try to cast them down for whatever dark deeds they may have committed. Plus not many people may care much for the "zeal" of the paladin. A Rogue is a Thief, Murderer, and an Oppurtunist you simply can't deny that fact being a "King of Thieves" still makes you a theif and a criminal A bard can be the same way but it's not "expected" of them. A fighter is just that. HE can be charismatic and charming if he wants but in the end he does one thing and one thing good Fight. A Druid can't really be good at socializing at all outside of the animal/plant realms. All races one way or another encroach on nature the fact that a Druid can stay at an inn without voitting amazes me. They certainly don't have to be fanatics but I don't see a Druidhaving a peaceful discussion with a City planner on whether or not to cut down that ancient grove of trees to make room for the new school. A Cleric can be good in soem situations, but in many others he is not, A Cleric of Pelor won't be able to do much in a town where Heironeus is the god and he certainly won't strike high marks with any of the more dark gods worshippers. In some cases I will agree that he can be better then the Bard at what he does but only in those instances where you deal with worshippers of the same god or those rare ones looking to convert. A Wizard can have a commanding and knowledgeable presence that can make them quite a hit with royalty and upper class folk who see a use for such skills. Howevor, more common folk fear a wizard and a wizard would have a very difficult time because people simply "know" they are different. In their speech, the way they move, the way they smell (HEY THOSE ARE MY MATERAIL SPELL COMPONENTS!!!). A wizard who hides their presence makes people question them. A wizard who does announce their abilities has another problem. They're different. They're trained in the arcane arts where a vast majority of people may shun them, fear them, or are jealous simply becaus theyre incapable of using them. Soin the end a Wizard would be marvelous amongst others of his kind or those who do not fear his power but less affective amongst the more common folk who fear, more then revere, the wizard. A Sorceror has a better chance then any of the other classes to match the social ease of the Bard simply because most are very poetic and are pretty good looking too. Unfortunately They may have even more problems because they're freaks. they're born with their power, they don't train into it. so automatically they may be outcasts in a society that does nto think highly of magic, especially magic that seems simply "willed". Plus, this tends to make them arrogant, believe me you would be too if you were beutiful and could launch several fireballs from the palm of your hand without fiddling any silly books. If you ever find a "humble" sorceror consider yourself extraordinarily lucky. A Barbarian has one very very big problem he/she can't read. Amongst civilized folk that makes them easy to take advantage of. (Just sign right here on the dotted line to give away your sou.....i mean 2 gold for a night at our fine inn) Amongst Barbarian tribes they do real well because they can relate, but thinking that way ANY class can relate well to others of their own class or background. A Ranger is a Loner. They're hunters more at home in the forest and with Druids. They can socialize and socialize pretty well if they make an effor at it. Howevor, the opinion of a ranger who lives near a town is that they work as guides, hunt down the critters that threaten them, and bring back meat and pelts to the town. they're respectable amongst Barbarians, Fighters, and Druids. Howevor, they have a certain "shady" side to them that makes people reluctant to get close to them. They're loners, for the most part, they go off into the woods stalking and killing away from civilization and the sheer "mystery" and mystique of the Ranger gives way o tales of of lycanthropy or stalking things in the night. Overall howevor the Ranger won't have too many problems within in small villages and wilderness settlements but the very nature of the ranger makes them tough to be social with but most certainly not impossible. Which brings me back to the BArd. The Dand D Bard are like the Gleemen taken from from the Wheel of Time Series of books. A traveler, an Entertainer, a messager, a bringer of news, a teller of stories, a charmer, and an illusionist in their own right. Everyone wants to hear from the gleeman whether it's a story from another land, news of the countries down the road, a song to be sung by one who doesn't have to destroy their body to do extremely hard manual labor. In big cities they provide distractions to the city dwellers and give them art. In small , isolated villages, they bring news and information on the world outside of their small realm. Royalty love Bards because they can be utilized to help strengthen them with the people or weaken a rivals position with them. Thieves have to love a good Bard since they know some things thatd really come in handy for their trade. Plus, stories of brilliant escapes, robberies, and scams are a hit amongst them. In the wilderness a Bards language abilities can make the entire wilderness his audience, any creature with enough intelligence to appreciate good songs or stories and don't utterly hate the BArd for their race can have knowledge shared with them and give i back in return. Hell, I'd imagine Brass Dragons have dreams about BArds visiting their lair and engaging in a healthy conversation. A good travelling Bard can get alon with just about anything with in their own personal beliefs and a Bard doens't always have to be good (i.e. The Pied Piper). Remember Kids TV didn't always exist and it's a pretty boring ass life to farm or work your whole life with nothing else to look forward to and you certainly wouldn't want to socialize with anyone who'd just as soon take my gold as look at me theres jsut something about an entertainer thats more trustworthy. Asmall List of Bards in SF/Fantasy who are anything but "Sir Robins Minstrels": Thom Merillin (Wheel Of Time): Entertainer, Juggler, Stood up to a wraith and lived to tell about it Piemur(DragonSinger, Dragon Drums, and moe of the other Dragon Riders of Pern Series): Haggler, Trickster, Spy, and the explorer of a continent with little to no habitation, Plays Drums and sings Alto for his music academy. (Cant recall his name ATM)(Curse of The Mistwraith): Brilliant if Humble harper and storyteller, Pirate, Sorceror of Darkness and the Lost prince to an ancient kingdom. I'm sure theres many more If I looked. I'll do research into their Combat abilites as well sooner or later. |
| BlaineTog10-29-03, 02:48 AM | TalinXT's point is, in essence, that Bards are predisposed to Social situations. Mechanics-wise, they don't have all that much of an advantage over, say, rogues. But a) that's the whole POINT of the bard! They were desighned to fill this niche. It's how they were meant to be ROLLPLAYED. b) the advantage disappears when the rogue, or the paladin, or any of the other classes is in a foreighn element. Here's an analogy: All the classes (accept the bard) can do a d8 "damage" agaisnt their native type, but a d3 when not in their element. THe Bard, on the other hand, does a d6+1. Sure, they could, theoretically, not do as well when the party encounters, say, a traveling band of paladins. But the bard will do just as will agaisnt that party of paladins as (s)e will against a part of evil, murdurous rogues. The Bard is ambiguous. They can do anything with at least a passing competence. They can fight, defende, support the party, cast offensive/defensive/Tool/Enchantment/Illusion spells, and they can heal (a very powerful ability). They can also do well in any social situation, and know a little bit of everything (having effective ranks in every Knowledge skill is powerful). |
| CaoSlayer10-29-03, 06:35 AM | who sayed that the bard cant out-rogue a rogue? Most of the rogue´s skills can be emulated or ever surparsed by your average bard, there are spells that does the same tast than one skill without fail chance. Some examples: Climb: Levitate (3.0), Alterself to Avariel (3.5), gaseous form Open lock: Shatter, shout, greater shout, gaseous form Heal: Cure X wounds Disarm trap: summon monster Speak language (3.5): Compr. language, Tonges Diguise (3.5) Diguise self, Alterself Every skill: Improvisation(up to caster level*2), Heroism(+2) and Greater heroism(+4). The bard isnt just only +2 to skills it is up to +40 to any skill if wished. |
| Nameless One Jr.10-29-03, 01:57 PM | Originally posted by CaoSlayer who sayed that the bard cant out-rogue a rogue? Some examples: Open lock: Shatter, shout, greater shout, gaseous form Disarm trap: summon monster The rogue wins here. The first three open lock alternatives are going to make noise, which could attract the attention of guards, wandering monsters, etc. With a summoned monster to walk into a trap for you, again, you have the possibility of making noise. You're not disarming it, you're setting it off intentionally, which might still hurt your bard if he's standing close enough. You didn't even cover search, which is completely the rogue's domain for any trap with a DC over 20, unless you count the cleric's Find Traps spell. |
| Ranthanas10-29-03, 07:11 PM | The bard can outrogue a lot of the rogue "specialities". Stealth. Hide and Move Silently are both class skills for both. The bard can augment this with Invisibility (+20 to hide), Alter Self (lets become small for +4 to hide), Sculpt Sound (let's render Move Silently meaningless) and he can augment his mobility with spells (c.f. alter self) Result: the bard is stealthier than the rogue (although not as perceptive) Social Skills. The Bard and the Rogue have the same class skills here, although the bard has Speak Language and the rogue does not. The bard also gets spells like Glibness (+30 is plain silly), Eagles Splendour (+4 to Cha!?), Disguise/Alter Self (which can give him a way in) and a couple of others, not to mention Fascinate and Suggestion from his music (both of which have high save DCs). Result: The bard wins by a country mile. Combat Although Inspire Courage does not stack with Bless (both being Morale bonusses), it means that with a few seconds, the bard has almost the BAB of a fighter (he's only 2 short at worst) and does more damage (something bless doesn't) with comparable stats (of course it also helps an allied fighter...), and that's before Inspiring Greatness and/or Heroism (oh, and you've obviously never seen a mass combat, Karrde if you think Inspire Courage is weak). He's also fair at mobility, making him a good flanker, he can wear light armour, cast useful spells to either take out enemies or Area Control (Tasha's Hideous Laughter and Silent Image are both good examples of level 1 spells to do this). He'll never do the damage of a rogue but if played well is certainly not useless and can have more of an influence on the battle than an occasional excessive amount of damage would. In short a well played Bard can be extremely effective and better than a Rogue at what they do. I've even made serveral fighters look like chumps with one in an arena. On the other hand, the Bard is the hardest class to play well and is definitely greater than the sum of his parts. As for some classes getting on with people better than others, I'm going to point out my The Lore of the Bard (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69857) thread in Redgar's for a list of ways you can play the bard. They don't all have to be nancies with lutes any more than all rogues have to be untrustworthy :censored: s, all wizards have to be condecending or all paladins have to be "Kill them all, let [Deity of Choice] sort them out" maniacs. They certainly need not look like mages "I'm wearing chain armour. Of course I'm not a mage", or anything else for that matter. And as a final note to Karrde the class is spelt ROGUE. Rouge is :embarrass |
| mercurywyrm10-29-03, 08:39 PM | I would like to remind you all that a rouge or bard can cast any spell from a scroll, w/UMD. Bards could take a feat and learn to Scribe Scroll and give it to the Rouge for him to cast (why I don't know, maybe the rouge has some "aquired" gold to buy it with). I don't see why there needs to be any competition bettween them though. They are not really mean for strongly different playing styles unless the player makes it that way, here is the way I see it, a bard uses Bardic Music, a rouge uses Sneak Attack, a bard has bardic knoledge, a rouge has a few more skills and weapon proficiencies(not by much, a bard gets spells, a rouge gets evation, uncanny dodge, and detect traps. I think the things that separate them the most however are the spells vs. sneak attacks. It just depends on how you play them, you could play a charismatic, musical rouge, with allot of scrolls and magic items for influencing people and enhancing the party. Or you could play a bard who sneaks around and knifes people in the back for a cu de gra after casting a silenced sleep or hold person or something. They wouldn't be quite as good as the actual thing though and aren't exactly the same, so if you play a bard, take the bard class, if you play a rouge, take the rouge class. And I would say a class's sociability has more to do with the campain style and the player's choices than the class, however the bard can do more than just scocialize, they can use the magic found in the soul of music! That is why the argument for other classes being more sociable is silly. The bard would not look very good in an oriental setting where lawfull alignment is neccesary and it is only OK to entertain nobles. The rouge on the other hand could be a ninja there. Please do not diss other classes just for not being as "good" as your favorite. They work for the people who like them and are good at playing them. However, complaining about the Bard being shafted in abilities could be a lodgical argument if you cited evidence and made comparisons to more than one other class. |
| Sir Ferdinand10-30-03, 07:56 AM | True about the other skills, but go and look at the skills list again. Rouges have everything that a bard does as a class skill, and are better in combat. Well every class has every skill now, so Bards also have every skill Rogues have. And Bards are as good in combat as Rogues, just in different areas. Also, the paladin brings up a good point. I generally would think of a bard as one of sir robin's minsterils from monty python and the holy grail, instead of someone you would actually take seriously in a negociation. A paladin, cleric or monk would be more trustworthy to me . . . Bards are well known as diplomatics in tales and stuff like that. And Bards are also accepted by just about every one and from any race. Rules don't support that (except in terms of some spells and small things like that), but you can always play like that. * * * By BlaineTog: It isn't? Aww... I thought it was, or at least, thats what it sounded like... oh well. Yeah, I was considering that feat after looking throug the SRD, which, incidentally, doesn't differentiat between Class-only feats and generals feats. I'll certainly consider Quick draw. Yeah, 3.5 edition took out that Fighter feat list and added it to prerequisites. It may take a while to get used to the new rules. I rolled up my stats today for my bard, and where would you suggest I put them?: 17, 17, 14, 12, 10, 8. I'm not positive, but isn't Wisdom a good "dump" stat for the bard? Well those are great scores for sure. The only bad score is 8, so I'd add it to Wisdom (the least important ability to Bards; in general). Here's two builds, ranged and melee Bard: Melee: Str: 14 Dex: 12 Con: 17 Int: 10 Wis: 8 Cha: 17 Ranged: Str: 10 Dex: 17 Con: 12 Int: 14 Wis: 8 Cha: 17 Now remember, these are just my opinions. But since you have already chose the idea for you Bard (and thought about those feats you mentioned), here's one more way to put the scores: Str: 12 Dex: 17 Con: 10 (or 14) Int: 14 (or 10) Wis: 8 Cha: 17 Weapon Finesse and 17 Dex gives +3 to attack instead of +1 Weapon Focus +1 to attack. Improved Initiative to strike first and benefit from that. Quick Draw for many different uses in combat. Now it depends on if you want to make your Bard to be able to take damage on top of high attack, or if you want to make your Bard to just strike fast and back off a bit. The latter would be a good option if your party doesn't have Rogue, because 14 Int gives lots of skill points. But if your party has a Rogue already, then you may not need many skill points. I hope this somewhat helps. |
| CaoSlayer10-30-03, 09:10 AM | ummm, my sugerences: Combat bard (focus in combat and buffers spells) Str: 10 Dex: 17 Con: 17 Int: 12 Wis: 8 Cha: 14 Notes: you arent going to cast spells that require a save, so with just 14 charisma (and 16 in upper levels) it is enough for casting everyspell. Con it is needed for resisting blows and then you can switch dex and str if you wants a warrior skald or a finesse-archer guy. Skills and Spells: Str: 8 Dex: 14 Con: 10 Int: 17 Wis: 12 Cha: 17 Notes: This is the best suport bard kind, you will get really a lot of skills and with that high charisma your spells will be hard to resist. you can switch dex and con if you wants to have a higher iniciative or very harder if struck by an attack. |
| Karrde10-30-03, 08:11 PM | Sorry. Bad behavior on my part. Yes, i do generally look down on the bard class, but not nearly as far down as i led you to believe. I just saw that no one was doing the extreme anti bard position, and i felt it was my job to fill the role. :angel: The fact of the matter is, i can see why the people playing would want another warrior at their side helping them kill whatever monster, but would sneer at the bard who made that 10 they rolled hit, instead if the 12 they would have needed instead. The bard is a support class. They find information and make friends for the party in towns and other urban areas, and give you buffs in the actual fighting. The fact that they can buff themselves does make it so that they can compete with the other classes, but usually never as well. Though you must admit, if two parties with exactly the same characters attacked eachother, the one with the bard would be more likely to win. So, my real analysis of the bard, not the one i said to get a rise out of people (which it did, im happy to note, though i wonder why all you people care so much about a game . . . it is just a game, remember? :heehee ) is that they are a good support class, and not for the people who have the desire to play a grandiose and central role in combat. Which, im afraid, im guilty of. (my character tried to take on a t rex all by himself at level 6, he was eaten and almost died, then went right back at him once he was healed.) |
| SkyDaemon10-31-03, 07:54 AM | It all depends on your campaign, your party, and your DM. First off. Bards talking their way out of bread and butter combat sucks because it costs the party xp and treasure. Dunno about you, but a whole 4 hour session of role playing nets us about 400xp each. That doesn't compare to combat. 2nd edition had the same problem but slightly different. In 2nd, xp was based on treasure so it tilted fights towards profit taking. A thief that could steal a magic sword was as good as a whole fight, and for the whole party! In 3rd, xp is based primarily on monster kills with "roleplaying" being a pathetic sidebar in the xp charts. Tilted towards combat. The dm can't dole out big xp for roleplaying if he's following a module either. Otherwise the party is too high for the encounters, and if he adjusts them, then the party didn't get the treasure that they should have for that level. However, every now and then there is a special situation (facing overwhelming opposition, a massive dragon etc) where the bard talking their way out is a life saver. Still single-person action though which is bad. Second, bards bluffing and such are single person encounters which make the entire party stand there doing nothing. No other class is anywhere near so self-centered. It's deeply disruptive and boring for all except the one bard when that happens. My one campaign where we had a bard, after several sessions of excessive and useless bard "action" we actually had a group of 4 out of 6 players leave the table and go play cards by themselves for over an hour until the bard and the DM were done their crap. I would suggest that to any group with a selfish bard. It's hard for a dm to pretend there's no problem when most of the party doesn't care enough to even be there. They left 3 separate times during the same session. Anyone who suggests the party should put up with doing nothing for a whole session needs to get their ego checked. No one comes to do nothing. It's very disrespectful to create a class that requires that, or for the dm to allow that to be played in that way. The only time I've ever seen it work was with a DM who limited the bard manually. I'm convinced that's how it must be done. The bard was simply not able to gain access to all sources in town, and frequently encountered those beyond his influence. Basically, the big ale-swilling dwarf in the bar was having none of the frilly bard or his crap. No bluff or diplomacy check is going to force the dwarf to like him. He's a pansy a** who doesn't have working hands. The dwarf isn't listening to anything he says and he assumes every word out of his mouth is as good as worthless because he doesn't have the substance to back it up. If the bard pushes, he dies. The bard does quite well with nobles and a slight majority of situations, but definitely not all. And the ones that are left out are important in various ways. While this will seem harsh to egotistical bard lovers. Understand that this is essential to balance the class in social situations, and it does emulate real life somewhat too. See, this opens a place in town where the warrior can go drinking with other warriors and bond and get new sources of information through friendship on his own. Same with the cleric and the mage. Basically, each more or less develops ties with their own and a few special people in town, who just aren't influenced by the bard at all. This is also important for the actual people playing the game too. Because now when you're roleplaying in town, everybody can be doing something every 5 minutes. It's not self-centered at all like how most bard encounters are played. You won't have a chaotic mage thinking he can end all this bard bs with two fireballs. We have players in our campaigns who would not think much of doing that either. Plus, when that happens, and those encounter types are kept brief when the party isn't involved, the party and the players respect the bard. It's hard to respect someone who's actively disrespecting you and the whole group. I have found properly dm'd bard groups (as above) to have more depth than traditional campaigns. Basically, more roleplaying gets done (although the campaign moves about half-speed because of the extra time needed) but *everybody* still has fun. Not just the bard. Also, all those puzzles and clues and connections between all the major players in the campaign that most parties have no hope of noticing suddenly become possible to solve. That's the value of a bard. Not selfish encounters, but purposeful ones. Also, a bardic lore right on the scene of the combat can quickly determine new directions for the party and help them stay on a hot trail of clues. Not to mention getting them out of trouble in town and such. |
| Ranthanas10-31-03, 08:40 AM | Originally posted by SkyDaemon It all depends on your campaign, your party, and your DM. First off. Bards talking their way out of bread and butter combat sucks because it costs the party xp and treasure. Dunno about you, but a whole 4 hour session of role playing nets us about 400xp each. That doesn't compare to combat. In which case your DM is ruling badly IMO. The DMG says that the trap or challenge must be overcome and talking someone out of a fight is a method of overcoming the challenge effectively. The party should therefore get full exp for that (although not the loot). The Bard isn't to blame because your DM screws up the rules. 2nd edition had the same problem but slightly different. In 2nd, xp was based on treasure so it tilted fights towards profit taking. A thief that could steal a magic sword was as good as a whole fight, and for the whole party! In 3rd, xp is based primarily on monster kills On either overcoming or defeating the monster. AFAIK nowhere in the DMG does it say you have to kill the monsters. with "roleplaying" being a pathetic sidebar in the xp charts. Tilted towards combat. The dm can't dole out big xp for roleplaying if he's following a module either. Unless you overcome the challenge by RP in which case he should award EXP for overcoming the challenge. I tend to make RP awards about equal to the combat ones anyway. Otherwise the party is too high for the encounters, and if he adjusts them, then the party didn't get the treasure that they should have for that level. Slight problem, granted. Second, bards bluffing and such are single person encounters which make the entire party stand there doing nothing. Can't agree there. At least not if the rest of the party catches onto what the bard is doing and decides to either help or move into position for attack while the Bard is negotiating. No other class is anywhere near so self-centered. That's the first time I've heard that allegation about the bard on these boards. Every class has somewhere they can shine. While the rogue is disarming his traps everyone has to sit back. While the bard is negotiating, everyone else should either join in or find something else to do (especially the rogue) My one campaign where we had a bard, after several sessions of excessive and useless bard "action" we actually had a group of 4 out of 6 players leave the table and go play cards by themselves for over an hour until the bard and the DM were done their crap. That is bad, granted. No one comes to do nothing. It's very disrespectful to create a class that requires that, or for the dm to allow that to be played in that way. In short, you had a lousy DM, a glory hogging player (and who hasn't seen a pyromaniac wizard try to hog all the glory) and players who didn't have a clue. And you blame the bard class. [snip] I have found properly dm'd bard groups (as above) to have more depth than traditional campaigns. Basically, more roleplaying gets done (although the campaign moves about half-speed because of the extra time needed) but *everybody* still has fun. Not just the bard. Also, all those puzzles and clues and connections between all the major players in the campaign that most parties have no hope of noticing suddenly become possible to solve. That's the value of a bard. Not selfish encounters, but purposeful ones. Also, a bardic lore right on the scene of the combat can quickly determine new directions for the party and help them stay on a hot trail of clues. Not to mention getting them out of trouble in town and such. Agreed there on all points. Bards are the hardest class to make viable for either the player or the DM and should probably come with a warning that they are not for beginners. You need to be good both to play a bard and to DM one. That isn't really the fault of the class (and most people who can't play Bards take a look at them and say that they are useless, which they would be to those players). Oh, to take The Hobbit as an example, Bilbo defeated Gollum by RP and gained EXPs for overcoming Gollum. Gandalf defeated the Trolls by RP (IC RP...) and gained EXPs for that. In neither case was combat used and in both cases the enemies were defeated and in both cases the relevant EXP should be gained. |
| SkyDaemon11-01-03, 01:01 AM | Originally posted by Ranthanas Can't agree there. At least not if the rest of the party catches onto what the bard is doing and decides to either help or move into position for attack while the Bard is negotiating. While it is a good idea for the party to help. What tends to happen is warrior adds to the lie, warrior fails bluff check, roll initiative. There are real limits to what the party can do. Unless the whole party brought the skills to play the game, expect one or more members to be left out again. Also, if everyone at the table isn't charismatic, expect this to go south quickly. It takes a really charismatic party to prevent more than 80% of the encounter from being purely bard-dm adventures. Originally posted by Ranthanas Every class has somewhere they can shine. While the rogue is disarming his traps everyone has to sit back. While the bard is negotiating, everyone else should either join in or find something else to do (especially the rogue) Yeah, but a rogue disarming a trap takes 20 seconds real-time. A bard negotiation can take hours if left unchecked, or if it gets complicated. Also, I'd like you to come up with similar single-player actions commonly taken by other class types. I haven't consciously noticed many, and in my eyes, taking one minute once every 2 or 3 sessions for a class skill like disarm traps is just fine. Even finding pets for a druid only take a minute real time. And those don't happen often. Certainly not half of a session like it can be with the bard. Further, in parties without a bard, all players get to role-play in town. It does not make sense to defer all role playing to one player just because he/she has better skills in that area. The game relies heavily on a dm who doesn't allow that to happen. It's half the game, it's not like alchemy or something inconsequential. Even trap disarming is insignificant in terms of percentage of the game. You can't pretend it's just another skill or it breaks the game. Also disallowed are virtually all significant uses of any of those skills (bluff etc) on party members. Too much potential for dissention. (As a DM, do you really want the barbarian in the party to be forced to kill another player for convincing the barb he didn't want his magic weapon so the bard could sell it and buy a 'cool hat'.) It just leads to bad feelings, like stealing from party members. Even if people say they're okay with it, most times deep down they're not and just hiding it. There is no significant benefit for allowing it really, so why risk ruining a campaign. Originally posted by Ranthanas In short, you had a lousy DM, a glory hogging player (and who hasn't seen a pyromaniac wizard try to hog all the glory) and players who didn't have a clue. And you blame the bard class. The DM was off-kilter at the start. The players had a very good clue but were handcuffed by the dm so they eventually did something about it after a couple of levels. And yeah, we had a glory-hogging player trying to be a bard. Ask yourself how many campaigns you've been in where people in the party would derail the campaign to get the dm to address problems with it? In most cases, this is going to continue forward with everybody hating it. Including the bard because of the implicit resentment he'll face from the other players. As for blaming the bard class, no, I don't really. It's just that it's a perfect class for a single egotistical player to hijack a campaign with. The class is predisposed to it. And I'd say a good number of bard posts on this website (not just this thread) fit the mold of an overly egotistical player quite nicely. Not that it can't be played differently, but it takes an experienced and versatile dm, an entire group of experienced role-playing players, and a bard with a check on his ego (forced or otherwise) to make it work. Even for the above group, it takes an adjustment period to get it working, as it should for adapting to the new levels of depth added to the campaign. Everyone has to alter how they play to accomodate it. Many of these egotistical bard types (the bad ones) see the class as an opportunity to forcibly wrest perceived "leadership" of the party through unusual obscene skills like bluff and such. It doesn't generally make people happy to have that logically forced on them by the game rules. As for leadership of a party, I would suggest it be maintained by another player such as the main warrior as a matter of balance to the game. Preventing the bard from always assuming the role of a leader helps to prevent the tendency to short-circuit involving the other players. If he needs to confer with others from time to time, it gives a jumping point into conversations for role-playing for others. It also helps to control "bard ego" since not all decisions are his alone just because he's talking. I personally would not allow a bard to be played in my campaign unless the whole party gave informed consent in advance, AND I honestly believed the group could pull it off and have fun with it. If you have a party that didn't want the bard, they aren't going to support or play with him during those long encounters. I've seen other posts in other threads from bards where this is exactly what happened. Typically, if the party wanted the bard and was ready to play with one, they wouldn't be describing him as useless, and there wouldn't be resentment towards the class. The players in the group should have the right to choose not to have that in their campaign. The world will not end if the one player has to pick a different class to maintain group harmony, and he should be respectful enough not to force the dynamics that come with a bard on people who aren't prepared to deal with it. |
| Daybreaker11-01-03, 01:46 AM | I have no idea what you guys are talking about. Seriously. I've been playing a Bard. Sure, in 3.0, it was a bit of a drag to just not be good at anything, but I felt that 3.5 really gave my Bard a chance to shine. And y'know what? He does. He's the leader of the party. He's both the catalyst and the solution to plenty of adventures. Heck, it's a good thing he's not the master of a bunch of aspects of the game, or else he'd be hogging the spotlight way too much. Granted, my gaming crew tends to focus more on RP and social interaction than it sounds like some of yours might. We tend to see combat as the punctuation, not the sentence. But even in a fight, my Bard is never useless. Heck, I have more fun playing him in a fight scene than I've had with many other characters. And it's never been a situation where either the Bard takes over or he sits in the back. I don't know where you guys get that. |
| SkyDaemon11-01-03, 01:49 AM | Just as another point about bards. People above were arguing about whether they were useless and I thought I'd throw another practical thought at them. There are many different types of campaigns and dedication level of players. For my current group, we have 6 players plus a dm. We like to run long campaigns and play once a week keeping up a good pace so that we can finish the campaign inside of 2 or 3 years. Problem is that many of us have to travel occassionally for work and are otherwise unavailable on the occassional week (maybe each of us miss one week every 6 months or something). Our DM has a policy of having players who aren't there 'quickly leave' and do some personal side quest over email or play separately on a different day. Anyway, that occassionally leaves the party without a thief, a mage or more importantly, a cleric. Sometimes at fairly key moments. A bard can make a survivable substitution for either of these characters. In the case of a missing cleric, having a bard who never took anything better than cure light for healing sucks, but in an emergency it's the difference between continuing on 2 days rest and stopping and turning back. You're never completely out of anything if you have the bard. I guess it's nice for us to have a bard in the sense that it covers us and gives us much more flexibility in the case where a key player can't make it. I'd add that they are useful as a generalist to parties that want to operate with rotating missing players. Not the only way with dealing with those scenarios of course. |
| LoricDAHPaladin11-01-03, 11:29 AM | Skydaemon, You are too nice. I view bards as "nancies with lutes" and I liked the example you brought to the fore with the dwarf who claimed the bard did not have working hands. That is exactly my perception of bards, and precisely why I loathe them. Understand, that unless a bard is specifically tied to a court, or government, I cannot see how anyone would take a bard, especially an "adventuring" bard, seriously in any kind of negotiation. There is just something weasily about them. They remind me of that guy in Die Hard ( first film ) attempting, and thinking they have negotiations all wrapped up before they have even begun. I see them as being more concerned with flowery language and show than about understanding the opposition and the issues at hand. ...The johny-come-latelys with neverending cries of, "ooh, let me! let me! I can do that too!" Glory hounds, I guess. I would be somewhat more humble, but that would undermine my unapologetic view of things, and suddenly make someone's problems with my views my problems. The bard is useful, but the utility of bards smacks of the devolopers "playing" ( yuk yuk yuk...no pun intended ) favorites. With 3rd edition comes the advent of the prestige class, casting without preparation, and cleric healing spells up to and including mass cure serious. Then everyone and his mom decides that bards should suddenly be able to fight as well as the fighter, and that just ain't right, but with the Prestige Classes, the horror becomes all too real. Rehashing old stuff only because if it ain't one thing, it is something else. According to the claims by various bard advocates, the bard can or should be able to: -out rogue a rogue -have the Base Attack Bonus of fighters -have 8 sided hit die, because they are too weak otherwise -be able to cast up to 7th, 8th or 9th level spells, depending on whose post you read -something to do with spell casting, equalling the wizard in that area -have more spell "slots" in a given day bard advocates say they can do it all, but they still want more. :uh-huh: Makes perfect sense to me...pfft. |
| BlaineTog11-01-03, 11:47 AM | Despite the fact that this is obviously a playa-hating troll, I'll answer. You, sir, need to lighten up a little. These "nancies with lutes" as you call them a) get 3/4 BaB progression, a good set of weapons and armor, and a fair HD. Thus, they are not nancies (unless you were to name on Nancy...) and b) don't HAVE to play the lute. They can sing, dance, act, tell jokes, use a lapharp, play the drums, dance, act, write, etc. You also have a very narrow view of the class. This is your fault, not the bard's. The bard is, essentially, a mix between a Rogue (BaB, skills, skill points, weapons/armor, HD, coolness), and a Sorcerer (spontaneous casting, coolness), with a bit of a Cleris thrown in (Healing). This makes for a very interesting mix that can be very difficult to RP corectly. Rehashing old stuff only because if it ain't one thing, it is something else. According to the claims by various bard advocates, the bard can or should be able to: -out rogue a rogue -have the Base Attack Bonus of fighters -have 8 sided hit die, because they are too weak otherwise -be able to cast up to 7th, 8th or 9th level spells, depending on whose post you read -something to do with spell casting, equalling the wizard in that area -have more spell "slots" in a given day 1) what WAS said is that the bard can outrogue a rogue in social scenarios!!! Not only is it the bard's forte (what with it's high charaisma), but the rogue is focused on other things (like traps and locks, as well as silence and hiding). 2) No one here has said this. It's a figment of your imagination. If you can find a quote from someone on this board who said this (and they must be Probard!), then I will most heartilly disagree with them. 3) Again, never said. 4) No, you're imagining it again :rolleyes: 5) Once again, NO ONE HERE HAS SAID ANYTHING LIKE THIS!!! For one thing, the bard's spells will rarely be needed all that much (accept fpr healing, but in most parties, the claric can handle this and the Bard would be mostly for Backup). Please, if you disagree, feel free to do so, but discuss (not argue) this with US, not your imagination. Sheesh. |
| Ranthanas11-01-03, 12:20 PM | Loric, stop being assinine. There are two types of people on the bard threads when it comes to power. Some say they are underpowered (these are usually the bard detractors not the advocates) and want to give them extra powers, and there are the bard advocates who say they are fine the way they are. You have just claimed that they are the same people. (For the record, I thought that the 3.0 Bard was strong enough if played well and 3.5 Bards are certainly fine). You have also claimed that people claim that the bard can outrogue the rogue. NO ONE has claimed that- the bard can simply do better than the rogue at what he is good at (stealth and social skills) in much the same way that the rogue can do more damage than the fighter when sneak attacking. This, by your logic, means that people are claiming that the rogue is a better fighter than the fighter. Likewise no one has claimed that the bard can outfight a fighter in normal circumstances (I have won arena duels against fighters with bards, but that's a different issue). Even 'tho the bard's BAB is about equal to the fighter's when you have added in the music (and remember that an allied fighter can gain the bard's music...), the fighter gets masses of feats and should be able to stomp the bard through this. The higher level spells are few and far between. The bard does get some spells in his 5th and 6th level slots that are 7th and 8th for a Sorceror, but is effectively restricted to two schools of magic and few spells. These spells do make the bard stronger but are not a proposed change to the bard (except by people on a different side of the argument). As for the nancies with lutes, that's only if you are playing to the STERYOTYPES. You yourself have said that a Paladin can be played in many ways and yet you claim that the bard must be a nancy with a lute. If you want a list of possibilities with the bard, go hunt for my "The Lore of the Bard" post in Redgar's Repository (and nowhere do I claim that it is anything approaching comprehensive). Either that or use some imagination. Now go back and read again. (And this time work out who is on which side of the argument rather than lumping everyone onto the same side). Either that or stop trolling. |
| LoricDAHPaladin11-01-03, 12:38 PM | I am not a playa hater. I hate bards...there is a difference. I have a friend whose favorite character is a bard. He hates my Paladin, and I hate his bard, but we get along just fine. Troll...puh leeze. "Trolls" attempt to stir up trouble, usually for no reason. I concede that my consistant and constant bashing of the bard may be a bit harsh...but /shrug. If calling me a "troll" makes you feel better...whatever. I am not arguing with my imagination. Thanks for the props, though. Seriously, I have seen these things over the couple of months that I have been viewing the boards. These are things that you have either missed, or have dismissed. It is not that everyone who likes bards has claimed these things or even one of these things. Over time, different people who like bards have claimed a variety of these things, seperately. I combined them. I did not assert that any one or a group of you people stated these things consecutively. You also have a very narrow view of the class. I agree, but it is my view, and I place culpability with the players and the developers. I see something I do not like, I post how I feel. That is pretty much where I stand on things. For what it is worth, I am not attempting to anger anyone, it just happens. |
| LoricDAHPaladin11-01-03, 12:55 PM | Well Ranathas, You have stated that the bard can do things better than the rogue, and that he can make a chump out of a fighter, or to quote: In short a well played Bard can be extremely effective and better than a Rogue at what they do. I've even made serveral fighters look like chumps with one in an arena. On the other hand, the Bard is the hardest class to play well and is definitely greater than the sum of his parts. What part of that is me making false claims? Well, I may not be a diplomat at presenting my case, but I do not mince words, or change what I say to suit the situation. As for the "nancies with lutes" those were your words a little out of context. I was simply stating that my perception is this stereotype, regardless of my recognition of their utility. Simply an opinion, my friend. Read what I have written, or put me on ignore. Either way it makes no difference to me. |
| BlaineTog11-01-03, 12:58 PM | Fair enough, but you have to admit: coming on to a heavily pro-bard thread and ranting about how much bards suchs is characteristic of a blatant troller... I have a friend whose favorite character is a bard. He hates my Paladin, and I hate his bard, but we get along just fine. THAT explains it. you were arguing with HIM, not us... quote: ----------------------------------------------------------- You also have a very narrow view of the class. ----------------------------------------------------------- I agree, but it is my view, and I place culpability with the players and the developers. ????? It's the player's ad designer's fault that you are narrow minded w/ respect to the Bard?!?!?!?!:uh-huh: For the purposes of this thread, any arguments from other thread do not apply. You can't acuse us of arguning points we didn't argue! |
| LoricDAHPaladin11-01-03, 01:03 PM | ????? It's the player's ad designer's fault that you are narrow minded w/ respect to the Bard?!?!?!?! LOL...well, I never claimed to be COMPLETELY rationale. Heh, I will admit that I am stirring the pot, but not for the sake of stirring. To make up a rant about bards just because I hate them would seem more like trolling to me, but I see your point. I am just responding ( albeit vehemently ) to issues I see. I will attempt to tone it down some. But the opinions remain the same. |
| RAMAUL11-01-03, 01:16 PM | singing for spells=lame sounds like a bad saturday morning cartoon theme for very young children;) |
| BlaineTog11-01-03, 02:06 PM | Bard's DON'T sing for their magic. They cast magic exactly like Sorcerers and Wizards do, accept they they can do it in Light armor and all their spells have a verbal component. Bardin MUSIC is, IMHO, mundane. It's effects are all within the realm of possibility IRL. Like Inspire Confidence, for instance, has nothing to do with magic; it's simply a tune that heartens the Bard's allies. Also: how is singing for magic any worse than chanting triggers and flailing your arms around like a sor/wiz? |
| Karrde11-01-03, 03:37 PM | I dont think that the paly man was being a troll. I think he was forcing everyone in this room to think. The vast majority of the posts have been WAYYYYYY pro-bard. Everyone was getting so involved in how much they loved the bard that they kind of stopped thinking about what made them like it. The paladin advocate made you all think about the reasoning behind your pro bard statements. But whoever posted about singing and childrens cartoons, was a big, stinky, ignorant troll. |
| Ithilorien11-01-03, 03:57 PM | We're supposed to think about how bards suck because they're "always nancing pansies with lutes?" |
| LoricDAHPaladin11-01-03, 05:53 PM | No...play bards all you like, Ithilorien. I see people complain about the power disparity between bards and other classes on an individual level, e.g. bard verus fighter. I see other people rally and contend that the bard excels in social situations, indeed some seem to suggest that bards do better than all classes. The former has little to do with anything in this thread...it is just a stream of thought that follows when I think of bards. Yet, it has some relevance. I will get to it. Bards may be designed for social interaction, but that does not mean that bards are destinned to lead a party, or that the bard is the best choice for each and every social encounter. Players often boldly state that the bard can handle any social engagement because of diplomacy and different spell effects. They never calculate, in their arguments, risk versus reward; they only seem to look at possibilities. Implicit in these arguments is the notion that those who do not either play bards or have one in the party are hackers and slashers that have no concept of diplomacy or the art of negotiation. I then get pooh poohed when I attempt to show that spell casting or rolling to produce a desired result is not the same as roleplaying out a situation while allowing the DM to force a diplomacy or bluff check should the player make a particularly convincing protrayel of the activity of the moment. Whatever the case, when roleplaying bards, mechanically they are designed, by hook or crook, to deal with a variety of social environments. I will not refute that. When people argue that bards are the obvious and clear choice to lead parties, set the tempo ( yeah, another music referrence ) of a dialogue and fill other rolls almost as proficiently as the specialized classes my panties get bunched a little. I then remember other points made about bard "deficiencies", and argue them all at once. I guess what I see is that bard players want to shine, but as a group they seem to want to shine in every facet, and being a generalist that is just not possible. So when they push the social this strongly, it makes me think of the other things I have seen other players decry as unfair. Now, if you find that combative or "trollish" what can I tell you? I guess we are not going to be the best of friends. |
| Ranthanas11-01-03, 05:53 PM | Originally posted by Karrde I dont think that the paly man was being a troll. I think he was forcing everyone in this room to think. The vast majority of the posts have been WAYYYYYY pro-bard. Everyone was getting so involved in how much they loved the bard that they kind of stopped thinking about what made them like it. The paladin advocate made you all think about the reasoning behind your pro bard statements. But whoever posted about singing and childrens cartoons, was a big, stinky, ignorant troll. To think about what? He's lead to absolutely nothing and has reminded me of nothing. The strengths of the bard are flexibility and social (and sneaking) skills and synergies between his various abilities. The weaknesses are that he's spectacular at nothing except social skills, sneaking (which he does better than the rogue or ranger but the rogue and ranger are both better at scouting- one of the major uses for sneaking) and support. When the bard and the rogue can do the same thing, the bard is usually better as I said, but there is much (spot, search, disarm traps, sneak attack, evasion, uncanny dodge) that the rogue can do that the bard can't *shrug* As for making a chump out of the fighter, that was by good tactics vs poor tactics. It can be done was my point not that it's something I'd expect to happen. The Bard and the Fighter are the only two classes who regularly need defending (with the possible exception of the Sorceror), and I don't think that the straight fighter is defensible. The Bard definitely is, but its strengths are harder to see than most. |
| LoricDAHPaladin11-01-03, 06:58 PM | Originally posted by Ranthanas The weaknesses are that he's spectacular at nothing except social skills, sneaking At least you are a realist with regard to a bard's ability. Originally posted by Ranthanas To think about what? He's lead to absolutely nothing and has reminded me of nothing. You have qualified your claims a bit better, for one thing. You have also shown me that you are not one of the people that decries the bardic abilies as wanting or deficient. I have derived some satisfaction in that. You merely claim that bards are meant for social interaction, which I have never debated. In that regard, I have only contested the singular view that they are the best in all circumstances. |
| BlaineTog11-01-03, 07:04 PM | Look, name-calling (read: "nancies w/ lutes," "no working hands" etc) is trolling. Since then, LoricDAHPaladin has demonstrated that (s)he (not sure which) is not as trollish as one might guess from his/her first post on this thread. I have a question for you (LoricDAHPaladin and Karrde): why do you hate the bard? Karrde seems to thing that we need to do a once-over on why we like the bard, so I'm turning the question around. What is it about the bard that you don't like? If you are posting becauuse someone said something pro-bard that you percieved as anti-you-fav-class, that's one thing. But posting about how much you flat out hate the bard (and, more important, not giving reasons past "nancies with lutes"), then you are either trolling or walking the very edge. I love the Bard. Why? Several reasons. a) Like i said b4, its basically a splice between the rogue and the sorcerer, my other two favorit classes (FYI: my fav classes tie between the Bard and the Sorcerer with the rogue in a close second). b) Due to the ability to cast while in light armor, the nice selection od Weapon proficiencies, and the decent BaB, the bard is not totaly wasted in a fight, unlike the sorcerer. c) the spells! While the Bard does not get many damage-dealing spells, that' perfectly fine. My favorite spells are in the Bard's list anyway, so no problem there. Sure, the Bard won't be able to match a Wizard's power, but he can still pull a few tricks that will leave enemies spinning. d) coolness factor. The Bard can go anywhere (s)he wants, do anything (s)he pleases, and say whateveer (s)he darn well feels like! Who would dare (physically) attack the bard for that stinging insult (s)he just tossed? Not even the king! They might send an insult back, but the bard's got another dozen waiting. Not to mention the Bard is everyone's chum, and can use his/her words to get him/her out of the party's precarious predicement. Granted, these things and the bard are not mutually exclusive, but seriously: it's the bard's niche. e) Bardic Music/Knowledge. These (along with Arcane casting in armor) are the bard's claim to fame. Bardic music is a real boon, especially in a big party. Plus, it addes to the coolness factor. Bardic knowledge is a great class ability that you can theoretically use for any knowelgde check (which is not only Free, but it will only ever be 1 point behind any other maxed out Knowledge skill if you put 5 ranks into Knowledge: History). I am, of course, speaking of the 3.5 Bard. 3E bard was still good, but lacked oomph. 3.5, however, has fixed that and I wouldn't do a thing to change it (accept, however, possible giving hte character more choice in bardic music, like instead of "Inspire Courage," a Choice between "So-and-so's Requiem" and "Whats-his-name's Bolero." Neither of which would be more powerful than the current music.) In short, I have very good reasons to love the Bard. I very well might be playing one soon (my current party has effectively 3 sorceres w/ very high charisma. and guess who's one of those redendant sorcerers?). THese are my reasons, and I would LOVE to hear yours.:D |
| Ranthanas11-01-03, 08:04 PM | Originally posted by LoricDAHPaladin In that regard, I have only contested the singular view that they are the best in all circumstances. Who claimed this? You'd have to be blind to think that a bard could outcast a sorceror, outheal a cleric or outfight a barbarian or fighter in normal circumstances (you can make up for a lot with tactics). Claiming that they are useful in all circumstances is a different issue (and isn't quite correct but comes close IMO) I also agree with BlaineTog that I'd like options on Bardic Music. Possibly this could be presented in a splatbook *shrug*- would be more useful than most of Song and Silence for the Bard (that book was almost entirely for Rogues) |
| BlaineTog11-01-03, 08:33 PM | It would also be nice to have differnt options for different performance methods. Like: If you have x number of ranks in Perfom: Humerous Insults (my own creation), you can try to "Demean" an individual opponent. If they fail their will save, then they take a -1 penalty to everything for the duration. IF they succeed by or less than 2, they take a -2 to AC, Attack, and most skills, but get a +2 bonus to damage (ie they get ******). Succeeding by more than two negates. You see? I'd like to see essentially a "Songbook" that has more than songs. The Core stuff is pared down to just a few methods, but I'd like to see mose variety, all of which would be of about the power level of the current songs. |
| Tom Jackson11-01-03, 11:51 PM | Originally posted by BlaineTog but you have to admit: coming on to a heavily pro-bard thread and ranting about how much bards suchs is characteristic of a blatant troller...Quite on the contrary Disagreeing with another persons point of view does not make one a troll. That the disagreement is with the majority of poster is quite irrelevant. These boards are for discussion. If everyone holds the same point of view, what is there, pray tell, to discuss? Further, this poster has every bit as much right to speak his mind about bards as you do. So argue the points with him, rather than labelling him....eh? Originally posted by BlaineTog ????? It's the player's ad designer's fault that you are narrow minded w/ respect to the Bard?!?!?!?!:uh-huh: Personal insults will get you nowhere, except possibly an administrative warning. Originally posted by BlaineTog Look, name-calling (read: "nancies w/ lutes," "no working hands" etc) is trolling. No, not per se. But even assuming it is, what pray tell are you yourself becoming when you label others (not just once, but repeatedly, as a 'troll'? Sure sounds like name-calling to me. |
| mercurywyrm11-02-03, 12:00 AM | Originally posted by LoricDAHPaladin I see people complain about the power disparity between bards and other classes on an individual level, e.g. bard verus fighter. I see other people rally and contend that the bard excels in social situations, indeed some seem to suggest that bards do better than all classes. Ulp, I think you may be referring to me. On one thread I said my bard was a better fighter than the party fighter. It was true but it was more due to fighting strategies, styles, and base stats. I was a female gnome bard and allthough I can't remember the fighter's race I know he was a suriken user, and even with my singing and his point blank shot the surikens were only doing up to three damage and they didn't allways hit of course. On the other hand I was fighting two weapon style, had a high strength for a gnome, and was weilding a light mace and a morningstar. (3.5) Due to this I outfought our very strange fighter who specialized in what he did. I was just trying to point out that class abilities don't completly define who is best to have in combat, player choices count for allot too. And if we had been level 4 he would have had weapon specialization suriken and would have been shooting 3 of those darnded things at something like 5 or 6 damage apice! I just wonder if the damage bonus applies to all three? Maybe some do and some don't... Anyway, I am sorry if you saw that as a statement saying the bard was better at fighting than the fighter, it was more using an example of a well played bard and his strange fighter friend to cheer up someone who had problems with the other players in their group picking on his bard. I kinda like Gnomes having Favored Class Bard, especially with all those illution spells that the bard gets it kinda fits. It also gives them enough skills to be knoledgeable tinkerers. Also there is historical fantasy which includes examples of what we play as bards. I asked my english teacher if there were people who cast magic spells with music and she told me about some greek hero(forget the name) who was known to have such great pursuation skills and have such a beautifull singing voice that he could make inatimate objects and people move according to his will by the way he sang, and could even out diplomacy a diety. And of course there is allways the story of the Pied Piper, and I would almolst go so far as to say Rupledstiltskin was a bard. I think the real problem with people hating bards is the stereotype of the flamboyant or cutesy party tagg allong who dabbles in everything but isn't really skilled at anything but duping stupid NPC's out of their cash by telling some "lame" stories and singing or playing music. And that the magic is just a balancing act to make them as good as everyone else. As well as the bardic music and the bardic knoledge. This should be refuted by using true exaples of the bard, for instance, isn't Merlin a Druid/Bard?(try not to use the Sword in The Stone Disney version because although he seems to sing allot of spells it seems to encourage the idea that they are crackpots and silly with only partially applicable scocial skills) To play a class well is to make it look good to the rest of your party. It does not matter which class, if the player designes and plays well a character it will be a good character. |
| Karrde11-02-03, 12:35 AM | I dont hate the bard class. When have i ever said that? Oh, and I wasnt the one who called them "nancies with lutes" I compaired them to sir robins minsterils, and heres why. In every life threatening situation a bard has not shown me his worth. I have, in fact, been killed before by bards who couldn't pull their weight. It might just have been bad playing, but while actual combat has begun, they are almost a liability. Every one of their abilities, as far as i have seen, has been for convience. None of their spells can do damage, as has been pointed out by someone earlier in this thread. Sure they can fasanate and charm, but thats only a temporary fix. Their buffs are fine, and i will be glad to take them, but they are usually unnessary, if, as i have said before, convienient. Most bards i know have been standing in the back, singing wonderfully while i've been out in the thick of battle losing limbs. When i've suggested to players to help me out they usually say something along the lines of "No way dude, i would get killed in there! you have almost double my health." They clearly outshine me in the town area, in point of fact my fighter is usually wasted at the bar while the bard has just made friends with the king of athos. But when my fighter is dead on the ground the bard is singing merrily away. And dont even think about accusing me of being a hack and shash player. I like role playing as much as the next guy. My fighter generally spends at least one night in the jail because thats the kind of character he is. But, ultimately, in every dungeon, there is a battle, and i would rather live through that then get to sing for the nobles. Oh, and for anyone who is looking for a good prestiege class for the bard, this one lets you add your charisma mod to your AC. http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/re/re20030224a |
| BlaineTog11-02-03, 01:46 AM | Disagreeing with another persons point of view does not make one a troll. That the disagreement is with the majority of poster is quite irrelevant. Yes, it is irrelevant. But posting "bards suck! I hate them! I can't see how anyone would want to play them!!! They are a worthless class in battle ,and all you say they are the best, but they arn't!! They are the worst and i loathe them!!" isn't. Feel free to disagree, but ranting about how much bards suck on a thread founded on how great bards are is, if nothing else, in extremely bad taste. And at least APPEARS to be trolling. Personal insults will get you nowhere, except possibly an administrative warning. I was not insulting him/her (still don't know which to use...). You have to admit, labelling all bards as "nancies with lutes" is a narrow perception of the class. Note that I only called his/her conception of the bard as narrow, not that (s)he was narrow minded his/herself. Also remember that this poser agreed with me about his/her narrow-minded perception of the bard. quote: ------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by BlaineTog Look, name-calling (read: "nancies w/ lutes," "no working hands" etc) is trolling. ------------------------------------------------------- No, not per se. But even assuming it is, what pray tell are you yourself becoming when you label others (not just once, but repeatedly, as a 'troll'? Sure sounds like name-calling to me. I become an early Alarm system. If the person goes around spouting highly inflammatory prose on an unfriendly board without explaination (other than "I hate bards! You say they rock, but they don't!!!!") at least SOUNDS like an attempt at igniting a flame war. (http://www.geocities.com/edymnionii/FlameWar.txt) And in a medium as flat as a message board, what "sounds like x" is x. 2 more things: a) I only called him/her a troll once. That other time was for a different person, whom you must admit has a weakness for fire. b) This hasn't come up yet but I know it will. "Playa-hating." Read: "Class-hating." "Classa-hating" just doesn't have the same ring:D. (PS: this specific line was more of a joke that anything else. I've been wanting to post "playa-hata" for quite some time now, and I seen my oportunities and I took 'em.":heehee:) Karrde, Sadly, you seem bitter. It sounds like you had a bad experience(read: inexperienced fellow player took on the Bard and didn't do the party any good in dungeons). That bard "friend" of your obviously didn't even bother to take a look at his BaB and/or weapons and Armor proficiency. As I've said before, the bard is a viable melee character, even if (s)he is a bit low on the HP. That bard just didn't know how to play it in a fight sequence. And for the recod, I was not reffering to you when I referenced the bard-hating. |
| LoricDAHPaladin11-02-03, 03:03 AM | Blaine, You are too kind with the pronouns. I could not care less what you call me, just do not call me late to the party :smirk:. I am male, so "he" will suit me just fine. Mecurywyrm, You are another one that seems very kindly. I was not referencing you specifically. I just remember I have seen statements along those lines. For what it is worth, I could not care less who disparages me or uses unimaginative board epithets against me. Truly, I find these things amusing. However, make no mistake, I am not attempting to rouse anyone's ire...I truly believe and stand behind my arguments. I just do not care if people dislike me. Oh, Blaine...I would like to tell you why I dislike bards so much, but later. It is 3AM here, about 8AM GMT so I am quite tired. |
| RAMAUL11-02-03, 07:40 AM | ok things i dislike on bards just seems care bear like They can produce magical effects by songs and poetics WHAT THE! song of freedom billy is under the mind control of the evil witch he won't leave with us!! bard no problem" i love you you love me leave this witch and come back to your family!!! COUNTERSONG wouldn't just the group screaming loudly work the same way :D IT's like the Silver surfer yes he has godlike strength, shoots energy beams,and armor skin seems cool till you step back looking at it from a view of someone who has never heard of him....he flies around on a surfboard in space....He does what?!? pass me that spider man comic instead |
| Ranthanas11-02-03, 08:47 AM | *thinks RAMAUL would do well to read some mythology* (Particularly Merlin, Taliesin, Orpheus and many others- few mythological wizards could toss around fireballs) |
| Karrde11-02-03, 09:51 AM | Ramaul, please do us all a favor and stop posting until you can actually add something to the conversation. It's clear you dont like bards, but you have provided NO vaiaible reason why you dont. You link them to things which have nothing in common with them, and call up childrens comics as your compairision. Do you even own the D&D books? Have you ever even played? Or have you just heard what the word bard ment somewhere and decided you didnt like them? Look through the books, (assumeing you have any) and give reasons you dont like them. Tell us about experiences (assumeing you have any) that you've had playing with the bard. Dont just sit here and yell about how much you hate the bard and not back it up. |
| RAMAUL11-02-03, 11:11 AM | i thought i did give 2 reasons song of freedom and counter song i can understand a moral bonus and the like. I gave the silver surfer example of a character that has some real good qualities but one really corny one which ruins a otherwise great character and I figured everyone would understand that. If you were trying to get someone to try roleplaying that thought it was kind of "nerdy" but willing to give it a try the last character class you try to lure him aboard on would be the bard. HE uses songs and poetry to help save the day.....................DM :D PC: No lemme look at that monk class again. |
| mercurywyrm11-02-03, 11:22 AM | Sometimes diplomacy is neccesary. I have often been in games where I had to negotiate with an NPC because none of the players had the initiative too, they expect all adventures to be set up for them by the NPC's who will offer them money to do combat. But sometimes you have to negotiate the terms of something with allies or enemies and it often takes time. This bores the players who don't like sitting down and talking and would rather threaten even good NPCs if those NPCs should bore them, they wander away and don't pay attention when I or another player start negotiating. This becomes a problem later when they never remember or agree to the terms of the agreement or have to be told at inconvienient times. I think these players should pay more attention and try not to make the game a I am god thing where any NPC who is in their way recives the wrath of their sword or spells. On the other hand these are often pretty dumb players in combat too. And when it comes to traps. For some of these guys I came up with a "blonde" dungeon witch revolves around the silly nee jerk reactions to background text the GM puts in. Example: DM: "You reach another hallway which your torch illuminates, it is another stone hallway with slimy rotten goo on the walls from years of not being cleaned. There is a single blade of grass poking up from the ground, seeming to defy the adverse conditions it faces in this dreadfull dungeon in the hope for life." Player:"I step on the blade of grass." DM:"You are quite unhappy to discover yourself dead and being tourcherd in the nine hells. The devil in front of you taunts you by explaining your death, you had stepped on a vorpal dagger sticking up from the ground, disguised to look like a blade of grass with a simple prestigitation. Since it was vorpal and you attacked yourself with it it auto critted and cut off your head. No saving throw since it was volentary." ((No I didn't actually run this dungeon but my friends an I are pretty sure it would work and the blade of grass really is a vorpal dagger disguised by a simple prestigitation. This is pure metagaming but it was really funny and is an example of what I think of players who don't have patience for talk.)) |
| Ranthanas11-02-03, 11:36 AM | Originally posted by RAMAUL i thought i did give 2 reasons song of freedom and counter song Countersong is NOT just making a lot of noise. It is analysing the noise and working out how to put in a counterpoint or the reverse to disrupt the effects. This takes a keen ear, skill and thought. (Look up Resonance sometime for the power of applied music) As for Song of Freedom, it (and note that it takes Time) is a much better way of breaking enchantments than to simply make a few mystic passes. If that's all you don't like about the class, why not just not use those two abilities? i can understand a moral bonus and the like. I gave the silver surfer example of a character that has some real good qualities but one really corny one which ruins a otherwise great character and I figured everyone would understand that. If you were trying to get someone to try roleplaying that thought it was kind of "nerdy" but willing to give it a try the last character class you try to lure him aboard on would be the bard. That depends entirely on the player (and the DM), whether they have a grasp of myths and legends and whether they have an imagination. Also the Bard need not touch a Lute (a master Psychologist is one option). If you want a list of archetypes that are Bardic in nature, hunt round in Redgar's. |
| BlaineTog11-02-03, 12:49 PM | If you were trying to get someone to try roleplaying that thought it was kind of "nerdy" but willing to give it a try the last character class you try to lure him aboard on would be the bard. Yes, this is true. but not a) because the person thinks it's "nerdy" of b) because the Bard is a bad class. THe Bard is a difficult class to play. You should at least have a solid grasp of the game mechanics before you attempt to play one. Or not. It depends of the player. And for the record, why is music "corny"? if anything, I'f think that the newbie would like the bard MORE because of its music. It's one of the few things in DnD that you can atcually do in real life (as apposed to, say, casting fly on yourself or running a blade through a goblin). Music is powerful, especially IRL. It's a staple of everyday life (what car doesn't have a radio/cd/tape player in it? And of course, you must remember MTV, VH1, Napster, RIAA, and all the bands/artists. It's big business, and the things Music does to people is so close to magic it's not even funny). |
| Daybreaker11-02-03, 01:59 PM | My Bard: Str 17 Dex 11 Con 17 Wis 8 Int 14 Cha 16 He's the 'big man' of the party, and people tend to mistake him for a Fighter. He's happy, he's cheerful, and he's sort of crazy, and he really knows how to go to town on those bongos. Sometimes, he actually gets mistaken for a Paladin, because he's very brave and always trying to help people. He helps to plan the assault (and always forgets his own plan on the first round -- high Intelligence, low Wisdom), and gives a great pep talk before the fighting starts, and then he charges up to the front, roaring and swinging his greatsword. Afterwards, he takes care of the healing (he's often the only healer we've got). Wimp with a flute? I think not! And if you call him one, he'll box your ears ... then steal your girlfriend for good measure. :cool: |
| TalinXT11-02-03, 02:03 PM | MY God!!! NAncies with lutes! We must change that opinion. No no no that won't do at all. Come here Mr. Paladin have a seat in this nice comfy chair it is time you were educated heres a list of reading material for you Wheel of Time Series Books 1 and 2 Focus on Thom Merrillin the books "Gleeman" he's far from a pansie. Curse of the Mist Wraith: Focus on the main protagonist in the book (the black haired brother) he's a pirate, sorceror, and an extraordinarily talented musician. He beats the **** out of an entire bar and charms an entire clan of barbarians with his songs of his pirate days. Any of The Dragonriders of Pern series particularly Dragondrums: You'll see very quickly Harpers are much more then entertainers, they pass on and influence news, inspire, and explore the unexplored regions of their world. I'm sure their are many many other examples of NO Pansy bards. I'll have to look. Even Paladins have faults. Ever played Warcraft3? ("Better the villagers die by my own hand then serve you in death!!!) |
| Daybreaker11-02-03, 02:50 PM | My own favorite part of playing a Bard was inspired (or at least gelled) by that scene in The Two Towers where the King recites a poem before the battle. We do that now in our sessions -- for the big battles that we know are going to be important, my Bard takes a moment to reflect out loud on the situation, as poetically as I can manage off the top of my head. Thirteenth Warrior did this, too, when the Vikings recited a poem before their last battle against the Grendel. Try adding this to your sessions, and suddenly having a Bard around can become the coolest part of your game. |
| LoricDAHPaladin11-02-03, 03:09 PM | I guess Ranthanas chose those words rather well...I think I shall need to remember them. I just re-used his words ( he was denouncing such notions when he used them ). Now, most of you are going to denounce me further after I enumerate the prejudices I have against bards, but I was asked to do so. Further, no one asked me to list the qualities I think bards have, so I will not bother. When I was being educated in high school, we were exposed to William Shakespeare who is largely hailed as a bard. At the time I could not stand him, mostly because the older english was too difficult to decipher. I have since come to appreciate most of his works ( whether they are his or not ) but the association of bard ( and the style of dress in which WS is often represented ) produced within me a deep loathing of the word, and what it came to represent, lasting long after my new found appreciation. I am not overly fond of music. I just fail to understand why people like it so much. This is not to suggest I do not like any music. It simply is that I do not appreciate a vast majority of it, and what I do like I can certainly live without. When I do not like a piece, it sounds like noise, incessant and insufferable. I hate listening to music at the office because invariably I will listen to a piece I do not like. I would rather listen to nothing than to even one thing I do not like. I have a friend who likes bards. His rather flamboyantly silly and foppish representation of the class sealed my loathing for it. It was not verile, charismatic or serious. It was absurd, and it drove me batty for reasons that are forthcoming. But for all that absurdity he was able to do this and that and seemingly everything under the sun, and he was constantly attempting to upstage ( ugh, where do I find these colloquialisms?) everyone. He also had this penchant for playing morally ambiguous characters, and I am not morally ambiguous. Jack of all trades. My view of this condences to mediocrity. I am aware that the definition does not imply a simple passing ability in one field or another, but that is how I view it. I guess it is my philosphy and outlook on life. I like specialists, not generalists. I do not much care for music, and what I hate, I loathe. I do not like the cheery carefree ( sometimes silly and flamboyant ) nature that I associate with bards, and I cannot change simply because people tell me that it is not the only thing bards are. I specialize in strength training to the exclusion of all other excersize. Not bodybuilding, not aerobics...strength training, specifically powerlifting. I am highly specialized in that regard. My opinion is that you cannot be truly good in a particular persuit if you are distracted by a lot of other interests. In game terms, I dislike bards for all the reasons listed in my pevious post wherein I was accused of being "assinine" or "trollish". As I communicated before, I am trying to tone it down, but the opinions have not changed and I stand by them. Talin, Paladins are not the perfect, end all, be all of classes. My identity here is LoricDAHPaladin because I play a character in FR by the name of Loric. It may interest you to know that he is Cormyrian Knight: 9 Fighter, 6 Paladin and 1 PDK. My favorite class is fighter, and that has always been. Paladin is a close second, however. The whole reason I responded to this thread ( I do not respond to a lot of bard threads ) is because people seem to infer ( not directly, mind you ) that other classes do not roleplay, and that only bard characters and their players either like to do so. Additionally, I have stated before, and I will here again, using the skill checks against NPCs without roleplaying out the situation is not roleplaying. Unfortunately, I cannot explain it any more succinctly than that. |
| BlaineTog11-02-03, 05:01 PM | Let's go down the list, shall we? 1) Shakespeare: :ayyyy!: 2) Music, why people like: Music is popular for many reasons, but mainly because its a carrier of vicarious emotions. People listen to up-beat music becuase they want to feel happy, upbeat. Sometimes, sorrow is what we crave; then we listen to depressing music. The same goes for calm, anger, etc. Music can also carry information. Plus it sounds nice (most of it, anyway). 3) I am most sorry for your misfortune. Your friend probably didn't understand that the bard can do a bit of everything, but not as good as the specialists for it, which was probably the part (s)he didn't understand. However, the Bard IS a bit of a specialist in two ways: Party-buffs and social interation. These are not by any means mutually exclusive with the Bard, but it's that Bard's forte. 4) Actually, I view it the same way too. Jack-of-all-trades, to me, means that the bard doesn't totally suck in anything, although (s)he can't so all that many things really well (with, as Isaid, the exception of their Music and Socal skills). Not necessarily mediocre, but average. 5) This is simply a personality conflict. I for instance, am a proponent of the Liberal-Arts (with the possible exception of foreighn languages, but that's just becuase I totally suck at them ;)). You, it seems, are the type of person who is much more likely to get a PhD than I. from "Talin,": Every class should roleplay. But, the fighter with 8 in charisma is not anywhere as likely to be the party's "face" as the Bard with 18 (20, counting that Cloak of Charisma). Perhaps this is because it's a bit easier to RP a fighter. The fighter has a pretty straightforward job, for the most part: get to that Wyrm and kill it. RPing a Bard is a little bit more complicated, if for no other reason than the Bard CAN do everything passably well. "Should I heal the fighter, join him, mess with that myrm's head, or stay back and give everyone a bonus?" This could, theoretically, go to someone's head and give the Bard a big head. If I have sounded condescending in any way, I am truly sorry. This was not my intent. |
| Karrde11-02-03, 10:28 PM | Blanetog: actually the reason i play D&D is because it has very little relation to RL. I would love to be able to cast fly on myself and rocket away from school, and playing D&D is the closest I can get to it. This is the first reasonable point Ramaul has brought up, and that is that the Bard is not the flashiest of classes. But he's still a good class, but probably not a good one to start with. |
| -Defiler of Souls-11-03-03, 12:08 AM | bard is my favoite core class, i can do just fine in combat but the place where bards really shine is out of combat, i have a lot of fun manipulating town guard/mobs/mayors ect... i love holding pople in the palm of my hand, not to mention my skills are as good as any rogues, im basically a rogue w/o sneak attack but with bardic music, alot of mind influecing spells, and bardic knowledge, infact i probably could beata fighter of my level in a duel(imp invisibility shoot him w/ bow til he dies) so for those who say bards suck can just shove it |
| BlaineTog11-03-03, 01:16 AM | -Defiler of Souls-, That's not very nice. While I'm sure the pro-bard posters appreciate the solidarity, it's not necessary to degenerate the thread to the point where we actually have to tell people to "shove it," pardon the phrase. Karrde, I think that's possible the nicest thing you've had to say about Bards yet! "Progress, yes, we're making pro-gress!!!" ::gets looks for a using an obscure "Titan: AE" reference:: In short, yes, the Bard rocks. But you definetally have to approach it with a mature attitude, an understanding of the game, and a firm intention to ROLE-play, virtues which are rare in the begining player. Failure to do these can a) turn you off to the bard, and b) seriously annoy the other players, and possibley alienate them from the Bard. |
| mercurywyrm11-03-03, 01:26 AM | Loric is right, too many people just look at the stats and play D&D like a miniatures game. The roleplaying is the point of the game, it can be fun and exciting to play a bard! The spells and being the reinerpreter of the GM's gifts of knoledge and pretending you are good at music (or showing it off to the other players) is quite fun too. But the skills and statistics should never replace the roleplaying, they should just be a mitigating factor that keeps certain classes or races from taking over every game. The game is designed to give everyone a chance to be involved and help out. And to succed in their goals. Otherwise it is not fun! Why for instance do you play a miniatures game, well because you wish you were the general commanding all those troops against equal forces. However, I do not belive that D&D is balanced in the way a miniatures game is, simply because it isn't all about combat but addionally because of this. Two parties have a dungeon ahead of them, these are extreamly well designed dungeons that give all character classes a chance to excell at everything they do at least once. It makes use of every skill and every combat ability that are generally taken by the core classes. One party consists of one character of every class, the other consists of 2 wizards, 2 clerics, 2 rouges, and 5 fighters. Which one do you think is going to be more successfull? I think it would be the one with the least variety in class, the characters within can be very varied in feats, item choice, skill choice, spell choice, ect. And thier abilities support each other more. On the other hand the mixed party wouldn't get allong to well due to having so many alignment restrictive classes. Sure the clerics could be restrictive in the other party but that would be all, and they could potentially be clerics who are very supportive of the alignments and behaviors of the other classes. This is less likely in the more mixed party. And the spread party can use the really powerfull abilities of their classes more often than the party which gets each class once. |
| Daybreaker11-03-03, 02:09 PM | If you don't dig Rock 'n Roll, it's too late, you're lost to the Dark Side. :D |
| Karrde11-03-03, 03:12 PM | Defiler, your thing about the epic pickpocket is the best! There is just one thing i would like to say though. There is this feeling that the bard class is the only one that can role play. It most certianly is NOT. We had a wonderful adventure because my fighter role played. He got in a fight with a paly, and spent the night in the jail for it. We really needed to leave town, so all at the same time the bard talked the guard into letting me out, the rouge broke in and tried to lift me, and the wiz used an illusion to make the guard think his mom had just been run over by a horse. Ah, good times, good times. |
| BlaineTog11-03-03, 03:38 PM | Every class should roleplay. But, the fighter with 8 in charisma is not anywhere as likely to be the party's "face" as the Bard with 18 (20, counting that Cloak of Charisma). Perhaps this is because it's a bit easier to RP a fighter. The fighter has a pretty straightforward job, for the most part: get to that Wyrm and kill it. RPing a Bard is a little bit more complicated, if for no other reason than the Bard CAN do everything passably well. "Should I heal the fighter, join him, mess with that myrm's head, or stay back and give everyone a bonus?" This could, theoretically, go to someone's head and give the Bard a big head. If I have sounded condescending in any way, I am truly sorry. This was not my intent. Quoting yourself is fun, isn't it? What I'm saying here is that it's not that ppl don't roleplay other classes (quite the opposite, really), but that since they are specialized, it's a bit easier to do so. Since the bard can do everything at least passably well, its a bit less clear in what direction you want your bard's personality to go, and if you don't have some RP experience, then you are going to have a hard time. Coming up with a Bard character's backstory and personality is a little bit more time consuming than a fighter. The fighter knows what his job will be in the party, and thus, the player has a good starting point. The bard, however, could have pretty much any personality (depending on what the bard's primary function in the party will be), since (s)he can use pretty much anything as a starting point. It's not a question of whether or not other classes can be roleplayed, it's a question of how easy it is. You have a fighter? Make him/her the boistrous kinds that gets into bar fights and has to get bailed out of jail for indecent exposure :devil: This is roleplaying. Nothing wrong with this at all. The bard could also get into bar fights and need bail money for indecent exposure. But the (s)he could just as easily be the one to pay that bail fos him/her fighter friend who is in jail. Don't get me wrong, the fighter can be RPed any way you want (meek, short-tempered, good-natured, whatever), but you still have a clearly defined role to play in the party. It's not gonna be the fighter who's Charming the enemy, healing the downed friend, or picking the pocket of the BBEG. The bard, too, has a steryotype: nancies with lutes. But what if your bard never bothers with Bardic Music? Or, instead of a lute, wisecracks during battle? How about the Bard who's never touched an instrument in his/her life, but can tell you the history of that third button on your left sleeve? Or tell you what other flowers you would need to mix this one with to get a small explosion? What about the bard who runs itno battle, rapier flashing? Or the Bard who stands right behind the fighter and lobs sleep spells over his head onto that orc he's attacking? What about the bard who crumples at the sight of blood and would probably collapse after the first arrow nicked his shoulder, but can convince the NPC party of paladins to let them kill that unicorn that just passed? My point is this: since the bard has more possible roles in the party, the player has to put a little bit more though into RPing the character. The bard that grows squeamish at the sight of blood, but can play a fiddle like nobody's business, probably should not be the one who helps the rogue flank that displacer beast. Although the other classes are in no way restricted in their range of RPing, they at least have a clear starting point. |
| -Defiler of Souls-11-03-03, 06:30 PM | sorry for any harshness in that last post, was in a pretty bad mood the other day, and to the post about not only being able to rp a bard i agree fullheartedly, roleplaying has potential no matter what class youy take, i just prefer the roleplaying with bards :D . anyway im in a great mood right now cause i've done away with one of the people i know who thought bards sucked.....of course after i stomped a lvl 20 fighter he made on the spot with a lvl 20 bard i also built on the spot to prove my point, hes no of the opinion bards are ogverpowered....im stilll trying to decide whether this is progress:confused: anyway bards are by far my favorite core class and i'm happy someones finally started a thread to explain to other players how bards are not only viable but a very useful choice in character |
| BlaineTog11-03-03, 06:57 PM | I'm not sure if thats a good thng or a bad thing. I guess its good, since he at least respects the power of the class now.:angel: |
| Tom Jackson11-03-03, 10:47 PM | Originally posted by Daybreaker My Bard: Str 17 Dex 11 Con 17 Wis 8 Int 14 Cha 16 <snip> He helps to plan the assault (and always forgets his own plan on the first round -- high Intelligence, low Wisdom), and gives a great pep talk before the fighting starts, and then he charges up to the front, roaring and swinging his greatsword. You spent one of the precious few feats a bard ever gets on a martial weapon proficiency? Wow. Look, what you'd call brave here, I'd call foolhardy and ill-considered. This fellow is wearing light or no armour, and has no dex bonus. Opponents will generally attack before he does, hitting his poor AC easily, and because he has only a d6 hit die, will go down quickly. Unless your campaign includes some unmentioned house rules that make this character hardier in combat, the scenario you describe here is a recipe for disaster. If on the other hand some sort of house rules (or extremely potent defensive magic items) are making melee a sustainable choice, then we really aren't talking about the real bard here.... To make matters worse.... Originally posted by Daybreaker Afterwards, he takes care of the healing (he's often the only healer we've got). ....if the party's sole source of healing is the most likely character to be knocked out, as this character is designed to be, the healing isn't going to help anyone til much, much later. Sorry dude. Gotta call'em as I see'em. The bard simply isn't designed for primary hand to hand combat, in either edition. |
| Oberoni11-03-03, 10:56 PM | I would like the Bard more if he could do his social schtick without getting beat down horribly in a non-social situation. Let's face it: You're playing D&D. Eventually, you're going to fight. It happens. And if your character isn't contributing something close to what the rest of the characters are contributing, that's not good at all. Look at the rogue. The social king, and he's a pretty mean guy in combat. It's not an either-or thing. You can be a socially smooth character and still make your mark in battle. Unless you're a bard. |
| Ithilorien11-03-03, 11:03 PM | Originally posted by Oberoni I would like the Bard more if he could do his social schtick without getting beat down horribly in a non-social situation. Let's face it: You're playing D&D. Eventually, you're going to fight. It happens. And if your character isn't contributing something close to what the rest of the characters are contributing, that's not good at all. Look at the rogue. The social king, and he's a pretty mean guy in combat. It's not an either-or thing. You can be a socially smooth character and still make your mark in battle. Unless you're a bard. Haste Displacement Inspire Courage +4 Cat's Grace Invisibility, Greater And that's assuming you're trying to play an encounter as a meleer boosted by your bardic abilities. Most combats can easilly be avoided with a combination of bardic music or the bard's many illusions and enchantments. Even if combat is forced, the bard can easilly dominate an enemy or two, turn them on the others, summon some monsters to help beat on the enemies, and then beef up his comrades without every having to join in. A bard can also help to provoke all sorts of situations which let everyone's beloved rogue use his sneak attack more. The bard is okay in combat by himself, but give him a party or a group of enemies to charm a few off of and he's incredible. |
| BlaineTog11-03-03, 11:06 PM | I disagree. One of the bard's main selling points is that they are at least feasible melee fighters, passable archers, and can buff the party pretty well. Not to mention their spells which are mostly aimed at slowing down the enemy long enough for the fighter to do some seriosu damage. Case in point: -d6 HD. Not the best, granted, but better than the Sor/wiz's d4. -3/4 BaB progression. This is pretty darn good. -Weapon and Armor proficiencies. These are a pretty decent selection. |
| Karrde11-03-03, 11:10 PM | Exactly. Everyone insists on forcing a bard to use his weaknesses, not his stregnths. A sorc in melee combat would get screwed pretty bad too. The bards have support spells, and ones which allow you to bypass combat or win it through trickery. In an actual slugging match, the bard is the last class i would want to be. |
| BlaineTog11-03-03, 11:22 PM | In a slugging match, the Wizard is the last class I would want to be. The bard can still hold his own. |
| Ithilorien11-03-03, 11:24 PM | Originally posted by Oberoni Look at the rogue. The social king, and he's a pretty mean guy in combat. It's not an either-or thing. You can be a socially smooth character and still make your mark in battle. Unless you're a bard. Also, once again, the rogue is not as good at social skills as the bard. Not only are they generally expected to invest their skill points elsewhere, but bards focus on charisma whereas a rogue is wiser to look to his dexterity and intelligence scores. Moreover, the bard supplements his great charisma and maxxed out social skills with his bardic music abilities and spells like Songbird, Charm Person, Comprehend Languages, Disguise Self, Hypnotism, Undetectable Alignment, Alter Self, Calm Emotions, Eagle's Splendor, Enthrall, Hypnotic Pattern, Suggestion, Tongues, Charm Monster, Glibness, Dominate Person, Modify Memory, Seeming, etc, etc ... A rogue cannot top this, and to truly realize its combat capability needs to look into to skills other than those designed for conversation. Interestingly, all those charm, dominate, and fascinate type spells are also quite useful to the bard in a combat environment as I already pointed out. It's been said a lot in this thread, but I think I'll add some emphasis this time around so that it strikes home: the bard is more than the sum of his parts! You need to consider the full synergies of its abilities rather than try to downplay it as a class by focussing on it's particular "weaknesses," which are actually just averages, considering that bard does everything better than the classes which have a focus elsewhere. The rogue is designed to help the party with skill-type situations and, when the appropriate conditions are available, throw in a lot of damage dice. They also have no spells and poor will saves which make them a great puppet for a bard to dominate and slaughter an enemy group's wizards with. If you measure power only in damage dice, you are missing the point of the bard. |
| BlaineTog11-03-03, 11:59 PM | I'll second that! |
| Oberoni11-04-03, 12:05 AM | Also, once again, the rogue is not as good at social skills as the bard. Not only are they generally expected to invest their skill points elsewhere, but bards focus on charisma whereas a rogue is wiser to look to his dexterity and intelligence scores. Completely untrue. You're basically saying "A rogue completely built away from social interaction is worse socially than a bard built towards social interaction." Well, duh. I disagree. One of the bard's main selling points is that they are at least feasible melee fighters, passable archers, and can buff the party pretty well. Not to mention their spells which are mostly aimed at slowing down the enemy long enough for the fighter to do some seriosu damage. Case in point: -d6 HD. Not the best, granted, but better than the Sor/wiz's d4. -3/4 BaB progression. This is pretty darn good. -Weapon and Armor proficiencies. These are a pretty decent selection. Ok...let's just say that your case isn't very pointed. I don't think I need to go in-depth about those items, unless you want me to. I'll conclude by saying that the idea of a jack-of-all-trades being average at everything is absolutely, positively horrible. The Bard really needs a report card covered with a whole lotta Bs, and a B+ or two. This C average doesn't cut it. That said, and to get back to the original poster, it's not kosher for your party members to be such jerks. I try to make sure everyone's having a fun time at the gaming table, and making fun of someone's character usually doesn't cut it. So tell them to knock it off. Or tell them Oberoni said to knock it off. As if that'll make a difference. :b: |
| Ithilorien11-04-03, 12:14 AM | You're basically saying "A rogue completely built away from social interaction is worse socially than a bard built towards social interaction." No, I'm saying that a bard built completely towards social interaction does just fine. A rogue built completely towards social interaction is a rare occurence because it makes your concept of their "combat viability" which, I assume, is based off of sneak attacks, more difficult to implement. My argument also placed a strong emphasis on how the bard, which really is almost a pure a spellcaster class, has quite a few spells which easilly make him superior to a rogue in social situations and also afford a great deal of tactical advantages in combat. Again, you cannot try and say the bard is a poor class by using only their skill list, hit points, and BAB, you also have bardic music and their spells to contend with. The combination of all these things makes them quite handy. Provided that you know what to do with them and can think of combat beyond how many d6s you get to roll. Finally, almost any rogue would be darn happy to have a bard around to help him out with all his illusions, enchantments, inspire courage, and inspire competence abilities. |
| -Defiler of Souls-11-04-03, 12:18 AM | Originally posted by Oberoni Completely untrue. You're basically saying "A rogue completely built away from social interaction is worse socially than a bard built towards social interaction." Well, duh. actually they are bards liek rogues have all the charisma based skill of rogues+social spells like charm modify memory and illusions+cha buff+if you read into the roleplaying aspects of bards(namely in song and silence) it makes it pretty clear that bards are the only class that can freely walk among any huminoid race or alignment and still expect to be respected and for people to be happy with his arrival. think about it if your some random commoner whats gunan egt you more excited,when a skilled bardcomes into town or whne some thief comes into town...a good example would b if you've ever read wheel of time, how big a deal people made of a "gleeman" coming to town which were basicly bards.... so skillwise bards may be no better of socially then a rogue but they do have abunch of useful spells, abilities, and general roleplaying properties that the rogue lacks |
| Ithilorien11-04-03, 12:30 AM | Also, since it seems to bear noting again, bards are admittedly not the best replacement for a specialist in a four person party, however, if there are fewer than four players a bard is great as they can patch several holes at once, and even four characters leaves gaps, for example: This party has four characters: a combat specialist (fighter, ranger or paladin), a skill specialist (a rogue), a divine magic specialist (cleric or druid), and an arcane magic specialist (wizard or sorcerer). The combat specialist is only one person, and may often find themselves overwhelmed with multiple combatants, the rogue and cleric could help out in this situation, but so could the bard, especially by fascinating, charming, or dominating the attackers. The bard can also cast displacement on himself, effectively beingn unhittable 50% of the time, and tank right next to the fighter. The skill specialist (rogue) has a lot of bases to cover: he *needs* at a bare minimum hide and move silently to get into position for sneak attacks as well as tumble to get out of combat before he is pureed. Also, as the group's one skill user and person capable of disarming traps he could use search, spot, listen, and disable device. He's running out of skill points. Introduce a bard, who with their music and magic is already a better diplomat, and the party never need worry about social skills, he can also help play the scout by taking hide and move silently or by casting invisibility and silence. The divine specialist has to rely on his own store of healing spells to take care of himself and three other party members. Add a bard and there is suddenly more available healing (spontaneously cast no less) and they can focus on casting other spells which could better benefit the group. The arcane specialist either lacks the space to learn many utility spells (sorcerer) or has the chance of being unable to use them due to having prepared other spells for the day (wizard). The bard is a spontaneous caster whose spell list is almost entirely useful buffs and utility spells, and the pressure to do much more than blast monsters into smithereens and keep the BBEG's protections dispelled is alleviated. Moreover, if this party ahs a sorcerer rather than a wizard, they lack a high-intelligence character with a slew of knowledge skills, cue the bard, with knowledge skills a plenty, as well as the handy dandy bardic knowledge ability. Finally, the bard's music allows him to boost everyone's attack rolls, damage rolls, armor class, saving throws, skill checks, etc as well as handling crowds (both hostile and otherwise). For any group of less than four players, or any group of more than four players, the bard is a terrific addition. |
| Oberoni11-04-03, 12:32 AM | No, I'm saying that a bard built completely towards social interaction does just fine. A rogue built completely towards social interaction is a rare occurence because it makes your concept of their "combat viability" which, I assume, is based off of sneak attacks, more difficult to implement. Seriously? You think so? Nah. I don't know where you look at the design for the class and say "I can either SA well, or be social well, but not both." Max ranks in social skills is all it takes. There's no skill points which need be dedicated toward "sneak attack" or anything; skill points and sneak attack are non-related. In all honesty, the bard has fewer dump stats than the Rogue. The Bard doesn't get as many skill points, so he can't hold out on intelligence quite as much (although 6 skill points is still very respectable. It's one category in which the Bard gets a "B.") A melee bard is kinda jacked--without SA, he has to rely more on Strength. Wisdom and Constitution are pretty equally important to both classes, so that's a tie. Dex--the Rogue wants higher dex, although the Rogue needs dex for pretty much the same reason the Bard does, so that's close to a tie. Charisma--again, something each class can use. The Bard has more incentive to boost his charisma. With fewer dump stats, the Bard has a much greater problem trying to balance them all out. A rogue has more dump stats, and can afford to have high social rolls and still be a mean SA machine. |
| Oberoni11-04-03, 12:34 AM | For any group of less than four players, or any group of more than four players, the bard is a terrific addition. I would weep bitter tears if I found out that one of the only two other guys in my party was a Bard. |
| Ithilorien11-04-03, 12:37 AM | Throw a plant, construct, undead, character with uncanny dodge, or character with armor of fortification at your precious rogue. The bard's abilities to bolster the rest of the party, as well as use his magic to take more hits than the rogue suddenly are a lot better. I would weep bitter tears if I found out that one of the only two other guys in my party was a Bard. Then you've obviously never seen a well played bard, or have no idea of how to play one yourself. Your arguments are distresslingly one-noted and you seem to consistently ignore the fact that bards have things like *spells* and *bardic music* which make up for the two extra skill points and sneak attack given to a rogue. Would I pick a bard over a rogue for having someone to ocassionally throw out large amounts of damage in combat? No. But if I'm going to be stranded in the jungle I want a machete and a swiss army knife. |
| Oberoni11-04-03, 12:45 AM | Nah, I just have high standards.:88E: |
| Ithilorien11-04-03, 12:51 AM | Well, Oberoni, this is all I care to say to you at the moment . . . http://www.geocities.com/edymnionii/Troll.txt |
| Oberoni11-04-03, 12:58 AM | Very clever. I don't like bards, so I must be a troll. Brilliant. TalinXT: Back to you. I suggest talking to the other gamers one-on-one if possible (at the very least, to the DM). Tell them how you feel, ask them to knock it off. Appealing to people individually is a surprisingly effective method, at least compared to appealing to the group. |
| gerreld terrent11-04-03, 01:05 AM | I have been working on a varriant Bard type class that has no spell casting but has a increased range of abilitys form his bardic music. I know this is a little off topic but if anyone is interested let me know and ill post it Thanks Gerreld Terrent |
| Ithilorien11-04-03, 01:09 AM | Originally posted by Oberoni Very clever. I don't like bards, so I must be a troll. Brilliant. As you seem incapable of taking your argument beyond "I don't like bards" and whollly ignore any counterpoints I can't help but think that all of your activity in this thread not relating to specifically helping Talin with his problem is only for the sake of irritating those that value the bard. Thus, you are a troll. At least Karrde and Loric voice reasons behind their opinions. |
| Oberoni11-04-03, 01:19 AM | Mmm-hmm. I guess if you ignore all of the reasoned responses I gave, and you did, then I sure do appear to be saying "bards suck" and not much else. Honestly, I didn't expect a bard discussion to be just that--a discussion. Bard fans are often in their own world, and even pointing out glaring deficiencies doesn't help. So, what's the point? Would you rather I post three-page essays, so that you could ignore those, instead of just the several-paragraph responses I've given? Oh well. I've actually given some advice for TalinTX that I hope works out, so my work here is done. |
| Ithilorien11-04-03, 01:26 AM | I would like the Bard more if he could do his social schtick without getting beat down horribly in a non-social situation. Let's face it: You're playing D&D. Eventually, you're going to fight. It happens. And if your character isn't contributing something close to what the rest of the characters are contributing, that's not good at all. Look at the rogue. The social king, and he's a pretty mean guy in combat. It's not an either-or thing. You can be a socially smooth character and still make your mark in battle. Unless you're a bard. **************************************** *** Completely untrue. You're basically saying "A rogue completely built away from social interaction is worse socially than a bard built towards social interaction." Well, duh. **************************************** ********** Ok...let's just say that your case isn't very pointed. I don't think I need to go in-depth about those items, unless you want me to. I'll conclude by saying that the idea of a jack-of-all-trades being average at everything is absolutely, positively horrible. The Bard really needs a report card covered with a whole lotta Bs, and a B+ or two. This C average doesn't cut it. **************************************** ***** Seriously? You think so? Nah. I don't know where you look at the design for the class and say "I can either SA well, or be social well, but not both." Max ranks in social skills is all it takes. There's no skill points which need be dedicated toward "sneak attack" or anything; skill points and sneak attack are non-related. **************************************** ****** In all honesty, the bard has fewer dump stats than the Rogue. The Bard doesn't get as many skill points, so he can't hold out on intelligence quite as much (although 6 skill points is still very respectable. It's one category in which the Bard gets a "B.") A melee bard is kinda jacked--without SA, he has to rely more on Strength. Wisdom and Constitution are pretty equally important to both classes, so that's a tie. Dex--the Rogue wants higher dex, although the Rogue needs dex for pretty much the same reason the Bard does, so that's close to a tie. Charisma--again, something each class can use. The Bard has more incentive to boost his charisma. With fewer dump stats, the Bard has a much greater problem trying to balance them all out. A rogue has more dump stats, and can afford to have high social rolls and still be a mean SA machine. That's just about everything you've had to say in this thread. It seems to me you're saying the bard is a terrible class for not having sneak attack. Do correct me if I'm wrong. You've also made no response to my points on any abilities bards gain through spells and bardic music. "I guess if you ignore all of the reasoned responses I gave, and you did," then I can see why you "didn't expect a bard discussion to be just that--a discussion." |
| Oberoni11-04-03, 01:32 AM | Dude, it's over. I'm not in the mood for a pages-long debate, one that's off-topic, in a discussion that will eventually bore me to tears. On the other hand, it was nice of you to go from "you never posted anything beyond bards suck" to actually, y'know, acknowledging that I made points. Points you haven't refuted, mind you, but points nonetheless. To recap: 1. I don't like Bards. They're weak. 2. That doesn't mean that TalinXT has to get mocked for it. He deserves to enjoy the game as much as the other players. If he takes some of my advice, as well as the advice others gave on this thread, it might help out. We can discuss the game on boards all we want, but when it's time to play, everyone should be having a good time. |
| Ithilorien11-04-03, 01:38 AM | Actually, I constantly addressed your points by saying that no, bards don't have sneak attack, but they do have spells and bardic music. You ignored me, but since the argument is over I'll recap for you and anyone else who is interested: It's not an either-or thing. You can be a socially smooth character and still make your mark in battle. The bard makes his mark in battle by charming, dominating, and fascinating the enemies and making them fight one another, summoning monsters to make all the marks he needs, and enhancing the combat abilities of his companions. Charm/dominate works wonders, if you have a bard in your party and the enemy has a barbarian, ranger, fighter, or rogue, in one round you can have them, too. I'll conclude by saying that the idea of a jack-of-all-trades being average at everything is absolutely, positively horrible. The bard has great party-boosting musical abilities and a great selection of enchantment, illusion, and utility spells (with many of the enchantments available to a bard before a wizard or sorcerer). They also get arcane healing and cast in light armor. Thus they are the best melee and healer of all the arcane casters, the best casters of all the skill users and fighters, and the best charmers/illusionists of the healers. Max ranks in social skills is all it takes. There's no skill points which need be dedicated toward "sneak attack" or anything; skill points and sneak attack are non-related. A lot more can be brought to a battle than sneak attack. In all honesty, the bard has fewer dump stats than the Rogue. The Bard doesn't get as many skill points, so he can't hold out on intelligence quite as much (although 6 skill points is still very respectable. It's one category in which the Bard gets a "B.") A melee bard is kinda jacked--without SA, he has to rely more on Strength. Wisdom and Constitution are pretty equally important to both classes, so that's a tie. Unlike rogues, bards have high will saves, wisdom is an easy call dump stat for bards while a rogue ought to keep it at a 10 minimum less they risk an even greater chance of a bard charming them. Bards also have access to a number of spells to give them more damage, effective hit points, and armor class. Their reliance on strength is negligible, and they do not need more, or even as much, constitution or dexterity as a rogue. Points you haven't refuted, mind you, but points nonetheless. Yeah, all those posts I made between yours had absolutely no relation to what you said . . . :rolleyes: |
| BlaineTog11-04-03, 02:06 AM | Careful, people. We don't want this nice discussion to turn into this: http://www.geocities.com/edymnionii/FlameWar.txt *And BlaineTog discovered the power of IMG. And it was good.* But seriously, dump stats for the Bard, from m sot dumpable to least: Wisdom, Strength, Constitution, Dexterity/Intelligence/Charisma. Note that those last three can fit into any of the fian lthree stats. For CHA, you really only need a 16. Intelligence is good, but as long as it's more than 10, your fine. Dexterity is important, but since the Bard can wear armor, it's not as crucial as it is for the Sor/Wiz. Wisdom is the quitessential Bardic dump stat, since they really don't have thr many skills dependent on it, and their high will save mroe than compensates. Strength is a mixed bag; as long at it's average, your probably fine. Constitution doesn't play any huge roll, but itz still important (but then again, it is for everyone). |
| Ranthanas11-04-03, 05:51 AM | Oberoni, what should have said was a bard maxed out for socials is better at socials than a rogue maxed out for socials. The skills go to the bard (I've said it before), although only by the narrow margin of Speak Language. On the other hand, the skills are all the rogue has. The Bard gets Fascinate, Suggestion (twice...), Glibness, Eagle's Splendour, Dominate and a few other useful tricks, none of which the Rogue can match. Therefore when it comes to socials, the bard is simply better than the rogue. (The only possible counterclaim being number of skillpoints, and that's weak for a character maxed in socials). As for Melee, bards make excellent flankers and skirmishers although they can not tank. They get both light armour and the tumble skill, making them as good as a rogue at flanking (at least without a partner), but they are much more survivable, with a good AC at mid-high levels. You're going to ask me to prove the AC, aren't you? Firstly Alter Self. Duration 10 minutes/level, so you should be able to cast it before combat. Alter Self- Troglodyte gives +6 Natural AC which, added to a chain shirt (which they can wear with no ASF) gives them a better AC than a fighter in fullplate, even before you take Dex into account. Yes, I know about Amulets of Natural Armour, but those things are expensive and by the time they are remotely competative, the Bard will be on Inspire Heroics for +4 dodge (stackable) bonus. At this point he will again match the tank's AC (actually he won't because he will have probably given the bonus to the tank...). Both these make him far more survivable than the Rogue, even before we have taken mirror image/blink/haste/[non AC buff spells] and cat's grace into account. Right. The bard can survive in Melee far better than the rogue. Next: Damage. This is the bard's weakness. With Str as a standard dump stat (yes, you can have high Str) and no ability like sneak attack On the other hand, he can hit much more easily with bonusses from his music (unless he's granted it to someone else, although this isn't the bard's fault...), and hence do more damage if he either is facing someone immune to sneak attacks, someone with a high sense motive (unless the rogue has a flanking partner) or has a high damage weapon. This is even if he isn't busy taking enemies out of play with e.g. Tasha's Hideous Laughter (level 1 spell for a bard) Oh, and Wis is more of a Dump stat for a bard than a Rogue as he has high will saves. To sum up, the bard is: Better at socials than a rogue Better at stealth (Invisibility, Sculpt Sound + class skills) than a rogue or ranger (although a worse scout as he gets neither spot nor search) Better defended than a rogue (better AC than most tank fighters) Competent at hitting things A very good flanker (IME a better flanking partner for a rogue than another rogue would be and not bad in his own right) Do you have a single point left? Karrde, sorry about the bards you have met- blame the player, not the class please. Likewise Loric. |
| Ithilorien11-04-03, 10:21 AM | After much thought, I think I'd go so far as to say a bard can trump a rogue. We've all heard th story about the group who replaced their rogue with a log. The only thing rogues can do that no other class can is disarm traps with a DC over 20 and sneak attack. Traps can be sprung with a log, and a DM who throws hard traps at a rogue-less party is just mean, anyway. But sneak attack? Is that really so much to bring to the party? Sneak attack doesn't heal anyone. Sneak attack doesn't boost ability scores. Sneak attack doesn't make anyone better at what they do. It doesn't boost caster levels (a bard casting Hymn of Praise does), add to armor class, skill checks, saving throws, attack rolls or hit points (as bard song does), and it doesn't affect undead, plants, or constructs (a bard with the appropriate feat can). The bard, through their music and magic, offers a lot more to a party than a rogue. And you don't have to worry as much about being backstabbed or pickpocketted by a teammate. ;) |
| Oberoni11-04-03, 12:29 PM | *Reads the previous posts* *Cries* Ok, you guys got me. You've proven that a bard is directly better than a rogue. :bored: While I'd venture to say that 95% of the gaming population disagrees with your statement, that 95% is just wrong. Look, I'll just put it like this--give the Bard a d8 for a hit die, some 7th level spells, and then we can pretend he doesn't suck. |
| Ranthanas11-04-03, 02:18 PM | Originally posted by Oberoni While I'd venture to say that 95% of the gaming population disagrees with your statement, that 95% is just wrong. I don't think that anyone defending bards denies they are unpopular or hard to play. However they are good if you look hard and we have rebutted every last one of your points. If you have anything constructive to add (other than that a bard simply needs a d8), feel free. Just for a bonus: Look, I'll just put it like this--give the Bard [snip] some 7th level spells, and then we can pretend he doesn't suck. You mean like: Charm Monster, Mass Otto's Irresistable Dance and Shout, Greater Oh, wait. Those are 8th level spells. (For sorcerors and wizards anyway) Next! |
| Daybreaker11-04-03, 04:09 PM | Originally posted by Tom Jackson You spent one of the precious few feats a bard ever gets on a martial weapon proficiency? Wow. Look, what you'd call brave here, I'd call foolhardy and ill-considered. This fellow is wearing light or no armour, and has no dex bonus. Opponents will generally attack before he does, hitting his poor AC easily, and because he has only a d6 hit die, will go down quickly. ... Sorry dude. Gotta call'em as I see'em. The bard simply isn't designed for primary hand to hand combat, in either edition. And yet, he handles himself quite well. He doesn't steal the spotlight from the Fighter in terms of effectiveness, but he definitely does his part. Inspire Courage is quite helpful. Kicks up his attack bonus so that he's attacking as well as a Ranger or Paladin (and boosts his Fighter buddy even further at the same time). Granted, this guy has the advantage of having rolled quite well on HP (so far). Lots of fives and sixes. With his high Constitution, his HP are almost as high as the Fighter's (and higher than the Ranger's!). And yeah, he does tend to make a beeline for light magical armor -- at the moment, he's wearing a Chain Shirt +2. Basically, in melee combat, he's as effective as a Ranger or a Paladin (unless we're up against one of the Ranger's favored enemies or Undead). That's nothing to sneeze at. He works well alone, and beautifully in concert with the rest of the party. And thanks to all those skills, he gets to shine outside of combat, too. Not to mention the constant fun of using his Bardic Music for harmless pranks against the Paladin ... :D Basically, the Bard stands up just fine in combat. I personally wouldn't mind seeing the guy get a d8 for HP, but in a sense, that might make the Bard a little too powerful. But I think it's a judgement call. And in any case, the Bard has pretty much everything other than combat to really steal the spotlight in. :) |
| Karrde11-04-03, 04:59 PM | Blane: what i meant by slugging match was dice for dice damage, the wiz/sorc, while having very little health, gain some nasty damage spells, like metor swarm. Mewtwo guy: you absoultely INSIST on having the bard compete where he's weak. I could start a thread saying "wizards suck because they cant use weapons as well as fighters" and then ignore everyone who had a different opinion from me, and be doing exactly what you're doing here. Gerreld Terrent: If you're taking your name from the Coldfire trilogy by C.S. Friedman, then its spelled Gerald Terrant. And he is the BEST character from any book. Nice name choice. |
| TalinXT11-04-03, 05:00 PM | Originally posted by Oberoni *Reads the previous posts* *Cries* Ok, you guys got me. You've proven that a bard is directly better than a rogue. :bored: While I'd venture to say that 95% of the gaming population disagrees with your statement, that 95% is just wrong. Look, I'll just put it like this--give the Bard a d8 for a hit die, some 7th level spells, and then we can pretend he doesn't suck. I don't believe you really are paying attention. At the very least Kardde and Loric have some reasoning behind their opinions Both of which I can understand. From what I have read you have given none other then "theyre weak". What kind of logic is this? Tell you what lets see how tough a fighter is as the bard casts greater invisibility, silence, on himself. Then casts lullaby then Sleep on the fighter. Finnally he gets coup de graced. This is just a tiny tiny example of what a BArd can do in a fight. Bards require thought, planning, creativity, and imagination to be effective in combat. If all of your fights involve running up to the guy and rolling a d20 fortehwin then of course you will lose the same goes for any class. I cn make any class seem weak in battle even a barbarian. From what I've read you' started out even ignoring the fact that bards cast spells or buff the party, then proceeded to complain about how the Bard doesnt have high level spell casting when it has just been pointed out some of our spells are a much higher level then whats printed. It's been sid on this forum several times and it bearsrepeating, if you look at a Bard and pick them apart piece bypiece they will look weak, flawed, and too much of a generalist to fit a party role. However, if you put those pieces together you have the potential of a very powerful class he doesnt shoot fireballs out his arse or swing round a giant axe or slink around ion the shadows like a mere scavenger because he simply does not need to there is so much more to a bard then simply making your hide, attack, or spell resistance checks. Bards are not an esay class to play and abadly played Bard is not likely to perform well but a good Bard can really shine. |
| TalinXT11-04-03, 05:02 PM | Originally posted by Karrde Gerreld Terrent: If you're taking your name from the Coldfire trilogy by C.S. Friedman, then its spelled Gerald Terrant. And he is the BEST character from any book. Nice name choice. I liked the priest personally just seemed to be a much deeper character. I would say that cat woman but she died in a very unglorious fashion. |
| Karrde11-04-03, 06:32 PM | YES! Someone else who has read it. finally. Me and one other friend both love it, but we dont know of anyone else who has read it. The bard is most certianly more than the sum of his parts, but i still think he would have trouble against a properly made fighter or barb. Especially if they have multiclasses. Completely off topic, but does anyone know if Mage armor stacks ? |
| -Defiler of Souls-11-04-03, 07:34 PM | Originally posted by Oberoni *Reads the previous posts* *Cries* Ok, you guys got me. You've proven that a bard is directly better than a rogue. :bored: While I'd venture to say that 95% of the gaming population disagrees with your statement, that 95% is just wrong. Look, I'll just put it like this--give the Bard a d8 for a hit die, some 7th level spells, and then we can pretend he doesn't suck. i'd beta million dollars you just came up with that statistic from the top of your head anyway your rogue my bard any day anywhere, social interaction or combat ill hand you your ass....worst case scenario all i need to do is cast imp invisibility and shoot you full of arrows..if that doesn't work just use suggestion to tel lyou thhat red dragon is an illusion guarding a very large treasure either way your dead...true a rogue can do PhAt LeEt HaXxOrs DaMagE but as a bard you offer to the group the same skills, buffs, light heals, and alot of crowd control.... im not saying bard is better then rogue just that it shines just as much as the rogue in it own ways, and someone who thinks bards are weak in combat is someone who doesn't fully understand the potential of compulsion and as for troll status, your not a troll cause you think bard suck, your a troll for being closeminded, and ignorant to all reasoning people have put before you (you don't need to agree just to aknowledge what people have said and accept the possibility no matter how small that your wrong) also he attitude you seem to have in this thread is you seems to be that you just want to pick a fight, you clearly have no interest in the actual discussion and are far more interested in flaming those who have a different opinion then you, and that make you a troll. |
| -Defiler of Souls-11-04-03, 07:34 PM | oops doublepost |
| BlaineTog11-04-03, 07:56 PM | Not with Armor. So, if yur wearing CHain Mail or better, it woun't do a darn thing. Everyone dog:pile: Oberoni! But seriosuly dude, bashing the bard is like giving God the finger during a thunderstorm. We like our bard, and htere is nothing wrong with it. Why do you feel the need to demean the class? I'm just having a hard time imagining what could possess you to hate a class so much that you call for its expellment. Mabye if the calss was heinously OVERpowered, but when you claim its UNDERpowered? Very, very odd. Mabye it's just because I'm naturally an accepting person, but I just don't get it. Is it just because you are mad at a player who RPed a bard like a jerk? I would never condemn a class dor any reason other than blatant overpowerdness, and even then, only until it gets taken down a notch. There are a few casses that I don't particularly like, but they have their place and I very well just might play one in the near future. |
| Oberoni11-04-03, 09:40 PM | I really don't feel very dogpiled, but not for a lack of trying on the parts of others. The reason I don't go too buck-wild in my anti-bard arguments is very simple: 1. Bardaholics are set in their ways. Seriously, it's funny when close-minded people call you close-minded. When I have to read bard fans say that a d6, a medium BAB, and a mediocre weapons selection are "pretty darn good," I just can't bring myself to type out three pages of arguments. What's the point? As soon as I'm getting told that the rogue doesn't have the bard's ability to cast spells, we just do this stupid little loop where people compare bards in their most favorable comparisons (he's a better caster than a fighter, better skill guy than a cleric, etc.), and I compare them in unfavorable comparisons (worst "primary" caster, mediocre in combat, low low low HP, etc.) It's not so much a no-win situation, as a "this is dumb to argue" situation. This brings me to my next reason: 2. Bards DO Suck! Or, rather, they suck up thousands of posts where both sides butt heads and points are rarely, rarely conceded. Tom Jackson proved that bard discussion is endless--those threads are crazy huge. And while he and others may have exhaustively studied the bard, and can talk about the class for a long, long time, I've only sort of exhaustively looked at him, and I can't bring myself to use hours of my life trying to convince a bunch of bardoholics that their guy doesn't cut it in combat. . . . Oh, what they hey, I can take down a few arguments before I'm done. What's the point of a message board, if not to argue endlessly about bards? Improved Invisibility: :rolleyes: Dyn-o-mite! That's a good contrived one. A little Use Magic Device, though, and the Rogue can to. And an invisible rogue is a lot scarier than an invisible bard. Sneak attack: It's great. As soon as you pretend that it's not, well, you're simply pretending. Enchantments: Yep. Enchantments with low save DCs. A wizard will probably not only have a higher primary stat, but the spells will average one to two levels higher, which adds another chunk to the DC. Mediocre enchantments aren't the biggest boon in the world. (they aren't the smallest, either, though.) Buffs: Again, grab the wizard. That's what he's there for. Mr. Cleric would love to help out too. Or Mr. Magic Item. Mr. Wizard can actually make magic items, which are better buffs than the bard. And maybe they changed it in 3.5--but aren't all his buffs standard actions? Music's still a standard (or regular, whatever) to start up, so it's a very clear sacrifice for the music buffs. Combat: If you can't pull your weight in combat, you are a burden to the group. Buffing the party is only part of "pulling your weight." You have to be able to drop baddies. Most "my bard does stuff in combat" arguments seem to come down to the bard mind-controlling everyone. Not only does the wizard do that better, but he has other combat options. Ok, I've gotten some of that out of my system. Let's end with a quote: and as for troll status, your not a troll cause you think bard suck, your a troll for being closeminded, and ignorant to all reasoning people have put before you also he attitude you seem to have in this thread is you seems to be that you just want to pick a fight, you clearly have no interest in the actual discussion and are far more interested in flaming those who have a different opinion then you, and that make you a troll. First, what'd you call me, pot? Did you call me, Kettleroni, black? I think you did. Second, it's really sad when disagreeing or telling it like it is is known as "trolling." So if I came on here saying that the Bard's gravy, I'm cool, but if I disagree, I'm a troll? Gotcha. :bored: |
| Tom Jackson11-04-03, 10:08 PM | Originally posted by -Defiler of Souls- your not a troll cause you think bard suck, your a troll for being closeminded, and ignorant to all reasoning people have put before you First and foremost, a little work on grammar and spelling will go along way towards getting people to read, understand, and perhaps even respect your posts. Secondly, no, Oberoni is not a troll in this case, and is not closeminded. Sorry. I won't comment on his ignorance, or lack thereof :-) Third, none of these things, even if they were true, make someone a troll. Finally, does anyone here understand that calling someone a troll is itself a violation of the CoC? I'm not here to play Forum cop, but for the sake of the thread, assuming you want the discussion to continue, it'd be for the best to argue points rather than to throw personal insults. |
| Karrde11-04-03, 10:35 PM | Personally, this is my curremt analysis of bards. Buffs: meh, good, but can be replicated. Combat: not gonna be killing as many orks as ur friends are. Towns: Sorry guys, but here, everyone must admit, the bard has every other class, no pun intended, totally outclassed. The bardic knowlage ability, upon reaching level twenty and posessing a fair int mod, will give you the history of the second stone from the left on the street you're walking on. I'm actually going to try to make a bard who just knows everything when i start a new character. Mass gather info, lotta knowlages, with some bluff and other abilities, and i'll have fun. Mewtwo guy: the one point i agree with you on is that bards will have specialists outshine him in a properly balanced group. But, as i said before, the ONLY part of the bard you're looking at is his combat skills, which i, at least, have never said can compete with the other classes. So the bard is the person who can talk the great gold wyrm out of eating you for breathing, but would never be able to kill it. Satire on the epic pickpocket. Bard: ok, im going to see if i can remember anything from my travels about this guy. Dm: ok, make a bardic knowlage check Bard: 15 + my lvl and + my intelegence, 57 Dm: You know that he's not keen on telling the truth, fell when he was six and broke his leg, went out twenty years ago at haloween as a ghost, and is going to die in three years when he's run over by a horse. Bard: god i hate epic knowlage |
| Ithilorien11-04-03, 11:10 PM | Originally posted by Oberoni The reason I don't go too buck-wild in my anti-bard arguments is very simple: 1. Bardaholics are set in their ways. Seriously, it's funny when close-minded people call you close-minded. When I have to read bard fans say that a d6, a medium BAB, and a mediocre weapons selection are "pretty darn good," I just can't bring myself to type out three pages of arguments. What's the point? The point is at least you're contributing to the argument. Your constant posting on this thread simply to say "bards suck, bards are too weak" is trolling. If you can't bother to take the time to actually show us how we are incorrect then you really should keep your opinion to yourself. As soon as I'm getting told that the rogue doesn't have the bard's ability to cast spells, we just do this stupid little loop where people compare bards in their most favorable comparisons (he's a better caster than a fighter, better skill guy than a cleric, etc.), and I compare them in unfavorable comparisons (worst "primary" caster, mediocre in combat, low low low HP, etc.) "The combat specialist is only one person, and may often find themselves overwhelmed with multiple combatants, the rogue and cleric could help out in this situation, but so could the bard, especially by fascinating, charming, or dominating the attackers. The bard can also cast displacement on himself, effectively beingn unhittable 50% of the time, and tank right next to the fighter." His ability to use bardic music also can boost the fighter's hit points, armor class, and attack and damage rolls - along with all the other party members, helping to ensure they can better handle the fight. "The skill specialist (rogue) has a lot of bases to cover: he *needs* at a bare minimum hide and move silently to get into position for sneak attacks as well as tumble to get out of combat before he is pureed. Also, as the group's one skill user and person capable of disarming traps he could use search, spot, listen, and disable device. He's running out of skill points. Introduce a bard, who with their music and magic is already a better diplomat, and the party never need worry about social skills, he can also help play the scout by taking hide and move silently or by casting invisibility and silence." "The divine specialist has to rely on his own store of healing spells to take care of himself and the other party members. Add a bard and there is suddenly more available healing (spontaneously cast no less) and they can focus on casting other spells which could better benefit the group." "The arcane specialist either lacks the space to learn many utility spells (sorcerer) or has the chance of being unable to use them due to having prepared other spells for the day (wizard). The bard is a spontaneous caster whose spell list is almost entirely buffs and utility spells, and the pressure to do much more than blast monsters into smithereens and keep the BBEG's protections dispelled is alleviated. Moreover, if this party has a sorcerer rather than a wizard, they lack a high-intelligence character with a slew of knowledge skills, cue the bard, with knowledge skills a plenty, as well as the handy dandy bardic knowledge ability." "Finally, the bard's music allows him to boost everyone's attack rolls, damage rolls, armor class, saving throws, skill checks, etc as well as handling crowds (both hostile and otherwise)." That's a large part of one of my posts you chose to ignore, please note how it pits the bard against the least favorable comparison. And shows how they fill holes and have options which the others do not. 2. Bards DO Suck! Or, rather, they suck up thousands of posts where both sides butt heads and points are rarely, rarely conceded. Tom Jackson proved that bard discussion is endless--those threads are crazy huge. And while he and others may have exhaustively studied the bard, and can talk about the class for a long, long time, I've only sort of exhaustively looked at him, and I can't bring myself to use hours of my life trying to convince a bunch of bardoholics that their guy doesn't cut it in combat. If you don't ahve the time why so many posts in this thread? Save your much-valued breath and just stay out of it. You also admittedly say you have little knowledge of the bard, which, given your "they don't have sneak attacks . . . blah" approach is apparent. Perhaps you should leave bard-bashing and praising to those who have exhaustively studied them. Oh, what they hey, I can take down a few arguments before I'm done. What's the point of a message board, if not to argue endlessly about bards? You tell me, you started and are perpetuating the (current) argument. Improved Invisibility: :rolleyes: Dyn-o-mite! That's a good contrived one. A little Use Magic Device, though, and the Rogue can to. And an invisible rogue is a lot scarier than an invisible bard. When one is comparing class one assumes equal wealth and access to items. Whatever amount of money your rogue has to waste on something to cast Greater Invisibility the bard can put towards armor with the fortification enhancement - suddenly the invisible rogue is a joke. The bard can also dispel his invisibility (again as a class ability without having to buy an item), and actual doesn't need fortification because he can just cast a spell giving him concealment and thus gain protection from sneak attacks. Sneak attack: It's great. As soon as you pretend that it's not, well, you're simply pretending. It has its limits, one of which is concealment - a situation a bard can easilly precipitate with their spells. Enchantments: Yep. Enchantments with low save DCs. A wizard will probably not only have a higher primary stat, but the spells will average one to two levels higher, which adds another chunk to the DC. Mediocre enchantments aren't the biggest boon in the world. (they aren't the smallest, either, though.) A bard who plans on enchanting heavilly (as mine usually do) can have an innate charisma of 35, how's that for DCs? They can also take spell focus (enchantment), just like a wizard. I fail to see how the wizard is guaranteed high DCs except when it reaches the point that a wizard is casting spells of levels 7-9 while the bards is casting 6th. The answer to this is the heighten spell and talfirian song feats. Buffs: Again, grab the wizard. That's what he's there for. Mr. Cleric would love to help out too. Or Mr. Magic Item. Mr. Wizard can actually make magic items, which are better buffs than the bard. As I explained above, both clerics, wizards, and druids must prepare their spells and have other things to do with them than buff the party. The bard is a focussed buffer, and does not even need to use spell slots for it - bardic music is one of the better buffs in the game (mass increases to attack, damage, saves, armor class, hit points, and skills). Magic items cost money and xp, if the characters we are comparing have items duplicating some bardspell effects the bard will have items duplicating whatever effects the other characters have. This point is moot. Also, no magic item confers the effects of a bardic performance. And maybe they changed it in 3.5--but aren't all his buffs standard actions? Music's still a standard (or regular, whatever) to start up, so it's a very clear sacrifice for the music buffs. Ooh, a standard action to start them up. Most bardic music effects can last as long as the bard sings - which is indefinitely, and he can still fight while singing. If they take the Lingering Song feat, this duration is extended further. Most spell buffs now have a 1 minute/level duration. Combat: If you can't pull your weight in combat, you are a burden to the group. Buffing the party is only part of "pulling your weight." You have to be able to drop baddies. Most "my bard does stuff in combat" arguments seem to come down to the bard mind-controlling everyone. Not only does the wizard do that better, but he has other combat options. The bard, when buffing the party, is also buffing himself, and can boost into a combat machine (greater invisibility, inspire courage+4, inspire greatness, inspire heroics, haste, wounding whispers, etc. The bard can drop baddies himself, or by making his companions much more effective, or by summoning monsters, or by charming the baddies. A bard can mind control just as well as a wizard (if not better, as they get their enchantments earlier or can just use bardic music, which requires no spells and has a difficulty class based on 1/2 the bards level - eventually more powerful than any spell a wizard could cast. And, a bard has other combat options also, unlike a wizard, he can fight. He can even do so while singing. Second, it's really sad when disagreeing or telling it like it is is known as "trolling." So if I came on here saying that the Bard's gravy, I'm cool, but if I disagree, I'm a troll? Gotcha. :bored: When "telling it like it is" is stating unsupported claims and ignoring (in whole or in part) the counterpoints of others simply to disagree. Yes, I'd still call it trolling. "Bards DO Suck." Brilliant. Either take the time to tell us something reasonable, with documented support, and take into account the reasoning behind our disagreements, or leave the discussion, as you are certainly not contributing to it. |
| BlaineTog11-04-03, 11:16 PM | Second, it's really sad when disagreeing or telling it like it is is known as "trolling." So if I came on here saying that the Bard's gravy, I'm cool, but if I disagree, I'm a troll? Gotcha. First of all, I resent the fact that you think "disagreeing" and "telling it like it is" are synonymous. Secondly, I haven't called you a troll. Thirdly, I would apprecieate it if you answered my question: Why is it that you hate the bard so much? Why, exactly, does the bard suck? 3/4 BaB is decent. Not killer, but decent. Light Armor gives, again, a decent AC bonus. The bard is better at enchantments and illusions than the average sor/wiz for the same reasons that they are better than the average rogue w/ respect to social situations. Sor/Wiz have more choices. What Sorcerer is going to specialize in Enchantment or Illusions? It's not impossible, but it IS unlikely. A wizard has a slightly better chance than the Sorcerer, but since they also have to prepare, they won't have all that many Enchantments/illusions ready, usually. Likewise, the rogue has other, more important skills to invest in. While there is no mechanical reason why a sor/wiz can't match or beat a bard's Enchantment/Illusion spells, and there is no mechanical reason why the Rogue can't match the bard's Social skills, it's not what those other clases specialize in. Bad Weapon choices?!?!?! Where did you get THAT idea? THe 3.5 Bard gets: all simple, longsword, rapier, sap, short sword, shortbow, and whip. To be prefectly honest, these cover all the bases. Plus you can take Weapon Finnesse on the Rapier, making it a perfect complement to the bard's commonly high dexterity. The sap/whip can be really useful in situations where you are gonna want to be able to talk to the opponent afterwards. The shortbow is sufficient. You seem to consider the Bard low-powered. Mabye the Bard deserves Sneak Attack. Would you be apposed to that? And for the record, it was only 2 weeks ago that I discovered, so to speak, the Bard. It's a fun class. |
| LoricDAHPaladin11-04-03, 11:38 PM | Originally posted by Daybreaker I personally wouldn't mind seeing the guy get a d8 for HP The Ranger only gets an 8 sided die for HPs...for a bard to get it, as everyone claims it can trump the rogue, would give bards too much. Clerics only get 8 sided die for HPs, and bards get much of the healing power clerics get ( another contention of mine ) in addition to being able to cast arcane spells. I am not arguing with you, as you stated you merely liked the idea. Suggestions can lead to action, so I feel compelled to counter this suggestion. Oberoni, Do you understand the power bards get? They are an amalgam of of every basic core class; fighter, rogue, priest, arcane caster. They do not need more, they should not get more, and they have special abilities all to their own. Consider what you wish to tell us, evaluate, then post. |
| BlaineTog11-05-03, 12:20 AM | :) :cool: :bounce: :rofl: :rofl: :ayyyy!: :tiphat: :mage: :heehee :drool: :D I like smilies. Can you tell? But seriosuly, this is funny. Karrde and LoricDAHPaladin are actually DEFENDING the bard! Weird, huh? Mabye it's because once we got the misunderstanding* straightned out, they were willing to admit that the bard has it's strengths. *By which I mean how they thought we were trying to rip on other classes, which we wern't. |
| Oberoni11-05-03, 12:34 AM | 1. I don't hate bards. How can I hate game idea constructs? I've said they're weak. 2. Most of my posts, Ithilorien, are because of you. I keep saying "oh, it's time to bow out and do something productive," then you violate the CoC a couple of times and insult me, and THEN you wonder why I keep posting? About the only thing we agree on is that Bardic Knowledge is pretty smooth. 3. You keep saying I never make a point beyond "Bards suck," and then you keep trying to refute the points I apparently didn't make. I love that. I can call you a liar, and I'm not even violating the CoC, because it's the truth. If I never made points, you wouldn't have anything to try to refute. 4. Ok, this cracks me up.The arcane specialist either lacks the space to learn many utility spells (sorcerer) or has the chance of being unable to use them due to having prepared other spells for the day (wizard). The bard is a spontaneous caster whose spell list is almost entirely buffs and utility spells, and the pressure to do much more than blast monsters into smithereens and keep the BBEG's protections dispelled is alleviated. Moreover, if this party has a sorcerer rather than a wizard, they lack a high-intelligence character with a slew of knowledge skills, cue the bard, with knowledge skills a plenty, as well as the handy dandy bardic knowledge ability." I love this. 1. The Bard can cast X spells. 2. The Wizard can cast X, Y, and Z spells. 3. Therefore, the Bard is better at X. ...this argument is crazy, and not crazy-go-nuts crazy...just crazy. You're saying that because the bard has fewer options for spells, he has more freedom. No. No. No. More options = more freedom. End of story. Cripes, you're posting stuff like that, and you expect me to go through and refute all of your "points?" Geez. I work every weekday. I do things in the evening. I don't have the time to refute points that say "the bard has way fewer spells to choose from, and that makes him a better utility caster." ...I'll tell you what. Play a high-Int Wizard, get a level of Mindbender to unlock social skills as class skills.Granted, for every level after that one Mindbender level, you have to pay two skill points a pop to keep those social skills maxed, but you're a Wizard, you have skill points crawling all over the place. Get a rogue cohort or something with your Leadership that focuses on the stealthy, roguey stuff. Maybe have her pick up some of the social skills you might not have maxxed. Mix in some utility along with your main beef spells. Prepare some scrolls with more utility spells. Ta-da! You've just outbarded the Bard. |
| BlaineTog11-05-03, 12:45 AM | Except that: a) a Bard is help by (but not defined with) its spells. b) Becaue the Bard can ONLY cast X spells, he's more likely to cast good x spells than the Wizard who's got an obligation to cast y and z spells. Sure, the wizard has the ability to use x spells better than a bard, but (like i siad), since they have other spells, they are less likelt to specialize in x spells. AOh yeah: the bard isn't a primary spellcaster. Funny how a bard's magic would, over all, be less powerful than the wizard's? You're saying that because the bard has fewer options for spells, he has more freedom. No. No. No. That's not what we are saying at all. A restrictive spell list takes away that freedom and forces the bard to work with the slightly exotic spells (s)he's got.;) |
| Ithilorien11-05-03, 12:49 AM | Originally posted by Oberoni 3. You keep saying I never make a point beyond "Bards suck," and then you keep trying to refute the points I apparently didn't make. I love that. I can call you a liar, and I'm not even violating the CoC, because it's the truth. If I never made points, you wouldn't have anything to try to refute. I said supported points. I also asked that you provide logical redresses of other points and yet you still choose to ignore more than half the text in my posts. 4. Ok, this cracks me up. I love this. 1. The Bard can cast X spells. 2. The Wizard can cast X, Y, and Z spells. 3. Therefore, the Bard is better at X. ...this argument is crazy, and not crazy-go-nuts crazy...just crazy. You're saying that because the bard has fewer options for spells, he has more freedom. Did I say more freedom? The bard provides more freedom for the other casters because they never need to worry about X spells, thus the wizard becomes much better at using Y and Z spells. Another example in which the bard makes the party better. The bard also is better at X, it's his focus, he can do it any time. A sorcerer can't sacrifice spells known on X and a wizard needs to have thought to of prepared X ahead of time. More options = more freedom. End of story. And the bard, aside from having plenty of options of his own, provides more options for the other characters in his party. Think of the bard's class strength beyond the abrd himself and how much they improve everyone else - that's the bard's primary strength. Cripes, you're posting stuff like that, and you expect me to go through and refute all of your "points?" Geez. I work every weekday. I do things in the evening. I don't have the time to refute points that say "the bard has way fewer spells to choose from, and that makes him a better utility caster." And here you are, "refuting them" again, by saying "you're wrong," or "that's crazy," rather than showing a reason why. ...I'll tell you what. Play a high-Int Wizard, get a level of Mindbender to unlock social skills as class skills.Granted, for every level after that one Mindbender level, you have to pay two skill points a pop to keep those social skills maxed, but you're a Wizard, you have skill points crawling all over the place. Get a rogue cohort or something with your Leadership that focuses on the stealthy, roguey stuff. Maybe have her pick up some of the social skills you might not have maxxed. And I'll tell you what, make a high-charisma bard. Take three levels of rogue for evasion and sneak attacks. Take the leadership feat for a fighter cohort to buff and let loose. Or, make a bard/spellsinger/heartwarder - you've just out-enchanted an enchanter. As for wizard's "skill points crawling all over the place" they only have two to start with, a wizard with 18 intelligence just begins to equal a bard's available points. Also, social skills are not on the wizard's list and thus they can never be maxxed anywhere near those of a bard and the wizard has other skills which are more important to it, anyway. Mix in some utility along with your main beef spells. Prepare some scrolls with more utility spells. Or the bard could get some scrolls of beef spells to use with the "use magic device" skill along with their utility spells. Ta-da! You've just outbarded the Bard. This character has neither bardic music (free, non-magical mass buffing to all combat abilities with an indeterminate duration and free, non-spell fascinates and suggestions with a higher DC than a wizard can manage), nor the ability to wear armor, nor 3/4 BAB, nor weapon proficiencies, nor healing spells, nor a good reflex save, nor bardic knowledge. The bard cannot be outbarded. Most of my posts, Ithilorien, are because of you. I keep saying "oh, it's time to bow out and do something productive," then you violate the CoC a couple of times and insult me, and THEN you wonder why I keep posting? About the only thing we agree on is that Bardic Knowledge is pretty smooth. If this is how you really feel, then prove it. I'm just an annoying, crazy detractor who violates the CoC, why do you need to justify yourself to me? Bow out and do something more productive, show you're the better man, and spare yourself the time and insults. |
| -Defiler of Souls-11-05-03, 01:09 AM | as for low saves on a bards enchantment spells lets a take a look at a bard i was playing awhile ago 10+6(cha(+8 w/buff )+x(spell level)+ 4(spellfocus/impspellfocus ench)+5(spell singer prc) +2on some spells(alluring) thats a grand total of26-35 which fo a will saving throw is a decently high save |
| BlaineTog11-05-03, 02:00 AM | To take it and run, another reason that bard has superior X spells is this: Not all of the mare spells. As Ithilorien noted, bardic Music can non-magically buff the party, as well as Fascinate and Suggest. While some of these effects are nearly duplicatable by spell, they a) take up a precious sepll slot or two, and b) don't work in an antimagic foeld, can be Dispelled, and can be countered. Bardic Music can be countered, but only by another Bard (unlike magic which any NPC w/ UMD and the proper wand can dispel), and since bards arn't the run-of-the-mill BBEG, you probably won't have too much trouble. |
| mercurywyrm11-05-03, 04:37 AM | Me, DM eats all your silly classes for lunch!:smirk: Me get all abilities to exploit your weaknesses!:smirk: You player, must make class work against all odds! You have little glory. You work hard with stats to make good. You cry and whine because you are weak. But I smile because I am your god and you are truly strong. The player has their work cut out for them. I think all classes are balanced when they are all brought out to their best. :D |
| CaoSlayer11-05-03, 06:41 AM | An advice for those who says that the bard isnt a good class: Read the link in my signature, specially the spell´s description. You will discover that the bard dont needs to be an illusionist/enchanter for being great. |
| Tom Jackson11-05-03, 08:56 AM | Originally posted by -Defiler of Souls- as for low saves on a bards enchantment spells lets a take a look at a bard i was playing awhile ago 10+6(cha(+8 w/buff )+x(spell level)+ 4(spellfocus/impspellfocus ench)+5(spell singer prc) +2on some spells(alluring) thats a grand total of26-35 which fo a will saving throw is a decently high save Yes, and the calculation you did isn't based purely on being a bard. You have feats and a PrC thrown in. This isn't a basis for arguing what a bard can do, it's a basis for arguing that a bard should seek out this PrC. |
| LoricDAHPaladin11-05-03, 09:55 AM | Originally posted by BlaineTog But seriosuly, this is funny. Karrde and LoricDAHPaladin are actually DEFENDING the bard! Make no mistake, I was not defending the bard class. I have never argued that bards were weak as a general class, nor does my rebuttle of Oberni's argument constitute a defense. While I consider none of you my enemies, the following applies: the enemy of my enemy does not an ally make. |
| Ranthanas11-05-03, 11:19 AM | Originally posted by Oberoni 1. Bardaholics are set in their ways. Seriously, it's funny when close-minded people call you close-minded. Yes, isn't it. Given that BlainTog has been a bard fan for under two weeks, and that there have been a number of conversions towards bards (even Loric and Karrde are defending the bard from your accusations) When I have to read bard fans say that a d6, a medium BAB, and a mediocre weapons selection are "pretty darn good," Given all the martial weapons in 3rd ed and 3.5 are supposed to be balanced, all I miss are the longbow and two handed weapons. (Bards don't have the strength for trip and disarm weapons). As bards get the best (non exotic) finesse weapon, and that is how they tend to fight (Cat's grace for one thing, light armour for another tend to lead towards finessing), the selection the bard gets is pretty good for a character like a bard. The only core classes that do better are the Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian and Paladin. I'd call that pretty darn good. Next! I just can't bring myself to type out three pages of arguments. What's the point? As soon as I'm getting told that the rogue doesn't have the bard's ability to cast spells, And these spells allow him to do better with the skills he shares with the rogue, something you have completely failed to address. we just do this stupid little loop where people compare bards in their most favorable comparisons (he's a better caster than a fighter, better skill guy than a cleric, etc.), and I compare them in unfavorable comparisons (worst "primary" caster, mediocre in combat, low low low HP, etc.) And I compare the package deal, the only way you can address a class. See Rogue, above. 2. Bards DO Suck! Or, rather, they suck up thousands of posts where both sides butt heads and points are rarely, rarely conceded. With BlainTog as a new convert and both Loric and Karrde defending the Bard, I have to disagree. Also the initiator of the last one I was in (Emeric?) started playing a bard afterwards. Wrong again. Tom Jackson proved that bard discussion is endless--those threads are crazy huge. And while he and others may have exhaustively studied the bard, and can talk about the class for a long, long time, I've only sort of exhaustively looked at him, and I can't bring myself to use hours of my life trying to convince a bunch of bardoholics that their guy doesn't cut it in combat. Because he does. Just. And rules out of combat. Oh, what they hey, I can take down a few arguments before I'm done. What's the point of a message board, if not to argue endlessly about bards? Improved Invisibility: :rolleyes: Dyn-o-mite! That's a good contrived one. A little Use Magic Device, though, and the Rogue can to. And an invisible rogue is a lot scarier than an invisible bard. UMD. You mean a skill that a bard also has? And can spend his money on other useful things? As for the invisible/invisible situation, yes but when the items like that are flying around, invis is near worthless anyway with the number of people able to see through it. The Bard is still sneakier than the rogue with just Sculpt Sound (precious few items of that), doesn't have to waste his money on items, can move more freely and can create distractions and concealment. Next! Sneak attack: It's great. As soon as you pretend that it's not, well, you're simply pretending. Granted. So's Bardic Music. So's Bardic Lore. So's Magic. Your point? Enchantments: Yep. Enchantments with low save DCs. A wizard will probably not only have a higher primary stat, but the spells will average one to two levels higher, which adds another chunk to the DC. Mediocre enchantments aren't the biggest boon in the world. (they aren't the smallest, either, though.) You obviously haven't looked at the Bardic Music save DCs. Firstly there's fascinate which has the highest DC in the game (a perform check vs a will save!? Then there's suggestion with a DC equal to 10+Cha Mod+level/2- which is about equivalent to the highest level spell a Wizard would posess for a fairly useful effect. Sure the bard's slightly behind for many other enchantments, but he has more than one string to his bow- if someone has sky high will saves, he's going to bluff or diplomacy rather than enchant. Buffs: Again, grab the wizard. That's what he's there for. Mr. Cleric would love to help out too. Or Mr. Magic Item. Mr. Wizard can actually make magic items, which are better buffs than the bard. Or not. Buffing the whole party at once is handy and the bard has a different collection of buffs with his music than the others. Not saying which I prefer other than that both and is better than either or. Also personal buffs for combat fit much better on a bard than a wizard. And maybe they changed it in 3.5--but aren't all his buffs standard actions? Music's still a standard (or regular, whatever) to start up, so it's a very clear sacrifice for the music buffs. Yes. It's a sacrifice for pretty much any buff unless you've been warned in advance. Most bards start with the Inspire Courage for the whole party while drawing their weapons (as they would otherwise be unable to attack anyway). Any spell has this problem (except ones like Alter Self with extreme durations). Next! Combat: If you can't pull your weight in combat, you are a burden to the group. Untrue assertion. If you can't pull your weight overall then you are possibly a burden. Bards can certainly pull their weight overall (Fighters are more dubious) and can in combat. Buffing the party is only part of "pulling your weight." You have to be able to drop baddies. You really aren't a Go player, are you? (Or any other form of strategy game for that matter). The bard tends to either put himself where needed to help everyone (he's more mobile than the rogue and only slightly less so than the monk) so that people are hitting a lot more often due to buffs and flanking bonusses (the damage dealt without the bard is enough less than the damage delt with the bard that he more than pulls his weight if anybody bothers to check. Most "my bard does stuff in combat" arguments seem to come down to the bard mind-controlling everyone. Not only does the wizard do that better, but he has other combat options. As does the bard. Where he's best without magic is at pinning a few people, holding up a number of the enemies and allowing the rest of the party to defeat the enemies in detail. He's also a good flanker and skirmisher and a wonderful paramedic. Second, it's really sad when disagreeing or telling it like it is is known as "trolling." The first is, the second does not apply here. So if I came on here saying that the Bard's gravy, I'm cool, but if I disagree, I'm a troll? Gotcha. :bored: If you give sensible reasons that aren't easily rebutted, you aren't. Name them. And to continue (it's like shooting fish in a barre) 1. I don't hate bards. How can I hate game idea constructs? I've said they're weak. And then failed to make a point that stands up to scrutiny other than that they do low direct damage. 3. You keep saying I never make a point beyond "Bards suck," and then you keep trying to refute the points I apparently didn't make. I love that. I can call you a liar, and I'm not even violating the CoC, because it's the truth. If I never made points, you wouldn't have anything to try to refute. He does refute your points. You're also ignoring my refutations. I love this. 1. The Bard can cast X spells. 2. The Wizard can cast X, Y, and Z spells. 3. Therefore, the Bard is better at X. ...this argument is crazy, and not crazy-go-nuts crazy...just crazy. No. The argument is that it allows the wizard to cast Y and Z spells because he doesn't have to worry about X. Even more so for a sorceror. You're saying that because the bard has fewer options for spells, he has more freedom. No. No. No. No- he gives everyone else more freedom to do something else by not forcing them to have to cover his part of the magic (other than the dispels which all primary casters should have) More options = more freedom. End of story. Which makes the bard the freest class in the game. Options on magic, options on skills, options on combat etc. Cripes, you're posting stuff like that, and you expect me to go through and refute all of your "points?" Geez. I work every weekday. I do things in the evening. I don't have the time to refute points that say "the bard has way fewer spells to choose from, and that makes him a better utility caster." Would help if you understood the point. ...I'll tell you what. Play a high-Int Wizard, get a level of Mindbender to unlock social skills as class skills.Granted, for every level after that one Mindbender level, you have to pay two skill points a pop to keep those social skills maxed, but you're a Wizard, you have skill points crawling all over the place. Not even a rogue has that. At 2+Int mod, even with the int of a wizard I struggle at times. Get a rogue cohort or something with your Leadership that focuses on the stealthy, roguey stuff. So the wizard also needs high Cha. Maybe have her pick up some of the social skills you might not have maxxed. And the bard can easily get a high damage cohort as his leadership score will be higher than a wizard's due to better Cha if both are sensible (the wizard prioritises Int before Cha) Mix in some utility along with your main beef spells. Prepare some scrolls with more utility spells. Ta-da! You've just outbarded the Bard. You mean that two characters can be more flexible and more powerful than one? *applauds* You also have no healing and no Lore... Let's see: Wizard with Rogue cohort vs Bard with Druid cohort. Even ignoring the fact that the Druid should be higher level than the Rogue, I know who my money would be on. One side is tougher, stronger, better saves, more mobile, better at stealth, has a better face and, other than in a sneak attack, does more damage. This is before the SNA/Inspire Courage combo gives a truly formidable fighting force. Next! |
| LoricDAHPaladin11-05-03, 11:46 AM | Originally posted by LoricDAHPaladin Make no mistake, I was not defending the bard class. I have never argued that bards were weak as a general class, nor does my rebuttle of Oberni's argument constitute a defense. While I consider none of you my enemies, the following applies: the enemy of my enemy does not an ally make. Furthermore, my opinion of the bard class has not changed one iota. If you think my stand against Oberoni helps your argument, /shrug...whatever. |
| Zherog11-05-03, 12:07 PM | Originally posted by TalinXT What kind of logic is this? Tell you what lets see how tough a fighter is as the bard casts greater invisibility, silence, on himself. Then casts lullaby then Sleep on the fighter. Finnally he gets coup de graced. I didn't see this point addressed - forgive me if it was. This tactic won't work. Once you cast silence, say good-bye to the Bard's spells. Nice try, though. ;) |
| LoricDAHPaladin11-05-03, 12:24 PM | Originally posted by TalinXT What kind of logic is this? Tell you what lets see how tough a fighter is as the bard casts greater invisibility, silence, on himself. Then casts lullaby then Sleep on the fighter. Finnally he gets coup de graced. It also begs the question of the fighter's inability to resist the lullaby, sleep and the fighter's inability to attack the bard before he casts the initial spells. We also do not have scenario? Where are the fighter and bard standing? Why has the bard or fighter taken up arms against the other? What LEVELS are they? Equipment? This scenario is entirely too simplified to be of any value qualifying the abilities of one class over the other. As Zherog made it clear, the silence would stall the bard's ability to cast further spells. If bards are able to take the arcane caster feats to circumvent that issue, it is another matter. Also, depending on terrain, I would not completely eliminate the ability of the fighter to hit the bard ( I guess the miss chance would still apply ) even if invised AND silenced due to the impressions footfalls would make. |
| Ranthanas11-05-03, 01:09 PM | Originally posted by Zherog I didn't see this point addressed - forgive me if it was. This tactic won't work. Once you cast silence, say good-bye to the Bard's spells. Nice try, though. ;) So you use sculpt sound on the bard rather than silence. Restrict all sound from the bard to a 3' radius (possibly unless he makes a certain specific gesture or casts message). Out goes the problem with Silence. Out goes any need for move silently. Out goes any problem at all for that matter. If at first you don't suceed... :) |
| BlaineTog11-05-03, 07:37 PM | I'm sorry. It's just that: Do you understand the power bards get? They are an amalgam of of every basic core class; fighter, rogue, priest, arcane caster. They do not need more, they should not get more, and they have special abilities all to their own. Consider what you wish to tell us, evaluate, then post. Sounds like a defense. Or rather, a concession that they have power equal to the other classes. [/not sarcastic] |
| Karrde11-05-03, 09:23 PM | Mewtwo guy, ANSWER THIS: why do you ONLY EVER look at the bard's combat skills. NO OTHER CLASS CAN COMPETE WITH THE BARD IN TOWNS. I has origionaly said that the rouge could compete with the bard in towns, but i, *gasp* was wrong. The bards skills and magic can easily outclass the rouge. I do not agree with anyone who says that the bard can outfight the melee classes, but i do agree that they can charm and facinate like a madman. That's why i can be accused of defending the bard. They have their stregnths, but before this forum i didnt really realise what they were. |
| Oberoni11-05-03, 09:24 PM | I love you guys. And by guys, I don't mean every bard fan ever, just the special ones, special being a nebulously defined term in this case. Ran, your annoying overuse of the word "next" every time you post something resembling a refutation should probably stop. For example, while perhaps the bard weapons aren't too shabby, you're still ignoring that d6 hit die. Sure, he can buff his CON--but so everyone can get enhancement bonuses to con, moving them forward the same amount. UMD. You mean a skill that a bard also has? And can spend his money on other useful things? As for the invisible/invisible situation, yes but when the items like that are flying around, invis is near worthless anyway with the number of people able to see through it. The Bard is still sneakier than the rogue with just Sculpt Sound (precious few items of that), doesn't have to waste his money on items, can move more freely and can create distractions and concealment. So first people were claiming that invisibility would let the bard own the rogue, and now it's being discounted to "near worthless." I understand it wasn't you, Ran, that first suggested Imp. Invis as the "rogue-killer," but still, it's a funny shifting perspective. Then there's suggestion with a DC equal to 10+Cha Mod+level/2- which is about equivalent to the highest level spell a Wizard would posess for a fairly useful effect. Fascinate: Good in the right situation, but limited. It works most of the time when a decent Diplomacy check would get the job done. Don't get me wrong--I like this ability--but the designers intelligently put a lot of restrictions on it. Suggestion: Also pretty good, but it's just a lower-level enchantment spell being duplicated through music. It's another "not-bad" ability, when what the class needs is more "great" abilities. A wizard's enchantments are where it's at. I'd rather Dominate someone than use Suggestion on them, or Hold them instead of fascinate. The Bard can do some dominating and some singing, but the wizard just does a lot of dominating. And I compare the package deal, the only way you can address a class. See Rogue, above. I have yet to see a Bard have a consistent, large impact upon combat. I've seen Rogues, Clerics, and Wizards do it. I've seen Sorcerers do it. I haven't seen Bards do it. I've seen consistent small impact and occasional large impact, but that's just not the same. No- he gives everyone else more freedom to do something else by not forcing them to have to cover his part of the magic (other than the dispels which all primary casters should have) Ok, I've seen variations of this argument a lot, so I'll cover all of those in one shot. It's all about opportunity cost, basically. When a player chooses to play a Bard, he also not chooses to play a rogue, wizard, etc., etc. That in and of itself is a burden. It's a matter of personal preference--but I'd rather have a lot of people on my team that are very good at what they do, instead of people that try to let me be better at what I do. The reality of the situation is that if everyone's very good at what they do, my character can excel in what he does. So, no, the joy of having a guy that can partially fill in for me is far outweighed by knowing that we have a guy that can only partially do much of anything (exept social situations, where the Bard is pretty good. Not 'leagues better than the Rogue' good, but 'if I was in a social situation I'd be pretty happy with the bard's performance, probably' good.) You really aren't a Go player, are you? (Or any other form of strategy game for that matter). The bard tends to either put himself where needed to help everyone (he's more mobile than the rogue and only slightly less so than the monk) so that people are hitting a lot more often due to buffs and flanking bonusses (the damage dealt without the bard is enough less than the damage delt with the bard that he more than pulls his weight if anybody bothers to check. Very, very, very few strategy games reward the player for fielding one unit that's versatile. A versatile army overall is good, but such an army is composed of the units that best do what they're meant to do. ...You obviously aren't much into strategy yourself, then, if you believe that a generalist is the way to go in any sort of strategic confrontation. One point that seems to get conveniently ignored by bardaholics is that you only need one guy to handle most out-of-combat situations, but you need the entire team in during combat. That is to say--one good diplomat (or, as we call them, spokespeople) works well in a diplomatic situation. One or possibly two good scouts is good for scouting. But in combat? If you don't have the whole team on board, you're hurt. The bard sort of stumbles along in combat, giving low damage output and enchantments with low saves (this is factually true--you have fewer spell levels, so you have lower save DCs on your highest-level spells, bard fans. I know some of you pretend this isn't true, but it is). The other primary casters have both utility and power for their spells--a bard just has utility. |
| BlaineTog11-05-03, 10:52 PM | Excpet that the bard isn't one of those primary spellcasters. I could quite easily post a host of rebuttles but they've all already been said and you simply refuse to take them seriously. |
| CaoSlayer11-06-03, 05:46 AM | ummm, just two things: A rogue who cant use this sneak attack (improved invisibilty, old shield, or ever blur stops this) have the same combat skill that a bard without spells. And about the wizard casting more dominations or hold persons that the bard, you are missing two important points: The bards gets those at a lower spell level than a wizard, this balances the number of slots usables to spend in domination, and also while a level 4 can cast hold person, a level 4 cant also a sorcerer needs to be level 6 to cast that spell. And also, the wizard should have to prepare lots of his slots to be able to cast as many dominations as a bard and if he faces an undead or another creature unable to be dominated, the bard can spend this slots in another spell. |
| Ranthanas11-06-03, 09:52 AM | Originally posted by Oberoni Ran, your annoying overuse of the word "next" every time you post something resembling a refutation should probably stop. It does when you produce a sensible point. It only goes in for the silly points. For example, while perhaps the bard weapons aren't too shabby, you're still ignoring that d6 hit die. Sure, he can buff his CON--but so everyone can get enhancement bonuses to con, moving them forward the same amount. Sure, they are brittle. They are also very hard to hit, with tumble, a good AC and other defensive spells and even having sense motive to ward off feinting rogues. Also with Inspire Greatness they have more Hp than you expect (and can "heal" from the other side of the battle field and more than one target at once at high levels). Oh, and moving hp forward the same amount doesn't make all classes tougher to an equal extent- as the bard is hard to hit it helps him more than e.g. a raging barbarian (to take the extreme case) who has limited armour, an AC penalty and is likely to be in the front lines and taking damage fast. So first people were claiming that invisibility would let the bard own the rogue, and now it's being discounted to "near worthless." I understand it wasn't you, Ran, that first suggested Imp. Invis as the "rogue-killer," but still, it's a funny shifting perspective. At low levels invisibility is extremely powerful. As the monsters get more powerful, an awful lot of them (and a lot of PCs) get the ability to see invisible people, making it far, far less useful. The items (other than scrolls, which are a pain to cast from with UMD) come in quite late in the effective lifetime of invisibility (and earlier than that, the chances the rogue will screw up the skill (which the bard doesn't even need in this case) are significant). A wizard's enchantments are where it's at. I'd rather Dominate someone than use Suggestion on them, or Hold them instead of fascinate. If possible, and you can spend the time checking they work then yes. Hold Person grants a save every round, meaning the wizard needs someone to capitalise with a CDG fast (the slightly less powerful Tasha's Hideous Laughter doesn't (and is a level 1 bard spell)), making hold person a dubious tactic while the Bard gets Dominate at a lower level than the Wizard. Also Dominate usually gives more than one save attempt, meaning it can relatively easily be broken. The Bard can do some dominating and some singing, but the wizard just does a lot of dominating. And you mark this up as a plus to the wizard!? Next. I have yet to see a Bard have a consistent, large impact upon combat. I've seen Rogues, Clerics, and Wizards do it. I've seen Sorcerers do it. I haven't seen Bards do it. I've seen consistent small impact and occasional large impact, but that's just not the same. Translation: I've seen bards hold their own in combat but not seen the one class optimised for things outside combat dominate a combat. Also try removing the bard and seeing how much more dificulty the others have. Inspire Courage and Greatness add a surprising amount to the fighters even when the bard appears to be doing very little. It's all about opportunity cost, basically. When a player chooses to play a Bard, he also not chooses to play a rogue, wizard, etc., etc. That in and of itself is a burden. Same goes for any class *shrug* It's a matter of personal preference--but I'd rather have a lot of people on my team that are very good at what they do, instead of people that try to let me be better at what I do. The reality of the situation is that if everyone's very good at what they do, my character can excel in what he does. Rather than having your character excelling anyway and being even better because he is being helped? Your choice. So, no, the joy of having a guy that can partially fill in for me is far outweighed by knowing that we have a guy that can only partially do much of anything (exept social situations, where the Bard is pretty good. Not 'leagues better than the Rogue' good, but 'if I was in a social situation I'd be pretty happy with the bard's performance, probably' good.) Say significantly better than the rogue and I'll agree. Also partially is better than nothing. If you always play dungeon crawls and never split the party, the bard is weak- and if you never fight, the fighter is weak. (The bard is the single best solo class because he doesn't have any crippling weaknesses). Very, very, very few strategy games reward the player for fielding one unit that's versatile. That's partly the fault of the game and partly the fact that it's easier to be a specialist than a good generalist. A versatile army overall is good, but such an army is composed of the units that best do what they're meant to do. Let's see. The Roman Legions (fast moving heavy infantry with ranged capability), The Ottoman line Infantry (again), Persian Dhegans (Fast moving heavy cavalry with bows), Mongol Horsemen (see above), Russian Boyars (see above) Spanish Jinettes (very fast light cavalry with javelins and lances), mechanised infantry, any form of dragoon ever (and all of the above could easily be described as crack troops of the time). Also the bayonet was able to turn a specialist into a generalist and so render the pike obselete (although musketeers with bayonets weren't even close to being a match for pikemen in melee). Skirmishers have to be generalists on a tactical level be generalists because they quite simply don't get the support specialists need. Also Napoleon (and many others) devided his orders of battle into four equal and generalist divisions such that any could perform as any of the others (other than the scouts) where necessary if the enemy came from the wrong side or even that they needed to turn. ...You obviously aren't much into strategy yourself, then, if you believe that a generalist is the way to go in any sort of strategic confrontation. See above. Also to quote Field Marshall Viscount Slim (from "Defeat Into Victory"- his account of the Burma Campaign of WWII): Special Forces... They did not give, militarily, a worth-while return for the resources in men, material and time they absorbed. ... This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier, who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves in it, should be expected to climb a tree. pages 546-548 if you are interested and the selected quotes are in no way mis-representative of the section as a whole. Finally, a tactical or strategic reserve should be generalist in nature because it is not known what will be needed of it and therefore it may have to plug any one of a number of possible holes. One point that seems to get conveniently ignored by bardaholics is that you only need one guy to handle most out-of-combat situations, but you need the entire team in during combat. That is to say--one good diplomat (or, as we call them, spokespeople) works well in a diplomatic situation. Which is a very good argument to make them the best possible person for the job- i.e. a bard. Thanks. One or possibly two good scouts is good for scouting. But in combat? If you don't have the whole team on board, you're hurt. If the whole team isn't competant you are hurt. This is, however, a good argument for everyone being able to fight and fill some other role rather than going for specialist combatants. You're running the argument the wrong way (and thanks for it). The bard sort of stumbles along in combat, giving low damage output and enchantments with low saves (this is factually true--you have fewer spell levels, so you have lower save DCs on your highest-level spells, bard fans. I know some of you pretend this isn't true, but it is). And a much better chance of picking the right target for his abilities than any other class. With Expeditious Retreat (or a number of other spells- I just picked the first level one) and Tumble, he is more maneuverable than anything short of a level 9 monk, allowing him to get to and make sushi of the enemy wizards (even just pinning them and allowing the rest of the party to perform a defeat in detail is useful enough) while supporting the rest of the party. He isn't especially strong in combat, but is competant and fairly tough and can make his own role (whether it's wizard protector, counterspeller and enchanter, skirmish fighter, flanker, wizard attacker) and make the rest of the party stronger at the same time. If you are going to claim that this isn't a glamerous role, I'm going to agree. If you are going to claim it isn't useful then you are plain wrong. The other primary casters have both utility and power for their spells--a bard just has utility. ... and gives everyone else power. Thank you for finally coming up with some half-decent arguments I could get my teeth into rather than dismissing fast. |
| TalinXT11-06-03, 12:56 PM | Originally posted by Oberoni For example, while perhaps the bard weapons aren't too shabby, you're still ignoring that d6 hit die. Sure, he can buff his CON--but so everyone can get enhancement bonuses to con, moving them forward the same amount. I seem to recall Rogues having a d6 hit Die and a 3/4 BAB as well. They also get many of the same weapons. Does that make them any worse in combat? I'm quite positive the answers no they have Sneak Attack which lets them take on someoen flat footed and do extra damage and now all they have to do is flank to do that. Problem is theres lots of things they can't sneak attack. They have plenty of nifty skills and abilites but many of them can be replicated or outdone by the Bards spells so a Bard can do much of what a Rogue does in Combat only in a different way. The point we're trying to make to you is that a Bard can pull his weight in combat they simply have to adapt to the situation and act accordingly. So first people were claiming that invisibility would let the bard own the rogue, and now it's being discounted to "near worthless." I understand it wasn't you, Ran, that first suggested Imp. Invis as the "rogue-killer," but still, it's a funny shifting perspective. Where's it being discounted as "near worthless"? Fascinate: Good in the right situation, but limited. It works most of the time when a decent Diplomacy check would get the job done. Don't get me wrong--I like this ability--but the designers intelligently put a lot of restrictions on it. Suggestion: Also pretty good, but it's just a lower-level enchantment spell being duplicated through music. It's another "not-bad" ability, when what the class needs is more "great" abilities. So what are Song of Freedom, Inspire Heroics, Inspire Courage, and Mass Sugestion? A wizard's enchantments are where it's at. I'd rather Dominate someone than use Suggestion on them, or Hold them instead of fascinate. The Bard can do some dominating and some singing, but the wizard just does a lot of dominating. This is a matter of personal taste not a sign of weakness. I have yet to see a Bard have a consistent, large impact upon combat. I've seen Rogues, Clerics, and Wizards do it. I've seen Sorcerers do it. I haven't seen Bards do it. I've seen consistent small impact and occasional large impact, but that's just not the same. It's probably because your attitude towards them. You go into a conflict with an expectation and you probably end up molding the events in your mind to fit that expectation. Didn't you say you'd weep bitter tears if one of your only two team mates was a Bard? Ok, I've seen variations of this argument a lot, so I'll cover all of those in one shot. It's all about opportunity cost, basically. When a player chooses to play a Bard, he also not chooses to play a rogue, wizard, etc., etc. That in and of itself is a burden. Let's see where this goes..... It's a matter of personal preference--but I'd rather have a lot of people on my team that are very good at what they do, instead of people that try to let me be better at what I do. The reality of the situation is that if everyone's very good at what they do, my character can excel in what he does. Or he may do very poorly at his job and gets everyone killed. I'll get to this later though. So, no, the joy of having a guy that can partially fill in for me is far outweighed by knowing that we have a guy that can only partially do much of anything (exept social situations, where the Bard is pretty good. Not 'leagues better than the Rogue' good, but 'if I was in a social situation I'd be pretty happy with the bard's performance, probably' good.) Okay from this we have that you at least understand that a BArd is good at talking to ppl and getting the necessary info. But you hate a generalist which brings me to... Very, very, very few strategy games reward the player for fielding one unit that's versatile. A versatile army overall is good, but such an army is composed of the units that best do what they're meant to do. ...You obviously aren't much into strategy yourself, then, if you believe that a generalist is the way to go in any sort of strategic confrontation. Congratualtions you're guilty of the crime that you accused us of. Calling the Kettle Black. If YOU had any sense of strategy games whatsoever youd understand that a generalist is not a bad way to go at all. Let me tell you about a game Called MAge Knight it is the closest thing to Dungeons and Dragons combat I've seen. The average squads between two ppl is around 5-6. Most armies follow a basic specialist strategy. (One Melee, One Shooter, One or Two Skirmishers, AHealer) Howevor many armies give themselves redundant systems in the form of a generalist. The generalist doesn't have to be the best healer, shooter, meeleer around but youll be more then happy to have them whenever someone drops your healer, shooter, or meeleer. So in effect a Bard is a reserve unit they have the mobility to move where they are needed and assist where they can. It’s not a fun job I’d be the first to agree but it can often mean the difference between a dead party and a live one. One point that seems to get conveniently ignored by bardaholics is that you only need one guy to handle most out-of-combat situations, but you need the entire team in during combat. And the Bard works perfectly into this mold theyre a great team player they enhance everyoneelse in one form or another. That is to say--one good diplomat (or, as we call them, spokespeople) works well in a diplomatic situation. One or possibly two good scouts is good for scouting. But in combat? If you don't have the whole team on board, you're hurt. So, in a situation where one or more players are dropped you’d be screwed under your reasoning. However, this is where a Bard comes in handy. Did a Boulder fall on your Sorceror when the Wurm popped out of the ground? Bard can cast spells just like a sorcerer does. Cleric lose favor with his god? Bard can heal and buff in his place without much trouble. Rogue get painted in a neon glow paint (DAMN YOU ROD OF WONDER!!!)? Bard can sneak around for him if necessary. See what I’m getting at here? A Bard certainly isn’t replacement for any class for but they can take on the role of any other class comfortably if the situation calls for it. Adaptibility is strength the Human races existence is testament to that. The bard sort of stumbles along in combat, giving low damage output and enchantments with low saves (this is factually true--you have fewer spell levels, so you have lower save DCs on your highest-level spells, bard fans. I know some of you pretend this isn't true, but it is). I know this that’s why I always suggest that a Spellcasting Bard takes the Spell Penetration feat early along with Weapon Finnesse now some of the weaknesses of the Bard are fairly patched over and I still haven’t gotten into Skill and Spell Focus feats. Sure a Wizard can outpower the Bard but not by an extreme amount it may matter very little anyway if you’re DM has a tendency to roll Nat 20’s on saves all the time. The other primary casters have both utility and power for their spells--a bard just has utility. The trick is that a Bard is not a primary spellcaster I don’t expect his Dominate to compete with a Wizards Dominate. Also I don’t know about you but I prefer my Wizard to Burn, render, and utterly annihilate the opposition a Bard’s natural inclination for utility spells let the wizards and sorcerors be the pyromaniacs they really want to be. Again a lot of your arguments tend toward breaking the Bard down. You’re basically taking a swiss army knife and judging it based upon the flimsyness of one blade. Whip them all out then you see this “knife” has more uses then just one blade. You also assume that EVERY party is gonna have a wizard, or fighter, or Cleric , or Rogue when it needs it. If you’ve played DnD at all you should know that is never always the case. In those times I’m glad we have a Bard handy. |
| -Defiler of Souls-11-06-03, 01:18 PM | you know what i just realized, i liek playing ym bard and theres no reason i should give a **** if people i don't know think my class is good. Hell i don't play the class because its powerful...i could play an urpriest-wizard-mystic theurge for power...i play the bard cause i like the class/flavor, so im officially out of this thread...goodluck and have fun:D |
| Zherog11-06-03, 01:50 PM | I keep reading posts where people claim it is an advantage to the Bard that he get spells at a spell level earlier than the Wizard or Sorcerer (Tasha's Laughter, for example, is a 1st level Bard spell, 2nd level wiz/sor spell). But this really isn't as big an advantage as you think. Granted, a Bard can begin casting THL at level 2nd level (assuming he has bonus spells - a safe assumption, I think), while his wizard buddy can't begin casting it until 3rd level. However, the bard's save DC will be 1 point lower than the wizards - everything else being equal. Oberoni is not saying you shouldn't play a bard. He's not saying that you shouldn't find playing a bard to be fun, if it's your kind of thing. He's not even saying that there aren't moments in a game when the bard doesn't outshine everybody else. What he is saying is that he, personally, doesn't like the bard. That he, personally, doesn't believe the bard is as powerful as the other classes. That he, personally, would have reservations if somebody else in his group were to play a bard. And? Why do you care? If you play a bard and you enjoy it, why do you give a rat's hairy behind what Oberoni or me or anybody else thinks? I've played a bard in a campaign that started off with 7 PC's and ended up with 4 due to people leaving. You know what? The Bard was much more effective in the larger group. As the group dwindled, the bard's inability to dominate just one area of the game could not make up for his ability to assist in many areas. In the large group, the bard was fun. As his weaknesses became exposed, though, he became less fun. Oberoni can correct me if I'm wrong (it wouldn't be the first time he did that :P ). I think what he's getting at is the Bard has a lot of potential to be a cool class. But the bard could be much more with just a handful of design changes. The potential of the class's concept doesn't measure up to the class's mechanics. |
| Karrde11-06-03, 02:50 PM | I think that Mewtwo guy is a powerplayer. He likes the classes that can dish out massive amounts of damage, i.e. sneak attack. My entire point is that, while bards cannot compete with the other classes in that area, they can compete in other important ones. Bards with the propery done skills can talk their way out of just about anything. The can charm and fasinate, but even though that ability does no damage, when the troll you were fighting suddenly turns around and eats the wizard who was helping him, you'll be happy on the bard's on your team. I think that the pokemon guy loves powerhouses and fails to see the sublety that the bard possesses. And i can call you a hack and slash player and not violate the CoC, because its true. :rolleyes: |
| youspoonybard11-06-03, 02:57 PM | Painfully, a baseball analogy seems appropriate here. Other specialized classes, once in a while, will come out and hit a home run. But they're not helpful to the party all the time. No matter what the situation, the Bard will get up on plate and get a hit. It's probably not a home run, but he'll always get to first, no matter what the circumstances. Some people like hitting Home Runs once in a while. Others like to always get on base. |
| Tom Jackson11-06-03, 09:28 PM | Originally posted by Karrde NO OTHER CLASS CAN COMPETE WITH THE BARD IN TOWNS. Actually, I'd disagree with that statement, because it really depends on what the party needs to do in town. To extend the thought, any one party member (regardless of class) might well be better than the bard, depending on what needs to be done. |
| Tom Jackson11-06-03, 09:47 PM | Originally posted by CaoSlayer ummm, just two things: A rogue who cant use this sneak attack (improved invisibilty, old shield, or ever blur stops this) have the same combat skill that a bard without spells.This is incorrect. First, because the rogue is more DEX dependant than a bard, he is likely to have a better AC. Second, rogues of level 3 and above have Uncanny Dodge. Read up on this ability, it affects combat in certain situations. Third, a well played rogue will switch to a different opponent when placed in such a situation. Sure, the rogue might face an invisible opponent every so often. But in such cases, it is unlikely that EVERY opponent is invisible. A well played rogue picks his targ wisely. Fourth, that same well played rogue player, when faced by a invisible opponent and unable to deal directly with him, will have his party casters target him with area of effect spells. The invisible bard attacker might well save for half damage, while the rogue will save for no damage - that evasion thing comes in handy in a teamwork environment, you see. Teamwork...this segways nicely to the next point.... Fifth, if you are saying the rogue and bard are 'dueling' in this scenario and the bard's invisibility esentially stops the rogue's sneak attacks -- I'll just add here, as I have so many other times in other threads, that the duel scenario is irrelevant. Characters don't fight each other, they form parties and cooperate, each contributing what they can to the overall sucess of the group. Originally posted by CaoSlayer And about the wizard casting more dominations or hold persons that the bard, you are missing two important points: The bards gets those at a lower spell level than a wizard, this balances the number of slots usables to spend in domination, and also while a level 4 can cast hold person, a level 4 cant also a sorcerer needs to be level 6 to cast that spell.The bard spell, because it is of lower level, also is more easily saved against, ie it has a lower base DC. Further, the bard doesn't get spell levels as quickly as other classes, so in many cases they are receiving fairly low level spells at the same character level that other casters are receiving higher level spells. Originally posted by CaoSlayer And also, the wizard should have to prepare lots of his slots to be able to cast as many dominations as a bard and if he faces an undead or another creature unable to be dominated, the bard can spend this slots in another spell. A well played wizard character is not going to select the same spell many times over, he is going to have multiple different spells prepared to counter different situations. The scenario you envision here is at best unlikely, and ludicrous at worst. |
| BlaineTog11-06-03, 09:50 PM | He was reffering to PC-NPC interaction. Obviously. Um... isn't this what we've been saying all along? The bard isn't really stellar in anything (with the possible exception of Party buffer and social wiz), although they can get along. |
| Tom Jackson11-06-03, 10:24 PM | Originally posted by BlaineTog He was reffering to PC-NPC interaction. Obviously. Um... isn't this what we've been saying all along? The bard isn't really stellar in anything (with the possible exception of Party buffer and social wiz), although they can get along. Who, pray tell, are you replying to? Which post? Who are you referring to when you say 'He' (first word in your post)? And no, not everyone has been saying the same thing in this thread.... |
| Oberoni11-06-03, 10:34 PM | Originally posted by Karrde I think that Mewtwo guy is a powerplayer. He likes the classes that can dish out massive amounts of damage, i.e. sneak attack. My entire point is that, while bards cannot compete with the other classes in that area, they can compete in other important ones. Bards with the propery done skills can talk their way out of just about anything. The can charm and fasinate, but even though that ability does no damage, when the troll you were fighting suddenly turns around and eats the wizard who was helping him, you'll be happy on the bard's on your team. I think that the pokemon guy loves powerhouses and fails to see the sublety that the bard possesses. And i can call you a hack and slash player and not violate the CoC, because its true. :rolleyes: Except you did violate the CoC. Saying you didn't doesn't mean you didn't. You're doing a great job for the pro-bard side, you know, flaming me and committing libel. Oberoni can correct me if I'm wrong (it wouldn't be the first time he did that ). I think what he's getting at is the Bard has a lot of potential to be a cool class. But the bard could be much more with just a handful of design changes. The potential of the class's concept doesn't measure up to the class's mechanics. Zherog did a very fine job summing up my feelings on the current bard. Other general stuff: Shifting goalposts: Ok, if I point out that the rogue's a killer in combat, responding with "yeah, but the bard goes all Improved Invis on his rear!!!!111" doesn't cut it. I'm talking about regular combat, with party members and monsters and all that, not Pit Fighter. In standard combat, which is what actually happens in D&D, the rogue just has greater output. Redundant coverage: Eh. If you're down party members for whatever reason, you're already in trouble. If your sorcerer is downed, sure, you could have a bard play pretend-sorc--or maybe you could have just had a cleric Heal him back up to full. If your Rogue is sprayed neon-green, you could have your bard sneak around, I s'pose--but having a caster could probably mean that you just Greater Dispelling the junk. So my point is that while redundant coverage can be good, strong specialists can insure that you don't need the redundant coverage quite as much. Specialist vs. generalist: The good specialists (rogues, wizards, druids, wizards) in the game also have versatility. The fighter is not a good specialist. Dismissing specialists out of hand because some specialists are sucky is foul play. Also, most of the situations in which generalists shine are in larger groups. In a small group, good specialists are the way to go. Opportunity cost: No, you don't shrug it off. If you choose Bard instead of wizard, we're that much less effective at arcane magic. If we go from cleric/druid/rogue/wizard to cleric/druid/rogue/bard, we've taken a HUGE hit in the arcane casting department, in return for redundant gains in other departments. If we replace that druid with the bard, we've lost a good chunk of power and a large amount of spellcasting, and we just traded one type of versatility (the Druid's) for another. If we replace the rogue with a bard, we're still doing really well socially, and we've actually gained some spellcasting--but we've lost a large amount of damage dealing. So we break even, gain a bit, and lose a lot. If we replace the cleric, we lost a lot of the party's damaging power, we gain a bit of enchantment and utility power (clerics already are pretty good, but not great, in those fields), we go down somewhat in healing, and we have a redundant gain in the social ability. So the opportunity cost is a very, very real issue I have with the bard. |
| CaoSlayer11-07-03, 04:17 AM | Originally posted by Tom Jackson This is incorrect. First, because the rogue is more DEX dependant than a bard, he is likely to have a better AC. this is a usual falacy, rogues are as dependent of a high dex as a bard, everybody knows that the most important stat for a rogue it is int, he needs ints for more skills and for getting help finding and disambling traps, if a rogue fails these checks, he will be surely dead soon, they only will have higher dex if they are pointing toward combat and also a combat oriented bard will have also dex as this higher stat since he only need a total cha 16 for casting all this spells. And also you are forgoting the shield profience of the bard, that means from +1 to +7 AC. Originally posted by Tom Jackson Second, rogues of level 3 and above have Uncanny Dodge. Read up on this ability, it affects combat in certain situations. Third, a well played rogue will switch to a different opponent when placed in such a situation. Sure, the rogue might face an invisible opponent every so often. But in such cases, it is unlikely that EVERY opponent is invisible. A well played rogue picks his targ wisely. I know the uncanny dodge, but as you have sayed, only affect combat in certain situations, usually the most hateful thing about loosing the bonus to dex are the sneak attacks and you usually dont find enemy rogues everywhere. ummm, about the point three, it is really quite pointless, everybody will face the enemy where he have most advantage, a mage isnt going to fireball a barbarian or to cast hold person in a kobolt. And also in that situation, a middle level bard only have to pullout a scroll of glitterdust and now the party´s rogue will be able to sneak the enemy Originally posted by Tom Jackson The invisible bard attacker might well save for half damage, while the rogue will save for no damage - that evasion thing comes in handy in a teamwork environment, you see. Teamwork...this segways nicely to the next point.... umm? right, the bard dont have evation or improved evation as class skills, althrough have the spell blink that can emulate the feats, you cant ignore damage completly, but at least will work in any area spell including Horrid wilting that requires a fort save, and also will work against single targeret spells. Fifth, if you are saying the rogue and bard are 'dueling' in this scenario and the bard's invisibility esentially stops the rogue's sneak attacks -- I'll just add here, as I have so many other times in other threads, that the duel scenario is irrelevant. Characters don't fight each other, they form parties and cooperate, each contributing what they can to the overall sucess of the group. Originally posted by Tom Jackson The bard spell, because it is of lower level, also is more easily saved against, ie it has a lower base DC. Further, the bard doesn't get spell levels as quickly as other classes, so in many cases they are receiving fairly low level spells at the same character level that other casters are receiving higher level spells. That it is true, you simply cant compare a pure caster with a 3/4 caster, but anyway, the DC diference it is just -1 a 5% less, I think that anyone can live with that. Yeah, the bard have a lower level progretion, this is the main reason of why they get the speciallity spells one level lower that a pure caster, the advantages of getting as a lower level isnt just getting the spell earlier, it is that you get slots for lower levels faster and also the feature of freeing the level upper know spells from them (by example, a level 7 sorcerer will know 2 level 3 spells, a bard will be able to know (with a 16 cha, you can get it easy with 13 cha, the +1 at level 4 and a cloack of charisma +2) 3 level 3 spells and 2 level 4 spells [by example confusion], of course he will only be able to cast the level 4 spells once per day, but remember, the bard isnt supoused to outcast a pure caster. Originally posted by Tom Jackson [B] A well played wizard character is not going to select the same spell many times over, he is going to have multiple different spells prepared to counter different situations. The scenario you envision here is at best unlikely, and ludicrous at worst. That was the idea of my point, if a wizard wants to be able to cast as many dominations as a bard, he will be crappy. |
| Lotus Crane11-07-03, 05:23 AM | Wow, so much love, hate and gerbils flying around on this topic! Ouch! Well, I know I'm going to regret it later, but I'm going to try and step in on this topic with a post I hope can be considered comprehensive and conclusive. I managed to read the first two pages of posts before just quickly browsing through the last two pages, and so far the main gist I have gotten is that Karrde, Loric and SkyDaemon really need to calm down. Okay, let's do this one step a time, starting with game balance. Personally, I think that overall bards are balanced, just like any other class. If you take a large random sampling of campaigns, or just one well-done mixed-type campaign, you'll find that equal parts hack n' slash and social roleplaying will find a bard just as useful or useless as anybody else. Compared to sorcs, bards have less and weaker spells, but better HP, BAB, saves and skill points. Compared to rogues, bards have fewer skills and less special combat abilities, but have spells and better saves. Compared to fighters, bards have worse HP and BAB and fewer feats, but more skill points, spells and better saves (having two good saves is quite useful). Now let's talk about technicalities of rules. Basically, as long as you overcome a situation, you're supposed to get the EXP for it, though possibly not the treasure. So, if a bard manages to convince a band of orcs not to loot a village, the party still gains as much EXP as if it had defeated the orcs in battle, though probably not any treasure. If your DM gives very little or no EXP for diplomatic solutions to problems, then he is very hack n' slash biased, and therefore using his opinion or campaign as an example of why bards are bad is probably not a good, balanced idea. To have an accurate analysis, you need a fair DM. Moving on to role-play versus roll-play. An experienced, knowledgable, charismatic person in real life, is going to have a much easier time role-playing an interesting character than a newbie to the game, or that depressed geek who is still living with his parents at age 30. Ideally we'd all be able to role-play, storytell and act so well that we wouldn't need rules or rolls, but that's exactly the point of a game system and roll-playing: to make sure that fantasy make-believe is fair and balanced for everybody, even the inept and uncreative dolts. A balanced game should call on both role-playing and roll-playing at their appropriate times. Finally closing up with character and class stereotypes. Bards can be several different things: they can be wandering minstrels, they can be historians (bards have all Knowledges as class skills while rogues only have Knowledge: Local) or legend and lore-keepers (a very important role even in hard-working warrior and farmer cultures such as one that the dwarf in Loric's bar was probably part of), they can be translators and diplomats (only bards have Speak Language as a class skill, so I would say that bards are generally better negotiators than rogues, not ALL the time, but probably most of the time), they can even emulate the town wise woman or medicine man (think of the Adept NPC class, only much better). Bards do not always have to be the fruity lute-playing cheesecake; that's a common misconception that bard-haters unfortunately like to propogate. It's like how a fighter can be a soldier, a mercenary or a village champion; how a rogue can be a thief, a scout, a spy or even a superb craftsman (how about putting tons of your skill points in a bunch of different craft and profession skills? Think of the Expert NPC class, only much better). There's no reason to call the bard over or under-powered, there's no reason to love or hate the bard as much as some of you do. It's balanced class if you play in a balanced game that has a little bit of everything. |
| Ranthanas11-07-03, 07:07 AM | Originally posted by Tom Jackson This is incorrect. First, because the rogue is more DEX dependant than a bard, he is likely to have a better AC. Bzzt! Wrong! I've addressed this earlier. Second level spell: Alter Self (which almost all bards take IME). Alter self: Troglodyte for +6 AC (Actually, mine usually use Lizardman for +5AC as Lizardmen look much better). You aren't going to have the DEX to match that (or other defensive spells), particularly as Bards tend to have pretty high Dex themselves (although not quite as high) Given the duration on Alter Self, it isn't as if you can't cast it long before the combat. Also the bard has a plethora of other defensive spells. (Oh, wasn't this argument dismissed when someone claimed that the Bard would have higher Cha than the Rogue as not being part of the class?) Your statement is almost as silly as "Because the Wizard is more INT dependent than the Rogue, he is likely to have more skillpoints" Next! Second, rogues of level 3 and above have Uncanny Dodge. Read up on this ability, it affects combat in certain situations. 4 and above, but never mind. If a character with Tumble is flanked, they've made a mistake (I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that it's rare) and as for flat footed, neither gets caught that way very often if the DM allows the correct sense checks. It's a slight advantage, granted, but one that would look far better on a Fighter than a Rogue. Third, a well played rogue will switch to a different opponent when placed in such a situation. Sure, the rogue might face an invisible opponent every so often. But in such cases, it is unlikely that EVERY opponent is invisible. A well played rogue picks his targ wisely. And a Bard doesn't? Is that what you are saying, or are you simply saying that the Rogue has far fewer possible targets, and the enemy Wizard is often not one of them. Fourth, that same well played rogue player, when faced by a invisible opponent and unable to deal directly with him, will have his party casters target him with area of effect spells. Translation: The rogue stands there like a stuffed lemon while the bard is busy either casting spells of his own, healing, buffing or fighting. The invisible bard attacker might well save for half damage, while the rogue will save for no damage - that evasion thing comes in handy in a teamwork environment, you see. Yes, doesn't it. The Rogue's allies are busy dealing with the invisible bard (slowly- the bard has a good Ref save and the Rogue has no other good saves). This means that they are not free to deal with the rest of the opposition, while the bards allies can be doing something else (e.g. attacking the Rogue's will save or moving directly against the casters). Oh, and the Rogues allies are damaging the rogue some of the time. Or are you putting a lone bard against an entire party? You really think the rogue is anything more than a direct drain on the party here? (Where evasion really comes in handy is if the enemies are trying to swamp the monk or rogue with numbers or the rogue is pinning people with low Reflex saves, and even then it's usually better to send in e.g. a summoned creature or an illusion because you don't care if that gets blown to bits). Next! Teamwork...this segways nicely to the next point.... That the bard is usually better at it because his abilities help the entire party? Fifth, if you are saying the rogue and bard are 'dueling' in this scenario and the bard's invisibility esentially stops the rogue's sneak attacks -- I'll just add here, as I have so many other times in other threads, that the duel scenario is irrelevant. Characters don't fight each other, they form parties and cooperate, each contributing what they can to the overall sucess of the group. Agreed. You mean like hit bonusses to the entire party, damage bonusses to the entire party, and healing rather than an ability that can usually only be used in the first round of combat (enemies flat footed) or when he strikes one round in two (bluffing) or when he ties up another member of the party to help him flank (and help prevent him getting squished like a bug)? The bard spell, because it is of lower level, also is more easily saved against, ie it has a lower base DC. Who says it is either- or not both and? Anyway if the Bard thinks he is facing someone with high saves, he can do something else, like Melee or Social Interaction, while the wizard is crying because none of his spells are getting through. The bard is flexible enough to chose not only which target he wants but how to deal with that target. Further, the bard doesn't get spell levels as quickly as other classes, so in many cases they are receiving fairly low level spells at the same character level that other casters are receiving higher level spells. You mean that a bard isn't as good a caster as a specialist caster. Next, you'll tell me he doesn't get as good a BAB as a primary fighter. This doesn't mean that either are worthless. Next! A well played wizard character is not going to select the same spell many times over, he is going to have multiple different spells prepared to counter different situations. The scenario you envision here is at best unlikely, and ludicrous at worst. That was the whole point. The bard leaves the wizard free for other useful spells. Back for more: Oberoni Other general stuff: Shifting goalposts: Ok, if I point out that the rogue's a killer in combat, responding with "yeah, but the bard goes all Improved Invis on his rear!!!!111" doesn't cut it. I'm talking about regular combat, with party members and monsters and all that, not Pit Fighter. In standard combat, which is what actually happens in D&D, the rogue just has greater output. I'm not denying that. I am denying that he always does, that he does more total damage (counting both direct and indirect damage) and that he is more useful. Redundant coverage: Eh. If you're down party members for whatever reason, you're already in trouble. If your sorcerer is downed, sure, you could have a bard play pretend-sorc--or maybe you could have just had a cleric Heal him back up to full. If your Rogue is sprayed neon-green, you could have your bard sneak around, I s'pose--but having a caster could probably mean that you just Greater Dispelling the junk. So my point is that while redundant coverage can be good, strong specialists can insure that you don't need the redundant coverage quite as much. And the bard is a strong specialist at what he does: Social Interaction and Stealth (You have yet to show that a rogue is even as stealthy as a bard, probably because it can't be done). Just to add insult to injury, in the two cases you mention the bard could do precisely what you want the specialist to. The bard gets Greater Dispelling and is every bit as likely to be successful with it as a wizard and he could also step in and heal the sorc. For that matter, he could step in and heal the cleric when he goes down (and you try and get a sorc to do that) Next! Specialist vs. generalist: The good specialists (rogues, wizards, druids, wizards) in the game also have versatility. The fighter is not a good specialist. Dismissing specialists out of hand because some specialists are sucky is foul play. Granted, although they don;t get as much versatility. Also, most of the situations in which generalists shine are in larger groups. In a small group, good specialists are the way to go. :confused: If by small, you mean medium sized you might have a point. A small group simply does not have the specialists to cover all bases. I wouldn't put a bard in the ideal four person group (or even the classic one), but I would in a three, two or one person group because you simply can't cover all the bases easily. (For one person, I'd want a Bard (druid in second), for two I'd want a Bard and a Druid (generalists both) and for three I'd want a Bard, a Druid and either a Rogue or a Rogue/Ranger (because Trapsense is necessary). I'd then realign at four when I could cover all the bases. Next! (oh, and the players don't always agree beforehand who's going to be what, meaning that generalists are often necessary. Opportunity cost: No, you don't shrug it off. If you choose Bard instead of wizard, we're that much less effective at arcane magic. And more effective at interaction, sneaking and other things. If we go from cleric/druid/rogue/wizard to cleric/druid/rogue/bard, we've taken a HUGE hit in the arcane casting department, in return for redundant gains in other departments. I'm impressed. You haven't gone for the classic FWCR combo when asking this question. Now ask yourself who the fifth person in the group would be (there is a case for either a Fighter/Barb or a Paladin as you haven't got a specialist Melee person, but I'd go for the Bard to expand the options, put in a reserve and make everyone else better at Melee, and as no one gets full BAB they need it). Also ask yourself what you'd do if you wanted to take someone out. Whoever left, I'd replace someone else by a Bard to keep the bases covered. So the opportunity cost is a very, very real issue I have with the bard. In a pre-balanced 4 person party you have a point. Anywhere else, this is a slight strawman (and as the party number tends to either extreme, the strawman gets bigger). I will also add that I have only ever once played in a 4 person party, and that had neither a rogue nor a cleric. (Barbarian, Fighter, Wizard were the other three. What do you put in to that party?) Oh, and Zherog? (and others), I'm mostly arguing because I enjoy arguing |
| Roxlimn11-07-03, 07:40 AM | I happen upon this bard thread and who do I find? Tom Jackson, of course. Tom Jackson: You once posted a thread about bards and you said that bards would be fine IYO if they met with three modifications. They have already met two of these three modifications in 3.5e: no AF and higher SP. More significantly, their buff powers were greatly augmented while other classes' buff powers were being downgraded. This makes the 3.5e bard, IMO, an extemely powerful class, one I'd only allow in-game with certain conditions on the player playing it - somewhat like the way I treat my Clerics. To start off this discussion, please allow me to respond to some of your statements made to others: originally posted by CaoSlayer: A rogue who cant use this sneak attack (improved invisibilty, old shield, or ever blur stops this) have the same combat skill that a bard without spells. originally posted by Tom Jackson: This is incorrect. First, because the rogue is more DEX dependant than a bard, he is likely to have a better AC. It depends on what you're building. There are, of course, many builds of Rogue that don't focus on Dex at all. Some builds of Rogues focus on Dex, but these builds also have to contend with fewer points elsewhere - Cha for example. Thus, a Rogue built to focus on Dex will be better than a bard in that respect, if the bard does not focus as much on Dex, but the same Rogue cannot now hope to compete on a social footing, and the bard has other advantages. Second, rogues of level 3 and above have Uncanny Dodge. Read up on this ability, it affects combat in certain situations. Uncanny Dodge does two things: it increases AC by granting Dex bonuses on instances of flat-footedness, and it prevents flanks. Interestingly, since Rogues often optimize to be first in Initiative anyways, this ability is seldom used by them to full effect in that manner, and a Rogue that's flanked by melee baddies is a dead Rogue, Uncanny Dodge or no Uncanny Dodge. A Bard has better, more predictable, and more effective ways of avoiding a hit or increasing his AC. He can Invis and he can Blur, he can Alter Self. He can use Displacement, he can use Haste. Nope. Don't try to bring the wizard in on this just now. We're talking AC and flanks Bard vs. Rogue and that's that. About the only advantage Uncanny Dodge has for the Rogue is that it's always on and that it generally precludes Sneak Attacks. Bards have ways to prevents SAs, too, and more definitive ways. His disadvantage is that it's not always on, and may need standard actions to initiate. We can tackle inter-party dynamics (wizard helping Rogue and vice versa) and effects seperately. This point needs to be concluded first. Third, a well played rogue will switch to a different opponent when placed in such a situation. Sure, the rogue might face an invisible opponent every so often. But in such cases, it is unlikely that EVERY opponent is invisible. A well played rogue picks his targ wisely. The targets don't have to be invisible. In the recent Dungeon adventure series from the Shackled City, practically every single encounter involving combat had Shadowy Illumination, granting partial concealment to all combatants. The Rogue ironically needs this concealment chance to function effectively as a scout - you can't Hide without concealment or cover - but it does hurt his combat options. He cannot, for example, take out a random weak group of guards on scouting because the concelament chances ruin his SA. On open combat, he can ask his comrades for Bright Illumination when they engage in combat, but this then makes them easier to Spot and thus, harder for the Rogue to catch anyone flatfooted. He can still flank, but that option has problems of its own. Plus, even in direct combat, bright illumination in an area makes alerting other monsters through Spot much more likely. Fog, underbrush, other likely scenarios render SA not that useful. In the very same adventure series, elementals and outsider encounters makes the Rogue somewhat more of a liability in particular combats than much anything else. Bards can contribute much more consistently. Fourth, that same well played rogue player, when faced by a invisible opponent and unable to deal directly with him, will have his party casters target him with area of effect spells. The invisible bard attacker might well save for half damage, while the rogue will save for no damage - that evasion thing comes in handy in a teamwork environment, you see. Teamwork...this segways nicely to the next point.... Umm... What? Like Fireball for example? or Lightning Bolt perhaps? Lightning Bolt is a line effect spell - it's no effort at all to target only the opponent in question and not the party member - be it a Fighter, a Rogue, or a Bard. In more open combats, the Rogue's preclivity to flanking means that he'll be next to the Fighter or the Cleric in combat, more likely than not. In this case, the Rogue's Evasion ability is a small convenience at best. The point is not to hit the Fighter. A bard wouldn't even be trying for a flank and so won't get in the way. Finally, the Rogue's Evasion ability isn't foolproof. When it does fail, and it will, he's one Raise Dead short of a useful character. Intentionally targetting your d6 hp party member with a mass damage spell is not really a very bright thing to do. Fifth, if you are saying the rogue and bard are 'dueling' in this scenario and the bard's invisibility esentially stops the rogue's sneak attacks -- I'll just add here, as I have so many other times in other threads, that the duel scenario is irrelevant. Characters don't fight each other, they form parties and cooperate, each contributing what they can to the overall sucess of the group. Dueling scenarios are useful. Characters don't fight each other, it's true. If they did, SA would be much, much, much more useful. Monsters in general are more resistant to it. A good chunk of 'em are just resistant to criticals at all and in those situations the Rogue is really, really bad in combat. As in almost wizard using a sword and without a spell kind of bad. Aside from using spells, the bard can also use his music and magic effects to affect combat, being both more versatile and more generally useful in combat than a Rogue is. His Inspire Courage ability is more properly compared to a Cleric, really, but in the interest of being fair, we'll compare it to SA. The cumulative damage output of a +2/+2 on everyone at 8th level is unbelieveable on a 6 person party, but really quite plenty respectable on a 4 person party. It's really little more than a personal buff on a 2 person party, but when you party's that small, you count your blessings. Even so, it's still more universally useful than SA in combat. Heals and misceallaneous spell effects means that the bard can consistently do something productive and effective in combat. He can, at least, heal someone else doing something great and prolong that person's game time. The bard spell, because it is of lower level, also is more easily saved against, ie it has a lower base DC. Further, the bard doesn't get spell levels as quickly as other classes, so in many cases they are receiving fairly low level spells at the same character level that other casters are receiving higher level spells. More specifically, bards get specific spells at lower levels than the primary caster classes sorcerer, wizard, cleric, and druid. At levels 2-6, this means that the bard gets specific effects sooner and thus brings it into play earlier. At levels 7 and above, this means that the bard gets these effects at about the same time as primary casters do - about the same level or one later as a wizard. While this does mean that the bard will generally have lower save DCs, consider that the bard is attaining these effects at levels competitive with a primary single class caster. This generates the rather amusing illusion that the bard is something of a primary caster - that one of his main powers should be spells - like clerics and durids. Yet, it is appallingly obvious that he isn't, which may generate disillusionment and discontent. Since the bard also has d6 HP, a first rate class skill list and 6 SP per level, he cannot also receive 3/4 BAB, good weapon selection and primary spell advancement without being an uberclass. The lasting effect of lower level spell attainment is ultimately consistently lower spell DCs for bards coupled with competitive spellcasting in terms of specific spell effects rendered in frequency. While a bard will never have quite as many spells per day as a cleric (and it would be a disservice if he did) or a sorcerer, being able to cast spells at a lower level means that he can afford to use lower level slots and up to cast these spells - more uses per day, comparatively. A well played wizard character is not going to select the same spell many times over, he is going to have multiple different spells prepared to counter different situations. The scenario you envision here is at best unlikely, and ludicrous at worst. Shrug. You're comparing spell power directly to spell power between a wizard and a bard. If you are, then I will contend that the bard is definitely the loser there, and nothing would be more appropriate. Who would play a wizard if a bard could cast just as well? However, a wizard cannot really compete in a hammering duel against a spontaneous caster, and he shouldn't. That's the strength of spontaneous casting. If a particular situation calls for multiple spell use (as many dominations as the bard potentially has) then the spontaneous caster obviously has the edge. The more apt comparison here is not the wizard but the sorcerer, and the sorcerer has the bard beat in magic just as surely. |
| Karrde11-07-03, 04:18 PM | LOL, everyone needs to take a step back and calm down. I can almost see everyone in a room screaming at eachother about who is right. Except you did violate the CoC. Saying you didn't doesn't mean you didn't. You're doing a great job for the pro-bard side, you know, flaming me and committing libel. How exactly did i violate the CoC? I wasn't name calling, I was commenting on your apparent style of play. And whats wrong with supporting the bard side . . .? Also, your accusation of comming libel is laughable. Really. You'd be laughed out of court. Actually, I'd disagree with that statement, because it really depends on what the party needs to do in town. True true. Though you have to admit that if its pretty much anything but blowing the town up :mage: then the bard will probably be better at it. :D |
| LoricDAHPaladin11-08-03, 02:21 AM | I just wanted to annoy Ranthanas. |
| LoricDAHPaladin11-08-03, 02:22 AM | stupid double posts. |
| Lotus Crane11-08-03, 07:40 AM | I went back and read through this thread a little more thoroughly, and what Loric said on page 4 was absolutely horrifying to me... Not like music? :mymy: I don't think I could survive without music; it's the most important thing to me after air, water, food, shelter, family, and friends. Music is one of the few things that is higher on my list of needs than games, books and anime. I like just about any kind of music except heavy metal, hardcore rap, and German industrial. I even listen to stuff in languages I don't even understand, and like it. I truly believe in the adage that music is the language of the soul, and wow, I'm not sure I would ever want to meet a person like Loric in real life, no offense... |
| Karrde11-08-03, 10:10 AM | I love music too, but i usually combine it with my anime obsession by watching anime music videos. I just went back over these posts, and someone said that the bard would be good in every situation because "what species dosent have some kind of music" While i agree that be bard would probably still be better in talking to them, music is pretty much limited to highly intelegent humanoid species. I dont think there are too many orc musicions, or dragon, or troglidite, or troll . . . |
| LoricDAHPaladin11-08-03, 11:01 AM | Originally posted by Lotus Crane I'm not sure I would ever want to meet a person like Loric in real life, no offense... What I wrote was horrifying? Pay attention to what was written. Get out more, read the newspapers, watch a news program. There is much worse in the world than my views on music. The 'no offense' disclaimer was cute. If you are going to bash me, bash me; at least I could have respected your opinion of me, but this? Pathetic. Grow up. |
| Lotus Crane11-09-03, 10:07 PM | Pathetic? Grow up? Let's see now... I'm in college, so I'm no child. I'm in the ROTC, so I'm no coward. I'm an experienced martial artist, so I'm no weakling. I have a full scholarship on account of my near perfect test scores, so I'm no fool. I've traveled the world, including studying in Europe and Korea, so I'm no bumpkin. I've donated hundreds of hours of my time to various volunteer activities such as working in a nursing home and building housing in Antigua. It just so happens that I also participated in various activities such as being in the choir, playing the piano, taking art lessons, and writing poetry. You might say "prissy and foppish," I might say "cultural and enlightening." I don't know about you, but I'd rather be called weak than cruel. I'd rather be called cowardly than vengeful. I'd rather be called soft than harsh. I'd rather be called effeminate than brutish. I'd rather be called a dandy than a barbarian. A world without wars would be nice, but I wouldn't want to live in it if I had to give up music as well. Don't hate me for having views that are the complete antithesis of your own, or else you'll be the pathetic child who needs to grow up. |
| Karrde11-09-03, 10:12 PM | Uh, guys, as interesting as this discussion may be, you two have gone severely off topic. I strongly suggest going back to attitudes toward bards before someone reports the posts to the moderator . . . |
| Lotus Crane11-09-03, 10:46 PM | Hey Karrde, I like anime music videos too, I even tried to make one once, but with the inferior equipment and source material I was using, I deleted the thing instead of presenting it at Otakon 2001 when I was there. Yeah, I know it's kinda off-topic at this point, but Loric is definately a frustrating fellow; he won't even let me say things in a gentlemanly fashion. Hmm, back to the original topic of attitudes toward bards? Alright then, how about I say that I am a bard. Any attitudes towards me? :fight!: |
| Karrde11-09-03, 10:57 PM | Actually, because of how you've discribed yourself, I dont think you could be a bard. I'm an experienced martial artist, so I'm no weakling. More like a monk than a Bard. I have a full scholarship on account of my near perfect test scores, so I'm no fool. Could be a bard, but more likely to be a wizard with a high intelegence score. I've traveled the world, including studying in Europe and Korea, so I'm no bumpkin. This is defienatly a bard trait. I've donated hundreds of hours of my time to various volunteer activities such as working in a nursing home and building housing in Antigua. Kind of like a cleric, with the charitable work. It just so happens that I also participated in various activities such as being in the choir, playing the piano, taking art lessons, and writing poetry. You might say "prissy and foppish," I might say "cultural and enlightening." While studying music and art is a bardish trait, it alone does not make a person a bard. From what i see here, only 2/5 bard . . . |
| BlaineTog11-09-03, 11:00 PM | Yes, but a Bard IS only 2/5ths bard anyway. They are also 1 part Cleric, 1 part Sorcerer (kinda a Wiz), 1 part Rogue (this is where the high Int fits in), and 1 part warrior-type. :D EDIT: Yeah, I know the math doesn't add up. |
| Karrde11-09-03, 11:04 PM | In skills yes, but i was mostly commenting on attitude. A bard wouldnt really spend his time helping the poor or studying a subject for a prolonged period of time. The bard would most likely behave more like a good natured rouge or behave uniquely, rather than the forementioned classes. |
| mercurywyrm11-10-03, 12:06 AM | Originally posted by Oberoni If your Rogue is sprayed neon-green, you could have your bard sneak around, I s'pose LOL:D Neon green rouges! :bounce: |
| mercurywyrm11-10-03, 12:17 AM | Originally posted by Karrde In skills yes, but i was mostly commenting on attitude. A bard wouldnt really spend his time helping the poor or studying a subject for a prolonged period of time. The bard would most likely behave more like a good natured rouge or behave uniquely, rather than the forementioned classes. NO NO NO NO! The bard would spend his time helping the poor. That is why he has healing and charming abilities. He has the ability to entertain the people who really need more happiness, not just for money, any good aligned bard would do so. I wouldn't see why not unless he was neutural aligned. And he would study subjects for prolonged periods of time. A bard loves to do reaserch and could have a favorite topic just as much as anyone else. It is not hard for me to imagine that guy as a bard. On another note, I wonder what class I am most like. Does anyone know of any good online quizzes for this. I am guessing I would probably be a bard as I am a GM favored by quite a few players and don't get sneak attacks or have a particularly high BAB, but I could be a scorcerer. I don't cast spells in real life though and allthough I can play a bit of music I am definitally not exceptional. Mayby I am multiclass. Or maybe I am still an aprentice character with a moderatly high charisma and intelegence. Maybe about twelve each.:tiphat: |
| khyron114411-10-03, 12:31 AM | I have not yet waded through all prevous reponses, but here are my thoughts. The group in the example given at the start, seems stupid and immature. Some groups are like that. They can be fun, but they are definitely difficult. I like bards just fine. They aren't tanks like fighters and paladins, but neither are wizards or rogues. They aren't missile platorms like wizards or sorcerors, but neither are the martial classes or rogues. They don't have a ranger's, druid's, or barbarian's life in the woods abilities, but neither do fighters, wizards, clerics or paladins. Here's what they do have: flexibility. A bard can sub into a rogue's slot with only minium difficulty. They can also be substandard fighters or wizards. They can also sub for a cleric at low levels, although not exceptionally well. They also have a unique role all their own, the ultimate party spokesman. It's more than enough to justify their existance. |
| Ithilorien11-10-03, 12:36 AM | Originally posted by mercurywyrm On another note, I wonder what class I am most like. Does anyone know of any good online quizzes for this. http://www.angelfire.com/dragon/terragf/ Try here, one test does your D&D ability scores, one does the race, class, and alignment which best suit you. |
| LoricDAHPaladin11-10-03, 01:07 AM | Originally posted by Lotus Crane Don't hate me for having views that are the complete antithesis of your own, or else you'll be the pathetic child who needs to grow up. I could not care less about you. I did not like the attitude in your response, however. You wrote that you would not like to meet someone like me and I responded. You lambasted my views on music...not the other way around. What is curious is that in your response you suggest I have any feeling other than mild annoyance toward you whatsoever. You judged me, I took issue with it and called you on it. |
| BlaineTog11-10-03, 02:37 AM | I'm re-reading the post in question: Original Post my Lotus Crane: I went back and read through this thread a little more thoroughly, and what Loric said on page 4 was absolutely horrifying to me... Not like music? I don't think I could survive without music; it's the most important thing to me after air, water, food, shelter, family, and friends. Music is one of the few things that is higher on my list of needs than games, books and anime. I like just about any kind of music except heavy metal, hardcore rap, and German industrial. I even listen to stuff in languages I don't even understand, and like it. I truly believe in the adage that music is the language of the soul, and wow, I'm not sure I would ever want to meet a person like Loric in real life, no offense... (S)He's hardly "judging" you, other than to make observations on the appearent contradictory nature of your respective personalites. (S)he basically said that you two wouldn't jive. This is a post of someone who's agast. Music is a big part of his/her life, and (s)he has a hard time imagining life w/o it. You essentially spit on music, a metaphorical eqivalent of blasphemy (to Lotus). Hence the :eek: That "no offence" isn't a lame save. Rather, it's to try to put the quote into context. (S)he isn't bashing you at all. (S)he just surpried and amazed that you not only have an appreciation of music lesser than his/her own but you actually don't see any need for it whatsoever. What I wrote was horrifying? Pay attention to what was written. Get out more, read the newspapers, watch a news program. There is much worse in the world than my views on music. The 'no offense' disclaimer was cute. If you are going to bash me, bash me; at least I could have respected your opinion of me, but this? Pathetic. Grow up. Whether your views on music are horrifying or not when compared to other things is completely up to the person that is horrified. YOU may think that death is a horrible, horrible thing, but perhaps I don't. Mabye I take a Zen approach to the whole thing, or mabye I believe that those people who died are now in heaven. In any case, your logic here is flawed. Just because one thing (eg front-page news) is horrifying doesn't make everytihng else that much less horrifying! YOU may think that music is cute, but worthless, whereas I may see it as the window to the soul. YOU may think that art is an expression of stupidity and a waste of time, but perhaps I dare to believe that art is somehow a form of transendence. In short, "no offence" was an attmept to say just that: Lotus Crane meamt no to offence to you. (S)he wasn't "bashing" you, simply stating that to him/her, your attitude is terrifying. You decided to then bash back with "Pathetic. Grow up." THAT is a violation of the CoC. Lotus Crane made an observation. You insulted him/her. (S)he responded in kind. You then decided to inject more bile into the situation. Please, both of you, let this go no farther. This is a long, dark road that will get this thread locked.[/rant over] |
| LoricDAHPaladin11-10-03, 09:11 AM | Blaine, just because you do not see it my way does not make my claim invalid. For my part, I will concede that Lotus Crane could have percieved insult, but as I was not addressing him/her, I feel he/she felt it too acutely and redressed it strongly, and I responded. Make me the bad guy if you wish. I will sleep tolerably well either way. |
| TalinXT11-10-03, 06:02 PM | Originally posted by Ithilorien http://www.angelfire.com/dragon/terragf/ Try here, one test does your D&D ability scores, one does the race, class, and alignment which best suit you. W00t Chaotic Good Half Elf BArd lol. Um if you guys are gonna get into a debate of who offended who could you not do it in this thread? It really doesn't matter as it pertain to the subject of this thread. |
| LoricDAHPaladin11-10-03, 07:17 PM | Sure Talin. If someone else posts in response to me, I will not gainsay. Sorry, dude. |
| TalinXT11-10-03, 07:33 PM | Thats not my point. My point is if someone directly insults YOU then take it outside the thread. Bards are a different matter entirely. OR, at the very least craft your post in such a way as it pertains to a subject but im being a thread cop now so I'll shut up. |
| BlaineTog11-10-03, 07:37 PM | As for that link... Neutral Good Half-Elf Bard. :angel: |
| TheDarkestOfAngels11-10-03, 09:19 PM | Chaotic Neutral Halfling Wizard here. (a 5'9ish Halfling) Str: 11 Dex: 15 Con: 11 Int: 14 Wis: 15 Cha: 10 I'm happy with my ability scores. I can be my favorite class/Prc combo (rogue/mage/arcane trickster) :) |
| mad mac11-10-03, 09:42 PM | Lawful Good Dwarf cleric. Fooey, I wanted to be a monk.:) |
| LoricDAHPaladin11-10-03, 09:48 PM | I cannot do test right now...working 17 hour day ( it sucks ) but will attempt it on the morrow. I sincerely doubt I will show as anything other than Human and Paladin. Not because I think I am one, but because I wish I were one ( deeds and valor, not power and glory ). |
| WizO_Catoblepas11-10-03, 10:05 PM | Ok, it looks like everyone has had a chance to conduct a little flame war before I had a chance to address this thread. I hope you got it out of your system, because if I see any more insults on this thread, I'm sending out some very unpleasant e-mails and closing this thread. If you can't argue the subject matter of the thread without addressing another member personally in the reply, I suggest that you don't reply at all. Fair warning from your freindly neighborhood WizO ... |
| BlaineTog11-10-03, 11:00 PM | ::wimpers, backs meekly out of the room:: OnTopic: Anyone know of any good Bard PrCs? Or Alternate Bardic Musics (like: specific to different Perform Styles)? Thanks. Ciao. |
| LoricDAHPaladin11-10-03, 11:05 PM | Weapon Performer I did not like, but it seemed popular with everyone else. Nice guy that made it too, but I thought it was over the top. Gonna have to look it up yourself, however, because I cannot remember how I found it to link it to someone else. Someone also made "jack-of-all-trades" Prestige Class or Core Class, I cannot remember. I cannot remember who made it either, but I think it may have been Shadowfoot. |
| bolingger11-10-03, 11:21 PM | It's amazing what comes out of the wood work when you mention a bard. I notice a lot of folks have many degrading things to say. What many don't take into account is where would the rest of their characters be without the bard. If the hack/slash characters would stay calm for just a minute sec the bard could perform their little song and dance number and the opponent would be fascinated and then do what is suggested to them. In the even that fails then the song and dance number can turn into extra numbers on Mr Hack-n-Slash's attack/damage rolls. I play a bard alongside a half-orc barbarian. More than once the bard has been the one pulling the barbarian out of a tight spot in battle. Probably even moreso than the other way around. That invisibility/hide in the background taking pot shots works. Especially when you have the magic to throw in there to boot...and not getting the attacks of opportunity against you being in the middle of the fray. So, think long and hard next time you go into battle and that little bard is just sitting back annoying the opponent that didn't have to be an opponent in the first place if you let the bard do what their best at. |
| Lotus Crane11-10-03, 11:23 PM | Thanks for vindicating me Blaine; I wanted to say something along the same lines in my defense, but I didn't think it would mean anything coming from me; it took an impartial third party like you to interpret the situation correctly. That being said, I forgive Loric and hope that this situation is over. Oh, and btw, I am indeed a he, not a she or a s(he). :embarrass But it's an easy mistake to make consider my handle doesn't convey any gender ideas, and I tend to talk and emote in a cute fashion, especially on the topic of PINK DRAGONS! :cloud9: |
| BlaineTog11-10-03, 11:32 PM | I use "(s)he" or "him/her" in an effort not to offend anybody, not because I thought it could go either way with you (which i didn't. i simply didn't know). IOW, i use it w/ everyone until i have confirmation about exactly which to use :D. That said, you are welcome. Here's another thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=128095) that you all might find relevant (although many of you have already discovered it. It IS nearly at the top, but I thought it was worth mentioning...). |
| LoricDAHPaladin11-11-03, 03:06 AM | Originally posted by bolingger I notice a lot of folks have many degrading things to say. What many don't take into account is where would the rest of their characters be without the bard. If the hack/slash characters I prefer to handle situations and RP encounters without the aid of ensorcellment. For me it is more fun that way. Very often it degenerates into combat, but usually because the enemy attacks first. For instance: Scene where Loric and Bandag and company entered Dragon's lair after meeting him in the desert. The dragon had previously declined to engage because he was not in the mood yet to play with his food, followed by, "I will fight you at a time and a place of my choosing." We tracked him to his lair where we discovered that I could not see him, and everyone else could. I attempted to draw him out, because I was hoping at least to get an idea where he stood. So, I spoke to him, "So, Wyrm, is this a time and place of your choosing?" I delighted in that simply because I feel if it had been, he would have sought us out. Of course we could have played into his "trap" except that we won the conflict. |
| CaoSlayer11-11-03, 03:48 AM | Originally posted by BlaineTog ::wimpers, backs meekly out of the room:: OnTopic: Anyone know of any good Bard PrCs? Or Alternate Bardic Musics (like: specific to different Perform Styles)? Thanks. Ciao. check my sig |
| Ranthanas11-11-03, 06:56 AM | Originally posted by BlaineTog ::wimpers, backs meekly out of the room:: OnTopic: Anyone know of any good Bard PrCs? Or Alternate Bardic Musics (like: specific to different Perform Styles)? Thanks. Ciao. Troubador of Stars in the Book of Exalted Deeds Mourner/World Speaker/Green Whisperer/Memory Smith/Battle Howler (all in Dragon #311) Most of the rest (Virtuoso, Spellsinger etc.) are much better when applied to a Wiz or Sorc than to a bard. (There's also the Nar Demonbinder, but I don't think of it as really bardic) Oh, bards also do well with classes like the Mindbender which get partial casting progression on the grounds they aren't so reliant on their magic as a straight caster would be. Also classes like Dragon Disciple and Bladesinger which need magic to qualify for but don't then do much with it (again, they aren't completely reliant on their magic before this) |
| Ithilorien11-11-03, 10:53 AM | Originally posted by LoricDAHPaladin I prefer to handle situations and RP encounters without the aid of ensorcellment. For me it is more fun that way. Very often it degenerates into combat, but usually because the enemy attacks first. For instance: Scene where Loric and Bandag and company entered Dragon's lair after meeting him in the desert. The dragon had previously declined to engage because he was not in the mood yet to play with his food, followed by, "I will fight you at a time and a place of my choosing." We tracked him to his lair where we discovered that I could not see him, and everyone else could. I attempted to draw him out, because I was hoping at least to get an idea where he stood. So, I spoke to him, "So, Wyrm, is this a time and place of your choosing?" I delighted in that simply because I feel if it had been, he would have sought us out. Of course we could have played into his "trap" except that we won the conflict. Loric, I believe "where they would be without a bard" is referencing the ability of a bard to vastly increase their companion's capabilities in combat, not just their ability to master social sitautions. And, again, it's not roleplaying unless you are still playing within the bounds of your character's ability scores and skill points and only rogues and bards have all the social skills available to them. I would think a paladin would prefer a bard to a rogue as his companion. |
| LoricDAHPaladin11-11-03, 02:02 PM | Originally posted by Ithilorien I would think a paladin would prefer a bard to a rogue as his companion. Very likely, and in most circumstances. Depends on their individual natures, however. |
| TheDarkestOfAngels11-11-03, 02:27 PM | that would also depend on the rogue. As it has been stated previously, not all rogues are thieves. It's quite possible to have a LG rogue. (and since each character doesn't have his/her profession slapped on his/her forehead, he won't be able to tell he/she's a rogue distinctly. Using rogueish class abilities shouldn't really affect this either. Not if the paladin knew the rogue well beforehand. I don't think that using evasion or even sneak attack would constitute the paladin suddenly distrusting the rogue. Poison on the other hand...) |
| eudas11-11-03, 03:28 PM | Originally posted by TalinXT (snip) You see I see a lot of Bard hate here from the hack n' slashers here on the boards. When I was attempting to talk our way out of robberry charges the cleric steps in front and does soemthing stupid the first thing I thought about was those people. I think it's a bad attitude to have to think of any character class as useless. For the moment you are without that chracter class when such capabilities are needed then you regret it. (snip) well, for my own part, bards aren't really a big deal for me, but for some people, oh. my. god. bard freaks. personally, bards are ok -- i can see their point, they're very versatile. but some people see this as "ultimate power", and i think, take it a little too far in the sense of how useful it really is. it's an eternal war -- "you suck at everything, though." "yeah, but I can *DO* everything." "yeah, but you suck at it." "yes, but at least i can DO it." "yeah, badly!.." that's really all you can say about bards -- they're like oklahoma -- they're OK. the "bard hate" that you see is really just pushback from the pushback that bard players give. it starts as above - "eh, bards kinda suck." "no, bards rule!" "no, they suck!" and it goes downhill from there. in closing, ignore them all, and just admit it: bards are OK, but they're not great. they beat a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. in further closing, i think i'd rather play a bard than a monk. and, hrm. i think that's it. for now. eudas |
| eudas11-11-03, 03:29 PM | Originally posted by BlaineTog (snip) The problem, my friend, is what is called the "Final Fantasy Formula." Essentialy, it's a series of minor combats agaisnt progressively stronger bag guys until the final fight with the BBEG, the strongest baddy in all the lands. It's practically the base for all RPGing, and you can find a rant agaisnt it here. (http://www.members.aol.com/KismetsDandD/DMFFFormula.html) For the record, this person also likes bards a lot, too, and has another page about them here. (http://www.members.aol.com/KismetsDandD/DandDBard.html) (snip) oh. my. god. that is the worst background/font color setting possible. i had to CTRL-A CTRL-C CTRL-V into a "regular" document just to read the damned thing. 3 points for being right, minus a whole bunch for a god-awful page style. eudas |
| eudas11-11-03, 03:34 PM | Originally posted by TalinXT Get Loud tell me to shut up and cause a fight while the DM has to step in and do something.I won't say everything they've done is bad some of what they did wasn't so bad. We do have some incredibly stupid people in our party the rest are just too ingrown into hack n slash play. This campaign wasn't mosterless but the number of times the Dwarves axe came in handy was tottally outnumbered by the number of timesa diplomacy or bluff check would have saved us. Thanks to that ignorance our monk is now an EX-Monk and our Cleric has tp pay atonement to Boccob for being stupid. I've already talked with one of my party members and I think they understand. I'll try talking to the others see if I can't get some sense knocked ino teir thick armor plated skulls. 2nd level bard spell: Hold Person. 2nd level bard spell: Silence. Actually, maybe you should try those in the reverse order... silence, and then hold person if they try to do anything else. Make them STFU, while you handle the situation. If that doesn't work, try 1st level bard spell: Sleep. Don't let them get in the way of you playing your character, and if they do, then you have various tools at your disposal to get them out of your way. eudas |
| eudas11-11-03, 03:36 PM | Originally posted by Lago AM3P I just wish they gave the bard a TINY bump in power. Not much. (snip) Right. Just like the tiny bump in monk power that you recommended. *cough* eudas |
| eudas11-11-03, 03:37 PM | Originally posted by detectevil Yes, the final fantasy formula. Because, without it, all we have is the Vampire formula. Social interaction, social interaction, bodyguards do something, more social interaction, problems with the police, more bodyguards action. You see? In this situation, it's the fighters and barbarians who would be said useless. They would serve just to give bards an Intimidation bonus. Clerics would serve just to give bards a diplomacy bonus. Only the bard would be playable. It's exactly what happens with Oriental Adventures, if the DM decides to play a more political campaign. Works great using L5R, sucks using D20. Bards would probably be a success in Live Actions. Actually, that sounds a whole lot like the problem in Ars Magica as well: If you're not a Mage, you're a Companion or a Grog. And Even if you're a Companion, you're still just a meat shield, you're just a more highly skilled meat shield that may or may not follow orders. eudas |
| eudas11-11-03, 03:46 PM | Originally posted by Karrde (snip) I've heard a great quote, "Over specialise and you breed in weakness" To this I add my own, "But over generalise and you breed out strength." (snip) Major Kusanagi, Ghost in the Shell (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113568/) eudas |
| BlaineTog11-11-03, 08:01 PM | that is the worst background/font color setting possible. i had to CTRL-A CTRL-C CTRL-V into a "regular" document just to read the damned thing. 3 points for being right, minus a whole bunch for a god-awful page style. :D Thanks for the mad props. However, this is not my page, I happened to stumble upon it. Althoguh personally, I don't see anything wrong with the font/colors/style (a little odd, perhaps). |
| The_EvilDungeon_Master11-11-03, 08:31 PM | Originally posted by TalinXT All this text from the first post -clip- If they think bards cannot fight, they are terribly mistaken. Next time, cast sleep on them and threaten to coup de grace one of em. BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH |
| Karrde11-11-03, 08:37 PM | Ghost in the shell rocks I dont know . . . after a certian point the check against the sleep save would be fairly easy for a fighter to overcome . . . |
| TalinXT11-11-03, 09:21 PM | Originally posted by Karrde Ghost in the shell rocks I dont know . . . after a certian point the check against the sleep save would be fairly easy for a fighter to overcome . . . Tell that to the Dwarven Fighter in ym group. |
| CaoSlayer11-12-03, 06:10 AM | Originally posted by Karrde Ghost in the shell rocks I dont know . . . after a certian point the check against the sleep save would be fairly easy for a fighter to overcome . . . yeah, at the point where the bard can cast hold person, confusion or dominate person... |
| Schmendrick11-17-03, 07:47 PM | What with inspire courage strengthened in 3.5 and all, I don't know what melee fighter can complain about bards at all. Why hasn't Inspire Courage gotten more attention in this thread? Even if your bard is a socal oaf, he's not bad. A mid-level bard's +2 to attack and damage isn't anything to sneeze at. If the bard can cast haste (like mine) and cure spells (all bards should know at least one, for emergencies) to run around patching up the second priority wounds the cleric is forced to ignore, he multiplies party combat effectiveness even more. The worst thing that can happen to a bard (in terms of the rest of the party) is silence, and as long as he can get his spell[s] cast and bardic music inspiring in the first round or so, before the enemy realizes he's a bard, that doesn't matter so much either (combat rarely goes much, if any, beyond the 5 rounds inspire lasts). As a quick example, between haste and inspire courage, my bard often does more "synergy" damage than anyone else in my party (+2 to hit when the paladin is power attacking can translate into a world of hurt). Granted, it helps that my party has a lot of combat oriented PCs; with that many combatants, that +2 damage hits for a lot... Plus, if your bard does happen to have teh mad social skillz, he's very handy to have when your party ends up in a melee they lose (which should happen every once in a while if your DM is balancing things well). Please also note that this analysis was done only including two of the spells a bard can (and will) cast, a few skills (perform and diplomacy/bluff), and no bardic knowledge (which is admittedly not a combat ability, and really depends on your DM for both its usefulness and effectiveness). I'd comment on shadow conjuration/evocation, but my last bard was 3.0 and my new bard isn't high enough level to play with them, so while I think they make the bard a much greater force to reckon with, I can't speak from experience. |