Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MrKlaster 12-02-06, 06:24 PM	Bards look like a sort of all around class to me. Alittle combat, alittle magic, and a couple special abilities. But i think the whole point of a class is specialization which a bard has none of. if u want to cast spells you should be a wizard. if you want to have combat ability be a fighter. But the in-between point isnt very good. so post your i hate bards and have a good time.
Bowmore 12-02-06, 06:39 PM	I've always kinda seen bards as the class you pick when you have no idea what you want to play. They get some weapon proficiency, they get some healing magic, they get some decent skills, they get some arcane magic, they get some support abilities... A bard's role can change on a round-by-round basis! The bard really does personify the "jack of all trades, master of none" ideology. They're good at everything, but great at nothing. Or if you wanted to be more specific, mediocre at everything.
DreamerInsane 12-02-06, 06:54 PM	Bah. For an all-rounder, use Druid :D
CaoSlayer 12-02-06, 06:54 PM	They have one specialization: mind control. They are excelent enchanters and social characters being able to dominate literaly any being with a mind including party members.
ludomastro 12-02-06, 07:04 PM	They have one specialization: mind control. They are excelent enchanters and social characters being able to dominate literaly any being with a mind including party members. I agree. I would also add that bards do exceptionally well as fifth characters and if your DM has you do more than the absolute minimum of roleplay (as apposed to roll-play) then bards are excellent. Just my two cents.
Comfort_in_Insanity 12-02-06, 07:05 PM	Bards are a very fun class to play, and while they might not be the most useful, they do come in handy.
MrKlaster 12-02-06, 07:05 PM	They can't mind control nearly as well as some classes can. There are other classes with much more specialization in mind control as them. I know what you mean Dreamer but that's a whole'nother story and im trying to stick to Bards. But all in all i agree with you.
Nephlite 12-02-06, 07:10 PM	Bards look like a sort of all around class to me. Alittle combat, alittle magic, and a couple special abilities. But i think the whole point of a class is specialization which a bard has none of. if u want to cast spells you should be a wizard. if you want to have combat ability be a fighter. But the in-between point isnt very good. so post your i hate bards and have a good time. Give a bard a wand of extended wraithstrike and he hits enemies easily. With Use Magic Device as a class skill he can easily use this.
Comfort_in_Insanity 12-02-06, 07:13 PM	They have one specialization: mind control. They are excelent enchanters and social characters being able to dominate literaly any being with a mind including party members. Beguilers are way way way way way (etc.) superior to bards in this faculty
MrKlaster 12-02-06, 07:16 PM	Beguilers are way way way way way (etc.) superior to bards in this faculty couldn't agree more with you on this one. I cant really see bards being specialized in anything really
Chimera245 12-02-06, 07:25 PM	Bards don't suck. Their strength is that they have no weaknesses. Their weakness is that they have no strengths. They're the Red Mages of D&D. Bards don't do well on their own, but they're excellent backup for anybody.
GaffeR 12-02-06, 07:25 PM	Bards specialize in party buffing. They work quite well in heavy melee parties. The damage they can create thanks to music and haste is quite significant. If they had trapfinding, I'd play one over a rogue. They also do social situations quite well. In this vein is the Half-Elf Bard, with the RoS sub level. Calm Emotions as a skill check? "The Baalor has to make a DC 54 will save or... chill". They also have the wonderful Sublime Chord open to them. This thing can be used in so many ways it's overwhelming. Pure casters, dual casters, gishes.. Mmmm.
Nadaka 12-02-06, 07:32 PM	Bards don't really suck. They dominate social situation with all social skills, only the rogue can match that and the bard doesn't have the bardinc knowledge and specific knowledge skills to synergize in this regard. Bards are not good on thier own, and they make a poor replacement for one of the 4 standard archetypes, but they make a good 5th or 6th character, especially in "city" games.
FreAkOuTRG 12-02-06, 07:40 PM	This has been done to death, and by posters more eloquent than you. Rogue is probably my favorite class, followed by scout and barbarian, but I love the flavor of bards. I just had a bad experience... GET AWAY FROM ME WITH THAT FLUTE!!!!!!!!!!
Vaelan 12-02-06, 11:55 PM	In addition to having some class abilities at low levels that are just plain ridiculous, as GaffeR has mentioned, a Bard can also take Prestige Classes to specialize, making them the rival of any member of the party they wish to emulate. A Bard that goes into Sublime Chord and Eldritch Knight is just plain scary, especially if the player behind it has a full grasp of the Bard's unique abilities. Even though they're largely stunted by the Prestige Classes, they can still have quite an impact and are paired with the majority of the Wizard/Sorcerer's abilities and a good helping of the Fighter's. A Bard that goes into Warchanter in a party heavy with quasi-fighters (Rogues, Monks, anyone else that could really benefit from full BAB and doesn't have it) can easily be the most effective member of the party just because of his Warchanter class abilities. Well-chosen feats can make the Warchanter an especially lethal combatant as well. Since most Bard-oriented Prestige Classes continue to advance some Bardic abilities and grant decent skills, Bards really get the best of both worlds. They get nearly the full benefit of specialization with only a minor loss to their versatility.
CaoSlayer 12-03-06, 03:16 AM	Beguilers are way way way way way (etc.) superior to bards in this faculty Sigh... I was not taking into acount beguilers because they arent core and have some balance insues... I dont have the book of the beguiler but I guess that they dont have anything close to the fascination/sugestion combo and remember that bards gets up to level 8 wizard/sorcerer spells by example taking otto´s dance as a level 6 spell. Also Im not sure if they gets all the skills a bard get so a bard can aford to max bluff/diplomacy/sense motives and since bards are charisma based they will have a higher check. Besides, do they get party buffs? mind control isnt just dominating but it is mentally improve other a bard not only it is good with ofensive enchantments but also can use things like heroism, rage, inspire courage, haste, ect to make himself and this pals fight better or do this stuff better. And in last place.. if we are talking into acount splatbooks then you must considere the nasty options a bard have in form of feats and prc. Yes, a pure bard spellcasting isnt the same than a beguiler... but then compare it to a bard/sublime chord you find how the bard can cast level 9 spells.. and is able to take spells a beguiler cant, we are talking about a bard able to cast wail of the banshee. Or Effects through songs with Troubadour of the stars you can get holy word as a song so you will be able to keep an evil enemy stuned for 20 rounds a day without save; with Diresinger you get a good amount of songs to pester your enemie and one able to raise any of your falled pals... the cleric have been killed? no worry, use the song and make him cast raise death in himself.; with virtuoso spellcasters will hate you with a song that forces enemy spellcasters to check their concentration vs your perform check... Or Combat, just with a level dip on a heavy armor class and battlecaster we can have a mithril full plate bard and with arcane strike the bard will deal a good amount of damage and they have a good use of gish prcs.
OneWinged4ngel 12-03-06, 03:48 AM	Bards don't suck. Their strength is that they have no weaknesses. Not true at all. They have a number of weaknesses, from MAD to vulnerability. And they really have nothing going for them in melee. A 3/4 BAB doesn't make them "kinda decent" in melee. This isn't to say that they *suck*, because they're really not one of the worse-off classes... but really, that's only because they have some particularly potent spells they can rely on. Between things like Glibness and Otto's Irresistable Dance, the bard can be very useful. They're not even well rounded, like you've suggested. They focus on these elements in order to guide them. They specialize in social interaction and manipulation (illusion/enchantment). Others can do it solidly better than them (Especially the Beguiler, who has more skill points and better spells), but they can still do it well.
zae 12-03-06, 03:56 AM	Nah, trust me, CaoSlayer, Beguilers do it better. It's their job. Bards simply have a number of abilities which make them good at it. The Begiler is still better though. That being said, the Beguiler is pathetic at most physical endeavors, whereas the Bard will default to being mediocre, thus outshining them. But in the region of influencing attitudes and mind-controlling people? It's the Beguiler's field. Though I suppose someone could make a Cleric or Wizard that does it better. I wouldn't know. Beguiler does it perfectly for me. I think Bard would be good to take in low levels while you figure out what you want to do. Then, by use of Skill/Feat retraining if need be, they can prestige out into the specialty field they decide on.
Galeigh 12-03-06, 04:38 AM	Reasons bards don't suck: -Bardic Knowledge(very handy) -Can cast spells -Can fight melee They are a very flexible class that can buff, fight, and find just about any information the party needs, a rogue can find information fairly easily as well, but the rogue comes in a far second to Bardic Knowledge.
Archangel62 12-03-06, 04:41 AM	If you want a mind controller, be an Enchanter, Telepath, or Beguiler. If you want a skill character, go rogue. The bard is an excellent group buffer with their music, also their spell lists have an amazingly useful number of debuff and sonic based damage spells. Illusion spells that they have are also fairly effective. Also, some of the new bardic music feats are also quite nice. Bards aren't useless they just don't have any huge "I can kick all of your asses" power. Instead they can do a lot to buff in combat with their music, and can also do quite a bit out of combat as well.
Torack 12-03-06, 04:44 AM	Bards don't suck, but they do force a player to take 2nd rank, which a lot of players don't enjoy doing. They want to be the one that kills the ancient wyrm, or dreaded lich sorcerer, not to be the one that allows someone else to do it. Bards, like clerics and many other buffing classes, make the other members look good, but do little for themselves. It is this that leads to a lot of complaining about bards.
Qube 12-03-06, 08:30 AM	they just don't have any huge "I can kick all of your asses" power. yes they have: the bluff check (especially with 1 lvl of warlock (beguilers influence) ) at lvl 5 +4 cha + 3 skill focus +6 beguilers influence +8 ranks: +21 means that half the people with 10 wis beleave you when you say that you are the incarnation of their god (gotha love NWN2 :) ).
MrKlaster 12-03-06, 10:51 AM	in the early lvls they can be pretty helpful but later on with only 6th lvl spells and ok combat skills they dont help much. The bardic music is an ok buff but nothing compared to some of the clerics. But i agree that they can be good in non combat situations sort of like a rogue and social situations. But the co,bet abilities just arent up to par in the later lvls.
MrKlaster 12-03-06, 10:52 AM	co,bet meant combat
Lord_Gareth 12-03-06, 11:02 AM	I'm not gonna say bards are a powerful class, but I will say I like them. I'm fine with being party support, because the people in my group appreciate it. That bardic song comes in handy when you can give everyone bonuses and still swing once a round (at a decent BaB too). On top of that, bards are THE utility casters. If there's a utility spell they don't have, it likely isn't worth it (with the exceptions of Passwall, Dig, and the other earthy wizard/sorc ones). As pointed out earlier, bards can't be beat for mind control and persuasiveness. And they can even be good at combat if you know what to do (Greater Shout, you are my friend). Give one a whirl and try it out. Now, as to your argument about specialization, I'll concede that the bard doesn't specialize in anything. However, all the bard PrC's DO (oddly). Seeker of the Song is, as far as I can tell, a combat specialization with a really good fluff attached. Virtuoso explores mind control more, and the Sublime Chord makes the bard's magic better. If you wanna specialize, take a PrC.
SilverDragon8U 12-03-06, 11:04 AM	You guys really want to have fun with a Bard, make up a drunken Bard. I tryed it once and had an absolute blast with it. That is tell a snot nosed Cleric tryed to cure my hang over and made me permently sober. Even the smell of a barroom made me sick for days and I couldn't do anything after that.
MrKlaster 12-03-06, 11:10 AM	I respect your argument Gareth having read your other threads and im going to concede this point too (also my a archer one) htat bards dont suck. But they just lack specialization. Maybe ill try that out someday silver it sounds fun to do feel free to continue the argument though anyuone that wants too
Sir Ferdinand 12-03-06, 11:26 AM	Bards is one of the most versatile classes in the PHB, AND they come along with just about everyone, and that's what I like about them. I don't care if other classes do a single thing better than the Bard, the Bards are just fun to play and they do indeed have unique powers themselves. Not anything combat heavy, but it doesn't have to be that way. It doesn't work for everyone, but these are just my opinions anyway. About 1/5th of my characters are Bards, and I've tried several different builds. Even one of my melee Bards could've worked well, if I wouldn't have rolled couple of 1s and 2s for hit points :( Archery is still the safe bet though.
Khan the Destroyer 12-03-06, 12:17 PM	This is just an unfinished build to help me illustrate my point. Human Bard 20 (using Bardic Knack out of PHB2 instead of Bardic Knowledge) 1. Weapon Finesse, Melodic Casting 2. 3. Snowflake Wardance 4. 5. 6. Words of Creation 7. 8. 9. Arcane Strike 10. 11. 12. ????? 13. 14. 15. ????? 16. 17. 18. ????? 19. 20. I think the primary concerns of a bard are to support his allies and act as the party face, putting his charisma and skill points to good use. With this build, the bard can focus on social skills with his 7+ skill points per level, and still be proficient in other skills through his Bardic Knack ability. The bard was a skill monkey before, but nore even moreso. And for support, the Words of Creation feat doubles the bonuses from Bardic Music, boosting allies even further. Also, Melodic Casting allows the bard to buff his allies with song, and still cast spells or use command word-activated magic items (Use Magic Device being another important skill to focus on). But, the role doesn't stop there. This build lends itself a little to melee, grabbing two feats to help the bard along. Snowflake Wardance allows the bard to add his primary stat (charisma) to his attack rolls. Arcane Strike lets him boost his attack and damage rolls with spell slots. With the bonuses the bard is already getting from his double-strength Inspire Courage, he is pretty capable in combat. No frenzied berserker mind you, but certainly able to hit and damage enemies, enough to support the primary warrior and tie up enemies. So, the bard is great in the skills department, and enhances the party's fighting prowess, while still being capable in melee. This is without even touching his spells. With spells, the bard can better infiltrate enemy encampments, buff his allies, heal party members, damage multiple foes, etc. I'm not sure what the exact complaints are about the class. It seems to be that any class can do some one thing better than the bard can. Maybe, maybe not. I often consider overkill. The Frenzied Berserker can do a sh*tload of damage, but sometimes that much damage isn't needed, and the warrior isn't intended to be the *only* contributing factor to encounter victories. With that in mind, I think of how the Frenzied Berserker can't sneak around, handle NPC's, heal anyone, buff his allies, or cast any sort of spells. A bard can't heal better than a cleric, but sometimes all you need is 1 hit point to get that last swing in. Or sometimes the cleric is already healing someone else. Would I rather have another person in the party capable of healing over the 300+ damage-dealing berserker? Yes, but not everyone. In the end, it might average out. A berserker may be able to end the encounter before anyone is in serious peril, while a bard may be able to support everyone to the point that they beat the encounter. Who knows? But the point is that bards do not suck. How can they when they are capable of so much? You cannot deny their skill points, and Bardic Knowledge is useful even if you only use it to identify monster weaknesses (though I prefer Bardic Knack). On top of that, they improve the party efficiency, and can even engage in melee. And lets not forget the spells. Glibness, Improvisation, Cure's, Disguise/Alter Self, etc... For the remaining 3 feats in the build, they could be anything. Perhaps Reach Spell, Split Ray, and Metamagic Song to improve your healing abilities. Or maybe Battle Caster, Improved Initiative, and Vexing Flanker to improve your combat abilities. Or maybe Quick Reconoitter, Hear the Unseen, and Keen-Eared Scout for a better sentry/scout. I think sometimes, people assume that because you can do a little bit of everything, you suck at everything you do. Not true. Further, sometimes we forget that not everything has to be maxed out to win the encounters. I frequent the CO Board and enjoy min/maxing. But a lot of times, you just don't need those big numbers to get the job done. The bard is a rather powerful contribution to a party. Anyways, just my two cents.
MrKlaster 12-03-06, 12:51 PM	i have already conceded my point but that build is alot better than the original. The Bard is alot better with more spells and combat capabilities but i wouldnt know entirely sicne i havent studied bardic knack.
Lord_Gareth 12-03-06, 12:55 PM	Now, just for kicks, compare a 2nd edition bard to a 3.5 bard. 3.5, bard is generally regarded as underpowered. 2nd edition, he rapes everyone. In a combat arena test, here's what happened: Bard v. Fighter: Bard casts Fireball. Repeatedly. Kentucky fried dwarf, anyone? Bard v. Rogue: With a better hit die and the same sneaking skills, Bard gets the jump on the rogue, wails on him, then finishes with a few well placed spells. Bard v. Cleric: Curse of Tongues, closes for melee. Cleric loses by a hair Bard v. Wizard: Curse of Tongues, Wizard surrenders.
bobotheguy 12-03-06, 12:59 PM	Actually, there is a really cool prestige class for Bards in Libris Mortis, The book of the undead. Its called a Dirgesinger, and basically each level he gets a new song that is really cool. It only contains 5 lvls, but at 5th level you get this awsome song. Basically you make a perform check of 10+ the DEAD creatures HD if you pass, the body rises up with all the spells, anilities and equipment it had right before it dies. Itll serve you faithfully and only you. However, the body must have been dead for no less than 1 hour, and you can only controll one body at a time. Now there is also another coolio combonation bards enjoy. If you are high enough level, Buy the Pipes of pain. (DM guide) basically each person affected takes 1d4 damage for 2d4 rounds, but also, all sonic damage is doubled, and the person has hypersensitivity (which is a curse) so if you yell really loud, they get shaken. If you are playing in a campaign with huge massive battle, Like Heros of Battle, then using that right in the middle of the field would be very effective. Bobo
CaoSlayer 12-03-06, 01:20 PM	Now, just for kicks, compare a 2nd edition bard to a 3.5 bard. 3.5, bard is generally regarded as underpowered. 2nd edition, he rapes everyone. In a combat arena test, here's what happened: Bard v. Fighter: Bard casts Fireball. Repeatedly. Kentucky fried dwarf, anyone? Bard v. Rogue: With a better hit die and the same sneaking skills, Bard gets the jump on the rogue, wails on him, then finishes with a few well placed spells. Bard v. Cleric: Curse of Tongues, closes for melee. Cleric loses by a hair Bard v. Wizard: Curse of Tongues, Wizard surrenders. Yes, I loved 2nd edition bards they were almost broken.. The most fun thing about 2nd edition bards was that they leveled up faster than anyone else so with the same experience you had a bard one to three levels higher than the wizard so while the wizard was casting fireballs of 8d6 damage the bard was casting fireballs worth 10d6 damage. More than once I think that some balance insues of D&D could be fixed the old way of making classes level up at diferent rates so a wizard should be from one to two levels behind melee classes... of course this isnt going to stop wizards and pal dominating the game at later game but will delay the power breach.
Nathreet 12-03-06, 01:40 PM	Reasons bards don't suck: -Bardic Knowledge(very handy) -Can cast spells -Can fight melee They have one specialization: mind control. The bardic music is an ok buff but nothing compared to some of the clerics. But i agree that they can be good in non combat situations sort of like a rogue and social situations. But the co,bet abilities just arent up to par in the later lvls. The problem with bards is that they can do many things, but cannot do them all at once. So instead you get a lot of mediocre options to choose from. Outside of glibness, they don't really have any spells that another caster couldn't do better. Sure, the bard can fight too, but he can't fight and cast spells at the same time, so that doesn't help. Ditto for buffs and enchantments. Bardic music (which does let him fight) requires 4+ fighters to be worth it. The useful things he can do are: Bardic Knowledge, Speak Language (only 1 skill point each), Inspire Courage (among fighters), glibness and whip proficiency. Those combined with mediocre combat support - be it physical or magical or ranged whip disarms/trips - could make him worthwhile, I suppose. IMO, I'd carry backup whips for the frequent disarm/trip failures and wouldn't bother with the disarm/trip feats.
Treantmonklvl20 12-03-06, 02:40 PM	Why to Bards "Suck" 1) They are too stat needy. Int, Dex, Con, Cha - with point buy very difficult. (If you are using 4d6 and roll well, this is negated) 2) They aren't good at anything combat related: Spells are significantly behind other arcane casters in both levels and castings, they aren't tough enough to go into melee, the cleric is a superior buffer (and can enter melee), as an archer they are inferior to a fighter/Archer PrC build (by a long distance). 3) They are super feat hungry. 4) It looks great on paper, but those 6 skill points (probably 8 if human and decent int), goes so fast it isn't funny, and leaves you with ALL KINDS of holes you didn't think you would have with a "jack of all trades". Why they don't suck: 1) They are a neat "idea" for a class. The intended flavor is good. 2) They are good diplomats - not as good as a specialist (beguiler was mentioned - mind bender less effective, but better than a bard), but still good 3) They can act as a "back up" for a specialized buffer or archer in a pinch, they aren't as good, but passable. 4) Most DM's will "house rule" them up to grade. Often Bardic Knowledge with a "house rule" tweak will ease off the Skill Point problem (then the bard doesn't need to by knowledges - they are STILL skill hungry - but much less so) 2nd Ed Bards: They still sucked. A bard with the "Loremaster" kit could compete with a wizard for a couple levels (when the loremaster was 6th level they got fireball, if the wizard had the same xp they were still 4th - barely)...but the wizard closed the gap quickly after that - and got LOTS more spells, both in levels and memorizations. 1st Ed Bards: OK - these guys were tough, they were basically a multiclass Fighter, Druid, Illusionist, Thief operating all these classes about 1 level below a dedicated class.
Lord_Gareth 12-03-06, 03:03 PM	You've missed our points, haven't you? The bard doesn't NEED to do ONE thing well, because he does EVERYTHING decent. Can any other class say the same? Can anyone else say, "No matter what you're weak against, I can expose you to it."? Can any other class fill in for anyone else in the party, should that person fall? Can any other class know as much, or be as versatile, as a bard? Additionally, their magic is far from sub-par (unless you're against mindless enemies, in which case you have a weapon). They have acess to the most powerful mind control effects in the game (yes, I know sorcerers/wizards get them too), plus all the utility spells as well. They can heal almost as good as a cleric (actually, about on par with a druid). As to the stats thing, depends on the kind of bard you make. I usually drop only a 12 or so in intellligence (always Human, I am) and then put hella points in Strength, because I like Longswords, and you can't finesse those. If I have problems with AC, all I need to do is some performances and buy magic armor/rings/amulets/all of the above to make up for it. Then I get to have fun with crazy wonderous items. You're SERIOUSLY underestimating us bards, and we'll kill you for it.
CaoSlayer 12-03-06, 03:32 PM	It is true, bards are feat hungry and stat hungry so they cant do everything at his max power... But still, if you focus your stats or feats in one of the battle features of the bards either spells, sings or physical fighting you dont lose the other features... If you dont use a single combat feat you are still able to use some weapons including a whip for triping disarming in a pinch and you can still use an light armor without penalties and a shield with minor penalties. By just using a skill point per level you get all the power of bardic music and you will always able to use all the songs. And about spells... well, spells cant be leaved alone it is the bard best feature... and not is the most important themselves but how spells work together with the other features. By example a bard itself is a crappy fighter but a buffed bard with stuff like haste or improved invisibility it is decent both in attacking and in tanking.. if you adds the feats posted previously you can have a monster that surpass any non-optimized fighter. About skills, rogues get more skill points per level but bards can ignore skills with spells, you can spring trap with summons, you can climb with gaseous form, you can hide with invisibility, you can speak any language with tongues, you can open any door with shatter, ect. The only thing a pure bard cant emulate with spells it is search traps. So, my point is that if you focus you can become a decent fighter with useful spellcasting including healing and extra skill points or a decent rogue bostered with magic and that can buff or a decent arcane spellcaster who can use armor and have extra skill points. If you focus, you need less feats and stats.
Sir Ferdinand 12-03-06, 03:39 PM	Sure, the bard can fight too, but he can't fight and cast spells at the same time, so that doesn't help. Ditto for buffs and enchantments. Bardic music (which does let him fight) requires 4+ fighters to be worth it. Where would a Bard need 4+ Fighter levels (I've never had a multiclass Bard... or any other multiclass build for that matters)? The Bard gets better himself in the fight (again preferably in archery more than melee), but the biggest point is to make the party warrior(s) to get better as well. And the Bard can do this at the same time as he fights, and not only that, he can stop the music and it still applies for couple of rounds after that, so he can instead focus on other things. Very useful. EDIT: CaoSlayer, I see. But I also wouldn't trade all those nice skills for one additional attack. I also don't even bother thinking about levels so high, as I'll never make those levels anyway :P
CaoSlayer 12-03-06, 03:53 PM	The idea behind the four levels of fighter it is because that way he gets a fourth attack before epic levels... Seriously losing the last four caster levels barely is worth (and add the skill points, bardic music uses and inspire courage +4). My recomendation it is trying one of those half-caster prestiges like spellsword or bladesinger so you only lose two levels and get some interesting features. Or for a radical character a paladin with devoted performer is a very interesting combination with stacking bardic music and smite evil, charisma to saves and turn undead that can be used for bonuses to hit with some feats.
Bringer of autumn 12-03-06, 03:57 PM	All I'm going to say is: I would hate to be in a party that doesn't have a Bard. Seriously, they come in hand SO MUCH.
tiluvias99 12-03-06, 04:37 PM	Does anyone else remember, back in the day, when someone would post a thread about how the Bard wasn't as good as other classes and Thorak would come and prove them wrong in so many ways? ...Ah... Back on Topic: Bards normally can destroy anything before the fight even begins. On the first round, before anyone begins combat (negating the prevention clause), all he has to do is use his fascinate ability. Because fascinate's DC is based off of a skill check, its essentially impossible to save against- the DCs can easily be in the upper 60s, 100s if you feel like optimizing. So, the enemy if just sitting there watching you. Obviously, this isn't a win yet- until you realize that every single round the bard is fascinating someone, he can implant a suggestion, which doesn't count against his uses/day. Some good suggestions include: "Wow, you look like a really powerful spellcaster. Why don't you show me all of your spells? Cast them all at the rock that's way, way over there." "That armor look's awfully heavy. Why don't you take it off and relax a little while?" "That's a powerful looking magical sword. Can I see it? I'd like to teach you some things about fencing." Suggestions don't have to be reasonable, they just have to sound reasonable- so, determined by how you word it, you can make your enemy do pretty much anything. Meaning, you win.
Bringer of autumn 12-03-06, 05:32 PM	Does anyone else remember, back in the day, when someone would post a thread about how the Bard wasn't as good as other classes and Thorak would come and prove them wrong in so many ways? ...Ah... Back on Topic: Bards normally can destroy anything before the fight even begins. On the first round, before anyone begins combat (negating the prevention clause), all he has to do is use his fascinate ability. Because fascinate's DC is based off of a skill check, its essentially impossible to save against- the DCs can easily be in the upper 60s, 100s if you feel like optimizing. So, the enemy if just sitting there watching you. Obviously, this isn't a win yet- until you realize that every single round the bard is fascinating someone, he can implant a suggestion, which doesn't count against his uses/day. Some good suggestions include: "Wow, you look like a really powerful spellcaster. Why don't you show me all of your spells? Cast them all at the rock that's way, way over there." "That armor look's awfully heavy. Why don't you take it off and relax a little while?" "That's a powerful looking magical sword. Can I see it? I'd like to teach you some things about fencing." Suggestions don't have to be reasonable, they just have to sound reasonable- so, determined by how you word it, you can make your enemy do pretty much anything. Meaning, you win. This is why the Bard is very useful. That BBEG won't be of much use if his magical weapons or his spells are taken away. The bard is all about mind control.
MrKlaster 12-03-06, 08:19 PM	treant and Gareth lets try to stay on topic (meaning the 3.5 bard not the 2.0 or 3.0 bard). I never thought about that tiluvias and it makes sense. That is one helluva power there. But im going to look into it to see if there would be any way around it for enemies.
tiluvias99 12-03-06, 09:17 PM	Well, there's actually plenty of ways around it. The Fascinate Ability is a mind-affecting effect, which removes a whole chunk of targets just from immunities, and the Suggestion ability is also language dependent. There's quite a lot of creatures that won't be susceptable to this tactic. Also, you have to worry about the "The distraction of nearby combat or other dangers prevents the ability from working" clause, which is very, very open to interpretation. Non-obvious threats, like moving toward the target, only provide a second saving throw (but then again, they're not going make that one either), but if anyone in the party does something like that is obviously dangerous to the target like draw a sword, or aim an arrow, or begin casting a spell that looks to be offensive, then the effect ends immediately. If the bard can manage to act first, then this shouldn't be a big issue then though.
MrKlaster 12-03-06, 10:42 PM	I was just reading about that tiluvias and if someone is gonna go crazy with the DC for the ability then it wouldn't be that hard for the DM to write in some hidden characters who step out of the shadows and distract the bard. "Uh yeh Mr. Wizard, it seemed like a good idea at the time." Besides you really couldn't go higher than 50 with the save DC even if you roll a natural 20 because there is a max ranks allowed on skills.
megageek12 12-03-06, 10:45 PM	This thread is so pointless...I mean the point of a class is to specialize. If you want a jack of all trades multiclass.
Archangel62 12-04-06, 02:38 AM	This thread is so pointless...I mean the point of a class is to specialize. If you want a jack of all trades multiclass. Not quite, the bards the only class that can actually handle not being specialized because of their design. It means that they can fill a couple different roles and can also help out in other situations. I like bards, both from their ability to be a buffer and backup as well as the fact that the bard has what I like to call "stealth muscle." The fact is the bard doesn't look that dangerous but looks can be decieving. The bard is a lot less limited because with their newer spells they can be horrendously effective debuffers. The bard is a bit like the hexblade, they look awful until someone figures out how to play them well.
Qube 12-04-06, 02:58 AM	This thread is so pointless...I mean the point of a class is to specialize. If you want a jack of all trades multiclass. <sarcasm>yeah go fighter/enchanter/rogue </sarcasm>
Vaelan 12-04-06, 02:59 AM	Besides you really couldn't go higher than 50 with the save DC even if you roll a natural 20 because there is a max ranks allowed on skills. Are you forgetting about bonuses to skill checks? Many spells, feats, and magic items provide them.
Treantmonklvl20 12-04-06, 08:07 AM	You've missed our points, haven't you? The bard doesn't NEED to do ONE thing well, because he does EVERYTHING decent. Can any other class say the same? Can anyone else say, "No matter what you're weak against, I can expose you to it."? Can any other class fill in for anyone else in the party, should that person fall? Can any other class know as much, or be as versatile, as a bard? Additionally, their magic is far from sub-par (unless you're against mindless enemies, in which case you have a weapon). They have acess to the most powerful mind control effects in the game (yes, I know sorcerers/wizards get them too), plus all the utility spells as well. They can heal almost as good as a cleric (actually, about on par with a druid). As to the stats thing, depends on the kind of bard you make. I usually drop only a 12 or so in intellligence (always Human, I am) and then put hella points in Strength, because I like Longswords, and you can't finesse those. If I have problems with AC, all I need to do is some performances and buy magic armor/rings/amulets/all of the above to make up for it. Then I get to have fun with crazy wonderous items. You're SERIOUSLY underestimating us bards, and we'll kill you for it. Didn't miss your points, but disagree. I don't think Bards do everything decent. I think they do a couple things decent, the rest they do poorly. They can't replace every other class in the party: Fighter: The fighter is taking meat-shield damage from round 1. As your Bard fails his concentration checks and realizes he doesn't have the HP for this, he shouts "Will somebody distract these guys so I can cast?" (um...that's your job) Cleric: One of the ways Bards suck is a tiny spells known list. Fill it with healing spells and you don't have much else. You are still worse as a healer by the way, since you have significantly less castings and lower level spells. However they CAN fill this role, and since "decently" is a vague term, I'll agree with that. Rogue: You don't have the skills. Um, that's it. Wizard: Yep, you can do this, for awhile. You will run out of spells twice as fast as a wizard, and the spells you do have are lower level, but you CAN fill this roll as well. The main hole in the argument "The Bard just casts spells to replace missing skills, fighting ability etc." is that Bards aren't good spellcasters for 3 reasons: 1) They have the least number of spellcastings per day of ANY primary class - MUCH less, Bards are out of spells half the time. 2) Bards have a small list of spells known, this limits your ability to act as a utility mage (The sorcerer suffers the same problem, but at least the rest of their casting ability is superior) 3) Bards know lower level spells than other party members. Not only do they max out at sixth level (which is closer to Paladins and Rangers than other primary casters), but they gain those spell levels slower as well. One thing you can be certain of, is whatever is the highest level spell the other primary casters can cast, you can't yet.
Treantmonklvl20 12-04-06, 08:12 AM	It is true, bards are feat hungry and stat hungry so they cant do everything at his max power... But still, if you focus your stats or feats in one of the battle features of the bards either spells, sings or physical fighting you dont lose the other features... If you dont use a single combat feat you are still able to use some weapons including a whip for triping disarming in a pinch and you can still use an light armor without penalties and a shield with minor penalties. By just using a skill point per level you get all the power of bardic music and you will always able to use all the songs. And about spells... well, spells cant be leaved alone it is the bard best feature... and not is the most important themselves but how spells work together with the other features. By example a bard itself is a crappy fighter but a buffed bard with stuff like haste or improved invisibility it is decent both in attacking and in tanking.. if you adds the feats posted previously you can have a monster that surpass any non-optimized fighter. About skills, rogues get more skill points per level but bards can ignore skills with spells, you can spring trap with summons, you can climb with gaseous form, you can hide with invisibility, you can speak any language with tongues, you can open any door with shatter, ect. The only thing a pure bard cant emulate with spells it is search traps. So, my point is that if you focus you can become a decent fighter with useful spellcasting including healing and extra skill points or a decent rogue bostered with magic and that can buff or a decent arcane spellcaster who can use armor and have extra skill points. If you focus, you need less feats and stats. Bards can't replace fighters: Typical 5th level Bard "replacing" a fighter DM: what's your AC? Bard: Hey wait, I haven't buffed yet...16. DM: Take 12 hp damage Bard: How am I supposed to cast my haste and improved invisibility? DM: Try a concentration check Bard: I have almost no chance on that...hey...who put me in front. DM: You did, Harry was sick and you said your Bard could do his fighters job. Bard: I'm going to die.
Qube 12-04-06, 08:13 AM	They can't replace every other class in the party: thats not their job. they make a great 5th chracter, a great jack of all traits: decent skills, decent attack (+15, a good dex and weapon finesse should give you something), some spellcasting capability (more then a ranger/paladin). and because a great lot of players prefers wizards over sorcerer, they are the guys with the highest charisma
Qube 12-04-06, 08:24 AM	Bards can't replace fighters: Typical 5th level Bard "replacing" a fighter DM: what's your AC? Bard: Hey wait, I haven't buffed yet...16. DM: Take 12 hp damage Bard: How am I supposed to cast my haste and improved invisibility? DM: Try a concentration check Bard: I have almost no chance on that...hey...who put me in front. DM: You did, Harry was sick and you said your Bard could do his fighters job. Bard: I'm going to die. DM: you encounter goblins raiders / ogre raiders/ what ever Bard: cast Glibness and says: "we are actually polymorphed goblins from your tribe, and i know you don't remember me, but thats normal. we may pass anyway" or "we paid yesterday sothat you let us pass today" or "we're actually yust illusions, so we aren't here, so we don't need to pay to pass" <rolls d20 + 4 charisma, + 8 ranks in bluff +30 spell vs d20 + sense motive + 20 (because it is so unbeleavable) >
Qube 12-04-06, 08:26 AM	Bards can't replace fighters: Typical 5th level Bard "replacing" a fighter DM: what's your AC? Bard: Hey wait, I haven't buffed yet...16. DM: Take 12 hp damage Bard: How am I supposed to cast my haste and improved invisibility? DM: Try a concentration check Bard: I have almost no chance on that...hey...who put me in front. DM: You did, Harry was sick and you said your Bard could do his fighters job. Bard: I'm going to die. whats the alternative Typical 5th level wizard "replacing" a fighter DM: what's your AC? Wiz: Hey wait, I haven't buffed yet...12. DM: Take 12 hp damage Wiz: Oke, i'm dying.
CaoSlayer 12-04-06, 09:27 AM	Bards can't replace fighters: Typical 5th level Bard "replacing" a fighter DM: what's your AC? Bard: Hey wait, I haven't buffed yet...16. DM: Take 12 hp damage Bard: How am I supposed to cast my haste and improved invisibility? DM: Try a concentration check Bard: I have almost no chance on that...hey...who put me in front. DM: You did, Harry was sick and you said your Bard could do his fighters job. Bard: I'm going to die. Pretty funny, very flawed, you know stuff like taking a 5 feet before casting a spell or that concentration it is a class skill for a bard or that you can adquire a feat for using perform in place of concentration or that inspire courage dont cause AoO or that you can use magical armor and items to improve your AC or that you should had placed more than a 10 on dextery if you wants to wear light armor or that you can be an archer or that by level 5 you can have an alter self spell for 50 minutes... 100 minutes if you buy a "cheap" extend spell rod for +6 AC or that you can tumble out of melee for a while or that after being hit you can use a wand or spell to cure you while the party wizard it is casting scorching ray or that you can get combat expertise for extra AC if you want to tank or that a lousy melee bard with 10 con would still have 8hp or that you can cast grease so the heavy armor enemy falls to the groud or you can cast invisibility for buffing easier or you can cast hold person or hideous laughter? And everything here posible by a pure core bard by just level 5, take no core and take into account he isnt alone and that it is better to have an armored bard take the hit that the party´s wizard or rogue. By example of a tank bard no core, take a marshal 1/bard 4 with battlecaster feat, now the bastard can have a mundane 20 AC with mithril full plate and shield and an aura that can add your high charisma to something like disarm/tip, fortitude saves or damage while flanking or charging.
Nephlite 12-04-06, 11:18 AM	Bards can't replace fighters: Typical 5th level Bard "replacing" a fighter DM: what's your AC? Bard: Hey wait, I haven't buffed yet...16. DM: Take 12 hp damage Bard: How am I supposed to cast my haste and improved invisibility? DM: Try a concentration check Bard: I have almost no chance on that...hey...who put me in front. DM: You did, Harry was sick and you said your Bard could do his fighters job. Bard: I'm going to die. Typical 5th level Fighter being the Fighter DM: what's your AC? Fighter: 18, no one buffed me yet. DM: Take 12 hp damage Fighter: hey...who put me in front. DM: You did, Harry was sick and you said you could tank Fighter: I'm going to die. Anyone can make counter examples. Why does your example Bard have only 16 AC? 5 Chain shirt+1 (at least +1 by now) +12 Dex? What kind of caster only has 12 Dex? A suicidal one. AC should be: 14-16 Dex (+2 or +3) + 5 (Chain shirt+1)= 17 to 18 AC. Assuming no amulet, ioun stone, etc of AC.
tiluvias99 12-04-06, 02:52 PM	I was just reading about that tiluvias and if someone is gonna go crazy with the DC for the ability then it wouldn't be that hard for the DM to write in some hidden characters who step out of the shadows and distract the bard. "Uh yeh Mr. Wizard, it seemed like a good idea at the time." Besides you really couldn't go higher than 50 with the save DC even if you roll a natural 20 because there is a max ranks allowed on skills.Then the bard just fascinates them too. As soon as they're able to distract the bard, he can see them- meaning they qualify as targets. Anyways, the Bard can just take the subsonics feat from Complete Adventurer- then you can use Bardic Music and fascinate someone, and they don't even notice that your doing it. And remember, with that DC, you've got 23 from ranks, 10 from Charisma (assuming 30 charisma- it could go up to around 40), a +30 competance bonus item, and anything else you'd like. That's a DC of 1d20+63 right there, average DC 73.5. That's without any optimization at all. Nothing can make that save. The only hope is immunity. Skill checks can get into the +250 range. Check the CO Boards.
thekellen 12-04-06, 03:21 PM	I think that bards could use a ocuple more special abilities to make them worth playing
Treantmonklvl20 12-04-06, 04:45 PM	Typical 5th level Fighter being the Fighter DM: what's your AC? Fighter: 18, no one buffed me yet. DM: Take 12 hp damage Fighter: hey...who put me in front. DM: You did, Harry was sick and you said you could tank Fighter: I'm going to die. Anyone can make counter examples. Why does your example Bard have only 16 AC? 5 Chain shirt+1 (at least +1 by now) +12 Dex? What kind of caster only has 12 Dex? A suicidal one. AC should be: 14-16 Dex (+2 or +3) + 5 (Chain shirt+1)= 17 to 18 AC. Assuming no amulet, ioun stone, etc of AC. Hah! My point was that the Bard likely has a worse AC (before buffs) and worse HP than a fighter-type. Replace the #'s as you like - when a melee encounter is based on a CR that assumes a fighter-type is up front, a Ranger or Cleric might be able to fill in, a Bard can't. As for the Dex, unfortunately, the Bard is stat hungry. He might have a 14 dex, but something else is suffering for it.
Treantmonklvl20 12-04-06, 04:47 PM	thats not their job. they make a great 5th chracter, a great jack of all traits: decent skills, decent attack (+15, a good dex and weapon finesse should give you something), some spellcasting capability (more then a ranger/paladin). and because a great lot of players prefers wizards over sorcerer, they are the guys with the highest charisma I was responding directly to the quote "Can any other class fill in for anyone else in the party, should that person fall?" by Lord_Gareth. If you think he's wrong - respond to him.
Treantmonklvl20 12-04-06, 04:52 PM	whats the alternative Typical 5th level wizard "replacing" a fighter DM: what's your AC? Wiz: Hey wait, I haven't buffed yet...12. DM: Take 12 hp damage Wiz: Oke, i'm dying. I agree, primary arcane casters of ANY class are a ****-poor replacement for a fighter-type, I never suggested anything different. Your front meat shield needs to have a decent AC and HP before the buffs are cast. Once again I was responding to the suggestion that a Bard COULD replace a fighter and do a decent job. Not suggesting an alternative.
Treantmonklvl20 12-04-06, 05:08 PM	Pretty funny, very flawed, you know stuff like taking a 5 feet before casting a spell or that concentration it is a class skill for a bard or that you can adquire a feat for using perform in place of concentration or that inspire courage dont cause AoO or that you can use magical armor and items to improve your AC or that you should had placed more than a 10 on dextery if you wants to wear light armor or that you can be an archer or that by level 5 you can have an alter self spell for 50 minutes... 100 minutes if you buy a "cheap" extend spell rod for +6 AC or that you can tumble out of melee for a while or that after being hit you can use a wand or spell to cure you while the party wizard it is casting scorching ray or that you can get combat expertise for extra AC if you want to tank or that a lousy melee bard with 10 con would still have 8hp or that you can cast grease so the heavy armor enemy falls to the groud or you can cast invisibility for buffing easier or you can cast hold person or hideous laughter? And everything here posible by a pure core bard by just level 5, take no core and take into account he isnt alone and that it is better to have an armored bard take the hit that the party´s wizard or rogue. By example of a tank bard no core, take a marshal 1/bard 4 with battlecaster feat, now the bastard can have a mundane 20 AC with mithril full plate and shield and an aura that can add your high charisma to something like disarm/tip, fortitude saves or damage while flanking or charging. Sorry if I misunderstood any part of your post, the first paragraph I found difficult to read, but I will attempt to respond the best I can: 1) Never suggested Bards don't know concentration. The concentration check in the example was a "damage taken" concentration check, not a "casting defensively check" - which in that example would be at a -12 penalty. A front line meat shield takes damage every round, that's their job, and no, a Bard can't do it very well, and it's tough to cast in melee when you are taking damage, 5 foot step all you want. If we assume the Bard has the feat you suggested, has maxed his perform, and has a cha of, lets say, 16, then their total perform skill would be a 11. That would be equal to the damage taken, meaning even a 1st level spell would have less then a 50% chance of success. That said, the 5 foot step/cast works great in place of casting on the defensively, if the monster you are fighting doesn't have reach. Didn't break that subject on my example though, since the Bard figured they would miss the first concentration check anyways and therefore not be able to cast. 2) The AC was pulled straight out of my rear end to make a point that the AC of the Bard was likely not as strong as the AC of a fighter before buffing, I wasn't that subtle...honest. A 5th level Bard may indeed have a better AC, but still will be worse than the fighter-type who is wearing heavier armour with the same enhancement bonus as the Bard (and possibly a shield as well) 3) I agree that a Bard can SPECIALIZE and become decent at one thing, such as AC, or Buffing, or casting in combat...the problem is, you have a specialist who is not as good a specialist as another class could be in that role, and you are no longer the "jack of all trades"
Treantmonklvl20 12-04-06, 05:12 PM	DM: you encounter goblins raiders / ogre raiders/ what ever Bard: cast Glibness and says: "we are actually polymorphed goblins from your tribe, and i know you don't remember me, but thats normal. we may pass anyway" or "we paid yesterday sothat you let us pass today" or "we're actually yust illusions, so we aren't here, so we don't need to pay to pass" <rolls d20 + 4 charisma, + 8 ranks in bluff +30 spell vs d20 + sense motive + 20 (because it is so unbeleavable) > Your DM doesn't use the concentration check when you take damage rule? Or are you just bringing up an example that has nothing to do with mine? I do agree the Bard can make a half-decent Mind-Bender/Beguiler type character if that was your point, though not quite as good as either of those examples.
Lord_Gareth 12-04-06, 05:46 PM	Didn't miss your points, but disagree. I don't think Bards do everything decent. I think they do a couple things decent, the rest they do poorly. They can't replace every other class in the party: Fighter: The fighter is taking meat-shield damage from round 1. As your Bard fails his concentration checks and realizes he doesn't have the HP for this, he shouts "Will somebody distract these guys so I can cast?" (um...that's your job) Cleric: One of the ways Bards suck is a tiny spells known list. Fill it with healing spells and you don't have much else. You are still worse as a healer by the way, since you have significantly less castings and lower level spells. However they CAN fill this role, and since "decently" is a vague term, I'll agree with that. Rogue: You don't have the skills. Um, that's it. Wizard: Yep, you can do this, for awhile. You will run out of spells twice as fast as a wizard, and the spells you do have are lower level, but you CAN fill this roll as well. The main hole in the argument "The Bard just casts spells to replace missing skills, fighting ability etc." is that Bards aren't good spellcasters for 3 reasons: 1) They have the least number of spellcastings per day of ANY primary class - MUCH less, Bards are out of spells half the time. 2) Bards have a small list of spells known, this limits your ability to act as a utility mage (The sorcerer suffers the same problem, but at least the rest of their casting ability is superior) 3) Bards know lower level spells than other party members. Not only do they max out at sixth level (which is closer to Paladins and Rangers than other primary casters), but they gain those spell levels slower as well. One thing you can be certain of, is whatever is the highest level spell the other primary casters can cast, you can't yet. First, the bard doesn't have to fill in permanently. At worst, he has to fill in until somebody can cast True Ressurection (remember, that's AT WORST). Now, onto other points Fighter: Wow, I actually PUT RANKS IN CONCENTRATION. Or, hell, just wade in there with a longsword, a small steel shield, and a profound desire to get hurt. Strength bards don't do badly if magic items can compensate for the dex loss. And with a decent BaB and access to Goad, people pay attention. Besides, there's the bard player motto (in my town): "We have a d6 hit die and we will USE IT!" Cleric: Once again, the 'permanent bases not needed' rule comes into play. The bard only needs to heal long enough to get the priest up and running again. Quite frankly, I take Cure spells every level I get 'em, because it's worth it. Plus, the Cleric also fills the role of secondary meat shield, which is covered just above. Rogue: My god, TWO LESS SKILL POINTS! He's got the skills to fill in, he just has slightly less versatility. Check your math next time. Wizard: The key words in my Wizard comparisons have been 'Utility Caster'. The bard is great for noncombat situations, or pre and midcombat buffing. And if he grows half a brain and puts ranks in concentration (if it's hitting a bard, it shouldn't do much damage. The meatheads of the monsters will be busy elsewhere, nuetralizing a more dangerous-looking target), he'll have no problem casting. Hell, he could just cast defensively and say 'screw you all'. Don't put down bards, we're a lot stronger than you think.
Norhg 12-04-06, 06:05 PM	Once again I was responding to the suggestion that a Bard COULD replace a fighter and do a decent job. Not suggesting an alternative.Hmm... But the Bard could still do quite an adequate job? A fairly typical bard who gets no überstats buissness would have something like dex 14. By level 5 I would merit it a Chain Shirt +1 and a Large Shield + 1 for Total AC of 20. Not too shabby, considering a Two-handed Weapon Fighter rests at the same AC with his Fullplate +1 and Dex 12-13 that he buys for the same cost to add! And I bet we still want to put those in the front :p This bard hasn't done any specializing yet that hurts any of its other roles. Say that it then gets Alter Self, an excellent spell in that it provides loads of utility, with which he can an AC of 26. That's probably doing a better job at AC than the comparable Fighter, I had think, while still keeping lots of versatility? So certainly can they survive up front... unless what the PCs around where you are at are challenged by things much more dangerous than what I see around here. Or your Players have only one stat above ten. Or something in between. I know that around here we make our bards damn sturdy, they wouldn't die even if a troll managed to mangle its with all its attacks in a single round
MrKlaster 12-04-06, 06:39 PM	Compared to their combat ability their spells are not bad at all. They get shout, greater as a 6th lvl spell when sorcerers/wizards get it as and 8th lvl spell. They get dispel magic, greater as a 5th lvl spell whe it is 6th lvlfor anyone else. And a couple other really helpful spells like ottos irresistible dance. They are also proficient with the longsword and repier with a bab of 3/4 and those other spells it becomes a pretty good deal. When the lvls get really high they become weaker by comparison because they lack specialization in any one of the fields. And their best buff is only a +4 to everyone which is alomst nothing by 20th lvl.
CaoSlayer 12-04-06, 07:22 PM	Sorry if I misunderstood any part of your post, the first paragraph I found difficult to read, but I will attempt to respond the best I can: 1) Never suggested Bards don't know concentration. The concentration check in the example was a "damage taken" concentration check, not a "casting defensively check" - which in that example would be at a -12 penalty. A front line meat shield takes damage every round, that's their job, and no, a Bard can't do it very well, and it's tough to cast in melee when you are taking damage, 5 foot step all you want. If we assume the Bard has the feat you suggested, has maxed his perform, and has a cha of, lets say, 16, then their total perform skill would be a 11. That would be equal to the damage taken, meaning even a 1st level spell would have less then a 50% chance of success. That said, the 5 foot step/cast works great in place of casting on the defensively, if the monster you are fighting doesn't have reach. Didn't break that subject on my example though, since the Bard figured they would miss the first concentration check anyways and therefore not be able to cast. 2) The AC was pulled straight out of my rear end to make a point that the AC of the Bard was likely not as strong as the AC of a fighter before buffing, I wasn't that subtle...honest. A 5th level Bard may indeed have a better AC, but still will be worse than the fighter-type who is wearing heavier armour with the same enhancement bonus as the Bard (and possibly a shield as well) 3) I agree that a Bard can SPECIALIZE and become decent at one thing, such as AC, or Buffing, or casting in combat...the problem is, you have a specialist who is not as good a specialist as another class could be in that role, and you are no longer the "jack of all trades" 1) The damage taken check only works if the creature used a readied action to hurt you while casting; With casting defensively you only need 15 + the spell level. 2-3) The thing it is that a bard who have focused to be a good frontliner still have spellcasting and still have a wide amount of skills and still can use bardic knowledge and music while a pure fighter while indeed will fight better the bard have more uses, agaisnt oponents like wizards, AC means nothing since most spells ignore armor, a bard it is a stronger tank agaisnt a wizard because he can actually resist more kind of spells and actually can do something against it. Like ranger and monk your are trading raw power for versatility. -------- About utility spells and know spells, they arent incompatible, like sorcerers you arent going to learn a spell that maybe you are going to use once or twice per campaign, in place of learning, you buy scrolls or wands, scrolls arent that expensible and really can save your ass.
ConfusedDM 12-04-06, 07:51 PM	I play a bard and I find that they are the best class for Urban Adventures and kick in the door because the can preform. When you have to gather information a bard can be up there preforming while a rouge slits purses of the rich, or you could be behind a fighter who is acting as a meat sheild to make him hit herder or add in some damage. Don't say speclaztion is required
MrKlaster 12-04-06, 08:39 PM	Thx for posting but this thread popularity is going down because of i like bards thread(ill get u for this mighty nerd) see you all and talk about how you like them
megageek12 12-04-06, 08:40 PM	Well, bards can be pretty fun to play, and create.
obsidianrose 12-04-06, 09:35 PM	If your bard really has to fill in for Harry. 1: Loots Harry's corpse for mithral fullplate +1(and likely has battlecaster) 2: Picks up his Gnomish Battlecloak 3: Grabs mithral dastana 4: Grabs his defending collapsing crescent fan or rapier 5: Remembers that he has 16 dex (mine has 15, about to go up) 6: Remembers after being hit, that he has ironskin chant.
Treantmonklvl20 12-04-06, 10:24 PM	Hmm... But the Bard could still do quite an adequate job? A fairly typical bard who gets no überstats buissness would have something like dex 14. By level 5 I would merit it a Chain Shirt +1 and a Large Shield + 1 for Total AC of 20. Not too shabby, considering a Two-handed Weapon Fighter rests at the same AC with his Fullplate +1 and Dex 12-13 that he buys for the same cost to add! And I bet we still want to put those in the front :p This bard hasn't done any specializing yet that hurts any of its other roles. Say that it then gets Alter Self, an excellent spell in that it provides loads of utility, with which he can an AC of 26. That's probably doing a better job at AC than the comparable Fighter, I had think, while still keeping lots of versatility? So certainly can they survive up front... unless what the PCs around where you are at are challenged by things much more dangerous than what I see around here. Or your Players have only one stat above ten. Or something in between. I know that around here we make our bards damn sturdy, they wouldn't die even if a troll managed to mangle its with all its attacks in a single round According to DMG, a typical 5th level Bard has Dex 13...could they have 14? Sure, but not a sure thing...something else suffers. Your AC comparison with a fighter assumes the Bard uses a shield and the fighter does not. Furthermore, your magic item distribution does not match what the DMG says they would normally have at level 5, even if every magic item they had was armor. Most posts I see here suggest bards are overflowing with wands instead. Standard point buy: Str 10, Dex 13, Con 12, Int 14, Wis 8, Cha 15 average starting stats according to DMG. You can spend your points differently, but you don't want to go any lower on Cha. Alter self lasts 10min/level. Good chance it isn't up before combat unless you have time to prepare beforehand. Of course this all depends on how you define adequate. If you think a rogue could do an adequate job as a front line meat shield, then I agree a Bard could too. I just don't think either are up for it.
Treantmonklvl20 12-04-06, 10:31 PM	1) The damage taken check only works if the creature used a readied action to hurt you while casting; With casting defensively you only need 15 + the spell level. 2-3) The thing it is that a bard who have focused to be a good frontliner still have spellcasting and still have a wide amount of skills and still can use bardic knowledge and music while a pure fighter while indeed will fight better the bard have more uses, agaisnt oponents like wizards, AC means nothing since most spells ignore armor, a bard it is a stronger tank agaisnt a wizard because he can actually resist more kind of spells and actually can do something against it. Like ranger and monk your are trading raw power for versatility. -------- About utility spells and know spells, they arent incompatible, like sorcerers you arent going to learn a spell that maybe you are going to use once or twice per campaign, in place of learning, you buy scrolls or wands, scrolls arent that expensible and really can save your ass. You are right about the concentration check. Casting defensively is far from a sure thing. Better make that cast a good one though, a 5th level Bard has 3 1st level and 1 2nd level spell castings (assume 4 and 2 with cha bonus). If you were a Cleric, Druid, Wizard or Sorcerer you would have 2x that many or more. I realize the intent is that the Bard is giving up casting ability in order to do other things, but I don't think they get ENOUGH other things to make up for the lesser casting ability.
Treantmonklvl20 12-04-06, 10:39 PM	First, the bard doesn't have to fill in permanently. At worst, he has to fill in until somebody can cast True Ressurection (remember, that's AT WORST). Now, onto other points Fighter: Wow, I actually PUT RANKS IN CONCENTRATION. Or, hell, just wade in there with a longsword, a small steel shield, and a profound desire to get hurt. Strength bards don't do badly if magic items can compensate for the dex loss. And with a decent BaB and access to Goad, people pay attention. Besides, there's the bard player motto (in my town): "We have a d6 hit die and we will USE IT!" Cleric: Once again, the 'permanent bases not needed' rule comes into play. The bard only needs to heal long enough to get the priest up and running again. Quite frankly, I take Cure spells every level I get 'em, because it's worth it. Plus, the Cleric also fills the role of secondary meat shield, which is covered just above. Rogue: My god, TWO LESS SKILL POINTS! He's got the skills to fill in, he just has slightly less versatility. Check your math next time. Wizard: The key words in my Wizard comparisons have been 'Utility Caster'. The bard is great for noncombat situations, or pre and midcombat buffing. And if he grows half a brain and puts ranks in concentration (if it's hitting a bard, it shouldn't do much damage. The meatheads of the monsters will be busy elsewhere, nuetralizing a more dangerous-looking target), he'll have no problem casting. Hell, he could just cast defensively and say 'screw you all'. Don't put down bards, we're a lot stronger than you think. Any class can fill in poorly and temporarily for a fighter-type, you hardly need a Bard. Give any class a ton of magic items to make up for lack of ability and they do ok...what does that prove? As mentioned before, I won't get into the Cleric or Druid comparison with the Bard, I don't like those arguments because they are not fair to the Bard. CODzilla is in a class of their own, like it or not. Rogue: 2 less skill points to do Rogue skills? Really? So your Bard doesn't have concentration after all, or perform for that matter? No spellcraft? No knowledges? How much is left for Listen/Spot/Hide/Move Silently/Open Locks/Search/Disable Device? Not much. My addition is fine...add it up. The Bard SHOULD have MORE skill points than a rogue in my opinion. Wizards: Now we have concentration again do we? All the healing spells and utility spells too? OK, here's my challenge: Make a 5th level Bard with a standard point buy. Let me know what his stats are, his Spell list is, and his skill list is. Lets see if you can make one that can do all the things you say it can. If it can, I'll concede.
Khan the Destroyer 12-05-06, 12:04 AM	So let me try to understand your point and example... A bard makes a poor front-line alternative to a fighter of equal level because he decided to cast a spell while threatened by an enemy and without attempting to cast defensively? Yes... very good point. I suppose a fighter would make a poor front-line character if he decided to remove his full plate in battle while threatened by enemies. The bard could have done anything else, like cast defensively... take a 5 ft. step back... activate a bardic music effect... attack... Further, while the bard doesn't have the HP that the fighter does... the bard does have the skills that the fighter doesn't. So while you assume that an enemy gets within 5 ft. of an unbuffed/unprepared bard without being noticed, it is more than likely that a bard with perception skills would have noticed a threat and prepared for it before combat. Also... the highest base skills/level you can get is 8, with the Rogue. A bard gets 6. I fail to see how two points makes the rogue a skill monkey and the bard not even decent. The bard has the second largest class list out of the PHB classes. Yeah, he makes a decent skill monkey, even with two less skill points than the rogue. I will concede that a bard's HP does not support a melee build. But the point I was making earlier is that the bard can certainly contribute to melee. And while the primary tank is getting pounded, the bard is still contributing significantly to the encounter (both directly with his own attacks and damage, and indirectly, with the increased to-hit/damage his party gets from Inspire Courage). (Improved Toughness will give him the HP of a cleric or ranger, and Bear's Endurance would get him to around fighter/barbarian HP). Let the wizard be the primary caster. The bard will just hold on to some wands and sling spells when the wizard suggests it in combat. 'Catch the fleeing goblin in magical webbing, I will take care of the other!' Let the cleric be the primarily healer. The bard will just act as backup if the cleric falls, or support the cleric during in-combat healing overtime. 'I will support our warrior, just get the rogue back up!' Let the fighter be the primary tank. The bard will just buff him up with song and spell, and hop into flanking positions whenever the fighter needs a hand. With bardic music and a couple of other feats, the bard can hit just as well. 'While he's focused on me, sneak up from behind and get a good shot in.' Let the rogue be the primary skill monkey and trapfinder. The bard will be the go-to guy when multiple jobs are needed, such as scouting in two different directions, support for a stealth mission, the handling of NPC's, or even just a reliable watch at night. 'You and I will both sneak in through that hatch, once in, I will search for the trinket. You convince the guards inside to follow you to the rear entrance, where our companions will be waiting in ambush.' That the bard doesn't do something as well as another class doesn't mean the bard sucks. If he were to suck, I would think he couldn't contribute anything meaningful to a party. If someone were to demonstrate that, I might concede the point.
TheDarkLord 12-05-06, 01:28 AM	The Bard is the perfect DMPC.
Qube 12-05-06, 02:12 AM	Hah! My point was that the Bard likely has a worse AC (before buffs) and worse HP than a fighter-type. Replace the #'s as you like - when a melee encounter is based on a CR that assumes a fighter-type is up front, a Ranger or Cleric might be able to fill in, a Bard can't. As for the Dex, unfortunately, the Bard is stat hungry. He might have a 14 dex, but something else is suffering for it. - rather the bard then the wizard. - and a ranger can't play meatshield - oh and the bard isn't hungy: first charisma then dex, then perhaps int or str or con or whatever
Treantmonklvl20 12-05-06, 02:28 AM	So let me try to understand your point and example... A bard makes a poor front-line alternative to a fighter of equal level because he decided to cast a spell while threatened by an enemy and without attempting to cast defensively? Yes... very good point. I suppose a fighter would make a poor front-line character if he decided to remove his full plate in battle while threatened by enemies. We both play this game, and you know as well as I do the reasons the Bard falls short of a fighter as a meat shield - HP, AC, BAB...etc. The bard could have done anything else, like cast defensively... take a 5 ft. step back... activate a bardic music effect... attack... Further, while the bard doesn't have the HP that the fighter does... the bard does have the skills that the fighter doesn't. So while you assume that an enemy gets within 5 ft. of an unbuffed/unprepared bard without being noticed, it is more than likely that a bard with perception skills would have noticed a threat and prepared for it before combat. Maybe true, if the Bard has spot/listen. Of course, he can still lose initiative just as easily. Also... the highest base skills/level you can get is 8, with the Rogue. A bard gets 6. I fail to see how two points makes the rogue a skill monkey and the bard not even decent. The bard has the second largest class list out of the PHB classes. Yeah, he makes a decent skill monkey, even with two less skill points than the rogue. My point is that he doesn't have the rogue skills. He doesn't. Bards buy perform, concentration, spellcraft. They just don't have the skill points left to buy the rogue skills, even if they ignore all knowledges and diplomacy. I will concede that a bard's HP does not support a melee build. But the point I was making earlier is that the bard can certainly contribute to melee. And while the primary tank is getting pounded, the bard is still contributing significantly to the encounter (both directly with his own attacks and damage, and indirectly, with the increased to-hit/damage his party gets from Inspire Courage). (Improved Toughness will give him the HP of a cleric or ranger, and Bear's Endurance would get him to around fighter/barbarian HP). But a bard doesn't get any extra feats. If a bard has toughness, the fighter has toughness as well as a bunch of other combat related feats the Bard doesn't have. The Bard is still WAY behind, in many ways. Even the rogue is more likely to take combat related feats than the Bard, which will often by spellcasting related feats. Let the wizard be the primary caster. The bard will just hold on to some wands and sling spells when the wizard suggests it in combat. 'Catch the fleeing goblin in magical webbing, I will take care of the other!' If you have enough wands, the Bard is a good spellcaster, of course, so is the rogue with UMD. Unfortunately, most characters don't have a quiver of ehlonna full of wands. Let the cleric be the primarily healer. The bard will just act as backup if the cleric falls, or support the cleric during in-combat healing overtime. 'I will support our warrior, just get the rogue back up!' The Bard can make a half decent healer, if he fills his spell known slots with healing, just not as good as a cleric or even a druid. Let the fighter be the primary tank. The bard will just buff him up with song and spell, and hop into flanking positions whenever the fighter needs a hand. With bardic music and a couple of other feats, the bard can hit just as well. 'While he's focused on me, sneak up from behind and get a good shot in.' Bet the fighter wishes a the Bard was a rogue here, he would do a lot more damage, buffs or no. Probably a better chance to hit as well. Let the rogue be the primary skill monkey and trapfinder. The bard will be the go-to guy when multiple jobs are needed, such as scouting in two different directions, support for a stealth mission, the handling of NPC's, or even just a reliable watch at night. 'You and I will both sneak in through that hatch, once in, I will search for the trinket. You convince the guards inside to follow you to the rear entrance, where our companions will be waiting in ambush.' So your Bard has Perform (I assume), Concentration (I assume), Spot, Listen, Hide, Move Silently, Diplomacy, Search, Bluff...does he have spellcraft and some knowledges too. Bard's should be able to do all these things, but 6 sp/level isn't enough. That the bard doesn't do something as well as another class doesn't mean the bard sucks. If he were to suck, I would think he couldn't contribute anything meaningful to a party. If someone were to demonstrate that, I might concede the point. [I]Not suggesting that. If that is what you think I mean, then let me assure you I don't. The imbalance isn't severe. All classes contribute, though some more than others. [I] Basically, I do think the Bard could use a powerup. If the Bard had 10 sp/level and d8 hp I still don't think they would be overpowered compared to the other classes, however I do think then they could really be a jack of all trades.
Treantmonklvl20 12-05-06, 02:36 AM	- rather the bard then the wizard. - and a ranger can't play meatshield - oh and the bard isn't hungy: first charisma then dex, then perhaps int or str or con or whatever A Ranger isn't great at the meatshield, but almost universally better at it than the Bard. Better HP, Better BAB, AC about even. I would love to debate anyone who thought a Bard made a BETTER meatshield than a Ranger! One dump stat (wis), that's it. As for the rest, ignore any of these you will feel it in your build. It's a royal pain in the neck. However, some DM's still use 4d6 - place as you want. If you roll well, a Bard can avoid this pain.
Qube 12-05-06, 02:45 AM	Typical 5th level Fighter being the Fighter DM: what's your AC? Fighter: 18, no one buffed me yet. DM: Take 12 hp damage Fighter: hey...who put me in front. DM: You did, Harry was sick and you said you could tank Fighter: I'm going to die. oke how about this - if you don't have a fighter, the second highest ACer takes over the front line, and the bard takes over his task - if you don't have a wizard, the bard can use spells to cast hold, illusion, ... and reak other havoc behind enemy lines - if you don't have a cleric, the bard can take over the healing - if you don't have a rogue, you still have the bard to bluff your way out of encouters. of course he's not gonna do those jobs as well, but i'dd like to see a fighter take over the wizards job, or the wizard the fighters job.
Galeigh 12-05-06, 03:47 AM	oke how about this - if you don't have a fighter, the second highest ACer takes over the front line, and the bard takes over his task - if you don't have a wizard, the bard can use spells to cast hold, illusion, ... and reak other havoc behind enemy lines - if you don't have a cleric, the bard can take over the healing - if you don't have a rogue, you still have the bard to bluff your way out of encouters. of course he's not gonna do those jobs as well, but i'dd like to see a fighter take over the wizards job, or the wizard the fighters job. Exactly and if a party already has all those roled filled, he can still buff the party and use his mind-controlling abilities where needed, in other words making a good solid party, even better.
Gyrofthewastes 12-05-06, 04:19 AM	A Ranger isn't great at the meatshield, but almost universally better at it than the Bard. Better HP, Better BAB, AC about even. I would love to debate anyone who thought a Bard made a BETTER meatshield than a Ranger! The Bard is a better meat shield than the Ranger for such reasons as Blink, Displacement, and Mirror Image.
Lord_Gareth 12-05-06, 04:21 AM	Any class can fill in poorly and temporarily for a fighter-type, you hardly need a Bard. Give any class a ton of magic items to make up for lack of ability and they do ok...what does that prove? As mentioned before, I won't get into the Cleric or Druid comparison with the Bard, I don't like those arguments because they are not fair to the Bard. CODzilla is in a class of their own, like it or not. Rogue: 2 less skill points to do Rogue skills? Really? So your Bard doesn't have concentration after all, or perform for that matter? No spellcraft? No knowledges? How much is left for Listen/Spot/Hide/Move Silently/Open Locks/Search/Disable Device? Not much. My addition is fine...add it up. The Bard SHOULD have MORE skill points than a rogue in my opinion. Wizards: Now we have concentration again do we? All the healing spells and utility spells too? OK, here's my challenge: Make a 5th level Bard with a standard point buy. Let me know what his stats are, his Spell list is, and his skill list is. Lets see if you can make one that can do all the things you say it can. If it can, I'll concede. Treant, I accept your challenge, but let's up the stake. I'll post the whole character (just give me some time) using any of the following books you approve: SRD, Libris Mortis, Complete Adventurer/Warrior, BoED, Song and Silence (3.0), Tome and Blood (3.0). Also, and I must apologize, but how many points IS standard? With so many customs, I've forgotten. I also don't know starting gold by level. Sue me.
Norhg 12-05-06, 04:28 AM	Your AC comparison with a fighter assumes the Bard uses a shield and the fighter does not. Furthermore, your magic item distribution does not match what the DMG says they would normally have at level 5, even if every magic item they had was armor. Most posts I see here suggest bards are overflowing with wands instead.Ehh, I just tried to give the Fighter and the Bard items of equal cost. That's what they got. The point was that Fighters without a shield should have a place up front. This Bard beat him out for the AC, so he should have a place there too? The Bard is a better meat shield than the Ranger for such reasons as Blink, Displacement, and Mirror Image.Post Buffs the Bard is such a good tank that attacking him is futile... Which is both good and ill. (And don't forget alter self! Troglodyte transformation merits +6AC on top of almost everything)
CaoSlayer 12-05-06, 05:25 AM	The Bard is a better meat shield than the Ranger for such reasons as Blink, Displacement, and Mirror Image. Yes, the thing it that the bard only need a spell to turn itself into a good tank... the 50% miss chance family. If you do some maths you find out that getting a 50% miss chance it is almost the same as doubling his hp, just because on average half of the blows that should hit the bard will miss; a bard with just displacement is already better than a ranger at tanking. I personally love blink spell because isnt just physical defense but also magical, taking half damage of almost every area spell before reflex save and having a 50% to ignore any kind of spell from power word kill to baleful polymorph it is sweet. My mayor gripe about the bard spells is that his most useful buffs are in the level 2-4 range and usually level 5-6 spells arent as useful because you have few and only can be used once or twice per day.
Qube 12-05-06, 05:28 AM	Yes, the thing it that the bard only need a spell to turn itself into a good tank... the 50% miss chance family. a much missed fact: mirror image can stand up to 5 ft (= other square !!!) of the caster OR an other image: bard + mirror image IS a front line :D
Treantmonklvl20 12-05-06, 09:08 AM	The Bard is a better meat shield than the Ranger for such reasons as Blink, Displacement, and Mirror Image. The Bard can't even cast the 2 3rd level spells you've suggested at once until 9th level. Even then, he must have time to pre-buff before the combat or spend the first three rounds of combat casting. And even THEN he could only do that in one combat per day. In order to do the spells you've suggested in the standard 4 combats per day, the Bard would have to be...wait - he can NEVER do it, even at 20th level after 2 combats he is out of 3rd level spells already, since the Bard maxes out at 4 castings of each level per day. That's the problem with casting - there is never enough spells (unless you are a warlock of course) Not only does the Ranger have a better BAB and HP, he is also going to be WAY more effective offensively on the front line - even without casting spells or using Animal companion. I don't like the "Bard's just cast X spell" argument since the Bard has so few spells. If they had unlimited castings and knowledge of their full spell list, then you wouldn't have to convince me they didn't suck, you would have to convince me they weren't broken. That said, same challenge...what build of a Bard are you referring to here that can do better than a Ranger front line? You pick the level (try to keep below the HIGH HIGH levels - few campaigns occur at that level), stats (standard point buy), Spells known and feats only please.
Norhg 12-05-06, 09:49 AM	That said, same challenge...what build of a Bard are you referring to here that can do better than a Ranger front line? You pick the level (try to keep below the HIGH HIGH levels - few campaigns occur at that level), stats (standard point buy), Spells known and feats only please.A build which takes front-line into account by equal measure. Song of the Heart + Inspirational Boost + Inspire Courage puts bard ahead in attacking/damage dealing. Useage of spells ahead in defensive compartment (Alter Self being adequate if one strives towards achieving this, more would be overkill). Otherwise they have very similiar AC capabilities due to profiencies et all The Bard is a class that relies on the synergy of many varying class features. Being unprepeared isn't pleasant for them. Much of their strength lies in their ability to choose their battles (Sneaking + Diplomancy etc etc). But when they need to get a job done and can prepare for it, they'll get it done Point being still that the Bard has the capability to get ahead of another class without sacrificing much/anything.
Nephlite 12-05-06, 10:23 AM	The Bard can't even cast the 2 3rd level spells you've suggested at once until 9th level. Even then, he must have time to pre-buff before the combat or spend the first three rounds of combat casting. And even THEN he could only do that in one combat per day. In order to do the spells you've suggested in the standard 4 combats per day, the Bard would have to be...wait - he can NEVER do it, even at 20th level after 2 combats he is out of 3rd level spells already, since the Bard maxes out at 4 castings of each level per day. Mirror Image, displacement (or blur), and alter self are low levels buffs that fit easily in a wand. Blink he'll need to cast himself or a scroll.
Bringer of autumn 12-05-06, 10:28 AM	When it comes down to it, the Bard's true power lies in cunning and trickery. A bard will easily survive the battlefield if he uses his spells and music correctly, especially with suggestion/charm person. The Bard is a mental monster.
StevenJones 12-05-06, 10:43 AM	I am so glad to hear others express similar opinions to my own. I am not by any means, hostile towards the class or those who play and even prefer them, but they've always seemed better NPC's. I have to admit, though, I am still of the mindset that we should all be limited to the classes of Fighters, Clerics, Paladins, Wizards, and Rangers. And choose from the races of Human, Dwarf, Halfling, Half-elf, and Elf. And whether it's that we getting to complex or are lacking in ability to be creative with the characters we build, there's no harm in playing the basic game. After all, what sense is there in approving the recruit to a company of a chaotic barbarian half-orc, whose actions you cannot control nor predict or a bard who ends up being extra baggage, unable to carry their own weight of the adventure?
Bringer of autumn 12-05-06, 10:45 AM	I am so glad to hear others express similar opinions to my own. I am not by any means, hostile towards the class or those who play and even prefer them, but they've always seemed better NPC's. I have to admit, though, I am still of the mindset that we should all be limited to the classes of Fighters, Clerics, Paladins, Wizards, and Rangers. And choose from the races of Human, Dwarf, Halfling, Half-elf, and Elf. And whether it's that we getting to complex or are lacking in ability to be creative with the characters we build, there's no harm in playing the basic game. After all, what sense is there in approving the recruit to a company of a chaotic barbarian half-orc, whose actions you cannot control nor predict or a bard who ends up being extra baggage, unable to carry their own weight of the adventure? Why?
Gyrofthewastes 12-05-06, 10:53 AM	In order to do the spells you've suggested in the standard 4 combats per day, the Bard would have to be...wait - he can NEVER do it, even at 20th level after 2 combats he is out of 3rd level spells already, since the Bard maxes out at 4 castings of each level per day. Except there's this little, UNIVERSALLY known rule whereby a spellcaster can use higher level slots for lower level spells. You might also want to check out the feat Lyric Spell before speaking such absurdities. Even then, he must have time to pre-buff before the combat or spend the first three rounds of combat casting. Since I need to spell it out for you apparently: A bard player would have to be utterly idiotic to use all three spells at once in most combats...only one is necessary to trump the ranger. FYI: The bard does not even need to even be covered 100% of the time to surpass the ranger in terms of tanking. Not only does the Ranger have a better BAB and HP, he is also going to be WAY more effective offensively on the front line - even without casting spells or using Animal companion. Compare/contrast the terms "meatshield" and "beater". Surprise, surprise. Looking over the bard skill and spell list one might ALMOST come to the conclusion that the class is geared toward defeating enemies by *gasp* other means than causing direct damage. You meditate on that for a while, kid.
Gyrofthewastes 12-05-06, 11:06 AM	Blink he'll need to cast himself or a scroll. Blink may be obtained in wand form as well. Although it's (arguably) not worth the price, being a self-only spell.
Treantmonklvl20 12-05-06, 11:49 AM	Except there's this little, UNIVERSALLY known rule whereby a spellcaster can use higher level slots for lower level spells. You might also want to check out the feat Lyric Spell before speaking such absurdities. The point I made remains valid. I did mention 9th level to cast 2 3rd level spells per day, that remains true. The 20th level example was to point out that a Bard spellcasting chart maxes at 4 spells/day/level. I wasn't being vague, please consider intent before responding. Also, casting lower level spells with higher level slots is occassionally useful, but usually a bad idea. Since I need to spell it out for you apparently: A bard player would have to be utterly idiotic to use all three spells at once in most combats...only one is necessary to trump the ranger. FYI: The bard does not even need to even be covered 100% of the time to surpass the ranger in terms of tanking. Your suggestion was that they would, I was responding to that. I didn't think you were idiotic, but I did think you would run out of spells very quickly, even if you did have time to buff before combat, which usually you don't. Compare/contrast the terms "meatshield" and "beater". I intended "meatshield" as a role in the party that the fighter-type normally takes. We all know what that role involves. If you thought I meant something else, my apologies, consider my statement corrected to Beater/Meatshield/Armorguy or whatever definition fits that role to you. Surprise, surprise. Looking over the bard skill and spell list one might ALMOST come to the conclusion that the class is geared toward defeating enemies by *gasp* other means than causing direct damage. You meditate on that for a while, kid. Please drop the insulting tone, we are discussing opinions here, even if we disagree. I am interested in debate, not fighting. If my opinion that Bards could use a powerup is personally offensive to you, then disregard them (I would question why you even visit the boards if different opinions get you upset). This is my last response to you if you proceed in this tone.
CaoSlayer 12-05-06, 12:25 PM	The trouble is that if you power up the bard in anything else, you will meet the born of the BARDzilla. I mean, a bard actually with all the feats and prc available it is powerful, very powerful in level with at least wizard and sorcerer but requires the bard to focus his resources in one feature to match other class. If you power up one thing, then the bard with less resources will be able to match the class and so can either surpass the other class with the rest of the resources or can try to match other... I mean, a core bard with a 9 levels spell list will be scary because will be a 100% pure arcane caster with 6 skill points, bardic music, medium bab, light armor and two good saves... the battle sorcerer will look crapy. A core bard with 8 skill points and the rogue skill list will be able to render the rogue useless being able to use music and spellcasting to get more bonuses and more uses when facing undead and constructs. And a core bard with good bab or a d8/d10 will be able to outperform meleers clases with less bufing, will be almost tied with ranger and after a couple of buffs will be dealing more damage than a barbarian, also opens some can of worms builds like the whirlwind whip wielder. You cant touch the bard anymore without broking it.
StevenJones 12-05-06, 12:35 PM	Dear Bringer of Autumn, I prefer the basics classes & races because it reminds me of a simpler & more carefree time before the Game had more books, appendixes & notes than I could keep up with. More specifically, I think that a group's reasons for teaming up in campaign should be more logical than is often explainable with the varying classes & races that are so common, even prefered in the Game right now. While I do think all of the new classes & races provide many interesting facets to a given adventure, I still can't come to terms as to why a chaotic barbarian half-orc would ever have the predictable nature or dependability necessary to consistently go questing with the same group time & time again; it just doesn't make sense. However, I think the class & race would make a great NPC for an adventure where it "fit." The same goes for druids, monks and, well....bards just seem sorta in the way. I think they monopolize a VERY important role in the Game, but still don't understand why they would want to be with the same group for a prolonged period of time, as their class seems individualist by nature; not to mention the common thread the Post brings up of their overall lack of real utility as a PC. Is there something fundamentally wrong with playing a bard or any of the above characters in the Game? No, but I'd require my PC's to have some creative reasons for their unique position & arrival to the campaign as a regular face.
Yorath_theWolf 12-05-06, 12:53 PM	ummm Gyrofthewastes where are you getting that the bard will only have 4 3rd lvl spell slots a day at lvl 20? I mean by my calculation, a Bard that starts off with say... ooh 16 Cha. well by lvl 20 said bard would have likely added his extra attribute points to Cha to make said Cha. a 20, now add in the likelyhood of getting a a +5 manual to improve Cha for a 25 Cha, and finally a Cloak of Charisma for a +6 and you have a 31 cha for 6 spells per day... 7 if I coulda found a way to push Cha to 32. next up well if said bard makes a lot of uses of 3rd lvl spells then getting a ring of wizardry iii seems like the smart thing to do, so s/he now has 12 spells per day in that slot to fall back on. so really a Bard should have sufficient spells per day, unless it REALLY hits the fan, to fall back on for each encounter, and this isn't even tossing in the uses of Bardic Music said bard has a day.
Norhg 12-05-06, 01:05 PM	You cant touch the bard anymore without broking it.Oh, I don't know. I think the Bard could suffer through getting a d8 for Hit Dice Though that would make the rest of the game look funny with only the Rogue at a d6. That's why I would lower the Druid to a d6 :rolleyes:
Gyrofthewastes 12-05-06, 01:08 PM	I intended "meatshield" as a role in the party that the fighter-type normally takes. We all know what that role involves. Except, apparently, that you DON'T know what the role involves. Take careful note of the following meatshield; Tank; Implication: Defense. One who stands in front of the rest of the party and takes the blows so that the rest of the party is not in (as much) danger. As opposed to Beater: One who hits stuff really hard. Implication: Offense. The terms are NOT interchangable. And not every front-liner serves both purposes. Every SINGLE other person here has been speaking about the former. Base attack bonus, and other general melee abilities are irrelevant in light of that (except in how, if at all, they may be used for defense). Your suggestion was that they would, I was responding to that. Hello? Read BEFORE you speak (write). I mean it. Go back and READ the arguments. The point I made remains valid. I did mention 9th level to cast 2 3rd level spells per day, that remains true. The 20th level example was to point out that a Bard spellcasting chart maxes at 4 spells/day/level. I wasn't being vague, please consider intent before responding. You stated that at 4 slots per spell level and six spell levels the bard would run out of third level slots after two combats. Which even in unexaggerated form as intended is wildly, glaringly innaccurate. Yes the bard has few spell slots. But more than enough to put a defensive buff down every combat with plenty of utility to spare. Two of three listed options at 9th level makes a significant difference? Sorry, but no. Mirror image at 4th level is more than adequate. To be perfectly honest the spells listed were paltry examples of bardic defensive advantages...haste, Ironskin Chant...not counting scrolls etc. More powerful versions of the lower-level spells. The Tumble skill (affects fighting defensively).
Gyrofthewastes 12-05-06, 01:18 PM	ummm Gyrofthewastes where are you getting that the bard will only have 4 3rd lvl spell slots a day at lvl 20? <snip> You are correct, of course. If I said that it was in repeating (probably pre-editing on my part) Treantmonk's statements for the sake of counterargument.
CaoSlayer 12-05-06, 01:46 PM	Oh, I don't know. I think the Bard could suffer through getting a d8 for Hit Dice Though that would make the rest of the game look funny with only the Rogue at a d6. That's why I would lower the Druid to a d6 :rolleyes: Yes... raising the hit point to a d8 it is right since it is equivalent to just one feat (improved toughness) so isnt that bad althrough the ranger will look him funny since they both will have the same armor/hp. umm, rogue must stay d6 because sneak attack, the only two balancing factors of sneak attack is that the rogue cant stand too much in frontlines and the bab makes him a little dificult to hit the enemy.
Nephlite 12-05-06, 01:54 PM	Yes... raising the hit point to a d8 it is right since it is equivalent to just one feat (improved toughness) so isnt that bad althrough the ranger will look him funny since they both will have the same armor/hp. umm, rogue must stay d6 because sneak attack, the only two balancing factors of sneak attack is that the rogue cant stand too much in frontlines and the bab makes him a little dificult to hit the enemy. I say give Bard ability to cast in meduim armor or meduim armor proficiency like in 3.0 (or both) and in a error or two in the PHB (under meduim armor proficiency it gave it to him). d8 would be sweet though. I perfer the Thoughtsinger, psionics so no arcane spell failure.
Bringer of autumn 12-05-06, 02:04 PM	Dear Bringer of Autumn, I prefer the basics classes & races because it reminds me of a simpler & more carefree time before the Game had more books, appendixes & notes than I could keep up with. More specifically, I think that a group's reasons for teaming up in campaign should be more logical than is often explainable with the varying classes & races that are so common, even prefered in the Game right now. While I do think all of the new classes & races provide many interesting facets to a given adventure, I still can't come to terms as to why a chaotic barbarian half-orc would ever have the predictable nature or dependability necessary to consistently go questing with the same group time & time again; it just doesn't make sense. However, I think the class & race would make a great NPC for an adventure where it "fit." The same goes for druids, monks and, well....bards just seem sorta in the way. I think they monopolize a VERY important role in the Game, but still don't understand why they would want to be with the same group for a prolonged period of time, as their class seems individualist by nature; not to mention the common thread the Post brings up of their overall lack of real utility as a PC. Is there something fundamentally wrong with playing a bard or any of the above characters in the Game? No, but I'd require my PC's to have some creative reasons for their unique position & arrival to the campaign as a regular face. I see the poiint you are making, and to some extent I agree. It doesn't make sense for a Paladin to team up with an evil Necromancer, but hey, that speople's choices and hell, it would be interesting haha. But what is your reasoning for banning gnomes? They have been in fantasy for a while.
elondir 12-05-06, 03:02 PM	I think that magic missile, true strike, water breathing, fireball, lightning bolt, chain lightning, stone to flesh, control water, move earth, stone shape, phantasmal killer, stoneskin, polymorph, neutralize poison, cone of cold, and teleport should be added to the bard spell list. I don't really like the bard spell list (not enough blasting or save or dies), and I don't like only getting three attacks and a limited number of 6th level spells. So bards suck if you just want a fighter/wizard/rogue that focuses on blasting and save-or-dies, huge diplomacy checks, and good melee. For example, I like a multiclass wizard/rogue/fighter. You get more attacks, evasion, sneak attack +1, and get 8th level wizard spells, with no limit on spells known. At epic levels get that 9th spell level, 5 levels of artificer to augment your crafting, then max out archivist and erudite, picking up as many powers as possible. 50th level character: fighter 1/rogue 2/wizard 7/spellsword 1/eldritch knight 10/artificer 5/archivist 7/erudite 7/psychic theurge 10: 1st: fighter (weapon proficiencies for eldritch knight) 2-3: rogue (raises skill caps [esp. UMD and diplomacy], trapfinding, sneak attack, and evasion) 4-9: wizard (base spellcasting) 10: spellsword (armored mage) 11-20: eldritch knight (the bulk of the gish, caster level 16, BAB +16 at 20th level) 21: wizard (finally get 9th level spells and epic spellcasting) 22-26: artificer ("divine" item creation, craft reserve, artificer knowledge, craft humunculus, retain essence) 27-29 archivist (adds every divine spell to your spell list) 30-32: erudite (adds every psionic power to your power list) 33-42: psychic theurge 43-50: alternate archivist and erudite 51+: reassessment for further min/maxing Pros: more (and more powerful) spells from the wizard list, four-attack full attack, trapfinding, evasion, sneak attack, artificer item creation, epic spellcasting, can eventually learn every spell and power in the game, proficient in all martial weapons and armor, most skills are capped at class +3 ranks instead of half that. Cons: no bardic knowledge (replaced by artificer knowledge at 22nd), needs high intelligence for spells, and high charisma to match bard diplomacy, no cure spells on spell list until 27th level (just buy some wands until then), needs a feat for whip proficiency, spell levels are delayed four character levels (no fireballs until 9th level), a little hard to keep alive from 4th-9th level as the focus on wizard knocks out your melee. Practiced caster is a must. Even then caster level will be much lower than a straight caster. I've tried matching this with fochlucan lyrist instead of eldritch knight, but you give up a point of BAB for increasing wizard instead of bard, and another for increasing archivist instead of druid. I have not yet found a build that allows four attacks, and builds both wizard and archivist spellcasting using FL.
StevenJones 12-05-06, 03:03 PM	Bringer of Autumn: I saw the movie "Cats Eye" when I was a kid around the same year I started playing DnD and since have been unable to disassociate Gnomes from the little monster the movie revolves around. It still creeps me out talking about it. So, that's why I dislike the idea of playing the race in the Game. Is it stupid? Yeah, but the mind is a powerful thing and now I believe that all gnomes are evil creatures with sharp teeth hunting for trinkets & treasures guarded by house cats...sigh...Hollywood has ruined a broader horizon for me and perhaps thousands of others.
Norhg 12-05-06, 03:14 PM	Wow Elondir, that must be the suckiest result I have ever seen anyone come up with at level 50 :p No, I mean seriously. That build would be destroyed by just about anything Where are his spell levels at, getting every stat to everything? Geez. Bard with Min/maxed Song would blast it to kingdom come, too ;)
Norhg 12-05-06, 03:28 PM	Wow Elondir, that must be the suckiest result I have ever seen anyone come up with at level 50 :p No, I mean seriously. That build would be destroyed by just about anything Where are his spell levels at, getting every stat to everything? Geez. Bard with Min/maxed Song would blast it to kingdom come, too ;)
elondir 12-05-06, 03:32 PM	Well, I figure the build does better at jack of all trades than a bard does. All spellcasting is intellegence based (wizard, archivist and erudite are all INT-based). You can cast any spell in the game, have epic spells and psionics, you have more attacks than a bard, throw on a belt of magnificece +6, a thought bottle for infinite crafting, and then if you really want to, set up a synchronicity/affinity field infinite loop for battle, and while you're at it, make a pure platinum demiplane mined by constructs or undead (value: 18 trillion gp) thanks to the wizard version of genesis, and you could probably make a DC 150 diplomacy or spellcraft check depending on how many types of skill bonuses your DM allows on items, thus equaling or bettering the bard on all fronts. And don't forget those +5 inherent bonuses from a bunch of wish scrolls! And this build at 20th level is better than the bard at level 20. Better spells, better combat, and those two levels of rogue let you max out UMD and diplomacy, effectively countering the bard's greatest assets.
rudie 12-05-06, 03:34 PM	They have one specialization: mind control. They are excelent enchanters and social characters being able to dominate literaly any being with a mind including party members. thats why I like bards + mind bender PRC, its just cool to me. I love bards, I dont know why, they are useless at low levels I'll admit, but they are fun and can help out a lot if used right
Yorath_theWolf 12-05-06, 03:39 PM	You are correct, of course. If I said that it was in repeating (probably pre-editing on my part) Treantmonk's statements for the sake of counterargument. k. just curious cause ya seemed so passionate about yer point but were makeing such a... ummm silly? mistake over such a point. hence my wondering over it and calculations and I gotta admit that I'll have to check at least the SpC to go over the expanded Bard spell list to find out why lvl 3 was such a big deal... well that or reread the previous page where this cropped up to see why lvl 3 would be the sticking point.
Norhg 12-05-06, 04:01 PM	And this build at 20th level is better than the bard at level 20. Better spells, better combat, and those two levels of rogue let you max out UMD and diplomacy effectively countering the bard's greatest assets.UMD and Diplomacy as Class Skills the greatest features of the Bard Class? All right, now I know for certain we aren't playing the same game :rolleyes: Is countering the right word? All it has is close to equal capabilities~ Remember that the Characters with Classes tend to be on the same team, no countering involved but complimenting and aiding :D Though that epic build struck me as a way of reaching the capabilities of multiple lvl 20 characters... It wasn't a progress into what the epic arena offers At lvl 20 I know from experience that Bards holds up well enough even with insane Gishes in the party. At least, they don't suffer any more than other classes... Less, actually. I love bards, I dont know why, they are useless at low levels I'll admit, but they are fun and can help out a lot if used rightLike lawl, what are Wizards, Sorcerers and Rogues then?
The_Shaman 12-05-06, 04:08 PM	I say give Bard ability to cast in meduim armor or meduim armor proficiency like in 3.0 (or both) and in a error or two in the PHB (under meduim armor proficiency it gave it to him). d8 would be sweet though. I perfer the Thoughtsinger, psionics so no arcane spell failure. The bard can cast in medium armor - with an extra feat. That point is pretty much covered... and I agree about the medium armor proficiency. However, d8 may be a bit much. It felt weird enough for the ranger to have the HD of a cleric... but now a bard? Geez.
Khan the Destroyer 12-05-06, 04:12 PM	We both play this game, and you know as well as I do the reasons the Bard falls short of a fighter as a meat shield - HP, AC, BAB...etc. I am not suggesting for the bard to take up the mantle of meatshield. This is not a party of bards we're discussing here, but rather the roles that a bard can take up in the party. My point is that a bard's role is that of support, for everyone else. HP: I agree. His d6 is piddly, and a feat investment in Improved Toughness is not worth it. I don't think the action needed (or the Spell Known for that matter) for Bear's Endurance is either. However, due note that the rogue is expected to flank/sneak attack from time to time (if not always) and the rogue has a d6 for Hit Points. So, I don't think HP alone is enough to keep the bard from *helping* on the frontline. (I don't believe a bard can stand up to the punishment that a fighter is expected to take. But with Displacement or Mirror Image, he may not have to. I am not advocating a bard replacing a primary warrior, but that a bard can land hits on enemies in melee combat alongside a primary warrior.) AC: Maybe. Alter Self: Troglodyte grants a +6 Natural Armor bonus. The Battlecaster feat allows you to cast spells while wearing Medium Armor. Your dexterity could be your 2nd best stat. As has been mentioned, spells like Displacement, Haste, and Mirror Image augment your chances of being hit as well. And while they take time to cast, not every encounter will be against a crack team of ninjas pouncing from the shadows. A bard's AC may be comparable to that of a barbarian (without raging). (Though the bard doesn't have the d12 HD.) BAB: Strictly speaking, the bard will always be behind any warrior class in BAB. But when referring to your total attack modifier, hardly. Inspire Courage + Song of the Heart sustains an effective BAB equal to the fighter until level 13, where it falls behind by 1 point. At level 14, the comparison resumes until level 17, where it falls behind again until level 20. But for all of those other levels, the fighter has no advantage in BAB. And not only is your base to-hit equal to his, you are also buffing him up beyond his normal effectiveness, as well as the rest of the party. Further, when you throw Words of Creation in the mix, or Arcane Stirke, or Snowflake Wardance, it gets even better. No, the bard should have no trouble hitting anything. My point is that he doesn't have the rogue skills. He doesn't. Bards buy perform, concentration, spellcraft. They just don't have the skill points left to buy the rogue skills, even if they ignore all knowledges and diplomacy. A rogue has to buy ranks in Disable Device and Search to perform his role of trapfinder. So effectively, the rogue has 6 skill points/level. The bard has to buy ranks in Perform only (that's right, though a spellcaster, the bard doesn't need Concentration or Spellcraft). At worst, they are 1 skill point/level apart. But beyond that, a bard with the PHB2 Bardic Knack ability has ranks in every skill equal to half his level, giving him effective ranks way beyond what a rogue has. But a bard doesn't get any extra feats. If a bard has toughness, the fighter has toughness as well as a bunch of other combat related feats the Bard doesn't have. The Bard is still WAY behind, in many ways. Even the rogue is more likely to take combat related feats than the Bard, which will often by spellcasting related feats. What spellcasting feats would a bard need to take? The only one I can think of is Melodic Casting, just so he can keep up his song without sacrificing the ability to cast spells. A bard doesn't really need combat-related feats to contribute to combat. Again, Song of the Heart plus his Inspire Courage keep him on par with the fighter's to-hit for the better part of his pre-epic career. On top of that, he has a 15' reach with his Whip. He doesn't even need to be threatened in comabt most of the time to attack. Take a swing, deal some damage. All you are doing as a bard is lending a hand wherever you can. And the bard does it well. If you have enough wands, the Bard is a good spellcaster, of course, so is the rogue with UMD. Unfortunately, most characters don't have a quiver of ehlonna full of wands. You don't actually need a quiver of wands. You need *a* wand, or two. Or whatever. The point is that a bard can support the wizard with more spell-slinging if need be. Not every character will have wands, but as a wizard, one of your roles should be item-crafting. Every now and then, pop out a wand. While you sling your powerful spells, let the bard have a wand or two for those tight spots. The Bard can make a half decent healer, if he fills his spell known slots with healing, just not as good as a cleric or even a druid. Of course he's not as good :D. If he were as good as a cleric at healing, and as good as a fighter at fighting, and as good as a wizard at spellcasting, and as good as a rogue in skills, he'd be overpowered, bardtastic if you will. But the point is that he is one character, that can contribute to each role. On top of this, he increases the combat potential of everyone in the party. And honestly, having another person in the party that can heal is awesome. And a spells known slot isn't even needed. A wand will do just fine. Unlike a rogue, a bard doesn't need UMD to use it (this isn't a dig on the rogue, just an observation that skill points/checks aren't needed to heal someone this way). Again, toss a Wand of Cure at the bard, and he'll lend a hand. Bet the fighter wishes a the Bard was a rogue here, he would do a lot more damage, buffs or no. Probably a better chance to hit as well. Please show me the rogue with the better to-hit than a bard :). As far as damage is concerned, the rogue most likely would do more damage assuming a foe vulnerable to sneak attacks. Though when we consider that everyone is hitting more often thanks to Inspire Courage, and that each hit is dealing more damage, the comparison becomes less easy to make. So your Bard has Perform (I assume), Concentration (I assume), Spot, Listen, Hide, Move Silently, Diplomacy, Search, Bluff...does he have spellcraft and some knowledges too. No Concentration, a feat can replace that with Perform. But minus Search, those 6 you listed seem like good choices if that's the character you are going for. Leave the Knowledge skills to the wizard, who has a very small skill list, and the extra points from intelligence to burn. Bard's should be able to do all these things, but 6 sp/level isn't enough. Six is more than the other classes, and on par with a rogue that devotes ranks to Disable Device and Search. Whether it's enough or not is debatable, but it stands up to the rogue nicely. And again, toss out Bardic Knowledge and grab Bardic Knack, and now you have ranks in every skill. I'm not claiming that bards are super powerful here, but they are far from sucking.
Norhg 12-05-06, 04:23 PM	I near never get Hide or Move Silently these days since I have found that Sculpt Sound and the Invisibility line of Spells do a much better job than those two skills. Rather, I get every Social Skill there is... But whatever floats your boat floats your boat and I'm not going to sink it :cool:
Khan the Destroyer 12-05-06, 04:36 PM	I near never get Hide or Move Silently these days since I have found that Sculpt Sound and the Invisibility line of Spells do a much better job than those two skills. Very true. My point was that when you consider Disable Device and Search for the Rogue, and Perform for the Bard... the two classes are not very far apart at all skills-wise.
Treantmonklvl20 12-05-06, 04:40 PM	Except, apparently, that you DON'T know what the role involves. When you pointed this out I clarified and apologized for the confusion, you respond with more attacks? I am thinking that you are taking this personally. I apologize for upsetting you, I was only looking for debate, not a fight. Consider our debate over. You win.
Treantmonklvl20 12-05-06, 04:47 PM	The trouble is that if you power up the bard in anything else, you will meet the born of the BARDzilla. I agree with you partially. Any powerup given to the Bard would have to be carefully examined to not trump other classes. I like Bards, but not THAT much ;) Your point on spellcasting is dead on. I don't think giving the Bard a spell chart comparable to sorcerers or wizards is the answer. I don't agree that a couple extra skill points puts the rogue in any danger. Bards have a lot of non-roguish ("roguish" is a word I think?) skills to take. Perform, Casting skills (Concentration, spellcraft), Social skills, knowledge skills etc. Even with a couple extra skill points the Bard won't be picking up the whole rogue persona (but maybe 2 or 3 skills), however, giving enough to "dip into the pool" wouldn't defeat the purpose of the rogue (IMO of course), and either allow the party an extra Spot/Listen check, or the rogue a buddy when sneaking ahead.
Treantmonklvl20 12-05-06, 04:50 PM	ummm Gyrofthewastes where are you getting that the bard will only have 4 3rd lvl spell slots a day at lvl 20? Yes it was me who wrote that. Your point is valid, I should have included the Cha modifier. Consider me corrected.
Galeigh 12-05-06, 04:53 PM	When it comes down to it, the Bard's true power lies in cunning and trickery. A bard will easily survive the battlefield if he uses his spells and music correctly, especially with suggestion/charm person. The Bard is a mental monster. True, when all else fails make the enemies hurt each other ^_^
MerlintheTuna 12-05-06, 05:22 PM	When it comes down to it, the Bard's true power lies in cunning and trickery. A bard will easily survive the battlefield if he uses his spells and music correctly, especially with suggestion/charm person. The Bard is a mental monster. Amen. The bard's biggest "problem," if it can be called as much, is that it's more of a "some assembly required" class than many of the other core classes. A Sorcerer? His job is obvious. Even if you stick with blasting (which of course isn't the best route for a mage), you sling rays and blasts from here to next Tuesday and you'll be okay. A Barbarian? Rage and Power Attack for 1d12+73781 damage. Done and done. Rogue? Find a way to get Sneak Attack, and milk it for all it's worth. The Bard, on the other hand, requires a bit more erudite play style. You need to think ahead. You need to think around. If you're not clever, you're going to struggle with playing a Bard unless you can manage some pretty slick numerical combinations. In that respect, it's a lot like playing an Illusionist -- the fact that you can't run around exploding worlds doesn't keep you from being tremendously powerful if you know what you're doing. Still, when all else fails, remember one thing: in D&D, magic always wins. No matter what you're trying to do, rest assured that there's a spell that does it better. That Rogue might feel pretty clever with his 13 ranks in Hide until you cast Invisibility. The high AC Fighter still looks sloppy when you pull out Mirror Image. But you do need to know what you're trying to do with the character. You can't say "Jack of All Trades, so I'll just pick feats at random! Right now I'll be a Fighter, and next round I'll be a Wizard!" If you want that, play a Chameleon. Really you should think along the lines of "Alright, how about a queen in a few trades and a ten in the others?" If you look at polls regarding class power, the Bard typically ends up around the middle. This isn't because the class gets 7/10 rankings across the board. It's because half the people voting say "small HD, mediocre spells, medium BAB. 3/10, bards suck." and the other half say "Sweet gravy, have you read the description for Suggestion? 9/10!" You've got to be flexible to make it work -- and your DM does, too. If he gets sick of your mind control and dickery, you may be put in a bind. But if you put it all together, you end up with an extremely capable character, which is more than can be said for a lot of existing classes. And on the subject of the Beguiler... Yes. The Beguiler is a very good class, and one of these days I'll have a lot of fun with it. Is it strictly better than the Bard? I'd tend to disagree. But because its role is extremely obvious because of the setup of the class, people tend to approach it with the right mindset, which often isn't the case for Bards.
Treantmonklvl20 12-05-06, 05:28 PM	I am not suggesting for the bard to take up the mantle of meatshield. This is not a party of bards we're discussing here, but rather the roles that a bard can take up in the party. My point is that a bard's role is that of support, for everyone else. We agree. The Bard can certainly support the front line fighters, just as a rogue can. I was responding to the suggestion that they could fill in for a front line fighter, I believe they can't. Support a front line fighter? Absolutely. A rogue has to buy ranks in Disable Device and Search to perform his role of trapfinder. So effectively, the rogue has 6 skill points/level. The bard has to buy ranks in Perform only (that's right, though a spellcaster, the bard doesn't need Concentration or Spellcraft). At worst, they are 1 skill point/level apart. But beyond that, a bard with the PHB2 Bardic Knack ability has ranks in every skill equal to half his level, giving him effective ranks way beyond what a rogue has. You won't catch me suggesting the rogue isn't skill needy too! Frankly, both classes wouldn't hurt from a couple extra skill points...It's been suggested to me on this thread (sometimes angrily) that a Bard will have concentration, which is why I included it. Spellcraft seems like a natural skill for a Bard to take to me, maybe not to you, but thats why I included it anyways. What spellcasting feats would a bard need to take? The only one I can think of is Melodic Casting, just so he can keep up his song without sacrificing the ability to cast spells. They don't NEED to take any, but the sudden metamagic feats are nice for spellcasters. However, having no bonus feats, the Bard ends up concentrating feats on one area to complete a feat tree, and you end up feeling feat-hungry. This isn't the Bards cross alone to bear however. Lots of classes are feat hungry. A bard doesn't really need combat-related feats to contribute to combat. Again, Song of the Heart plus his Inspire Courage keep him on par with the fighter's to-hit for the better part of his pre-epic career. On top of that, he has a 15' reach with his Whip. He doesn't even need to be threatened in comabt most of the time to attack. Take a swing, deal some damage. All you are doing as a bard is lending a hand wherever you can. And the bard does it well. I agree he contributes, I'm not sure I agree he does it well, though I would say he is OK. If you mean as well as a flanking rogue, I would definitely dispute that (that adds up to a lot of extra damage). Before you bring up Constructs and Undead, yes, in those cases he would contribute as least as much as a rogue (and more), but the rogue isn't contributing much in those fights. You don't actually need a quiver of wands. You need *a* wand, or two. Or whatever. The point is that a bard can support the wizard with more spell-slinging if need be. Fair enough. I was responding to "The Bard just uses spell X with this wand and spell Y with this wand" However, it is hard to disagree the Bard could contribute with ANY wand. Not every character will have wands, but as a wizard, one of your roles should be item-crafting. Every now and then, pop out a wand. While you sling your powerful spells, let the bard have a wand or two for those tight spots. I currently am playing a warlock who will be getting some Item creation feats starting at 12th level, however, this will be the first time I've ever taken an item creation feat for a spellcaster. In our group the only other case of anyone taking item creation feats was a Runecaster in a FR campaign. Not saying it never happens, but it is far from a sure thing. It's just hard to give up that XP!!! Please show me the rogue with the better to-hit than a bard :). Sure. Halfling Rogue Lvl 1 Standard point buy Str 9, Int 14, Wis 8, Dex 18, Con 14, Cha 8 Skills: Spot, Listen, Hide, Move Silently, Search, Disable Device, Open Lock, Tumble Feats: Weapon finesse: Short sword +4 dex, +1 size= +5 to hit. I could have made the dex a 20 of course, but in all honesty, I would probably want the good Int and Con instead. Give him some leather armor and he has an AC of 17 (+2 armor, +1 size, +4 dex) Depending on your Bard build, it is fairly likely the Rogue will also have more HP. That's the joy of 3 dump stats. (The Bard gets 1, maybe 2 if they dump str, but then they also need weapon finesse, and can't take advantage of it to the same extent since their dex is likely lower) The tumble skill can also be used to get to that flanking position easier - that will be another +2 to hit. No Concentration, a feat can replace that with Perform. But minus Search, those 6 you listed seem like good choices if that's the character you are going for. Leave the Knowledge skills to the wizard, who has a very small skill list, and the extra points from intelligence to burn. Mechanically you may be right, but the FLAVOR of the Bard has always suggested to me a bit of a sage. (IMO) BK is at least a partial replacement for this...personally, I house rule that BK can be used in place of knowledges...this powerup hasn't been broken for us. Whether it's enough or not is debatable, but it stands up to the rogue nicely. That's all I'm getting at, the Rogue could use a couple more skills too. But if the Bard is going to be a Jack of all trades, a couple extra skill points isn't going to break anything, nor invalidate the rogue. And again, toss out Bardic Knowledge and grab Bardic Knack, and now you have ranks in every skill. I do like the flavor of Bardic Knack...a lot, the mechanics could use a beef up though (maybe skill ranking equal to your level -2 as a minimum or something) Just because I find the difficulties for skill checks (at least in the publised adventures) tends to be the level of the party +10. This means in mid-high level adventures, the Bard will have no chance. I'm not claiming that bards are super powerful here, but they are far from sucking. I must admit that "Suck" is a poor description, it was an emotional description, and not completely accurate. I don't think the Bard is useless, but I still think a moderate powerup would be appropriate. Not suggesting giving them 9th level spells. My house rule for Bards allows them to use BK as a replacement for any Knowledge skill...this hasn't broken anything, and we've been using that since 3.0.
Norhg 12-05-06, 05:36 PM	I must admit that "Suck" is a poor description. I don't think the Bard is useless, but I still think a moderate powerup would be appropriate. Not suggesting giving them 9th level spells. My house rule for Bards allows them to use BK as a replacement for any Knowledge skill...this hasn't broken anything, and we've been using that since 3.0. That must mean that the role you think Bards hurt in is out of combat? Strangely refreshing to hear and yet again far opposed to my own view I consider Bards to be overall balanced A bit unfun without all the books I have got, perhaps
Treantmonklvl20 12-05-06, 05:40 PM	That must mean that the role you think Bards hurt in is out of combat? Strangely refreshing to hear and yet again far opposed to my own view I consider Bards to be overall balanced A bit unfun without all the books I have got, perhaps As mentioned, I like a "sage like" flavor to the Bards. Not necessarly everyone's view I understand, but it gives them something to excel at. A powerup that turns the Bard into a wizard like spellcaster or improved tanking just doesn't seem to fit to me. This of course is just my take on what the Bard should be, not suggesting it is right for everyone.
CaoSlayer 12-05-06, 05:40 PM	ummm, personally between a combo of rogue and fighter and a combo of rogue and bard, the rogue and bard one is so superior that isnt funny. I mean that bards have many ways to improve the rogue power, just by level 2 you can cast grease and any creature without 5 ranks on balance (seriously almost none have) will lose his bonus to dex so the rogue can full attack with sneak attack, later with haste the rogue will be able to sneak attack one more time each round, with DD you can teleport the rogue up to the enemy wizard face and finally with heroic for 10min/level the rogue will get a +2 to all skill checks, ideal for scouting and searching traps so since while you are scouting you are using move silently, hide, search, spot and listen you are getting a global +10 to skills and for disabling traps and opening doors with inspire competence the rogue gets yet another +2 and if still the rogue fails, he gets a +2 to his save to survive. Also the combination it is nice because allows both classes to ignore certain skills since both are getting at least 14 skill points a level.
Gyrofthewastes 12-05-06, 06:55 PM	If you look at polls regarding class power, the Bard typically ends up around the middle. This isn't because the class gets 7/10 rankings across the board. It's because half the people voting say "small HD, mediocre spells, medium BAB. 3/10, bards suck." and the other half say "Sweet gravy, have you read the description for Suggestion? 9/10!" You've got to be flexible to make it work -- and your DM does, too. If he gets sick of your mind control and dickery, you may be put in a bind. But if you put it all together, you end up with an extremely capable character, which is more than can be said for a lot of existing classes. Well stated.
MrKlaster 12-05-06, 07:09 PM	Please drop the insulting tone, we are discussing opinions here, even if we disagree. I am interested in debate, not fighting. Please listen to these words of wisdom and downshift your tone. We are calmy debating not aggressively fighting. Mental abilities can go a long way but they can't make up for everything. I find the Bard buffs from music really aren't that good cause you can only do 1 at a time. The mental abilities can easily be overcome by a ready-for-you-dm or a couple hidden enemies. Their life also isn't that good so they can be taken down in the surprise round by smart enemies.
Gyrofthewastes 12-05-06, 07:32 PM	Their life also isn't that good so they can be taken down in the surprise round by smart enemies. Yes, that's a weakness. Realistically, however, the Ranger and Bard will differ in terms of hit points by less than 20%. Or IOW, d6 hit die is not the end-all be all. Mental abilities can go a long way but they can't make up for everything. I find the Bard buffs from music really aren't that good cause you can only do 1 at a time. The mental abilities can easily be overcome by a ready-for-you-dm or a couple hidden enemies. Inspire courage lasts for five rounds after the music stops. That's more time than your average combat if the bard wishes to do something else. Of course, on the other hand a single use of inspire courage may be kept up all day...or at least until the character gets tired of being otherwise unable to speak or the DM decides enough is enough. Yes, a good many foes will be immune (through creature type or merely circumstance) to mind-affecting abilities. In practice, a well built bard will be extremely sparing in taking spells that allow direct saves. If nothing else the save DCs will be low because of the low number of spell levels. That's when the diverse buffs and utility spells come into play.
Tisner44 12-05-06, 07:50 PM	Mental abilities can go a long way but they can't make up for everything. I find the Bard buffs from music really aren't that good cause you can only do 1 at a time. The mental abilities can easily be overcome by a ready-for-you-dm or a couple hidden enemies. The bard can also take the feat that extends the time of the music benefits to one minute after you stop. This allows the bard to use several different uses for the different types of buffs. Can't remember the name of the feat right now:confused:
MrKlaster 12-05-06, 08:08 PM	Ok you proved me wrong there but try this, a bard is the last one standing in a high level party (lvls 15-20). He is practically helpless once hes used his 3 or 4 attack spells. he can barely heal any life. And other class abilities have overshadowed his to the point that hes completely helpless on his own in a campaign. What personnal fighting capacilities does he have to overcome enemies. The first response is going to be fascinate and then suggestion(i know that). But what about mind affect immunity creatures.
Norhg 12-05-06, 08:24 PM	Ok you proved me wrong there but try this, a bard is the last one standing in a high level party (lvls 15-20). He is practically helpless once hes used his 3 or 4 attack spells. he can barely heal any life. And other class abilities have overshadowed his to the point that hes completely helpless on his own in a campaign. What personnal fighting capacilities does he have to overcome enemies. Depending on build? The Last Bard I played would have Wailed at the enemy with His Dual-Wielded Adamantine Whip Daggers +5 with Arcane Strike, Snowflake Wardance, a boosted Inspire Courage up and the divine might he got during his progress. All in all, the result would have been an attack routine that goes 50/50/45/45/40/35 1d4+29+6d4+1d6 Now, he has a reserve Longsword for if he needs to power attack something... He would use it together with a pair of enchanted gauntlets that deal slashing damage then, so that he still can attack with two-weapons while retaining Power Attack (increased bonus with Logsword) and Snowflake Wardance Capability
MrKlaster 12-05-06, 08:42 PM	I'm at such a disadvantage here with only the 3 original books for v3.5(players handbook monster manual and DM's guide) I would see your point if I knew alittle about any of those things you just talked about.
Norhg 12-05-06, 08:52 PM	With the original book, I would use some item or spell of sneak away or leave quickly By the Core Books only the bard has to preapre lots of spells and situational items to match the fighting capabilties of other figures when by itself Would be dependant on gear mostly though with the right stuff the Bard could certainly pull it off Though to be fair, in that situation no class would have an easy time. "Fighter, you are all by yourself and there's a titan there. What do you do? Slash it? You die, none was there to heal you." "Wizard, the Pit Fiend is closing in quickly and you are out of attack spells... Right, you flee. Excellent. It comes after you, what ya do? Flee more? Right, you are going to run out of spells soon..." If the Wizard can flee, so can the Bard. If the Wizard has enough resources left and has enough preparation to deal with the foe, so could/should the Bard be able to.
MrKlaster 12-05-06, 09:06 PM	If the wizard could do something it in no sense means the bard could too. Wizards get much more powerful spells and more per day. It doesn't happen that a wizard is out of spells nearly as often as a bard is out of spells. And even then the spells are only okay
Norhg 12-05-06, 09:35 PM	I mostly think that you should reread the thread, there has been redundancy enough already... It is stubborn truism that a depleted character can't do something/anything with the resources it lacks. It is false that the smart Bard would be overshadowed unless the DM put effort towards making it so. The main fighting method of the Core Bard lies in Augmenting and complementng its allies, that's certainly what it does best. The second, more resource demanding solution, is to fully wade into a fight buffs and items a flying which will only work if the Bard has the resources avaiable and if he gets time to prepare. If not? Well, then it was a darn shame that the rest of the party died. The Bard might just follow if its considerable capabilities in the "flee as fast as you can"-department fails. Should the second fighting method fail, it would have failed just as certainly for any other class. UMD makes certain of that
Nephlite 12-05-06, 10:23 PM	Treantmonklvl20: you posted a illegal build. You have to have +1 bab to get weapon finesse. Rogues like Bards tart with +0 bab.
Vaelan 12-05-06, 10:32 PM	Halfling Rogue Lvl 1 Standard point buy Str 9, Int 14, Wis 8, Dex 18, Con 14, Cha 8 Skills: Spot, Listen, Hide, Move Silently, Search, Disable Device, Open Lock, Tumble Feats: Weapon finesse: Short sword Weapon Finesse requires +1 BAB, which a level 1 Rogue does not have. It also doesn't need to specify a particular weapon you can use it with. Lastly, you left the skills from having 14 Intelligence off of the list. Regardless of your mistakes, small-sized Bards exist too. They could have the same bonus to hit that you described and they would be able to Inspire Courage for an additional +1. Ok you proved me wrong there but try this, a bard is the last one standing in a high level party (lvls 15-20). He is practically helpless once hes used his 3 or 4 attack spells. he can barely heal any life. And other class abilities have overshadowed his to the point that hes completely helpless on his own in a campaign. What personnal fighting capacilities does he have to overcome enemies. He whips out his scroll of Shapechange and uses his knowledge of various creatures to pick a form that is largely immune to his opponent(s). This is exactly the kind of situation Use Magic Device is good for. Further, Bards have access to Prestige Classes that give them significant personal capabilities. Since any Bard that doesn't take one of these is devoting himself to supplementing his party, he failed to properly prepare for the encounter. It is hardly a scenario unique to Bards. Regardless, this scenario isn't terribly difficult to overcome. Here is how I would do it: delay your action until just after your opponent acts, thus giving your entire party consecutive actions before the enemy and then, assuming a party that is a Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Bard, you cast Revenance (Spell Compendium, resurrect for 1 min/level with half hitpoints and bonuses against that which killed it) on the Cleric, be it from one of your sixth-level spell slots or a scroll, and drag the Fighter to a convenient position. The Cleric casts Revenance on the Wizard and gets into position for the Wizard to teleport everyone out. Obviously this scenario becomes significantly easier if some party members are still alive. If the Cleric and Wizard are alive, you don't even need Revenance to escape with your entire party. If everyone is still alive, a Mass Cure followed by a bigger Mass Cure from the Cleric could put the party in fairly decent shape, assuming they're smart about their tactics. The mechanics are there to do anything you need. The fact that most people can't be bothered to play a class well, be it the Bard or the Fighter, isn't really an issue with the class.
Treantmonklvl20 12-05-06, 11:02 PM	Treantmonklvl20: you posted a illegal build. You have to have +1 bab to get weapon finesse. Rogues like Bards tart with +0 bab. You are of course correct...my bad. Adjusted: Rogue level 3 As before and add Two weapon fighting. Also as next post pointed out, I missed two skills: Bluff and Sense motive.
Treantmonklvl20 12-05-06, 11:08 PM	Weapon Finesse requires +1 BAB, which a level 1 Rogue does not have. It also doesn't need to specify a particular weapon you can use it with. Lastly, you left the skills from having 14 Intelligence off of the list. Regardless of your mistakes, small-sized Bards exist too. They could have the same bonus to hit that you described and they would be able to Inspire Courage for an additional +1.. You are correct. Adjustments made in above post. Challenge was to make a Rogue that had a better to hit then a Bard. Level 3 or higher appears to be required. You are right that Bards can be small too. The iconic bard is a gnome, so it is likely common...just made the rogue a halfling because I like halfling rogues. Same comparison can be made with a Human Rogue and a human Bard if you prefer.
Millenia 12-05-06, 11:33 PM	yes they have: the bluff check (especially with 1 lvl of warlock (beguilers influence) ) at lvl 5 +4 cha + 3 skill focus +6 beguilers influence +8 ranks: +21 means that half the people with 10 wis beleave you when you say that you are the incarnation of their god (gotha love NWN2 :) ). Don't forget Glibness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glibness.htm), which gives +30. :D
Khan the Destroyer 12-05-06, 11:41 PM	The bard can also take the feat that extends the time of the music benefits to one minute after you stop. This allows the bard to use several different uses for the different types of buffs. Can't remember the name of the feat right now:confused: Lingering Song is the feat, in Complete Adventurer (I believe). For bards that want to load up on Bardic Music effects in combat, and for extended combats, it's useful. Ok you proved me wrong there but try this, a bard is the last one standing in a high level party (lvls 15-20). He is practically helpless once hes used his 3 or 4 attack spells. he can barely heal any life. And other class abilities have overshadowed his to the point that hes completely helpless on his own in a campaign. What personnal fighting capacilities does he have to overcome enemies. In an EL 15-20 encounter... a bard shouldn't be expected to handle the situation by himself, especially if everyone else is no longer contributing. And after 3-4 spells cast, a bard is not helpless. Stealth skills could help him get out of there, mobility or illusion spells could help him get out of there. Healing spells might bring another party member above 0 HP (enough perhaps for the wizard to teleport everyone to safety or for the cleric to mas heal), Fascinate/Suggestion might turn the tide of battle, and once again, Inspire Courage (and at this level, Heroics and Greatness) *might* give the bard a chance to confront the threat alone. But we shouldn't expect the bard to be able to do it alone. Rogue level 3 As before and add Two weapon fighting. So your rogue has a +7 bonus to attack. Halfling Bard level 3 1. ???? 2. 3. Weapon Finesse 2 BAB 1 size 3 weapon finesse (assuming 14 dexterity, +2 halfling) 1 Inspire Courage The bard has +7, just like the Rogue, but the bard also gets +1 to damage, and is buffing his party members as well. And as I pointed out earlier, with 1 feat (Song of the Heart) and Inspire Courage, the bard's to-hit bonus stays on par with the fighter's BAB, before adding Dex or Str. No so for the rogue. Beyond level 3, the bard will outpace the rogue in the to-hit department. Also, two-weapon fighting would reduce that +7 to +5 for the rogue.
Treantmonklvl20 12-06-06, 12:10 AM	Halfling Bard level 3 1. ???? 2. 3. Weapon Finesse 2 BAB 1 size 3 weapon finesse (assuming 14 dexterity, +2 halfling) 1 Inspire Courage The bard has +7, just like the Rogue, but the bard also gets +1 to damage, and is buffing his party members as well. And as I pointed out earlier, with 1 feat (Song of the Heart) and Inspire Courage, the bard's to-hit bonus stays on par with the fighter's BAB, before adding Dex or Str. No so for the rogue. Beyond level 3, the bard will outpace the rogue in the to-hit department. Also, two-weapon fighting would reduce that +7 to +5 for the rogue. I know two weapon fighting reduces the BAB, but can't resist it with a rogue...can you blame me? For purposes of the debate, assume he is not using his second weapon if you wish. Out of curiosity, how would you stat the Halfling Bard (besides dex)? You can't dump STR like the rogue did, (actually you can, but your damage will be poor - BM just doesn't match SA for damage), you still want a decent Con, Int, and a Cha of around 16 I would think... Inspire courage takes a standard action to activate. The Rogue would require no ready time. This gives either: 1) A full attack extra than the Bard gets that battle, or 2) The Bard doesn't use BM and has +6 to hit.
TheCobra 12-06-06, 12:54 AM	Lingering Song is the feat, in Complete Adventurer (I believe). For bards that want to load up on Bardic Music effects in combat, and for extended combats, it's useful. There's also Melodic Casting from Complete Mage, which let's 'em cast spells while singing.
Qube 12-06-06, 01:57 AM	The Bard can't even cast the 2 3rd level spells you've suggested at once until 9th level. Even then, he must have time to pre-buff before the combat or spend the first three rounds of combat casting. And even THEN he could only do that in one combat per day. In order to do the spells you've suggested in the standard 4 combats per day, the Bard would have to be...wait - he can NEVER do it, even at 20th level after 2 combats he is out of 3rd level spells already, since the Bard maxes out at 4 castings of each level per day. That's the problem with casting - there is never enough spells (unless you are a warlock of course) Not only does the Ranger have a better BAB and HP, he is also going to be WAY more effective offensively on the front line - even without casting spells or using Animal companion. I don't like the "Bard's just cast X spell" argument since the Bard has so few spells. If they had unlimited castings and knowledge of their full spell list, then you wouldn't have to convince me they didn't suck, you would have to convince me they weren't broken. That said, same challenge...what build of a Bard are you referring to here that can do better than a Ranger front line? You pick the level (try to keep below the HIGH HIGH levels - few campaigns occur at that level), stats (standard point buy), Spells known and feats only please. oke, the argument started that Bob, who plays a fighter did not show up. next session, John, who plays cleric, is sick. let your ranger take the role of healer please.
navar100 12-06-06, 03:20 AM	Bards are only ever very competent when he is an NPC bard played by the DM for a specific encounter because the encounter was created with the bard being there in mind. At that moment in time all bardic abilities used will seem quite powerful because the encounter was set up that way for the NPC bard to have a profound effect. Since that bard will only be seen that one time or only in specific future encounters, the bard class will seem to be really "kewl" and fun to play. The reality for the PC bard is the opposite. "Bards suck". The fighter outfights him. The rogue outskills him and outfights him. The wizard outspells him. The cleric outbuffs him and outfights him. The bard's job is to make everyone else do better. It's boring. The bard "shines" at social situations, but that's roleplaying spotlight time. Everyone gets roleplaying spotlight time, and it's not like paladins, clerics, and rogues can't max out Diplomacy if they want, and rogues get Bluff, Initimidate, and Gather Information for other social situations that warrant. Maybe there will be that one encounter that mimics the NPC bard encounter where the PC bard really, truly shines and the "awesomeness" that is the bard will show, but that is a rare occurrence. The ongoing, play by play, encounter after encounter, the bard sits back doing nothing but "singing" and casting the occasional spell while everyone else gets to do something directly useful.
Qube 12-06-06, 03:43 AM	The fighter outfights him. The rogue outskills him and outfights him. The wizard outspells him. The cleric outbuffs him and outfights him. The bard's job is to make everyone else do better. It's boring. boring? depends on how you play him. oh and, he outspells and outbuffs the rogue and fighter, outfights and outbuffs the wizard, and outtricks and outskills the cleric. as i said: any thing a class can do, a bard can do (not better, but at least he can). that is his strength. only people who do not see this, find him weak.
CaoSlayer 12-06-06, 05:16 AM	Funny thing is that at highest levels (15-20) a bard can pwn everything that lacks inmunity to mind effects or have mindblank on, Otto`s dance allows the bard to "stun" his foe for 1d4+1 rounds, if you add a metmagic maximize rod (note that you needs just the normal version in place of the greater one like a wizard should require) you can stun the enemy for 5 rounds leaving you time to attack, spell or buff for 5 whole rounds... and you can recast it before it wears off. Yes, there is lots of creatures of mind inmunity but there are way more without it. Also a solo bard it is an interesting character because he can build a party himself, with his high charisma can get a good cohort and some followers and with dominate person he can get another, if you take as your cohort a druid specialized on summoning you will find how a single character can build an army. Everything core.
Qube 12-06-06, 05:26 AM	Also a solo bard it is an interesting character because he can build a party himself, with his high charisma can get a good cohort and some followers and with dominate person he can get another, if you take as your cohort a druid specialized on summoning you will find how a single character can build an army. Or you could yust go on your own. if you don't require encounters only solvable by 1 class (like magic traps), you'll be able to get by yust fine.
Treantmonklvl20 12-06-06, 08:11 AM	Funny thing is that at highest levels (15-20) a bard can pwn everything that lacks inmunity to mind effects or have mindblank on, Otto`s dance allows the bard to "stun" his foe for 1d4+1 rounds, if you add a metmagic maximize rod (note that you needs just the normal version in place of the greater one like a wizard should require) you can stun the enemy for 5 rounds leaving you time to attack, spell or buff for 5 whole rounds... and you can recast it before it wears off. Yes, there is lots of creatures of mind inmunity but there are way more without it. Also a solo bard it is an interesting character because he can build a party himself, with his high charisma can get a good cohort and some followers and with dominate person he can get another, if you take as your cohort a druid specialized on summoning you will find how a single character can build an army. Everything core. About your Otto's irresistable dance point, you are of course thinking of a wizard not a bard, since Wizards get that spell at level 15 and Bard's get it at level 16 (and only castings allowed by high cha)? Of course I wouldn't take it as a wizard when I could take Mass Charm Monster instead... Do you not require the Leadership feat to get a cohort (which is not available until 6th level)? If so, wouldn't a Paladin survive better on his own until then, and still have the Cha to get a decent cohort? Though I do like the argument "If the Bard can only get a Druid...then wow!" You of course are right, druids are uber (and probably the best class to go solo). That said, I don't think that points Bards towards weakness, only Druids are too powerful. You better get a rogue too, because as I mentioned before, a Bard doesn't take the right skills to do what a rogue does (If Bardic Knack was houseruled to be a little better, it might work...of course, that would be a powerup for Bards, which is the sin everyone is posting against.). Maybe the Druid has a friend...
Treantmonklvl20 12-06-06, 08:13 AM	Or you could yust go on your own. if you don't require encounters only solvable by 1 class (like magic traps), you'll be able to get by yust fine. You better houserule the hp to d8 if you do that...Bard's HP are NOT good, and you can't talk your way out of every fight.
CaoSlayer 12-06-06, 08:23 AM	About your Otto's irresistable dance point, you are of course thinking of a wizard not a bard, since Wizards get that spell at level 15 and Bard's get it at level 16 (and only castings allowed by high cha)? Of course I wouldn't take it as a wizard when I could take Mass Charm Monster instead... Do you not require the Leadership feat to get a cohort (which is not available until 6th level)? If so, wouldn't a Paladin survive better on his own until then, and still have the Cha to get a decent cohort? Though I do like the argument "If the Bard can only get a Druid...then wow!" You of course are right, druids are uber (and probably the best class to go solo). That said, I don't think that points Bards towards weakness, only Druids are too powerful. You better get a rogue too, because as I mentioned before, a Bard doesn't take the right skills to do what a rogue does (If Bardic Knack was houseruled to be a little better, it might work...of course, that would be a powerup for Bards, which is the sin everyone is posting against.). Maybe the Druid has a friend... I said druid because the summoning and yes, all charisma classes makes good use of leadership while others like wizards, rogues and everyone else usually have charisma as his lowest stat. and you know? bards also can learn mass charm monster.
Treantmonklvl20 12-06-06, 08:34 AM	I said druid because the summoning and yes, all charisma classes makes good use of leadership while others like wizards, rogues and everyone else usually have charisma as his lowest stat. and you know? bards also can learn mass charm monster. I know why you said Druid, and I agree, Druids are the most powerful class in the game (partially due to summoning, AC etc.) Weird there aren't more "Druids are broken" threads... Yes, my statement about Mass Charm Monster sounds exclusionary ("as a wizard I would..."), bad choice of words, since wizards can not take that spell exclusionary (Bards and Sorcerers can too). I had just meant I prefer that spell. The original statement was a reaction to your quote: Funny thing is that at highest levels (15-20) a bard... When a Bard can't cast the spell you refer to at 15th level, but a wizard can. That said, it falls in the same category as Otto's irresistable dance, a spell that wizards get sooner, and can cast more often.
Norhg 12-06-06, 08:47 AM	You better houserule the hp to d8 if you do that...Bard's HP are NOT good, and you can't talk your way out of every fight.Depending on what material is allowed,your build and general attribute generation method, you could certainly fight your way out of the rest of the Encounters. Mostly depending on the amount of preparation you get and you gear, where one rounds should be adequate and more a nice bonus to seal the deal.
CaoSlayer 12-06-06, 09:05 AM	I know why you said Druid, and I agree, Druids are the most powerful class in the game (partially due to summoning, AC etc.) Weird there aren't more "Druids are broken" threads... Yes, my statement about Mass Charm Monster sounds exclusionary ("as a wizard I would..."), bad choice of words, since wizards can not take that spell exclusionary (Bards and Sorcerers can too). I had just meant I prefer that spell. The original statement was a reaction to your quote: When a Bard can't cast the spell you refer to at 15th level, but a wizard can. That said, it falls in the same category as Otto's irresistable dance, a spell that wizards get sooner, and can cast more often. you fails at reading minds :P 1º He can cast the spell by rolling a 1 using a scroll, this spell it is specially good for using as a scroll since the spell have a fixed duration and no save. 2º I was talking about the 15-20 range, yes. 3º You learn two level six spells at level 16, so isnt that exclusive, you can learn both althrough isnt very wise since both are mind affecting enchantments, but it is an option. 4º yes, wizards can cast it earlier but sorcerers only can cast it at the same time, of course wizards and sorcerers cast better spells more times per day, if the bard could cast as good as them the bard wold be broken. On the other hand a bard or sorcerer who knows both mass charm monster have the advantage to being able to decide the most useful spell in the situation while a wizard if select to memorize the wrong spell it is screwed. It is true that wizards of the coast overrate spontaneus casting but is still very powerful.
Qube 12-06-06, 09:14 AM	You better houserule the hp to d8 if you do that...Bard's HP are NOT good, and you can't talk your way out of every fight. thats where expedicous retreat comes in :) + come back with a crossbow or something
Qube 12-06-06, 09:32 AM	Otto's Irriesitable dance worth saying a couple of this about: - no save, wich is great for bard (seeing that save = 10 + mod + spell level, and spell level lower for a bard; so the bards DC would be lower) - easy metamagic: bards don't take metamage (+x spell levels is worse for bards then for wiz/sorc), but they are masters of metamagic rods: a normal metamagic rof can do duration x2, while as wiz/sorc you'll need a greater rod. - its way cooler when a bard casts it (RP-wise)
CaoSlayer 12-06-06, 10:19 AM	- its way cooler when a bard casts it (RP-wise) Also more safe, since bards have not as much troubles dealing a touch attack than a wizard, it is very dangerous to a wizard use a melee touch attack because if the spell fails, the wizard will be in mayor danger.
Norhg 12-06-06, 10:55 AM	Also more safe, since bards have not as much troubles dealing a touch attack than a wizard, it is very dangerous to a wizard use a melee touch attack because if the spell fails, the wizard will be in mayor danger. Depending on preparation and gear and build of course Hmm, how come we don't have a thread like this on the monk?
Treantmonklvl20 12-06-06, 03:53 PM	Also more safe, since bards have not as much troubles dealing a touch attack than a wizard, it is very dangerous to a wizard use a melee touch attack because if the spell fails, the wizard will be in mayor danger. My wizards usually use spectral hand for touch attacks (starting with one of my favorites, the no-save Vampiric touch - temporary hp are yummy). At that level, should be easy enough to memorize a quickened spectral hand. Probably the safest method. Of course the Bard has the better chance of hitting, although touch attacks are usually not that hard anyways.
Treantmonklvl20 12-06-06, 03:57 PM	thats where expedicous retreat comes in :) + come back with a crossbow or something Hopefully the enemy has no ranged attacks... Just a couple orcs behind a door would be little challenge for say, a 2nd level Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin (and of course CODzilla), but for a Bard of the same level, they are fighting for their life due to worse AC and much worse HP. The Bard isn't the worst melee fighter out there in solo combat, but they are definitely in the bottom half (especially at low levels).
Treantmonklvl20 12-06-06, 04:06 PM	you fails at reading minds :P 1º He can cast the spell by rolling a 1 using a scroll, this spell it is specially good for using as a scroll since the spell have a fixed duration and no save. 2º I was talking about the 15-20 range, yes. 3º You learn two level six spells at level 16, so isnt that exclusive, you can learn both althrough isnt very wise since both are mind affecting enchantments, but it is an option. 4º yes, wizards can cast it earlier but sorcerers only can cast it at the same time, of course wizards and sorcerers cast better spells more times per day, if the bard could cast as good as them the bard wold be broken. On the other hand a bard or sorcerer who knows both mass charm monster have the advantage to being able to decide the most useful spell in the situation while a wizard if select to memorize the wrong spell it is screwed. It is true that wizards of the coast overrate spontaneus casting but is still very powerful. 1 - Yes, a scroll would work...maybe the 15th level wizard will give up some xp and scribe one for him. ;) 3 - Yep, in my prior post I was conceding the point, as mentioned, I had a bad choice of words and implied something I didn't intend to. Mass charm monster is not exclusive to Wizards. Agreed. 4- I get it. In your group the Bard gets scrolls and the wizard doesn't. In that case, I concede the argument, if the Bard's get all the scrolls then they are in much better shape than I thought. (sorry - I know that's sarcastic - couldn't help it, not trying to offend...hopefully I didn't?) As for spontaneous casting, I agree on its power and usefulness. In 2nd ed I was wishing there was something like it. I do wish there were more spells allowed to be known though, as the small spells known hurts the ability severely. The designers likely do overrate its power.
Khan the Destroyer 12-06-06, 04:49 PM	I know two weapon fighting reduces the BAB, but can't resist it with a rogue...can you blame me? For purposes of the debate, assume he is not using his second weapon if you wish. I didn't take the TWF into account because I figured you didn't mean for it to be considered in a discussion about to-hit modifiers :). Out of curiosity, how would you stat the Halfling Bard (besides dex)? You can't dump STR like the rogue did, (actually you can, but your damage will be poor - BM just doesn't match SA for damage), you still want a decent Con, Int, and a Cha of around 16 I would think... I just figured we were using Elite Array, I though someone mentioned it earlier. I would prioritze as such: Charisma Dexterity Constitution or Intelligence Strength or Wisdom You are correct that the rogue would do more straight up damage with SA. But I wouldn't prioritize strength too much. The bard has a lot of roles to fill, and he can deal damage other ways (bardic music, buffing his friends, arcane strike). Inspire courage takes a standard action to activate. The Rogue would require no ready time. This gives either: 1) A full attack extra than the Bard gets that battle, or 2) The Bard doesn't use BM and has +6 to hit. The action is irrelevant. The point is that the bard hits more often. You have shown that at level 3, a rogue would hit just as often. But after level 6, I think the rogue falls behind the rest of the game. The reality for the PC bard is the opposite. "Bards suck". The fighter outfights him. What do you mean by the this? Outfight in what way? The rogue outskills him and outfights him. I beg to differ. With Bardic Knack, and the rogue shelling out points for Disable Device and Search, the bard keeps up if not outpaces the rogue in the skills department. The two things to consider is whether the rogue has a higher intelligence modifier, and that the rogue has a larger class skill list. As far out-fighting, you can only be referring to Sneak Attack. That is not outfighting. That is circumstantial bonus damage. Beyond that, the rogue has the same BAB and HD as the bard. But the rogue's AC might be lower when we take spells into account. And although the BAB are the same, the bard's music will outpace the rogue and the bard will hit more often and deal damage always, not just when flanking or against a flat-footed critable opponent. The wizard outspells him. No kidding. But you are aware that a bard can cast any spell that a wizard can through items right? And that spells is only a part of the bard's repetoire. The cleric outbuffs him and outfights him. Outbuffs him in what way? With Song of the Heart and Words of Creation, the bard is a pretty good buffer with his Bardic Music. Not to mention, his buffs affect multiple party members. How does the cleric outbuff him? Or outfight him for that matter? I understand the Divine Metamagic/Persistent Spell abuse, but please elaborate. The bard's job is to make everyone else do better. It's boring. The bard "shines" at social situations, but that's roleplaying spotlight time. Everyone gets roleplaying spotlight time, and it's not like paladins, clerics, and rogues can't max out Diplomacy if they want, and rogues get Bluff, Initimidate, and Gather Information for other social situations that warrant. This is the logic: The bard has more skills than everyone except the rogue. Therefore, the bard sucks at skills. The bard can cast spells and use magic items, but can't cast 7th-9th level spells, and not as often as a wizard. Therefore, the bard sucks at spellcasting. The bard has a medium BAB, and several means to buff himself in combat. But the bard doesn't deal as much damage as a fighter, and doesn't have as much HP. Therefore, the bard sucks at melee. The bard has Cure spells on his spell list, and can use magic wands to heal, but he can't heal as well as a cleric. Therefore, the bard sucks at healing. Please tell me you see the flawed logic there. Please. Bards are not limited to 'roleplaying', whatever that means. Just a couple orcs behind a door would be little challenge for say, a 2nd level Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin (and of course CODzilla), but for a Bard of the same level, they are fighting for their life due to worse AC and much worse HP. Little challenge? Who wins initiative? What if the lone warrior gets flanked? How many hits can a 2nd level barbarian take when raging? His AC is 2 lower, and the orcs have +4 strength and wield two-handed falchions. At level 2 CoDzilla doesn't exist :). I don't understand why the bard has to better at everything than everyone to be considered 'not sucky'. If I'm a rogue, I love someone that can scout with me, and someone that makes my lame to-hit all the better. If I'm a fighter, I would love someone to boost that attack roll even higher, so I can Power Attack a little more, for a bigger boost to damage on top of Inspire Courage. If I'm a wizard, I would love for someone to boost my to-hit and damage with attack spells, and someone to help alleviate the party casting. And finally, if I'm a cleric, why wouldn't I want another healer in the party? Who heals me if I'm the cleric and I go down? Futher, why wouldn't I want another buffer in the party? Save my slots for something else. The bard brings a lot to the party. Just because he plays second fiddle to everyone's main ability doesn't mean the package as a whole is useless. 1 - Yes, a scroll would work...maybe the 15th level wizard will give up some xp and scribe one for him. Well, that's why the wizard gets Scribe Scroll for free at level 1 after all. I get it. In your group the Bard gets scrolls and the wizard doesn't. No no no. It's that while the wizard casts his big spells at full caster level, the bard can augment the magical assault on the enemy with either his own spells or with magic items like scrolls, wands, and staffs. We're not (or at least I'm not) saying that the bard replaces the wizard or is on par with the wizard. But through his own spellcasting and his UMD, he can sling enough spells to make an impact. Also, Treantmonklvl20, I forgot to respond to a comment you made earlier. I agree with you that rogues and bards may need more skill points. And, I agree with you about Bardic Knack as well. I love it.
CaoSlayer 12-06-06, 05:30 PM	1 - Yes, a scroll would work...maybe the 15th level wizard will give up some xp and scribe one for him. ;) 4- I get it. In your group the Bard gets scrolls and the wizard doesn't. In that case, I concede the argument, if the Bard's get all the scrolls then they are in much better shape than I thought. (sorry - I know that's sarcastic - couldn't help it, not trying to offend...hopefully I didn't?) Actually it is a very bad idea to use a otto's dance scroll inscribed by a wizard because it is way more expensible, while the bard one costs 16*6*25=2400gp, the wizard one costs 15*8*25=3000gp... Both can use scrolls, bards and sorcerers make a better use of scrolls than wizards because allows them to cast spells not worth or not posible to learn, this is specially true with bard since UMD allows the bard to pick some scrolls that a wizard cant use at all. In my group we nearly never play as the typical four man party, by example last game the party was a rogue, a paladin/sorcerer/disciple dragon, a monk and a bard and was fun.
Treantmonklvl20 12-06-06, 05:30 PM	I'll just respond to the stuff responding to me (does that make sense?) I just figured we were using Elite Array, I though someone mentioned it earlier. I would prioritze as such: Charisma Dexterity Constitution or Intelligence Strength or Wisdom Standard point buy - 25 points. What would your 1st level stats look like? Nobody will answer this one. You are correct that the rogue would do more straight up damage with SA. But I wouldn't prioritize strength too much. The bard has a lot of roles to fill, and he can deal damage other ways (bardic music, buffing his friends, arcane strike). He does have a lot of roles to fill. I'm just pointing out that helping out in melee requires doing some decent damage. The rogue fufills this with SA. It is one of the best advantages of the rogue PC. The action is irrelevant. The point is that the bard hits more often. You have shown that at level 3, a rogue would hit just as often. But after level 6, I think the rogue falls behind the rest of the game. I don't get this...the first round of combat is irrelavant? How so? That said, at high levels I agree the Rogue doesn't hit as often as other classes, but the damage does become pretty sweet. But you are aware that a bard can cast any spell that a wizard can through items right? And that spells is only a part of the bard's repetoire. This one wasn't meant for me, but I do need to ask, with what item can a Bard cast a fireball? Little challenge? Who wins initiative? What if the lone warrior gets flanked? How many hits can a 2nd level barbarian take when raging? His AC is 2 lower, and the orcs have +4 strength and wield two-handed falchions. At level 2 CoDzilla doesn't exist :). I wish CoDzilla didn't exist at 2nd level (it really shouldn't), I didn't think it did a couple weeks ago, certainly the Cleric is not quite as uber, as for the Druid, check any fighter sux thread, it was one such thread that showed me how ridiculusly broken the Druid has become in 3.5. It's stupid and broken, but also off topic... As for the fighter etc. Sure, under the right circumstances the Fighter/Barbarian etc could be in trouble in that encounter, the point was that they would be in better (much, much, much better) shape then a Bard in the same circumstance. A Barbarian in rage (the example you used) would have in the range of HP in the high 20's, likely 2-3 times more than an equivalent level Bard, never mind the fact they would drop their opponents much, much, much faster. The Barbarian might have a tough time, but much less tough then a Bard (So would a fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Monk, Cleric and Druid). That was my point. Of course we both know that a melee specialist is going to be best at melee. I get that. However, if the Bard is a jack of all trades, why are they showing up in the bottom half when it comes to melee? Shouldn't they be upper half? The bard brings a lot to the party. Just because he plays second fiddle to everyone's main ability doesn't mean the package as a whole is useless. Soon as someone suggests this, I will be on your side. The Bard is not useless, neither is the fighter, but a moderate powerup I believe to be in order. Another thread popped up suggesting a warrior cohort to the Bard as a "fix", I responded that a powerup of that magnitude was out of line. Well, that's why the wizard gets Scribe Scroll for free at level 1 after all. Yeah, but in my experience, they keep the scrolls. It's their xp after all... No no no. It's that while the wizard casts his big spells at full caster level, the bard can augment the magical assault on the enemy with either his own spells or with magic items like scrolls, wands, and staffs. We're not (or at least I'm not) saying that the bard replaces the wizard or is on par with the wizard. But through his own spellcasting and his UMD, he can sling enough spells to make an impact. Never would suggest they weren't. Sorry if I implied it. Bard's are very useful to a party, however, just in a couple of ways, I wish they were MORE useful - In some areas a moderate powerup would not threaten "Jack of all trades master of none" but in fact strengthen it. Also, Treantmonklvl20, I forgot to respond to a comment you made earlier. I agree with you that rogues and bards may need more skill points. And, I agree with you about Bardic Knack as well. I love it. That's all I'm saying. I don't know if that is the perfect fix (any fix needs playtesting), but I just think a little something is in order. SP is not a bad place to put it - especially in the classes that are intended to be skill masters and end up being skill hungry. I'm glad to find common ground!!!!!!
Norhg 12-06-06, 05:43 PM	I don't think anybody plays with standard point buy any longer :p Regardless, Str 10 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 13 Wis 8 Cha 14 Either a Human or a Strongheart halfling I typically play with a 32 point build, cha and con or dex would both be jumped to 16
Nathreet 12-06-06, 06:45 PM	I thought up a useful bard once: Craft Magic Arms and Armor to make magic armor for the party. Plus you can make merciful weapons (+1d6, weapon becomes subdual). Craft Wondorous Item for stat boosting items. Bards are as good as a wizard at these. Learn every language. It's a class skill for him. Get all the knowledge skills, since you have lots of skill points. Make int your highest stat while you're at it and spend your magic item money to craft yourself an int item. Be a gray elf too. Also great for bardic knowledge. Weild a whip in combat for 15' ranged disarms/trips. Bards are proficient in whips, an exotic weapon. Don't bother with improved disarm/trip though. Carry spare whips. Glitterdust, glibness, haste. High level casters still use glitterdust and haste. And you're as good as them at it since you have the same caster level. Plus you have glibness. +30 to bluff when it only takes +20 to convince somebody of something completely ridiculous. Now you have a character that can do many useful and necessary things as well or better than other classes. Note that I left out all of the bard's minor abilities, which might be useful, but don't help me show how the bard can be as good or better than everything else at certain things that your party needs. Except the whip: the idea there is to give the bard something safe to do if he cannot do anything else. It doesn't take a feat or anything.
Tisner44 12-06-06, 09:58 PM	Ok you proved me wrong there but try this, a bard is the last one standing in a high level party (lvls 15-20). He is practically helpless once hes used his 3 or 4 attack spells. he can barely heal any life. And other class abilities have overshadowed his to the point that hes completely helpless on his own in a campaign. What personnal fighting capacilities does he have to overcome enemies. The first response is going to be fascinate and then suggestion(i know that). But what about mind affect immunity creatures. This is an unfair question, what happens if a wizard is the last one standing or a fighter or even a barbarian....all of these classes would be hard pressed in a fight by themselves. A wizard only has so many spells, and without a healer a fighter only has so many HPs. If I were playing any character in this situation, then I would run away...:weep: Not just the bard.
navar100 12-07-06, 03:41 AM	boring? depends on how you play him. oh and, he outspells and outbuffs the rogue and fighter, outfights and outbuffs the wizard, and outtricks and outskills the cleric. as i said: any thing a class can do, a bard can do (not better, but at least he can). that is his strength. only people who do not see this, find him weak. The wizard outspells the fighter too. The point is there is nothing the bard can do that no one else can. He's not unique. A fighter is unique from the ranger and barbarian, for example, because he has a multitude of feats allowing for versatility in combat maneuvers. Bardic Knowledge? Wizard, make a Knowledge check. Rogue, make a Gather Information check. Countersong? Cleric, cast Silence. It doesn't matter a bard can do some things other classes do. For all such things, those other classes do them a whole lot better. A bard can be handy when there's no cleric around or no wizard around, but you are better off to have the cleric or wizard in the first place.
navar100 12-07-06, 04:05 AM	Outfighting the bard means that those who would normally engage in fighting do better at it than the bard could. Dedicated warriors have better BAB, better hit points, at least as good if not better AC (depending on class), and usually have better strength. Fighters have feats, barbarians have rage, rangers have a feat tree, paladins have extra defenses and spells, clerics have even better spells. Rogues have sneak attack. Bards really have nothing. Outskilling the bard means those who have skill points do better. Rogues are supposed to be the skillmonkeys. However, even rangers and wizards do better when applied intelligently. Bards do quite well with social skills. Only rogue can equal or exceed in all of them, but that's more the point. The bard isn't so needed. Outbuffing the bard means that for all the buffs bard provide, clerics (and other dedicated spellcasters) can do so with more powerful and versatile buffs and don't have to spend actions maintaining them. Outspelling the bard means just that - dedicated spellcasters by their nature are better at spellcasting such that bards aren't needed. There are a few bard only spells that are quite interesting and powerful on their own, but they don't justify the class. As for who heals the unconscious cleric, anyone can pour a potion of cur elight wounds down his throat. Any ranger, druid, or paladin can use a wand of cure wounds. The paladin can lay on hands. Heck, let the rogue make a Use Magic Device check. It's not like bard is the only class who can heal the cleric. Doing a little bit that everyone else can do is not a strength. The bard is weaker than a multiclass because even though multiclassing trades power for versatility, the versatility you are getting is still of some power by its own nature. A barbarian multiclassing rogue will get a big kick out of sneak attack and evasion. A druid could do well multiclassing into barbarian. Wildshape into an animal and rage. Wildshape into a plant creature and rage. What single class bard could top that?
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-07-06, 04:13 AM	The wizard outspells the fighter too. The point is there is nothing the bard can do that no one else can. He's not unique. A fighter is unique from the ranger and barbarian, for example, because he has a multitude of feats allowing for versatility in combat maneuvers. Bardic Knowledge? Wizard, make a Knowledge check. Rogue, make a Gather Information check. Countersong? Cleric, cast Silence. It doesn't matter a bard can do some things other classes do. For all such things, those other classes do them a whole lot better. A bard can be handy when there's no cleric around or no wizard around, but you are better off to have the cleric or wizard in the first place. You're still choosing individual abilities that the bard possesses and saying the bard is inferior based on how the cleric outdoes one thing, the fighter outdoes one other thing, and so and so. Yeah -all these classes could probably do a specific thing over the bard - but the bard has all these one individual things rolled into one class. Yeah, the bard might only be 3/4 of a fighter and 3/4 of a skill user and 3/4 of a caster - but a bard is 3/4 of all of these things in one class - and the bard can mix and match its own powers into one cohesive whole. Like how the bard can combine spell power, bardic music, and melee feats to make the bard a potent warrior - if only for the duration of its spells and musics. Using a combination of spells [such as improvisation], bardic music [inspire competance], bardic knack, and the jack of all traits feat - the bard can become very capable at problem solving using virtually any skill with fair proficiency. The bard can also combine its uses of music, its own spell proficiency, and maybe an item creation feat like scribe scroll or craft wand as well as use magic device to use a vast array of spell-related options for virtually any contingency - short of, perhaps, what a high level mage can do entirely by virtue of its higher level spell slots and spells known - to which a bard would have to rely on scrolls, wands, and staves. In a pinch though [especially with staves] - this is often more than enough to be a highly contributing spellcasting member of the party. Which basically comes to the conclusion that a bard can do ANYTHING and be good at it. Maybe not ultra-super-mega-perfect, but far more than necessary for the length of time needed to complete a task. Every time I play a bard - there's little that I can't do. Its among the most powerful PHB classes there are - short of threatening to be overpowered as many people believe the cleric, druid, and wizard are. [It amazes me that no one includes the sorcerer in that estimate... maybe a sign that in order to be balanced, the Cleric, druid, and wizard should have a design philosophy like the sorcerer has? Hmm... just a random irrelevant thought.]
Deep Blue 9000 12-07-06, 04:39 AM	Yeah, the bard might only be 3/4 of a fighter and 3/4 of a skill user and 3/4 of a caster - but a bard is 3/4 of all of these things in one class - and the bard can mix and match its own powers into one cohesive whole. I would argue that the lameness of the bard comes from the fact that its 1/4 of a fighter, 3/4 of a skill user, 1/4 of a caster. If a bard actually was 3/4 of a fighter, rogue, and caster, I would have no problem with the class. The melee weakness of bards is their lack of damage. Barbarians get their damage from power attack and high strength. Rogues have a million sneak attack dice. Monks make tons of attacks and deal large base damage. Bards will probably have higher to hit than a monk or rogue but will hit for much less. Without some sort of melee damage source, their attacks are negligible. A bard's awesomeness in skill use entirely comes from glibness. However, they lose probably the most important skill use: trap finding. A party in social situations without glibness is at a disadvantage. A party in a dungeon without a trap finder is in mortal peril. Check out some of the CR 10 traps in the DMG. They're TPKs in a can. Still, skill use is a bard's strongest area. A bard's weakness compared to primary casters is pretty obvious. Finally, I would like to address the common idea that bards make an excellent 5th party member. Bards are supposed to be generalists. That means they have no niche but can do a lot of things well. But a party with all the archetypes covered can already do all the basic stuff well: a generalist is what they need the least. A specialist would be best in that party.
CaoSlayer 12-07-06, 05:08 AM	I would argue that the lameness of the bard comes from the fact that its 1/4 of a fighter, 3/4 of a skill user, 1/4 of a caster. If a bard actually was 3/4 of a fighter, rogue, and caster, I would have no problem with the class. The melee weakness of bards is their lack of damage. Barbarians get their damage from power attack and high strength. Rogues have a million sneak attack dice. Monks make tons of attacks and deal large base damage. Bards will probably have higher to hit than a monk or rogue but will hit for much less. Without some sort of melee damage source, their attacks are negligible. actually no, the bard even on core books it is able to deal as much damage per hit as the fighter and the ranger cause inspire courage and other buffs like haste. by actual numbers at level 8 a fighter would have a BAB of 8 and a +2 to hit and +2 to damage, so without stats he will have an AB of 10/5 cause feats while a bard with bab 6 who uses inspire courage and haste will have +3 to hit and +2 to damage and three attacks so he is 9/9/4. and that is without spending a single feat and have the side effect that if the previous fighter is on the same party will have 13/13/8 attacks so the round that the bard is spending buffing himself arent wasted at all since the other party members obtain benefits from them. If you start throwing noncore stuff like song of the heart (+1 to bardic music numeric effects), snowflake song (+cha to hit and damage ), words of creation (doubles bardic music effects) and a swift action spell that raises inspire courage by +1 you will find that the puny bard it getting a +6 to hit and damage with just a song and a level 1 spell. that is 10/5 vs 12/7 and the sidequick fighter pal will have a 16/11 and after haste both will be 13/13/8 and 17/17/12. So yes, the core bard can outfight the fighter on to hit and damage bonuses and the non-core bard can outfight the barbarian. Of course this is maxing this ofense, the defense can be also raised with some long duration buffs like alter self. Your error have been to say that the bard have nothing for getting an edge on a fight when he have spells and sings and also you dont count the fact that the most damage the bard deals it is indirect damage being indirect damage the damage caused by the other party members hits that would miss without I.C. and the extra damage and attacks caused by the bard buffs. Of course the fighter will have higher natural stats and better weapon/armor profiency but my point was not to have the bard being a 1/1 of a fighter but just a 3/4 one. Maybe the bard himself cant damage as much as a fighter himself but a rogue and a bard (or a fighter and a bard) deals way more damage than a rogue and a fighter also if the party have summons (or an animal companion) the I.C. and haste gets ever more powerful. About caster, telling that a class who gets 6 spells levels out of 9, have a spell list where many spells are lower level than other classes including level 8 wizard spells and have a full caster level is 1/4 is plain dumb. Bards are a great 5th member just because the larger the party, the larger the benefits of his buffs and the most synergy between his spells and skills.
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-07-06, 05:14 AM	The melee weakness of bards is their lack of damage. Barbarians get their damage from power attack and high strength. Rogues have a million sneak attack dice. Monks make tons of attacks and deal large base damage. Bards will probably have higher to hit than a monk or rogue but will hit for much less. Without some sort of melee damage source, their attacks are negligible. Considering a. inspire courage [perhaps in sync with words of creation and inspirational boost] b. buff spells [bull's strength, for example] c. arcane strike d. magic item creation [yeah -bards can do that] and probably a few things I'm forgetting all add up to quite a bit of damage. In addition to the fact that things like inspire courage [and haste] all affect multiple opponents whereas barbarian rage and the barbarian's power attack only affects himself. The bard can actually rage [the spell] himself as well. Bards have no trouble being 3/4 a fighter and filling out an extra 1/2 based on the things I said above. THe default 3/4 coming from their 3/4 BAB with most of their defense coming from armor class or simple distance [such as with the more common archer bard] A bard's awesomeness in skill use entirely comes from glibness. However, they lose probably the most important skill use: trap finding. A party in social situations without glibness is at a disadvantage. A party in a dungeon without a trap finder is in mortal peril. Check out some of the CR 10 traps in the DMG. They're TPKs in a can. Still, skill use is a bard's strongest area. so you've proven that the bard's skill use is entirely useless because the bard can't search for traps - magical or otherwise [nevermind they can detect magic] which the rogue does with maxing out two skills. Nevermind that the bard has the best class skill list in the game and the second best set of skill points that can be aided by abilities such as what i mentioned in the post you quoted. A bard's weakness compared to primary casters is pretty obvious. They get 3/5ths their spellcasting ability in addition to all their abilities. I'd say that their spellcasting ability is quite effective despite the fact that they only get 3/5ths of the wizard's or cleric's spell levels. Particularly given their other powers - however the bard is not a primary caster nor have I made them out to be otherwise. However, their spellcasting ability can be quite potent and is extremely useful to a group of adventurers. Finally, I would like to address the common idea that bards make an excellent 5th party member. Bards are supposed to be generalists. That means they have no niche but can do a lot of things well. But a party with all the archetypes covered can already do all the basic stuff well: a generalist is what they need the least. A specialist would be best in that party. I'm sorry, but I have yet to see this point proven otherwise. The biggest counterarguement to the bard [a single class] isn't as good as a group of speciality classes at doing a particular thing. The bard isn't as good as a fighter, as powerful as an archmage, or as capable as a rogue - so therefore the bard isn't capable of anything useful and isn't a generalist. THe logic is slightly flawed and the fact that a bard can do what an ENTIRE PARTY OF ADVENTURERS can accomplish - albeit not as well as the full group - sorta defeats your own arguement. Indeed, even without glibness, the bard still pwns the charisma-skills and mental-manipulation to which only a dedicated enchanter type could accomplish - but even so the bard still walks out with all his other powers.
Qube 12-07-06, 05:17 AM	I would argue that the lameness of the bard comes from the fact that its 1/4 of a fighter, 3/4 of a skill user, 1/4 of a caster. If a bard actually was 3/4 of a fighter, rogue, and caster, I would have no problem with the class. The melee weakness of bards is their lack of damage. Barbarians get their damage from power attack and high strength. Rogues have a million sneak attack dice. Monks make tons of attacks and deal large base damage. Bards will probably have higher to hit than a monk or rogue but will hit for much less. Without some sort of melee damage source, their attacks are negligible. Finally, I would like to address the common idea that bards make an excellent 5th party member. Bards are supposed to be generalists. That means they have no niche but can do a lot of things well. But a party with all the archetypes covered can already do all the basic stuff well: a generalist is what they need the least. A specialist would be best in that party. the bard is 1/2 a healer (i think third best core? (after cleric and druid ) ) 1/2 a fighter (med BAB, light armor, high dex, if he has time to cast displacement + mirror image + ...), 1/3 a rogue (around 3 skills less (2 base, and 1 from lower int) ) and 1/4 wiz (bardic knowlegde, spells). add about an other 1/5 for specific stuff (his music booster). 1/2+1/2+1/3+1/4+1/5 is about 2. and all the archetypes are already covered. a specilist would mean weakening an other partymember (because you can do it better). and what happens if a partymember falls (general tacktic : kill the cleric first)? i mean the bard is a rogueish type with healing capabilities, defencive illusions, offensive enchantments, ...
Gyrofthewastes 12-07-06, 05:29 AM	Every time I play a bard - there's little that I can't do. Its among the most powerful PHB classes there are - short of threatening to be overpowered as many people believe the cleric, druid, and wizard are. [It amazes me that no one includes the sorcerer in that estimate... maybe a sign that in order to be balanced, the Cleric, druid, and wizard should have a design philosophy like the sorcerer has? Hmm... just a random irrelevant thought.] It's more that the community is filled with idiots who make predictions and hold strong opinions on game balance without a shred of actual play experience regarding the particulars; or are unable for one reason or another to apply basic mathematic principles.
Qube 12-07-06, 05:37 AM	or are unable for one reason or another to apply basic mathematic principles. i only played bard at low level (and i liked it), but don't you get - at high level- the problem that the DC's are lower?
Gyrofthewastes 12-07-06, 05:39 AM	i only played bard at low level (and i liked it), but don't you get - at high level- the problem that the DC's are lower? You do. It's a big problem with the bard and save spells at high levels, I would imagine. EDIT: And in case that was unclear...I've never personally played a bard past level 10, though I've seen a fair number of others play them.
Deep Blue 9000 12-07-06, 06:00 AM	actually no, the bard even on core books it is able to deal as much damage per hit as the fighter and the ranger cause inspire courage and other buffs like haste. by actual numbers at level 8 a fighter would have a BAB of 8 and a +2 to hit and +2 to damage, so without stats he will have an AB of 10/5 cause feats while a bard with bab 6 who uses inspire courage and haste will have +3 to hit and +2 to damage and three attacks so he is 9/9/4. and that is without spending a single feat and have the side effect that if the previous fighter is on the same party will have 13/13/8 attacks so the round that the bard is spending buffing himself arent wasted at all since the other party members obtain benefits from them. If you start throwing noncore stuff like song of the heart (+1 to bardic music numeric effects), snowflake song (+cha to hit and damage ), words of creation (doubles bardic music effects) and a swift action spell that raises inspire courage by +1 you will find that the puny bard it getting a +6 to hit and damage with just a song and a level 1 spell. that is 10/5 vs 12/7 and the sidequick fighter pal will have a 16/11 and after haste both will be 13/13/8 and 17/17/12. So yes, the core bard can outfight the fighter on to hit and damage bonuses and the non-core bard can outfight the barbarian. Of course this is maxing this ofense, the defense can be also raised with some long duration buffs like alter self. I agree in core, bards have similar damage to fighters and rangers. However, I would argue that all 3 of them have weak damage. Also, I probably should have said this earlier but my complaints about bards really apply to levels 10+. Bards are competitive (although not amazing) at 8th level. However, that doesn't out damage a barbarian, however, that's just an additional 6 damage. A Barbarian at that level has access to Frenzied Berserker, Leap Attack, and Shock Trooper. Not to mention that the bard is giving up two rounds of combat to cast haste and start singing. That means the bard isn't fighting for two rounds and also that all those buffs don't apply until the fighter has already made two attacks. Your error have been to say that the bard have nothing for getting an edge on a fight when he have spells and sings and also you dont count the fact that the most damage the bard deals it is indirect damage being indirect damage the damage caused by the other party members hits that would miss without I.C. and the extra damage and attacks caused by the bard buffs. Of course the fighter will have higher natural stats and better weapon/armor profiency but my point was not to have the bard being a 1/1 of a fighter but just a 3/4 one. Maybe the bard himself cant damage as much as a fighter himself but a rogue and a bard (or a fighter and a bard) deals way more damage than a rogue and a fighter also if the party have summons (or an animal companion) the I.C. and haste gets ever more powerful. I disagree that a fighter and a bard will deal more damage than a rogue and a fighter. You are seriously underestimating the damage of sneak attack combined with TWF. This is my part of my point: bards buffing + bards attacking is not strong enough to be on par with rogue pure attack. Bards are a great 5th member just because the larger the party, the larger the benefits of his buffs and the most synergy between his spells and skills. His synergy between spells and skills doesn't depend on the number of people in the party. And buffs are the only thing he provides, his other talents are wasted since there's a better healer, etc. A bard is reduced to a cohort with a wand of haste.
Deep Blue 9000 12-07-06, 08:01 AM	Considering a. inspire courage [perhaps in sync with words of creation and inspirational boost] b. buff spells [bull's strength, for example] c. arcane strike d. magic item creation [yeah -bards can do that] and probably a few things I'm forgetting all add up to quite a bit of damage. In addition to the fact that things like inspire courage [and haste] all affect multiple opponents whereas barbarian rage and the barbarian's power attack only affects himself. The bard can actually rage [the spell] himself as well. Bards have no trouble being 3/4 a fighter and filling out an extra 1/2 based on the things I said above. THe default 3/4 coming from their 3/4 BAB with most of their defense coming from armor class or simple distance [such as with the more common archer bard] An archer bard loses arcane strike which is really the only thing bards have going for them damage wise. I admit that a bard with arcane strike deals excellent damage however I think that is more due to the overpowered arcane strike than any virtue of the bard class. Give arcane strike to an gish or duskblade and the bodies just pile up. I apologize if this is a cop-out but that feat is absurd. It would be like giving a commoner a sword of true strike and calling it balanced. Magic Items are available to warrior types just as well as Bards. A barbarian can wear an item he bought from his cleric friend or an NPC. And casting Bull's Strength on yourself is a terrible way to spend a turn. Its easily replaced by some +4 STR item. so you've proven that the bard's skill use is entirely useless because the bard can't search for traps - magical or otherwise [nevermind they can detect magic] which the rogue does with maxing out two skills. Nevermind that the bard has the best class skill list in the game and the second best set of skill points that can be aided by abilities such as what i mentioned in the post you quoted. You misunderstand me. I never said bard's skill use is useless, I actually credited it as being better than rogues (which would make bards best in the game) except for the key deficiency of trap finding. However, detect magic is no substitute for trap finding since it doesn't work on mechanical traps and won't let the bard disable the trap even if he finds a magical source he somehow knows is a trap. They get 3/5ths their spellcasting ability in addition to all their abilities. I'd say that their spellcasting ability is quite effective despite the fact that they only get 3/5ths of the wizard's or cleric's spell levels. Particularly given their other powers - however the bard is not a primary caster nor have I made them out to be otherwise. However, their spellcasting ability can be quite potent and is extremely useful to a group of adventurers. I disagree, with the notable exception of Otto's and Charm Monster, the Bard spell list is weaker than the wiz spell lists at each level. Plus it doesn't get nearly the same variety of spells as wiz/sorc does. And it gets no cleric spells worth mentioning except for the cure X wounds line which is woefully inadequate after 10th level. I'm sorry, but I have yet to see this point proven otherwise. The biggest counterarguement to the bard [a single class] isn't as good as a group of speciality classes at doing a particular thing. The bard isn't as good as a fighter, as powerful as an archmage, or as capable as a rogue - so therefore the bard isn't capable of anything useful and isn't a generalist. THe logic is slightly flawed and the fact that a bard can do what an ENTIRE PARTY OF ADVENTURERS can accomplish - albeit not as well as the full group - sorta defeats your own arguement. Indeed, even without glibness, the bard still pwns the charisma-skills and mental-manipulation to which only a dedicated enchanter type could accomplish - but even so the bard still walks out with all his other powers. OK, two issues going on here. First of all, that's not what I said. I said even if the bard is a good generalist, a generalist is least desirable in a large party with a lot of niche characters who are better than you at all 4 primary roles. Second of all, I agree that the general counter argument people make against bards is fallacious. However, that is not my argument. My argument is that the bard is not an effective generalist because he is not strong enough in each of his roles to make up for his lack of an area of focus.
Norhg 12-07-06, 09:19 AM	Second of all, I agree that the general counter argument people make against bards is fallacious. However, that is not my argument. My argument is that the bard is not an effective generalist because he is not strong enough in each of his roles to make up for his lack of an area of focus.:rolleyes: *reloads cannon with same old arguments for the bard's many strengths* (Defense = Buffs + Shields + Light Armor = Good Defensive Capability Skills > Everyone but the Rogue's Offense Rougly = to other Classes but Added Benefit of Aiding Others)
Wollenator 12-07-06, 10:36 AM	Also more safe, since bards have not as much troubles dealing a touch attack than a wizard, it is very dangerous to a wizard use a melee touch attack because if the spell fails, the wizard will be in mayor danger. Ah? I think, a wizard which has low-dex is lost, you need for armor-class and for touch spells the rankings for wizards-ability-points is in my opinion: 1. intelligience 2. dexterity 3. konstitution 4. wisdom rest doesnt matter If you play a "normal wizard. But haha, there are NO normal wizards. And even If you dont hit your opponent in meele-combat, its your false, because a wizard is never unprepared! Casting an empowered greater mage armor with Force armor from Argent Servant ( Complete Arcane) provides you +12 armor bonus and thats normally enough to get out of combat without diyng. Back to topic: AAAAAAAhhhh, BARDS DONT SUCK!!!! Bads are masters of manipulation, the masters of talking ******** and the one and only, who are really feared ( but only if you use your abilitys) Ok, in one point you are right, bards are no real spell-caster, fighter or rogue, but damn, you dont need it. It doesnt matter to deal hundreds of damage. There are some happy party-members, who are very happy about +X damge and hitting-advantage.
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-07-06, 01:37 PM	An archer bard loses arcane strike which is really the only thing bards have going for them damage wise. I admit that a bard with arcane strike deals excellent damage however I think that is more due to the overpowered arcane strike than any virtue of the bard class. Give arcane strike to an gish or duskblade and the bodies just pile up. an archer bard looses *one* of his damage-dealing add ons, however, I didn't make arcane strike out to be his sole damage-dealing ability. I listed four in that example, except for whatever spells or other powers I didn't feel like sifting through my books for for a post I wanted to make in just a few minutes. I apologize if this is a cop-out but that feat is absurd. It would be like giving a commoner a sword of true strike and calling it balanced. Hardly. Its a good feat, I'll agree, but far from 'overpowered.' Its only useful to bards and other gish classes, but that's what its there for - to combine spellcasting power with melee power is a fairly direct manner. Magic Items are available to warrior types just as well as Bards. A barbarian can wear an item he bought from his cleric friend or an NPC. And casting Bull's Strength on yourself is a terrible way to spend a turn. Its easily replaced by some +4 STR item. Except that a bard can *make* them - not nearly buy them and getting bull's strength as a spell can be available much sooner than the 16k gp item for free for the melee-concious bard. Further, the bard can buy the said item to so he won't even have to cast it. You misunderstand me. I never said bard's skill use is useless, I actually credited it as being better than rogues (which would make bards best in the game) except for the key deficiency of trap finding. However, detect magic is no substitute for trap finding since it doesn't work on mechanical traps and won't let the bard disable the trap even if he finds a magical source he somehow knows is a trap. Except that i'm saying that the bard doesn't need it. There are other skill-related things the bard can do that doesn't require trap finding and there are ways around even needing trap finding. I've even seen posts that can basically replace the rogue with a summon monster spell, or even a 10 ft pole or a freaking log. Push comes to shove, the cleric, wizard, bard, or rogue with a wand can cast detect magic over suspect areas - usually doors [especially locked ones] and strange rooms. I disagree, with the notable exception of Otto's and Charm Monster, the Bard spell list is weaker than the wiz spell lists at each level. Plus it doesn't get nearly the same variety of spells as wiz/sorc does. And it gets no cleric spells worth mentioning except for the cure X wounds line which is woefully inadequate after 10th level. most cleric spells worth mentioning are buff spells and various affliction-removing spells. The bard doesn't have most of the affliction-removing spells, but the bard has more and occasionally better buff spells. The curing spells are more than adequate at any level - particularly since most PC hit points wouldn't usually go beyond about 300 hit points by 20th level. Yes, the bard would have a difficult time recovering that many hit points with cure critical wounds, but barring some serious con scores and high rolls on that d12 [a barbarian with average rolls and a 26 con gets about 295 HPs] few PCs will have that many hit points. But that's why the party has a cleric, right? But the bard's ability to cover the healing role is just adequate enough to be of tremendous use. Particularly if the bard can craft wands or better yet, scrolls. OK, two issues going on here. First of all, that's not what I said. I said even if the bard is a good generalist, a generalist is least desirable in a large party with a lot of niche characters who are better than you at all 4 primary roles. of course, this explaination lacks any reason why this is true. Given all the bard's strengths - mass buffing, ability to support any role at any given time and excel at them using a combination of powers - such as supporting the fighter and rogue in combat - mixing attacks with throwing the occasional cure when the rogue or fighter take a hit and keeping them buffed with haste and inspire courage. Keeping from taking too much damage himself with improved invisibility, swift invisibility, or any one of the other defensive spells - such as by having a magical chain shirt and buckler that the bard crafted himself to be of top quality in addition to having cast cat's grace, haste, and perhaps displacement while singing inspire courage. Second of all, I agree that the general counter argument people make against bards is fallacious. However, that is not my argument. My argument is that the bard is not an effective generalist because he is not strong enough in each of his roles to make up for his lack of an area of focus. given your arguements, I'd surmise that the bard'd have to be nearly as good as all of the above speciality classes in order for it to be any good at all at being a decent generalist. Which is another thing I'm argueing against. People already lamblast the poor druid [and the cleric to a smaller extent] for doing precisely this and a lot of people seem to think its quite a bit overpowered. I disagree but I won't get into that. I know what 'popular opinion' is and I'll get flamed like nobody's business. In any case, I've actually played the class from start to finish in a campaign [as a meleeist bard, no less - keep in mind that I didn't get arcane strike until level nine] and there wasn't anything in the party I couldn't handle. My character only died once - due to an angry minotaur of ledgend who charged me and critted - but that attack would have killed just about anyone in my party. I just happened to be taunting him. I was easily the most valuable character in the party regardless of how effective the other characters were at their chosen speciality.
Sunic_Flames 12-07-06, 01:48 PM	Edit: Nevermind, found the snowflake warsong. New question: Why is it it was said here that it's +attack and +damage, when the book just says +attack?
The_Shaman 12-07-06, 03:50 PM	It doesn't give a bonus to damage, at least unless it got errata'd. Arcane strike should help with that, though - and I'd love to see a dervish with the snowflake wardance. It just fits so... perfectly :D
Norhg 12-07-06, 03:58 PM	Edit: Nevermind, found the snowflake warsong. New question: Why is it it was said here that it's +attack and +damage, when the book just says +attack? Because Caoslayer recalled the wrong feat or something :rolleyes:
Tisner44 12-07-06, 04:29 PM	I agree in core, bards have similar damage to fighters and rangers. However, I would argue that all 3 of them have weak damage. Also, I probably should have said this earlier but my complaints about bards really apply to levels 10+. Bards are competitive (although not amazing) at 8th level. At the early levels the bard becomes a great support especially with the buffs and music. At later levels is where the bard can shine or fail. In a group the bard has to find a niche, each group has different weaknesses. The Bard is the one character that can help fill the weakness of the party. The Bard should choose the feats, spells and skills that will assist the party the most. If the wizard has a lot of damage spells and loves to blow things up, the bard can choose the utility spells, so the wizard can take full advantage of that. The rogue might specialize in several skills, the bard can take up the slack and specialize in the other skills (esp Cha-based skills). Maybe the fighter is more defensive based and could use someone else to help out the combat. With the right feats, a bard can be a good secondary fighter. If the cleric is negative energy or wants to take full advantage of their massive spell list, the bard can use his healing spells first or as a backup if the cleric runs out. The Bard is a Support Character....they support the rest of the party. His synergy between spells and skills doesn't depend on the number of people in the party. And buffs are the only thing he provides, his other talents are wasted since there's a better healer, etc. A bard is reduced to a cohort with a wand of haste. His synergy is between the parties abilities and his own. No the bard will never be as good as a more specialized class at what they do, if they were then the class would be overpowered. They allow the rest of the party to use their abilities to the maximum knowing that a backup is present if they need help. The reason why most people don't like the class is because their strength doesn't lie in combats. Their strengths are in social skills. This is a role-playing game and somewhere there should be a class that excells at that....that's the Bard. If you like to be a heavy damaging character in combat, then don't play a bard. To be fair place all the other classes in any social situation and see which class excells.....The Bard should easily surpass any character in this situation.
Sunic_Flames 12-07-06, 04:45 PM	It doesn't give a bonus to damage, at least unless it got errata'd. Arcane strike should help with that, though - and I'd love to see a dervish with the snowflake wardance. It just fits so... perfectly :D Arcane strike... Hmmm... I have a lot of books, but don't recall that one either. I'll have to look it up, now that I know where to look for that. Now to talk the DM into making it work with shields... :D (Reason being my character's shield is an ancestral heirloom from his grandfather, so he's not gonna give it up for any reason and is already using it despite some disadvantages it causes. Yes, that doesn't seem that old... until you consider Kitsune live to be over 1,000. :P)
benstundze 12-07-06, 05:01 PM	at the rate of postes you all posted about 30 postes a day here
Norhg 12-07-06, 05:11 PM	at the rate of postes you all posted about 30 postes a day hereLook at my posts per day count and despair, mortal :p Arcane strike... Hmmm... I have a lot of books, but don't recall that one either. I'll have to look it up, now that I know where to look for that. Now to talk the DM into making it work with shields... (Reason being my character's shield is an ancestral heirloom from his grandfather, so he's not gonna give it up for any reason and is already using it despite some disadvantages it causes. Yes, that doesn't seem that old... until you consider Kitsune live to be over 1,000.Arcane Strike is in the Complete Warriors handbook and works with shields. Snowflake Wardance is in Frostburn and doesn't allow shields. Both are great feats for the fighting bard
FreAkOuTRG 12-07-06, 05:37 PM	Why won't this thread die? Do I have to use fire? Adamantine? Wish? Bards are fine, just let the thread die.
Norhg 12-07-06, 05:44 PM	Why won't this thread die? Do I have to use fire? Adamantine? Wish? Bards are fine, just let the thread die. Surely you must realise that it is of great benefit for humanity that this thread and the exceedingly fine debate and discourse be allowed to live forever lest all of humankin be doomed? :rolleyes:
dami_capo 12-07-06, 05:52 PM	I think that bards are, statistically, a very bad option. Yes, they can be really good diplomats/enchanters, but they are not as good a diplomat as a rogue can be, and not as good an enchanter as a wizard can be. I would say that combat-wise, bards suck. However, at this time I am playing a bard/loremaster (truly a know-it-all), and it is the most enjoyable character I have ever played. I am not a fan of combat, so what did I do? I got leadership and a cohort 1 level lower than me. During combat, my character buffs (badly, compared to the cleric and the wizard) and the cohort fights. My character basically uses his bardic music and good hope spell for most of the combat. Still, I am hugely underpowered. But then, we have to roleplay, or be diplomats, and I win! Our DM gives us extra XP for good roleplay, and I am up there with the cleric. I am 1 level ahead of two characters just for the roleplaying XP. And also, I developed a perfect personality for the character. So yes, bards suck; and yes, it is fun to hear why; but I can roleplay a bard better than any other character, and being a bit underpowered does not bother me at all.
Norhg 12-07-06, 06:07 PM	I don't think you know what you are talking about Dami_Capo. Who has ever heard of the Bard being surpassed as a Diplomat by the Rogue? Much hope that none is tricked into believing that the Bard does nothing well, cause that's not the truth of the game
FreAkOuTRG 12-07-06, 06:14 PM	I still think someone needs to kill this thread. In the face. With a Hammer Gun.
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-07-06, 06:40 PM	I think that bards are, statistically, a very bad option. Yes, they can be really good diplomats/enchanters, but they are not as good a diplomat as a rogue can be, and not as good an enchanter as a wizard can be. I would say that combat-wise, bards suck. a rogue couldn't hold a candle to bards in the diplomacy department - bards can bluff, diplomacy, gather info, and virtually anything charisma-related [particulary when used in sync with spells and bardic music - hello improvisation, glibness, and a naturally higher charisma than a rogue] and they have all the necessary enchantment spells and charisma to be better than a wizard enchanter soley due to having nearly all the good enchantment spells [including some of the highest level spells] including some that they can just do cause they feel like it [bardic music]. They have the charisma, the skills, the spells, and the bardic music that easily rivals the mages in mind control and getting others to do what bards want. Wizards and sorcerers have to use spells solely for this purpose, which can be considerbaly less effective. However, at this time I am playing a bard/loremaster (truly a know-it-all), and it is the most enjoyable character I have ever played. I am not a fan of combat, so what did I do? I got leadership and a cohort 1 level lower than me. During combat, my character buffs (badly, compared to the cleric and the wizard) and the cohort fights. My character basically uses his bardic music and good hope spell for most of the combat. Still, I am hugely underpowered. But then, we have to roleplay, or be diplomats, and I win! Our DM gives us extra XP for good roleplay, and I am up there with the cleric. I am 1 level ahead of two characters just for the roleplaying XP. And also, I developed a perfect personality for the character. So yes, bards suck; and yes, it is fun to hear why; but I can roleplay a bard better than any other character, and being a bit underpowered does not bother me at all. ... loremaster for the bard? I wouldn't think that that's the best combo in the world [I'd prefer pure bard for covering the sagely role] but that's just me.
MrKlaster 12-07-06, 08:04 PM	I guess that it's true that bards are good in non combat situations but thats not always that helpful if you feel like playing kick in the door.
The_Shaman 12-07-06, 09:00 PM	True - just remember that not that helpful, compared to a bard in social situations, is still far from useless ;)
Tisner44 12-07-06, 10:18 PM	I guess that it's true that bards are good in non combat situations but thats not always that helpful if you feel like playing kick in the door. I belief this is the core of the problem. Everyone is basing their opinion on the combat of a low-combative character....:confused: The Bard trades combat for for role-playing and a good skill list...this I believe is a fair trade. Every bard I have seen in action has been great for the party and shined in the cities and with non-magical manipulation of people.... Diplomacy is the most powerful skill if you look at it closely:D
Deep Blue 9000 12-07-06, 11:13 PM	an archer bard looses *one* of his damage-dealing add ons, however, I didn't make arcane strike out to be his sole damage-dealing ability. I listed four in that example, except for whatever spells or other powers I didn't feel like sifting through my books for for a post I wanted to make in just a few minutes. Hardly. Its a good feat, I'll agree, but far from 'overpowered.' Its only useful to bards and other gish classes, but that's what its there for - to combine spellcasting power with melee power is a fairly direct manner. The other 3 abilities you mention add around 3 hit and 3 damage a piece to a Bard's Attacks. Arcane Strike adds +6 to hit and +6d4 damage. It is better than the other 3 factors combined. Except that a bard can *make* them - not nearly buy them and getting bull's strength as a spell can be available much sooner than the 16k gp item for free for the melee-concious bard. Further, the bard can buy the said item to so he won't even have to cast it. If the bard buys the item, he's no better off than a warrior. And a warrior could just have someone else in the party make it for him; he can use items that weren't made buy himself. Finally, +4 str is not worth wasting an entire turn, even at low levels. Bards get some OK buffs but bull's strength is not one of them. Except that i'm saying that the bard doesn't need it. There are other skill-related things the bard can do that doesn't require trap finding and there are ways around even needing trap finding. I've even seen posts that can basically replace the rogue with a summon monster spell, or even a 10 ft pole or a freaking log. Push comes to shove, the cleric, wizard, bard, or rogue with a wand can cast detect magic over suspect areas - usually doors [especially locked ones] and strange rooms. I remember the rogue log thread. Good Times. :D The problem is with not having a rogue is two fold: detecting and disabling. Lets say your party approaches a room with a black obsidian altar with bones strewn around it. You detect necromancy coming from the altar. Is the altar A) Trapped with Wail of the Banshee B) A magic item C) Had an undead created on it recently. Detect Magic can't tell a trap from a magic item or recently cast spell. Furthermore, lets assume you somehow know its a wail of the banshee trap, you still can't disable it. most cleric spells worth mentioning are buff spells and various affliction-removing spells. The bard doesn't have most of the affliction-removing spells, but the bard has more and occasionally better buff spells. The curing spells are more than adequate at any level - particularly since most PC hit points wouldn't usually go beyond about 300 hit points by 20th level. Yes, the bard would have a difficult time recovering that many hit points with cure critical wounds, but barring some serious con scores and high rolls on that d12 [a barbarian with average rolls and a 26 con gets about 295 HPs] few PCs will have that many hit points. But that's why the party has a cleric, right? But the bard's ability to cover the healing role is just adequate enough to be of tremendous use. Particularly if the bard can craft wands or better yet, scrolls. You could cast Cure Critical wounds for 38 hp or you could do a mass cure moderate for 30 to everyone. Then the cleric uses mass heal to give everyone back 250 and remove almost every negative status effect from them. I really can't see any defense of bard healing, it is by far their worst area. Bard melee at least gets wraithstrike, arcane strike, and Snowflake Dance. Their healing is bad no matter what you do. 38 hp is a fraction of any high CR monster's full attack. OK, two issues going on here. First of all, that's not what I said. I said even if the bard is a good generalist, a generalist is least desirable in a large party with a lot of niche characters who are better than you at all 4 primary roles.of course, this explaination lacks any reason why this is true. I thought the explanation was obvious. When is a generalist better, when you are missing one or more of the archetypes or when you already have all the archetypes? A buffer is better when you have lots of people but in that case a specialist buffer (like cleric) would be ideal. given your arguements, I'd surmise that the bard'd have to be nearly as good as all of the above speciality classes in order for it to be any good at all at being a decent generalist. Which is another thing I'm argueing against. People already lamblast the poor druid [and the cleric to a smaller extent] for doing precisely this and a lot of people seem to think its quite a bit overpowered. I disagree but I won't get into that. I know what 'popular opinion' is and I'll get flamed like nobody's business. I do want the bard to be nearly as good as the specialty classes. If he got 7th level sorc/wiz spells (and heal) and +5d6 sneak attack by 20th level, I'd be happy. And people hate the druid and cleric because they are better at melee than the warrior classes. I'm asking for bards to be 75% of a warrior, not 150%. In any case, I've actually played the class from start to finish in a campaign [as a meleeist bard, no less - keep in mind that I didn't get arcane strike until level nine] and there wasn't anything in the party I couldn't handle. My character only died once - due to an angry minotaur of ledgend who charged me and critted - but that attack would have killed just about anyone in my party. I just happened to be taunting him. I was easily the most valuable character in the party regardless of how effective the other characters were at their chosen speciality. I'm impressed you were able to achieve so much success with your bard. However, I have found that the most important determinant of the success of any character is the player behind it. A well played bard will contribute more than a poorly played cleric.
Vaelan 12-07-06, 11:28 PM	The Bard trades combat for for role-playing and a good skill list... A Bard can use feats to be effective in combat at low levels and can take Bard-oriented Prestige Class that gives them more substantial combat potential while not actually weakening their inherent strengths at higher levels. Making a Bard a capable combatant takes some thinking and many people have shown themselves unwilling or unable to put in such effort. I don't consider this to be a problem with the class.
Deep Blue 9000 12-07-06, 11:28 PM	At the early levels the bard becomes a great support especially with the buffs and music. At later levels is where the bard can shine or fail. In a group the bard has to find a niche, each group has different weaknesses. The Bard is the one character that can help fill the weakness of the party. The Bard should choose the feats, spells and skills that will assist the party the most. If the wizard has a lot of damage spells and loves to blow things up, the bard can choose the utility spells, so the wizard can take full advantage of that. The rogue might specialize in several skills, the bard can take up the slack and specialize in the other skills (esp Cha-based skills). Maybe the fighter is more defensive based and could use someone else to help out the combat. With the right feats, a bard can be a good secondary fighter. If the cleric is negative energy or wants to take full advantage of their massive spell list, the bard can use his healing spells first or as a backup if the cleric runs out. The Bard is a Support Character....they support the rest of the party. His synergy is between the parties abilities and his own. No the bard will never be as good as a more specialized class at what they do, if they were then the class would be overpowered. They allow the rest of the party to use their abilities to the maximum knowing that a backup is present if they need help. The reason why most people don't like the class is because their strength doesn't lie in combats. Their strengths are in social skills. This is a role-playing game and somewhere there should be a class that excells at that....that's the Bard. If you like to be a heavy damaging character in combat, then don't play a bard. To be fair place all the other classes in any social situation and see which class excells.....The Bard should easily surpass any character in this situation. Lets say there was a Diplomat class that was just as good as bards in social skills but in combat Diplomats can take no actions but give all his allies within 30' +1 to hit. This class would suck. Why? Because it gives up to much in combat abilities for the social abilities it gains. Many other classes could be much better in combat and very slightly worse in social situations. Obviously, bards aren't as bad as but their problems is they lose too much in combat utility for their moderate advantage in social situations. I'm not opposed to the bard in principle but I think its abilities are too weak to accomplish what the class is designed to do: be a generalist/buffer.
navar100 12-07-06, 11:59 PM	To be fair place all the other classes in any social situation and see which class excells.....The Bard should easily surpass any character in this situation. Cleric and Paladin can handle Diplomacy. Rogue can handle Diplomacy as well, but stereotypically they'll handle the streetwise Diplomacy. Gather Information, Intimidate, Bluff - that's for the Rogue. Fighter and Barbarian can do well with Intimidate. Rangers pick up some of the Gather Information slack. Bards can do a little bit of everything. Other classes cannot do everything by themselves. That's why you have a party. However, for what the other classes can do, they can do very, very well. The party's whole is greater than the sum of its parts. For whatever class I'm playing, for an ability of which I lack such that I want a party member who can do that ability, I don't want someone who's mediocre at it. I want an expert. If I'm a wizard and want a dedicated warrior to keep bad guys away from me, I want a fighter, barbarian, or paladin, not a bard. If I'm a fighter and want a healer to keep me alive and remove afflictions, I want a cleric, not a bard. If I can't have a cleric I'll take a druid.
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-08-06, 12:50 AM	The other 3 abilities you mention add around 3 hit and 3 damage a piece to a Bard's Attacks. Arcane Strike adds +6 to hit and +6d4 damage. It is better than the other 3 factors combined. +3/+3 is what those other abilities do at lower levels. +6/+6d4 is what the bard does with arcane strike at his highest levels. Not. Optimal. Extremely useful, but hardly necessary in order to achieve the end result. If the bard buys the item, he's no better off than a warrior. And a warrior could just have someone else in the party make it for him; he can use items that weren't made buy himself. Finally, +4 str is not worth wasting an entire turn, even at low levels. Bards get some OK buffs but bull's strength is not one of them. Bull's strength was an example because it was the first and simplest one I thought of. I'm sure I could pour through the spell compendium, complete mage, PHB, and PHB II for better examples, but I'd honestly rather do other things today. The problem is with not having a rogue is two fold: detecting and disabling. Lets say your party approaches a room with a black obsidian altar with bones strewn around it. You detect necromancy coming from the altar. Is the altar A) Trapped with Wail of the Banshee B) A magic item C) Had an undead created on it recently. Detect Magic can't tell a trap from a magic item or recently cast spell. Furthermore, lets assume you somehow know its a wail of the banshee trap, you still can't disable it. No, but you can dispel it or even summon something and have that creature set it off. You could cast Cure Critical wounds for 38 hp or you could do a mass cure moderate for 30 to everyone. Then the cleric uses mass heal to give everyone back 250 and remove almost every negative status effect from them. yeah? and? I wasn't contending that the bard was a better healer - merely an adequate one that's capable enough to keep people -especially themselves- alive. I really can't see any defense of bard healing, it is by far their worst area. Bard melee at least gets wraithstrike, arcane strike, and Snowflake Dance. Their healing is bad no matter what you do. 38 hp is a fraction of any high CR monster's full attack. I could also go into the argument that the anti-fighter/pro-wizard or CoDzilla people used to say that combat doesn't typically last for longer than 3~5 rounds and contend to where situations where opponents would either deal damage such that the target characters would be rendered dead quickly and efficiently enough to where no amount of mass healing could save them fast enough [eg a wizard or psion nuked the PCs - especially those useless, useless fighters and rogues] or where the damage was light enough to where a cure crit is all that's necessary and a wand of any cure spell is more than adequate out of combat. Wholly rendering high-yield curing obselete. But considering that even I think those arguements are assinine, I'll just say that saying that clerics can cure more or better doesn't defeat my arguement as I wasn't arguing against that fact but saying that a bard is useless at healing because the cleric can do more with one casting is flawed logic. All healing is useful - the bard's especially since it is quite capable - even a paladin's meager healing between lay on hands and spells and the bard is more powerful a healer than anyone but the cleric and the druid - because those are the dedicated healers. [and even the bard can access the heal spell if it chooses the healing domain with arcane disciple or whatever it was called from the complete divine - the same bard with scribe scroll or craft stave could even access the spell whenever the bard chooses without even having to deal with use magic device] I thought the explanation was obvious. When is a generalist better, when you are missing one or more of the archetypes or when you already have all the archetypes? A buffer is better when you have lots of people but in that case a specialist buffer (like cleric) would be ideal. The cleric isnt' as skillful and relies completely upon spells for all of its buffing whereas the bard gets bardic music - in addition to its other abilitites and use-magic device-related benefits. I do want the bard to be nearly as good as the specialty classes. If he got 7th level sorc/wiz spells (and heal) and +5d6 sneak attack by 20th level, I'd be happy. And people hate the druid and cleric because they are better at melee than the warrior classes. I'm asking for bards to be 75% of a warrior, not 150%. I've seen arguements stating that a party of clerics and druids [one with the kobold domain to replace the rogue] is supposedly a superior choice to any particular party member. I don't think the bard should have sneak attack - it just doesn't fit the flavor of the bard in current editions [it would step too much on the rogues] - I'd probably just grant the bard more songs and more powerful songs. I don't think these things are necessary [most of the things I use to make 'power gamed' bards involves words of creation if good aligned, item creation feats, jack of all traits, certain spells, arcane strike if melee focused, and a number of other things enhances the bard's abilities just fine - just as feats would do for any class.] I'm impressed you were able to achieve so much success with your bard. However, I have found that the most important determinant of the success of any character is the player behind it. A well played bard will contribute more than a poorly played cleric. I've played the exact same bard up to 11th level [with clear ideas of directions and goals for higher levels] in two seporate campaigns. Only the first one died at any time and that was the last last adventure of the campaign due to dumb luck and simple greed got him into quite a bit of trouble - as is the adventurer's chargain... or however you spell that. But yes, it is a major part of any player, but if you're trying to stick my success with the lack of effort by the other players - I should tell you that the others hardly lack experience in character creation or using their characters effectively. Quite the opposite, actually. None of the other players were thrilled with my selection in class in either game, but I managed to compete quite well with everyone in the party for effectiveness. The best part was that I knew I could do more, even in terms of optimizing the bard.
Deep Blue 9000 12-08-06, 01:52 AM	No, but you can dispel it or even summon something and have that creature set it off. Magical Traps are almost all automatic reset (meaning setting it off once doesn't make it safe afterward) and usually have caster level much higher than their CR. For example, the CR 10 Wail of the Banshee trap has caster level 17. And even if successful, dispel will only make the trap safe for 1d4 rounds. I've had far too many sessions both DMing and playing in groups without rogues. Trust me, you NEED trap finding to deal with traps. yeah? and? I wasn't contending that the bard was a better healer - merely an adequate one that's capable enough to keep people -especially themselves- alive. I could also go into the argument that the anti-fighter/pro-wizard or CoDzilla people used to say that combat doesn't typically last for longer than 3~5 rounds and contend to where situations where opponents would either deal damage such that the target characters would be rendered dead quickly and efficiently enough to where no amount of mass healing could save them fast enough [eg a wizard or psion nuked the PCs - especially those useless, useless fighters and rogues] or where the damage was light enough to where a cure crit is all that's necessary and a wand of any cure spell is more than adequate out of combat. Wholly rendering high-yield curing obselete. But considering that even I think those arguements are assinine, I'll just say that saying that clerics can cure more or better doesn't defeat my arguement as I wasn't arguing against that fact but saying that a bard is useless at healing because the cleric can do more with one casting is flawed logic. All healing is useful - the bard's especially since it is quite capable - even a paladin's meager healing between lay on hands and spells and the bard is more powerful a healer than anyone but the cleric and the druid - because those are the dedicated healers. [and even the bard can access the heal spell if it chooses the healing domain with arcane disciple or whatever it was called from the complete divine - the same bard with scribe scroll or craft stave could even access the spell whenever the bard chooses without even having to deal with use magic device] I meant for my example to show that Bards are pathetically inferior healers to Clerics. Its not just that 250 is bigger than 38, its that its a lot bigger. If monsters deal 100 damage a round and the bard can only heal 38, his healing is not enough to keep people alive. Casting the heal from a magic item is viable healing but it gets expensive and I think this tactic admits that bard spell healing is crap. It shows you need "heal" to heal at high levels, and that is something bards don't get. The cleric isnt' as skillful and relies completely upon spells for all of its buffing whereas the bard gets bardic music - in addition to its other abilitites and use-magic device-related benefits. But if you have a large party you already have a skill person, you don't need another. And bardic music is more vulnerable to negation that spells (silence). Plus the cleric spell buffs are superior. I've seen arguements stating that a party of clerics and druids [one with the kobold domain to replace the rogue] is supposedly a superior choice to any particular party member. Clerics and Druids are very versatile so I imagine you could get by with a party of 4 clerics/druids. But, I'd have to see a build before I would believe a cleric could out do a rogue or, especially, a wizard. In any case, I think this is tangential to our argument about bards. I don't think the bard should have sneak attack - it just doesn't fit the flavor of the bard in current editions [it would step too much on the rogues] - I'd probably just grant the bard more songs and more powerful songs. I don't think these things are necessary [most of the things I use to make 'power gamed' bards involves words of creation if good aligned, item creation feats, jack of all traits, certain spells, arcane strike if melee focused, and a number of other things enhances the bard's abilities just fine - just as feats would do for any class.] I'm not married to sneak attack, some powerful high level songs might fit the bill, depending on what they do. I just feel the bard needs more power in its melee attacks and spell casting. The sneak attack and spell level were an example to illustrate the size of the buff I'm talking about. I've played the exact same bard up to 11th level [with clear ideas of directions and goals for higher levels] in two seporate campaigns. Only the first one died at any time and that was the last last adventure of the campaign due to dumb luck and simple greed got him into quite a bit of trouble - as is the adventurer's chargain... or however you spell that. But yes, it is a major part of any player, but if you're trying to stick my success with the lack of effort by the other players - I should tell you that the others hardly lack experience in character creation or using their characters effectively. Quite the opposite, actually. None of the other players were thrilled with my selection in class in either game, but I managed to compete quite well with everyone in the party for effectiveness. The best part was that I knew I could do more, even in terms of optimizing the bard. Well, I don't know what to say. If your players are experienced and you still managed to outshine them maybe there's more to bards than I thought. But my Theorycraft™ strongly indicates otherwise. Maybe I'd change my mind if I saw a great bard in action. Would you mind posting your build for that bard?
Qube 12-08-06, 02:10 AM	You do. It's a big problem with the bard and save spells at high levels, I would imagine. EDIT: And in case that was unclear...I've never personally played a bard past level 10, though I've seen a fair number of others play them. here's the problems: - i think a 'good' build of a bard would use spells without a save. on a more general note: - i fear the 'X sucks' threads are spamed by people who never played a X, or played an X and had a bad experience. - most of these threads end as optimalisation thread, so 'X sucks' would be better translated to 'X is difficult to optimise'
Nephlite 12-08-06, 09:04 AM	Magical Traps are almost all automatic reset (meaning setting it off once doesn't make it safe afterward) and usually have caster level much higher than their CR. For example, the CR 10 Wail of the Banshee trap has caster level 17. And even if successful, dispel will only make the trap safe for 1d4 rounds. Than sunder it after disabling it. As it is nonmagical now: it should be easy by times you face CR 10 trap. That is at least level 10.
Tisner44 12-08-06, 11:46 AM	Lets say there was a Diplomat class that was just as good as bards in social skills but in combat Diplomats can take no actions but give all his allies within 30' +1 to hit. This class would suck. Why? Because it gives up to much in combat abilities for the social abilities it gains. Many other classes could be much better in combat and very slightly worse in social situations. Obviously, bards aren't as bad as but their problems is they lose too much in combat utility for their moderate advantage in social situations. I'm not opposed to the bard in principle but I think its abilities are too weak to accomplish what the class is designed to do: be a generalist/buffer. I agree that their damage output is minimal. This is probably because they do spend so much time buffing other characters that they don't need to fight for very long. The Bard in my game is one of the most important characters (along with the Druid, they make a great team that can handle some very tough situations). The main thing about a Bard is that they are hard to play by an inexperienced player. I do believe they could use some help, but the increases in power should be related to what they have that is special. I think the bonuses from bardic music should be higher, and maybe a feat that will allow them to do it as a move action so they can take another action at the same time. This would allow them more fighting time as well as making the Buff worth the round lost(especially at early levels). The only other thing is maybe increasing their weapon choices to help in the damage output. Cleric and Paladin can handle Diplomacy. Rogue can handle Diplomacy as well, but stereotypically they'll handle the streetwise Diplomacy. Gather Information, Intimidate, Bluff - that's for the Rogue. Fighter and Barbarian can do well with Intimidate. Rangers pick up some of the Gather Information slack. Bards can do a little bit of everything. Other classes cannot do everything by themselves. That's why you have a party. However, for what the other classes can do, they can do very, very well. The party's whole is greater than the sum of its parts. For whatever class I'm playing, for an ability of which I lack such that I want a party member who can do that ability, I don't want someone who's mediocre at it. I want an expert. If I'm a wizard and want a dedicated warrior to keep bad guys away from me, I want a fighter, barbarian, or paladin, not a bard. If I'm a fighter and want a healer to keep me alive and remove afflictions, I want a cleric, not a bard. If I can't have a cleric I'll take a druid. The reason that a Bard is better than any other class at diplomacy is their access to the enchantment spells and diplomacy. This is topped off by the fact that the Bard's main ability score is Cha and can dump most of his stat increases into it. A cleric may put a few points in Cha, but the main stat is Wis. A Paladin could also work, but they have quite a few other stats that they use. The Bard is the only character with Diplomacy that has Cha the main stat. The Bard is a great 5th Character because although he is only mediocre at many things, he can be a temporary replacement for all of those things. If the wizard dies, is the fighter going to start casting spells....nope. The bard will...he may not have the selection nor can he cast as many offensive spells, but he will do the job in the short term. The same goes for skills, healing and combat. He can do all of these although not at the same level as the other classes or for as long. If he was an expert at all of these at once, then why play any other class? There are many situations where the Bard is very useful, he may not be the best for it, but he can get the job done....show me a class that can heal, cast offensive spells, buff, has a good skill list and can survive in a fight....the only one is the Bard...that is what is unique about the Bard.
Nephlite 12-08-06, 11:52 AM	The main thing about a Bard is that they are hard to play by an inexperienced player. I do believe they could use some help, but the increases in power should be related to what they have that is special. I think the bonuses from bardic music should be higher, and maybe a feat that will allow them to do it as a move action so they can take another action at the same time. This would allow them more fighting time as well as making the Buff worth the round lost(especially at early levels). The only other thing is maybe increasing their weapon choices to help in the damage output. Weapons are fine. Armor should be improved to add Meduim like 3.0 one. Still ca'nt cast in it, but at level 1, you can 't cast much anyway. At level one most useful is flare anyway (no ASF for it as Verbal only). The Bard is a great 5th Character because although he is only mediocre at many things, he can be a temporary replacement for all of those things. If the wizard dies, is the fighter going to start casting spells....nope. The bard will...he may not have the selection nor can he cast as many offensive spells, but he will do the job in the short term. The same goes for skills, healing and combat. He can do all of these although not at the same level as the other classes or for as long. If he was an expert at all of these at once, then why play any other class? I believe that the Bard is a mixture of Cleric, Rogue, and Warrior not Fighter (no bonus feats, only thing Fighter has). I do think it deserves Open Lock and maybe Search. Open lock because it had it in 2,.0 but lost it now...and it is very useful for theif role. And i like Search.
Treantmonklvl20 12-08-06, 11:54 AM	on a more general note: - i fear the 'X sucks' threads are spamed by people who never played a X, or played an X and had a bad experience. Definitely lots of the later. I'm one of them. I'm not sure "spamming" is the right term though. - most of these threads end as optimalisation thread, so 'X sucks' would be better translated to 'X is difficult to optimise' No question about it. Unfortunately, the existance of certain divine casters can be used to make any other class look weak by comparison. That said "X is difficult to optimise" is sometimes more accurately described as "X CANNOT be optimised to the level of the majority of other classes in the game." which is a very different thing. Generally Optimisation (s or z?) involves specialization, which is not a Bard's forte. A fighter is difficult to optimise, but it can be done so that it's fighting ability in melee becomes comparable to the other fighter-types (it requires a stupid amount of planning though). Bard's are a different creature. JOAT means non-specialization by definition.
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-08-06, 12:03 PM	Magical Traps are almost all automatic reset (meaning setting it off once doesn't make it safe afterward) and usually have caster level much higher than their CR. For example, the CR 10 Wail of the Banshee trap has caster level 17. And even if successful, dispel will only make the trap safe for 1d4 rounds. True, but its enough to know how it functions so it can be disabled through by simply bypassing it [walking around, flying over] or destroying it [liberal application of acid or the sundering strikes of a weapon.] I've had far too many sessions both DMing and playing in groups without rogues. Trust me, you NEED trap finding to deal with traps. it seems necessary for only certain kinds of adventures. I've been DMing for a few years now and I"ve only thrown a few traps at earlier levels at my PCs. As a player, I've actually gone through very few traps. Ignoring that though, my methods might not bypass all traps, but most and that's enough - especially considering that said rogue won't be able to bypass all of them himself anyway. I meant for my example to show that Bards are pathetically inferior healers to Clerics. Its not just that 250 is bigger than 38, its that its a lot bigger. If monsters deal 100 damage a round and the bard can only heal 38, his healing is not enough to keep people alive. ... well, the cleric's ability to cure 250 hit points requires a 9th level spell at a caster level of 25 - meaning that most clerics - barring some feats/prestige classes, will only be doing 200 points versus the bard's 4th level spell that does 38 by the same level. An empowered cure crit would cure about 57 points of damage and take up a 6th level spell slot - about 1/4 of what a cleric could do. Arcane disciple would allow the bard to be able to actually use heal for 150 points of damage once/day or more with application of scribe scroll. Granted it requires more effort on the bard's part, but the bard can become a capapble healer. Further, most attacks by creatures of that level won't do a lot of damage that can't be mitigated by spells by 20th level. The balor's and Pit Fiend's spells could do that much damage in a round [that meteor swarm] but that's something fire resistance 20 pretty much completely mitigates except for the bludgeoning damage. In melee, either monster isn't doing a 100 damage a round. Even dragons won't be doing direct melee against the party - it'd use hit and run tactics with its breath weapon and spells or whatever would give it the most advantage - probably picking off individual party members in melee if they get seporated. Which pretty much means that that character is going to die and a contingent true resurrection [craft contingency] or even the bard's revenance would be more helpful. WHich all basically comes down to how the bard's healing is adequate most of the time. Sometimes though, the cleric's obviously superior healing ability or the druid's less-than-optimal healing ability is there for. That is why the party has a cleric, right? But if you have a large party you already have a skill person, you don't need another. And bardic music is more vulnerable to negation that spells (silence). Plus the cleric spell buffs are superior. Just like if you already have a healing battery or a tank or a mage, then you don't need a second one. The cleric's spell buffs are superior to the cleric cause most of the best ones are self-only. The best ones aren't even core and the bard gets plenty of non-core options also that easily outranks most of the cleric's buffs. The better clerical buffs usually stack with the bard's - so this point is moot. Further, a second cleric is redundant. If one cleric can cast these buffs, then another one doen't have many more options. The bard rules the buff department and the game I DM has a cleric that pretty much knows the class up and down. Clerics and Druids are very versatile so I imagine you could get by with a party of 4 clerics/druids. But, I'd have to see a build before I would believe a cleric could out do a rogue or, especially, a wizard. In any case, I think this is tangential to our argument about bards. Well, the arguers named the kobold domain as the reason a cleric could cover for a rogue since it apparently grants trapfinding, so saddle said cleric up with a high intelligence and put ranks in search and disable device and there you go. I'm not married to sneak attack, some powerful high level songs might fit the bill, depending on what they do. I just feel the bard needs more power in its melee attacks and spell casting. The sneak attack and spell level were an example to illustrate the size of the buff I'm talking about. I suppose that would be fair, but there are options to do that. The sublime chord for additional spellcasting power, for example or the warsinger [or whatever that was called that is a warrior prestige class for the bard] in the complete warrior or even judicious application of spells and feats and such to incline the bard to something of a particular profession. Such as by taking medium armor proficiency, battle casting [to allow the bard to cast spells in medium armor w/ no penalty], combat buff spells and feats to allow them to get as many off as they can as quickly as they can for a frontline combat focus. Improved toughness also works, as always. Well, I don't know what to say. If your players are experienced and you still managed to outshine them maybe there's more to bards than I thought. But my Theorycraft™ strongly indicates otherwise. Maybe I'd change my mind if I saw a great bard in action. Would you mind posting your build for that bard? I'd have to dig it out, but I'll post one sometime today or tomarrow. THe bard I made for either game wasn't as optimal as I could make them [the first one took skill focus: sleight of hand] so the one you'll get is the one I used before but upgraded to what I would do for the bard if I were going to use him now. Keep in mind the bard I used before each time was before the spell compendium or PHB II was released so it does make quite a difference - which I'll also post with the general construction of the character. The system the DM allowed for character creation admittedly allowed for some very high ability scores [I ended up with multiple scores above and equal to a 13. The second game, I rolled the scores publicly and still got an 18 - which I always plugged into intelligence for the skill points.] The version I will post will use 25 point buy.
MrKlaster 12-08-06, 06:27 PM	This is I repeat, this is my final opinion. Bard's are helpful in non combat situations using diplomacy and other skills. They can be good in combat if used with the correct items but usually not so much.
Khan the Destroyer 12-08-06, 06:39 PM	I think the main point behind Bard strengths is that they have to invest resources into them. They pretty much have one foot in the door with respect to abilities enjoyed by other classes. If they want to improve those abilities, they have to work at it. For instance, any character can be a trapfinder by level 6 with Magic of Incarnum. The Shape Soulmeld feat will grant you Thief Gloves, and the Open Least Chakra feat will allow you to bind it to your hands chakra. This gives you Trapfinding, and allows you to use Open Lock, Disable Device, and Sleight of Hand untrained. All that remains is a competent Disable Device modifier, but finding the trap and possibly avoiding it is much better than wandering into it. If you want, use Able Learner to buy ranks in Disable Device at 1:1. Or rely on Bardic Knack. Or use Improvisation. For combat, I think it's already been said many times. Feats, spells, and bardic music. Song of the Heart/Inspire Courage/Inspirational Boost/Words of Creation. Obtainable by level 6, you enjoy a +6 bonus to attack and damage. Arcane Strike is another option at level 9 (+3 attack, +3d4 damage at that level). Snowflake Wardance adds charisma to attack rolls. Heck, why stop at melee? Grab Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, and Manyshot. Snag a Bow of Songs. Use your move action to activate your Bow of Songs, and your standard action to use Manyshot. Fire up to 3 arrows and add your charisma modifier to your one attack roll and damage on each arrow (don't forget your Inspire Courage bonuses as well). Have your party caster enchant it with the Splitting property (another feat needed for Precise Shot in this case), and each standard action lodges 6 arrows into your target's chest at 6d6 + 6(charisma modifier) + 6(weapon enhancement). Feel free to grab Greater Manyshot and split those arrows amongst different foes. Sure, it's a lot of feats. But keep in mind that while you invest your feats on being competent in ranged combat, you can still cast spells, you still have your skills, and your melee attacks aren't suffering because your bardic music affects all attacks. You're also still buffing the rest of the party. Want to be a better healer? Well, good luck. Casters will be the hardest to emulate. Bards shouldn't try to do everything that wizards and clerics do. As always, I advocate magic items. Casters should be crafting (use a Thought Bottle if the XP is that important to you). Magic items allow more effects in less time. Casters have the big guns, but are still limited in how quick they can get those guns out. Having a bard around with magic items allows for another action dedicated to magical assistance. For healing, you could invest two feats (augment Healing and Natural Spell) to add another 4 points of healing per spell level. Also, Reach Spell+Split Ray not only allows you to heal allies at a distance, it also doubles your healing from that one spell. Add Metamagic Song if you don't want to use higher level slots. Don't forget the 6th level spell Revenance. The one that allows a bard to temporarily raise someone from the dead. I don't see what the difference is between a cleric casting Heal, and a bard casting Heal out of an item (other than cost, but since you can make money every day... ;). Or in a different way... use Healthy Rest and Summon Elysian Thrush to triple natural healing. When everyone rests that night, they heal 3 times their character level in hit points. As far as wizards are concerned, the job is tougher. Arcane spells cover such a wide specturm of effects. A bard could never hope to match that power with his spells alone. Of course, magic items go a long way to shore that up. But what spells you choose depend on what kind of bard you play. A skills/combat bard might pick up Improvisation, while a healer bard will pick up Cure spells, and Summon Elysian Thrush. A utility bard might pick up Hidden Lodge and Phantom Steed. I think of the four traditional roles, the arcane caster is the hardest to emulate without items. With scrolls and wands, a bard might serve as a utility mage, focusing mostly on common solutions to common problems. And with regards to cleric buffing... what buffs are we talking about? I only ask because I don't have much experience with clerics buffing the party. All clerics I've played with have either been strictly healers or battle-crazed monsters. I've only played one cleric and it was the latter. Bards may not have a slew of buffing spells. But adding those bonuses to everyone's attack and damage, and to saves vs. fear, with one action, is pretty big. Especially when you can optimize that bonus. Consider that the full attack is pretty weak (you can't move, and your final two attacks will probably miss). With those buffs, the fighter becomes more efficient, and the rogue becomes much more deadly. Which reminds me... where is this damage that the fighter and barbarian are doing? Because if it's from Power Attack, I'd like to know how they are reliably hitting monsters of appropriate CR with their reduced to-hit. (Yeah, I understand Shock Trooper's Heedless Charge, but that's one attack, and a charge attack. Limited and conditional.) (Please consider that when I make calculations concerning 'the bard', I am assuming a human bard without multiclassing or prestigeclassing. Therefore, the comparisons I make between other classes assume humans and no multiclassing or prestigeclassing as well.) Sorry for the long post, I had a lot to explain :).
DaidojiTaidoru 12-08-06, 07:02 PM	Hm... While I'm not a good enough optimiser to determine if a bard is good in a fight, in non combat situations they're insane. Sure a face rogue can duplicate all the skills and a mage can duplicate the spells, but a bard gets all that and more. At 6th level for example... The party is trying to convince a Unfriendly group to assist them in some manner. The Rogue or Bard can make Diplomacy checks to change their opinion. Probable Diplomacy in that range for a face character is around +20 (probably low end actually) Still that's a natural 20 to succeed in that diplomacy check. The casters can try a charm/dominate spell, but one save or Spellcraft roll, and things go downhill fast. However the Bard can fire off that Diplomacy check, and now that the targets are Indifferent/Friendly get them to listen to a song. Which of course is a DC 20+ fascinate followed by 6 Suggestions that are unlikely to be spellcrafted. Much more likely to succeed then either of the other options. And it gets better every level. If you're doing a heavy political campaign, where people are stuck in rooms with people they hate and forced to have a polite dinner, bards (especially those focused on oratory) are a powerhouse above and beyond most other classes.
dolalmoth 12-08-06, 08:47 PM	Oh my god I hate bards. Somehow a kid I hate ended up inmy campain (he can't just leave us alone!!!), and he was a bard. HE killed the class for me...
The_Shaman 12-08-06, 08:48 PM	O-kay, so you hate a class just because he tainted it with his presence? At least, you're honest, I guess.
jollythehappyminotaur 12-08-06, 10:30 PM	i think anyone who doesnt like a class is narrow minded. classes dont make the character the player does. bards only suck as much as the player controlling them. they dont suck you just dont know how to play them. in fact i on many occasions have seen some very broken bard builds. let me tell you of a bard i once played and show you how powerfull bards really can be. as we all know bards are focused on charisma. sense motive, knowledge royalty, and bluff are all synergys for diplomacy. if you put 5 ranks in all of them thats plus 6 to diplomacy, if you are half-elf thats another 2 and have you ever heard of skill focus thats plus10. at lvl 8 i had a character with a plus plus26 to diplomacy- can anybody say broken. next bards are great at playing tricks. the dc of their suggestion is vs a proform check. thats awesome! at the beging of every battle i would play my instrument and give my party plus 4 on attack and damage ( i had feat song of heart and would cast insperational boost (swift action) both in CA both increase inspire competence by one.) than next round haste. than i would trip things with my whip giving them minuses. i did more damage than anyone concidering every time another player hit i did 4 of that damage and 20% of their attacks would not hit if they didnt have the plus 4 on attack so that was all my damage and the extra attacks from haste was all my damage that would have never happend without me. by the way this was only when we got in fights because i could talk my way out of most prediciments thats what plus 26 on diplomacy does for you
MrKlaster 12-09-06, 10:16 AM	if a class is just plain crappy(not that i think bards are) then there isn't much the player can do about it i think
Norhg 12-09-06, 10:31 AM	if a class is just plain crappy(not that i think bards are) then there isn't much the player can do about it i think I often hear people say, "whine so that the DM hears if you think your character inadequate" :rolleyes: Otherwise "Lol, nuub, your character suxx. Build it this way and it won't." Supposedly, either works :cool:
navar100 12-09-06, 12:09 PM	Bards are not useless, but there's always someone who can do what he does just as well or better with other stuff he can do, including social situations. My level 3 Warlock has a +20 Diplomacy modifier, +14 Bluff, +14 Intimidate, +10 Gather Information, and +8 Sense Motive. I have Versatile Feat to make Diplomacy and Gather Information class skills. Two characters of different fields experts in their field working together are better than one character mediocre in both fields, and multiclassing is not being mediocre in the classes that are multiclassed. (Granted there can be sub-optimal multiclassing combinations.)
Blaze_the_Dragon 12-09-06, 12:49 PM	Couldn't even be bothered to read this the entire way through before I wanted to respond. A:Bards arn't ment to specialize...Sure that might be YOUR unique stratagy to D&D...But it doesn't HAVE to work like that... B:Bards are usually the Charismatic ones...The kinda that calm that Mob down from hunting down the Half-Vampire PC...Or buy an apple and end up selling it for 5 gold, then buying 5 apples. C:Now...This only goes for if there's a Female in your playing group...More spesificly...One you LIKE...Bards are Hot...None of you can Deny that...If Bards are ANYTHING it's flashy...Girls dig a guy with a guitar. D:Fighting ablity...Magic...Skill points...BArdic Lore and Music....No matter WHAT happens...A bard will be able to do SOMETHING...
Deep Blue 9000 12-10-06, 02:34 AM	:Now...This only goes for if there's a Female in your playing group...More spesificly...One you LIKE...Bards are Hot...None of you can Deny that...If Bards are ANYTHING it's flashy...Girls dig a guy with a guitar. Finally, a real reason to play bards! :ayyyy!:
Treantmonklvl20 12-10-06, 10:39 AM	[QUOTE=Blaze_the_Dragon;10866575] C:Now...This only goes for if there's a Female in your playing group...More spesificly...One you LIKE...Bards are Hot...None of you can Deny that...If Bards are ANYTHING it's flashy...Girls dig a guy with a guitar.QUOTE] Now that's a great way to pick up women *sarcasm*.... creepy guy: Approaches girl, character sheet in hand, "Hey baby, I'm in IT and enjoy evercraft and Monty Python movies, but my CHARACTER has an 18 charisma and plays instruments. Want to go out Friday?" Girl: Gag...
MrKlaster 12-10-06, 01:13 PM	C:Now...This only goes for if there's a Female in your playing group...More spesificly...One you LIKE...Bards are Hot...None of you can Deny that...If Bards are ANYTHING it's flashy...Girls dig a guy with a guitar. Are you talking about in real life or in the game?
Norhg 12-10-06, 02:08 PM	Are you talking about in real life or in the game?Guitars? Work_Everywhere :rolleyes:
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-10-06, 02:46 PM	As promised - this the bard I used in the first campaign in which I used him [in Eberron]. The artifacts he's listed with are a plot device and serve him no real value except simply being listed because he was the character who was charged with keeping an eye on them. I don't immediately recall the stats on his lydarnia longsword item familiar - but its like a +2 or +3 longsword that grants him several powers that include a number of feats and bardic music enhancements. Also keep in mind that I statted up this character before the advent of the complete mage, spell compendium, PHB II, and a few of the other latest books which, if I were to use this character again, would result in a lot of changes. Most notably that bardic knack fits his character concept far better than most of the things I have here. Most of the feats, for example, I regret taking - like skill focus, weapon focus, and eschew materials. Sorry for the old stat-block format, but this is how I write them. Also - I know the ability scores are quite high - but those are ledgitimate stats - the DM wanted to run a high-power campaign and his super-ability score stat generation resulted in the scores he ended up getting. His hit points are also higher than average because the first 4 levels or so were allowed to gain max hit points. Plus I do tend to roll high on hit points, as the players in my own game would attest. And yes, that really is a skill focus feat - which he took as one of his first feats. I also intended to have him make an intelligent sword down the line that could shoot maximized lightning bolts at will, among other powers - despite its huge expense and the fact that he'd need a wizard to help. [He also planned on taking leadership as his next feat so he could bring his wife with him on adventures.] Velmir Tal’Quessim: Male human Bard 11; CR 11; Medium-size humanoid; HD 11d6+22; hp 75; Init +4; Spd 30 ft.; AC 29, touch 17, flat-footed 25; Atk +14/+9 melee (1d8+5/19-20x2, Lydarnia longsword), or +12/+7 melee (1d8+3/19-20x2, +1 longsword), or +10/+5 melee (1d6+3, quarterstaff), +11/+6 melee (1d4+2/19-20x2, Masterwork Dagger), or +13 ranged (1d4+2/19-20x2, Masterwork Dagger); SA Bardic Knowledge +15, Bardic Music 11/day, Countersong (Su), Fascinate (Su) (DC Perform Check+1), Inspire Courage (+3) (Su), Inspire Competance (+3), Suggestion (DC=20) (Su), Dodge*, Mobility*, Lowlight*, Music of Making*, 60ft. Darkvision*, Inspire Greatness (3d10, +3 Atk, +2 Fortitude) (Su), Song of the Heart*; AL CG; SV Fort +7, Ref +13, Will +10; Str 14, Dex 19, Con 15, Int 18, Wis 13, Cha 19. Skills and Feats: Appraise+18, Bluff +18, Diplomacy+6, Escape Artist +18, Hide+23, Intimidate+6, Listen+15, Move Silently+23, Open Lock+13, Perform (Singing)+18, Perform (Oratory)+8, Sleight of Hand+23, Use Magic Device+18; Eschew Materials, Skill Focus: Sleight of Hand, Weapon Focus (Longsword), Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Arcane Strike. Languages: Common, Elven, Irial, Orc, Sylvan, Abyssal Spells Known: 3/4/4/4/2 DC=14 + Spell Level 0-) Detect Magic, Mage Hand, Message, Prestigitation, Read Magic, Light; 1-) Expeditious Retreat, Feather Fall, Cure Light Wounds, Alarm; 2-) Alter Self, Invisibility, Silence, Cure Moderate Wounds; 3-) Phantom Steed, Haste, Dispel Magic, Cure Serious Wounds; 4-) Break Enchantment, Dimension Door, Freedom of Movement Possessions: Gloves of Dexterity+2, Cloak of Charisma+2, Amulet of Natural Armor+1, Ring of Protection+1, Vest of Resistance+1, Longsword+1, Quarterstaff, Dagger, Lydarnia Longsword (*=Granted Item Familiar power or ability – 2800xp gained thus far), Shadow Mithral Chain Shirt+2 of Silent Moves, Buckler+2, Empty Backpack, Waterskin, Smuggler’s Boot (hidden dagger within), Blade Boot, Explorer’s Outfit, Tobacco and Rolling Paper, TindertwigX15, Black Dagger, Crowbar, Key to Shop at Tower 7 – Slot 314-5, Flint & Steel, MW Thief’s Tools, Scroll of Gate, Book of Luzon, Sphere Artifact, Spear Artifact, Wand of Cure Light Wounds (34 Charges), Chalise (Bless Water 2/day), 2 vials of anti-toxin, Scroll of Bless Weapon, Arcane Signet Ring of House Connith, Blank Platinum Coin, 400 yr. Old Elven Wine, Restoration Potion x2, CL3 Divine Scroll of Resist Energy, Scroll of Remove Curse, Bless Weapon Oil, Remove Fear Potion, Protection from Evil Potion, Essence Node of Binding depicting Crescent Moon, Small Mithral Bloodstone, Ring of Protection +3, Amulet of Natural Armor +3, Vest of Resistance +2
MrKlaster 12-10-06, 03:31 PM	Some say the items make the character. That is often true.
elondir 12-11-06, 09:54 AM	I like using bards for campaign fluff (very good for non-combat encounters), but I don't like playing them. If you're happy with being the party's cheerleader, or if you need a lot of mind control, bards are good. I find that bards are not a jack-of-all trades. While they share many abilities with the other classes, they lack certain abilities that render him not so useful. For example, bards don't have heavy artillery spells or save or dies, they can't turn undead, they don't have evasion or trapfinding, and they lack the hit dice to tank. That means they're more or less left buffing the rest of the party and staying out of the way in battle since they can't dish out the damage that other classes can. Like I said, bards are great if you don't mind being a cheerleader, but not very fun to me, since I prefer to soften the bad guys up with fireballs and then wade into melee with a scythe (sleep works well with scythes at low levels... :D). I don't like complicated tactics, I don't like to spend time buffing.
Norhg 12-11-06, 11:30 AM	Like I said, bards are great if you don't mind being a cheerleader, but not very fun to me, since I prefer to soften the bad guys up with fireballs and then wade into melee with a scythe (sleep works well with scythes at low levels... ). I don't like complicated tactics, I don't like to spend time buffing.Does this make the bard suck or are you defending it?
Saxis 12-11-06, 11:55 AM	in the early lvls they can be pretty helpful but later on with only 6th lvl spells and ok combat skills they dont help much. The bardic music is an ok buff but nothing compared to some of the clerics. I almost laughed here... just an "ok" buff?? Put together Words of Creation, Inspirational Boost and Inspire Courage for a +9 to attack and damage for the whole party. I don't know of a cleric buff that can come close to that! Not to mention Greater Heroism for another +4 and Haste for another +1 to attack. Not to mention, a Bard can use scrolls of any spell a Cleric could cast...
Morrowner 12-11-06, 01:27 PM	Greater Heroism is a morale bonus so it doesn't stack with Inspire Courage, which is a pity, for that would rock the house if Bards could stack morale modifiers. Whats so bad about being the party cheerleader? I guess I like taking the more deferential role in a party. I'm a bad "face" character and when combat comes around its rare for me to take the reins.
benstundze 12-11-06, 01:54 PM	Ok you, here this now. The 1 bard I played (2ed) we where about to be attacked by 30 level 1 barbarian nomads, (at level 1) but I gave them a speech, and they walked away I saved our party from doom. That’s how a bard helps, you guys are playing hack and slash. You can play D&D like that, but just because the way you play makes the bard useless doesn’t mean its underpowered ok? Nothing in the player’s handbook is underpowered. You just need to know how to play it, and it makes you all the more foolish for arguing over it on the internet no less. Also it makes you all power gamers lol. ben
SageBahamut 12-11-06, 03:37 PM	Again, I'm not listening to you guys whine and moan for eight pages, so I'll just post this. Bard7/Warweaver5/SublimeChord8 You now have a Bard that can cast spells like a high-level Wizard as well as a mid-level Bard, can still use Bardic Music with Inspiration Boost, AND can share all of those tasty buffs (including most of the Cure Wounds line) with every member of the party with only one casting. Or drop four buffs at once with a move action. What? ambushed by the armies of Hell, you say? Haste+Fly+Greater Heroism+Displacement. As a move action. Fun to play for all 20 levels, and is never NOT a force to reckon with. Plus Bards are dirt easy to keep alive even in combat. Who would bother with the jerk with the mandolin when that Wizard is frying us with lightning?
Treantmonklvl20 12-11-06, 03:48 PM	Again, I'm not listening to you guys whine and moan for eight pages, so I'll just post this. Bard7/Warweaver5/SublimeChord8 You now have a Bard that can cast spells like a high-level Wizard as well as a mid-level Bard, can still use Bardic Music with Inspiration Boost, AND can share all of those tasty buffs (including most of the Cure Wounds line) with every member of the party with only one casting. Or drop four buffs at once with a move action. What? ambushed by the armies of Hell, you say? Haste+Fly+Greater Heroism+Displacement. As a move action. Fun to play for all 20 levels, and is never NOT a force to reckon with. Plus Bards are dirt easy to keep alive even in combat. Who would bother with the jerk with the mandolin when that Wizard is frying us with lightning? My first point would be that the majority of the posts in the 8 pages defend bards, and those that don't very few seem to have a whine or moaning tone that I can see. Secondly it seems to me you defeat your own argument here Plus Bards are dirt easy to keep alive even in combat. Who would bother with the jerk with the mandolin when that Wizard is frying us with lightning? with this ambushed by the armies of Hell, you say? Haste+Fly+Greater Heroism+Displacement. As a move action. if those armies of hell have spellcraft of any significant level (many do)
OneWinged4ngel 12-11-06, 04:08 PM	Why the Bard is bad off: 1) You're not a Jack of All Trades: The Bard's role in combat is a spellcaster, and that's it. No, he can't kinda fight well. He's one of the worst classes in the game at melee. No, he can't tank. And no, he can't heal decently past low levels, because his healing spells slack off so much in their progression. His role in combat is to use a few choice spells to hope to disable the enemy (enchantments and illusions), and hope he doesn't die. 2) Music: If you're using bardic music, these can just be equated to WEAK support spells, for the most part. A few are good, but again... more spells (suggestion an' all). It's just an extension of the Spellcaster role. 3) Survivability: The Bard is fragile. Few defensive abilities and a low hit die. Goes down easy. 4) The casting sucks: The Bard is a mediocre spellcaster. He gets less spell selection than any other class whose role is spellcasting, as well as less spells per day and less spell potency. 5) Skills don't bring it up: The bard's skills give him a use outside of battle, but besides a few choice spells (glibness, anyone?) he doesn't have any more utility in this respect than a Rogue, or especially a Beguiler (Both of whom gain more skill points than he does). Besides, splitting up Perform in 3.5 kinda knocked down the benefit of the two extra skill points. *sigh*. Additionally, other spellcasters can generally emulate his skills. All that said, he's still better off than several other core classes. But he's still underpowered.
RandomZombie_01 12-11-06, 04:17 PM	In Unearthed Arcana, which is Open Game Content I do belive, they had a bard prestige class that I really liked. It was really different, but it was for low level characters and allowed the bard to get spells a little differently. You may want to check it out. It also lets bards cast illusions at a higher lvl. and Necro at a lower lvl, but they can still cast 'em. I thought it worked rather well. It also definately evened them out at higher levels.
MrKlaster 12-11-06, 09:54 PM	Why the Bard is bad off: 1) You're not a Jack of All Trades: The Bard's role in combat is a spellcaster, and that's it. No, he can't kinda fight well. He's one of the worst classes in the game at melee. No, he can't tank. And no, he can't heal decently past low levels, because his healing spells slack off so much in their progression. His role in combat is to use a few choice spells to hope to disable the enemy (enchantments and illusions), and hope he doesn't die. 2) Music: If you're using bardic music, these can just be equated to WEAK support spells, for the most part. A few are good, but again... more spells (suggestion an' all). It's just an extension of the Spellcaster role. 3) Survivability: The Bard is fragile. Few defensive abilities and a low hit die. Goes down easy. 4) The casting sucks: The Bard is a mediocre spellcaster. He gets less spell selection than any other class whose role is spellcasting, as well as less spells per day and less spell potency. 5) Skills don't bring it up: The bard's skills give him a use outside of battle, but besides a few choice spells (glibness, anyone?) he doesn't have any more utility in this respect than a Rogue, or especially a Beguiler (Both of whom gain more skill points than he does). Besides, splitting up Perform in 3.5 kinda knocked down the benefit of the two extra skill points. *sigh*. Additionally, other spellcasters can generally emulate his skills. This is completely what i thought before i started this thread but since then the arguments have swayed me the other way. 1)if built correctly a bard can be very effective in combet or spellcasting(your choice). 2)skills are a big part of the game and diplomacy always comes in handy. you sound like you just posted this without even reading ANY of the previous posts defending bards. They arent great but certainly dont suck that bad with the right build
Deep Blue 9000 12-12-06, 12:39 AM	Bard7/Warweaver5/SublimeChord8 Sublime Chord is not a good answer to the woes of the bard class. Sublime Chord specializes entirely out of their skill and melee abilities. It *fixes* bard's problems by letting them abandon their class and turn into a sorcerer at high levels. You might as well play a sorcerer from the beginning: you'll get more spells known and spells per day and can spend your class levels on Incantatrix or whatever.
Deep Blue 9000 12-12-06, 01:14 AM	As promised - this the bard I used in the first campaign in which I used him [in Eberron]. The artifacts he's listed with are a plot device and serve him no real value except simply being listed because he was the character who was charged with keeping an eye on them. I don't immediately recall the stats on his lydarnia longsword item familiar - but its like a +2 or +3 longsword that grants him several powers that include a number of feats and bardic music enhancements. Also keep in mind that I statted up this character before the advent of the complete mage, spell compendium, PHB II, and a few of the other latest books which, if I were to use this character again, would result in a lot of changes. Most notably that bardic knack fits his character concept far better than most of the things I have here. Most of the feats, for example, I regret taking - like skill focus, weapon focus, and eschew materials. Sorry for the old stat-block format, but this is how I write them. Also - I know the ability scores are quite high - but those are ledgitimate stats - the DM wanted to run a high-power campaign and his super-ability score stat generation resulted in the scores he ended up getting. His hit points are also higher than average because the first 4 levels or so were allowed to gain max hit points. Plus I do tend to roll high on hit points, as the players in my own game would attest. And yes, that really is a skill focus feat - which he took as one of his first feats. I also intended to have him make an intelligent sword down the line that could shoot maximized lightning bolts at will, among other powers - despite its huge expense and the fact that he'd need a wizard to help. [He also planned on taking leadership as his next feat so he could bring his wife with him on adventures.] Velmir Tal’Quessim: Male human Bard 11; CR 11; Medium-size humanoid; HD 11d6+22; hp 75; Init +4; Spd 30 ft.; AC 29, touch 17, flat-footed 25; Atk +14/+9 melee (1d8+5/19-20x2, Lydarnia longsword), or +12/+7 melee (1d8+3/19-20x2, +1 longsword), or +10/+5 melee (1d6+3, quarterstaff), +11/+6 melee (1d4+2/19-20x2, Masterwork Dagger), or +13 ranged (1d4+2/19-20x2, Masterwork Dagger); SA Bardic Knowledge +15, Bardic Music 11/day, Countersong (Su), Fascinate (Su) (DC Perform Check+1), Inspire Courage (+3) (Su), Inspire Competance (+3), Suggestion (DC=20) (Su), Dodge*, Mobility*, Lowlight*, Music of Making*, 60ft. Darkvision*, Inspire Greatness (3d10, +3 Atk, +2 Fortitude) (Su), Song of the Heart*; AL CG; SV Fort +7, Ref +13, Will +10; Str 14, Dex 19, Con 15, Int 18, Wis 13, Cha 19. Skills and Feats: Appraise+18, Bluff +18, Diplomacy+6, Escape Artist +18, Hide+23, Intimidate+6, Listen+15, Move Silently+23, Open Lock+13, Perform (Singing)+18, Perform (Oratory)+8, Sleight of Hand+23, Use Magic Device+18; Eschew Materials, Skill Focus: Sleight of Hand, Weapon Focus (Longsword), Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Arcane Strike. Languages: Common, Elven, Irial, Orc, Sylvan, Abyssal Spells Known: 3/4/4/4/2 DC=14 + Spell Level 0-) Detect Magic, Mage Hand, Message, Prestigitation, Read Magic, Light; 1-) Expeditious Retreat, Feather Fall, Cure Light Wounds, Alarm; 2-) Alter Self, Invisibility, Silence, Cure Moderate Wounds; 3-) Phantom Steed, Haste, Dispel Magic, Cure Serious Wounds; 4-) Break Enchantment, Dimension Door, Freedom of Movement Possessions: Gloves of Dexterity+2, Cloak of Charisma+2, Amulet of Natural Armor+1, Ring of Protection+1, Vest of Resistance+1, Longsword+1, Quarterstaff, Dagger, Lydarnia Longsword (*=Granted Item Familiar power or ability – 2800xp gained thus far), Shadow Mithral Chain Shirt+2 of Silent Moves, Buckler+2, Empty Backpack, Waterskin, Smuggler’s Boot (hidden dagger within), Blade Boot, Explorer’s Outfit, Tobacco and Rolling Paper, TindertwigX15, Black Dagger, Crowbar, Key to Shop at Tower 7 – Slot 314-5, Flint & Steel, MW Thief’s Tools, Scroll of Gate, Book of Luzon, Sphere Artifact, Spear Artifact, Wand of Cure Light Wounds (34 Charges), Chalise (Bless Water 2/day), 2 vials of anti-toxin, Scroll of Bless Weapon, Arcane Signet Ring of House Connith, Blank Platinum Coin, 400 yr. Old Elven Wine, Restoration Potion x2, CL3 Divine Scroll of Resist Energy, Scroll of Remove Curse, Bless Weapon Oil, Remove Fear Potion, Protection from Evil Potion, Essence Node of Binding depicting Crescent Moon, Small Mithral Bloodstone, Ring of Protection +3, Amulet of Natural Armor +3, Vest of Resistance +2 He's got good AC and above average HP, very respectable for a rogue or arcane caster. Now please don't take this as an insult, but I'm pretty unimpressed by his offensive capabilities: +14/+9 at 1d8+5 is very tepid. Half the CR 11s in the MM have DR 10/something. And his only offensive spells are silence and dispel magic. I guess, I'm saying that I think an 11th level party should face challenges that are tougher than this guy (or a party where he's the strongest) would be able to handle. I don't know, maybe its a power level issue. I'm used to playing in a campaign were the cleric who wasted a feat on Two-Weapon defense gets eaten by a dragon because he didn't have Close-Quarters combat instead. Maybe if you're fighting CR 11s you can get by with a bard. But if every so often you need to beat a CR 15, bards don't get the job done. That's the only theory I have. Anyways, if I've been condescending with this, I apologize. It's unintentional but I'm aware I'm pretty close to the line.
navar100 12-12-06, 01:59 AM	Again, I'm not listening to you guys whine and moan for eight pages, so I'll just post this. Bard7/Warweaver5/SublimeChord8 You now have a Bard that can cast spells like a high-level Wizard as well as a mid-level Bard, can still use Bardic Music with Inspiration Boost, AND can share all of those tasty buffs (including most of the Cure Wounds line) with every member of the party with only one casting. Or drop four buffs at once with a move action. What? ambushed by the armies of Hell, you say? Haste+Fly+Greater Heroism+Displacement. As a move action. Fun to play for all 20 levels, and is never NOT a force to reckon with. Plus Bards are dirt easy to keep alive even in combat. Who would bother with the jerk with the mandolin when that Wizard is frying us with lightning? You get me with just Bard 10/Sublime Chord 10. A Sublime Chord makes a bard a better bard. A Sublime Chord does not suck. A Sublime Chord is equivalent to a Sorcerer casting less spells per day in exchange for some bardic stuff. (Remember I did say bards were not useless.) Bard 10/Seeker of the Song 10 also does not stuck. I prefer Sublime Chord as a personal preference for the spellcasting, but Seeker of the Song has its moments. The only problem with these is being a bard for your first 10 levels. ;) Bard 20? No way. Clerics and Druids have better buff spells than the songs. There are some nice 5th and 6th level bard only spells looking beyond the Player's Handbook, but they could be taken as a Sublime Chord if you really, really want them and be the superior Sublime Chord.
Qube 12-12-06, 02:05 AM	For example, bards don't have heavy artillery spells or save or dies, they can't turn undead, they don't have evasion or trapfinding, and they lack the hit dice to tank. That means they're more or less left buffing the rest of the party and staying out of the way in battle since they can't dish out the damage that other classes can. (1) save or die? sleep-spell (+ coup the grace) (2) turning undead, trapfinding, are specific abilities. if a bard would have them, he would be overpowered, or the abilities would be so watered down they'dd be useless (3) tanking? i think you can tank with a bard, if you had some preparation time. (mirror image, displacement, ... if you summon 4 images, the hit chance (without calculating AC) is 12.5%, and together with some armor, thats like rolling a 19 or 20 or more on a d20 (=10% change) for one hit. if only a fighter could have such AC ...)
navar100 12-12-06, 02:10 AM	Sublime Chord is not a good answer to the woes of the bard class. Sublime Chord specializes entirely out of their skill and melee abilities. It *fixes* bard's problems by letting them abandon their class and turn into a sorcerer at high levels. You might as well play a sorcerer from the beginning: you'll get more spells known and spells per day and can spend your class levels on Incantatrix or whatever. True that, but Sorcerer does not have the social skills, which are not useless. All character classes have good roleplay spotlight potentiality, and bards are no exception. It can be fun roleplaying bard. They do not "own" that; it's parcel to the game for *everyone*. It is legimitate to want to play the roleplaying spotlight potentiality a bard can provide that a sorcerer would not. Sublime Chord does indeed fix the bard. You unfortunately still have to be a bard for your first 10 levels. The best you can do is milk the roleplaying potentiality as best you can until you get into the comfortable Sublime Chord. If you "just know" the campaign will not last long past level 10, then forget it.
Talen Lee 12-12-06, 02:15 AM	Bards suck? Wow, hope nobody tells me, then. I mean, I'd have to stop playing mine, and then our party would be without a combat brute.
Qube 12-12-06, 02:29 AM	Bards suck? Wow, hope nobody tells me, then. I mean, I'd have to stop playing mine, and then our party would be without a combat brute. yeah, so also don't read that they can't do melee combat :rofl:
OneWinged4ngel 12-12-06, 03:00 AM	This is completely what i thought before i started this thread but since then the arguments have swayed me the other way. 1)if built correctly a bard can be very effective in combet or spellcasting(your choice). 2)skills are a big part of the game and diplomacy always comes in handy. you sound like you just posted this without even reading ANY of the previous posts defending bards. They arent great but certainly dont suck that bad with the right build I didn't say they suck that bad. I specifically noted that they are not one of the worse-off classes in D&D (like the Fighter). But they're still not *good* either, and I merely was listing the reasons why. And they can't be *very* effective in spellcasting. They can be *okay* at spellcasting, with a few key spells. And, as I said, others can generally do Diplomacy comparatively proficiently to the Bard.
Talen Lee 12-12-06, 03:47 AM	I can't do melee combat? I guess this Improved Sunder feat is really doing me bad times then. Holy crap! Can someone help me out here? I have all these spells and feats and class features, and I'm walking around with a high AC, but someone on the boards said that bards suck! TIME PARADOX!
Qube 12-12-06, 04:22 AM	I didn't say they suck that bad. I specifically noted that they are not one of the worse-off classes in D&D (like the Fighter). But they're still not *good* either, and I merely was listing the reasons why. And they can't be *very* effective in spellcasting. They can be *okay* at spellcasting, with a few key spells. And, as I said, others can generally do Diplomacy comparatively proficiently to the Bard. is it possible that your 'balance' bar is yust a little to high? they suck, but they don't suck bad?? thouw they have less spells then "lvl 9 spell casters", they have good hp (a d6), spontanious casting, armored spellcasting, unique boost ability, fantastic skills (the second best in the game). vs: wizard: beter hp, armor (for those nasty supprizes), equal skills points, but nicers skillselection, higher charisma, spontanious casting, ... vs sorcerer: much MUCH more skills, armor, beter hp, ... vs cleric: skills, higher charisma, spontanious casting, ... (cleric has higher AC, but the bard can use arcane boosts like mirror image+displacement) so the bard has positive things agains all classes, why would it suck?.
Khan the Destroyer 12-12-06, 04:42 PM	I like using bards for campaign fluff (very good for non-combat encounters), but I don't like playing them. If you're happy with being the party's cheerleader, or if you need a lot of mind control, bards are good. See... the issue is a predisposition towards the bard. People are convinced that the bard lacks power and serves only as a 'roleplaying' tool that they convince themselves it is true in the face of evidence. Cheerleader? Is it possible that a boy in high school is a cheerleader... but also takes karate every tuesday and wednesday, spends his spare time learning useful bits of information at the library after school, and even practices a trade with his father on the weekends? No... couldn't be! The bard only has one ability... the NPC ability. I find that bards are not a jack-of-all trades. While they share many abilities with the other classes, they lack certain abilities that render him not so useful. They don't really share any ability with other classes, but have abilities that allow them to perform roles that other classes excel at. For example, bards don't have heavy artillery spells or save or dies Neither do rogues, rangers, paladins, monks, fighters, and barbarians. Somehow, they get by. It might have something to do with their role in the party and their specific class abilities. they can't turn undead Neither can anyone who isn't a paladin or cleric. But more specifically, Turn Undead isn't vital to a party. In all honesty, sometimes it is just easier (and more fun for everyone else) to just fight the undead than have the cleric roll a turning check. Turn Undead is better used for Divine feats. What you might be saying here is that having Turn Undead makes you stronger (I would say more versatile), but you haven't shown that the bard is useless without it. Actually, your point stands for any non-cleric/paladin. they don't have evasion or trapfinding Limited to the rogue (or a ranger at later levels for evasion). So, I suppose everyone is rendered 'not useful' if they happen to be a non-rogue. and they lack the hit dice to tank So why expect them to tank? That means they're more or less left buffing the rest of the party and staying out of the way in battle since they can't dish out the damage that other classes can. .... A barbarian gets a damage bonus from Rage. If he is out of Rage attempts, or affected by a Calm Emotions spell, he deals regular weapon damage with a regular strength score. The rogue gets a damage bonus from Sneak Attack. If he is up against a non-crit foe, or someone not flat-footed or unflankable, he deals regular weapon damage. A ranger gets a damage bonus from Favored Enemy. If he is up against someone that isn't a favored enemy, he deals regular weapon damage. A paladin gets a damage bonus from Smite Evil. If he is up against a non-evil foe, he does regular weapon damage. A bard gets a damage bonus from Bardic Music. If he is out of bardic music attempts, he does regular damage. Ok, so... what's the big difference? Some of you might say that the bonuses are the difference. Sneak Attack damage is so huge, and the Paladin gets his Class Level as a bonus to damage. Yeah, noted. Of course, those bonuses are very conditional. Further, the bard adds his bonus to everyone else. Some might argue that his to-hit isn't as good as the ranger or barbarian. But the truth is, his to-hit is comparable to a fighter's with an optimzed Inspire Courage. If you don't want to think of bards as damage dealers... ok. But don't claim that they aren't, because they are. And not only can they deal that damage, but they tack it on to everyone else's attacks. And not only that... but when your two-weapon fighting rogue deals 20d6 SA damage against his foe on the last attack of his full attack sequence, make sure you count that as Bard damage, since the rogue would never hit without the buff. 1) You're not a Jack of All Trades: The Bard's role in combat is a spellcaster, and that's it. A spellcaster? What? His role is support. It's whatever is needed at the time. Hence he can buff himself and the party for combat. Hence he can cast his own spells or use magic items to cast spells. Hence he has a huge skill list and the second most skills in the game. Hence he has cure spells on his spell list and the ability to use wands. No, he can't kinda fight well. He's one of the worst classes in the game at melee. OMG. He can have a better to-hit than the fighter or barbarian. He can deal damage. He even makes a fantastic disarmer and sunderer. These are based on attack rolls, and the bards to-hit can be optimzed very well. And again, he is buffing everyone else in the process. Worst in melee? Hardly. It is so strange that the rogue is considered a melee character just because of sneak attack, when he has a worse chance to hit than the bard and the same HP, with maybe the same AC or lower. No, he can't tank. Yes, he can tank. But not in the traditional way, and not without buffing. I don't consider tanking to be a bard job anyways, but he could do it with spells if he needed to. And no, he can't heal decently past low levels, because his healing spells slack off so much in their progression. I'm pretty sure his healing spells cure the same amount that a cleric's does. The bard just doesn't have access to condition healing (I believe). And, I think he might get the spells later. But of course, that he cannot heal like a cleric doesn't mean he sucks. You stated the obvious, but didn't show why this makes the bard suck. His role in combat is to use a few choice spells to hope to disable the enemy (enchantments and illusions), and hope he doesn't die. Yeah, when you have such a limited scope of what the bard can and is supposed to do, I can see where you might think they suck.
CaoSlayer 12-12-06, 05:45 PM	I have been a couple of days without internet... ummm, yes, I dont know exactly the effects of snowflake dance since I dont have the book, I readed someone else here say that was +charisma to hit and damage so I took it as true. --- ummm, male cheerleaders can be cool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDoY7XAZgv0
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-12-06, 07:22 PM	He's got good AC and above average HP, very respectable for a rogue or arcane caster. Now please don't take this as an insult, but I'm pretty unimpressed by his offensive capabilities: +14/+9 at 1d8+5 is very tepid. Half the CR 11s in the MM have DR 10/something. And his only offensive spells are silence and dispel magic. He only even really took silence because it was a prerequisite for making silent armor in addition to the benefits of using it in sync with invisibility on occasion. In combat, it would be far more detrimental for the bard to actually use it in combat than it would be for the benefit of using it against mages or other spellcasters - particularly since this particular bard's style involves melee combat. As far as DR and his melee abilities, you do remember that he can gain a +3 to attack and damage from his inspire courage right? he can also haste himself and, if against a particularly dangerous foe, he can start breaking out the arcane strikes. The end result is that he is quite adept at facing an opponent head-on. Or escaping if it becomes necessary. Things with DR just require the bard to hit harder or use a different weapon or simply survive in combat long enough for his 10-point less damage to eventually pull through. Even if he has to rely on the other party members for a bless weapon or something made of adamantine or cold iron or simply the damage/hit ratio - its not like it weakens the class or anything - the bard can't do everything any more than the other classes can. He's just as screwed as everyone else when it comes to this, however. I guess, I'm saying that I think an 11th level party should face challenges that are tougher than this guy (or a party where he's the strongest) would be able to handle. I don't know, maybe its a power level issue. I'm used to playing in a campaign were the cleric who wasted a feat on Two-Weapon defense gets eaten by a dragon because he didn't have Close-Quarters combat instead. Maybe if you're fighting CR 11s you can get by with a bard. But if every so often you need to beat a CR 15, bards don't get the job done. That's the only theory I have. ... no... I distinctly recall him facing off with an angel of decay [libris mortis] and some other high-power undead shortly thereafter. [Two fun, fun battles that were actually a result of him falling for a trap because he saw a valuable jewel he wanted in the middle of a cemetary.] a minotaur of ledgend, and a few other things, I'm sure [this campaign was a few years ago, you see] but melee combat wasn't much of a problem. Keep in mind that he wasn't a one-man party either. He had help, of course - he was a part of a team - he was just a major contributer in just about everything the party did - whatever happened, he was either able to contribute a spell, a skill, a song, or a sword-arm if necessary and he was good at all of it. Anyways, if I've been condescending with this, I apologize. It's unintentional but I'm aware I'm pretty close to the line. No, its ok. I understand - when it looks like a class is mediocre at everything, it doesn't appear substantial and I just get that you're just voicing that kind of opinion. I mostly like the class because it can do virtually everything and if I use it correctly - excel at just about anything I choose the bard to do at any given time. Its all about just combining all its abilities into a cohesive whole.
Yorath_theWolf 12-12-06, 07:24 PM	I have been a couple of days without internet... ummm, yes, I dont know exactly the effects of snowflake dance since I dont have the book, I readed someone else here say that was +charisma to hit and damage so I took it as true. --- ummm, male cheerleaders can be cool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDoY7XAZgv0 nope it's apparently just to hit, kinda like finesse is merely useing your dex bonus to hit insteada str. ... unless I'm again missinterperting things.
Blaze_the_Dragon 12-12-06, 07:45 PM	[QUOTE=Blaze_the_Dragon;10866575] C:Now...This only goes for if there's a Female in your playing group...More spesificly...One you LIKE...Bards are Hot...None of you can Deny that...If Bards are ANYTHING it's flashy...Girls dig a guy with a guitar.QUOTE] Now that's a great way to pick up women *sarcasm*.... creepy guy: Approaches girl, character sheet in hand, "Hey baby, I'm in IT and enjoy evercraft and Monty Python movies, but my CHARACTER has an 18 charisma and plays instruments. Want to go out Friday?" Girl: Gag... Dude...Put it this way...Are you gonna play a Necromancer when your playing D&D with the girl of your dreams?
jollythehappyminotaur 12-12-06, 07:47 PM	ok look im not telling you how to build your character. im just saying if you think your bard or other character sucks than you didnt build it good enough. a character is only as powerfull as you want it to be. almost any and every class can be made very powerfull or even broken. but thats not really the point of the game now is it. it is to have fun and RP. bards are my favorite character to RP. you can hate bards all you want because your character never will. he will love bards because of their charisma. if you are creative however outside of combat and even in combat you can do some really cool and powerfull stuff that will pay off.
Lord_Gareth 12-12-06, 09:41 PM	My internet's been down, but I'm digging up that bard sheet I made for Treant. Bards can do more than the people here (well, the 'against bards' side) say they can. I like bards. Am I under the illusion that they're an upper-crust class that wtfpwns all like 2nd edition? No. But they ARE useful, versatile, and most importantly, fun. If you're the kind of munchkin who only plays characters for pure breakage and damage output, fine, I see why you don't like them. Meanwhile, the balanced players (me) and the story mongers (more people than you think) will laugh at your stupidity and continue having fun with our bards. Now shut up, hand me that longsword, and drag the fighter's corpse off the battlefield. I'm tanking while he gets a ressurection.
Treantmonklvl20 12-12-06, 11:33 PM	[QUOTE=Treantmonklvl20;10874002] Dude...Put it this way...Are you gonna play a Necromancer when your playing D&D with the girl of your dreams? You are very funny. Hopefully you aren't serious...hopefully the girl of your dreams likes you for you, not for your character's charisma score. My girlfriend doesn't play D&D at all. One night a week I do my "geek" night, the rest of the week I'm all hers. (She does play videogames though, and no, I don't try to impress her through my choice of character.)
Qube 12-13-06, 01:50 AM	[QUOTE=Blaze_the_Dragon;10898490] You are very funny. Hopefully you aren't serious...hopefully the girl of your dreams likes you for you, not for your character's charisma score. nope, but she might dislike him for being a perv (yust because he's a good roleplayer)
Talen Lee 12-13-06, 02:32 AM	My wife got me into D&D, and happens to be an awesome roleplayer herself. Now that we've gotten the life-measuring part of the thread over with, can we possibly discuss *the bard*, and its place in the game, and whether or not it actually sucks? I'm seeing lots of uninformed and ill-advised opinion here.
Qube 12-13-06, 02:36 AM	most bards don't suck, they blow. :)
Deep Blue 9000 12-13-06, 04:17 AM	Dude...Put it this way...Are you gonna play a Necromancer when your playing D&D with the girl of your dreams? Necromancers get all the girls... eventually.
Khan the Destroyer 12-13-06, 01:54 PM	I'm seeing lots of uninformed and ill-advised opinion here. What's your take on the issue? What experience have you had with the bard you're playing with now? (I've only played 1 bard, and my friend also played a bard and I they were both very useful to the party.)
Talen Lee 12-13-06, 06:28 PM	My actual play experience with the bard is that it's what you make it do. Feat selection and skill selection play a part. Due to their relatively unplayed state, some designers got in their head that the bard is underpowered (it kinda is, but not in a way that needs the compensation it got) and responded with stuff like Calming Voice and Snowflake Wardance. As it is, the Bard gets a nice smattering of utility spells that you can really make work hard, a good, solid variant in Unearthed Arcana, and can still take most of the feats the Fighter wants to make use of. It doesn't need wisdom all that much, and it handles multiclassing quite well. Added in that the skill selection can make you a juggernaut, and the generally busted nature of some of its skill areas - Bluff and Diplomacy leap to mind - and you have a class that can certainly pull its own. Once you add stuff like Bladeweave or other swift-action spells to the mix, you have a pretty solid little class. Also, Savage Bard + Greenbond Summoner + Bardsong is a one-man army.
The_Shaman 12-13-06, 06:39 PM	By the way, do a lot of bard-players use whips? IIRC whip-daggers went free with the same proficiency, but I haven't seen a bard with either in the (admittedly not that many) campaigns I've played.
Norhg 12-13-06, 07:22 PM	By the way, do a lot of bard-players use whips? IIRC whip-daggers went free with the same proficiency, but I haven't seen a bard with either in the (admittedly not that many) campaigns I've played.Easy answer: Yes. The Whip-Daggers are excellent weapons and bards often use them, as they get them for free and as no other of their weapons easily compare. Free exotic-weapon profiency is goood
Talen Lee 12-13-06, 07:47 PM	On the other hand, whip-daggers aren't actually all that good. So it's much of a muchness.
Khan the Destroyer 12-13-06, 09:11 PM	My actual play experience with the bard is that it's what you make it do. Feat selection and skill selection play a part. Agreed. I guess this goes for any class, but it seems like it needs to be said more for the bard. Due to their relatively unplayed state, some designers got in their head that the bard is underpowered (it kinda is, but not in a way that needs the compensation it got) and responded with stuff like Calming Voice and Snowflake Wardance. Is Calming Voice the half-elf substitution level in Races of Destiny? Yeah, Snowflake Wardance seems too much. An optimized Inspire Courage should be enough. But I don't mind the feat option ;). Once you add stuff like Bladeweave or other swift-action spells to the mix, you have a pretty solid little class. While going through all of my books to add more informaiton to this thread, I realized that Bladeweave is indeed an illusion spell, and bards have several options available to them to increase those DC's (Misleading Song, Spell Focus, Vow of Nonviolence, Captivating Melody, etc.) All of those wouldn't be needed, but dazing enemies with each attack is awesome. Also, Savage Bard + Greenbond Summoner + Bardsong is a one-man army. O. M. G. I need to go check my Unearthed Arcana. That never occured to me. By the way, do a lot of bard-players use whips? Most useful for Disarming. At level 1 with a whip, you can have at least a +7 bonus to disarm: Human Bard 1: Combat Expertise, Improved Disarm +4 Improved Disarm +1 Inspire Courage +2 Whip +??? Strength At 6th level: 1. Combat Expertise, Improved Disarm 3. Song of the Heart 6. Words of Creation Your Disarm attack roll is: +4 BAB +4 Improved Disarm +2 Whip +4 Inspire Courage +??? Strength At least a +14. I can almost guarantee that weapon-wielding monsters at CR ~6 will have a hard time opposing your attack. By Bard 20, with an optimized disarming build, you can disarm a Titan of his Gargantuan Warhammer. Something a fighter couldn't easily do (if at all). Then you can tell everoyne what a disarming personality you have. :rimshot: But for damage, whips aren't that great. They don't threaten, deal small damage, and deal nonlethal damage. I'm not familar with Whip Daggers. While I'm on disarming though, also note that Sundering is based on opposed rolls. Since a bard can easily optimize his attack rolls, he should have a good chance to win those opposed rolls. Find ways to gain bonus damage (Bardic Music, Arcane Strike, wielding a longsword in two hands) and you should be a competent sunderer as well. (Don't forget the adamantine weapon of course.)
The_Shaman 12-13-06, 09:15 PM	It sounded like a weird and overpowered weapon, but at least it's not spiked chain :rolleyes: . Hmm, a bard with a chain lash or kusarigami might be strangely fun...
Rogue Shadows 12-13-06, 09:19 PM	Whip not dishin' the damage? Go scourge. 1d8 slashing, plus all the fun benefits of a whip. Whee...
Talen Lee 12-13-06, 09:50 PM	The reason I hate the whip is the lack of threatened area. The ability to provide flanking benefits to the other members of the party is a distinct thing to me. Hate the whip. Hate hate hate hate hate hate hate. Calming Voice is indeed, the 'save vs my Diplomacy or you're hosed'. My GM has very politely taken steps to nerf it and now I don't use it (or abuse the Diplomacy or Bluff skills) in the interest of the game.
Nephlite 12-13-06, 09:52 PM	But for damage, whips aren't that great. They don't threaten, deal small damage, and deal nonlethal damage. I'm not familar with Whip Daggers. Whip Daggers are good. They don't threaten (like a whip), they deal good damage (1d6 meduim), and deal lethal damage. They damage people with natural armior or Armor. All the benefits. They do cost more, but that is it. And since Whips are melee weapons in 3.5, they both add str/hit to damage.
Khan the Destroyer 12-13-06, 10:06 PM	The reason I hate the whip is the lack of threatened area. The ability to provide flanking benefits to the other members of the party is a distinct thing to me. Hate the whip. Hate hate hate hate hate hate hate. I went through this with my bard. Though my teamates didn't complain that I was recieving a flanking bonus and not returning the favor, I had already decided that a focus on teamwork was one of my bard's defining attributes. So, I used a rapier instead. (Though, you could use both. Wield a whip in one hand and a rapier or longsword in the other. Disarm an opponent with the whip and then initiate the rest of your attacks with your sword.) Calming Voice is indeed, the 'save vs my Diplomacy or you're hosed'. My GM has very politely taken steps to nerf it and now I don't use it (or abuse the Diplomacy or Bluff skills) in the interest of the game. How very noble :). Yeah, no point in refusing every encounter you come across. In regards to whip daggers... how is a bard automatically proficient with them? Is that stated soemwhere? (And where do I find whip daggers?)
The_Shaman 12-13-06, 10:10 PM	Whip daggers are in the Arms and Equipment guide. They use the whip exotic proficiency, which the bard gets from the start :D
Vaelan 12-13-06, 11:08 PM	The last Bard I played tripped, disarmed, and pinned a Balor at level 16. The trip and disarm were pure Bard and incredibly helpful since the Balor's spell-likes were pretty much completely useless. The pinning required the use of Sublime Chord spells. How many worthwhile options does a Balor have when bare-handed, prone, and surrounded by three capable combatants (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue cohort), one of which has Mage Slayer and all three of which have weapons that pierce its damage reduction? Human Bard 1: Combat Expertise, Improved Disarm I prefer Improved Trip. Trip the person then use the extra attack to disarm them. Since they're prone they take -4 to the opposed attack roll which is basically the same benefit as Improved Disarm. Grab an item that grants a bonus to ability/strength checks along with Good Hope and you can actually be good at tripping, though you generally don't get to trip everything you meet unless you take a level in Totemist, devote a few feats, and take a level of Swordsage.
Khan the Destroyer 12-13-06, 11:31 PM	The last Bard I played tripped, disarmed, and pinned a Balor at level 16. The trip and disarm were pure Bard and incredibly helpful since the Balor's spell-likes were pretty much completely useless. The pinning required the use of Sublime Chord spells. :eek: I prefer Improved Trip. Trip the person then use the extra attack to disarm them. Since they're prone they take -4 to the opposed attack roll which is basically the same benefit as Improved Disarm. I think that impact-wise, Improved Trip is better. It leaves the enemy prone, which comes with its own drawbacks, grants another attack on the enemy, and forces them to provoke an AoO when they get up. However, I think for the Bard, Disarm is more feasible. Both cost the same in feats, but with Disarming, you just have to improve your to-hit (which is just all around useful anyways and relatively easy to do with Bardic Music), as opposed to trying to increase that strength check. Especially against larger and stronger opponents. But I will snoop around and see what can be found to make it work (obviously you did :). Grab an item that grants a bonus to ability/strength checks along with Good Hope and you can actually be good at tripping, though you generally don't get to trip everything you meet unless you take a level in Totemist, devote a few feats, and take a level of Swordsage. I'll check the Good Hope spell. I think my issue is that I don't really like multi-classing. Especially when I am discussing the possible 'suckiness' of a class, I never take into account multiclassing or prestigeclassing. I can see that with either of those options, a tripping build could be viable. And tripping builds are fun. I played a goliath fighter/barbarian that tripped and bull rushed. It was a blast.
CaoSlayer 12-14-06, 04:12 AM	Also good about disarming with whips is that you can wield a whip two handed since it is an one handed weapon getting the benefit of another +4 to disarm for free. The real munchkin material of the whip isnt able to disarm one oponent it is able to use whirlwind attack for disarming everyone in a 15 feet radius. Disarming/tripping gets insane just if you level dip into marshall and get the aura that allows the marshall to add his charisma to all sunder, trips and disarm checks.
Talen Lee 12-14-06, 04:25 AM	If your idea of 'munchkin' is using a mass disarm, you really, really need to go to the CharOp boards more.
Marcotic 12-14-06, 05:05 AM	K, bards don't suck, any one who tries to say that a bard can fill in the role of the core 4 (rogue fight cleric wiz) is wrong, but they do do somthing better is support. What say you rogue, you need a flankin' buddy? Well idunno (tumbles into position) What say you (all people within 30ft) you want the equivilant of magic weopons? (Kill kill kill the enemies, one after another!) Oh Dear oh my, unconcoius this cleric does lie! (one heal spell later)... Ok, wizard, i know you can do it all, what can i do to help? (not much here, but you get the point) Or at least he can stop the duder that broke the line from braining the wizard. Formation with a bard E= enemy ____R B E W F E C E I just added that, obviously the bard side is pretty weak, but hey, better then nothing right? Meanwhile the rogue can tumble and flank shank as necesary.
Vaelan 12-14-06, 05:25 AM	However, I think for the Bard, Disarm is more feasible. Both cost the same in feats, but with Disarming, you just have to improve your to-hit (which is just all around useful anyways and relatively easy to do with Bardic Music), as opposed to trying to increase that strength check. Especially against larger and stronger opponents. Disarm is certainly easier, but Trip tends to be more useful as it can foil creatures with natural weapons. Both Trip and Disarm are feasible since they both require relatively few resources beyond money to optimize. The biggest hurdle is getting a +4 whip (+1 Sweeping, Disarming). The Disarming property negates your opponent's bonuses for size and handedness, so it is definitely a must if you want to run around disarming giants and the Sweeping property gives +4 to Trip checks and is thus similarly useful when you want to trip giants. Overall, I would probably start with Trip at low levels then focus on Disarm until you have enough money to scrape together a good Trip modifier on top of a Disarming Whip. Then you can do both fairly well. I was consistently able to trip and disarm big nasty things with CRs about 3 points higher than my level so long as they weren't dragons, which I avoided, seeing as how they're big nasty lizards with an appetite for human flesh and tripping is ineffective against them since they're bigger and stronger than anything else of their CR before buffs. Tripping and disarming might not work as well during the mid levels as I think though, because I worked really hard (we took a year off in-game so I spent a year performing and having my Rogue cohort work the crowd or steal very small things that wouldn't be missed for a while from some of the manors I played at) to break the wealth guidelines and used the wealth, along with many mostly-empty promises of basically being the Wizard's slave for life, to get the party's Wizard to craft items for me at cost. I think my issue is that I don't really like multi-classing. Especially when I am discussing the possible 'suckiness' of a class, I never take into account multiclassing or prestigeclassing. It does seem rather strange to bring up multiclassing when talking about how effective a class is, but I figure that I'm not claiming that the class is the best class there is forever, so it is alright. I don't see going into Sublime Chord or any of the other Bard-oriented Prestige Class as much of a stretch though. I can see that with either of those options, a tripping build could be viable. You only need to dip into miscellaneous classes if you want to trip dragons. You're still viable without them.
CaoSlayer 12-14-06, 05:40 AM	If your idea of 'munchkin' is using a mass disarm, you really, really need to go to the CharOp boards more. That board is worse than a Far Realms creature wearing a thong.
The_Shaman 12-14-06, 12:57 PM	If the Thayans had the CharOp as designers, they would have already conquered the entire Eberron.
MrKlaster 12-17-06, 11:31 PM	most classeswith a 3/4 bab will be able to trip well. Thats a caseof a good feat not necessarily a good class.
OneWinged4ngel 12-18-06, 12:32 AM	K, bards don't suck, any one who tries to say that a bard can fill in the role of the core 4 (rogue fight cleric wiz) is wrong, but they do do somthing better is support. What say you rogue, you need a flankin' buddy? Well idunno (tumbles into position) What say you (all people within 30ft) you want the equivilant of magic weopons? (Kill kill kill the enemies, one after another!) Oh Dear oh my, unconcoius this cleric does lie! (one heal spell later)... Ok, wizard, i know you can do it all, what can i do to help? (not much here, but you get the point) Or at least he can stop the duder that broke the line from braining the wizard. Formation with a bard E= enemy ____R B E W F E C E I just added that, obviously the bard side is pretty weak, but hey, better then nothing right? Meanwhile the rogue can tumble and flank shank as necesary. Spellcasters do support BETTER than the bard.
Tisner44 12-22-06, 01:13 PM	Spellcasters do support BETTER than the bard. Exactly why do you believe this? Most spellcasters are two busy with their primary roles to be better. The Bard's primary role is support. Wizards and Sorcerers have to save most of their spells for combat or escape, clerics save their spells for healing and some buffing.
megageek12 12-22-06, 01:14 PM	One wizard for arcane caster, one sorcer specializing in buff spells.
elondir 12-22-06, 01:22 PM	Bards suck because people think they're jack-of-all-trades types but they don't disable traps, turn undead, cast fireball, or tank. Therefore they are not jacks-of-all-trades. Personally I like the AD&D 2nd edition bard because it was more ofa JoAT than the 3e.
Tisner44 12-22-06, 01:39 PM	Bards suck because people think they're jack-of-all-trades types but they don't disable traps, turn undead, cast fireball, or tank. Therefore they are not jacks-of-all-trades. Personally I like the AD&D 2nd edition bard because it was more ofa JoAT than the 3e. Maybe you are misunderstanding what a Jack of all Trades really does. They some of the skills of the other classes combined into one class. A decent skill list with a decent amount of skill points for the rogue. A spell list that includes some cleric and some wizard. An okay combat ability with light armor, that allows them to support another fighter if necessary. They are not supposed to be able to do everything, if they did then why choose another class at all.:confused:
Lord_Gareth 12-22-06, 02:17 PM	Which, of course, is what happened in Second Edition. The only class more Bah-Roken then the 2nd edition Bard was the 2nd Edition Paladin. The power levels went something like this: Paladin: If you kill it, you were five levels higher, had the initiative, a major artifact, and the DM fudged at least 1 roll. Bard: If you killed one, you were a paladin. Everyone else: Cannon Fodder.
Khan the Destroyer 12-22-06, 02:32 PM	Bards suck because people think they're jack-of-all-trades types but they don't disable traps, turn undead, cast fireball, or tank. Therefore they are not jacks-of-all-trades. Personally I like the AD&D 2nd edition bard because it was more ofa JoAT than the 3e. They can fight, melee or ranged. They have more skills than anyone but the rogue. With two feats, they can find traps like the rogue. How in the world is Turning Undead really that important to being a Jack of all Trades? This is the second time it was mentioned. I'm almost certain it's being included to fluff the list up, because Turn Undead is silly. Fireball? Not only can they cast it from spell-trigger items with UMD, but a bard can actually learn the spell himself. In the Spell section of the Sorcerer class in the PHB, it says that sorcerers can learn strange arcane spells not normally found on the sorcerer list. They can learn these spells from scrolls. And in the magic chapter in the PHB, under the section pertaining to spontaneous casters learning new spells, it expands that notion for the bard. But besides the fact that a bard can cast Fireball, so what if he can't? Is Fireball a signature arcane power or something? Do you have to turn undead to represent your divine power if any? Trapfinding is vital for being a skillmonkey? Come on now. A Jack of All Trades is not someone that can do everything just like everyone else. -I can cast spells. Yeah, but you can't cast fireball. -Shucks, you're right. I'm not really an arcane caster. -I can cast Cure Light Wounds and use spell-trigger items for various restorative spells. Yeah, but you can't Turn Undead. -Crud. I guess I can't stand in as a healer type then. -I get 6+int skills/level, and have a Bardic Knack variant ability. Right, but no Trapfinding. -Nuts, I guess I'm not a skillmonkey either. -My to-hit can be higher than a melee type of the same level, and I get bonus damage to attacks and spells to negate hits. Sure, but you have a d6 HD. -Oh. I guess I'm worthless in combat as well. -Well, I can greatly improve the combat potential of all of my comrades, making their hits hit more often and for more damage, adding to the survivability of the entire group of helping us spend less resources. Who cares? :rolleyes:
Deep Blue 9000 12-24-06, 09:33 PM	Fireball? Not only can they cast it from spell-trigger items with UMD, but a bard can actually learn the spell himself. In the Spell section of the Sorcerer class in the PHB, it says that sorcerers can learn strange arcane spells not normally found on the sorcerer list. They can learn these spells from scrolls. And in the magic chapter in the PHB, under the section pertaining to spontaneous casters learning new spells, it expands that notion for the bard. I think you're misunderstanding this ability. What you're referring to is the spontaneous arcane version of spell research. It lets bards cast fireball as much as wizards can learn Heal as a 5th level spell. A bard casts arcane spells, which are drawn from the bard spell list. This is the very first line of the bard's spellcasting ability's description. It doesn't say primarily or mostly or anything, bards only cast bard spells.
Khan the Destroyer 12-25-06, 03:56 AM	In the spells section in the Magic chapter of the PHB. I think the paragraph is titled Sorcerers and Bards. When I'm back home, I'll reread the section and reference it.
Qube 12-25-06, 04:09 AM	to recap: Negative: - bards can't cast the most powerfull spells - bards can't find magical traps - bards can't turn undead - bards have only a d6 - bards can't sneak attack positive: - bard is not a pure caster but still can cast spells (more then paladin or ranger); they can cast arcane spells AND Cure spells. - bard can't find magical traps, but with their 6+int skills, they are still skill monkeys - can't turn undead. so? turn undead is highly overrated - only a d6. indeed but with spells like displacement and mirror image can be virutally untouchable - they don't sneak attack, so they are not the heavy damage dealers. they do however have boost spells, meaning that besides minor offencive capabilities, they increase the productivity of the entire party. summery: - compared to individual classes, there isn't a class that bard overshadow. (they don't fight better then a fighter; they don't cast better spells then a wizard, ...) - but compared to individual classes, they have other strength (fighter can't cast arcane spell, wizard can't cast cure spells, cleric doesn't have much skills, ...) Is there anything to add to this? (IMO: bards are the most balanced class, why? see summery)
Khan the Destroyer 12-25-06, 10:10 AM	they don't sneak attack, so they are not the heavy damage dealers. they do however have boost spells, meaning that besides minor offencive capabilities, they increase the productivity of the entire party. I have a minor point of contention here. Bards can be built to outdamage a rogue. The feat is Dragonfire Inspiration in Dragon Magic. Instead of granting everyone a morale bonus to attack and damage, you grant them an extra 1d6 fire damage for every point of bonus damage you would normally grant them. At 1st level, he has 1d6 fire damage added to everyone's attacks. At 3rd level, a bard with Song of the Heart and Inspirational Boost would grant everyone (including himself) +3d6 fire damage to each attack. You decide whether to grant fire damage or the regular morale bonuses when you activate your Inspire Courage ability, so you can include Inspirational Boost (which is cast beforehand) and Words of Creation (which is part of the activation). Meaning at level 6, you would grant +6d6 fire damage to everyone's attacks. At level 1, the Rogue has 1d6 SA. At level 3, 2d6. And at level 6, 3d6. Not only does the bard outpace the damage directly, but he also adds it to everyone else's attacks, further increasing his damage tally relative to the rogue. Now I know, energy damage can be resisted or even ignored by some monsters. I agree. But likewise, SA can be ignored by many monsters, and requires a flat-footed or flanked opponent. Both damage bonuses are not guaranteed. But at 1st level, if you assume the rogue hits with SA, he'll deal a total of 2d6 bonus damage (SA and Dragonfire from the bard). If everyone else hits, the bard deals 4d6 bonus damage (assuming a party of 4). At level 3, the rogue deals 2d6 SA + 3d6 Dragonfire. The bard deals 12d6 dragonfire. And if you plan on already optimizing your Inspire Courage ability, all this takes is a feat investment at 1st level. Silverbrow Bard 6 1. Melodic Casting, Dragonfire Inspiration 3. Song of the Heart 6. Words of Creation Now if there were some way to get Trapfinding at a lower level without disrupting feat progression or multiclassing, we'd be in business.
Yorath_theWolf 12-25-06, 10:57 AM	ehhh trap finding is only essential if yer GM is the type to use them heavily or is useing someone else's adventures insteada writeing his own. ALSO thanks to the nifty skill _Spellcraft_ with enough gold, time and research you can create yer own nifty first level spell Detect Traps and walla you have trap finding covered. next up on the block: turn dead wow, how in the nine hells is this at all an important ability to detirme if a Bard is worthwhile or not? this ability is only worthwhile in undead heavy campains or to power Divine Feats, and while divine feats are usefull and often worthwhile, they aren't necissary. besides a Chaotic Good Bard, who is devote worshiper of the 'good' gods can easily qual for a lvl or 2 dip into Sacred Exorsist and BOOM has turn dead and yea I know I'm multi-classing to do this, but the point is that the ability is hardly the detirmining factor in anything. now we get to to sneak attack ... wooo hoooo*twirls finger in air* this is a REALY important ability. come ON folks, while usefull it like everything else is situational. it's worthless against constructs, undead, or plants. you have to surprice or get close enough to deny dex bonuses to AC(which is a BAD place to put your puny lil body as it can now be easily grappled by yer target). and well there are plenty of ways for a Bard to get the ability to pick up additional attack damg. heck the easiest way is pick up a couple of Martial Manuver &/or Stance feats. finally spellcasting this is really the _only_ place a Bard falls short IMNSHO. the reason the Bard falls short is strickly cause they advance spell lvls slower than the Sorcerer and they only advance to 6th lvl casting. so all ya get is just enough juice to get an edge over most everyone else but not enough to come even close to being 'king of the hill'. as for limited spell selection... well thanks to spellcraft and the ability to research/create new spells the Bard is only limited in the spell lvl department because said bard with enough time and resources can research any variaty of spells to add to his default list. so in short the Bard absolutely shines in his ability to support(Bardic Music pretty much does this better than anyone else does. esspecially if you start focuseing on it and picking feats to really improve it), s/he's mediocer in everything else. which in no way limits the bard really. just means that if you wanna do more than just be the 'Face' & "Support" of your group, you're gonna have to lean a bit towards specialization to an extent in how you set up your character. so this mean predomently skills and feats to improve metamagic and knowledges if you wanna be a better caster(as well as becomeing a Sublime Cord), the same goes for if you wanna be more usefull in fighting... well squirmishing really.
Deep Blue 9000 12-26-06, 03:16 AM	to recap: Negative: - bards can't cast the most powerfull spells - bards can't find magical traps - bards can't turn undead - bards have only a d6 - bards can't sneak attack positive: - bard is not a pure caster but still can cast spells (more then paladin or ranger); they can cast arcane spells AND Cure spells. - bard can't find magical traps, but with their 6+int skills, they are still skill monkeys - can't turn undead. so? turn undead is highly overrated - only a d6. indeed but with spells like displacement and mirror image can be virutally untouchable - they don't sneak attack, so they are not the heavy damage dealers. they do however have boost spells, meaning that besides minor offencive capabilities, they increase the productivity of the entire party. summery: - compared to individual classes, there isn't a class that bard overshadow. (they don't fight better then a fighter; they don't cast better spells then a wizard, ...) - but compared to individual classes, they have other strength (fighter can't cast arcane spell, wizard can't cast cure spells, cleric doesn't have much skills, ...) Is there anything to add to this? This is an accurate summary of the bard class but I don't think its a good summary of this thread. What many of the "anti-bard" people have been trying to say in this thread is that problem of bards is a problem of scale. Bards can *almost* provide an inferior replacement for a healer rogue, or caster, but not quite. Bards can't replace rogues because they don't get trap-finding. They can't replace clerics because they don't get all the fancy debuff removers or powerful healing spells like heal. They can't replace wizards because they don't get super powerful offensive magic. (IMO: bards are the most balanced class, why? see summery) I've always felt bards were poorly balanced since they are very weak core only and do not function as generalists as they were intended to. My favorite example of a balanced class has been the rogue since its abilities are interesting and scale well and it is balanced very well versus equal CR monsters.
Qube 12-26-06, 07:54 AM	I've always felt bards were poorly balanced since they are very weak core only and do not function as generalists as they were intended to. My favorite example of a balanced class has been the rogue since its abilities are interesting and scale well and it is balanced very well versus equal CR monsters. apperenlty your and my definition of balanced differ: i look at them and compare to other classes. well, i think they don't come up so bad: - they are the 3rd best healer (after cleric and druid) - their combat capability are correct (they shouldn't be better then a rogue, without spellcasting boost (which is quite powerfull)) + bards shouldn't get in combat (diplomacy, bluff) - they have access to the arcane spell, without stealing the signature offensive spells of sorcerer and wizard. - they have a very nice skill selection: second best (6+int) on a more constructive note: if you don't like them, what do they miss + what would be the sollution?
Tisner44 12-26-06, 07:39 PM	Bards can't replace rogues because they don't get trap-finding. They can't replace clerics because they don't get all the fancy debuff removers or powerful healing spells like heal. They can't replace wizards because they don't get super powerful offensive magic. The should not be able to replace any class, if they did, why play a wizard or cleric in the first place if the bard can replace. The is designed to have some of the abilities of all the classes. Some combat ability, some arcane spellcasting, some divine spellcasting and some skills monkey from the rogue. I have never seen any problem with the balance of the class. Also when you consider damage output, you should include all the additional damage all the characters are doing from his song. This makes his damage output very significant especially with a large group. I've always felt bards were poorly balanced since they are very weak core only and do not function as generalists as they were intended to. My favorite example of a balanced class has been the rogue since its abilities are interesting and scale well and it is balanced very well versus equal CR monsters. What are they weak at? A generalist isn't going to be strong in any one function, that is the point. Why do you feel they are not generalists?
Deep Blue 9000 12-26-06, 11:13 PM	apperenlty your and my definition of balanced differ: i look at them and compare to other classes. well, i think they don't come up so bad: - they are the 3rd best healer (after cleric and druid) - their combat capability are correct (they shouldn't be better then a rogue, without spellcasting boost (which is quite powerfull)) + bards shouldn't get in combat (diplomacy, bluff) - they have access to the arcane spell, without stealing the signature offensive spells of sorcerer and wizard. - they have a very nice skill selection: second best (6+int) on a more constructive note: if you don't like them, what do they miss + what would be the sollution? My problem with Bards isn't that they lack healing, combat, or magic. I just feel they are too weak in each of these areas. For example, at 20th level the difference between no healing and cure serious wounds isn't very large. In both cases you're going to need another PC to do the real healing. But to answer your question, I would give bards 7th level spells, trap-finding with a penalty to search checks, heal as a 6th or 7th level spell, and some sneak attack progression (maybe +5d6 by 20th level). The should not be able to replace any class, if they did, why play a wizard or cleric in the first place if the bard can replace. A bard being able to replace a cleric doesn't mean that he's better in the cleric in every way, it means you can have a party where the bard is the only healer that won't end in a TPK because of lack of healing. For example, a barbarian can replace a rogue. A barbarian can act as a living trap finder for traps the rogue could just disarm. However, the rogue is still a better trap finder and they have other differences that let them retain a class identity. What are they weak at? A generalist isn't going to be strong in any one function, that is the point. Why do you feel they are not generalists? Here are a few posts that I feel summarize my opinion: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10845411&postcount=171 http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10845680&postcount=178 http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10845737&postcount=179
Qube 12-27-06, 04:56 AM	My problem with Bards isn't that they lack healing, combat, or magic. I just feel they are too weak in each of these areas. For example, at 20th level the difference between no healing and cure serious wounds isn't very large. In both cases you're going to need another PC to do the real healing. cure serious is a 3rd level. even for bards. a cure critical (4th level, 4d8+20, heals about 2 hits) = a round extra for the fighter But to answer your question, I would give bards 7th level spells, trap-finding with a penalty to search checks, heal as a 6th or 7th level spell, and some sneak attack progression (maybe +5d6 by 20th level). if they can cast heal (wich is the signature cleric spell); why would anyone play cleric anymore, a bard can do lots more fun stuff, and isn't fixed by dogma. trap-finding: -5 penalty: why play rogue anymore? yust take skillfocus(search) and voila. the trade sneak attack for miror image, ... trap-finding: -10 penalty: useless: no way you are gonna get to the DC's so why try? sneak attack: this is the signature move of the rogue. A bard being able to replace a cleric doesn't mean that he's better in the cleric in every way, it means you can have a party where the bard is the only healer that won't end in a TPK because of lack of healing. IMO if bard know heal, the only use of the cleric is codzilla. seeing that the bard has acces to some cool buff spells. the core bard can replace a character the way the barbarian can replace the rogue. - he can mirror image/displacement/ boost to go mellee; - he can cure / boost to replace the healer - he can song of discord / irresistable dance / animate object / summon to replace the arcane caster - he has much skills; and can search (though not magical traps) <or can cure the barbarian filling in for the rogue>
Redja_the_Foolish 12-27-06, 10:45 AM	Ah, this old thread again. There will always be someone who will say that bards suck. The same thing for years and years. Bards are a hybrid class meant for support, hybrid classes are often said to be the least powerful, but with some thought and a bit of tactics can often be turned into the most powerful ones. Let's see. Has good skillpoints, has countersong, why haven't anybody mentioned it yet? Countersong can be a true lifesaver. Fascinate, inspire courage, inspire competence, suggestion, inspire greatness, song of freedom, inspire heroics and mass suggestion and this is just a pure bard. Many good utility and support spells which frees up the sorcerer or wizard to focus on more potent spells. Illusions and enchantment spells, crowd control spells, healing spells, summoning, divination/information gathering, sonic damage spells, good buffs, communication spells, defensive and attack spells, pretty much all of the base spells a bard can get can be useful in a social or combat situation. Class skills include diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, dechipher script, all knowledge skills, disguise, escape artist, sleight of hand, hide, move silently, tumble, listen and spellcraft. Potential roles: Diplomacy/social situations, crowd control, secondary healer, buffer, secondary fighter, primary fighter, tank, stealth, cloak and dagger and rescue mission, pick pocket/thief, dispeller of hostile magic, knowledge is power build, scouting, interrogator, messenger, damage dealer in melee or ranged combat, climber/jumper, escape artist, flanker, combat disabler/debuffer, scroll/magic item user, magic item creator, standing guard/protecting the camp/spotting hostiles, keep you with a roof over your head by playing for a crowd, and all of these things he can do well. Name one other class without multiclassing or taking a prestige class which can do all of these things and perform them as well as the bard can in the players handbook. Which other pure class can fill all these roles with such ease? This is just with the players handbook mind you, with a prestige class and feats from other official books the bard becomes much more potent and powerful. The bard can be a fearsome fighter with the right spells, magic items and feats in melee or ranged combat. Have you ever seen a bard melee monster build? It is really nasty. Sky high AC, to hit and damage often coupled with resistances and multiple damage types. The bard is a support class, he specializes by being a generalist and his strength is his diversity rather than only being good at one thing exclusively. For tacticalists like me the bard is a class which makes us go Hehe...and grin a lot simply because he has so much raw potential in terms of power, abilities, feats and skills. The bard can become so powerful and make other players even more powerful that it might be considered cheesy and beardy. A properly powergamed bard borders into the realm of pure cheeky deviousness. For utterly devious bastards like myself the bard is a smorgasbord of different tactics, feats and potential. Seriously, many of the bardic prestige classes are just too tasty and cheesy.
Daergal_the_Black 12-27-06, 12:08 PM	I love having bards in the party as a 5th or 6th character, but I can't play one and stay sane. I just can't do "supporting cast" too well, and bards always have that feel to me. I can't do party-buff-specialists or heal-dispenser clerics for the same reason, though both are awesome to have along.
Khan the Destroyer 12-27-06, 01:41 PM	This is an accurate summary of the bard class but I don't think its a good summary of this thread. What many of the "anti-bard" people have been trying to say in this thread is that problem of bards is a problem of scale. Bards can *almost* provide an inferior replacement for a healer rogue, or caster, but not quite. Well, for a class that is dipping in all 4 traditional roles, how close do you want them to emulate the original classes? Bards can't replace rogues because they don't get trap-finding. But bards can replace rogues in the damage and skills department. And if you are using Magic of Incarnum, anyone can find traps by level 6 with 2 feats. They can't replace clerics because they don't get all the fancy debuff removers or powerful healing spells like heal. I partially agree with this. Inspire Courage will help people save against charm and fear effects, so that might be equivalent to debuffing charm or fear. For Heal, the Divine Bard variant in Unearthed Arcana gets it on his list. And if you grab Arcane Disciple: Healing Domain (Complete Divine), you get Heal as a 6th level spell. I guess for certain other debuffs, spell-trigger items might be worth the investment. They can't replace wizards because they don't get super powerful offensive magic. Not all wizards specialize in super powerful offensive magic. They can emulate an illusionist or enchanter. But regardless of powerful offensive spells, they can still provide arcane spell support. For example, a barbarian can replace a rogue. A barbarian can act as a living trap finder for traps the rogue could just disarm. However, the rogue is still a better trap finder and they have other differences that let them retain a class identity. Would you be able to elaborate on this please. I think I'm missing the point :(.
Redja_the_Foolish 12-27-06, 01:57 PM	Bards get dispel magic and greater dispel magic and many debuffing/nerfing spells such as sonic based spells so they can be effective backup debuffers at the higher levels.
Khan the Destroyer 12-27-06, 01:59 PM	Bards get dispel magic and greater dispel magic and many debuffing/nerfing spells such as sonic based spells so they can be effective backup debuffers at the higher levels. Good call. I seem to forget the stuff sitting right in front of my face :).
Arem_K 12-27-06, 08:48 PM	I am pretty heavily in the bard sucks camp. I am not saying that they are worthless. They can contribute. I actually played a bard for a decent length campaign and I had times when I saved the day. I am saying that in the traditional four person party it is not a very optimal for someone to be playing a bard. This is because the four person party has four roles, tank, caster, healer, and skillmonkey, and the bard really can't do everything he has to fufill the duties of any archetype. When I was the bard, I was partied with a cleric, rogue, and fighter type. That left me with the caster job. I was able to contribute, but about three times every game I found myself saying "I wish I was a wizard." Let us take a closer look at the bard in each area. Tank: A tank's job is simple. You gotta be able to take hard hits and hit back hard yourself. How does the bard do as a tank? One of the things I hear a lot is that a bard is a decent melee fighter. I have to wonder what that they are being compared to. The bard has average BAB, light armor and shield proficiency, a d6 hd, and proficiency in simple weapons and a few non-simple weapons. They do not really compare to the warrior classes, such as fighter, ranger, paladin, or barbarian, because those classes all have better HP, BAB, and proficiencies. They also have class abilites that make them good melee combatants. The monk has a bunch of class features designed to make it a viable melee guy, so the bard is worse off than they are. The cleric is better in melee than the bard, because it has a better HD (D8) and heavy armor. Clerics also can have martial weapon proficiency thorugh the war domain and they can have the same BAB as fighters due to the divine power spell. Druids are also better in melee than a bard due to their wildshape ability and having a better HD. So of the eleven core classes, the bard has currently been judged as being an inferior melee combatant than seven of them, making it at best the eighth best class in melee. The rogue and the bard are fairly evenly matched. They have the same hit die and BAB and almost have the same proficiencies. Bards have bardsong and some spells, the rogue has sneak attack. I would say the bard is better in this role. Compared to the wizard and the sorceror, the bard is better in melee right up till they get polymorph, at which point the wizard and sorceror become one of the upper tier melee tanks. So the bard is better than a rogue and a non polymorphed wizard or sorceror. This is not the sign of being a good tank. This actually seems like one of the worst tanking classes. Caster: A caster has a more complex role than a fighter. It seems like the party caster should be judged on its ability to be a potent force in combat by casting spells and its ability to solve non combat problems through utility spells. Wizards and sorcerors are the iconic casters. The bard has sixth level casting and UMD. A quick glance shows that they are the fifth best caster, after wizard, druid, sorceror, and cleric, who all receive 9th level spells. How does a bard do casting in game? The bard's spells come slower than those of the other party members and of course it caps out at level six. That means that the bard is going to feel bad at the very beginning (heck, a first level bard only has cantrips), and at the end game. The bard will generally be casting spells that are a level lower than a class with full casting, so in combat the bard is best when casting spells that do not require a save. This pushes the bard towards crowd control or party buffing. Unfortunately, the bard seems to be missing a lot of the really good spells from these two categories. The bard lacks all of the wall or cloud spells for example. On the buffing side, the bard has a greater percentage of the good spells, but is really hurt by not having polymorph. As a utility caster I would argue the bard is lacking as well. The bard does not have a long range teleport, it struggles to find ways to give flight to other party members, and it lacks rope trick for example. I was always really depressed when I found myself in a situation when the party could have benefited from stone shape or shrink item and I could not provide. Healer: The healer heals damage, plain and simple. The best healer is the cleric, who has the most healing spells and can heal spontaneously. The second best healer is the druid. The bard is the third best healer. Bard as a healer is pretty good. If you are talking about restoring hit point damage, I would argue that the bard is as good as anybody. They can't pack as many healing spells as a cleric or druid and they do not get Heal, but for the most part healing is best done out of combat with wands, and the bard can produce and use those. The problem with having a bard as your primary healer is that the ability to deal with injuries that are not hp based come late, if at all. Most notably, the bard never gets an ability to raise the dead, making the bard as a healer idea somewhat problematic, unless they can find or buy a staff of resurrection or something and use their UMD. Skillmonkey: The skillmonkey's role is hard to define. They use skills to be effective of course, but the question is what skills they should have. A character with two social skills maxed is better than character that has maxed climb and swim. I think the skillmonkey should be expected to be able to find traps, be the party face, and be the party scout. The best core skillmonkey is the rogue. The second best is the bard. That being said, there are a lot of barriers put in place that prevent the bard from being able to fufill the skillmonkey role. The first is the fact that only players with the trapfinding ability can spot difficult traps. It is really stupid and artificial, but the designers have made sure that bards just can't replace the party rogue by saying that they can't find the hardest and most deadly traps. Looking beyond that, the bard has other problems as a skill monkey. He has six plus int skill points a level compared to the rogue's 8 plus int. Six is good, but then they also have to invest in perform and concentration if they want to be able to effectively use all their class features, so it is really like four. Bards are problematic scouts, because they lack one of the most necessary skills for that role, spot. Bards are great social characters, and if that is all the party needs from their skillmonkey, they are perfect. That's basically my beef with the bard. I know they can be effective, and I can see them as being a good fifth man (though they would not be my first choice) but I think they are spread too thin to really fufill any one of the traditional party roles.
Khan the Destroyer 12-27-06, 10:07 PM	Tank: A tank's job is simple. You gotta be able to take hard hits and hit back hard yourself. How does the bard do as a tank? One of the things I hear a lot is that a bard is a decent melee fighter. I have to wonder what that they are being compared to. The bard has average BAB, light armor and shield proficiency, a d6 hd, and proficiency in simple weapons and a few non-simple weapons. You forgot the spells and unique class abilities. They do not really compare to the warrior classes, such as fighter, ranger, paladin, or barbarian, because those classes all have better HP, BAB, and proficiencies. 1. They have better base HP. 2. BAB is not the only contributing factor to your attack roll ;). 3. Not all warriors wield martial weapons and don heavy armor. They also have class abilites that make them good melee combatants. So does the bard, with the added benefit that his class abilities make everyone else better in melee as well. The monk has a bunch of class features designed to make it a viable melee guy, so the bard is worse off than they are. A bard would kick a monk's arss. The cleric is better in melee than the bard, because it has a better HD (D8) and heavy armor. Better HD and heavy armor porficiency does not necessarily mean 'better in melee'. Clerics also can have martial weapon proficiency thorugh the war domain and they can have the same BAB as fighters due to the divine power spell. Martial weapons do not a melee fighter make. And the bard has proficiency in the whip for what its worth. And bard's can have better to-hit's than fighters. Druids are also better in melee than a bard due to their wildshape ability and having a better HD. It does not follow that because druids perform very well as tanks, a bard does not. So of the eleven core classes, the bard has currently been judged as being an inferior melee combatant than seven of them, making it at best the eighth best class in melee. You didn't even take into account bard spells or bardic music. Or feats. An inaccurate judgement at best. The rogue and the bard are fairly evenly matched. They have the same hit die and BAB and almost have the same proficiencies. As far as tanking is concerned, the bard blows the rogue out of the water. The bard's to-hit will be higher, he will have more hit points, he can deal more damage, and has spells to protect him in combat. The rogue can't even compare. Compared to the wizard and the sorceror, the bard is better in melee right up till they get polymorph, at which point the wizard and sorceror become one of the upper tier melee tanks. By that same reasoning, a fighter makes a poor tank because a wild-shaped druid or polymorphed wizard does it better. It doesn't follow. So the bard is better than a rogue and a non polymorphed wizard or sorceror. This is not the sign of being a good tank. This actually seems like one of the worst tanking classes. I've shown numerous times in this thread how the bard's attack roll can surpass a fighter's. Now at 9th level, a bard gets Inspire Greatness. He gets 2d10 HD, or 3d10 with Song of the Heart. A 9th level fighter's average hit points will be 49.5 (9 x 5.5). A 9th level bard's average hit points will be 31.5 (9 x 3.5). Add 3d10 HD from Inspire Greatness and you get 48 hit points (3 x 5.5 plus 31.5). The bard has 1.5 less HP than the fighter, but a slew of spells to give his enemy miss chances or redirect enemy attacks to illusory duplicates. On top of that, he has a better to-hit and damage than the fighter. Throw in Words of Creation, and the 9th level bard has 64.5 hit points, 15 more hit points than the fighter. The only difference between the two is the fighter's probable higher constitution score (but remember the bard gets to add his con bonus 3 more times over the fighter, or 6 more times with Words of Creation). Maybe that's the trade-off for Displacement and Mirror Image. Let's not forget that with that lowly whip, bard's make great disarmers. How much HP do you need when your opponent has no weapon? Disarming isn't the only option. Wield that longsword in two hands and sunder weapons as well with your great to-hit. We have a character that has a greater to-hit and damage than the fighter, as many or more hit points, tactics like disarming and sundering, and defensive combat spells. How is he not a viable tank? And beyond that, higher level bards get Greater Invisibility, Freedom of Movement, and Sirine's Grace (add charisma modifier as deflection bonus to AC). Not to mention Inspire Heroics. Oh, and Ruin Delver's Fortune, with a spell effect option of temporary hp equal to 4d8+charisma modifier. Caster: A caster has a more complex role than a fighter. It seems like the party caster should be judged on its ability to be a potent force in combat by casting spells and its ability to solve non combat problems through utility spells. Wizards and sorcerors are the iconic casters. The bard has sixth level casting and UMD. A quick glance shows that they are the fifth best caster, after wizard, druid, sorceror, and cleric, who all receive 9th level spells. How does a bard do casting in game? The bard's spells come slower than those of the other party members and of course it caps out at level six. That means that the bard is going to feel bad at the very beginning (heck, a first level bard only has cantrips), and at the end game. The bard will generally be casting spells that are a level lower than a class with full casting, so in combat the bard is best when casting spells that do not require a save. This pushes the bard towards crowd control or party buffing. Unfortunately, the bard seems to be missing a lot of the really good spells from these two categories. The bard lacks all of the wall or cloud spells for example. On the buffing side, the bard has a greater percentage of the good spells, but is really hurt by not having polymorph. As a utility caster I would argue the bard is lacking as well. The bard does not have a long range teleport, it struggles to find ways to give flight to other party members, and it lacks rope trick for example. I was always really depressed when I found myself in a situation when the party could have benefited from stone shape or shrink item and I could not provide. They have a mix of spells that can provide support for the party. They have spells to disable enemies, they have divination spells, they have buffing spells, they have damage spells, illusion spells, utility spells (shelters, travelling, messaging). They have Dispel and Greater Dispel. I think they are pretty well-rounded. Not nearly as powerful as a pure caster, but the bard gains much for his limited spell ability. Healer: The healer heals damage, plain and simple. The best healer is the cleric, who has the most healing spells and can heal spontaneously. The second best healer is the druid. The bard is the third best healer. Bard as a healer is pretty good. If you are talking about restoring hit point damage, I would argue that the bard is as good as anybody. They can't pack as many healing spells as a cleric or druid and they do not get Heal, but for the most part healing is best done out of combat with wands, and the bard can produce and use those. The problem with having a bard as your primary healer is that the ability to deal with injuries that are not hp based come late, if at all. Most notably, the bard never gets an ability to raise the dead, making the bard as a healer idea somewhat problematic, unless they can find or buy a staff of resurrection or something and use their UMD. I haven't dealt much with non-HP injury to be honest, so I can't say I have much experience with it. What are we looking at specifically? As far as HP is concerned, the bard has the cure spells. At higher levels, it might not be enough. As far as ability damage is concerned, Healthful Rest and Summon Elysian Thrush can help with that, tripling the rate at which a character heals back ability score damage (and hit points for that matter). A bard can't help with level loss or ability drain. He gets Neutralize Poison eventually, and Remove Curse. For a general debuff, Dispel and Greater Dispel are there. For bringing back the dead, a bard gets Revenance. Temporary, but in combat it gets the job done. The divine bard variant in Unearthed Arcane gets Heal, Raise Dead, and I believe Restoration. Skillmonkey: The skillmonkey's role is hard to define. They use skills to be effective of course, but the question is what skills they should have. A character with two social skills maxed is better than character that has maxed climb and swim. I think the skillmonkey should be expected to be able to find traps, be the party face, and be the party scout. The best core skillmonkey is the rogue. The second best is the bard. That being said, there are a lot of barriers put in place that prevent the bard from being able to fufill the skillmonkey role. The first is the fact that only players with the trapfinding ability can spot difficult traps. It is really stupid and artificial, but the designers have made sure that bards just can't replace the party rogue by saying that they can't find the hardest and most deadly traps. That's ok. A bard doesn't get everyone's unique class abilities. He doesn't get the highest level spells, he doesn't get all of the best healing spells, he doesn't get Rage or bonus feats, and he doesn't get trapfinding. Expecting someone that doesn't have Trapfinding to find traps is silly. Looking beyond that, the bard has other problems as a skill monkey. He has six plus int skill points a level compared to the rogue's 8 plus int. Six is good, but then they also have to invest in perform and concentration if they want to be able to effectively use all their class features, so it is really like four. Concentration isn't needed for any class abilities. And the rogue needs Search and Disable Device to perform as the trapfinder, so he really has 6 skill points/level. Bards are problematic scouts, because they lack one of the most necessary skills for that role, spot. But they do have Listen. This at least allows them a chance to foil an approaching enemy. But you're right about Spot, I didn't know that. Bardic Knack boosts a bard's skill abilities tremendously. It gives him more effective skill points than the rogue. And coupled with Improvisation, a bard has a bonus to any skill (that can be used untrained) equal to his bard level. That's pretty beefy. The bard can fight better than a fighter when he uses his class-given abilities (bardic music, spells). He can have as many skills as a rogue (minus one), or way more with Bardic Knack. He can cure hit point damage, and dispel harmful magic. With the Divine Bard variant, he can even use Heal and Raise Dead. And he has a decent spell list, with a decent range of abilities. Coupled with UMD as a class skill, he can lend support with magic. I think of all of it, the arcane caster may be the hardest to duplicate. There's too much they can do to say the bard can do it all. But as far as combat and skills are concerned, a bard can do it very well, and sometimes better than the best.
rone_leah 12-28-06, 01:55 AM	OMG bards Suck sooooooo much. They suck as much as any other caster because of all the work you have to do to make them a powerhouse. Really I like playing Bards, but I look enemy and think do he look important enough to talk to. No DIE ******! but think the bard is a full-caster so that makes him instantly better than the barbarian, fighter, paladin and to some extent the ranger. And who say bards don't get rage its on their 2nd-lvl spell list isn't it.
Qube 12-28-06, 04:27 AM	if you are easely offended and you think it applies to you, i appogize in advance. Now: :banghead: Can you guys get it in your tiny little skulls: bards are great 5th partymembers, because if one character falls away, they can easely replace him. - they are better tanks than a not-optimized wizard - beter healers then a not-optimized barbarian - beter arcane casters then a not-optimized fighter - beter skill monkeys then a not-optimized cleric next questions: - can a bard tank? they can hold the front line, while the wiz does the killing. how: try mirror image + displacement (with 5 images + 50% miss chance; what? 10% chance to hit; not concidering AC yet) - can they heal? they are the 3rd best core healer class (after cleric and druid) - skill monkeys? they have 6+int skills, wich is the second highest of the game. (same as ranger, but ranger also needs str, dex, con and wis) they miss trapfinding. and thats oke: trapfinding is what make the rogue attractive to play (besides sneak attack) - arcane spells? though they do not have the uber damaging spells of wiz/sorc (as i already said, thats oke; otherwize why play wiz/sorc ? ), they have spells like sleep (+higher variants), charm, dominate, sound burst, summon monster and swarm / confusion / haste / invisibility sphere / dimension door / song of discord / ... and UMD for those other spells - are bards playable? yes: i've played one, so have others and they have had no much problems. of course 'playable' is a concent highly dependant of (A) the player (B) the DM and (C) the campaign. (example rogues aren't playable in a no-trap necropolis)
Deep Blue 9000 12-28-06, 05:51 AM	if you are easely offended and you think it applies to you, i appogize in advance. Now: :banghead: Can you guys get it in your tiny little skulls: bards are great 5th partymembers, because if one character falls away, they can easely replace him. - they are better tanks than a not-optimized wizard - beter healers then a not-optimized barbarian - beter arcane casters then a not-optimized fighter - beter skill monkeys then a not-optimized cleric Imagine the cleric class. Take away their heavy, medium, and shield proficiency. Take away turn undead and 2nd-9th level spells. Drop their HD down to d6 and give them 4 skill points per level. You now have a class that satisfies all 4 of these requirements. And yet the class sucks. You can suck and still not be the worst in every area. Bards are like that. They cannot fill in for any of the 4 archetypes. Tanking: Tanking requires two things: Defense and holding the line. Bards have the same defense as mages and no way to prevent melee from simply walking past them to get to the squishies. Healing: Bard "healing" at 20th level is a spell that clerics got back at 7th: Cure Critical Wounds (sorry, I always get critical and serious confused.) It heals around 40 hp which will probably be less than a third of the damage taken that round. Skills: They can fill all the skill-monkey roles except trap-finding. Of course, between a fighter, druid, and wizard, they can fill all those roles anyway. Except trap-finding! Arcane: Wizards get a huge variety of spells: reflex saves, will saves, fort saves, damage dealing rays, disabling rays, non-combat utility, terrain altering, buffs, divinations, summons, and AE spells, to name a few. Bards get most of the good will save based spells and a few of the weaker buffs, divinations, and summons.
Bringer of autumn 12-28-06, 09:40 AM	OMG bards Suck sooooooo much. They suck as much as any other caster because of all the work you have to do to make them a powerhouse. Really I like playing Bards, but I look enemy and think do he look important enough to talk to. No DIE ******! but think the bard is a full-caster so that makes him instantly better than the barbarian, fighter, paladin and to some extent the ranger. And who say bards don't get rage its on their 2nd-lvl spell list isn't it. Welcome to the land of narrow mindedness!
Arem_K 12-28-06, 10:45 AM	Khan, I do not think we are disagreeing by all that much, although we do disagree as to the ultimate effectiveness of the bard. Regarding the bard as a tank, I have to admit that I misspoke. I have come across the argument many times that bards are good fighters because they can use some armor, have the average BAB, and a larger hit die than a regular wizard. That is a bad arguement, but was not the one presented here. The bard you present, if I understand you correctly, is a buff fighter who uses bardsong and buff spells to be effective. Your bard gets some pretty impressive results, but it has some problems. For one, you have to be exalted to take words of creation, which can be a huge problem. It also inflicts subdual damage when you use it, so if you used it for inspire courage and greatness you would take 15d4 subdual damage, which is on average 37.5 points of damage. You have also spent two rounds, more if you want to have displacement, blink, or mirror image up. Is this in the final analysis a good tank? Hard to say. I think the only way to say that a class is good at something is to compare them to another class that does a similar thing. A buffing bard should probably be compared to buffing characters like a cleric, druid, psywarrior, or gish mage. I think we agree about the bard's ability to be the primary caster or healer. The divine bard variant helps the bard be better at this, but that is a variant rule. Judging the bard as a skillmonkey depends on what you expect the skillmonkey to do. If you want a character that has a decent bonus on every skill in the game, the bard is your man. They have spells like improv (which I heard got lowered to first level in the spell compendium) and I think bardic knack is the thing that gives you half your bard level to skill checks? Sorry, I don't think I have the books they are from. I judge the skillmokey based on his ability to disarm traps, scout, and talk. The bard is a great talker, no questions there. He is a bad trap disarmer because he lacks the search and disable device skills. Even if he gains those skills, he cannot disarm traps after a certain level because he lacks the trapfinding ability. I think this really hurts the ability of the bard to replace the rogue. Unless the DM does not use traps, a core party needs a rogue. The bard is also a bad scout, because he lacks spot. Listen can be something of a substitute, but is a problematic one. The way I see it, the core party needs a rogue for traps. The rogue can also be the team talker and scout, so skill monkey is covered. The party needs a healer, so they take a cleric or maybe a druid. The bard cannot fit here, because he can't raise the dead or do things like remove blindess or heal ability damage (the druid struggles here as well). The party needs a primary caster, which the bard falls short of. That leaves the last party role, which is generally the tank. If the bard can fit anywhere, it will have to be here. Or as the fifth man.
Khan the Destroyer 12-28-06, 02:38 PM	Tanking: Tanking requires two things: Defense and holding the line. Bards have the same defense as mages and no way to prevent melee from simply walking past them to get to the squishies. What ways do a barbarian or fighter have to stop melee guys from walking right by them? Nothing. They have to hit, and hope the bad guy hits them back. A bard can have as much HP or more than a fighter. He can disarm or sunder the weapon of the guy going for the mages. And his spells make him even harder to hit. And in the end, a tank really just has to absorb hits while the rest of the party chips away at the baddie. That doesn't mean you have to get hit. Displacement/Mirror Image can do this. Disarming someone forces them to draw another weapon, pick up their regular weapon, or fight unarmed. Healing: Bard "healing" at 20th level is a spell that clerics got back at 7th: Cure Critical Wounds (sorry, I always get critical and serious confused.) It heals around 40 hp which will probably be less than a third of the damage taken that round. I think bards do better with out-of-combat healing. Snowsong gives everyone Fast Healing 1 for 10 minutes/level. Cast that before everyone goes to bed or in between fights and the party is fully healed before the next one. At lower levels there is Healthful Rest and Summon Elysian Thrush. But I think with Metamagic Song and some metamagic feats, a bard can be a decent healer. I'll try and come up with something. Skills: They can fill all the skill-monkey roles except trap-finding. Of course, between a fighter, druid, and wizard, they can fill all those roles anyway. Except trap-finding! By that reasoning, a rogue is *only* good for trapfinding. No point to all of the skills because between the rest of the party, it's all covered. I don't agree. Arcane: Wizards get a huge variety of spells: reflex saves, will saves, fort saves, damage dealing rays, disabling rays, non-combat utility, terrain altering, buffs, divinations, summons, and AE spells, to name a few. Bards get most of the good will save based spells and a few of the weaker buffs, divinations, and summons. I'll have to go through the list and put up some examples of bard spells then. It isn't as limited as some might think. The bard you present, if I understand you correctly, is a buff fighter who uses bardsong and buff spells to be effective. Your bard gets some pretty impressive results, but it has some problems. For one, you have to be exalted to take words of creation, which can be a huge problem. Well, he doesn't have to take Words of Creation. For example, Song of the Heart alone keeps a bard's base attack on par with a fighter's until level 13. And with Song of the Heart and Inspire Greatness, you're base HP is 1.5 less than a fighter's. And Inspire Greatness/Song of the Heart alone adds a +3 competence bonus to your attack roll. Meaning a 9th level Bard using just Inspire Greatness will have a base to-hit of +9 (like the fighter) and just as much base HP. But if you have time, Inspire Courage would be nice too ;). Words of Creation just exaggerates the end result. (Also, depending on your DM's view of the term 'ally', the Battle Dancer feat can give you a +2 morale bonus on attack rolls just by you using your Inspire Greatness ability on yourself. That bumps your base to-hit up to +11 at 9th level.) I use 9th level because at this point the bard can start competing with the fighter in terms of staying power in combat (comparable HP and spells like Displacement and Mirror Image). At 9th level, a bard could also grab Snowflake Wardance to add his charisma to attack, or Arcane Strike. I bring these up because your to-hit can still be better than the fighter and your HP comparable without Words of Creation. And I don't think Words of Creation is a huge problem. After all, if people have no problem playing a murderous coward for more damage (Craven), or an anthromorphic baleen whale, I don't see what the problem is playing a really good person :). It also inflicts subdual damage when you use it, so if you used it for inspire courage and greatness you would take 15d4 subdual damage, which is on average 37.5 points of damage. Very true. Depending on the circumstances, you could either cast the 1st level bard spell (the name escapes me at the moment) that cures all subdual damage, or, just hope you don't get hit for enough to knock you out. And you won't always need both effects at the same time (look to Arcane Strike, Snowflake Wardance and other means to boost your to-hit). You have also spent two rounds, more if you want to have displacement, blink, or mirror image up. Agreed. But this isn't different than a wildshaping druid, or a wizard casting polymorph. The bard cannot be as effective as a tank as the fighter without sacrificing something. And that is actions and spells/bardic music. But again, you can just use 1 round, and rely on feats to do what Inspire Courage would normally do. (Arcane Strike and Snowflake Wardance both take a free action to activate.) Not all encounters will start with no time to prepare as well. And even if they do, remember that while you can't act the turn you Inspire Courage, your other party members can, and now they have the benefit of your song. So even when you don't attack, you are still dealing damage so-to-speak. Is this in the final analysis a good tank? Hard to say. I think the only way to say that a class is good at something is to compare them to another class that does a similar thing. A buffing bard should probably be compared to buffing characters like a cleric, druid, psywarrior, or gish mage. Well, all of those are attempting to replace the role of the tank when they buff up for combat. So eventually you are comparing the stats to those of a traditional tank. They have spells like improv (which I heard got lowered to first level in the spell compendium) and I think bardic knack is the thing that gives you half your bard level to skill checks? Sorry, I don't think I have the books they are from. Yes, Bardic Knack is in PHB2 and gives you effective ranks when you use a skill equal to half your bard level. With Improvisation (which is half your caster level as a bonus), it equals your bard class level. He is a bad trap disarmer because he lacks the search and disable device skills. Even if he gains those skills, he cannot disarm traps after a certain level because he lacks the trapfinding ability. I think this really hurts the ability of the bard to replace the rogue. Well, he is a bad trap disarmer because he isn't designed to disarm traps :). At most, he could summon a monster to walk ahead of the party in a dungeon, or maybe use Detect Magic. But that seems like too much for too little. If a trapfinder is really needed, one can be gained with two feats from Magic of Incarnum. Open Least Chakra (Hands) and Bind Soulmeld. Nab Thief Gloves and you can now find traps like a rogue and use Search and Disable Device untrained. Yeah, I know. It's not until 6th level, it costs 2 feats, and you're still not equal to the rogue in terms of finding traps. But it's something. The bard is also a bad scout, because he lacks spot. Listen can be something of a substitute, but is a problematic one. Agreed. Listen is good for people approaching you. But if enemies are waiting in ambush, Spot would be the key. I'll look through spells later to see if anything can help in this department. Maybe the bard isn't meant to replace anyone. I mean, who is a monk really filling in as? I don't think a tank or a skill monkey. And yet, there he is. Perhaps the bard is just meant to be someone with a bit of everything, but not enough to replace anyone. That doesn't mean he sucks though.
Tisner44 12-28-06, 06:31 PM	I see everyone arguing that the Bard is not good because he can't Replace the other classes. That is not what the Bard class was designed to do. The Bard is designed to Support the other classes. This means that they can help the efficiency of the other classes and all his abilities reflect this. Inspire Courage and Greatness supports the combat classes. If the Rogue and Bard work together on the skills, between the two of them they should have every skill easily maxed with room to spare. The small amount of healing spells a Bard has does support the Cleric when they are running low on spells or has important spells they don't want to convert. The bard supports the Wizard by allowing the wizard/sorcerer by allowing them to take more damage doing spells instead of utility spells that the bard can use or have wands for. In conclusion, the bard does exactly what it is supposed to do, support others and they do it well. No, the Bard can't replace any of the other core classes, but they can help them. Also the Bard is great as a 5th party member or a 3rd (if you only have 3).
Qube 12-29-06, 09:56 AM	Imagine the cleric class. Take away their heavy, medium, and shield proficiency. Take away turn undead and 2nd-9th level spells. Drop their HD down to d6 and give them 4 skill points per level. You now have a class that satisfies all 4 of these requirements.And yet the class sucks. they do indeed. you have yust proven the folowing: <a class weaker then the bard> sucks. so ... i make a class: the commoner, but he gets 1 arcane spell at lvl 20. this class sucks, so we can conclude that the wizard also sucks. some common sense is needed.You can suck and still not be the worst in every area. Bards are like that. They cannot fill in for any of the 4 archetypes.not being able to fill any job doesn't make them bad. they have versitilityTanking: Tanking requires two things: Defense and holding the line. Bards have the same defense as mages and no way to prevent melee from simply walking past them to get to the squishies.yes, except, most wizards have only intelligence as a good stat. you are also forgetting the cat's grace+ mythral breastplate+5 + mythral buckler+5 (mythal bucklers have no asf). with this they have an AC that almost is as good as a fighter. the displacement+mirror image is yust a bonus. most wizards do not tank because other partymembers can do it. and if they want, their spells would be better spend on boosting the original tank. + most wizards have no decant defence flat footed (unlike the mythral wearing bard) Healing: Bard "healing" at 20th level is a spell that clerics got back at 7th: Cure Critical Wounds (sorry, I always get critical and serious confused.) It heals around 40 hp which will probably be less than a third of the damage taken that round. and now let us compare that with the healing powers of a fighter. thats what? 0hp? as i said, bards are THE 5th partymember. if john, who play cleric, can't come to the session, who is gonna replace him? the wizard? the rogue? the fighter? Skills: They can fill all the skill-monkey roles except trap-finding. Of course, between a fighter, druid, and wizard, they can fill all those roles anyway. Except trap-finding!not everyone has 6+int skills, and not everyone has such a nice skill selection as the bard. BTW you forgot the cleric. - fighter, druid, cleric, sorcerer: don't bother - wizard: needs other skills (know acrana; know the planes, concentration, spellcraft) - barbarian, monk, paladin, ranger: INT = second dumpskill? Arcane: Wizards get a huge variety of spells: reflex saves, will saves, fort saves, damage dealing rays, disabling rays, non-combat utility, terrain altering, buffs, divinations, summons, and AE spells, to name a few. Bards get most of the good will save based spells and a few of the weaker buffs, divinations, and summons. OMG, i can't believe i didn't see this before. people all over the world here me: the wizard is beter in arcane casting then a bard! theirfore the bard MUST suck to get back to the point: if thomas who plays wizard can't get there tonight. lets look at the arcane spells of Krusk the barbarian. sorry i seem to have misplaced the sheet with the spells. oke, perhaps i was beeing a liltte rude. sorry. but i've given you examples that they are beter then ,lets call it the-other-class, in tanking, healing, skills AND arcane.
embers_brew 01-06-07, 11:30 PM	For myself, Bards are one of my favorites. I'm not a very experienced player, so Bard provides an opportunity to try various things to see what I like and don't like. In addition, as a player who doesn't know the history or setting as well as others, playing a ditzy bard allows me to learn without as much pressure as when playing other classes. My first character was a cleric and I was so lost. Bards are simply easier to understand and play.
Roland the Crownbreaker 01-07-07, 05:16 AM	I agree with the above poster who mentioned bards are great of you have more than 4 people, or less than 4. I play in a group with 6 to 7 players (depending on the night) and in that setting, the bard shines. Versatile characters are best when either the 4 primary roles have been filled, or they can not all be filled.
dunkeykong 01-07-07, 08:14 PM	The first character I ever played was a bard. After most fights my party mebers would complain that i didnt do anything. I would look at them and ask questions like: "would you have hit that orc without my inspire courage?" or "who defused that situation with the half elf you idiots got angry?" I lovbe to play bard beacuse they are jacks of all trades and you dont notice if you dont play with one, but after you have you notice when hes gone.
thefudgemaster 01-07-07, 10:02 PM	The bards are only good for standing outside in the cold playing there instermant for money then later u steal the money and go get hammerd at the bar :D
Redja_the_Foolish 01-08-07, 01:32 AM	Anyone with ranks in perform can play for prestige and a bit of extra money if the party is down on their luck or just for extra silver during the downtime when they are staying in a good sized city. Possibly a character with ranks in perform can play for food and a room for the night. Also in many medieval campaigns it would be a very bad idea to hurt or insult a bard but very good to have a bard on your side since he can then make nice songs about you and your family or be a witness to deals or be a keeper of family records and oaths in a semi literate society. Good examples of this is in the books of Robin Hobb(Margaret Ogden) and the Farseer trilogy(Starling) and Raymond E Feist and the Riftwar series, like Laurie the minstrel. The bard has played well and is fairly known in the small town, the less suave players get themselves into trouble but the bard just says: They're with me, they didn't start it, a successful bluff or diplomacy check or two later and presto, they are out of the bind. The bard really shines however when you have many summoned creatures and NPC´s and melee based player characters near the bard since most of them recieve those boni from the bard song. A good bard song can make a level 1 warrior into a force to be reconned with in battle. Instead of having to buff every character every round separately he just have to sing and everyone who can hear him will recieve the boni.
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-08-07, 01:33 AM	How to become Shiva, Destroyer of Worlds by level 6 The secret to playing a bard is to realise that there are moments in time before and after combat. Control what happens during those and it doesn't matter that you have rogue BaB. Also, you must realise that you have skills to burn that synergize with your class abilities. At 6th level, you have 3 avalable feats, 6 uses of bardic music and the suggestion ability. The Go-to feat here is Skill Focus (Diplomacy) (we will see why you focus diplomacy and not perform soon). The other two feats can be: - Combat Expertise and Improved Trip (you have EWP: Whip for free -- use it.) I will be assuming this one to build Shiva. - Negotiator and Skill focus (perform) (for power overwhelming with your mind trick) - Dodge and Mobility (going for Spring Attack for a combat bard) Unless you're a moron. you also have 9 ranks of Perform, Bluff and Diplomacy. By level 6, you should also have a circlet of persuasion, because... damn. Assuming standard array, we start with a 15 Cha, 14 Dex and 13 Str. +1 from 4th level gives 16 Cha. You can afford a +2 stat enhancer at this point. Cha is tempting, but you won't need spell DCs that much if you go for buff spells/calm emotions. +2 Dex is a welcome +1 AC and Reflex and STR = attack and damage. Let's take Str, since we want to trip. Final scores: Str 15, Dex 14, Con 12, Wis 8, Int 10, Cha 16 I suggest droping an Eagle's splendor on yourself just before encounters and will assume you did for Shiva. A Wand of such is the best treasure of all. Just for reference; Perform: ranks = 9 Cha = +3 splendor = +2 circlet = +3 Total = +17 Diplomacy: ranks = 9 Cha = +3 splendor = +2 skill focus = +3 Bluff synergy = +2 circlet = +3 Total = +22 Anyway, here is how you become Shiva, Destroyer of Worlds. Step 1: Encounter something. If it isn't hostile toward you, start fascinate and laugh as it tries to save vs an average DC of 27. Then suggest that you are its friend and it should protect you. (DC 18) You will probably suggest the first time. If not, you have five more tries before fascinate wears off. If it's hostile, take a full round action to attempt to diplomacize "I mean you no harm and you should not harm me". You are at a -10 to this check, but your average roll (22) will be enough to make it unfriendly instead of hostile, calming it enough to fascinate and suggest. Diplomacy not working you say? No problem. You're a bard. You have calm emotions. Ho.Ho.Ho. It your enemy is too fast or not down with mind control, its time for the tripping. With a Whip, improved trip, and Str 15, you have a +6 bonus to the check, where humanoid opponents will rarely have over a +4. Its enough to count on as a last ditch. Otherwise, blurring yourself and dropping heroism will give you the edge you need to drop them. Once they're on the ground, the party can roll him. Step 2: Use your 'protection' for fun and profit. Your new friend will protect you for the next 6 hours. Time to make sure he doesn't live that long. Move quickly and quietly to your next encounter. Let them fight you. Your new friend will spring to your defense and one or the other will be grveiously wounded in the process. When only one is standing, diplomacy, fascinate and suggest to gain a new 'friend', or off your badly damaged 'ally'. Why is this alled Shiva, Destroyer of Worlds? Simple. Because it allows you to gain power exponentially. Encounters won by your 'protectors' are wins (and XP) for you. Even if your protector dies, they've weakened and distracted your new foe, allowing you to set up another round of minor mind control. When the going gets tough, tripping buys you a pint while you set up your next trick and allows you to stay on top. The important thing here is that your fasciante and suggestion DCs are the best in the core game. Fascinate is virtually impossible to resist and is often all you actually need to clear an encounter. The ismple truth is that if you measure power by ability to kill; this is why you fail. If you measure power by actual, in game effectiveness in encounters, bards are a power overwhelming.