Post/Author/DateTime	Post
firebeetle 12-29-05, 01:02 PM	I've started a rather heated debate over and ENWorld and thought I should blight these boards as well. I'm going on the record as someone who loves to play bard. I played it in 1E,2E,3E, as well as bard equivalents in Talislanta, GURPS, Palladium, and even Champions. Further, I used to LARP where I played, you guessed it, a bard. You could definately say I love the bard concept. However, I find our 3.5 bard (and it's 3E ancestor) sumpremely sucky. That's right, outright suckage from the bard. Let's have a look: Bards are based on CHA, easily the most underpowered stat in the game, with NO direct compensation. Clerics get bonus to their uber-turn undead-ability, sorcerers get a bonus to their spells (their primary ability). Bard spellcasting is a poor country cousin indeed so CHA is not really a bonus there, which brings me to. . . Spellcasting. Bards stink at spell casting. I know they are suppoused to dabble, but does dabble have to mean suck? Bards get a hand-me-down spell list and they get these spells long after their peers have more powerful spells. Further, the spells bards get are pitiful in power compared to others. No, a bard shouldn't have magic missile, but we deserve something just as powerful. While I'm at it, why do bards get CLW? Do they sing the sutures together? It's to shore up suckage. Bards as they stand need their own spells and possibily a revised spell progression list. Fighting. Orginally, bards were primarily fighters, now they rank below rogues (who at least get sneak attack) and might be able to beat a sorcerer at a game of slap jack. Why don't they at least have a d8 HD? Bardic Music: Nice idea but not taken far enough. As another thread has noted, countersong is rarely if ever used, fascinate is to hard to effect anything of higher level, and the bard can't actually do anything like, say, charm somebody with that music. Skill points: Bards get 6, so we're all good right? Wrong. Although we went up 2 points from 3.E, the Perform skill must be taken individually each time. This is an actual loss of points. So-called social skill king: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate. These are suppoused to be the staples of the bard, our bread-and-butter so to speak. So we get buffs to these skills, right? Wrong. A 1st level Sorcerer with the same CHA can put as many points into Bluff then take a viper familier to get a +3 bonus. The bard gets nada. I've heard that this is the problem of DMs not accepting bard or facilitating them somehow. This seems ridiculous to me. If a bard can't be effective in a dungeon crawl he doesn't belong in the PHB for DUNGEONS and dragons. I don't care how great he is "back at town." Regardless, changing the DMs is not an option, changing the bard class is (on some grassroots level.) I propose that bards suck and need fixing. I have a particular fix in mind, but I will share that later. For now, I'd like to hear from you. Before you start attacking me personally, I love the bard concept, but do not like the class as written. Yes, I am very familiar with creative uses of the social skills, spells, and other bardic abilities. If there is a way to bend a rule using bardic abilities I have done it. Regardless, bards suck.
Dark Voivode 12-29-05, 01:10 PM	I posted to another thread that I was thinking of basing the Bard off the Warlock. I think it fits the concept of the bard well. Instead of an EB they'd have a sonic attack and some spells and music abilities through the invocation system. The only problem is looking at how this fix would affect bardic PrCs. Some of the more arcane ones would suffer, while the bardic music users might or migh not be affected at all. That's my proposed idea. What do you think?
TheGogmagog 12-29-05, 01:13 PM	Monte Cook has published a few alternate bard classes, and spells that arn't hand me downs. Also there is a prestige class in complete arcane (?) that lets the bard focus on a better spell list. I haven't had a chance to see what happens when you cross monte cook's bard with the prestige class. While I agree with you, I'm not sure what you are looking for. There have been Gigs of alternate bard classes created and posted since 3.0 came, and again when 3.5 did little if anything to them. There are also quite a few third party published variations. I'm sure whatever you are looking for is out there. If you want to make a home brew class, look it up or post it. If you want WOTC to fix it, this isn't the place to complain. The only thing that will create a heated debate is your inflamitory title, and people who react to it. Post your supposed fix, and stop baiting.
Kary Wanzer 12-29-05, 01:17 PM	:w: Hmm, if you don't like bards, try Lotus Crane's Re-Balanced Bard at his website (http://www.freewebs.com/lotuscrane/work.htm). Aside from that, the 3.5 bard is still a nice upgrade from the 3.0 bard. As far as skills are concerned, a bard really doesn't need more than 1 type of Perform skill anyway, at least I never find myself taking more than one. If you really want to have the silly 3.0 "not only am I a great hero, but I can play every single instrument in the world too!" multi-Perform concept (which I actually don't miss), I believe there are some feats and PrCs which allow a character to be able to use multiple (but not ALL) Perform skills using the highest modifier he has with any one of them. With spells, at least a bard has full caster levels so he can penetrate SR just as well as anybody else, which is good because the bard has quite a few sonic attack spells exclusive to his spell list, and we all know how wonderful sonic energy is. Between sonic attacks and glibness, I don't see any real problems with his spellcasting. It's not supposed to be as good as primary caster's, but it's certainly superior to that of half casters like a paladin. And as for combat, with a single feat (Arcane Strike), bards can stay competitive with rogues, especially against creatures who are immune to sneak attacks. 3.5 bards are still better overall, than sorcerers or fighters. :b:
Shotgun_badger 12-29-05, 01:25 PM	just on the "back at town" statement, my group actually played a campaign where we never saw a true "dungeon crawl" (IE "you see an "X" in a room" "I attack "X" with my sword" "the "X" dies and drops "Y" loot." "Huzzah! Now for the next room") untill the climax when we had to raid a giant tower, and even that had a huge RP ending. Anyway back to topic, I like the current Bard, they seem to fit how I picture the Celtic Bard myths, though my DM was kind enough to tweek some of the music when we got higher so I COULD charm the BBEG's right hand man into giving me the key. Yes, a Bard is more at home in the town seducing the mayor's daughter; but they aren't USELESS in the dungeon.
simon_tage 12-29-05, 01:37 PM	Yes, a Bard is more at home in the town seducing the mayor's daughter; but they aren't USELESS in the dungeon. Which is as it should be. Heck, a bard is a morale booster. He should be more than useful in most situations despite living in a van down by the river (my bards take perform: oratory). He is a secondary fighter, a secondary spellcaster and a primary skill user. I see no problem with the bard as is...then again I think nothing core sucks.
CaoSlayer 12-29-05, 01:39 PM	umm, bard´s spellcasting sucks? really? have you stopped two seconds to compare the bard´s spell list with the sorcerer/wizard one? bards spell list it is powerful, if you do it right you can fill all your know spells with spells that should be one or two levels upper on the wizard spell list. By example bard can use hideous laughter a very useful level 2 wizard spell at character level 2, that it is ever before a wizard. Also, the bard have some spells that a wizard cant learn and they are usually more powerful than a regular wizard spell of the same level, example of this is glibness, nobody can say than a +30 to bluff and being able to fool ldetection sucks. The bard spell list of course isnt as complete and varied as a wizard/sorcerer one, it is very logical in the point of balance since if a bard got the same spell casting that a full caster... would outclass spellcasters with a d6 for hp two good saves, spellcasting in light armor and medium bab, a bard would be ever more overpowered than a cleric. a bard raw combat skill isnt inferior than a rogue, if you take special class features, you will find than a bard and a rogue it is the same thing... just the bard gets shield profiency and kinda diferent weapons... sneak attack it is good, the rogue class would really suck without it and really sucks when faces undead a constructions... the bard counterpart to sneak attack are bardic music and spells, and those ALWAYS works, you are now thinking that bardic music and spells do nothing against undead and constructions... but look that most music and a lot of spells are buffers and really, allowing a barbarian to deal +12 extra damage and an extra attack (inspire courage, haste and power attack) it is everything but useless. When a bard finds an enemy with a weak mind can enchant, when he meets a magic resistant oponent can buff and fight. About social vs sorcerer... igh, yeah a sorcerer can inverst all this ranks into bluff, but then with a adverage 10 int, he only will have 1 rank per level, so he now must choise between no learning knowledge arcane or spellcraft or concentration... I personally any spellcaster without concentration and/or spellcraft it is screwed, also althrought he is good at bluffing people, what hapens if he wants to use diplomacy? and how can tell who is lying without sense motive? Yeah, with a familiar he gets a +3 bonus, but a bard with skills synergies outdone him, and now as a coup de grace, who can a sorcerer compete vs glibness a whole +30 to bluff? Bards are the kings of dealing with people, of mind control, they gets mind control spells, they get mind control songs and they get all the mind control skills and this primary stat charisma helps in all those songs, spells and skills. ------------------- Finally, do you really remember AD&D bards? In second edition their bardic music SUCKED, they just got able to grant a +1 to hit and damage, nothing else. The lore it is diferent since things have changed. about combat skills... now they have extra attacks, the bard (and thief) progresion was like the 3.5 wizard´s one, now bards have a easier time hiting things since they are tied with clerics, they dont get medium armor profiency, but with 3+e they can use armor and cast spells (in 3.0 they got ASF, in 3.5 they can do it without fail) in AD&D any armor screwed their spellcasting totally, so now they are more fighters, they only have lose the skill to custom their weapon prof. but this is a change that shares every class. Spellcasting it is the final chapter... okey, I can deny it, AD&D bard spellcasting was way superior to the actual being able to use any wizard spell.. actually in second edition, the spellcasting of the bard was broken; since bards gained levels with less xp than a wizard, they always had one or two spellcasting levels upper, so the bard spells where more powerful than wizards one, funny isnt? you cant touch the actual bard... making him better in one of this features will result in an overpowered class, a bard with full bab would outclass fighter classes (a buffed bard can actually do it), bards with full spellcasting will outclass spellcasters and bards with 8 skill points and trap sense would outclass rogues, a bard must be the second in everything because being the first in a thing and the second in the rest it is way broken.
Thorak 12-29-05, 01:43 PM	I've started a rather heated debate over and ENWorld and thought I should blight these boards as well. I'm going on the record as someone who loves to play bard. I played it in 1E,2E,3E, as well as bard equivalents in Talislanta, GURPS, Palladium, and even Champions. Further, I used to LARP where I played, you guessed it, a bard. You could definately say I love the bard concept. However, I find our 3.5 bard (and it's 3E ancestor) sumpremely sucky. That's right, outright suckage from the bard. Let's have a look: Bards are based on CHA, easily the most underpowered stat in the game, with NO direct compensation. Clerics get bonus to their uber-turn undead-ability, sorcerers get a bonus to their spells (their primary ability). Bard spellcasting is a poor country cousin indeed so CHA is not really a bonus there, which brings me to. . . Bards get bonuses to their spells, bonuses to their Bardic Music, bonuses to social skills which they excel at. Not seeing the problem. Spellcasting. Bards stink at spell casting. I know they are suppoused to dabble, but does dabble have to mean suck? Bards get a hand-me-down spell list and they get these spells long after their peers have more powerful spells. Further, the spells bards get are pitiful in power compared to others. No, a bard shouldn't have magic missile, but we deserve something just as powerful. While I'm at it, why do bards get CLW? Do they sing the sutures together? It's to shore up suckage. Bards as they stand need their own spells and possibily a revised spell progression list. If by "suck" you mean "not as good as a Wizard or Sorceror", then yes. But that's by design. If they were as good as that, you'd never play a Wizard or Sorceror. They have the best casting of any non-pure caster in the game. As for why they get CLW, it's because they dabble. In a lot of things. Enough that they've figured out how to do things a Wizard can't do. A Bard's spells are only as weak as the player makes them. If you think direct damage is the only, or even the best, sort of power, it's no wonder you think bards suck. Fighting. Orginally, bards were primarily fighters, now they rank below rogues (who at least get sneak attack) and might be able to beat a sorcerer at a game of slap jack. Why don't they at least have a d8 HD? Because they're an "adventurer". As opposed to a "warrior", a "divine caster", or an "arcane caster". And a bard was only ever good at fighting back in 1st edition, when they were more like a proto-PRC than an actual class. Bardic Music: Nice idea but not taken far enough. As another thread has noted, countersong is rarely if ever used, fascinate is to hard to effect anything of higher level, and the bard can't actually do anything like, say, charm somebody with that music. True, but wickedly useful when it is, absolutely wrong, and while they can't Charm, they can do other better things. Fascinate is, hands down, the easiest magical effect to target against a high-level creature. The only hopes they have are immunity to mind-controlling effects, and SR. And the Bard's check to penetrate SR is as good as any mage's. For a simple reason. The DC is sickeningly huge. 40+ by level 10 huge. By level 20, there isn't anything in the entire MM that can beat a Bard's Fascinate DC by anything save a 20, and then only because a 20 auto-saves. If the target isn't immune to mind control, you've got a decent chance of winning the fight with two abilities you got by 6th level. If they don't have SR either, it's almost guaranteed. How is this not powerful? You just have to be wiley enough to arrange the situation so it will work. As for what to do with them after they're Fascinated; that's what Suggestion is for. It's a ridiculously powerful spell. I'd prefer it over Charm, typically. Because Charm can't make them kill themselves, or do things they would never do; Suggestion does. Suggest that they take off all their gear so they can feel the breeze better. Suggest they wander over to Waterdeep to see the sights. Suggestion is wickedly powerful, limited only by your imagination and the ability to make the act sound good. Hell, the example the PHB uses is taking a refreshing dip in a pool of acid. Charm won't make them turn on their friends or give you their gear, Suggestion will. And it lasts 1 hour/level, more than enough for pretty much anything. Skill points: Bards get 6, so we're all good right? Wrong. Although we went up 2 points from 3.E, the Perform skill must be taken individually each time. This is an actual loss of points. Two solutions. The Versatile Performer feat from the Complete Adventurer, which lets your single Perform skill apply to your Int bonus in extra styles of Perform. Now, with an Int of 14, you can easily play the lute, while singing and dancing. Alternatively, who cares? Pick Oratory or Singing, and play another instrument for appearances only. Nothing says you need multiple Perform skills. And in most cases, if you can't sing, you won't be able to play other instruments, either. So-called social skill king: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate. These are suppoused to be the staples of the bard, our bread-and-butter so to speak. So we get buffs to these skills, right? Wrong. A 1st level Sorcerer with the same CHA can put as many points into Bluff then take a viper familier to get a +3 bonus. The bard gets nada. That's one skill. The Bard will be better at Diplomacy, Intimidate, Disguise, Gather Information, and the non-social king of Charisma skills, Use Magic Device. And I strongly suspect that, with 2+int skill points/level, Sorcerors typically have more important skills, like Concentration, Spellcraft, and Knowledge: Arcana, to be concentrating all that heavily on Bluff. Besides, at level 7, nobody outbluffs a Bard. The +30 bonus from Glibness is sickeningly awesome. That's a net +10 bonus to tell a lie that's almost too far out to believe. Things like "No, I'm the real king, I was magically changed into this form. That other guy on the throne is an imposter who's been implanted with my memories. Sieze him!" I've heard that this is the problem of DMs not accepting bard or facilitating them somehow. This seems ridiculous to me. If a bard can't be effective in a dungeon crawl he doesn't belong in the PHB for DUNGEONS and dragons. I don't care how great he is "back at town." Right. Because the PCs never spend time in town. And none of their abilities are useful in a dungeon, brutally so if the enemy is intelligent and has ears, but decently just as a passive booster even if they're deaf and mindless. That's what we call "sarcasm". Regardless, changing the DMs is not an option, changing the bard class is (on some grassroots level.) I propose that bards suck and need fixing. I have a particular fix in mind, but I will share that later. For now, I'd like to hear from you. Before you start attacking me personally, I love the bard concept, but do not like the class as written. Yes, I am very familiar with creative uses of the social skills, spells, and other bardic abilities. If there is a way to bend a rule using bardic abilities I have done it. Regardless, bards suck. So you say. But I guarantee that if you express that opinion, you haven't even approached all the ways to "bend the rules" with Bardic abilities. They have the potential to be one of the strongest classes in the game. In one thread, myself and a couple others got pushed to a duel, between a Bard and a cleric optimized against Bards. The cleric conceded when the characters were posted and certain facts were pointed out, because he realized he didn't have a chance, unless he rolled nothing but 20s. Bards are powerful. They're just not atom-bomb powerful. More HIV-powerful. Not flashy, and they may not directly kill you, but they can manipulate you into being so weak that anything else can take you out with ease. My apologies to anyone with/knows someone with HIV, I'm not trying to be offensive in any way, it was just the most topical example that got my point across that came to mind.
Nephlite 12-29-05, 01:46 PM	I've started a rather heated debate over and ENWorld and thought I should blight these boards as well. I'm going on the record as someone who loves to play bard. I played it in 1E,2E,3E, as well as bard equivalents in Talislanta, GURPS, Palladium, and even Champions. Further, I used to LARP where I played, you guessed it, a bard. You could definately say I love the bard concept. However, I find our 3.5 bard (and it's 3E ancestor) sumpremely sucky. That's right, outright suckage from the bard. Let's have a look: Bards are based on CHA, easily the most underpowered stat in the game, with NO direct compensation. Clerics get bonus to their uber-turn undead-ability, sorcerers get a bonus to their spells (their primary ability). Bard spellcasting is a poor country cousin indeed so CHA is not really a bonus there, which brings me to. . . Spellcasting. Bards stink at spell casting. I know they are suppoused to dabble, but does dabble have to mean suck? Bards get a hand-me-down spell list and they get these spells long after their peers have more powerful spells. Further, the spells bards get are pitiful in power compared to others. No, a bard shouldn't have magic missile, but we deserve something just as powerful. While I'm at it, why do bards get CLW? Do they sing the sutures together? It's to shore up suckage. Bards as they stand need their own spells and possibily a revised spell progression list. Fighting. Orginally, bards were primarily fighters, now they rank below rogues (who at least get sneak attack) and might be able to beat a sorcerer at a game of slap jack. Why don't they at least have a d8 HD? Bards were never primary fighters. In 2.0 AD&D they were more arcane caster-like: getting spells like fireball and all Wizard spells. No healing spells. Since I've only played version 2.0 AD&D, 3.0 and 3.5 they were never primary fighters to me. Bardic Music: Nice idea but not taken far enough. As another thread has noted, countersong is rarely if ever used, fascinate is to hard to effect anything of higher level, and the bard can't actually do anything like, say, charm somebody with that music. Fascinate/suggestion=charmed enough. Fascinate isn't hard: How low is your Int/Perform check? Shouldn't be that low. Let us say level 10 Bard should have 13 ranks in perform let us do a low average of 16 Charisma (+3) so 16 perform check. You'll probably have higher charisma no doubt by magic items though. Add in skill focus perform: 19 DC + roll a 10= 29 DC. And you tell me that 29 is too low? Suggestion's DC: Will saving throw (DC 10 + 1/2 bard's level + bard's Cha modifier)= 18 with 16 charisma. Now suggestion's DC might be low (18 may be), but not fascinates. Remember you can suggest each round: every round! Eventually you will succeed. Skill points: Bards get 6, so we're all good right? Wrong. Although we went up 2 points from 3.E, the Perform skill must be taken individually each time. This is an actual loss of points. How many performs do your need? Also there is a feat that helps offset that problem in a Complete book. So-called social skill king: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate. These are suppoused to be the staples of the bard, our bread-and-butter so to speak. So we get buffs to these skills, right? Wrong. A 1st level Sorcerer with the same CHA can put as many points into Bluff then take a viper familier to get a +3 bonus. The bard gets nada. Maybe bluff, but not Diplomacy or Intimidate becayse theose aren't Sorc skills. I've heard that this is the problem of DMs not accepting bard or facilitating them somehow. This seems ridiculous to me. If a bard can't be effective in a dungeon crawl he doesn't belong in the PHB for DUNGEONS and dragons. I don't care how great he is "back at town." Regardless, changing the DMs is not an option, changing the bard class is (on some grassroots level.) Bards boost everyone who needs it in dungoens so what problem is it? Before you start attacking me personally, I love the bard concept, but do not like the class as written. Yes, I am very familiar with creative uses of the social skills, spells, and other bardic abilities. If there is a way to bend a rule using bardic abilities I have done it. Regardless, bards suck. Bards don't suck; maybe arcane bards suck. Try the thoughtsinger: Psionic Bard. Definately worth it. Lose Countersong (but little useage at low levels anyway), but become a lot better.
Todd 12-29-05, 01:48 PM	However, I find our 3.5 bard (and it's 3E ancestor) sumpremely sucky. That's right, outright suckage from the bard. Let's have a look: What? And here I thought that bards were better than ever in 3.5. Bards are based on CHA, easily the most underpowered stat in the game, with NO direct compensation. Have you ever looked at the X stat to Y bonus (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=320889) thread? True a lot of non-core stuff turns up there but Cha by far can be used to bump the most things via spells, feats, and class dips. Not to mention that Cha powers UMD the single best skill in the game. Your average bard should be a master of UMD second only to the Warlock. Spellcasting. Bards stink at spell casting. I know they are suppoused to dabble, but does dabble have to mean suck? Bards get a hand-me-down spell list and they get these spells long after their peers have more powerful spells. Further, the spells bards get are pitiful in power compared to others. No, a bard shouldn't have magic missile, but we deserve something just as powerful. While I'm at it, why do bards get CLW? Do they sing the sutures together? It's to shore up suckage. Bards as they stand need their own spells and possibily a revised spell progression list.[/url] Just IMO the bard’s spells reflect their primary party role, i.e. support. There are some VERY good spells there including some nice save or else selections. The Cure X spells open up the backup healer role to the bard as well even if he never takes one. Just picking up a wand of CLW is handy in and of itself. I personally find the idea of “sinigng” to be pattern based. Not much of a stretch to see magically augmented song restoring natural order to another being. I also want to point out that in 3.5 the bards DO have the option to be a killer spellcaster if that’s what you want. The Sublime Chord PrC in the Complete Arcane makes this tack a very viable option and is a fine way to play a spellcasting bard with some serious power. [QUOTE=firebeetle]Fighting. Orginally, bards were primarily fighters, now they rank below rogues (who at least get sneak attack) and might be able to beat a sorcerer at a game of slap jack. Why don't they at least have a d8 HD? Even in 1st edition bards were hardly primary fighter in spite of the fighter levels they had to take. Still if it’s fighting you want the bard can deliver. From feats Arcane Strike (Complete Warrior) to Snowflake Wardance (Frostburn) there is plenty there to make good bard fighters. PrC’s or level dipping can help too. Warsinger, Eldritch Knight, and Spellsword are just a FEW of the PrCs that you could use to make awesome fighting bards. And really, if Fighting is your angle, is a Fighter 4 / Bard 16 or some such really THAT much less of a bard? Bardic Music: Nice idea but not taken far enough. As another thread has noted, countersong is rarely if ever used, fascinate is to hard to effect anything of higher level, and the bard can't actually do anything like, say, charm somebody with that music. Have you looked at the Warsinger or Seeker of the Song PrCs or the Stormsinger or the various new bardic music feats? If you want a song focused bard there are plenty of ways to do it. Heck even the Virtuoso has some nifty new songs. That’s what feats and PrCs are for ... making the kind of character you want. Skill points: Bards get 6, so we're all good right? Wrong. Although we went up 2 points from 3.E, the Perform skill must be taken individually each time. This is an actual loss of points. If it really bothers you that much there are feats and items that help with this. Take a look at the Complete Adventurer. So-called social skill king: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate. These are suppoused to be the staples of the bard, our bread-and-butter so to speak. So we get buffs to these skills, right? Wrong. A 1st level Sorcerer with the same CHA can put as many points into Bluff then take a viper familier to get a +3 bonus. The bard gets nada. You want a familiar? Take one. There IS a feat for that you know. I would also like to see that Sorcerer try to keep his Bluff, Diplomacy, AND Intimidate up with the bard as the levels go up. It’s doable but only if he sacrifices important skills like Concentration and Knowledge (arcana). I propose that bards suck and need fixing. I have a particular fix in mind, but I will share that later. For now, I'd like to hear from you. Before you start attacking me personally, I love the bard concept, but do not like the class as written. Yes, I am very familiar with creative uses of the social skills, spells, and other bardic abilities. If there is a way to bend a rule using bardic abilities I have done it. Regardless, bards suck. I think that you want to have your cake and eat it too. The bard is simply the best at what the class was designed to do, make others around them better. If that’s not your cup of tea then I can see why the bard frustrates you. The bard isn’t supposed to be a killer spellcaster or a monster meleer by default. If you are playing a core bard you should expect you party members to “outshine” you if you measure that by monsters killed or the ability to cast X spell of doom. The thing is that the fighter will kill more things with a bard around than he will by himself. The mage will be free to concentrate on spells that will do the party the most good knowing that the bard is there as a secondary caster. In short every class is better with a bard around & that’s the way the bard was set up to be. If you want a “warrior-bard” or a “caster-bard” or a “master of songs” bard or a “skill man” bard then make one. WotC has graciously added material that will let you do it.
KenderBryant 12-29-05, 03:23 PM	What? And here I thought that bards were better than ever in 3.5. Have you ever looked at the X stat to Y bonus (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=320889) thread? True a lot of non-core stuff turns up there but Cha by far can be used to bump the most things via spells, feats, and class dips. Not to mention that Cha powers UMD the single best skill in the game. Your average bard should be a master of UMD second only to the Warlock. [QUOTE=firebeetle]Spellcasting. Bards stink at spell casting. I know they are suppoused to dabble, but does dabble have to mean suck? Bards get a hand-me-down spell list and they get these spells long after their peers have more powerful spells. Further, the spells bards get are pitiful in power compared to others. No, a bard shouldn't have magic missile, but we deserve something just as powerful. While I'm at it, why do bards get CLW? Do they sing the sutures together? It's to shore up suckage. Bards as they stand need their own spells and possibily a revised spell progression list.[/url] Just IMO the bard’s spells reflect their primary party role, i.e. support. There are some VERY good spells there including some nice save or else selections. The Cure X spells open up the backup healer role to the bard as well even if he never takes one. Just picking up a wand of CLW is handy in and of itself. I personally find the idea of “sinigng” to be pattern based. Not much of a stretch to see magically augmented song restoring natural order to another being. I also want to point out that in 3.5 the bards DO have the option to be a killer spellcaster if that’s what you want. The Sublime Chord PrC in the Complete Arcane makes this tack a very viable option and is a fine way to play a spellcasting bard with some serious power. Even in 1st edition bards were hardly primary fighter in spite of the fighter levels they had to take. Still if it’s fighting you want the bard can deliver. From feats Arcane Strike (Complete Warrior) to Snowflake Wardance (Frostburn) there is plenty there to make good bard fighters. PrC’s or level dipping can help too. Warsinger, Eldritch Knight, and Spellsword are just a FEW of the PrCs that you could use to make awesome fighting bards. And really, if Fighting is your angle, is a Fighter 4 / Bard 16 or some such really THAT much less of a bard? Have you looked at the Warsinger or Seeker of the Song PrCs or the Stormsinger or the various new bardic music feats? If you want a song focused bard there are plenty of ways to do it. Heck even the Virtuoso has some nifty new songs. That’s what feats and PrCs are for ... making the kind of character you want. If it really bothers you that much there are feats and items that help with this. Take a look at the Complete Adventurer. You want a familiar? Take one. There IS a feat for that you know. I would also like to see that Sorcerer try to keep his Bluff, Diplomacy, AND Intimidate up with the bard as the levels go up. It’s doable but only if he sacrifices important skills like Concentration and Knowledge (arcana). I think that you want to have your cake and eat it too. The bard is simply the best at what the class was designed to do, make others around them better. If that’s not your cup of tea then I can see why the bard frustrates you. The bard isn’t supposed to be a killer spellcaster or a monster meleer by default. If you are playing a core bard you should expect you party members to “outshine” you if you measure that by monsters killed or the ability to cast X spell of doom. The thing is that the fighter will kill more things with a bard around than he will by himself. The mage will be free to concentrate on spells that will do the party the most good knowing that the bard is there as a secondary caster. In short every class is better with a bard around & that’s the way the bard was set up to be. If you want a “warrior-bard” or a “caster-bard” or a “master of songs” bard or a “skill man” bard then make one. WotC has graciously added material that will let you do it. He's right. And the original bard sucked big time. First you had to have so many levels in druid (Gygax alone knows why), so many levels in fighter, and so many levels in rogue, then you could take your first level as a bard. I cheated. When I started playing the original, I was already playing 2ed. A friend of mine and I combined the two editions so I could play a bard or an easier psion. Unfortunately, the psion back then was extremely overpowered. Now you can stay a bard, may take a dip in fighter to pick up a few fighter bonus feats, take a few extra useful feats like the one that allows bards to summon a familiar, and take a few levels in Seeker of the Sound or the other bard class from Complete Arcane (can't remember what it is just now). I had a bard char take levels in both of those prestige classes. BTW, all you ever need to use your Bardic Music is Perform (singing), this lets you free up your hands to fight with. If you want to increase your spell list, then purchase Spell Compendium. This book has several dozen useful spells in it, including one that makes your enemies drunk. Another good source for interesting spells is The Book of Erotic Fantasy, if you can find it as it's very rare (I got a copy at 20% off).
gamefiend 12-29-05, 03:23 PM	In short every class is better with a bard around & that’s the way the bard was set up to be. If you want a “warrior-bard” or a “caster-bard” or a “master of songs” bard or a “skill man” bard then make one. WotC has graciously added material that will let you do it. Totally agree. Two words: "Force Multiplier". The bard dishes out so many bonuses for basically nothing, it's ridiculous. Every melee guy is another free +1/+2/+whatever. So if you have three fighters, that's +3/+9/+whatever*3. The bard can then (with that feat that makes song effect last longer) cast more buffs. A caster needs some decent spells to even begin to compete with that sort of buffing. A bard with leadership can add tons of strength to a party ,though at higher levels, he wants to be careful what he throws his followers against. I think bards are awesome in this version of the game. And yes, I've been playing for a long time (18 years).
KenderBryant 12-29-05, 03:32 PM	:slaps on the head: I forgot the feat that allows you to cast spells while singing. It's called Disguise Spell. It's in either Complete Arcane or Complete Adventurer. Also, don't forget the Bardic Music feats. In fact, why not make up some more to enhance your bard's music. If they're balanced enough you can post them on Dragonlance Nexus. That's the only site I know of that allows fans to submit their own ideas.
Pandaemoni 12-29-05, 04:05 PM	Was there something in the errata that made Intimidate a class-skill for bards? I missed that, if so... My view is, playing my first bard since first edition now, that bards are a fun class. I do agree that at times it is under-appreciated for the buffs it provides to other classes, but (healing aside, to the extent one considers that a "buff") the bard outshines every other class in that regard, from its inherent abilities to its spell selection. Fascinate and suggestion on top of that are icing (and I agree with the other posters above that suggestion outshines charm in its practical effects). Granted, in a dungeon setting it can be hard to use those to abilities (unless you are acting as advance scout for the party so can egage creatures prior to combat--which the bard can very effectively as well, plus stay in contact with the party via message or other such spells--something a pure rogue cannot do unless relying on his UMD skill and a magic item.) As I am playing a gnome bard, I have to admit that combat is a bit beside the point for him. The lack of a backstab with the small weapons leaves him at a bit of a loss. Also, as many have noted, the easiest way to boost bardic abilities is to take on feats...which is a problem when one wants to get a boost to bardic abilities (via the Extra Music feat, for example), boost combat ability (via the Arcane Strike or Point Blank Shot feats, for example), obtain a familiar, boost spell casting power (Spell Focus, Lyric Spell (etc.)), and othe such things. As such, you are forced to specialize a bit, even early on. That said, so long as I take pride in knowing that I add my inspire courage bonuses to everyone's melee attacks (thus leaving my bard in the position of actually contributing significantly to combat despite his stature and underpowered weapons), then all is well on that front. Sure, he may never be able to single-handedly save the party from certain doom by force of arms or spells, and taking him on a solo combat mission would be nearly suicidal, but he's not meant to be a solo act. Are bards underpowered? I think that's in the eye of the beholder. If your goal is to be able to vanquish all foes and obtain naked power. then the bard may not be the ticket. If your goals are subtler than that and you can stand getting power indirectly, by convincing or coercing others to do what you want, the bard works as well. Would I personally like to see a few "bardic feats" be granted here or there (similarly to teh way a fighter's or wizard's bonus feats work, but limited to bardic music related feats), yes I would. That said, I also think that may be pure greed on my part. By 7th level, when my bard has suggestion (assuming he lives that long), I suspect he'll be doing just fine.
meabolex 12-29-05, 05:04 PM	Yes, I am very familiar with creative uses of the social skills, spells, and other bardic abilities. If there is a way to bend a rule using bardic abilities I have done it. I seriously doubt that you've fully explored all the options the bard has. Perhaps you need to reconsider some of your points. While clerics gain will saves, higher spell DCs, and bonus spells from added Wisdom, bards gain better modifiers to numerous Cha-based skills. While this is an inequality, you have to realize that bard casting is only part of the bard class. For a cleric, casting is a primary function during combat. The typical bard sings, uses UMD, engages in melee/ranged non-spell attacks, and casts spells. The typical cleric casts spells and then engages in melee. Therefore, spellcasting (and the Charisma stat itself) only makes a portion of the bard's functionality. I'll spare you a discussion on bard spellcasting by forwarding you to my Redgar's article (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=241242). It's not a perfect article, but it does recommend good strategies when handling bard spellcasting. Bards are formidable in melee when you consider the degree of self-buffing they can do. Because bards have access to major combat self-buffs like (greater) blink, freedom of movement, greater invisibility, mislead, and project image, their damage-dealing and damage-mitagating capabilities in combat are certainly not questionable. Furthermore, with easy access to UMD (helped by our 'underpowered' Charisma), a bard can easily put his caster levels to full power with the help of a magic staff. A bard wielding a staff of fire is a damage source to be reckoned with -- considering the bard applies his caster levels and charisma modifier to the effect of the cast spells. The bard only has reason to max 2 skills: (a single type of) Perform and Listen. Otherwise, the bard can and should spread skill ranks around liberally. There's really no reason to max diplomacy, for example, because of the vast number of synergies, the high Charisma modifier, and the Circlet of Persuasion. Diplomacy checks often go through the roof without max ranks. My bard characters frequently have many knowledges non-maxed for synergies. DMs often don't like bards for a variety of reasons. Illusion and enchantment spells are often difficult to adjudicate. Players often 'don't get the bard' and make very non-optimal bard builds (which often lag behind the rest of the party). Also, the bard is often difficult to take seriously when many people play them like Elan (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript) (don't get me wrong, I love Elan). So, I don't think you're wrong in being confused about the bard's capability. It's not one of the easier classes to play. But in terms of pure power-level, it's an extremely strong class in the hands of a D&D expert. I certainly don't think it's weak nor would I make many changes to it as it is currently written.
ramzafft1 12-29-05, 09:03 PM	Bards are based on CHA, easily the most underpowered stat in the game, with NO direct compensation. Clerics get bonus to their uber-turn undead-ability, sorcerers get a bonus to their spells (their primary ability). Bard spellcasting is a poor country cousin indeed so CHA is not really a bonus there, which brings me to. . . Yes, Charisma sucks horribly. I mean, any ability core tied to a skill allowing you to change those hostile orcs to friends in 6 seconds is obviously crap. And that same sucky Charisma can make it nigh-impossible for your opponents to save against fascination and suggestion. Sure, it helps convince your opponent that they can easily fly over the cliff edge to safety, but eh, it still sucks. Spellcasting. Bards stink at spell casting. I know they are suppoused to dabble, but does dabble have to mean suck? Bards get a hand-me-down spell list and they get these spells long after their peers have more powerful spells. Further, the spells bards get are pitiful in power compared to others. No, a bard shouldn't have magic missile, but we deserve something just as powerful. While I'm at it, why do bards get CLW? Do they sing the sutures together? It's to shore up suckage. Bards as they stand need their own spells and possibily a revised spell progression list. Yeah, I mean, the effectiveness of spontaneously improving your bardic music save DCs by 2 at 4th level sucks horribly. Fighting. Orginally, bards were primarily fighters, now they rank below rogues (who at least get sneak attack) and might be able to beat a sorcerer at a game of slap jack. Why don't they at least have a d8 HD? That, plus the fact that they can take weapon finesse to increase their rapier or other weapon's attack range into the stratosphere while boosting their AC at the same time. Man, SUCKY!!! Bardic Music: Nice idea but not taken far enough. As another thread has noted, countersong is rarely if ever used, fascinate is to hard to effect anything of higher level, and the bard can't actually do anything like, say, charm somebody with that music. Yeah, all Bard's can do is suggest. And the fact that fascinate is nearly always a ridiculously high perform result doesn't help. Everyone knows it's easy for a 40th level barbarian with a +16 Will save to beat a level 10 Bard (with 13 ranks in perform, a masterwork instrument, and an 20 CHA, for a total modifier of +20)'s perform check. Skill points: Bards get 6, so we're all good right? Wrong. Although we went up 2 points from 3.E, the Perform skill must be taken individually each time. This is an actual loss of points. Very true, since SO MANY Bards take more than one type of perform. And those pointless broadened categories which cover far more than 3E's specialized styles don't help. So-called social skill king: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate. These are suppoused to be the staples of the bard, our bread-and-butter so to speak. So we get buffs to these skills, right? Wrong. A 1st level Sorcerer with the same CHA can put as many points into Bluff then take a viper familier to get a +3 bonus. The bard gets nada. Yeah, even with the Sorcerer not getting Diplomacy,and even with his 2-3 skill points a level, he easily beats the Bard in all social situations. I've heard that this is the problem of DMs not accepting bard or facilitating them somehow. This seems ridiculous to me. If a bard can't be effective in a dungeon crawl he doesn't belong in the PHB for DUNGEONS and dragons. I don't care how great he is "back at town." Regardless, changing the DMs is not an option, changing the bard class is (on some grassroots level.) I know, since support characters just suck in melee! WHO KNEW?! And that useless fascinate comes up YET AGAIN!!! Everyone knows DnD is all about Roll Playing! Even if it's a Role Playing Game! I propose that bards suck and need fixing. I have a particular fix in mind, but I will share that later. For now, I'd like to hear from you. In case you couldn't tell, darn near everything I said was SARCASTIC. I love Bards, especially the 3.5 bard. Bards don't need fixing. And, by the way, I DM quite often. Bards are my absolute favorite class, second probably to Monks.
Rulebook 12-29-05, 09:21 PM	the original poster just sounds like "Bards cant fight as good as they did in 1e, or cast fireball like they did in 2e, and i MIGHT have to spend one more of my 2 extra skill points than i did in 3e... bards suck!"
red-gregor 12-29-05, 09:25 PM	ok i will get smacked for this but i love the new bard i think it needs some work but i see a bard as a person that wants to do all the stuff a little heal and a little damage i can hold my own in a bar fight and i can suduce who ever i want . i see a bard as the guy that hagles in town to help the party out in goods and all that but i agree that is needs to be fixed
DonGnocci 12-29-05, 10:38 PM	Thumbs up for the 3.5 bard... Real good job, design guys at WotC!
Ruhl-Than Sage 12-29-05, 11:00 PM	Just to jump on the pile, "yah! What everybody, except for the 1st couple of posters, said!" Bard's rock! If your not happy with their spellcasting ability, combat ability, skills, hit dice or whatever else, don't play one. Play something else that specializes in that area. But you can't have it all man, it just doesn't work that way. Unless you just want to throw balance out the window. From you original post I'd say that this is what you are looking for :rolleyes: enjoy :P THE BARD!!!! (of Doom) Bard's can do everything as well as all the other classes, in fact there is no reason to play anything other than a bard in D&D, unless you want to suck. Hit Die: d12 BAB: Good (As Fighter) Saves: Good Fort, Good Ref, Good Will Special Abilities: 1. Bardic Music, Bardic Knowledge, Animal Companion, Familiar, Bonus Feat, Flurry of Blows, Fast Movement, Rage 1/day, Countersong, Fascinate, Inspire Courage +1 2. Bonus Feat, Turn/Rebuke Undead, Divine Grace, Woodland Stride......etc. Spells: As Sorcerer with Access to Cleric and Druid Spells as well. Can learn new spells like a wizard. Weapon/Armor Proficiencies: ALL! (including exotic weapons and armor and tower shield) Skill Points: 12+ int modifier Thats it more or less, go hog wild!
Pandaemoni 12-29-05, 11:52 PM	Also, the bard is often difficult to take seriously when many people play them like Elan (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript) (don't get me wrong, I love Elan). They'd appreciate him more if Elan turned on his high Diplomacy score at their trial. :D
ramzafft1 12-30-05, 12:25 AM	ok i will get smacked for this but i love the new bard i think it needs some work but i see a bard as a person that wants to do all the stuff a little heal and a little damage i can hold my own in a bar fight and i can suduce who ever i want . i see a bard as the guy that hagles in town to help the party out in goods and all that but i agree that is needs to be fixed Well, I like your views, but the punctuation gets you smacked. :P Unless you just want to throw balance out the window. From you original post I'd say that this is what you are looking for enjoy THE BARD!!!! (of Doom) Bard's can do everything as well as all the other classes, in fact there is no reason to play anything other than a bard in D&D, unless you want to suck. Hit Die: d12 BAB: Good (As Fighter) Saves: Good Fort, Good Ref, Good Will Special Abilities: 1. Bardic Music, Bardic Knowledge, Animal Companion, Familiar, Bonus Feat, Flurry of Blows, Fast Movement, Rage 1/day, Countersong, Fascinate, Inspire Courage +1 2. Bonus Feat, Turn/Rebuke Undead, Divine Grace, Woodland Stride......etc. Spells: As Sorcerer with Access to Cleric and Druid Spells as well. Can learn new spells like a wizard. Weapon/Armor Proficiencies: ALL! (including exotic weapons and armor and tower shield) Skill Points: 12+ int modifier Thats it more or less, go hog wild! That is totally sigged! :D
Pandaemoni 12-30-05, 12:36 AM	I was surprised to see, in a move that can only be called "balancing the bard," that bards were not given access to all the "Sonic" spells in the Spell Compendium. In particular, if a spell causes direct sonic damage, odds were bards were excluded from it.
K_Man 12-30-05, 12:52 AM	If you use the Minis book, toss in a few levels of Marshal, and watch the Blank hit the fan! Heck, pick the "CHA boost" aura, and you basically get 2x CHA mod to your skills, if nothing else!
BlaineTog 12-30-05, 01:32 AM	Bards do not suck. Bards are extremely powerful if the player invests a modicrum of imagination into their use of the bard's abilities. I have played bards that barely touched their bardic music, and they did spectacularly well. I have played with bards that used Fascinate + Suggestion at every available moment, and they did extremely well as well. All in all, bards are awesome.
Stormonu 12-30-05, 11:43 AM	So-called social skill king: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate. These are suppoused to be the staples of the bard, our bread-and-butter so to speak. So we get buffs to these skills, right? Wrong. A 1st level Sorcerer with the same CHA can put as many points into Bluff then take a viper familier to get a +3 bonus. The bard gets nada. You seem to have conviently forgotten that a bard can purchase a Masterwork Musical Item that adds +2 to perform checks. Both the MMI and Familiars cost 100 gp.
rbrt_Spade 12-30-05, 12:02 PM	Bards are fine. They can be tailered to anything you want-social expert, street man, music man, whatever. With the amount of prcs and feats for them, they are powerfull. Thier spells are not to be sor/wiz spells, destrutive attack spells. They are effect type of spells and cure spells. If the party is missing a wizard or cleric, they make a great party subistute. They are just I think, A mix of everything-sorcerer, fighter, and rogue. Im playing one now and am having fun.
Pandaemoni 12-30-05, 12:07 PM	If you use the Spell Compendium, bards now have Improvisation as a first level spell. That is a lot of bonuses to a lot of different things, and it just gets better and better as your level goes up.
CaoSlayer 12-30-05, 12:25 PM	If you use the Spell Compendium, bards now have Improvisation as a first level spell. That is a lot of bonuses to a lot of different things, and it just gets better and better as your level goes up. O_O it is the same improvisation than the song and silence one (your level*2 bonuses to use on skills and attacks rolls)?? That spell it is too powerful for being level 1
Pandaemoni 12-30-05, 12:35 PM	O_O it is the same improvisation than the song and silence one (your level*2 bonuses to use on skills and attacks rolls)?? That spell it is too powerful for being level 1 Yes...it was formerly level 5 in Complete Adventurer, but they moved it to level 1. It lasts one round a level, and you can use no more than half your level as a bonus to any one roll, but its +2 luck points per level to apply to attack rolls, skill checks and ability checks. So a 10th-level bard gets +20 points, but can apply no more than +5 to any one roll as a luck bonus. And he had 10 rounds (a full minute) to spend all his points. For that minute, spreading his bonus out to +2 per round, his "BAB (7) + luck bonus (2) on a primary attack would be +9, only one less than a pure warriors. That doesn't help the bard's secondary attacks, but it does give tham an edge over the rogue. So far it's the only thing that I've found striking for bards in the Spell Compendium, but I found that very striking.
CaoSlayer 12-30-05, 12:45 PM	I see... The only half your level as a bonus it is a new thing, the former have not limits. with that high restriction seems sighly balanced, althrought an UMD user can love it.
Pandaemoni 12-30-05, 12:51 PM	I see... The only half your level as a bonus it is a new thing, the former have not limits. with that high restriction seems sighly balanced, althrought an UMD user can love it. That "half your level" restriction was in the Complete Adventurer, where I thought it was maybe a bit too high a level at 5th. I wasn't expecting them to alter it at all, and was very surprised to see it at level 1. Twice your level in luck points to apply is a good power, even if you can't blow them all on any one roll. More Perform (and Fascinate), Diplomacy and UMD bonuses for everyone!
Dark Voivode 12-30-05, 12:53 PM	Let me just state for the record that I don't think bards suck, I just think the Warlock format would work beautifully with this class. That being said, I think I'll slink off with my idea before this becomes nasty.
Bard-of-all-trades 12-30-05, 01:12 PM	People, people, PEOPLE!!! The original poster states numerous times that they like the bard, likes the concept, and plays them regularly. Please refrain from the personal attacks and over the top posts about what they allegedly think bards should be as a class. firebeetle has posted thoughts on why bards are not as seemingly balanced as other classes. These arguments are not new; I've seen them all before on older posts that have come and gone. I see both sides of this argument and will wait until I see something that I haven't seen or heard before. If you'd all please stick to the topic at hand and make comments on the subject, not to the person, this could be a productive thread.
Bard-of-all-trades 01-05-06, 05:18 PM	Didn't mean to kill your thread firbeetle, I was only trying to help. Come on people, you've got to have something constructive to say about this ... don't you? On a personal note, Id just like to point out that the Bard, from way back, has always been a "second class" character. They are the true jack-of-all-trades while master of none. The only thing I wish that they would have done with the class is to incorporate a little bit of the "Big 4" into the class (the "Big 4" being Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard). Right now it's the second best fighter, second best healer, and second best arcane caster, but to be the second best rogue you have to take a 1 level dip into Rogue or rogue-like class to get any semblence of disbale device or trapfinding like a Rogue. I'd also like to see that they can cast spells as a divine or arcane caster as well as the ability to turn/ rebuke undead at higher levels similar to a Paladin only higher. Just my thoughts.
tunagolem 01-05-06, 07:06 PM	I think that firebeetle ran away.
ZhuGeLiang 01-05-06, 09:06 PM	i've never played Bard, but isn't the class supposed to be a jack of all trades but master of none? the advantage of a Bard is that he can do a number of different things right? anyway, i never understood why Bards are able to cast spells. but i liked that in 3.5 they made up a specific spell list for Bards that fit the character concept more. and the fact that they have healing spells is pretty nice.
Lotus Crane 01-06-06, 03:27 AM	The only thing I wish that they would have done with the class is to incorporate a little bit of the "Big 4" into the class (the "Big 4" being Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard). Right now it's the second best fighter, second best healer, and second best arcane caster, but to be the second best rogue you have to take a 1 level dip into Rogue or rogue-like class to get any semblence of disbale device or trapfinding like a Rogue. Actually, when compared to the "Big 4" I'd say that while the bard is the 2nd best healer, arcanist, and skill monkey, he's the worst direct combatant. A cleric outclasses a bard on HD, armor, and has access to divine power, which singlehandedly makes him compete with the fighter for primary frontliner. A rogue has the same BAB as a bard, but gets sneak attack and evasion, which makes him better on both attack and defense than a bard. A bard doesn't need trapfinding or disable device to still be considered the 2nd best rogue in this sort of comparison; that's a very limited view of what a rogue is. A bard is uncontested in social skills, such as gathering information about monsters and dungeons from the townsfolk, which is at least half of what being a rogue is about. Traps can always be taken care of in ways that don't involve trapfinding or disable device anyway. Anyway, I find bards to be somewhat underpowered compared to the druid, cleric, and wizard, but overall, I'd say that bards are still more useful than fighters or sorcerers.
Nephlite 01-06-06, 01:40 PM	Actually, when compared to the "Big 4" I'd say that while the bard is the 2nd best healer, arcanist, and skill monkey, he's the worst direct combatant. A cleric outclasses a bard on HD, armor, and has access to divine power, which singlehandedly makes him compete with the fighter for primary frontliner. A rogue has the same BAB as a bard, but gets sneak attack and evasion, which makes him better on both attack and defense than a bard. A bard doesn't need trapfinding or disable device to still be considered the 2nd best rogue in this sort of comparison; that's a very limited view of what a rogue is. A bard is uncontested in social skills, such as gathering information about monsters and dungeons from the townsfolk, which is at least half of what being a rogue is about. Traps can always be taken care of in ways that don't involve trapfinding or disable device anyway. Anyway, I find bards to be somewhat underpowered compared to the druid, cleric, and wizard, but overall, I'd say that bards are still more useful than fighters or sorcerers. Bards aren't really Fighters at all: They are Clerics, Rogues, and Sorcerors. No Fighter at all. However, Clerics have Divine Power spell and bards don't have Arcane Power spell to get full bab for a few rounds (be a major improvement really). Bards should get beefed up in spells yto fit jack of all trades concept on second thought. They should make a Arcane Power spell: 3rd level sounds right for a Bard.
CaoSlayer 01-06-06, 02:46 PM	they actually can use divine power without too many troubles, just they have to use UMD on a wand/scroll/staff of the spell... a cleric can use it from level 7 (level 4 spell) A typical level 7 bard can have a UMD check of 10 ranks +5 charisma bonus so can use it with about a 75% chance. Divine power it is a almost overpowered spell, ever outclasses tenser transformation... A bard with tenser transformation and/or divine power can make melee classes useless the same way than a cleric can make melee characters useless.
sirkently 01-06-06, 10:43 PM	I think the bard is fine except for one thing, he can't replace a rogue in the party. Giving them the traps skill and class skills of open lock and disable device gives them the ability to mimic the rogue, without bumping them too much. Also, we would give bards two more skill points per level that must be spent on perform to free up the six they get now for useful skills. Not that perform isn't useful, but having to use up one of the six you get limits your options in becoming a useful character. Just my thoughts.
sirkently 01-06-06, 10:43 PM	I think the bard is fine except for one thing, he can't replace a rogue in the party. Giving them the traps skill and class skills of open lock and disable device gives them the ability to mimic the rogue, without bumping them too much. Also, we would give bards two more skill points per level that must be spent on perform to free up the six they get now for useful skills. Not that perform isn't useful, but having to use up one of the six you get limits your options in becoming a useful character. Just my thoughts.
sirkently 01-06-06, 10:44 PM	I think the bard is fine except for one thing, he can't replace a rogue in the party. Giving them the traps skill and class skills of open lock and disable device gives them the ability to mimic the rogue, without bumping them too much. Also, we would give bards two more skill points per level that must be spent on perform to free up the six they get now for useful skills. Not that perform isn't useful, but having to use up one of the six you get limits your options in becoming a useful character. Just my thoughts.