Bards...the forgotten class for PrCs? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Bards...the forgotten class for PrCs? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
MiloDragonbait
10-15-04, 06:20 PM Is this intentional? Does WoTC see the bard as versitile enough that it doesnt need more PrCs?
MetalGemini
10-15-04, 06:29 PM They've been doing better at making PrCs. Most recently, in Races of Stone, you have Dawncaller and Divine Prankster. Frostburn had a Stormsinger. Bards are versatile enough that they can get into a lot of PrCs, if thats the path you want to take. But if your main focus is the bardic music and "full" spell progression, your choices are limited.

Overall, I don't think Bards are getting the shaft. Every new book has had at least one PrC geared toward the bards.
CzarGarrett
10-15-04, 06:31 PM I think there was the Dire Singer and one other PrC in Libra Mortis.

Besides, bard are one of 3 (IMO) classes that don't really need much of PrC's to work well.
Lina_Inverse
10-15-04, 07:15 PM they get more than sorcerers. :D
BlaineTog
10-15-04, 08:07 PM Its really hard to make good bard PrCs, much less a bard PrC that doesn't smply try to better emulate one of the other core classes. For this, I blame WotC not. What they do give us tends to be good.
WotC_Andy
10-15-04, 08:11 PM I can think of a couple reasons why bard prestige classes aren't as common as, say, combat-oriented, spell-oriented, or stealth-oriented prestige classes.

1) They aren't as useful. Seriously, there are a lot more fighters, rogues, clerics, and wizards out there than there are bards. When we (or any other d20 company) publishes a bard prestige class, we have to do so knowing that we're serving a smaller audience. If you only have a limited number of pages to present prestige classes, you tend to favor classes that will appeal to a wider range of characters. (You could say the same thing about prestige classes pointed at monks, druids, or paladins--bards aren't unique there.)

2) It's hard to make a bard prestige class useful to other character types. This is a corollary to #1, really. When you write a fighter-type prestige class, chances are it's also attractive to barbarians, paladins, and maybe even some rangers, rogues, monks, or clerics. Write an arcane-casting class and you're looking at making both sorcerers and wizards happy. Write a class based on Perform and it's unlikely that anyone other than the bard will even glance at it.

3) Bards don't take well to specialization. Most PrCs are about specializing your talents--becoming better at one thing at the cost of something else. That sort of approach is the opposite that most bards pursue, and it makes creating specialized roles for bards a bit of an oxymoron.

4) It's challenging to write a bard prestige class that isn't the equivalent of the character disavowing his previous 5+ class levels. (Again, this is related to the previous point.) The fighting prestige class is thankful for the BAB and bonus feats of the fighter levels, the spellcasting prestige class is thankful for the spells of the previous levels, but most bard prestige classes are more like, "Congratulations on completing the entrance requirements. You may now forget everything you've learned." To me, that's a bit of a cop-out. (I say this at the risk of hypocrisy, 'cause I'm sure I've written a class or two that fit this mark.) I think a prestige class should build on what's come before, making you feel happy about the route you took to get there.

5) There's not a lot of agreement as to what a "good bard prestige class" is. Some seem to think that any prestige class that doesn't let the bard continue spellcasting progression isn't a bard class--I think that's short-sighted. The bard's spells are handy, sure, but they don't define the class the way that a wizard or cleric's spells do. Song & Silence got a bad rap, IMO, from those who overlooked skill-based prestige classes ideal for the bard (such as spymaster), just because they didn't also include spellcasting. The bard looking for a prestige class must be opportunistic, and also must be willing to give up spellcasting if the other rewards are worthwhile.

All that said, I think we're getting better at addressing the needs of this undervalued class role. Personally, I try to include a bard PrC in any book I write with such material (two examples being the Dragonsong Lyrist from Draconomicon and the Dirgesinger from Libris Mortis), and those are hardly the only two bard-friendly PrCs to come out in the past year. I'm not saying we always hit the bullseye, but I think the situation's not as dire as it's been.
jktrondarr
10-15-04, 08:15 PM bards suck in my opinion. why waste ink and paper writing up PrCs for such a useless class.
BlaineTog
10-15-04, 08:23 PM bards suck in my opinion.IMO, they are awesome. Lets just agreee to disagree, shall we?

why waste ink and paper writing up PrCs for such a useless class.Because even if the number of people who like it is smaller than the number of Sorcerr or Wizard fans, that is still a fairly large number.
jktrondarr
10-15-04, 08:41 PM IMO, they are awesome. Lets just agreee to disagree, shall we?

deal.
shades of eternity
10-15-04, 08:59 PM I am still surprised that they haven't converted many of their amazing kits in 2nd edition into 3rd edition prcs?

Plus there have been several prc posted here, while needing some tweaking, kick serious ass (such as hell's fiddler).

The trick is to give them amusing abilities that balences out their abilities and/or expands on it.

and for the record, wizard's needs to make the learned bard canon. :)
MiloDragonbait
10-16-04, 08:21 AM Dont get me wrong, I LOVE the bard class. I used to exclusively play rogue-types until my new DM suggested something new. I took him up on it and have been in love ever since. Thank you Andy for your insightful post. I agree with what you said for the most part and really like your idea about the alternate PrCs. As of now, Im going bard/fighter/shadowdancer. It totally fits with what hes doing. Sure, bard spells are useful but Im willing to give up a smaller progression in order to gain other PrC abilities. Imagine a bard/invisible blade/master thrower. The bard really is the unsung hero of the base classes. You can ask anyone in my 6 man group if they would be happier without the little bugger and theyd all say no. With my tumble, Mobility and high AC, I keep an enemy or two busy in every fight and rarely take damage. Sure, I may not be DEALING damage but every enemy I pull to me is one less enemy focused on the rest of my group (my roomate calls him "a walking Hold Monster/Person spell"). I think it takes a certain mentality to play a bard. You have to be happy with a support class and focused on teamwork.

Sorry, Im a little off topic. Im not complaining about the lack of Bard PrCs, I was honestly just wondering if there was a balance issue at stake with it. Thanks for your time!

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MiloDragonbait 10-15-04, 06:20 PM	Is this intentional? Does WoTC see the bard as versitile enough that it doesnt need more PrCs?
MetalGemini 10-15-04, 06:29 PM	They've been doing better at making PrCs. Most recently, in Races of Stone, you have Dawncaller and Divine Prankster. Frostburn had a Stormsinger. Bards are versatile enough that they can get into a lot of PrCs, if thats the path you want to take. But if your main focus is the bardic music and "full" spell progression, your choices are limited. Overall, I don't think Bards are getting the shaft. Every new book has had at least one PrC geared toward the bards.
CzarGarrett 10-15-04, 06:31 PM	I think there was the Dire Singer and one other PrC in Libra Mortis. Besides, bard are one of 3 (IMO) classes that don't really need much of PrC's to work well.
Lina_Inverse 10-15-04, 07:15 PM	they get more than sorcerers. :D
BlaineTog 10-15-04, 08:07 PM	Its really hard to make good bard PrCs, much less a bard PrC that doesn't smply try to better emulate one of the other core classes. For this, I blame WotC not. What they do give us tends to be good.
WotC_Andy 10-15-04, 08:11 PM	I can think of a couple reasons why bard prestige classes aren't as common as, say, combat-oriented, spell-oriented, or stealth-oriented prestige classes. 1) They aren't as useful. Seriously, there are a lot more fighters, rogues, clerics, and wizards out there than there are bards. When we (or any other d20 company) publishes a bard prestige class, we have to do so knowing that we're serving a smaller audience. If you only have a limited number of pages to present prestige classes, you tend to favor classes that will appeal to a wider range of characters. (You could say the same thing about prestige classes pointed at monks, druids, or paladins--bards aren't unique there.) 2) It's hard to make a bard prestige class useful to other character types. This is a corollary to #1, really. When you write a fighter-type prestige class, chances are it's also attractive to barbarians, paladins, and maybe even some rangers, rogues, monks, or clerics. Write an arcane-casting class and you're looking at making both sorcerers and wizards happy. Write a class based on Perform and it's unlikely that anyone other than the bard will even glance at it. 3) Bards don't take well to specialization. Most PrCs are about specializing your talents--becoming better at one thing at the cost of something else. That sort of approach is the opposite that most bards pursue, and it makes creating specialized roles for bards a bit of an oxymoron. 4) It's challenging to write a bard prestige class that isn't the equivalent of the character disavowing his previous 5+ class levels. (Again, this is related to the previous point.) The fighting prestige class is thankful for the BAB and bonus feats of the fighter levels, the spellcasting prestige class is thankful for the spells of the previous levels, but most bard prestige classes are more like, "Congratulations on completing the entrance requirements. You may now forget everything you've learned." To me, that's a bit of a cop-out. (I say this at the risk of hypocrisy, 'cause I'm sure I've written a class or two that fit this mark.) I think a prestige class should build on what's come before, making you feel happy about the route you took to get there. 5) There's not a lot of agreement as to what a "good bard prestige class" is. Some seem to think that any prestige class that doesn't let the bard continue spellcasting progression isn't a bard class--I think that's short-sighted. The bard's spells are handy, sure, but they don't define the class the way that a wizard or cleric's spells do. Song & Silence got a bad rap, IMO, from those who overlooked skill-based prestige classes ideal for the bard (such as spymaster), just because they didn't also include spellcasting. The bard looking for a prestige class must be opportunistic, and also must be willing to give up spellcasting if the other rewards are worthwhile. All that said, I think we're getting better at addressing the needs of this undervalued class role. Personally, I try to include a bard PrC in any book I write with such material (two examples being the Dragonsong Lyrist from Draconomicon and the Dirgesinger from Libris Mortis), and those are hardly the only two bard-friendly PrCs to come out in the past year. I'm not saying we always hit the bullseye, but I think the situation's not as dire as it's been.
jktrondarr 10-15-04, 08:15 PM	bards suck in my opinion. why waste ink and paper writing up PrCs for such a useless class.
BlaineTog 10-15-04, 08:23 PM	bards suck in my opinion.IMO, they are awesome. Lets just agreee to disagree, shall we? why waste ink and paper writing up PrCs for such a useless class.Because even if the number of people who like it is smaller than the number of Sorcerr or Wizard fans, that is still a fairly large number.
jktrondarr 10-15-04, 08:41 PM	IMO, they are awesome. Lets just agreee to disagree, shall we? deal.
shades of eternity 10-15-04, 08:59 PM	I am still surprised that they haven't converted many of their amazing kits in 2nd edition into 3rd edition prcs? Plus there have been several prc posted here, while needing some tweaking, kick serious ass (such as hell's fiddler). The trick is to give them amusing abilities that balences out their abilities and/or expands on it. and for the record, wizard's needs to make the learned bard canon. :)
MiloDragonbait 10-16-04, 08:21 AM	Dont get me wrong, I LOVE the bard class. I used to exclusively play rogue-types until my new DM suggested something new. I took him up on it and have been in love ever since. Thank you Andy for your insightful post. I agree with what you said for the most part and really like your idea about the alternate PrCs. As of now, Im going bard/fighter/shadowdancer. It totally fits with what hes doing. Sure, bard spells are useful but Im willing to give up a smaller progression in order to gain other PrC abilities. Imagine a bard/invisible blade/master thrower. The bard really is the unsung hero of the base classes. You can ask anyone in my 6 man group if they would be happier without the little bugger and theyd all say no. With my tumble, Mobility and high AC, I keep an enemy or two busy in every fight and rarely take damage. Sure, I may not be DEALING damage but every enemy I pull to me is one less enemy focused on the rest of my group (my roomate calls him "a walking Hold Monster/Person spell"). I think it takes a certain mentality to play a bard. You have to be happy with a support class and focused on teamwork. Sorry, Im a little off topic. Im not complaining about the lack of Bard PrCs, I was honestly just wondering if there was a balance issue at stake with it. Thanks for your time!