Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 litch Jan 01, 2010 16:05:31	I thought it would be fun to play as a bard but the more I get into it the more it seems like most of my spells are just adventuring spells as aposed to fighting spells and even the fighting ones I dont need/dont get to use. Ive only had to use one song in the month or so Ive played my bard. Im thinking about just re-rolling as a fighter so I can at least dual weild bastard swords and get a hell of a lot more damage out of rolls and get more feats. Any advice? I did look over some spells and they seem to compliment some of the people in my group but not that much.
#2 jgumbyrx Jan 01, 2010 16:15:51	well, what does the rest of the party look like? (# and basic concepts) not all parties are created equal; nor are all games.  I've got a character right now that, while he is immensely fun to play, he just isn't suited to the type of game that we are in right now (the game is a RP-heavy game; and the character is more suited to hack-n-slach).  As such, I've decided that he will very soon be leaving the party, in favor of another character that is more suited to the type of RP that the game is encouraging. sometimes, though, it just may be a case of looking at the character wrong; and therefor, not seeing the best ways to use the character or seeing the impact that the character is having.
#3 litch Jan 01, 2010 16:28:50	well, what does the rest of the party look like? (# and basic concepts) not all parties are created equal; nor are all games.  I've got a character right now that, while he is immensely fun to play, he just isn't suited to the type of game that we are in right now (the game is a RP-heavy game; and the character is more suited to hack-n-slach).  As such, I've decided that he will very soon be leaving the party, in favor of another character that is more suited to the type of RP that the game is encouraging. sometimes, though, it just may be a case of looking at the character wrong; and therefor, not seeing the best ways to use the character or seeing the impact that the character is having. The rest of the party is two druids and a cleric. So we have more then enough healing and summoning and Im not sure if bless stacks with my songs.
#4 jgumbyrx Jan 01, 2010 17:10:26	yeah you're right -- moral bonused do not stack.  umm ... yeah .... not exactly a party that really needs a bard (you could arguably go the Sublime Chord route; but that takes a lot of build-up, and I don't know what level you guys are at). unfortunately, playing a fighter in this party is probably going to leave you feeling woefully inadequate -- unless you play a Lockdown or something. The only way to really shine as a pure melee is as a ubercharger and/or Frenzied Berzerker (hey, at least they'll be able to have plenty of "calm emotions" on tap). Personally, I'd probably go something like Daring Outlaw, Swift Ambusher or Swift Hunter -- but that's just me (and if "font of inspiration" is available, then Fatotum is always an option). How does that suit you?
#5 litch Jan 01, 2010 18:25:41	I dont know. THe fighter Ive looked at so far has dual weilding, Exotic weapon proficiency, spec and focus with a bastard sword,, power attack, cleave and greater cleave at level 6. We are trying to avoud preistiege classes at the moment. If i get an attack of oppurtunity and kill something while i have the cleave feat do I get to strike again? Do I also get to cleave after cleaving?
#6 jgumbyrx Jan 01, 2010 22:16:27	suit yourself -- sounds like fun.   (BTW, with the exception of FB, none of my suggestions need any PrCs) Yes -- if you drop an opponent with an AoO, then you can still cleave.  Additionally, AoO are resolved independent of your normal attacks.
#7 litch Jan 01, 2010 22:56:34	PrC? We are just avoiding the prusteidge classes because we only have the core books. I did see the warrior book at a bookstore tonight and almost bought it
#8 brassbaboon Jan 02, 2010 2:18:56	Heh, I'd almost say that if you want to play a bard, a party of two druids and a cleric isn't a bad place to be. Druids are probably the most flexible class in the game. Are your druids melee wild-shaped druids? Summoning specialists? Party buff specialists? Ranged spellcasting specialists? If they are both wild-shape melee specialists you've got four melee combatants already, plus a cleric. Adding a fighter to that mix is probably gonna be overkill on melee. If they are ranged spellcasters, then a fighter would be a good fit. Since they can be either or both at any time, that's really more a question of their game play style and how your fighter would fit in. It may be that the best thing for that sort of party might be a sneaky skill-monkey, or even an arcane artillery. In fact with three major spellcasters in the group, playing a spellthief would be pretty tempting for me. Of the other classes to play in that group, fighter isn't the one that leaps out to me as filling any gap in the party. Those druids are probably doing some awesome damage per round already. Are you sure you're not just suffering from DPR envy? If so any melee character you play is just going to get more outclassed with every level you gain. Druids are that powerful. In your shoes I'd probably go the sneaky skill-monkey route. That way you add some real benefit to the party and can do some serious DPR yourself. Alternatively I'd probably go with the arcane artillery/battlefield controller type of character. Still, two druids and a cleric? Man that spellthief is looking pretty tempting...
#9 jgumbyrx Jan 02, 2010 8:09:59	yeah -- the problem with all that (as well as all of my similar advice) is that he's only using Core for the moment.  That being the case, I'd probably go duel-wielding rogue (skillmonkey + high DPR) -- just don't forget 4 levels of fighter for the feats and max iterative attacks. oh, btw -- "PrC" is the accepted abbreviation for "prestige class".
#10 brassbaboon Jan 02, 2010 13:15:30	yeah -- the problem with all that (as well as all of my similar advice) is that he's only using Core for the moment.  That being the case, I'd probably go duel-wielding rogue (skillmonkey + high DPR) -- just don't forget 4 levels of fighter for the feats and max iterative attacks. oh, btw -- "PrC" is the accepted abbreviation for "prestige class". A straight rogue should be more than enough DPS, especially with all the flanking opportunities that druids can create (and you have TWO of them! Whoa!). I tend to avoid multiclassing because of the cheesy aspects of it. Loading up on feats by taking fighter classes is a pretty classic example of 3.5 cheese. In your shoes, with only core available, I'd probably go for either a rogue for the sneaky-skill monkey angle, or I'd go for an arcane artillery for the role-playing and tactical combat options. Or heck, I might just roll up another druid and make the DM cry.
#11 litch Jan 02, 2010 16:09:57	No, its not DPR envy. I got some good rolls in red blade when I made my bard that my Cha was 18, and STR and Dex were both 17 and I put the level 4 point into str so I had lots of hits and damage even with 2 short swords. Its not a bout damage. One druid summons a lot and uses a thakwa (sp?), and some times uses produce flame, flame sphere, and/or call lightning. The other druid does the same spells, no summoning, and a bit of healing. I thought about a rogue but when my DM isnt DMing he plays a rogue and I thought about a ranger, at least a TWF ranger and not a ranged ranger  and I went with the fighter. I might look over a ranger though and see what else I can get out of being ranged vs melee. I do agree to some extent that we do have melee over kill. I just dont like playing  (pure)casters because of how squishy they are.
#12 tequila_sunrise Jan 02, 2010 23:04:59	unfortunately, playing a fighter in this party is probably going to leave you feeling woefully inadequate -- Litch's group sounds pretty unoptimized, so I wouldn't worry about him feeling inadequate. If his group was optimized, I'd point out that TWF is a trap for any non-rogue/ranger, but whatever. Play whatever the heck you want, Litch. Just have fun.
#13 brassbaboon Jan 03, 2010 0:11:54	unfortunately, playing a fighter in this party is probably going to leave you feeling woefully inadequate -- Litch's group sounds pretty unoptimized, so I wouldn't worry about him feeling inadequate. If his group was optimized, I'd point out that TWF is a trap for any non-rogue/ranger, but whatever. Play whatever the heck you want, Litch. Just have fun. Sure, play what you like. But since the OP asked for advice, that's what I offered. And I stand by that advice. A group with 2 druids and a cleric is much more in need of a rogue than a fighter to be balanced. The only role truly "missing" from this group is the sneaky lock-picking skill monkey. Sure you can play what you like, but that's not really "advice" is it?
#14 litch Jan 03, 2010 1:10:05	Got done playing as a fighter about an hour ago. It wasnt bad. I got to use cleave once and try for imp cleave. My group mates have suggested a ranger also if I dont like a warrior. I do have one question though. Regardless of if I go rogue, ranger, or warrior, if Im dual weilding or I have an extra attack left over (say from the +6/+1 bab kind) and I drop an enemy with one hit, am I able to use my off hand or 2nd main hand attack on another creature? Ive wasted a few attacks just doing a full round on one guy but it would be nice to be able to target more then one guy. Would there be an official rule about that or a house rule? I might roll up a rogue and look into the rogue PrCs to see what there is for one since I did ask for that advice. They do sound fun and the fact that they get their sneak bonus from just flanking is pretty nice. Like I said earlier though when the DM is playing his character hes usally a rogue so I dont know how well that will balance things.
#15 brassbaboon Jan 03, 2010 22:31:07	Got done playing as a fighter about an hour ago. It wasnt bad. I got to use cleave once and try for imp cleave. My group mates have suggested a ranger also if I dont like a warrior. I do have one question though. Regardless of if I go rogue, ranger, or warrior, if Im dual weilding or I have an extra attack left over (say from the +6/+1 bab kind) and I drop an enemy with one hit, am I able to use my off hand or 2nd main hand attack on another creature? Ive wasted a few attacks just doing a full round on one guy but it would be nice to be able to target more then one guy. Would there be an official rule about that or a house rule? I might roll up a rogue and look into the rogue PrCs to see what there is for one since I did ask for that advice. They do sound fun and the fact that they get their sneak bonus from just flanking is pretty nice. Like I said earlier though when the DM is playing his character hes usally a rogue so I dont know how well that will balance things. Oops, forgot you were 3.5e Whether you can hit two targets with one attack depends primarily on what the attack says. Twin strike, a ranger attack, will allow you to hit two targets. Rangers have several powers that also allow two attacks, some of them are like twin strikes, some require you to hit the same target and some require you to hit different targets. In 3.5e my campaigns have not enforced any rules about hitting the same target with multiple attacks from a dual wielding character. There are SOME attacks and spells that will require that you attack one target, but in general if you can reach them, you can attack them. Depending on what sort of weapon you have, that might mean you run the risk of attacks of opportunity though (a whip, for example, if used against a non-adjacent target while you are adjacent to an enemy, will provoke an AoO). For those that ALLOW you to hit two targets, there is still the issue of being able to do so of course. In general if there is no text saying you have to hit one target or have to hit multiple targets, then you CAN hit multiple targets. If you have quickdraw or fast hands, you should be able to draw and throw a dagger with your second attack in those cases and hit one at range. I have tried to be pretty careful not to say "rogue" and to instead say "sneaky skill-monkey" type. My 4e ranger, for example, is a sneaky skill-monkey that fills the role that a rogue would have filled in 3.5e. He has trained in thievery and has taken dungeoneering and other skills useful to sneaky searchy types. So he's the party trap finder and dissembler. It is possible in 3.5e to come up with a character that is not a rogue who can fill a rogue's role (a bard, for example) but it's much harder. If your DM is not much for traps, locked doors, locked chests and opportunities to sneak around, then perhaps you won't benefit much from that role. But in most of my 3.5 playing days, going around without someone who can find and disarm traps, sneak into dark rooms to spy on NPCs, open locked doors, chests or gates, that generally leads to a lot of stumbling around, being caught flat-footed, pounding down doors (loudly), and hauling injured party members out of spiked pits and stuff.
#16 MrCustomer Jan 05, 2010 1:43:09	Pick up a prestige class that compliments the bard to boost his abilities and Strengths. The Lyric Theumaturge for instance allows a Bard to select a few Wizard spells and add that to his list, potentially allowing the Bard to add spells like Fireball and others to their spell list, throw in a few meta magical feats, Sudden Maximize for instance and some meta-magic rods and  your bard can put out some more powerful spells.
#17 shadow_viper Jan 05, 2010 16:09:09	It is possible in 3.5e to come up with a character that is not a rogue who can fill a rogue's role (a bard, for example) but it's much harder. The Scout and Beguiler can fill the role of a rogue just fine, to name two.
#18 brassbaboon Jan 05, 2010 22:28:21	The Scout and Beguiler can fill the role of a rogue just fine, to name two. Did the OP say that he was restricted to Core books? I'm too lazy to go back and read it.
#19 shadow_viper Jan 06, 2010 2:44:43	The Scout and Beguiler can fill the role of a rogue just fine, to name two. Did the OP say that he was restricted to Core books? I'm too lazy to go back and read it. Not sure, it was a general reply to a general statement.
#20 ordrus Jan 07, 2010 15:22:06	There's one option you could go for if you're still not loving the fighter. Redo his feats and focus him as an archery fighter. Rangers are cool and all but I've seen an archery fighter before and with all those extra feats they are frightening. Also being that you're ranged you don't have to go chasing your enemy because I'm pretty sure the druids will cause you problems due to their summoned monsters. It's an option I guess but it's up to you.
#21 harleydude Jan 07, 2010 15:54:02	How is the cleric playing?  Is he the party band-aid or is he buffing and moving in to melee or is he standing back and blasting with scorching ray etc?  this could effect what to play to round out the group as well. HD
#22 sfdragon Jan 08, 2010 0:34:00	you did say not trying to get into prcs.... so I wony mention warchanter, the L. theurge , or that otherone that started with C...... that said, if your party is what 2 druids or so.. you would do better as a ranger, rogue or a scout than a fighter