Bard. The best class?? inquiring minds seek thoughts.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I see a lot of mentioning of 20th level comparisons.

Maybe it's me, but that seems an extremely hypothetical situation set.

I have played in exactly one game that ever made 20th in any system, and that wasn't Pathfinder (and we started at 15th). That's out of dozens of campaigns. I personally have met two people that have ever run one character from first to twentieth ever, and I have met a lot of gamers in person.

I cannot think of a single AP that goes to 20th, PFS stops at 12th, and even if you're in a home game going on that games once a week that gets in three combats a session, it's going to take over a year to get that high.

Also, given how quirky and weird the game gets at higher levels, if you're running a game at 20th, balance is clearly not at the top of your agenda.


thegreenteagamer wrote:

I see a lot of mentioning of 20th level comparisons.

Maybe it's me, but that seems an extremely hypothetical situation set.

I have played in exactly one game that ever made 20th in any system, and that wasn't Pathfinder (and we started at 15th). That's out of dozens of campaigns. I personally have met two people that have ever run one character from first to twentieth ever, and I have met a lot of gamers in person.

I cannot think of a single AP that goes to 20th, PFS stops at 12th, and even if you're in a home game going on that games once a week that gets in three combats a session, it's going to take over a year to get that high.

Also, given how quirky and weird the game gets at higher levels, if you're running a game at 20th, balance is clearly not at the top of your agenda.

20th is the most horrendous disparity, yes, but arguments have been presented against the Bard being no.1 even as low as lv5.

I noted that lv11 and 12 allow a Wizard, Sorcerer, or Arcanist to really mess up Bards completely due to having Contingency; even when someone said "well, Bards get Contingent Scroll at lv10!" someone else brought up that so did the Wizard at lv7, and the Sorcerer and Arcanist at lv8 - meaning the Bard is FINALLY using a trick 3 other Arcane spellcasters had been using for 2-3 levels and have since moved on to better & more-useful tricks.

While the hilarious idiocy of a Time-Stopping Arcanist using his free rounds to use Quick Study to learn spells (that will utterly destroy a Bard in a fight, without ever having to run away & return like a Wizard does) is only obtainable at lv18+, it still demonstrates the power disparity present between a 6th-level spellcaster and a 9th-level spellcaster (the Summoner not withstanding, because the Summoner is realistically a "Not-Not-9th-Level" Spellcaster - gotta love gaining Summon Monster en masse...)

Most of the arguments can be made against the Bard being the most powerful class well before lv20, though.


I personally love bards, about half my characters have been some type of bard since 2ed. Recently my players had a lot of success with a party that all barbarians and bards. So many buffs and just enough healing to keep the tanks going through most any situation.

As for the bard vs. wizard debate. I actually had a bard who traveled with a wizard and they had a long term rivalry. When it finally came to a head I (the bard) just made my saves. Lingering performance a bit of buffs, closed, melee. Used trip to get him prone then took care of spellcasting threat. (You need a tongue and thumbs for those.)
It should be noted that the bard in question was NE and had the appropriate feats for using Dex on attacks and CMB, plus much better initiative.


...Yeah, the Wizard definitely should have had a higher initiative mod than your Bard. The Wizard should have also cast Overland Flight that morning (you can't trip a flying target).


Panguinslayer7 wrote:

I personally love bards, about half my characters have been some type of bard since 2ed. Recently my players had a lot of success with a party that all barbarians and bards. So many buffs and just enough healing to keep the tanks going through most any situation.

As for the bard vs. wizard debate. I actually had a bard who traveled with a wizard and they had a long term rivalry. When it finally came to a head I (the bard) just made my saves. Lingering performance a bit of buffs, closed, melee. Used trip to get him prone then took care of spellcasting threat. (You need a tongue and thumbs for those.)
It should be noted that the bard in question was NE and had the appropriate feats for using Dex on attacks and CMB, plus much better initiative.

This is basically more a case of "Optimized Character vs Unoptimized Character" or "Skilled Player vs Bad Player" than it is a case of Bard vs Wizard.

The Wizard has a LOT of options, and if you choose very, very poorly, you can end up with a very squishy thing.

The Wizard gets basically NO special abilities beyond the small number of abilities granted by their School, and only a handful of Bonus Feats (which can only be Item Creation or Metamagic Feats).

It's strength is largely determined by the spells it has prepared and the Feats you as a player choose.

As people have said before - yes, a fairly optimized Bard CAN beat a weak & unoptimized Wizard; but assuming the same levels and same amount of optimization, the Bard shouldn't hold a candle to the Wizard but for the first 3-4 levels or so.

Shadow Lodge

I am running a pfs bard who was "inspired by Kurgess and Sheyln to bring an art to Golarion. Oratory and Dance are her skills.

D----I----E spells DIE,
You're all gonna DIE!


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Aemesh wrote:
rorek55 wrote:

who do you feel beats the bard on most powerful 6th level caster and why?

Magus?

Summoner or Magus, yes, assuming optimization.

Magus built for raw damage can out-dps anyone at level 3-10, {. . .}

In a duel? Definitely. For the benefit of the party? Debatable.

{. . .}

I would think that this would depend upon how bit the party is, but I don't know what the crossover point is. At some point, adding a Bard to the party will improve the party's overall ability more than adding a Magus, but I don't know what the required size is, and it would depend upon the particular situation (including but not limited to map layout), anyway. This is before considering archetypes of both, anyway. Same thing for Bard vs Summoner, but the number is probably higher.


Abraham spalding wrote:

Honestly the flesh to stone is by no means a guarantee to work for the wizard. The bard at the same level has multiple quick ways to get huge bonuses to his fortitude save and have free rerolls. The bard has a couple of methods of shutting down a 'random wizard' as well, for example silence -- a metamagic rod of silent spell is not a regular piece of equipment, nor is having the feat common. Moving is an easy way to leave the aura normally but there are plenty of ways to "Stick" something to a person in such a way as to make them take the spell with them.

Again this is not to say that the bard winning is in anyway a surefire bet, but at all levels bards tend to have the tools to cause them to punch above their perceived weight.

The biggest time the wizard really gets a good pull ahead is when he has mind blank due to the large number of enchantment spells on the bard's list.

It's been two whole pages and no one has pointed out that bard spells can never be silenced? Really?

EDIT: Ah, I suppose the point could be to then go into melee and not be casting spells while in the silenced area (the bard can even still run an inspire courage, with visual components only).

Silver Crusade

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:


It's been two whole pages and no one has pointed out that bard spells can never be silenced? Really?

Is this from some feat I missed? Last I checked all bard spells have a verbal component. The verbal component just doesn't have to be the bard's voice. It can be the instrument they are playing, but it still has to be audible.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

bards can't make their spells silent but they aren't immune to the silence effect.


^Need a Mime Bard archetype . . . .


sowhereaminow wrote:
Thymus Vulgaris wrote:


It's been two whole pages and no one has pointed out that bard spells can never be silenced? Really?

Is this from some feat I missed? Last I checked all bard spells have a verbal component. The verbal component just doesn't have to be the bard's voice. It can be the instrument they are playing, but it still has to be audible.

It is indeed from a feat, and it's the only relevant feat when talking silent spells:

Silent spell wrote:
Special: Bard spells cannot be enhanced by this feat.

Now, I wonder if this holds true for Skald as well...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

It is indeed from a feat, and it's the only relevant feat when talking silent spells:

Silent spell wrote:
Special: Bard spells cannot be enhanced by this feat.
Now, I wonder if this holds true for Skald as well...

Since the parent class of the Skald is Bard, I assume so. It has the same text in its spells as the Bard does.

Skald wrote:
Every skald spell has a verbal component—these verbal components can take the form of song, recitation, or even non-verbal music like percussion.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Aemesh wrote:
rorek55 wrote:

who do you feel beats the bard on most powerful 6th level caster and why?

Magus?

Summoner or Magus, yes, assuming optimization.

Magus built for raw damage can out-dps anyone at level 3-10, {. . .}

In a duel? Definitely. For the benefit of the party? Debatable.

{. . .}

I would think that this would depend upon how bit the party is, but I don't know what the crossover point is. At some point, adding a Bard to the party will improve the party's overall ability more than adding a Magus, but I don't know what the required size is, and it would depend upon the particular situation (including but not limited to map layout), anyway. This is before considering archetypes of both, anyway. Same thing for Bard vs Summoner, but the number is probably higher.

The Magus is essentially a martial character; his one and only addition to the party is DPR. As such, the Bard is always going to be a more useful addition to the party because you never see a party that is lacking in classes that can do damage.


Magus
>_>
Only DPR
<_<
Wut?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:

My bards perform oratory, with grant speeches or vile imprecations.

Silly instruments are not required.

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman used Perform Oratory.

Your Manly-manliness score remains untouched.


Rhedyn wrote:

Magus

>_>
Only DPR
<_<
Wut?

Yeah, yeah, there are Frostbite builds to give the Magus some debuffing utility. You can make a Barbarian with Stunning Irruption and Terrifying Howl and get a debuffer, too. That doesn't change that they're both DPR machines with much less support capability than a Bard.

Sovereign Court

Bards are magical.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:

Magus

>_>
Only DPR
<_<
Wut?
Yeah, yeah, there are Frostbite builds to give the Magus some debuffing utility. You can make a Barbarian with Stunning Irruption and Terrifying Howl and get a debuffer, too. That doesn't change that they're both DPR machines with much less support capability than a Bard.

So you were being serial? I wonder if this is because of the false dex-magus meta?

Teleport, Fly, wall spells, grease, glitterdust, prestidigitation, stinking cloud, just to name a few.

If you go strength with a focus on int, polymorph spells keep your damage on par or higher than dex builds (along with higher AC). With that focus on INT and arcane point you can have spontaneous access to your entire spell list.

Not to mention the truck load of skill points you will have.

My current character is a level 15 magus. He has 23 int and 22 strength before buffs and starts each day with 32 arcane points.


How do you have 32 arcane points? Intelligence + 1/2 level only accounts for 13.

That aside, the stats you listed are partially why I'm in the "Magus should stick to DPR" camp. Sure you have some signature control spells, but you simply don't have the primary casting stat necessary to make anything with allows a saving throw to actually stick. As far as packing party "nice things" like Teleport, Magus is always late to the party compared to a full caster. That doesn't really have any barring in the discussion of Magus v. Bard, but in the grand scheme of things Magus is hardly an ideal support/utility caster.


chaoseffect wrote:

How do you have 32 arcane points? Intelligence + 1/2 level only accounts for 13.

That aside, the stats you listed are partially why I'm in the "Magus should stick to DPR" camp. Sure you have some signature control spells, but you simply don't have the primary casting stat necessary to make anything with allows a saving throw to actually stick. As far as packing party "nice things" like Teleport, Magus is always late to the party compared to a full caster. That doesn't really have any barring in the discussion of Magus v. Bard, but in the grand scheme of things Magus is hardly an ideal support/utility caster.

Character sheet Con and Cha are a bit higher do to the point buy (26). He currently has on buffs on in his buffs section do to currently being in a dungeon.

The claim was that Magi are just DPR or that a barbarian even comes close to having the breadth of not-DPR options.

Spell surprisingly stick quiet well in RotL if you target poor saves. Granted, I generally bash faces in. But normally if I have to choose between move+one attack or spell+move, I go with the former.


8 Extra Arcane Pool feats? That's an odd choice.

Anyway, I agree Magus does have utility beyond straight DPR. Even with the mostly offensive focused spell list there are some control and utility spells, plus there is Spell Blending. So the Magus can, but should he? For the most part I still say no because it's playing against his strengths. He's a second string control caster at best, which isn't necessarily a bad thing as he can kinda fill that gap if necessary, but he should leave it to others if possible.


chaoseffect wrote:

8 Extra Arcane Pool feats? That's an odd choice.

Anyway, I agree Magus does have utility beyond straight DPR. Even with the mostly offensive focused spell list there are some control and utility spells, plus there is Spell Blending. So the Magus can, but should he? For the most part I still say no because it's playing against his strengths. He's a second string control caster at best, which isn't necessarily a bad thing as he can kinda fill that gap if necessary, but he should leave it to others if possible.

Every martial suffers during the move and attack rounds. Acting as utility during those rounds IS playing to his strengths as far as I am concerned.

Round 1:
swift action buff sword
Cast devastating control spell or critical buff like haste
Move

Round 2:
*chainsaw noises*

EDIT: Honestly, with the current state of feats, I saw no better possible option than spamming Extra Arcane Pool. That is 16 fireballs or 8 teleports or 16 rounds of arcane accuracy.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
Symar wrote:
I'll get back to you in 18 months after my groups all-bard campaign is over.

Wait,somebody is actually doing this? Cool! Is this a PbP, or does it have a campaign journal? What AP (if applicable)? I want to see this work!

It'll be, uh, Council of Thieves? Whichever one came out after Legacy of Fire. We're doing the APs in order and are just barely into Legacy of Fire, so 18 months might be a bit on the early side for our completion. We finally have a solid 4th player but it increased the amount of RP time significantly (which is not a complaint), and two players are new-ish making combats still move slow. So amount of time til we're actually there is a rough estimate at best.

Also we're not sure if we can get 100% of the players on board, but we have at least three willing to do it, which is probably close enough to see how it'd work out.

It's via Roll20 but we do keep chat logs in Google Drive. If I remember, I'll see about having them made public viewable and share them.


Arachnofiend wrote:
...Yeah, the Wizard definitely should have had a higher initiative mod than your Bard. The Wizard should have also cast Overland Flight that morning (you can't trip a flying target).

Why? My Dex alone was better than his.


chbgraphicarts wrote:

This is basically more a case of "Optimized Character vs Unoptimized Character" or "Skilled Player vs Bad Player" than it is a case of Bard vs Wizard.

The Wizard has a LOT of options, and if you choose very, very poorly, you can end up with a very squishy thing.

The Wizard gets basically NO special abilities beyond the small number of abilities granted by their School, and only a handful of Bonus Feats (which can only be Item Creation or Metamagic Feats).

It's strength is largely determined by the spells it has prepared and the Feats you as a player choose.

As people have said before - yes, a fairly optimized Bard CAN beat a weak & unoptimized Wizard; but assuming the same levels and same amount of optimization, the Bard shouldn't hold a candle to the Wizard but for the first 3-4 levels or so.

It may have been those factors. I'm not going to comment one way or another on the wizards abilities player wise. But people keep talking about spells being prepped and such. Such as;

Archanofiend wrote:
The Wizard should have also cast Overland Flight that morning (you can't trip a flying target).

The fight just kind of happened. Yeah there was definitely animosity, but it just kind of popped off after camping on the road while choosing what direction to head next. My bard just didn't need a bunch of spells to kick the crap out of a character with less Dex., AC, BAB & CMs. Just his trusty rapier and some decent rolls. Maybe if he'd been psychic and known we were going to fight and threw up some spells before hand. Who the hell uses all their spell slots before breakfast?

I figured it just illustrates an example of flat "we're fighting now" combat between the two classes.


Panguinslayer7 wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
...Yeah, the Wizard definitely should have had a higher initiative mod than your Bard. The Wizard should have also cast Overland Flight that morning (you can't trip a flying target).
Why? My Dex alone was better than his.

When talking X vs. Y in terms of who beats who (which isn't necessarily a valuable thing to do, honestly, since it's extremely rare that it actually comes up and the things that make a class good in the arena don't necessarily make it good in the campaign), we have to consider the classes at their best. There's no effective way to measure anything less.

In the case of the Wizard, 'best' is generally considered to be the Diviner, which gets a rather impressive Initiative boost.

EDIT: Also, Overland Flight is a spell that the Wizard can often cast early in the day because it lasts all day. Hour/lvl and better spells tend to fit into that area. The Wizard gets the spell at level 9, meaning the spell will last more than half of the non-sleep day-- and adventurers fighting for ten-plus hours straight is... rare.

Especially if we were looking at a situation where the Wizard knew he was going to spend the day traveling... Overland Flight is a pretty obvious early cast.


kestral287 wrote:


When talking X vs. Y in terms of who beats who (which isn't necessarily a valuable thing to do, honestly, since it's extremely rare that it actually comes up and the things that make a class good in the arena don't necessarily make it good in the campaign), we have to consider the classes at their best. There's no effective way to measure anything less.

In the case of the Wizard, 'best' is generally considered to be the Diviner, which gets a rather impressive Initiative boost.

Shouldn't the base classes be what is considered? Wizard vs. Bard, not Diviner vs. Bard?

I mean heck, I've had a druid with an insane bonus to initiative between various race & class options and feats. (I want to say +11 by 5th, kind find the sheet though to confirm.)
I don't mean that just to nay say. I don't really think it's a debate that can so much be resolved. Just keeping archetypes out of it at least shaves off some rambling trails of debate. (Hope that gets the idea across as I mean to.)

Sometimes a bard beats wizard, other times, there's a smoking crater with a really expensive and durable violin in it.

Dark Archive

Diviner IS a base Wizard. It's just a specific specialization of the Wizard.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/wizard.html#divination-school wrote:

Divination School

Diviners are masters of remote viewing, prophecies, and using magic to explore the world.

Forewarned (Su): You can always act in the surprise round even if you fail to make a Perception roll to notice a foe, but you are still considered flat-footed until you take an action. In addition, you receive a bonus on initiative checks equal to 1/2 your wizard level (minimum +1). At 20th level, anytime you roll initiative, assume the roll resulted in a natural 20.

Diviner's Fortune (Sp): When you activate this school power, you can touch any creature as a standard action to give it an insight bonus on all of its attack rolls, skill checks, ability checks, and saving throws equal to 1/2 your wizard level (minimum +1) for 1 round. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.

Scrying Adept (Su): At 8th level, you are always aware when you are being observed via magic, as if you had a permanent detect scrying. In addition, whenever you scry on a subject, treat the subject as one step more familiar to you. Very familiar subjects get a –10 penalty on their save to avoid your scrying attempts.


A well-optimized wizard puts all his chips into initiative; going first is very important when your class is designed to set the stage for combat. People have already mentioned the Diviner, but the Wizard should have also been getting a +4 to initiative from his familiar. My Arcanist is currently sitting at a +13 to initiative at level 4 and she doesn't have access to the Diviner school power.


Panguinslayer7 wrote:

Shouldn't the base classes be what is considered? Wizard vs. Bard, not Diviner vs. Bard?

Arcane schools are a class feature, not archetype. The two most popular schools are Conjuration [Teleportation] and Divination [Foresight], because of their powerful school abilities. You'll see some Evocation [Admixture], but most of them are not full wizards but rather have a dip in crossblooded orc/draconic sorcerer.


Panguinslayer7 wrote:
kestral287 wrote:


When talking X vs. Y in terms of who beats who (which isn't necessarily a valuable thing to do, honestly, since it's extremely rare that it actually comes up and the things that make a class good in the arena don't necessarily make it good in the campaign), we have to consider the classes at their best. There's no effective way to measure anything less.

In the case of the Wizard, 'best' is generally considered to be the Diviner, which gets a rather impressive Initiative boost.

Shouldn't the base classes be what is considered? Wizard vs. Bard, not Diviner vs. Bard?

I mean heck, I've had a druid with an insane bonus to initiative between various race & class options and feats. (I want to say +11 by 5th, kind find the sheet though to confirm.)
I don't mean that just to nay say. I don't really think it's a debate that can so much be resolved. Just keeping archetypes out of it at least shaves off some rambling trails of debate. (Hope that gets the idea across as I mean to.)

Sometimes a bard beats wizard, other times, there's a smoking crater with a really expensive and durable violin in it.

As noted above, the Diviner is a baseline Wizard. It's just a choice the Wizard makes as part of being a Wizard, no different from considering a Sorcerer with a bloodline, a Cleric with domains, or a Barbarian with Rage Powers.

In the more general sense of what you're talking about... eh? If there's a clearly dominant archetype than excluding it gives a false view. For example, Crossblooded is all but a given for Blaster Sorcerers. It wouldn't be reasonable to exclude it if we were comparing Blaster-Casters, because it's half of the Sorcerer edge there.

That said, neither Bard nor Wizard has a dominant archetype-- but the Wizard does have a dominant school.


kestral287 wrote:
Panguinslayer7 wrote:
kestral287 wrote:


When talking X vs. Y in terms of who beats who (which isn't necessarily a valuable thing to do, honestly, since it's extremely rare that it actually comes up and the things that make a class good in the arena don't necessarily make it good in the campaign), we have to consider the classes at their best. There's no effective way to measure anything less.

In the case of the Wizard, 'best' is generally considered to be the Diviner, which gets a rather impressive Initiative boost.

Shouldn't the base classes be what is considered? Wizard vs. Bard, not Diviner vs. Bard?

I mean heck, I've had a druid with an insane bonus to initiative between various race & class options and feats. (I want to say +11 by 5th, kind find the sheet though to confirm.)
I don't mean that just to nay say. I don't really think it's a debate that can so much be resolved. Just keeping archetypes out of it at least shaves off some rambling trails of debate. (Hope that gets the idea across as I mean to.)

Sometimes a bard beats wizard, other times, there's a smoking crater with a really expensive and durable violin in it.

As noted above, the Diviner is a baseline Wizard. It's just a choice the Wizard makes as part of being a Wizard, no different from considering a Sorcerer with a bloodline, a Cleric with domains, or a Barbarian with Rage Powers.

In the more general sense of what you're talking about... eh? If there's a clearly dominant archetype than excluding it gives a false view. For example, Crossblooded is all but a given for Blaster Sorcerers. It wouldn't be reasonable to exclude it if we were comparing Blaster-Casters, because it's half of the Sorcerer edge there.

That said, neither Bard nor Wizard has a dominant archetype-- but the Wizard does have a dominant school.

"The Wizard has a dominant school" only in the land of character optimizers, which is not the world many (I'd wager to say most) people play in. I agree though that a Wizard will beat most Bards- if both PCs are perfectly optimized and played to perfection, and with optimally chosen tactics and the dice equally favor/disfavor both, and the terrain does not benefit either build. Sure. Wizard wins.

If I had to rank it- random Wizard vs random Bard in random terrain, I'd give it to the Wizard 7 out of 10 times vs. the Bard (or nearly any other PC) because Wizard is at the top of the power curve. But, there are too many factors to discount (player choice, random chance, spell selection, build idiosyncrasies, etc. etc.)


Random Wizard vs. Random Bard is, by definition, impossible to 'rank'. How do you select them-- do you arbitrarily create a list of Bards and Wizards? How are those created? It doesn't work, at all. Thus my previous point:

kestral287 wrote:
When talking X vs. Y in terms of who beats who (which isn't necessarily a valuable thing to do, honestly, since it's extremely rare that it actually comes up and the things that make a class good in the arena don't necessarily make it good in the campaign), we have to consider the classes at their best. There's no effective way to measure anything less.

Now, if we decide we don't care about actually measuring things, then yeah, we can arbitrarily say X is better than Y. But that's a meaningless statement.


Talking about "the Wizard who doesn't know what he's doing" vs. "the bard who does" is not in any way a useful discussion. You have to assume competence on the part of both players if you're going to talk about game balance, and a competent Wizard is usually going to be a Diviner.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Talking about "the Wizard who doesn't know what he's doing" vs. "the bard who does" is not in any way a useful discussion. You have to assume competence on the part of both players if you're going to talk about game balance, and a competent Wizard is usually going to be a Diviner.

What's the goalpost you're setting? If it's damage, remember that the extra damage that comes out of the Bard's buffs can very well be considered "his" damage.


LazarX wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Talking about "the Wizard who doesn't know what he's doing" vs. "the bard who does" is not in any way a useful discussion. You have to assume competence on the part of both players if you're going to talk about game balance, and a competent Wizard is usually going to be a Diviner.
What's the goalpost you're setting? If it's damage, remember that the extra damage that comes out of the Bard's buffs can very well be considered "his" damage.

Damage is a silly metric given that both targets can effectively take out targets without touching their HP. It's the ability to efficiently end encounters that matters.

In an arena situation it would be "who can disable the enemy first". That may or may not be a meaningful metric to you.


Personally, I always found the Bard just-plain-weird. Who breaks into a performance in the middle of heated combat? I always think of how bonkers, Michael Jackson's "Beat It", or Pat Benatar's "Love is a Battlefield" video always stuck me as a child. I never understood how a cheesy dance is keeping them from being stabbed...

Sovereign Court

Joe Hex wrote:
Personally, I always found the Bard just-plain-weird. Who breaks into a performance in the middle of heated combat? I always think of how bonkers, Michael Jackson's "Beat It", or Pat Benatar's "Love is a Battlefield" video always stuck me as a child. I never understood how a cheesy dance is keeping them from being stabbed...

Just go perform:oratory and give rousing speeches then. My bard just tells stories of the greatest of all heroes who is most relevant to the current situation. (Nearly always himself.)


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Joe Hex wrote:
Personally, I always found the Bard just-plain-weird. Who breaks into a performance in the middle of heated combat? I always think of how bonkers, Michael Jackson's "Beat It", or Pat Benatar's "Love is a Battlefield" video always stuck me as a child. I never understood how a cheesy dance is keeping them from being stabbed...
Just go perform:oratory and give rousing speeches then. My bard just tells stories of the greatest of all heroes who is most relevant to the current situation. (Nearly always himself.)

While I respect any character, with an inflated opinion of themselves as the most fun to play- In battle, I imagine, after one round of "Blah, blah", the rest of the party would be saying, "Carl... Shut the f+%~ up, and swing that sword your dad bought you!"


Joe Hex wrote:
Personally, I always found the Bard just-plain-weird. Who breaks into a performance in the middle of heated combat?

Bardic performance is basically this trope:

Theme Music Powerup

It's a well-established and much beloved trope.


Joe Hex wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Joe Hex wrote:
Personally, I always found the Bard just-plain-weird. Who breaks into a performance in the middle of heated combat? I always think of how bonkers, Michael Jackson's "Beat It", or Pat Benatar's "Love is a Battlefield" video always stuck me as a child. I never understood how a cheesy dance is keeping them from being stabbed...
Just go perform:oratory and give rousing speeches then. My bard just tells stories of the greatest of all heroes who is most relevant to the current situation. (Nearly always himself.)
While I respect any character, with an inflated opinion of themselves as the most fun to play- In battle, I imagine, after one round of "Blah, blah", the rest of the party would be saying, "Carl... Shut the f!$@ up, and swing that sword your dad bought you!"

My Sensei Monk (gets Inspire Courage with Perform: Oratory) was the tactician of the group; I flavored her Inspire as her giving advice relevant to the combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I want to play a stupid, off-the-wall concept? Bard, all the way. In D&D, I play a 2'7" Bard/Rogue who wears a chicken suit as his "performance costume". With his size, suit, and either Deception or Disguise Self, he can usually pass as a regular chicken. Disguise self allows me to look smaller still and thinner, so the Deception roll is easier. Technically, a chicken call is a woodwind soundmaker, so I chose it as my starting instrument. Importantly, most of the things I built the character on work exactly the same in Pathfinder as in D&D.

I love Bards because they're versatile. They have nice illusion spells, reasonable spell slots, and do their job okay. I wouldn't dare say they were the best...

But can Wizards pretend to be a chicken at level 1? Well, yes. But they're more dignified than bards as a whole, so it's easier with a bard.


Xexyz wrote:
Joe Hex wrote:
Personally, I always found the Bard just-plain-weird. Who breaks into a performance in the middle of heated combat?

Bardic performance is basically this trope:

Theme Music Powerup

It's a well-established and much beloved trope.

Does this include Hulk Hogan's "I Am a Real American"? (I seem to be really stuck in the 80' with this.)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Hey, Michael Jackson broke up a fight with just his bardic performance. That's a fact.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Hey, Michael Jackson broke up a fight with just his bardic performance. That's a fact.

Yes, but only because he weirded them out so much. After seeing that shit, I'd too go home and re-think my life. It's like dealing with a close-encounter with aliens (which MJ might have been), that made you make peace with the fact that there are extraterrestrial who find the human anus so beautiful, it's the best place to probe.


Symar wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Symar wrote:
I'll get back to you in 18 months after my groups all-bard campaign is over.

Wait,somebody is actually doing this? Cool! Is this a PbP, or does it have a campaign journal? What AP (if applicable)? I want to see this work!

It'll be, uh, Council of Thieves? {. . .}

By a remarkable coincidence, that's the AP I thought of for an all-Bard party. Of course, that's probably the only AP in which an all-Bard party COULD work, so better make the best of it.


I love bards !

Ok I'm playing a exampler/freebooter (twf butterfly sting build) at the moment because we needed a frontliner but I would love to play a real bard next campaign.

The power level is not so good, but you'll be a versatile, helpful character with lots of roleplaying opportunities. If you spend much more time on pathfinder than your teammates (which probably counts for almost everybody on this forum) a bard is the class to make you a awesome, teambuilding, trick up his sleave, high charisma, boost your allies character instead of a stealing the spotlight, out damaging the team fighter or breaking the game know it all*.

You'll be more the Taylor lets be good to my bff's player than the look how cool I am Kanye player ;)

* Edit: sorry, the bard is the know it all. Posted before thinking :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Talking about "the Wizard who doesn't know what he's doing" vs. "the bard who does" is not in any way a useful discussion. You have to assume competence on the part of both players if you're going to talk about game balance, and a competent Wizard is usually going to be a Diviner.
What's the goalpost you're setting? If it's damage, remember that the extra damage that comes out of the Bard's buffs can very well be considered "his" damage.

Damage is a silly metric given that both targets can effectively take out targets without touching their HP. It's the ability to efficiently end encounters that matters.

In an arena situation it would be "who can disable the enemy first". That may or may not be a meaningful metric to you.

It's isn't when you're talking about a class who's strengths lie in primarily buff and support.


Joe Hex wrote:
Personally, I always found the Bard just-plain-weird. Who breaks into a performance in the middle of heated combat? I always think of how bonkers, Michael Jackson's "Beat It", or Pat Benatar's "Love is a Battlefield" video always stuck me as a child. I never understood how a cheesy dance is keeping them from being stabbed...

Yeah, I agree. I actually really like Bards and Wizards. Though re: Bards the ones I like are the ones who use Oratory on the battlefield. (Who could be played as a battle commander even, using buffs, with knowledge of enemy and terrain, inspiring allies, etc.) and a Dwarven Chanter (or possibly a war drummer) which for some reason makes sense to me. But busting out a lute on the battlefield? Seems corny.

101 to 150 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Bard. The best class?? inquiring minds seek thoughts. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.