I know there has been some hostility to the use of character "roles" as defined in 4th Edition. But, on a basic level the idea has always existed in D&D.
What I need some others opinions on is . . .
Is a Bard an exceptable replacement for a Wizard or Sorcerer in a party mix?
As much as I like the bard class, I honestly don't think that it can fill the role as a primary arcane spellcaster. The bard is that in-between class, the jack-of-all-trades and a master of none. While the class certainly does have features that would allow it to take up some of the slack in the sorcerer/wizard role, it is really a donut spare tire that can replace one of the set of four temporarily, but it won't hold up for the long haul.
Certainly where skills are concerned, such as Knowledge and Spellcraft, the bard can fulfill the role admirably. However, as an offensive battery, a buffer, or caster of defensive magics, a bard won't hold up. The bard's spell selection and the number of spells per day just don't equal that of a sorcerer or wizard. However, there is one way I could see where this would work, and that is Use Magic Device.
As a charisma-based skill check, the bard's forte, a bard with a suitable amount of magic items (scrolls, wands, staffs, etc) could provide enough arcane power for a party. Add in the Skill Focus feat and a mid to high level bard could very well fill the niche, though he still might be lacking a bit in flexibility.
|
I'd say no, although it's a class that can perform (erhm... no pun intended) admirably in this role.
I DMed the Shackled City AP with an atypical group (barbarian, monk, cleric and bard), and while the bard covered a number of facets of an arcane spellcaster - mostly dispelling and illusions/enchantments - it's obviously not on par with a wizard or sorcerer.
Moreover, having the need to focus on this elements, it's also difficult to play the class as a classical bard concept.
That said, the bard is the perfect fifth party member, covering weaknesses or augmenting strenghts with incredible versatility.
|
I always saw the Bard as more of a Rogue replacement (though you'd need to one level dip in Rogue for the trapfinding). The Bard's greatest strength to me has always been in the large number of class skills and skill points.
Our group separates the archetypes into
Fighter, Paladin, Monk, Barbarian
Bard, Ranger, Rogue
Cleric, Druid
Sorcerer, Wizard
Yes he can, if played by a dedicated player.
The same way he can replace a cleric. Or a fighter. Or a rogue.
In one campaign i am running, the bard is actually serving as the healer of the group, as well as a secondary arcanist.
Is a Bard an acceptable replacement for a Wizard or Sorcerer in a party mix?
It can be. Not as a blaster (although Use Magic Device can help with this), but definitely as a controller. In a party with a druid (to take on some of the blaster role) and good ranged attacks, a bard can work quite well.
However, as an offensive battery, a buffer, or caster of defensive magics, a bard won't hold up.
I agree with the first and the third, but after having played beside a bard for quite some time, I do think they can fill the party buffer role admirably, combining their bardic music with tactical use of their limited spells. They are perhaps (perhaps) better suited to this than a sorcerer or wizard, since those classes are likely to split their abilities between buffing and other concerns (such as the ones you mention), while the bard is more likely to stick with just the buffs and therefore have more beneficial effects and spells to call up at a given time than a dedicated mage.
It should be noted, however, that the bard I played alongside did almost nothing in battle on his own; occasionally he would help out with a glitterdust or use a magic item to hamper the enemy in some way, but other than that, all his actions were taken in support of the other characters, who used his aid to become that much stronger and accomplish whatever task was at hand themselves. So, it takes a player who's willing to always "just help," and rarely ever actually do anything themselves (at least in combat; the bard owns the social arena).
But, as with others, I've always seen them as more akin to the rogue than a true mage.
I once ran a campaign where a Small sized (homebrew otterfolk) bard was both the primary healer and the primary tank. It was a weird campaign: a kenku rogue-fighter crossbow specialist, a homebrew snake-folk homebrew skill-based magician pistoleer, an empowered awakened parrot wizard, and something else I can't remember. Maybe a rogue or sorcerer?
A bard makes a decent replacement for a cleric, since its buffs can be effective enough to counter some hits the cleric would have ended up healing anyways.
I believe I've talked about this before, but I've had a bard at my table who, using Grease, Hideous Laughter, Glitterdust made a great controller.
I always saw the Bard as more of a Rogue replacement (though you'd need to one level dip in Rogue for the trapfinding). The Bard's greatest strength to me has always been in the large number of class skills and skill points.
So, that is an arguement to make "Trapfinding" a feat that the Rogue class would get automatically.
Because of that the only thing that replaces a rogue is a rogue. That kind of leaves the Bard (and to a lesser extent the Monk and Ranger) without a "role." :(
I always saw the Bard as more of a Rogue replacement (though you'd need to one level dip in Rogue for the trapfinding). The Bard's greatest strength to me has always been in the large number of class skills and skill points.So, that is an arguement to make "Trapfinding" a feat that the Rogue class would get automatically.
Because of that the only thing that replaces a rogue is a rogue. That kind of leaves the Bard (and to a lesser extent the Monk and Ranger) without a "role." :(
Or, as Sean K Reynolds suggests, get rid of the Trapfinding ability/requirement altogether. Only the rogue and ranger get Search as a class skill, anyway. Why not let anyone who can hit the DCs find traps just as well as a rogue? It's an interesting option which really frees up what classes a party can have and still be "balanced." I've adopted it as one of my house rules.
Tasha's Hideous Laughter is brutal. Most wizards don't have such a powerful fight ending spell at the same level. Its true that raw damage dealing wise, a bard can't keep up, but if splatbooks are allowed, make your bard dragonblooded and take the Dragonfire Inspiration feat from Dragon Magic. Allows you to choose to convert the bonus from Inspire Courage into d6 of energy damage on a 1 for 1 basis. At level 1, +1d6 energy damage to all successful ally attack rolls is rather awesome. And at 20th level, +4d6 or even 6d6 (with the proper spell and feats) on top of all attack rolls (think twf ranger or rogue) just gets awesome.
But its all in how you play. My shackled city game has a knight, a monk, a bard, a warlock, and a healer (the actual class). The knight is considered the weakest. The warlock the strongest (damage output), the monk the most dangerous (trip specialist), the healer the most mechanically broken (his healing output is absolutely ridiculous), and the bard the overall most powerful character when actual "effect on the fight" is calculated rather than raw damage. A boss battle got 1-shotted because she drowned the boss in her own bathtub with Tasha's Hideous Laughter!
*Edit* And yeah, I allow search checks to find traps to be made untrained. Average joe has only a slim chance of finding an easy (say DC 20) trap. (Remember, if the DC is below 20, Average Joe can look for it even under core rules.) I personally make trapfinding allow for "autosearch" like the Elven Secret Door ability. Works great.
Yeah, I DMPC a Healer (actual class) and she's the reason the PCs are doing so well in this killer dungeon I'm running. I think it would be a kind of boring class to play, but as a cohort, it's something else. Especially with Augment Healing. At 15th level, her Heals cures 167 points! Her Mass Heal is even higher--171!!!
I personally make trapfinding allow for "autosearch" like the Elven Secret Door ability. Works great.
That... is an extremely good idea! Just yesterday one of my new players, who is running a rogue, came up against the hard fact that searching every 5-foot square of a dungeon takes hours or even days, making it extremely impractical or even virtually impossible to do so. The end result is often having to guess where to search. If you guess wrong, you fail at your job as "security expert." What's the point of playing a rogue then? Worse, it feels like a major nerf; "Yes, the game says you can do this, but because of those sneaky rules, it's not nearly as easy or appealing as you might think."
But if trapfinding is essentially an autosearch feature, the rogue remains king of the hill in what is arguably the class' most iconic area while allowing parties without a rogue to deal with traps in a reasonable manner, as well. Consider the idea stolen!
Now back to your regularly scheduled thread. :)
|
|
Or, as Sean K Reynolds suggests, get rid of the Trapfinding ability/requirement altogether. Only the rogue and ranger get Search as a class skill, anyway. Why not let anyone who can hit the DCs find traps just as well as a rogue? It's an interesting option which really frees up what classes a party can have and still be "balanced." I've adopted it as one of my house rules.I always saw the Bard as more of a Rogue replacement (though you'd need to one level dip in Rogue for the trapfinding). The Bard's greatest strength to me has always been in the large number of class skills and skill points.So, that is an arguement to make "Trapfinding" a feat that the Rogue class would get automatically.
Because of that the only thing that replaces a rogue is a rogue. That kind of leaves the Bard (and to a lesser extent the Monk and Ranger) without a "role." :(
I'd have to disagree with that, unless you also agree to get rid of the Track feat as well. After all, if any other party member can Spot a set of foot and a half wide prints in the soil, couldn't they also track them?
I'd be more inclined to simply make Trapfinding a feat instead of only a class feature.
Or, as Sean K Reynolds suggests, get rid of the Trapfinding ability/requirement altogether. Only the rogue and ranger get Search as a class skill, anyway. Why not let anyone who can hit the DCs find traps just as well as a rogue? It's an interesting option which really frees up what classes a party can have and still be "balanced." I've adopted it as one of my house rules.I always saw the Bard as more of a Rogue replacement (though you'd need to one level dip in Rogue for the trapfinding). The Bard's greatest strength to me has always been in the large number of class skills and skill points.So, that is an arguement to make "Trapfinding" a feat that the Rogue class would get automatically.
Because of that the only thing that replaces a rogue is a rogue. That kind of leaves the Bard (and to a lesser extent the Monk and Ranger) without a "role." :(
I'd have to disagree with that, unless you also agree to get rid of the Track feat as well. After all, if any other party member can Spot a set of foot and a half wide prints in the soil, couldn't they also track them?
I'd be more inclined to simply make Trapfinding a feat instead of only a class feature.
Your option is a good one, I think, but the preceeding analogy has a flaw. Track already is a feat. If a non-ranger wants to learn to track someone, then by the RAW, they can. Such is not the case with trapfinding. As per the RAW, the only way one can gain the ability is to have at least one level in rogue, which seems a bit overly restrictive to some (myself included).
|
|
Your option is a good one, I think, but the preceeding analogy has a flaw. Track already is a feat. If a non-ranger wants to learn to track someone, then by the RAW, they can. Such is not the case with trapfinding. As per the RAW, the only way one can gain the ability is to have at least one level in rogue, which seems a bit overly restrictive to some (myself included).Or, as Sean K Reynolds suggests, get rid of the Trapfinding ability/requirement altogether. Only the rogue and ranger get Search as a class skill, anyway. Why not let anyone who can hit the DCs find traps just as well as a rogue? It's an interesting option which really frees up what classes a party can have and still be "balanced." I've adopted it as one of my house rules.I always saw the Bard as more of a Rogue replacement (though you'd need to one level dip in Rogue for the trapfinding). The Bard's greatest strength to me has always been in the large number of class skills and skill points.So, that is an arguement to make "Trapfinding" a feat that the Rogue class would get automatically.
Because of that the only thing that replaces a rogue is a rogue. That kind of leaves the Bard (and to a lesser extent the Monk and Ranger) without a "role." :(
I'd have to disagree with that, unless you also agree to get rid of the Track feat as well. After all, if any other party member can Spot a set of foot and a half wide prints in the soil, couldn't they also track them?
I'd be more inclined to simply make Trapfinding a feat instead of only a class feature.
I know its already a Feat, I'm just saying that eliminating the Trapfinding Class Feature instead of turning it into a Feat as Track is would be a bad idea. They're very similar in function when you think about them, and removing one entirely while leaving the other seems kinda silly. Making them both Feats or removing the both of them would make more sense than just one.