I'd like to see the bard move from the wandering minstrel back to the dilettante adventurer. In our games, 3.5 and PRPG, bards were either all artsy types or adventurers for whom the music was a secondary hindrance, they wanted a few spells to back up their martial. Dungeonscape's Factotum had a great feel for this type of character, though I never cared much for the rule-set involved.
Bardic music, as it stands now, is weak. The Bard's music might be helpful, but compared to the spells that a cleric or wizard gets at that level it is downright pathetic. Most of those musical abilities simply duplicate spells anyway. The "Buff" abilities of a bard aren't very useful either, as any of the other spell-casters can buff the party, and still throw out plenty of fire/holy energy/animal allies afterwards.
In addition to bardic music, I'd recommend giving the bard the chance to pick up other classes' abilities. This would let the bard be that jack of all trades. Sure, the existing classes could still do it better, but if the rogue was gone or the wizard disabled, the bard could fill in for a few rounds. It also makes the bard welcome in a party; the current rules always seem to end with bards told to stay in the back and sing until the fight is over. The basic language, as I see it, would look something like this.
***
Dilettante: At 3rd level, and every three levels thereafter, the bard can choose from the following list of class abilities. The rules for the appropriate abilities may be found under other class descriptions. Unless otherwise indicated, the level for the class ability is the character's Bard level. Abilities, once taken, do not progress (e.g. taking Sneak Attack 1d6 does not allow the Bard to add more sneak attack damage as they gain levels). Unless otherwise stated, class abilities may not be selected more than once.
The available class abilities are: Sneak attack (1d6); Rogue Talent: Fast Stealth; Rogue Talent: Ledge Walker; Rogue Talent: Rogue Crawl; 1st level Cleric Domain Ability (Caster Level = Bard Level-2); 1st Level Wizard School Ability (Caster Level = Bard Level-2); Barbarian rage 1/day.
At 6th Level, they may also choose from the following additional options - Trap Finding; Channel Energy 1/day (May take multiple times, power level equal to bard level -5); Ranger Favored Enemy (May take multiple times, does not stack), 2nd Lvl Cleric Domain (only if the Bard has access to the first level ability of the same domain); Manuever Training; Armor training +1.
At 9th Level they can also choose from the following options - Animal Bond; Familiar (for determining abilities, the Bard's level is equal to Bard Level-8).
At 12th Level they may also choose from the following option - 8th Level Wizard School (Only if the Bard has the 1st level option from the same school).
At 15th Level may also choose from the following options -Rogue Talent: Defensive Roll; Rogue Talent: SLippery Mind; Rogue Talent: Dispelling Attack.
***
Obviously, the Bard can pick for later levels from any of the earlier level lists.
The reason I like this approach is twofold: It helps each bard to be unique (frankly, up until this point many bards were the same build with little variation); and it mirrors the options and abilities many of the other classes get. It does not allow the bard to horde any one party role; no matter how they try they won't be able to fill permanently in for the rogue, the cleric or the fighter. But when the situation calls for finesse, faith or strength, the Bard may be just what the party needs.
Please no. By definition, a bard is a musician/storyteller/performer. The 2e bard (I have no familiarity with the 1e bard) was a lame cross between rogue/wizard/fighter without the unique abilities of a 3e bard. I can agree that the performances of the current bard could be made stronger, but tacking on the features of other classes is not going to help the bard carve out a niche of its own.
Frankly, I think the 3e bard is very well balanced, it's just that, in that balance, it never becomes great at anything. And that's ok. I always tell people considering playing bards that they will never be 'awesome/cool/fantastic', the way a rogue or wizard might, but that they will always be useful. And in this regard, some players LIKE the bard a great deal. Right now, it's a great utility/support character. I don't see why everything has to be 'badass' in order to be playable.
Frankly, I think the 3e bard is very well balanced, it's just that, in that balance, it never becomes great at anything. And that's ok. I always tell people considering playing bards that they will never be 'awesome/cool/fantastic', the way a rogue or wizard might, but that they will always be useful. And in this regard, some players LIKE the bard a great deal. Right now, it's a great utility/support character. I don't see why everything has to be 'badass' in order to be playable.
It's not a matter of being a bad-ass, it's a matter of being useful. I must respectfully disagree with your analysis of bards always being useful. In 3E they were designed to always fill in for other classes, but in this role they were never able to keep up. After the first few levels, they quickly fell behind. In 3.5 this has been made even worse. The Bard just can't keep up.
In most of our games over the last five years, bards have been present. And at best they fight like a rogue without sneak attack, they have skills like a rogue, they have magical abilities on par with a ranger or paladin (we all know how that went), and there few moments to shine were when there wasn't a wizard in the group. The best built bards (my own included) were from time to time useful, but more often than not they were discarded for a rogue with the same skill-set and more survivability.
In Pathfinder, I'm afraid it's much the same. Their support value is rather lacking in our games, and in a well-balanced party there's always someone who can do it, no bard needed.
And let's not ignore combat. We are not hack and slashers, but a few good fights a session are always worth our time. In combat, our bards are usually wielding spiked chains or rapiers, trying to help flank enemies. If they're not built for a fight, they're in the back singing or sending out a magic missile. It's helpful, but not very important.
Every character deserves a chance to shine, to have a character who can do something exciting and well. Bards should be given the tools in character creation so that they aren't always relegated to simple support, but can be dynamic and well-built characters with plenty up their sleeves.
... it's just that, in that balance, it never becomes great at anything. And that's ok. I always tell people considering playing bards that they will never be 'awesome/cool/fantastic', the way a rogue or wizard might, but that they will always be useful. And in this regard, some players LIKE the bard a great deal. Right now, it's a great utility/support character. I don't see why everything has to be 'badass' in order to be playable.
I don't think that's what Brother Willi is suggesting at all. The bard should be the master of versatility. 1d6 of sneak attack dice or rage 1/day wouldn't throw the bard into the 'awesome/cool/fantastic,' as far as sneak attack goes. It does, however, add to the versatility of the class. You know ... the one area where the bard actually should be awesome/cool/fantastic. The bard would never come close to meeting the other classes with respect to these abilities, but it lets the bard have a little bit of skill in various areas, whereas right now the bard can ... inspire courage.
Please YES! I love this idea. The 2E bard was decidedly UN-lame. He was the original jack-of-all trades. Yes, he was an artist, but he was so many other things.
I think your list could be expanded though. To be a true dilettant, they should have the choice to take a feat instead of a class ability. You have familiar, but they should be able to choose either Arcane Bond choice. And there should be a few druid powers like Trackless Step and A Thousand Faces on there, to hearken back to the 1E bard's druidic roots.
It's not a matter of being a bad-ass, it's a matter of being useful. I must respectfully disagree with your analysis of bards always being useful. In 3E they were designed to always fill in for other classes, but in this role they were never able to keep up. After the first few levels, they quickly fell behind. In 3.5 this has been made even worse. The Bard just can't keep up.In Pathfinder, I'm afraid it's much the same. Their support value is rather lacking in our games, and in a well-balanced party there's always someone who can do it, no bard needed.
Apparently, we have different definitions of the term "useful." By "useful," I meant "has a use," or "can contribute," or "always has something to do to help the party." I did not mean "needed," as you seem to be defining "useful." No, a party that's already well-balanced will never need a bard. However, it's helpful to have somebody curing the cleric if he goes down, just like it's helpful to have somebody hasting the party when the wizard has better things to do, and it's helpful to have an additional +4 to attacks. In that respect, a bard is useful. If the bard-player is running out of things to do, he or she is either not very smart, or not very creative, because the bard can always be helping.
In most of our games over the last five years, bards have been present. And at best they fight like a rogue without sneak attack, they have skills like a rogue, they have magical abilities on par with a ranger or paladin (we all know how that went), and there few moments to shine were when there wasn't a wizard in the group. The best built bards (my own included) were from time to time useful, but more often than not they were discarded for a rogue with the same skill-set and more survivability.
Aside from your incorrect statement that bards cast on par with rangers and paladins (being that they get spells from level 1, they get up to level 6 spells, and they get full caster level...), what you basically just described was a jack-of-all-trades character. They have some magical abilities, some fighting abilities, and a broad skill set. Honestly, this is what a bard does. Basically, you're complaining that bards aren't as good a caster as a wizard, as good a thief as a rogue, or as good a warrior as a fighter, but if they were to be these things, they would be incredibly broken. Essentially, you are saying that they should be more of a half-ass version of the other classes, instead of emphasizing what makes a bard a bard. If you're going to change the bard class, you should emphasize its current abilities rather than giving it watered-down, rehashed features borrowed from other classes.
And let's not ignore combat. We are not hack and slashers, but a few good fights a session are always worth our time. In combat, our bards are usually wielding spiked chains or rapiers, trying to help flank enemies. If they're not built for a fight, they're in the back singing or sending out a magic missile. It's helpful, but not very important.Every character deserves a chance to shine, to have a character who can do something...
Exactly. Bards are helpful, but not vital. That's why "jack-of-all-trades" ends with "master of none."
Everyone should get a chance to shine, and the bard does; they are a utility and support character with a plethora of abilities. Due to their range of class skills, number of skill points, and moderate-to-high Charisma scores, bards are in a unique position to excel at almost any social situation. If bards need to shine more, it is in the things that are uniquely bardic--namely, their performance abilities.
Paizo has already boosted the bard directly by altering the spell progression and giving them a higher HD, as well as indirectly through modifying the skill system.
I don't think that we want to see the bard changed into an arcane trickster, factotum, or chameleon--let's keep it the bard.
No, a party that's already well-balanced will never need a bard. However, it's helpful to have somebody curing the cleric if he goes down, just like it's helpful to have somebody hasting the party when the wizard has better things to do, and it's helpful to have an additional +4 to attacks. In that respect, a bard is useful. If the bard-player is running out of things to do, he or she is either not very smart, or not very creative, because the bard can always be helping.
Just a snarky note that I can't pass up: If a well-balanced party never needs a bard, then why would anybody play one?
That aside, I'm not sure what you're thinking the proposed mechanic will do to the bard. You seem to be insisting that the bard is perfect as is, should not be changed, and everything is fine. Having played 3rd Ed since the day it came out, the many and varied campaigns of my experience have shown to me this is not the case. The Bard's support value is lower than that of an equivalent Rogue-Sorcerer build! The examples you list above indicate that the party either is already in deep trouble, or all the other players have "better things to do." This is a sign of the bard being rather unhelpful.
My mechanic isn't removing bardic music, nor tweaking their spell-casting. My mechanic gives the bard a few more options, from a die of sneak attack to a couple extra spells, that augments their already existing combat and casting abilities. It is making them a Jack-of-All-Trades. It is certainly not making them the master of any one of them.
The bard is still going to be a support character. But instead of only having an anemic spell-list and bardic music, they will also have a few more class abilities to give them a few more tricks here and there.
I like bard as a support character. But the rules as written put the bard playing second fiddle in support to all the casters, waiting to see if the rogue gets knocked down so they can leap in and flank, and hoping that a cleric isn't around so THEY can heal the fighter. So many multi-class builds can outshine the bard it isn't funny.
As much as I like the class, right now, there is no reason to play them. That is the problem, and that is what I want to fix.
I would just like to say that Im strongly in favor of anything that increases the "jack of all trades, master of none" feel of the bard, and less of the "Brave, brave Sir Robin" minstrel feel, if that is where this discussion is going to go.
That is exactly where I hope it will go! I would love to hear suggestions on how to improve the list or tweak the mechanic. I think there's a lot of good ways we can boost up our favorite Dungeon Handyman.
I would just like to say that Im strongly in favor of anything that increases the "jack of all trades, master of none" feel of the bard, and less of the "Brave, brave Sir Robin" minstrel feel, if that is where this discussion is going to go.That is exactly where I hope it will go! I would love to hear suggestions on how to improve the list or tweak the mechanic. I think there's a lot of good ways we can boost up our favorite Dungeon Handyman.
This is exactly where I thought it was going from the first post, as well. You are presenting a few more options. Nothing huge, just minor additions that can help the versatility of a class that's meant to be versatile. As far as I can tell, it's looking like a good start.
Have I mentioned this is a great idea?
Here are some more options that could go on the list at later levels: Rogue Talent: Skill Mastery, Tongue of the Sun and Moon, Wild Empathy.
Maybe even Smite Evil 1/day. That would depend on how the Smite Evil tangle ends up.
Good lord. There should absolutely be no smite whatsoever. What on earth is the bard's justification for that ability?
Good lord. There should absolutely be no smite whatsoever. What on earth is the bard's justification for that ability?
I generally see Smite Evil as the sole province of the Paladin, but let's not count it out just yet.
What prevents a Bard, the companion of a questing knight (read: Paladin), from being as pious as said knight? Both travel and battle evil in the name of a good deity, rooting out and destroying villans and monsters alike. It is plausible that the Bard, as a pious study of the Paladin, can from time to time channel his faith in the same manner having gained the favor of the God.
I know it's not relevant to the PRPG upgrade, but Complete Champion generally advanced this style of character. Pious bards should be no less viable than Pious Fighters or Wizards, even if they don't fit the traditional mold.
As I say, I'm not sold on the idea; it kind of feels like having a bard with flurry of blows. But I'd like to test it out and see how it interacts with the other rule sets. Given the changes that are happening to Smite Evil, there's a lot to try.
Have I mentioned this is a great idea?
Here are some more options that could go on the list at later levels: Rogue Talent: Skill Mastery, Tongue of the Sun and Moon, Wild Empathy.
Maybe even Smite Evil 1/day. That would depend on how the Smite Evil tangle ends up.
Skill Mastery and Wild Empathy seem very appropriate for a higher level pick. Bards are skill oriented characters, so skill mastery is a good pick. There's a discussion on another thread that revamps Jack of All Trades (something I support), and that may make Skill Mastery unnecessary. A naturalist bard who learns wild empathy strikes me as reasonable, as I don't see this being an overpowered ability at all.
Tongue of the Sun and Moon also fits right in with the Bard's repetoire. The Epic Feat Polyglot was one of my favorites. Bards, no matter how you see them, are meant to be wanderers and explorers. Surely some would dedicate themselves to the study of all languages.
A lot of people love the music aspect of the bard, but an equal number of people are soured on an otherwise desirable class.
I would not be opposed to seeing an option for the bard at first level:
Choose between Performer and Dilettante.
This type of solution worked for the Ranger, and is being extended to several other classes.
A lot of people love the music aspect of the bard, but an equal number of people are soured on an otherwise desirable class.
I would not be opposed to seeing an option for the bard at first level:
Choose between Performer and Dilettante.
This type of solution worked for the Ranger, and is being extended to several other classes.
You know, if there were a way to boost the performance powers just a bit more, this is a remarkably elegant solution. I feel that even with Bardic Music as written, adding in the additional abilities doesn't break the class. But with the proper tweaking, these could make very interesting avenues for the bard.
If that were the case, I think the Performer Bard would require, at the very least, an improved spell list and the Dilletante Bard should get abilities every two levels rather than every three.
Good lord. There should absolutely be no smite whatsoever. What on earth is the bard's justification for that ability?
Righteousness, purity of heart, desire to be a hero like the legends he tells about?
It's just an idea. There's no need to get defensive about it.
A lot of people love the music aspect of the bard, but an equal number of people are soured on an otherwise desirable class.
I would not be opposed to seeing an option for the bard at first level:
Choose between Performer and Dilettante.
This type of solution worked for the Ranger, and is being extended to several other classes.
It's a possibility. I wouldn't want to divorce one from the other though. The performer should still be a dilettant and the dilettant should still be a performer.
On the Dillettante side I would suggest every time the Dillante ability is taken they get to choose one of the following
Rage 1/day -- (3 rage points total no rage powers)
1 spell added as a spell known from either cleric or wizard list
+1 to hit + 1 damage with one weapon
1d6 sneak attack damage
I would also suggest the Dillettante ability should be given once every 4 levels (levels 4, 8, 12, 16, 20)
Choose between Performer and Dilettante.
This is the best idea I've heard in a while. Alternate class features provide the player with the option of further specializing the flavor of their character while remaining true to the class role and concept.
Unfortunately, doing so would mean that the number of songs for the Performer bard (as opposed the the dilettante) would need to be reduced. The volume of bard songs that exist already make the class entry substantially long and if there is an alternate class feature (with its own list of options no doubt), that would put the bard entry on par with War and Peace.
I'm all for the dilettante idea, though I personally prefer the musical bard (being a classical musician myself). I understand that some people want to play the jack-of-all-trades bard without singing a ballad in the middle of combat and still wish to be effective. Diagetic music in combat for some gamers is weird, so why not give them something else?
The bard's role is ill-defined because filling multiple roles is inherent in the class concept. There's no harm in providing an additional option if nothing else.
Rage 1/day -- (3 rage points total no rage powers)
1 spell added as a spell known from either cleric or wizard list
+1 to hit + 1 damage with one weapon
1d6 sneak attack damage
I like that spell idea. It's a nice way for a bard who wants to be a better caster to get a little more depth. I think I would make it a little stronger though, either giving the bard more than one spell or a +1 to CL. (Although this would seem like a very strong ability, I think it would be offset by the bard's reduced access to powerful spells.)
If it were up to me, I would definitly have more than just four options though.
|
I would really, really like the Bard class opened up from the extremely narrow 'magic spontaneous musician' thing he's got going on right now.
I would love to be able to use the Bard class mechanics to make an evangelical clergyman, who recites inspiring texts from his holy book to bless his allies with fervor.
I would love to be able to use the Bard class mechanics to create a spoiled noble scion, tutored by daddy's finest tutors in swordplay, smatterings of arcane arts and the artistic and social skills expected of someone of their standing, and able to inspire and lead their allies into battle through a combination of rousing oratory and tactical advice drawn from their studies of past legendary battles.
[I've used both in games, one as a lizard man 'holy man', for instance, using his religious tirades to 'inspire' his fellows, the other as a noble brat who worked alongside, and at cross purposes to, the party for a time. Both had only slight mechanical changes, but were vastly different than 'dude with a lute who happens to be descended from dragons, like all spontaneous spellcasters who can qualify to be Dragon Disciples in this world.' Neither had any focus on music *at all.* Neither were dragon-blooded dilettantes.]
Increasingly over the length of this edition, the Bard is pigeon-holed into the 'magic minstrel' thing, with every splatbook in 3.0 and 3.5 seeming to tighten and narrow that focus more and more on musical instruments and sound-based spells, instead of opening up what is *purported* to be a 'jack-of-all-trades' sort of class, but instead is shoved into this tiny little box, made smaller and more limited a concept, which, IMO, defeats the entire purpose of the class!
|
|
On the Dillettante side I would suggest every time the Dillante ability is taken they get to choose one of the following
Rage 1/day -- (3 rage points total no rage powers)
1 spell added as a spell known from either cleric or wizard list
+1 to hit + 1 damage with one weapon
1d6 sneak attack damageI would also suggest the Dillettante ability should be given once every 4 levels (levels 4, 8, 12, 16, 20)
Thoughts on this idea, which I like;
1) The Druid list should definitely be added to that list. A Bardic 'high chorister' or 'spellsinger' with access to the occasional Cleric or Wizard spell might be thematic, but the Druid is the old-school traditional choice for the pseudo-Celtic D&D Bardic spellcaster.
The spell(s) gained might also be based on the Bards Ability Modifier or Caster Level or highest level of spell currently available, allowing a Bard able to cast 4th level spells, or instance, to be able to learn 4 levels of Wizard spells with one use of this ability (so he might choose Black Tentacles, or Summon Swarm, Magic Missile and Shield, for instance).
One using Ability Mod might have an 18 Charisma, and be able to do the same, mastering up to 4 levels of Druid spells with a use of this dilettante option.
Basing it off of Caster Level would allow a lot more spells to be added, and might be overpowered.
In any event, the Bard could only learn spells from one list when they take this option, so neither of the examples above could pick up Bless, Mage Armor and Goodberry as their four spell levels!
The limitation could scale, if Ability Mod increases, so that a Bard that gets a 20 permanant Charisma at a later date could immediately pick up another level of spell from the list he chose earlier.
2) The bonus to hit and / or damage with a single weapon could be enhanced / tweaked to provide the dilettante the option of becoming proficient with any Simple or Martial weapon.
Alternately, the option might include a free Martial Weapon proficiency *or* the ability to inflict a 'Singing Strike' with a previous Bard weapon or racially proficient weapon (or, using two dilettante options, a Martial Weapon previously mastered). The Singing Strike will have +Cha to hit and do +level damage, much like a Smite, but burn a Bardic Music use in the process. Alternately, it might do +1d6 damage on a hit, and have the option of burning multiple Bardic Music uses to do more dice of damage, limited by level and / or Charisma Modifier (to prevent a 9th level Bard from burning all 9 Bardic Musics to do +9d6 with a single attack!).
Despite the name 'Singing Strike,' the damage would be precision damage and not Sonic damage. The blow would be impossibly complex in appearance, as if the Bard has reached an inhuman level of grace and precision with his blade, for just a moment, by tapping into some supernatural source of inspiration, and channeling it into his combat artistry.
Having the use of one of these dilettante abilities use up a resource, like the Bardic Song uses, might fit the concept. Q'lys the Warchanter might be able to enter a Rage, but he'd have to blow a Bardic Music use to do so. Samara the High Chorister might be able to cast Consecrate, but she has to sacrifice one of her original 2nd level spells *and* use a Bardic Music use to power the spontaneous casting of the otherwise 'alien' spell.
On the Dillettante side I would suggest every time the Dillante ability is taken they get to choose one of the following
Rage 1/day -- (3 rage points total no rage powers)
1 spell added as a spell known from either cleric or wizard list
+1 to hit + 1 damage with one weapon
1d6 sneak attack damageI would also suggest the Dillettante ability should be given once every 4 levels (levels 4, 8, 12, 16, 20)
The extra spell added is a great idea for a bard who wants to expand their spell repetoire.
The other ideas are good as well; I would refer you to the list in the original post. I think the +1 to hit/+1 damage with a specific damage is a nice way to help boost a combat bard. I wouldn't let it stack on the same weapon though; otherwise we run the risk of the bard being able to deal incredible damage with a chosen weapon.
Alternately, the option might include a free Martial Weapon proficiency *or* the ability to inflict a 'Singing Strike' with a previous Bard weapon or racially proficient weapon (or, using two dilettante options, a Martial Weapon previously mastered). The Singing Strike will have +Cha to hit and do +level damage, much like a Smite, but burn a Bardic Music use in the process. Alternately, it might do +1d6 damage on a hit, and have the option of burning multiple Bardic Music uses to do more dice of damage, limited by level and / or Charisma Modifier (to prevent a 9th level Bard from burning all 9 Bardic Musics to do +9d6 with a single attack!).
Despite the name 'Singing Strike,' the damage would be precision damage and not Sonic damage. The blow would be impossibly complex in appearance, as if the Bard has reached an inhuman level of grace and precision with his blade, for just a moment, by tapping into some supernatural source of inspiration, and channeling it into his combat artistry.
Having the use of one of these dilettante abilities use up a resource, like the Bardic Song uses, might fit the concept. Q'lys the Warchanter might be able to enter a Rage, but he'd have to blow a Bardic Music use to do so. Samara the High Chorister might be able to cast Consecrate, but she has to sacrifice one of her original 2nd level spells *and* use a Bardic Music use to power the spontaneous casting of the otherwise 'alien' spell.
Giving the bard some unique combat abilities isn't a bad idea, but I'd rather base them on existing rules. I'm not adverse to having a few picks unique to the bard, but there needs to be a bit more than extra damage. Perhaps an effect causing deafness or dazzling the target? The new Smite Evil rules give a base for some ideas.
Having the bard use bardic music to power abilities raises a host of problems, however. The initial reason for my suggested rules was to divest the bard of his or her slavish connection to music. Not all bards are musicians, and by making them use magic to power their abilities is defeatist of the purpose.
Furthermore, the bard already has a large number of abilities tied to bardic music. The purpose of this thread was to help the bard have some static abilities or one-shot abilities seperate from their bardic musical abilities. If we require them to expend their bardic music for any action past a basic attack, a Bard will be depleted of options long before the Wizard runs out of spells. I'd rather the abilities be either static (like Sneak Attack, Rogue Talents, etc.) or a once-per-day use (like Rage).
The spell(s) gained might also be based on the Bards Ability Modifier or Caster Level or highest level of spell currently available, allowing a Bard able to cast 4th level spells, or instance, to be able to learn 4 levels of Wizard spells with one use of this ability (so he might choose Black Tentacles, or Summon Swarm, Magic Missile and Shield, for instance).
This is a very good idea. It keeps the bard as a spell-caster a viable option without overloading their spell-list.
The bard's role is ill-defined because filling multiple roles is inherent in the class concept. There's no harm in providing an additional option if nothing else.
My sentiments exactly.
I do like the "bard as a dilettante" concept, harkening back to the 1e days where you had an arduous qualification process to claw through before finally settling in to the actual Bard class itself.
Literally, we're talking Fighter levels, Thief levels and so on before qualifying to become a Bard. Your character is already pretty good climbing into the class, and music was decidedly not the biggest to-do-all about the class.
Granted, your goal often became to get one of the really neat-o magical harps or whathaveyou (or, better, the Recorder of Ye'Cind - bard written ALL over it), and the class itself would cover LOTS of game play.
I wouldn't mind seeing a Bard as a 15 or 20 level Prestige Class built along the old model. I do not expect to see it, but I wouldn't mind it either, properly done. ^_^
In any case, the Bard has some limited appeal as a Jack of all Trades in 3e, but pales significantly in comparison to that old warhorse. And, given the complete lack of alternatives to "Performance-something-or-other" as the lion's share of the class' function ... I generally find other things to do with a player character. In 8 years I've played a Bard ONCE ... and I didn't have time to waste on Performance stuff.
Creative Director
|
While the concept of making a bard a dilettante instead of a performer is interesting... I'm personally afraid that takes the bard away from what he's been in game in the past. Especially since a dilettante can just as easily be realized by any number of other classes such as rogue or wizard or aristocrat, even. The point is... the bard's entire theme is built around being a performer (which also includes storyteller, poet, actor, dancer, and so on BEYOND music), and shifting him away from that is, in my opinion, like shifting the druid away from nature and animals. He'd cease being a bard, and that's not good for the class at all.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
While the concept of making a bard a dilettante instead of a performer is interesting... I'm personally afraid that takes the bard away from what he's been in game in the past. Especially since a dilettante can just as easily be realized by any number of other classes such as rogue or wizard or aristocrat, even. The point is... the bard's entire theme is built around being a performer (which also includes storyteller, poet, actor, dancer, and so on BEYOND music), and shifting him away from that is, in my opinion, like shifting the druid away from nature and animals. He'd cease being a bard, and that's not good for the class at all.
I'm not sure that's the correct analogy. While I absolutely agree that the bard should continue to support the singing/dancing entertainer, which I personally hate but some people love, it would be nice if the class supported those that have always viewed the bard as the redmage of D&D - a toolkit class that can do a little bit of everything. That's how I played bards in 2e, and 3e was an unfortunate step back from that.
Anyway, I would argue that the bard as dilettante is as much a part of the class as the bard as disco dancer in a dungeon. This isn't taking nature away from the druid, it's letting druids have an alignment other than true neutral. It opens up the class a little and makes it more like the rogue or fighter, each of which benefit from having multiple builds.
While the concept of making a bard a dilettante instead of a performer is interesting... I'm personally afraid that takes the bard away from what he's been in game in the past. Especially since a dilettante can just as easily be realized by any number of other classes such as rogue or wizard or aristocrat, even. The point is... the bard's entire theme is built around being a performer (which also includes storyteller, poet, actor, dancer, and so on BEYOND music), and shifting him away from that is, in my opinion, like shifting the druid away from nature and animals. He'd cease being a bard, and that's not good for the class at all.
+1
While the concept of making a bard a dilettante instead of a performer is interesting... I'm personally afraid that takes the bard away from what he's been in game in the past. Especially since a dilettante can just as easily be realized by any number of other classes such as rogue or wizard or aristocrat, even. The point is... the bard's entire theme is built around being a performer (which also includes storyteller, poet, actor, dancer, and so on BEYOND music), and shifting him away from that is, in my opinion, like shifting the druid away from nature and animals. He'd cease being a bard, and that's not good for the class at all.
I understand what you are saying, and I see your concern. I must respectfully disagree with your contention that the bard has always been primarily a performer. In 1st and 2nd ed, this was one part of a multi-faceted character. In 3rd ed they were focused a lot more on music as a source of power, but they were meant to be general support. The prestige classes allowed musical focus, but also allowed spymasters, seductresses, and dungeon delvers.
3.5 then brought the bardic music to the forefront and forced prestige class after prestige class focused wholly around music upon us. This is where I lost interest in playing a bard. While a musician myself, adventuring as a wandering minstrel who was generally unnecessary in most situations got old fast.
I am not advocating removing music from bards entirely; quite the contrary. I want it to go back to being one facet of a multi-faceted character. If you want to build a bard who focuses around music, more power to you! I think there's some great builds in there. But I want my 2nd and 3rd ed bards back, the guys who had a plan for everything and a knack for getting out of any sort of trouble. Under the current rules, I have a hard time building a character like that who isn't a rogue.
To use your druid analogy: we're not taking the druid away from nature, we're giving them spontaneous summon and wildshape as a functional class ability (something 3 and 3.5 did to make the druids exceptionally playable).
And if I may address the point about rogue or the wizard being a dilettante: I feel that is a flavor build rather than a rule build. Wizards and rogues are versatile characters by their nature, yes, but they are not jacks of all trades. A well-built rogue or wizard can fill two party roles. It is my contention that a well-built bard should be able fill any party role, when necessary. For example, a wizard can cast magic missile and wield a sword, but can't heal. The a bard can do all three, and a bit more.
Even if you disagree with me on all these points, I hope you can acknowledge that the bard as written needs some more "oomph" to make them comparable to a rogue/wizard build.
|
Creative Director
|
I understand what you are saying, and I see your concern. I must respectfully disagree with your contention that the bard has always been primarily a performer. In 1st and 2nd ed, this was one part of a multi-faceted character. In 3rd ed they were focused a lot more on music as a source of power, but they were meant to be general support. The prestige classes allowed musical focus, but also allowed spymasters, seductresses, and dungeon delvers.
We're not trying to evolve the 2nd edition bard though. We're trying to retain and evolve the 3rd edition one. And that guy's a performer, which is why he should remain a performer in the Pathfinder RPG. We want the bard to remain enjoyable to players who enjoyed and liked the bard in 3.5, after all, and changing his core concept so drastically only estranges established bard fans (like me). The Pathfinder RPG isn't the best place to do this type of change, is what I'm saying.
3.5 then brought the bardic music to the forefront and forced prestige class after prestige class focused wholly around music upon us. This is where I lost interest in playing a bard. While a musician myself, adventuring as a wandering minstrel who was generally unnecessary in most situations got old fast.
Again, that's a failing of the desingers to build bard prestige classes that speak to the fact that bards are more than singers or musicians. And for the record, there were quite a lot of dancer bard classes, oratory bard classes, and other non-musical prestige classes for bards coming out from WotC.
I am not advocating removing music from bards entirely; quite the contrary. I want it to go back to being one facet of a multi-faceted character. If you want to build a bard who focuses around music, more power to you! I think there's some great builds in there. But I want my 2nd and 3rd ed bards back, the guys who had a plan for everything and a knack for getting out of any sort of trouble. Under the current rules, I have a hard time building a character like that who isn't a rogue.
But the game handles multiclassing much better now. Back in 1st and 2nd edition, the bard's "jack of all trades" thing was valuable because it wasn't something anyone can do. Now, it's easy to do a jack of all trades character by building the right combo of multiclass and prestige class—that's a niche that no longer needs to be filled by a class like the bard as a result. Incidentally, this development is also why half-elves in 3rd edition went from being one of the more versatile and common PC races (back ind 2nd edition, they had the BEST multiclass options, after all) to a relatively back-burner class. Their main claim to fame was eroded by the stronger multiclassing options.
So if you want your 2nd edition bard back, it's better to do so via multiclassing. That is, after all, the original genesis of the bard class back at the start. Since it's a LOT easier to do the same thing the 1st edition bard did with 3.5's multiclassing rules, the bard himself needs to find a new focus. And 3.5's focus on setting him up as a performer (and a sort of specialist in enchantment/illusion/social magic) is, in my opinion, pretty cool.
I understand what you are saying, and I see your concern. I must respectfully disagree with your contention that the bard has always been primarily a performer. In 1st and 2nd ed, this was one part of a multi-faceted character. In 3rd ed they were focused a lot more on music as a source of power, but they were meant to be general support. The prestige classes allowed musical focus, but also allowed spymasters, seductresses, and dungeon delvers.We're not trying to evolve the 2nd edition bard though. We're trying to retain and evolve the 3rd edition one. And that guy's a performer, which is why he should remain a performer in the Pathfinder RPG. We want the bard to remain enjoyable to players who enjoyed and liked the bard in 3.5, after all, and changing his core concept so drastically only estranges established bard fans (like me). The Pathfinder RPG isn't the best place to do this type of change, is what I'm saying.
I'm not sure if we're arguing over flavor or the rules at this point. I guess I don't think I'm drastically changing the Pathfinder bard. I liken this to adding in the wizard's new school abilities, which gave them new options as they gained levels, or the cleric's new domain powers. The bard remains as written, with bardic music and all, and has a few more tricks up their sleeve. For the bard fans, their characters wouldn't lose a thing.
3.5 then brought the bardic music to the forefront and forced prestige class after prestige class focused wholly around music upon us. This is where I lost interest in playing a bard. While a musician myself, adventuring as a wandering minstrel who was generally unnecessary in most situations got old fast.Again, that's a failing of the desingers to build bard prestige classes that speak to the fact that bards are more than singers or musicians. And for the record, there were quite a lot of dancer bard classes, oratory bard classes, and other non-musical prestige classes for bards coming out from WotC.
I was not clear enough, I should have indicated it isn't music but performance as a focus for the bard in general. And WOTC designers have certainly raised the ire of a lot of people, as there is significant support on these boards for the jack of all trades. I am wholly behind the mission of PRPG to update and continue the excellent game that is DnD 3.5. But there's a chance here to correct some glaring omissions and mistakes that did plague edition, and I think the weakness of the bard falls into that category.
I know (he said with a smile and a nod) that in a disagreement between myself and your august person I'm not going to win out. I've laid out my ideas and the arguments for them; if they don't convince you I'm not sure there's much I can do past that. But I do hope that you look at the ideas we've presented with a fresh head and perhaps give them a whirl in your own game. I think you may really like what happens to your bard.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
We're not trying to evolve the 2nd edition bard though. We're trying to retain and evolve the 3rd edition one. And that guy's a performer, which is why he should remain a performer in the Pathfinder RPG. We want the bard to remain enjoyable to players who enjoyed and liked the bard in 3.5, after all, and changing his core concept so drastically only estranges established bard fans (like me). The Pathfinder RPG isn't the best place to do this type of change, is what I'm saying.
Why can't the bard be both? As the class is written, it only appeals to a narrow segment of the audience that is interested in the roleplaying aspects of being a minstrel because it is shackled to those mechanics. All that we're looking for is another option, not a wholesale abandonment of the bard's core identity (such as it is). People who still want to have a guitar in a dungeon can do so, but those that want to play a skilled diplomat with a good sword arm and a dash of magic can do that too. The 3e tradition is not the only tradition for the bard. Multiclassing just doesn't cut it, as shown by the numerous prestige classes which have been built to overcome the problems inherent in that route (which are particularly severe for a character that has a caster level).
Again, the argument is not to move the bard away from their core shtick, it's to open them up to other, less annoying shticks. It's removing a restriction, like allowing dwarves to cast arcane spells or letting clerics use edged weapons. The bard is one of the few arcane casters in the core rules, and the only one who is something other than a pure arcane caster. He shouldn't be relegated to such a tiny niche, particularly when the core rules could use an interesting arcane/martial cross.
Different people like different aspects about the game, I really don't want to take away the performing bard from those who love that concept, but I'd like to see a different path available for those that remember and loved the jack-of-all-trades bard from 2e who sadly didn't make the cut into 3e.
I'd just like to note that as I am a performer, I feel like the bard should appeal to me more. The bard's class mechanics fail to represent music and performance for me. That's the biggest failing of the class in my opinion.
|
Why can't the bard be both? As the class is written, it only appeals to a narrow segment of the audience that is interested in the roleplaying aspects of being a minstrel because it is shackled to those mechanics. All that we're looking for is another option, not a wholesale abandonment of the bard's core identity (such as it is). People who still want to have a guitar in a dungeon can do so, but those that want to play a skilled diplomat with a good sword arm and a dash of magic can do that too. The 3e tradition is not the only tradition for the bard. Multiclassing just doesn't cut it, as shown by the numerous prestige classes which have been built to overcome the problems inherent in that route (which are particularly severe for a character that has a caster level).
Again, the argument is not to move the bard away from their core shtick, it's to open them up to other, less annoying shticks. It's removing a restriction, like allowing dwarves to cast arcane spells or letting clerics use edged weapons. The bard is one of the few arcane casters in the core rules, and the only one who is something other than a pure arcane caster. He shouldn't be relegated to such a tiny niche, particularly when the core rules could use an interesting arcane/martial cross.
Different people like different aspects about the game, I really don't want to take away the performing bard from those who love that concept, but I'd like to see a different path available for those that remember and loved the jack-of-all-trades bard from 2e who sadly didn't make the cut into 3e.
OK, I see your point here, but I just don't see why the Bard class needs to be changed to fill the jack-of-all-trades role as I feel it already does. I don't feel it's attached to the minstrel stereotype, you could simply choose Perform (oratory) or something along those lines and you have your multipurpose Bard. It always seemed to me that the Bard was this multi-tool with the added bonus of Bardic Music. He has a decent BAB, a good spell progression, and the ability to learn most of the Rogue's skills (except Trapfinding, which Jason hints may be loosening restrictions in the final).
I guess a better way to phrase the question is: What are the changes that the Bard needs in order to do what you're suggesting?
Note: I admit I was never too familiar with 2E, what has changed that you would like to see changed back?
OK, I see your point here, but I just don't see why the Bard class needs to be changed to fill the jack-of-all-trades role as I feel it already does. I don't feel it's attached to the minstrel stereotype, you could simply choose Perform (oratory) or something along those lines and you have your multipurpose Bard. It always seemed to me that the Bard was this multi-tool with the added bonus of Bardic Music. He has a decent BAB, a good spell progression, and the ability to learn most of the Rogue's skills (except Trapfinding, which Jason hints may be loosening restrictions in the final).
I guess a better way to phrase the question is: What are the changes that the Bard needs in order to do what you're suggesting?
Note: I admit I was never too familiar with 2E, what has changed that you would like to see changed back?
The problem is that as the bard progresses in level, it becomes a weaker and weaker choice compared to it's fellow heros. The multitool breaks. It's versitile, yes, but each of the things that it does becomes so outclassed by the primary classes that it's not fun to play. Including bardic music---you can find many complaints on the board that spells become far more effective, making the bard's one unique power redundant. The class needs a power boost.
To answer your second question, each edition from 1E to 3.0 and then 3.5 has narrowed the focus of the bard more and more on music and performance based powers. Those of us agitating for change feel that the proper balance was struck in 2E. We don't feel that performance should be the one core of the class, it should be one two cores, performance/social interaction and versitility. Just like a paladin has two cores: he is a warrior who is also a priest.
So to return to your first question we want to increase the power of the character by bringing it back into balance with it's two halves. We don't want to take away the bardic music. (It could probably use some tinkering with, but that subject has it's own threads.) We want to give the bard new choices that allow it to again be versitile as it gains in level, and be it's own class again---not just the spare for whover just got incapacitated
As much as I like the class, right now, there is no reason to play them. That is the problem, and that is what I want to fix.
Virtually every design forum has had a line like this on several posts. Many of us are attached to our favorite classes and have a desire to polish the potential we see.
Unfortunately what we see is biased.
Jason and others have made it clear they want to fix errors and problems and would love to bring new possibilities to old parts of the game. But I think they want original possibilities. Not transplants of abilities from other classes.
Looking at the changes made in the barbarian and paladin they focused on improving existing things.
The bard is about performing and knowing a little about a lot of things. I'm all for usefulness until level 20 but, to quote an Army friend, it needs to be in their lane.
By all means tone down the dependence on their perform skills if you like but focus on the knowledge aspect of their jack of all trades and not literally trying to squeeze all trades (or classes) into them.
What if we extend their knowledge mastery to things besides skills? What if they can pick up weapons and suffer reduced non-proficiency penalties? Some people proposed feat-swapping for the fighter. It seems to me that falls more in the realm of the bard.
Of course the adaptability runs counter to the bard’s inability to swap out high level spells.
There was a show called The Pretender. The main character truly was a jack of all trades master of none. Maybe the bard can be moved in that direction. The ability to cram feats or skills?
However it turns out the bard needs his or her own identity and not be a shallow reflection of the other classes.
Cheers
The bard back in second edition had the following:
Requirements:
Dex 12
Int 13
Cha 15
Races: Human, Half-elf
Fought as a rogue (i.e. average bab)
Could use any weapon
could use armor up to chain mail (i.e. medium)
Could Not use shields
Proficient musicians (as a class ability not a skill to spend on)
Learned wizard spells (up through sixth level, had arcane spell failure)
Rogue abilities (climb, detect noise, pick pockets, read languages)
Diplomacy as a class feature (was not a skill)
Inspiring music/poetry/stories
Countersong
Lore
The only class to get all skills as class skills in the (optional) proficiencies system.
However every other class has moved a LONG way from their roots. Fighters no longer just swing a sword every round, Thieves became rogues backstabbing became sneak attack, Druids became a fully seperate class, Priests of all flavors became full casters (instead of just 7 spell levels), Sorcerer came into existance, paladins and rangers got spells earlier, Monks reappeared (with more than 13 levels), stat bonuses have JUMPED, as has most of the number crunching. And now people have a concept of how much wealth a character should have at a certain level other than, "my DM gave me this." Back in 2nd ed you almost NEVER bought magical stuff, you got lucky when it was handed out, if you ever figured out it was magical.
Bards are close to the same though in fact it was the one class that translates almost directly from 2nd Ed. to 3.X. So it has been left behind in the power creep.
I point out that when clerics became full casters, bards which had 6 spell levels gained nothing (one less that the cleric's 7)
Clerics get domain powers
Rogues got sneak attack (MUCH MUCH MUCH better than backstabbing) and rogue talents
Fighters got their BAB, and load of feats and weapon and armor training
Wizards got bonus feats and cantrips and now new school powers.
Sorcerers came into being, and now have bloodlines.
Paladins have again come into their own back from the sad times of 3.0 and 3.5
Bards must spend 2 skill points to even USE their class features, which are mild at best.
Anyways the point of this rant is:
Take nothing from the bards, and keep adding to them, allow them to FINALLY benefit some from the power creep that they've been left out of since 2nd ed.
|
|
There was a show called The Pretender. The main character truly was a jack of all trades master of none. Maybe the bard can be moved in that direction. The ability to cram feats or skills?
Take that uber-popular 'choose a feat for the day' class ability of some PrC I don't remember and allow them to have a bank of free-floating skill points that they can allocate on the fly, and you've got a Bard like no other.
As much as I like the class, right now, there is no reason to play them. That is the problem, and that is what I want to fix.Virtually every design forum has had a line like this on several posts. Many of us are attached to our favorite classes and have a desire to polish the potential we see.
Unfortunately what we see is biased.
I think you've missed my point. The wider context is that, as it stands now, a well-built rogue/wizard can do anything a bard can do, only better. I'm not sitting here whining that the bard doesn't match up to the other classes in terms of power (though it doesn't). I'm pointing out that the ruleset gives a person very little reason (if any at all) to play a bard.
Jason and others have made it clear they want to fix errors and problems and would love to bring new possibilities to old parts of the game. But I think they want original possibilities. Not transplants of abilities from other classes.Looking at the changes made in the barbarian and paladin they focused on improving existing things.
I would also direct your attention to the Rogue, who got a wide host of new rogue talents, the Wizard and their shiny new school abilities, and the Cleric with their dramatically improved domains. This is on top of the fighter's weapon and armor familiarity, the barbarian's rage powers, and the sorcerer's bloodlines. There is precedent for the addition of new abilities.
There's plenty that PRPG has added to the mix. Nearly all of those additions are for the better. Bards seem to have been generally left out, though. A few extra bardic music abilities didn't really do much for them.
There was a show called The Pretender. The main character truly was a jack of all trades master of none. Maybe the bard can be moved in that direction. The ability to cram feats or skills?However it turns out the bard needs his or her own identity and not be a shallow reflection of the other classes.
I had thought about this as an option. The "pick a feat for a day" idea is alright, but when I considered it earlier I didn't feel it did enough. I don't think a feat dump would really alleviate any of the concerns about the bard.
What if we completely go the other direction? Instead of trying to balance a fill in everywhere jack of all trades, we redefine and rebuild a bard that is actually a recongized and unique class.
I would suggest changing up the spell list some to bring it in line with the new "bard" and give it a choice of different class abilities that are based on which performance style it wants:
Oratory:
Commands (typically buffs other party members that obey the commands)
could include
"Hold the Line" (gives a stability feature and bonus on AC if characters don't move)
"Rally" (heals characters at 1/2 total hp, and gives a bonus on attack and AC)
"For Honor and Glory" (gives a strength boost, temp HP and an additional bonus to hit and damage)
Jester:
Pranks (typically debuffs enemies, distracts them, helps make the vulnerable)
Goad (gives the enemy a boost to damage but also subtracts from to hit and ac)
Dancer:
Dances (typically enhance the bards own mobility and some move and attack routines)
Dance of Evasion
Lightning strike dance
Acting:
Disguises (hides details of the bard like nondetection and gives abilities of other classes at a reduced level as you "act" the role)
Singing:
As is.
The bard could have one type of performance at level 1 and gain more at higher levels that don't get the full benefits as if they had been taken at level 1. I would still divorce this from the perform skill though.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I guess a better way to phrase the question is: What are the changes that the Bard needs in order to do what you're suggesting?
Abraham had some good ideas, and Brother Willi has been putting out a lot of good things too, so I think those are some general steps in the right direction. A big thing that needs to go is the Perform skill - to be replaced by a skill that is actually useful for something other than the bard abilities. The need to take Perform effectively gives the bard 5 skill points instead of 6, which seems like an unnecessary punishment.
Note: I admit I was never too familiar with 2E, what has changed that you would like to see changed back?
The 2e bard was written up as a jack-of-all trades and did not make the performance aspect the core of the class. It was much more a bit of everything from the various classes - some spellcasting, a decent selection of weapons, and some rogue abilities. I'd like to see a little more fluff and rules dedicated to this bard build, and a little less shackling of the class to the minstrel archtype.
|
Not sure of some of the above statements:
Anything a bard can do, a wizard can do better?
with Song of the Heart (Eberron specific feat, but bear with me for a minute) and Inspirational Boost (Spell Compendium, Bard 1), a bard 3 can add +3 to hit, +3 to damage, +3 to will saves vs. fear. For the whole party. All day.
Add in "Melodic Casting" (Complete Mage) and you can cast spells, use scrolls, use wands, and the like, all the while keeping up that +3/+3 boost to the whole party (or any friendly NPC's that come along, or summoned monsters/animals, or cohorts/followers.
Now, thats 3 non-core solutions to the bard "problem" of not doing enough for the party, but why not have something like this in the new PF ruleset?
What sorc/wiz or cleric spell can touch that? +3 Morale bonus to hit/damage/will saves vs. fear for anyone who can hear you? Lasts at least 6 rounds at 3rd lvl (probably MUCH longer), costs 1 use of your 1st lvl spells and 1 use of your bardic musics, so it's kind of costly at this level, but it only gets better as you progress.
This also doesn't touch Inspire Greatness (free HP and MORE to hit bonus? ok) Song of Freedom (break enchantment for 1 minute of performance? yes please) and Inspire Heroics.
Now, I will grant you, a Core-Only bard is lacking significant buff power in comparison to the bard, but even then can fill in for others to free up their resources (spells/actions/etc) to do other stuff.
Lets get some more bard-boosts in the PF book, and he'll be good to go.
-t
Maybe add some marshall abbilities (from CMHB)
This could be musical or oratory ofcourse, even dance...whatever.
I really think when you make his abbilities a bitt more bard
fluff-like it should be cool and appropriate
What if we completely go the other direction? Instead of trying to balance a fill in everywhere jack of all trades, we redefine and rebuild a bard that is actually a recongized and unique class.
I would suggest changing up the spell list some to bring it in line with the new "bard" and give it a choice of different class abilities that are based on which performance style it wants ...
More unique class abilities would help alleviate the problem. It would also help fit the flavor of class progression similar to that of wizards and clerics. Bards can certainly use something to differentiate themselves past the type of perform they use.
I will stand by my call for a true jack-of-all trades, perhaps foolishly so. I think there were enough new support characters, from Dragon Shamans to Marshalls, pumped out in 3.5 that to push the bard in that direction would be to copy those abilities.
Should I be shouted down, I very much like your idea as an alternative. A Performance Bard who has different abilities than a Commanding Bard who has different abilities than a Jesting Bard would inject some life and some choices into class. And those abilities would help those of us who don't want to play a musician do something more --dynamic-- with our characters.
|
|
Abraham had some good ideas, and Brother Willi has been putting out a lot of good things too, so I think those are some general steps in the right direction. A big thing that needs to go is the Perform skill - to be replaced by a skill that is actually useful for something other than the bard abilities. The need to take Perform effectively gives the bard 5 skill points instead of 6, which seems like an unnecessary punishment.
The 2e bard was written up as a jack-of-all trades and did not make the performance aspect the core of the class. It was much more a bit of everything from the various classes - some spellcasting, a decent selection of weapons, and some rogue abilities. I'd like to see a little more fluff and rules dedicated to this bard build, and a little less shackling of the class to the minstrel archtype.
OK, I can see that. Perform as a skill is practically useless, except for Bards, who need it. Also, the Perform requirements for Bardic Music sort of seems tacked-on; it's not necessarily for the ability to make sense, couldn't the Bard just have great inspirational abilities, not necessarily tied to a skill?
As for their spellcasting/melee combat, what should be added? What if we added more buffs to the Bard's spell list so that the Bard can buff himself in order to fight better? The weapon selection is not too bad, at least the Bard can use a longsword. It'd be nice if he could use a longbow as well though...
I think we may be wandering a little far off topic. We're not likely to see major changes to the bardic music abilities. No doubt they'll be tinkered with, but retroactive compatability will keep them there.
The question is, as we try to compensate for power creep by making the bard more powerful, what do we add?
Do we add even more to the already vast array of music and performance based options, miring the bard in this single archetype? Or do we strengthen it's other, neglected archetype, the jack of all trades master of none?
I say the musicians have enough goodies already. Let jack out to play! Brotherwilli has proposed a good raw mechanic here. If making the bard a better generalist is too hard, let him choose from a list that to emphasize one quality or another. It's very much in keeping with the way other class features work (rogue talents, monk bonus feats, all the options the ranger gets, etc). I'm sure in the final version, there will even be choices that boost bardic music.
Surely everyone can agree on that?
I think the Jack needs to be upped some, I'm just saying lets take the generic out of the bardic music...
Lightning to the Brain!
Ok, ok here we go!
The Bard at level one chooses two types of performance, from these he gains a list of abilities at different levels, but instead of spelling them out like they are done now we do this like the domains listings!
Please note I'm not saying give the bard domains I'm saying he chooses "X" number of performance types and gains abilities per level as the domains do.
Singing Performance
Countersong
Fasinate
Suggestion
[etc.]
Dancing Performance
Defensive Dance -- + 1 to bard's AC per 4 levels must make a move action to keep dancing this can be actual movement or just dancing in place but the move action must be spent
Darting Dance -- something a bit like spring attack but with extra attacks at say level 8 and level 17
Dance of the Wind -- concealment percentage sort of stuff
Oratory Performance
Inspire Courage
Hold the Line
Charge!
[Etc.]
Miming Performance
Mimic -- a grab bag of one use of another class's ability at 1/2 effectiveness
Choose spell from another's spell list
[something else]
Jester Performance
Goad
Befuddle with Riddle
Suprise Bomb in flowers
[other ideas]
this way every bard can be different based on his performance choices but we can keep the word count low too. The jack of all trades should still be improved with this but I think these ideas in concert could take the bard all the way WITHOUT overdoing a power creep, or making a run on the bard bank so to speak.
Ok, can I make a suggestion? Having re-read this based on your request, I don't think all of this dilettante stuff is bad. In fact, some of it, including rogue talents seems good. Why don't you start a new thread suggesting these Dilettante talents, without the "not a musician" component, discussing how something like this could be incorporated into the existing class instead of as a nonperforming variant? That might be a nice way to keep on track and keep from alienating other posters.