No, I don't think Profession has entered intoi the discussion, nor does it belong here. It's a question of Bards, as a class, having a mandatory skill expendature in the Perform Skill to access thier Bardic Performance class abilties, period.
There was a comment, by somebody, about Profession and Craft being essentially the same thing - and in that same post the comment was made that Perform should be a Craft skill - I meant my comments, regarding Profession, in that light and not against the part you replied to... But, that aside even... Let's face it, we're talking about ONE FREAKING SKILL POINT PER LEVEL! Each Bardic ability that is mentioned in the beta text mentions at X level the bard has to have X number of ranks in the Perform skill...
Rogues can still locate traps with no ranks it Search, they're just crappy at it. Plus, as written, a Bard must keep his Perform skill maxed out to gain the Bardic Performances as he levels, essentially robbing from other skills that he could have to make a more well rounded character, or simply allow him to ride or swim, for example.
Plus, expenditure of skill points on Perform never enter into a skill check scenario. Sure, the party might want the Bard to perform to earn a few coins, but a Fighter with Perfom could do the same thing. What then makes a Bard special at perfoming? Nothing.
What makes a Bard special at performing is what they can do with their performance that NO ONE else can! All of those bardic abilities ARE what they can do with their performance that is special!
And it absolutely makes sense that they would need a check to do this... Let's face it, anyone can belt out a song in the shower... Heck, I could sing like that with my friends before we go out to play football against some "rivals" from the next block over... But I promise you I won't be inspiring nothing but a beat down - on me, to get me to shut the heck up! A bard can use their performance, and by using the skill and actually performing well, to do a ranger of things - all lined out in their class abilities. The skill check is there because even a talented singer/musician/performer can screw up and blow it!
And let's not blow this out of proportion either... We're talking about a single skill point per level in "a perform skill." So at best you're taking ONE POINT away from the Bard. Bards aren't Wizards who learn to recite arcane chants and phrases, or Sorcerers who have an innate ability to channel supernatural arcane power, or Druids who whisper to the spirits of the world around them to gain and cast spells, nor are they Clerics whose prayers summon divine magic... They learn to cast magic through their performance, through their song, dance, music. It's what they do. Also, it's important to note that ONLY these rare special abilities that they can do with their talents actually require a Perform check. There's nothing in their spellcasting write-up that says they need to do it cast their daily allotment of spells (other than that they're casting them through song, music, etc). And, with their Bardic Knowledge ability granting them additional ranks in a Knowledge skill, and applying 1/2 their level to all knowledge skill checks they more than make up for the ONE POINT PER LEVEL requirement to keep pace with the required number of ranks to perform specified bardic abilities.
Those skill rank requirements are there to show that a certain level of proficiency is required to perform at a high enough caliber to be able to do that kind of awesome feat.
One skill point, if you want 2/3 of your class abilities.
If you want the rest that's another skill point.
The way I see, it, you pay in skill points the privilege to have higher DCs on your abilities rather than with feats. My reasoning does not go much further than that however.
I also see the bard as a 4 skill points per level class, plus a bonus 2 skill point per level to develop those otherwise "unnattractive" perform skills that bards should have in order to keep-up with the entertainer concept. Again, this theory goes down to hell as soon as you want to play a bard that isn't an entertainer, but my mind isn't set about whether or not the class should support that.
All the other concepts played around the bard that I can think of would still benefit from some perform skills, if only to be a good ballroom dancer, political orator, romantic poet, witty repartee etc.
'findel
The way I see, it, you pay in skill points the privilege to have higher DCs on your abilities rather than with feats. My reasoning does not go much further than that however.
I also see the bard as a 4 skill points per level class, plus a bonus 2 skill point per level to develop those otherwise "unnattractive" perform skills that bards should have in order to keep-up with the entertainer concept. Again, this theory goes down to hell as soon as you want to play a bard that isn't an entertainer, but my mind isn't set about whether or not the class should support that.
All the other concepts played around the bard that I can think of would still benefit from some perform skills, if only to be a good ballroom dancer, political orator, romantic poet, witty repartee etc.
'findel
And giving them the additional skill point in the Knowledge skill(s) (along with a half-class-level bonus to other Knowledge checks) more than balances this out... It's assigning two skill points, one to one of two perform skills, automatically, much the way this knowledge skill bonus works. If they were to rewrite the class as a 4 skill point class and write in the skill point as a bonus to two different perform skills it'd be no more or less a problem in terms of balancing the class... But it would (or should) render this entire argument moot if that were done... Perhaps it'd be best to just do that.
The way I see, it, you pay in skill points the privilege to have higher DCs on your abilities rather than with feats. My reasoning does not go much further than that however.
'findel
Just realized how unproductive this post was.
Yet, having bardic music be based on a skill DOES give the bard much better ability DCs than what would otherwise be 10 plus 1/2 level plus Cha bonus (to stay consistent with other extraordinary and supernatural abilities).
That should be something the bard should be grateful for, even if that costs him a significant amount of skill points?
Perhaps bardic music abilities should have no skill prerequisite, have a DC of 10 + 1/2 level + Cha but include:
"the bard may substitute the "insert bardic music ability" DC with a Perform check, where the result becomes the new DC for the target's Will save."
'findel
The bardic music in beta uses DC 10 + 1/2 class level + cha mod. Performance skills do nothing for the bard but unlock class abilities.
AND most of these performances are just complicated rewrites of spells everyone else have been casting for levels by the time the bard can use them.
The bardic music in beta uses DC 10 + 1/2 class level + cha mod. Performance skills do nothing for the bard but unlock class abilities.
AND most of these performances are just complicated rewrites of spells everyone else have been casting for levels by the time the bard can use them.
really? hum, now I understand better your frustration about the bardic music ability... it is indeed somewhat disappointing.
'findel
The bardic music in beta uses DC 10 + 1/2 class level + cha mod. Performance skills do nothing for the bard but unlock class abilities.
AND most of these performances are just complicated rewrites of spells everyone else have been casting for levels by the time the bard can use them.
really? hum, now I understand better your frustration about the bardic music ability... it is indeed somewhat disappointing.
'findel
Yeah it's not that the bard isn't a great thought or doesn't have great flavor or them million and one other nice things about them...
It's that mechanically they don't mesh in well. The abilities are too late (soothing performance, mass suggestion), too expensive skillwise, impossible to get off (fascinate I'm looking at you!) allow extra save throws (suggestion I'm looking at you), near useless in an actual battle (song of freedom, with it's 1 minute casting time), or just don't offer enough bang (most of the inspiration line).
I love the bard, I think it was great that it was continued, I just wish it was stepped up more into something good. It's almost there a few minor adjustments almost all my issues would go away like so much smoke.
I love the bard too.
The main reason I didn't get involve sooner in this thread is that I (somewhat) long ago made a version of the bard I was satisfied with. Its a far stretch from the Pathfinder version, but here it is if it can inspire any ideas...
Of the bardic music abilities, I kept only the Inspire courage, Inspire Competence, Inspire Greatness and Inspire Heroics (I later added Inspire Epics when I got the capstone ability idea from Paizo). These abilities were re-spread in a more linear and consistent progression (and Inspire Courage when up to +5)
Then, the bard has to choose a college (yeah, those seven from 1st ed) which acts similarly to a cleric domain. Those college grant spell-like abilities that the bard triggers with uses of bardic music. The bard get a new spell-like abilities at every level at which he can cast spells of a new level (he gains a spell-like ability equivalent to a 1st level spell at 2nd level when he can cast 1st level spells etc.)
the "typical" bard get enthrall as his 2nd bard level spell-like ability, suggestion at 4th level, deep slumber at 7th modify memory at 10th level, mass suggestion at 13th level and mass charm monster at 16th level.
Another college would grant a different selection of spell-like abilities and sometimes the option to get spells from a different spell list (to emulate the druid-magic casting bards of 1st ed and the mage-wannabe dabblers of 2nd ed).
I added songs of power at one point, which are slow to cast but give a little something that is outside the spell repertoire of the typical bard.
But I did leave spell DCs be regulated by the bard's perform check, which seems to be the only advantage to have bardic music abilities rather that simply casting the spell...
'findel
Laurefindel where have you been all my life!
That's beautiful, and exactly the way I was trying (rather unsuccessfully I think) to steer things!
Creative Director
|
I'm almost come round to the point where I'd like to see the bard's bonuses turn into untyped bonuses that stack with everything (except, perhaps, with other bards, since that could get crazy fast). This keeps these bonuses in the game no matter what else is going on, and keeps the bard in the game as a result.
In any case, I'd LOVE to not have the bard bonuses be morale bonuses. Since that means that undead bards can't bolster their allies, and the concept of a Dracula-type playing a scary pipe organ to power up his ghosts and ghouls is neat.
I'd LOVE to not have the bard bonuses be morale bonuses. Since that means that undead bards can't bolster their allies
Yeah, that's the only issue I have with bardic inspiration being a morale bonus, personally. There are spells that make one immune to mental effects, too, which also make you "immune" to morale bonuses (as silly as that is). I don't know that untyped is the best choice, though. Morale fits the best, it just has that baggage of being a mental effect and thus there's a whole host of things that are immune to morale bonuses whether they want to be or not.
Perhaps a new 'performance' bonus?...or 'ínspiration bonus'. I suggested that like...3 weeks and four threads ago!
lol
Maybe I need to make my posts shorter so people will read them.
Calling all those "inspire something" bonuses 'inspiration bonuses' means that they'd stack with morale bonuses from other sources, but not with other Bards, because it'd be a similar name, thus sticking to already written rules.
:)
I'd definitively would like to see all Inspire abilities stack with each other, or better still, them being one single ability that get better as the bard gains level.
[…]or better still, them being one single ability that get better as the bard gains level.They really are anyway, aren't they. One Bardic Performance that you choose different functions of would make total sense. Call it Inspire and the first function it offers is Competence.
Something to think about....
Technically, the first Inspire ability is Inspire Courage, which does scale with levels. But I wish that Inspire Competence, Inspire Greatness and Inspire Heroics would just add their bonuses to Inspire Courage, and thus be used all together as one bardic music ability.
'findel
|
This issue has come up a lot on the boards; the alleged "skill tax" on the Bard's class abilities. Having used the options from the Pathfinder Companion Gazetteer recently in play-test, I think the solution could be as easy as the one used by the replacement for the PF Ranger's Track ability; a Perform bonus that automatically scales as the player advances. Consider a Bardic Performance specialty for a first level ability. If a player uses other Perform skills, that is his option. But a free perform skill that advances costs the Bard nothing in skill points, and balances out the issue.
Just my thoughts.
And good thoughts too. That particular suggestion has come up multiple times from multiple people.
Makes me think it might be a good one! ;D
I'm almost come round to the point where I'd like to see the bard's bonuses turn into untyped bonuses that stack with everything (except, perhaps, with other bards, since that could get crazy fast).
PFRPG Beta p.156 -
Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves.This is a slight simplification of the 3.5 text, which to my surprise was also spell-specific... change this to start with "Spells and abilities" and append ", even if they originate from different sources." Bardic music can now safely be untyped. Doesn't hurt to put reminder text in the actual ability, of course.
This is another thread where I only read the first and last pages, so I don't know if it was directly addressed, but I have to say that even though it's a pretty big mechanical shift, I REALLY like cliff's take on making Bardic Performance a class feature which allows supernatural application of other skills, possibly including but entirely decoupled from the Perform skill (which could then reasonably be merged with Profession, but that's irrelevant). Barbarian and rogue both get a big selection of new options, work it the same way: a list of skill tricks, possibly one for every skill (even non-class?) or favoring a shorter list, but either way, make those skill ranks really count for something. No reason to restrict the level at which each trick can be selected if the results are based on a check (or even straight ranks). These would be activated with the Bardic Performance uses-per-day pool.
I would then decouple the entire Inspire line from the bardic performances, and make it work basically like a marshal's auras: always on while you're conscious, affects any ally who can perceive you, doesn't deplete Bardic Performance uses but might take an action to switch modes. In addition to letting you use your Performance pool for interesting things instead of bread&butter, this will also let the low-level bard cast spells without worrying about combat running long and Inspire running out because you interrupted it for Grease.
|
In the same way knock or find traps had a tendency to downplay the rougeTo add nothing to this thread..
I am still trying to figure out how Find Traps and Knock spells downplay a cosmetic...
;-)
That misspelling is always fun to make fun of...
To add less than nothing to this thread..
I've almost gotten to the point where I think pathfinder should just beat-up the Neverwinter Nights 2 bard and take its stuff. In playtesting with my group, a player talked the DM into allowing it as an alternative to the PF bard and it has worked out amazingly well.
You know, I just realized something that's been bugging me...
The Bard has several glaring issues that deserve to be fixed:
B) Bard is the only class whose class abilities require a skill point expenditure.
It's the only core class, yes. However, the Battledancer, Sha'ir (both from Dragon Compendium), Archivist (Heroes of Horror; also available free online from WotC), and Truenamer (Tome of Magic) all also require skill checks to use their class abilities. There may be more - those are just the ones I thought of right away when I made the Sha'ir connection for a character I'm working on for Legacy of Fire.
And, while the Truenamer is a lousy class (who was the brilliant mind behind the DCs for Truenaming?), the other three are all quite adequate even with being forced to take certain skills to use everything the class makes available to you. Thus I conclude that there's nothing inherently wrong with class abilities being tied to class skills.
I've almost gotten to the point where I think pathfinder should just beat-up the Neverwinter Nights 2 bard and take its stuff. In playtesting with my group, a player talked the DM into allowing it as an alternative to the PF bard and it has worked out amazingly well.
what stuff is that?
I'm not familiar with all the non-core classes you mentioned, but I assume that they're set up where the skill is the engine for the class ability power. A skill roll activates the power or is factored into the the class abilities use, in other words. Well, that's not a "skill tax" but is a class ability mechanic tied to skill use.
Battledancers work exactly like bards; their dances require X (required level +3, in 3.5) ranks in Acrobatics.
As well, I'd hardly call "you must make a Diplomacy check every time you want to memorize a spell" "not a skill tax". Both Sha'ir and Truenamers have that little doozy (except with Truenamers it's the Truenaming skill, which has no other uses, and the DC for EVERY Truenaming check is 15 + 2*HD ...). Neither Sha'irs nor Truenamers get significant class features aside from their spellcasting/truenaming.
Thirdly, your positions is not the same as the position I was quoting. The original poster makes the claim that only Bards require points invested in pre-defined skills in order to use their class features. This is a false statement.
|
|
Thirdly, your positions is not the same as the position I was quoting. The original poster makes the claim that only Bards require points invested in pre-defined skills in order to use their class features. This is a false statement.
And you feel deep in the depths of your soul a need to win a small and pointless victory about semantics? Unless the person you quoted seeks to clarify their comment, I think we can safely assume that they were referring to core-only classes in the Pathfinder system rather than all splatbooks ever printed.
--Putting the Dick back in Diction
And you feel deep in the depths of your soul a need to win a small and pointless victory about semantics?
It is neither pointless nor about semantics. There ARE other classes (that don't suck) in the game that rely on pre-defined skills to function. That undermines one of the five pillars this entire "bards suck" debate is based on.
It is neither pointless nor about semantics. There ARE other classes (that don't suck) in the game that rely on pre-defined skills to function. That undermines one of the five pillars this entire "bards suck" debate is based on.
With one exception, those classes actually USE the skill in question; and the one that doesn't is based on one of the most mechanically useful skills in the game, as opposed to... Perform.
"Bards suck" hardly rests on the four and a half "pillars" posted by Mattastrophic. That bards suck is assumed prima facie in this thread, and not debated; the point is to figure out why, and how to fix them. If you would like to argue that bards do not suck, this is really the wrong place.
It is neither pointless nor about semantics. There ARE other classes (that don't suck) in the game that rely on pre-defined skills to function. That undermines one of the five pillars this entire "bards suck" debate is based on.With one exception, those classes actually USE the skill in question; and the one that doesn't is based on one of the most mechanically useful skills in the game, as opposed to... Perform.
"Bards suck" hardly rests on the four and a half "pillars" posted by Mattastrophic. That bards suck is assumed prima facie in this thread, and not debated; the point is to figure out why, and how to fix them. If you would like to argue that bards do not suck, this is really the wrong place.
the argument everyone is trying to make, at least those thay say bards suck, is that the bard as a class is dependant on this skill called perform, to do its thing, however their thing, can easily be overshadowed by spell casters, in which case the spells thme selves do a better job at what the bard is supposed to be specialized in, and even a good number of these spells are on the bards spell list!
So the bard is tied to this one skill, that is, in fact, little more than just that, a skill.Bards need to either be given more abilities, talents, colleges or what not, or the bard perform platform, needs a boost.
With one exception, those classes actually USE the skill in question; and the one that doesn't is based on one of the most mechanically useful skills in the game, as opposed to... Perform.
Question for you:
What is the actual difference between "USING" the skill, as a Sha'ir does for example (making a variable DC Diplomacy check based on the level and arcane/divine status of the spell he wishes to retrieve), and a Bard using Perform?Answer:
The Bard automatically passes his skill check.
That's really what it comes down to. You're saying that it's BETTER to be forced to rely on randomization to use your skills? I assure you, anyone that plays a Sha'ir is going to be maximizing their Diplomacy. Failing to retrieve a spell is not an option when it takes up to 15 hours to do (for a 9th level divine spell) and makes all subsequent checks harder. So, then, both the Sha'ir and the Bard are forced to maximize a skill to take advantage of their main class feature. The Bard automatically gets to use his as long as his ranks are maximized. The Sha'ir has to actually make the rolls, which (especially at low levels) are decidedly non-trivial. Also, time consuming.
Ah, I see. This thread is only for people who agree with everything you say. Right-o, then.
Ah, I see. This thread is only for people who agree with everything you say. Right-o, then.
So you are saying the bard is perfectly viable class that can hold its own and be just as useful as the others?
Ah, I see. This thread is only for people who agree with everything you say. Right-o, then.So you are saying the bard is perfectly viable class that can hold its own and be just as useful as the others?
*I* would say that.
While far more useful in a larger party, even in a small one (<4 PCs) they are good for handling multiple aspects.
They heal, charm, buff, fight okay, blast a bit, buff, teleport, trick, confuse, and buff. They actually get more spells known per level than a sorcerer does (perhaps not with bloodlines included) if not as many per day.
This gets to the extreme of situations, but I know my epic party was either A) Struggling through encounters without a bard, or B) Blowing away encounters with the bard (adding over +10 to attack and damage, and nearly that to AC and saves).
They (generally) do not brawl well. They do not help much in brief (1-3 round) encounters. They're not much for tanking, though they're hp did just go up.
I've seen one bard make a *sufficient* replacement for both a cleric and wizard in a mid level party (12-18th level). And all that was 3.5 - now they paralyze, kill, heal better, know things better... I *desperately* want to see one played.
Bards, as a class, do not suck. Poor circumstances can hurt them, as they can any class.
About the only thing I really see them needing is a painstakingly spelled out notice that you *DO NOT* need to use a standard action to keep bardic music going. Too many people get that confused. That and maybe the ability to use a standard action to add another performance, and keep both going at once.
|
|
Here's my thoughts on the matter...
[snip]
Giving the bard get 8 skill points/level seems like the most graceful fix. Or perhaps a system of "Virtual" perform skills (every 5 levels or so, he gets to add a new performance type to his main perform skill, so at 15th level, a bard would be equally good at song, dance, oratory, and wind instruments, for example).
[snip]
That's a good question. They should have Intimidate as a class skill. Anyone who thinks bards can't be intimidating hasn't seen a rock star run amok in public or a reporter subtly use his wits to infer great harm on a politician.
I agree with you James. Please check out this thread for suggestions along these lines.
D) What I saw done in a MUD I used to play back in the day is that at certain levels the Bard class could stack two perform abilities into one, so they could do multiple things with one song/dance/act. It increased every 5 levels to a maximum of 5 bardic effects going by level 20 with a single standard action. Only things that involve the same Perform type could be stacked this way into a single performance. It was called Doublesong, Triplesong, Quartet and MasterSong in the game, though I am sure we can think of better names ^_^
|
|
Neat concept DeathCon.
In all my 3.5 games, I used something somewhat similar: if one reads the fine print of the instrument section of "Complete Adventurer", one realizes that this book allowed a bard with a masterwork lute, violin, drum, etc. (i.e. any instrument that requires both hands) to activate both a bardic music effect and a spell in the same round (i.e. bardic effect standard, and the two-handedness of the instrument allowed the bard to then cast a spell as a swift action; i.e. "as part of the bardic performance," which I ruled to mean "swift action")
Various instruments also allowed various amounts of bardic music effects per round... but I never used that rule, instead relying on the 'Harmonize' and 'Harmonize, Greater' spells from "Races of Stone."
Melodic Casting or Captivating Melody feat from "Complete Mage" or "Complete Scoundrel" also allowed some short-cutting of the spell casting process, and using Perform instead of Concentration... which was nice... and fitting, for a bard!
Ah, I see. This thread is only for people who agree with everything you say. Right-o, then.So you are saying the bard is perfectly viable class that can hold its own and be just as useful as the others?
Yes.
|
|
You are the greatest comedian in the world.Yes.Ah, I see. This thread is only for people who agree with everything you say. Right-o, then.So you are saying the bard is perfectly viable class that can hold its own and be just as useful as the others?
I'll have to agree on that one... (imagine a party of 4 bards bumping over each other in a dungeon... I hope they fascinate everything they meet, rock band style, and keep walking towards the boss... assuming there's no traps of course... :P)
and no combat.
A party of 4 fighters, rogues, barbarians, monks, rangers, or paladins would be similarly useless. And, at low levels, a party of 4 wizards or sorcerers would be useless as well. So, apparently, a class isn't viable if it's not a cleric or druid.
Or you could realize the game isn't designed around having a party composed entirely of one class and not have this phantom problem. Bards are excellent replacements for rogues (in modern adventures, the danger of traps is overrated - check the Pathfinder APs, for example. Rise of the Runelords has about 10 traps in 6 modules, and 6 of those are in one single location in PF3. Curse of the Crimson Throne and The Second Darkness are very similar. The party I DM in RotRL went through the whole AP with no rogues to disarm traps and never lost a party member to traps.). They easily fill the "skill monkey" slot, enhance the whole party's damage output, and can provide backup buff, heal, and debuff spellcasting.
They can't do much in the way of damage through spells ... but damage-dealing spells are pretty suboptimal anyway. Bards are just fine at melee damage if you know what you're doing, especially with the d8 HD from Pathfinder. They're no more fragile than rogues and, while they don't get sneak attack, they do hit more often and their bonus damage always applies. Bard archers are also perfectly viable.
So, yes, I think the Bard is a viable party member as things stand. I've played more Bards than I've played any other single class, and I've never felt useless - and that was using the 3.5 Bard. PF Bards are much better.