Well i think there should be one basic Class wich should fit into any roleplaying role you can think of.
Since Dnd 3.0 the bard has a unique Class Feature - his music. Its the sadest thing about that Class, becuase its negating roleplaying possibilities. I'll explain why:
There are lots of extremly specialized Classes & Prestigeclasses in Dnd, well most of them unplayable because they are too specific.
For me, roleplaying is about this: i think of my character, what is he supposed to be what i want to play in the next campain, and then i go and create my character.
As the ultimate versatile character, you should be able to build this character using the Bard class, cause there is no versatile class with some spellcasting at all. For me thats what the Bard is supposed to be.
We have the opposite of that: You play a Bard, then you are supposed to act like this.... play music during battle...
What the hell is that for? I dont want to be a Troubadix "#!?~@" I want to play exactly the role i want to play, and because the Bard(Jack of all Trades, master of none) should do that job. And no more.
Maybe there are some people who think it was a good idea to give something unique to the Bard, i'm not. For me it makes the Class nonsense.
I think there are lots of people who want a class where they can build whatever character they want, sure there will be specialist who can do things better, but maybe there is that specific Prestige Class missing for the role i think of. (Try to play a group healer in a stealthy Rogue Campain)
|
Well i think there should be one basic Class wich should fit into any roleplaying role you can think of.
Since Dnd 3.0 the bard has a unique Class Feature - his music. Its the sadest thing about that Class, becuase its negating roleplaying possibilities. I'll explain why:
There are lots of extremly specialized Classes & Prestigeclasses in Dnd, well most of them unplayable because they are too specific.
For me, roleplaying is about this: i think of my character, what is he supposed to be what i want to play in the next campain, and then i go and create my character.
As the ultimate versatile character, you should be able to build this character using the Bard class, cause there is no versatile class with some spellcasting at all. For me thats what the Bard is supposed to be.
We have the opposite of that: You play a Bard, then you are supposed to act like this.... play music during battle...
What the hell is that for? I dont want to be a Troubadix "#!?~@" I want to play exactly the role i want to play, and because the Bard(Jack of all Trades, master of none) should do that job. And no more.
Maybe there are some people who think it was a good idea to give something unique to the Bard, i'm not. For me it makes the Class nonsense.
I think there are lots of people who want a class where they can build whatever character they want, sure there will be specialist who can do things better, but maybe there is that specific Prestige Class missing for the role i think of. (Try to play a group healer in a stealthy Rogue Campain)
Pfft when I role play bard it's never perform sing but perform Oratory or Perform "orders" rather. I give suggestions on how to defeat monsters or battlefield tactics...
I believe the term is "pigeonholing"
Well, with a lot of players getting rid of 3rd books for 4e books, I'm sure you can find a Dungeonscape second hand for pretty cheap. Then you can call your factotum a bard and call it a day, and we can all be happy. Hooray!
Well i think there should be one basic Class wich should fit into any roleplaying role you can think of.
Since Dnd 3.0 the bard has a unique Class Feature - his music. Its the sadest thing about that Class, becuase its negating roleplaying possibilities. I'll explain why:
There are lots of extremly specialized Classes & Prestigeclasses in Dnd, well most of them unplayable because they are too specific.
For me, roleplaying is about this: i think of my character, what is he supposed to be what i want to play in the next campain, and then i go and create my character.
As the ultimate versatile character, you should be able to build this character using the Bard class, cause there is no versatile class with some spellcasting at all. For me thats what the Bard is supposed to be.
We have the opposite of that: You play a Bard, then you are supposed to act like this.... play music during battle...
What the hell is that for? I dont want to be a Troubadix "#!?~@" I want to play exactly the role i want to play, and because the Bard(Jack of all Trades, master of none) should do that job. And no more.
Maybe there are some people who think it was a good idea to give something unique to the Bard, i'm not. For me it makes the Class nonsense.
I think there are lots of people who want a class where they can build whatever character they want, sure there will be specialist who can do things better, but maybe there is that specific Prestige Class missing for the role i think of. (Try to play a group healer in a stealthy Rogue Campain)
Uh...I'm pretty sure that you can use any Perform skill for bardic abilities. Use a weapon drill (introduced in CWar) if you want.
Otherwise, play a factotum or chameleon. The bard performs. Jason has already said that he's not going to give in to the whiners who are squalling about the 2e (crap) bard. I've already demonstrated how a "Jack of All Trades" is just an arcane trickster, so, really, you need to get over it.
Otherwise, play a factotum or chameleon. The bard performs. Jason has already said that he's not going to give in to the whiners who are squalling about the 2e (crap) bard. I've already demonstrated how a "Jack of All Trades" is just an arcane trickster, so, really, you need to get over it.
What if only core is available? Doesn't exactly lend itself to factotum or chameleon does it?
When did Jason say that? Becuase I can't find it, at all.
You've demonstrated no such thing. You've shown how one can be a jack of all trades with an arcane trickster bent, but I can do likewise with no magic at all. It's call a ranger/rogue, or just straight rogue.
The Bard is a Generalist. It's right there in his discription, it's in history, it's all over him maybe you need to get over the fact that music isn't the only thing the bard is all about?
If the feature is going to be his defining feature lets make it good then.
Why is that such a problem?
No offense, but who gives a damn what a bard did in 1e/2e? That history excuse is wearing thin.
And yes, generalist is in its description. You know what's in a lot more of it's description? Perform.
Nobody's saying music is all there is to a bard. Be a nonmusical performer. Who cares? But it is part of the bard, and these nonperforming ideas are stupid because said character would not be a bard.
And who said they had a problem with making it's defining feature better? That's a separate discussion.
so I'm at a lose then... why this conversation again then?
My main issue about the history was that the mythical and fictional figures that this class seems to be based off of to me are also jacks of all trades and capable beyond the music.
Beyond all that I just want a better bard though whichever way that goes.
I fail to see why, with 6+int skill points, the bard fails to be a "jack-of-all-trades" character. Especially with the expansive class skills list he gets.
1. Let's be honest it's 7 skill points a level. Even I can admit that.
2. If the bard wants some of his performance features he must spend at least 1 skill point every level to get them leaving him with 6 skill points again
3. If he wants the rest of his performance features he must spend another skill point on a different performance skill leaving him with 5 skill points a level, which is less than the ranger, and only 1 ahead of the Barbarian, Druid, and Monk.
4. The wizard is going to have as many if not more skill points as a bard becuase he has every reason to sink an 18 (20 after modifiers) into Intelligence.
5. The bard is as MAD as anyone else is, and must stay within 30 ft of everything if he wants his performances to be effective, meaning more needs to be spent on survival, and less on more skill points.
Having said that I'll grant there isn't much hope for the wizard situation -- that's just the way it's going to be. Beyond that there is at least one thread that goes into this issue already (fyi only, nothing else).
I left off things like the human extra skill point, favored class skill points, and having at least a 12 Int becuase those are across the board things -- they affect all classes equally, so it's a draw on them.
***************New thought disclaimer*****************8
I think it's a little disengiuous to say that the bard is all about his music (performance whatever), and then charge him in skill points to access those abilities, when no one else has such a problem.
And don't say, "It's unique" as in my eyes that like saying you should be happy having multiple scurosis becuase "It's unique" (granted the disease is a bit more extreme of a case). You're unique becuase your getting jipped?
Also the ranger and rogue get their class features regardless, and can use them regardless of skills taken (a ranger will still be proficient at tracking without survival... he just won't measure up to other rangers).
|
|
1. Let's be honest it's 7 skill points a level. Even I can admit that.
2. If the bard wants some of his performance features he must spend at least 1 skill point every level to get them leaving him with 6 skill points again
3. If he wants the rest of his performance features he must spend another skill point on a different performance skill leaving him with 5 skill points a level, which is less than the ranger, and only 1 ahead of the Barbarian, Druid, and Monk.
4. The wizard is going to have as many if not more skill points as a bard becuase he has every reason to sink an 18 (20 after modifiers) into Intelligence.
5. The bard is as MAD as anyone else is, and must stay within 30 ft of everything if he wants his performances to be effective, meaning more needs to be spent on survival, and less on more skill points.
Having said that I'll grant there isn't much hope for the wizard situation -- that's just the way it's going to be. Beyond that there is at least one thread that goes into this issue already (fyi only, nothing else).
I left off things like the human extra skill point, favored class skill points, and having at least a 12 Int becuase those are across the board things -- they affect all classes equally, so it's a draw on them.
***************New thought disclaimer*****************8
I think it's a little disengiuous to say that the bard is all about his music (performance whatever), and then charge him in skill points to access those abilities, when no one else has such a problem.
And don't say, "It's unique" as in my eyes that like saying you should be happy having multiple scurosis becuase "It's unique" (granted the disease is a bit more extreme of a case). You're unique becuase your getting jipped?
Also the ranger and rogue get their class features regardless, and can use them regardless of skills taken (a ranger will still be proficient at tracking without survival... he just won't measure up to other rangers).
Actually you meant Bard gets 5 skill points per level as they start with 6 skill points per level but have to spend 1 skill point per level on perform.
Nope I mean seven then back down to five.
Bardic knowledge gives an extra skill point, and if you want all your class abilities you are buying 2 perform skills per level.
6 (skill points per level) + 1 (bardic knowledge) - 1 (first perform skill) - 1 (second perform skill) = 5
Now if the bard wants to skip class features then yes he gets an extra 1 or 2 (depending on how much of his features he's willing to give up) skill points back.
so I'm at a lose then... why this conversation again then?
My main issue about the history was that the mythical and fictional figures that this class seems to be based off of to me are also jacks of all trades and capable beyond the music.
Beyond all that I just want a better bard though whichever way that goes.
Well, see, when I think mythical and fictional history of the bard, I think knowledge and performance. This jack-of-all trades stuff is cool, but pretty recent.
What the argument is about is that some people, namely the OP, want the bard to be a surrogate for a classless system, and the rest of us do not .
I agree. the bard could use a little bit of a boost (though not the drastic rewrite some people want. It's not broken). The discussions mostly seem to be about how to boost them.
1. Let's be honest it's 7 skill points a level. Even I can admit that.
2. If the bard wants some of his performance features he must spend at least 1 skill point every level to get them leaving him with 6 skill points again
3. If he wants the rest of his performance features he must spend another skill point on a different performance skill leaving him with 5 skill points a level, which is less than the ranger, and only 1 ahead of the Barbarian, Druid, and Monk.
4. The wizard is going to have as many if not more skill points as a bard becuase he has every reason to sink an 18 (20 after modifiers) into Intelligence.
5. The bard is as MAD as anyone else is, and must stay within 30 ft of everything if he wants his performances to be effective, meaning more needs to be spent on survival, and less on more skill points.
Having said that I'll grant there isn't much hope for the wizard situation -- that's just the way it's going to be. Beyond that there is at least one thread that goes into this issue already (fyi only, nothing else).
I left off things like the human extra skill point, favored class skill points, and having at least a 12 Int becuase those are across the board things -- they affect all classes equally, so it's a draw on them.
***************New thought disclaimer*****************8
I think it's a little disengiuous to say that the bard is all about his music (performance whatever), and then charge him in skill points to access those abilities, when no one else has such a problem.
And don't say, "It's unique" as in my eyes that like saying you should be happy having multiple scurosis becuase "It's unique" (granted the disease is a bit more extreme of a case). You're unique becuase your getting jipped?
Also the ranger and rogue get their class features regardless, and can use them regardless of skills taken (a ranger will still be proficient at tracking without survival... he just won't measure up to other rangers).
Gah.. A realisticially built, not optimised bard, lined up next to a full set of realistic and non-optimised companions will find that he is likely the best all-rounder. They are generalists. Only rogues even come close to challanging there skills levels, they get a selection of spells which allow them to perform most spell casting roles, including healing, with the ability to respond quickly to changes. They have the only truely reliable social powers in the game, they get party buffs, a boost to knowledge related checks and a reasonable BaB. It is, all in all and envyable combination...
Yet, ofcause, through the lens of a world where every trained academic is hawkins rather than such an indidual being a one in a generation occurance. Such briliance will not shine so brightly.
When 'The wizard is going to have as many if not more skill points as a bard becuase he has every reason to sink an 18 (20 after modifiers) into Intelligence.' is the basis of your arguement, it leaves only one responce. Extremes will always led to the rediculous
Except the whole fighter part is completely lacking... and the spells are useful... about 2~3 levels before the bard gets them, you know when everyone else is casting them... and the bard just doesn't compete with the rogue on "jacking", with all those rogue bonus feats available, and other rogue talents (by bonus feats I point out that one talent gives weapon finesse, one gives a combat feat, and some others also give feats).
Well i think there should be one basic Class wich should fit into any roleplaying role you can think of.
Since Dnd 3.0 the bard has a unique Class Feature - his music. Its the sadest thing about that Class, becuase its negating roleplaying possibilities. I'll explain why:
There are lots of extremly specialized Classes & Prestigeclasses in Dnd, well most of them unplayable because they are too specific.
For me, roleplaying is about this: i think of my character, what is he supposed to be what i want to play in the next campain, and then i go and create my character.
As the ultimate versatile character, you should be able to build this character using the Bard class, cause there is no versatile class with some spellcasting at all. For me thats what the Bard is supposed to be.
We have the opposite of that: You play a Bard, then you are supposed to act like this.... play music during battle...
What the hell is that for? I dont want to be a Troubadix "#!?~@" I want to play exactly the role i want to play, and because the Bard(Jack of all Trades, master of none) should do that job. And no more.
Maybe there are some people who think it was a good idea to give something unique to the Bard, i'm not. For me it makes the Class nonsense.
I think there are lots of people who want a class where they can build whatever character they want, sure there will be specialist who can do things better, but maybe there is that specific Prestige Class missing for the role i think of. (Try to play a group healer in a stealthy Rogue Campain)
I think you are playing a wrong game.
There a lot of wonderful games that will let you do this, like GURPS and White Wolf games. Go have fun.
Well i think there should be one basic Class wich should fit into any roleplaying role you can think of.
Since Dnd 3.0 the bard has a unique Class Feature - his music. Its the sadest thing about that Class, becuase its negating roleplaying possibilities. I'll explain why:
There are lots of extremly specialized Classes & Prestigeclasses in Dnd, well most of them unplayable because they are too specific.
For me, roleplaying is about this: i think of my character, what is he supposed to be what i want to play in the next campain, and then i go and create my character.
As the ultimate versatile character, you should be able to build this character using the Bard class, cause there is no versatile class with some spellcasting at all. For me thats what the Bard is supposed to be.
We have the opposite of that: You play a Bard, then you are supposed to act like this.... play music during battle...
What the hell is that for? I dont want to be a Troubadix "#!?~@" I want to play exactly the role i want to play, and because the Bard(Jack of all Trades, master of none) should do that job. And no more.
Maybe there are some people who think it was a good idea to give something unique to the Bard, i'm not. For me it makes the Class nonsense.
I think there are lots of people who want a class where they can build whatever character they want, sure there will be specialist who can do things better, but maybe there is that specific Prestige Class missing for the role i think of. (Try to play a group healer in a stealthy Rogue Campain)
I think you are playing a wrong game.
There a lot of wonderful games that will let you do this, like GURPS and White Wolf games. Go have fun.
While it is true that a points based system probably would suit Calden better, i know in many ways i prefer them, he clearly enjoys DnD. Dismissing him and his imput isn't constructive.
Well, with a lot of players getting rid of 3rd books for 4e books, I'm sure you can find a Dungeonscape second hand for pretty cheap. Then you can call your factotum a bard and call it a day, and we can all be happy. Hooray!
Bah. Used books. I just picked up Dungeonscape for €30, and got Cityscape, Races of the Dragon and Red Hand of Doom thrown in for free. All were new, and Cityscape was still shrink-wrapped.
Well, see, when I think mythical and fictional history of the bard, I think knowledge and performance. This jack-of-all trades stuff is cool, but pretty recent.
The original bards were poets and scholars, and the term since acquired a more general meaning as someone who composes/creates and performs music or poetry.
To me, a bard without performance would be like a fighter without fighting or a magician without magic. The name would just not fit at all.
For a generic roleplaying choice, I suggest rogues or experts, maybe with a bit of adept, cleric or wizard thrown in, if magic is desired.
While it is true that a points based system probably would suit Calden better, i know in many ways i prefer them, he clearly enjoys DnD. Dismissing him and his imput isn't constructive.Well i think there should be one basic Class wich should fit into any roleplaying role you can think of.
Since Dnd 3.0 the bard has a unique Class Feature - his music. Its the sadest thing about that Class, becuase its negating roleplaying possibilities. I'll explain why:
There are lots of extremly specialized Classes & Prestigeclasses in Dnd, well most of them unplayable because they are too specific.
For me, roleplaying is about this: i think of my character, what is he supposed to be what i want to play in the next campain, and then i go and create my character.
As the ultimate versatile character, you should be able to build this character using the Bard class, cause there is no versatile class with some spellcasting at all. For me thats what the Bard is supposed to be.
We have the opposite of that: You play a Bard, then you are supposed to act like this.... play music during battle...
What the hell is that for? I dont want to be a Troubadix "#!?~@" I want to play exactly the role i want to play, and because the Bard(Jack of all Trades, master of none) should do that job. And no more.
Maybe there are some people who think it was a good idea to give something unique to the Bard, i'm not. For me it makes the Class nonsense.
I think there are lots of people who want a class where they can build whatever character they want, sure there will be specialist who can do things better, but maybe there is that specific Prestige Class missing for the role i think of. (Try to play a group healer in a stealthy Rogue Campain)
I think you are playing a wrong game.
There a lot of wonderful games that will let you do this, like GURPS and White Wolf games. Go have fun.
I am not, I am just giving him friendly advice. D&D is designed for one thing and he wants something else. It is much easier and more fun to play the system that will give him what he wants then trying to change the system that does not.
I am not, I am just giving him friendly advice. D&D is designed for one thing and he wants something else. It is much easier and more fun to play the system that will give him what he wants then trying to change the system that does not.
I must agree on both counts: your post doesn't sound snarky, it doesn't read like "you annoy me, go away". Also, there are limits to how far you can change a game before it stops to be that game.
D&D really isn't about generic classes. Some of them are, sorta, like the fighter, but not all are. And that won't change, not in 3e, not in Pathfinder.
So before you waste time trying to get something to be changed that isn't going to be changed, and get all worked up about it (which isn't good for you), it just might be better to find a game that is more to your liking. Or change it in your own game. Unearthed Arcana has Generic Classes, you could use those. They can also be found here
Some of the bonus feats there would be changed to fit PFs class abilities, and there need to be some new ones. And, of course, changes like the new HD need to be taken into account. But it's there. Alternately, True 20 does the same thing: 3 generic base classes.
And then, there's d20 Modern, with its 6 mostly-generic base classes - each tied to an ability score.
All those are d20 games, and could work well in concert with D&D.
But D&D won't become like this, not the base game.
The way I've seen the Bard in 3.5 is that they were designed with the ability to wear a variety of hats. The problem is, they wear few of them well.
They don't fight as well as the warrior classes, or even Rogues or some Clerics for that matter. They have spellcasting, but seem to get all of the bad points of both Sorcerers' and Rangers'/Paladins' spells put together (limited list of spells, can't easily change them once chosen, very few castings per day). The mix of armor and spells was improved in 3.5, no complaints there. While their skill list likely rivals or exceeds Rogues, they don't have quite enough skill points to take advantage of it, especially considering one of their skills is basically chosen for them (Perform). Their Bardic Performance is unique, but many Clerics and some Wizards are capable of similar levels of buffing, while being more offensively powerful.
The question here is how to put the bard up there with the others. I believe that increasing skill points to be on par with the Rogue would help. Their spellcasting could also stand to be strengthened and diversified. Also, I think the Pathfinder Campaign Sourcebook had a good idea with the starting character options under the class section of the book. The bard could easily adapt several of these (or even have a series of 1st level Bardic Training feats) that would take into account the variety of training that one "Jack of all trades" might have from another.
A court musician, for example, would have far different training from a battlefield skald or a travelling scholar. There needs to be a way to diversify the Bard in his studies so that while he's a "Jack of all trades", he also has some interresting meaty bits to keep him from looking like an easily-ignored dilettante.