I have to say, I really don't understand the desire a couple of players have to change the current bard into something else. There seems to be this nostalgia for the 'good old days' of the 1st and second edition bard, as if everything from those previous editions was great.
I personally hated the 2nd edition bard (little familiarity with 1e). It didn't have a place. It had some fighting, it had some magic, and it did some rogue things. You know what it didn't have? It didn't have an emphasis on anything unique or interesting. It was just a multiclass fighter/rogue/wizard that was sort of a performer.
In 3.5, I was really impressed with the new bard. I think it's one of the best made/best balanced classes (assuming you're playing a game that isn't 100% combat). It's good at lots of things. It has the strongest magic of anything that isn't a full caster, it has a wide range of skills and it can fight reasonably well. Most importantly, however, aside from this handy-dandy jack-of-all trades skeleton, they have a strong emphasis on performing. Instead of being a sort-of amalgam of other classes, they have their own mechanic that is, while a bit underpowered, still very useful, and, more importantly, flavorful. By definition, Bards know things and they perform!
Pushing for the old fighter/rogue/mage bard just doesn't make sense to me. What these people want to play sounds more like an arcane trickster than it does a bard. If they really want to play a dilletante, there is always the arcane trickster and the factotum.
But, if the bard is getting a boost, it should be in the direction that makes them unique: more and better perform skills. We don't want to turn them more into half-assed rogues or half-assed wizards, because they're STILL not going to keep up with full rogues and full wizards.
To this end, how about making all skills bard skills from level 1? Or how about giving them some ability to swap out str for cha on attack rolls? Either way, let's keep them bards.
As i said here i think there has to be a Base Class wich can fit into any role someone wants to play. (Without the need for multiclassing)
As other people have suggested, the dilletant-Bard (who is NOT an arcane Trickster) should be a Variant of the Bard.
If you wanna play a guy/girl who's singing in all circumstances, well do it. There are a lot of characters i can think of where a Class with some magic and some fighting abilities is the way to go.
The best thing the Bard has now is, that he's an arcane Spellcaster with cure spells. There's definitive a need for that in my eyes. Abosutley no need, to chain this character to a role: Singing "Bluff bluff bluff the supid ogre" or things like that. I cant think of any roleplaying wich is more silly, more limiting, more lame...
If i cant give my character style and color without such silly things, i would stop roleplaying immediately.
I see such a character class nessecary, without the limiting to performing.
Ah. Well, if you don't want to play a bard, don't play a bard. Incidentally, the class isn't named dilettante. It's named bard. If you want to play a character that does those things without "being colored by the silly singing" then don't play, ya know, a bard.
You're welcome to play a fighter/mage/rogue, and give it some perform skills and make it a wandering performer. The bard right now IS already jack of all trades character with its own unique options as well, and lumping on halfassed sneak attack progression, rage, lay on hands, favored enemy, channel energy, flurry, or whatever the hell else you want it to do is just going to make it stop being a bard and start being something else. You can always multiclass those abilities right in.
Play a chameleon, play a factotum, play a dual caster, play an arcane trickster, or play an eldritch knight. Those things all fit the concept you want. But please stop wanting to screw up the bard. Since it's, ya know, finally become a bard.
I love Bards, i love music!
I love playing music related characters!
BUT: I want to decide:
- when playing music in game
- why playing music in game
because for me its a matter of roleplaying, not a matter of forced to do this during combat because my class dictates me to do so, wich is a silly thing in my eyes.
I love Bards, i love music!
I love playing music related characters!
BUT: I want to decide:
- when playing music in game
- why playing music in gamebecause for me its a matter of roleplaying, not a matter of forced to do this during combat because my class dictates me to do so, wich is a silly thing in my eyes.
Please remember the bard is not only about singing.
To sing is to perform allright, but to perform does not have to be to sing per se.Think about the Speeches in movie (e.g. Braveheart/gladiator)
That feels very Bardlike to me too.
Btw read some other threads in this forum bout the bard too pls
Well whatever type of perform a Bard uses, for me it belongs to social situations. Thats where the Bard should shine with his music.
I want to see a Bard be able to influence a crowd by his music, bring the crowd to:
-hate the king
-love the king
-feel sad about the princess
-attract the pricess
and so on.
Performing during comat seems not to be right for me. Of course there are large Battles where musicians inspire the courage of the troops. But i dont see this for small skirmish combat. And an adventuring party is doing skirmish combat, no large battles.
I'd like to see the Bard taking an active role in skirmish combat, and shine in social situation through their music/performance.
That seems to be right.
|
Well whatever type of perform a Bard uses, for me it belongs to social situations. Thats where the Bard should shine with his music.
I want to see a Bard be able to influence a crowd by his music, bring the crowd to:
-hate the king
-love the king
-feel sad about the princess
-attract the pricess
and so on.Performing during comat seems not to be right for me. Of course there are large Battles where musicians inspire the courage of the troops. But i dont see this for small skirmish combat. And an adventuring party is doing skirmish combat, no large battles.
I'd like to see the Bard taking an active role in skirmish combat, and shine in social situation through their music/performance.
That seems to be right.
Perform Is not Only Music... If it feels better for you can Inspire by just saying Inspiring things through Oratory.
Perform Is not Only Music... If it feels better for you can Inspire by just saying Inspiring things through Oratory.
Thats not the point. The point is - to wich situations belongs the performance of the Bard. And for me, thats not combat.
|
|
Perform Is not Only Music... If it feels better for you can Inspire by just saying Inspiring things through Oratory.Thats not the point. The point is - to wich situations belongs the performance of the Bard. And for me, thats not combat.
So you want to take away one of the best things about Bard?... Inspire..
Play a different Class..
Maybe it helps the discussion if you read the posts any try to understand what people are saying.
Ah. Well, if you don't want to play a bard, don't play a bard. Incidentally, the class isn't named dilettante. It's named bard. If you want to play a character that does those things without "being colored by the silly singing" then don't play, ya know, a bard.
You're welcome to play a fighter/mage/rogue, and give it some perform skills and make it a wandering performer. The bard right now IS already jack of all trades character with its own unique options as well, and lumping on halfassed sneak attack progression, rage, lay on hands, favored enemy, channel energy, flurry, or whatever the hell else you want it to do is just going to make it stop being a bard and start being something else. You can always multiclass those abilities right in.
Play a chameleon, play a factotum, play a dual caster, play an arcane trickster, or play an eldritch knight. Those things all fit the concept you want. But please stop wanting to screw up the bard. Since it's, ya know, finally become a bard.
Thing is, classes are out of game constructs used to take a collection of abilities and assign them to a character. The bard that you keep italicizing is an in game profession.
I mean, I've got a character and her main schtick is being a jack of all trades (very skillful) and mainly using these abilities to steal (even up to the completely absurd "I wanna steal the guy's pants" from the movie The Gamers). I originally wrote her up as a Rogue because when I first read the 3.5 PHB, "Rogue" screamed "Steals stuff" and "Bard" screamed "Sings stuff". But I actually didn't care about sneak attacking or finding traps, so what's the point of being a Rogue again? It's only recently that I've figured out that I should've written her up as a Bard, called her a Rogue, and just ignored the whole "singy" part.
A class is a collection of class abilities, nothing more. If Miko Miyazaki can be a Samurai (in game title) without any levels in any "Samurai" class (out of game construct), then you can be a Bard without levels in Bard and be an Arcane Trickster with nothing but levels in Bard.
See, this is why people have campaigned for the Paladin being allowed multiple alignments, because the Paladin (class) is nothing more than a collection of class abilites that let a Paladin do his job, but the in game profession keeps getting mixed in with the out of game class. It's not an issue now, since the Pathfinder Campaign Setting lets you take a Cleric, lose his two domains and replace them with a full BAB and a d10 HD. Ergo, I can just take a Cleric, put the variant on him, call him a Paladin, and be done with it (alignment is only restricted by choice of deity and no infernal Code of Conduct, whoot!). It raises the question of why there's still a Paladin class in the first place, though.
Perform Is not Only Music... If it feels better for you can Inspire by just saying Inspiring things through Oratory.Thats not the point. The point is - to wich situations belongs the performance of the Bard. And for me, thats not combat.
Umm...ok...so why can't you play a different class and put ranks in perform and call it a minstrel/bard or something?
Thing is, classes are out of game constructs used to take a collection of abilities and assign them to a character. The bard that you keep italicizing is an in game profession.I mean, I've got a character and her main schtick is being a jack of all trades (very skillful) and mainly using these abilities to steal (even up to the completely absurd "I wanna steal the guy's pants" from the movie The Gamers). I originally wrote her up as a Rogue because when I first read the 3.5 PHB, "Rogue" screamed "Steals stuff" and "Bard" screamed "Sings stuff". But I actually didn't care about sneak attacking or finding traps, so what's the point of being a Rogue again? It's only recently that I've figured out that I should've written her up as a Bard, called her a Rogue, and just ignored the whole "singy" part.
A class is a collection of class abilities, nothing more. If Miko Miyazaki can be a Samurai (in game title) without any levels in any "Samurai" class (out of game...
I'm really not sure what you're saying. I mean, yes, what you're saying about classes being abstract constructs is true, and there are classless systems I enjoy immensely, but since classes are an ingrained part of Pathfinder and 3.5 that's kind of a moot point in a design discussion. Classes are sort of a foregone conclusion.
As a matter of fact, the class I'm talking about is not a profession, it's a character class as you defined it, a collection of abilities. it's written right there in the PH as a 'character class' (or collection of abilities). And since that class is entitled bard, it implies that music is in some way connected. If it were a dilettante who might or might not perform, it wouldn't be called a bard.
A 'bard' as you define it, namely a profession, is in fact, just somebody with the perform skill who makes a living that way, which doesn't need its own class. We have skill ranks. I'm not arguing that people can't do that. If somebody wants to play an arcane trickster or chameleon with perform, that's up to them.
Bards are, currently, performance based characters that know lore and various tid bits of information, and can use their ability to perform to cast arcane spells, as well as disrupt other sound based supernatural abilities.
Bards are suppose to perform, in some manner or another, whether it be telling stories or poetry, singing, or playing music. This ability allows them to produce arcane effects, as well as to influence the morale of others.
A character that just learns a little bit of everything, including arcane spells, really isn't a bard. Its the ability to tell a story and to inspire a crowd that defines the bard. In fact, a "little bit of everything" class shouldn't then get the ability to heal with arcane spells, because bards are the only arcane class that can do that because they inspire and soothe people with their talent.
To say that they learn to cast "like a wizard" means that they should then have any spell that a wizard cannot cast cut off from their spellbook.
A class that learns "a little bit of everything" and thus can cast spells and has lots of skills, is much more like the Factotum from Dungeoncraft or the Savant from the Dragon Magazine Compendium Volume One, neither of which has any connotations of telling stories, knowing obscure trivia, or inspiring their companions through their performances.
This, like a few other recent suggestions, is starting to feel very "outcome based," in that we want classes to do X, Y, and Z, which are all upgrades from the current class, and well hammer the square peg of internal story logic into the round hole later on. I've always like Paizo because story and atmosphere lead the direction of the adventures (or the rules).
I'm really not sure what you're saying. I mean, yes, what you're saying about classes being abstract constructs is true, and there are classless systems I enjoy immensely, but since classes are an ingrained part of Pathfinder and 3.5 that's kind of a moot point in a design discussion. Classes are sort of a foregone conclusion.
As a matter of fact, the class I'm talking about is not a profession, it's a character class as you defined it, a collection of abilities. it's written right there in the PH as a 'character class' (or collection of abilities). And since that class is entitled bard, it implies that music is in some way connected. If it were a dilettante who might or might not perform, it wouldn't be called a bard.
A 'bard' as you define it, namely a profession, is in fact, just somebody with the perform skill who makes a living that way, which doesn't need its own class. We have skill ranks. I'm not arguing that people can't do that. If somebody wants to play an arcane trickster or chameleon...
The problem is that the Bard class isn't a Bard class. It's the Bard class and the Arcane Trickster class and the Factotum and the Dilettante already by simple virtue of the fact that it's the class in the Pathfinder PHB that comes closest to the others. And for players who use the Bard class to play their Arcane Trickster or Factotum or Dilettante, the fact that it's called "Bard" and the Bardic Performance ability is anything from harmlessly incidental to an unfortunate add-on. So when the Bard class is already the Bard and Factotum and Arcane Trickster and Dilettante and only the Bard gets extra stuff (Bardic Performance), the players that use the Bard for the other stuff get the short end of the stick. So simply adding variant abilities for the alternate uses of the Bard class is the answer, especially since it doesn't take anything away from the players of the Music Bard to do so.
The problem is that the Bard class isn't a Bard class. It's the Bard class and the Arcane Trickster class and the Factotum and the Dilettante already by simple virtue of the fact that it's the class in the Pathfinder PHB that comes closest to the others. And for players who use the Bard class to play their Arcane Trickster or Factotum or Dilettante, the fact that it's called "Bard" and the Bardic Performance ability is anything from harmlessly incidental to an unfortunate add-on. So when the Bard class is already the Bard and Factotum and Arcane Trickster and Dilettante and only the Bard gets extra stuff (Bardic Performance), the players that use the Bard for the other stuff get the short end of the stick. So simply adding variant abilities for the alternate uses of the Bard class is the answer, especially since it doesn't take anything away from the players of the Music Bard to do so.
Actually, the bard class isn't the arcane trickster class, or the factotum class by merit that the bard exists, and that those things exist and that they aren't quite the same thing. Yes, factotum is in a different book, but it's a very easy conversion away, and we're aiming for backwards compatibility. Same with the chameleon. The DMG classes are being patched up, so, actually, the closest thing to an arcane trickster is, ya know, an arcane trickster.
The unfortunate argument you just gave me is the equivalent to saying "I want to play a wizard, but I want to wear heavy armor and cast healing spells from the gods. But I don't want to be a cleric...'cause I like wizards." We get that you don't like having character classes, but it's a part of the 3.5 system.
Normally, I'm not against people having lame variations on a class. However, in this case, Paizo's intent is to fix up the existing bard. What you're advocating isn't removing a minor aspect of the class (like a familiar or a save progression), you're talking about removing a central mechanic and replacing it with a new variant. Which means that your variation will require all kinds of playtesting, compatibility muck-ups, and rebalancing while the mechanic it's being balanced around is being fixed. A bard without music requires a major rewrite of the class, which is a waste of page space and developer time. All of this is so that you can make a halfhearted version of things that already exist because you're too tied to the word bard to give your arcane trickster some perform ranks and call it a day.
Normally, I'm not against people having lame variations on a class. However, in this case, Paizo's intent is to fix up the existing bard. What you're advocating isn't removing a minor aspect of the class (like a familiar or a save progression), you're talking about removing a central mechanic and replacing it with a new variant. Which means that your variation will require all kinds of playtesting, compatibility muck-ups, and rebalancing while the mechanic it's being balanced around is being fixed. A bard without music requires a major rewrite of the class, which is a waste of page space and developer time. All of this is so that you can make a halfhearted version of things that already exist because you're too tied to the word bard to give your arcane trickster some perform ranks and call it a day.
Velderan, please reread the things Brotherwilli and I have proposed. Neither one of us has any desire to strip performance away from the bard. We simply want to add a little more to its other areas.
1. You yourself have expressed appreciation for the bard's role as a jack-of-all trades.
2. Pathfinder has been all about correcting imbalences to rebalance the character classes along their original intent. The 3E paladin fell behind in his role as a melee combatant, so people have been hard at work trying to fix Smite Evil.
3. Power creep has caused the bard to fall behind in his role as "versitile guy." The only additions to its power and abilities as a class have been more and more music. It needs a slight overall bump, or the ability to choose areas to improve by degrees. Just like roue talents and monk bonus feats.
4. As there is a cornicupia of musical options already extant, we would like to see the non-musical side of the bard get bumped up a little.
5. At no point have we ever suggested that Bardic Music be removed as a core class feature. We both view it as integral to the class. I merely asked that the fluff mechanics stop saying that the bard's spells are powered by music. It's a flavor change that makes a lot of people happy, to judge by the response I got. Brotherwilli proposed a class feature that would go alongside Bardic Music.
6. In another thread you've been arguing for a rogue talent that grants a familiar on the grounds that there's conceptual precedent. (I just backed you up mechanically, by the way.) Well there is equal precedent for our position on bards. We've outlined it in detail.
7. Since our suggestions wouldn't remove the feature you like, would strengthen a class many see as overly weak, and would make many people happy, why are you so dead set against them?
Normally, I'm not against people having lame variations on a class. However, in this case, Paizo's intent is to fix up the existing bard. What you're advocating isn't removing a minor aspect of the class (like a familiar or a save progression), you're talking about removing a central mechanic and replacing it with a new...
I will concur with Fendin: my suggestions, and those of many others, have not been to pull bardic music as an ability. Instead, we want to ADD abilities onto the existing bard. I'm afraid I don't know what your opposition is to this.
Let's see if we can't find common ground. I think you'd agree that the bard as written is underpowered compared to the existing classes, and overshadowed by classes from PHB II and the Complete Series. May I ask how you'd upgrade the existing rules to help the bard compensate? Or are you happy with the rules as written?
A bard is a Bard in my games. A title you ue to the guys who can sing powerfull songs who are magical in nature. Not a title you give to ye old musician singing around the table.
Gods, this little piece of RP info made the bard much more into something. That and the fact that my Bard uses spells (as musics) in a Warlock way.
Velderan, please reread the things Brotherwilli and I have proposed. Neither one of us has any desire to strip performance away from the bard. We simply want to add a little more to its other areas.
Ok, that's certainly a fair request. I went and read most of this thread The problem I have with this thread is right there in the title. Some of the players who want to turn the 3.5 bard into the 1e/2e bard (And I'm not actually referring to brotherwilli's thread here, as he proposed his fixes in addition to music)is that they want to make it a dilettante instead of a performer, or they want to push non-performing variants of the bard instead of improving the existing bard. I know a lot of people have fond memories of what the bard used to be, but I don't consider that a bard, other things do it better, and it would be fantastically hard to balance against a mechanic that's in the process of being balanced. Yes, we've seen variants of classes trade out classic abilities, but nothing as endemic as performance is to the bard. You may as well have a smiteless paladin or a rageless barbarian. If people want to push the bard in the direction of jack of all trades, they should be pushing to improve the existing bard, not to make a different class.
As for this specific thread, I don't think brotherwilli's idea is bad, I just think it goes too far. Yes, a bard should share and borrow from other classes, but, I think this is too much. You want them to share features that are, I feel, too important to others.
Assuming that they got said dilletante ability every few levels, but still kept music (which needs a boost BTW), I'll break it down more specifically:
Rogue talents-absolutely a bard should be able to share in these. They should get far less of them, but most of these abilities make as much sense for a bard as for anyone else.
Sneak attack-this is one of the things I feel is too tied to another class. Whether the individual rogue wants to be combat-based or not, I bet they still don't mind a good stabbing. This mechanic is really central to the class.
Domain/Specialist ability-I'm not 100% on this. I could see it being really cool or going really poorly. Honestly, there's too much there for me to run over at a glance. It's an interesting idea, though, and I don't think it steals from those classes a ton.
Rage-I am absolutely against this. I know the historical roots of the bard and I don't care. This mechanic is completely unique to the barbarian and the barbarian is largely centered around it. I think this is crapping on the one shtick that class has.
Trap Finding-I'm fine with this. I think its ridiculous that this is rogue-only anyway. Come on folks, the ranger can't find a magic trap in the woods?
Channel Energy-I personally don't see this as being a bard thing, and I'd rather see a better healing song.
Favored enemy-This is awfully ranger specific. It's not as bad as giving sneak attack or rage, but I can see it as being a bit much from the ranger's perspective.
Maneuver training-I suppose this is ok. To be honest, I have very little experience with the monk.
Animal Bond-I think you mean ranger animal companion, in which case, I think this might be too strong for a 'dilettante talent' in the new system (which is superawesomegood). That being said, I know there's some call for it, as our bard wanted to ride a buffalo and I had to rig it up with 3.5 awaken and leadership.
Familiar-Absolutely. This makes a ton of sense for bards. I also like the idea of having 3 'familiar classes' (Wizard, rogue, and bard) the way we have three 'AC classes'. It's also an extremely minor feature of that class, so I see no issue with it.
Wild Empathy-I see no problem with this. It's borrowing very little from druids and rangers.
Tongue of the Sun and Moon-I also see no problem with this, but I'm not a monk person. However, I'll say it makes at least as much sense for a bard.
Smite Evil-absolutely not. For the same reason as rage. It's the paladin thing.
So, while the idea of getting some new nonmusical abilities is good(if kept to a reasonable limit), I don't like it at the cost of being a bard (which is what some people suggest), or at the cost of those other classes' uniqueness. That's what I'm so dead set against.
I will concur with Fendin: my suggestions, and those of many others, have not been to pull bardic music as an ability. Instead, we want to ADD abilities onto the existing bard. I'm afraid I don't know what your opposition is to this.Let's see if we can't find common ground. I think you'd agree that the bard as written is underpowered compared to the existing classes, and overshadowed by classes from PHB II and the Complete Series. May I ask how you'd upgrade the existing rules to help the bard compensate? Or are you happy with the rules as written?
See my above post for most of what you've said. My problem is essentially that people want to either have nonperforming options or they want performance to cease being a core aspect of the class.
Like I said in the above post, I don't think a few of those 'dilettante talents' are bad things (if things like rage, smite, and sneak attack are stricken from the list), but music needs to be kept core.
The bard is a little bit underpowered, but I don't think it's seriously underpowered. 'Compared to written classes' is an unfair way to asses a jack-of-all-trades character. As in a party with a cleric, rogue, wizard, and fighter, of course a bard looses a bit of its chance to shine. But who plays in a perfectly balanced party? It could use a little boosting and tweaking to compensate for power creep, but, in the right hands, its one of the best classes in the game. But yes, a little tweaking would certainly help. Here's how I would fix:
-A modified version of the dilettante talents is fine, if it's somewhere around 1/4 or 5 levels or something like that. I still consider this a minor tweak, but a couple of nonperforming tricks would be fun.
-Performance needs to be made better/stronger. The Bard needs more uses. They need a movement enhancing song, a fast-heal song available at earlier levels (fits the feel of music and would work better than the cure light song), a resistance song, and courage/heroics needs to be made one song that goes up to +5. I'm sure we could think of a few more. Also, spells that grant morale bonus need to be scaled back or gotten rid of so that a bard always grants the best morale bonuses in the game.
These fixes are, however, my personal, untested opinion.
Actually, the bard class isn't the arcane trickster class, or the factotum class by merit that the bard exists, and that those things exist and that they aren't quite the same thing. Yes, factotum is in a different book, but it's a very easy conversion away, and we're aiming for backwards compatibility. Same with the chameleon. The DMG classes are being patched up, so, actually, the closest thing to an arcane trickster is, ya know, an arcane trickster.
But those other classes exist in pre-Pathfinder books that were written assuming 3.5, not Pathfinder, rules and classes. When you change the core rules, everything else becomes suspect, and not necessarily an easy conversion. And the problem with the Arcane Trickster PrC being the closest thing to an arcane trickster is that it's, ya know, a PrC. As in not available at 1st level. Using the Bard class as the Arcane Trickster lets you be one at 1st level (a big selling point when you don't want/see why it's necessary for your character concept to wait in order to come into his own.
We get that you don't like having character classes, but it's a part of the 3.5 system.
Normally, I'm not against people having lame variations on a class. However, in this case, Paizo's intent is to fix up the existing bard. What you're advocating isn't removing a minor aspect of the class (like a familiar or a save progression), you're talking about removing a central mechanic and replacing it with a new...
Other people have posted on this and I think now you see their point, but let me just go ahead and clear this up. You didn't get what I was saying. I never said "No Bardic Music", rather, it'd be more like "Not just Bardic Music". Now, whether this results in "Bardic Music + a bunch of other options" or "a bunch of options (one of which is Bardic Music)" is less of a concern.
Personally, I'd go with the latter, since it doesn't create feelings of "well, I've got this, this, and Bardic Music, but since I don't even want Bardic Music, I'll just have to wait until a supplement comes out where I can trade it away". You see, when a class is created and everything within it is playtested and tweaked and eventually balanced, this comes with the assumption that the player is using every aspect of the class. So when a player comes along and 80% of the class is something he can use, but 20% is either not a part of his character concept or actually against it, then that's 20% that he's not using (a problem that could be alleviated with just making it an option within a list of options).
And no, it's not that I'm against having character classes, but the rules of an RPG serve to assist telling a story. When they interfere with said story (such as when (in theory) the only kind of Holy Warrior that exists is one who's not only LG but also has this ill-defined Code of Conduct), then the rules need to go. And I do feel that sometimes the 3.5 classes overstep their bounds (and that Pathfinder is perpetuating this problem).
For the nay-sayers to the idea that the idea of a dilettante isn't an arcane trickster-ish character:
Rogue 3/wizard 6/arcane trickster 4/fighter 1/eldritch knight 6.
So you end up with a +15 BAB, 8th-level spells, +4d6 sneak attack, and decent saves all around. The only thing you're not doing so well with is skill points, but a high Int and the Pathfinder skills system helps solve that problem.
And while I agree that this could certainly be done more gracefully, it still works.
(If you go outside of Core, things get even better--unseen seer, spellsword, and abjurant champion to help round out the levels, turning you into a true "dilettante.")
What I think people are looking for is a class that can do a little bit of everything. I would suggest the following:
1. Factotum.
2. Fochlucan lyrist (hate that class so much).
3. Chameleon.
I suppose I'm not really seeing what, exactly, about the bard class isn't "dilettante" enough. It gets 3/4 BAB, a d8 HD, moderate spellcasting abilities, and a strong skill selection.
Perhaps someone could elaborate on this a little?
Quote:
"The bard is perhaps the ultimate generalist."
"However, he makes all the other characters better at what they do, and he can OFTEN fill in for another character when NEEDED."
End Quote
My problem is he is NOT the ultimate generalist and he should be, and he can't often fill in for the missing person when needed.
The bard cannot fill in for a fighter, he doesn't hit enough for enough damage or have the AC to not get hit or the hit points to absorb damage enough.
A bard cannot fill in for a rogue, in the fight he doesn't have sneak attack, out of the fight he doesn't have trapfinding.
A bard doesn't get the spells to choose from or enough to fill in for a wizard/cleric/etc. as needed. He can focus and cover for 1 but not the other.
A bard can't fill in for an artillery piece wizard or sorcerer at all.
There is just too much the bard cannot do to be the "ultimate Generalist."
Now I don't want the bard to be better or even as good as the other's in their roles but I want him to be proficient at it, and to be proficient is going to require a few more abilities than the bard has currently.
For those of you following this discussion, there's what I personally consider to be a fairly good compromise at this location . It should be noted that the compromise suggested on this thread is not a major revamp of the bard, so the bardic performance as a central feature of the class is a foregone conclusion. However, the ability to pick up tricks from the other classes every few levels is being discussed, which should make a lot of the "back to 1e/2e" bard players happy, and should make the bard a little bit more fun for the rest of us (without changing it too much).