|
Do you have a source that says they cannot cast spells, activate magic items by spell completion, spell trigger, or command word?
Oh mortal, if I am posting, assume that I have a source.
Starting a bardic music effect is a standard action. Some bardic music abilities require concentration, which means the bard must take a standard action each round to maintain the ability. Even while using bardic music that doesn’t require concentration, a bard cannot cast spells, activate magic items by spell completion (such as scrolls), spell trigger (such as wands), or command word. Just as for casting a spell with a verbal component, a deaf bard has a 20% chance to fail when attempting to use bardic music. If he fails, the attempt still counts against his daily limit.
Even while using a bardic performance ability that doesn’t require concentration, a bard cannot cast spells, activate magic items by spell completion (such as scrolls), or activate magic items by magic word (such as wands).
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
I have not yet had the chance to play test the Beta Bard rules, however, it looks to me like they would make an excellent archer.
Rather than playing a Bard as a half-caster I would prefer to play them as a self - plus party - buffing non-caster who has a few utility spell slots around just in case.
Oh mortal, if I am posting, assume that I have a source.
Man, and I used to worship you too. Arrogant SoB. j/k.
I keep sending notices to Paizo that they need to add the Arrogance domain to my portfolio, but they keep forgetting.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
Funny, I keep sending those notices too...
|
A Bard is all but mandatory in our groups, nowadays.
Ever since I started really looking for those little +1's and +2's that stack, we've got some REALLY sick combat specialists going around and slaughtering.
Some things that (should really have been core) make the Bard even better are:
Song of the Heart. 1 feat, to increase almost every single buff you sing. Tasty.
Melodic Casting. Cast spells without interrupting your songs. Almost necessary, in my opinion.
Inspirational Boost. spell that makes your Courage go up by +1? Yes, please.
Add in the normal high-Charisma skill set of your standard talky-type Bard, and you have someone that can cast most of the spells worth casting in the game, can fake the rest (scrolls/wands), is the party's Face and Information Gatherer, and can still contribute in combat.
Sure, you can't run up and kill the monsters by yourself, but that's why you have a fighter/barbarian/paladin/ranger, anyways, no?
-t
Bards. Don't. Suck.
Bard players often make them suck, blessing them with the sacrament of weakness through a determination that they will be awesome two-weapon fighting minstrels who have MAD out the ying-yang. Bards, specialized into a specific party role, are lovely if you allow non-core.
if you allow non-core.
That's such a big, big if.
Every bard player, sitting around every gaming table from California to Kalamazoo, dredging splat book after splatbook to the table.
Player: How about this feat on page 72?
DM: Welllll, OK, this one is all right.
Player: And that other feat on page 78?
DM: Oh, no, not that one. Veto!
Player: Why not?
DM: Too imbalancing. You'll have to live without it.
Player: Grumble. OK, fine. Here's another book. Check out the feat on page 23.
DM: Welll.....
That makes for a long character generating session. Not to mention 6 months later:
Player: I just leveled up and I am taking the Gooey Bardic Goodness feat.
DM: I vetoed that one 6 months ago.
Player: No you didn't.
DM: Yes I did.
Player: No you didn't. I specifically took the Sweet Bardic Superness feat at level 3 and the Nifty Bardic Specialness feat at level 5 because they are prerequisites for this feat. My whole build is focused on this.
DM: You shouldn't have focused a build on a feat I vetoed.
Player: You didn't veto it!
DM: I'm sure I did...
And just how much Game Mastery must a bard player have before bards become viable?
I say, if the core class in the core book is not viable enough to be a worthwhile addition in any adventuring party, then it needs help.
To my taste, the 3.5 bard is such a class. I haven't really looked at the Pathfinder Beta version enough to see if they fixed anything or not, but I sure hope they did.
|
|
Man. This is why I'm such a super awesome DM that allows most all 3.5 splatbooks.
Even allowing it, I find the players hardly use things from them. A few Spell Compendium spells here and there, the occasional prestige class or feat, nothing game-breaking.
Got one player with an Incarnate cohort in Second Darkness. That dwarf is cool. :)
I also have an explicit and readily posted ban-list. If someone takes something on it, they get fed to the hounds. Serious gamebreaks result in you becoming an NPC and getting a character from my mile high archive of builds.
No one has complained except one PbPer who wanted to play the twice-betrayer of shaar without understanding what made it work. That made me really mad. No just being a dick about it, but not understanding such a beautiful and cool build. :|
|
There has been some interesting discussion on the Bard class thusfar. Some interesting questions have been raised concerning the uses of the bard, and how the bard can contribute in both combat and non-combat situations. Thought I would add my two cents.
Melee: When it comes to melee combat, the bard is second class all the way. If the bard is your group's only meat shield, you have a serious problem. The bard's best contribution to melee is as a support character - helping the fighter or rogue set up a flank, acting as a screen to ward off rabble as the mage preps a boom spell, etc. All the while, of course, while singing all the way, giving the fighter/rogue/touch attack spell a always appreciated hit and damage boost.
Ranged: At a range, the bard can give any archer, including himself, a nice little hit and damage bonus when firing a bow. Don't forget this can apply to damaging ranged touch attacks as well!
Spellcasting: As a spellcaster, the bard's focus is a bit eclectic, with a good selection of enchantment, illusion, sonic, healing, and summoning spells. A timely use of enchantment spells can shut down or turn an enemy at the right time. Illusions, although hard to adjudicate, can be used to delay or confuse enemies with clever applications. Sonic damage is one of the harder damages to come by, and very few creatures have defenses against it.
The real benefit to healing spells for the bard are not using the spells themselves, and becoming the primary healer (paging Mr. Cleric), but the access to wands and similar items it gives. Not as needed with the advent of the Channel Energy ability, but useful all the same.
Summoning spells speak for themselves, allowing the bard to cut off parts of the battlefield and deal damage to many creatures. Of course the bard makes summon creatures particularly dangerous once he starts singing...
Skills: And hear we hit the bard's bread and butter. Need to know what the monster's weakness is? The Bard's most likely got the right knowledge skill. Need to collect information or rumors important to the quest? Any bard worth his salt will have their diplomacy and gather information skills so high as to easily smash any level appropriate DC. Need to read an ancient language or communicate with a lost tribe? Who's most likely to have the right language skill? Mr. Bard, that's who.
Not sure if I broke any new ground here. Just needed to be said.
I'll just jump back in and add the location of Focused Performer and Focused Performance: Dragon Magazine 338.
Once I saw this feat I knew I had the basic "patch" for any perceived issues with the 3.5 bard.
F. Performer is the gateway feat, allows you to use perform instead of concentration when maintaining arcane spells with verbal components. Nice, but not a big deal.
F. Performance gives you a host of new options with bardic music, some of which are somewhat meh, but its the sheer flexibility that makes it worth it. Of particular note are the options Accompaniment and Individual Performance. The first allows you to run two bardic musics at the same time, although you have to make Perform checks based on the rank requirement of the effect to keep them going, so its best used with low end abilities like inspire courage. And actually, I almost missed individual performance, which lets you narrow an group effect to 1 target (which can not be you). That target receives twice the normal effect. Which means, with my previous math, and using normal D&D multiplication (due to Words of Creations doubling effect) that would allow the 20th level draconic bard to inspire his fighter companion with a +21 to attack and damage, and +21d6 energy damage on each hit.
*Edit*
An interesting thought, so that I can say I injected something into the conversation besides a blast of bardic munchkinizing:
Bards do not really have a corresponding archetype in the more popular MMORPG's. Due to the close relationship of Table and MMO (like it or not), does this lack of an equivalent nature (D&D Online being the obvious exception) in the MMO field make bards harder to understand for some newer players, especially those coming from "deep" in the MMO scene? Its fairly easy to see what classes are Tank, DPS, and Heals, but where does a bard fit? Its certainly not a Tank. With extreme effort they become only passingly decent heals. And they don't really DPS, not like the true DPS classes. They are the "Buff" class, but the Buff class has no Online equivalent.
I've always found that players who enjoy bards are those capable of seeing that their abilities helped the success of the party (inspire courage), even if not directly (the bard didn't make any attack rolls that fight). Does anyone else have any thoughts in this regard?
I think the problem with the bard is that they're always playing Robin to the rest of the group's Batman.
Ask a bard to fight? He dies.
Ask a bard to win the day with spell? He fails.
Ask a bard to fill in for a missing rogue? He fails.
Ask a bard to stand safely in the back and make everyone else into superheroes? He can do that better than anyone.Bards have a niche, but for almost everyone who plays D&D, that niche is an unrewarding niche. Tonto may have been happy to make the Lone Ranger look good while landing a punch or two on some mook henchmen, but in the end, the Lone Ranger got all the credit for riding to the rescue.
I think that for most people playing D&D, we want to be the superhero, not the sidekick.
That's the tragic flaw of the bard. How ironic that the bard is the game's unsung hero...
What I think the bard needs is some way to actually be effective in the game in his own right. Sure, he makes a great mouthpiece for the party, shmoozing the diplomats and bluffing the townsfolk into giving up their firstborn. But that's not enough.
Unfortunately, I don't know what would make them effective without overpowering them. If they can simultaneously be the Superhero and the Sidekick, they would rule the game.
It's a tough call.
Maybe the only answer is letting them remain the unsung hero and we players have to realize that the bard class just isn't for everyone.
Naw, our bard in Age of Worms was granting us all bonuses while casting high level spells. Between Whirling Blade and Creaking Cacophony + sonic spells, he actually soloed a couple of mini-BBEGs. He was also the PC who wound up being the *ahem* "creative partner" of that outsider chick in the giant abyss where the dracolich lived.
|
I may be alone here, but I'm hoping the Level 20 ability (Deadly Performance) goes away. While dramatic, I think it's very un-bard-like, and it's hard for me to believe six seconds of any performance is enough to kill anybody unless the bard is basically just screaming really loud causing an opponent's head to explode (or in the case of a dancing bard, kicking their opponent's head clean off.)
If it stays in, I'm giving my players the choice to take Deadly Performance or use an alternate ability I devised whereby the bard has the ability to actually change the opponent's alignment through a moving performance. I think, as the great diplomats and adventuring artists of D&D/Pathfinder, the ability to change an audience's perspective on the world is much more in keeping with my concept of what a bard should be.
Anybody interested in how my alternate ability works can find it here. I may still tweak it a little.
if you allow non-core.That's such a big, big if.
In my games we're core-only with a very, very exceptional splat book. But the veto rate is over 90%.
To my taste, the 3.5 bard is such a class. I haven't really looked at the Pathfinder Beta version enough to see if they fixed anything or not, but I sure hope they did.
They did up its power level a bit. It gets increases to Inspire Courage earlier, and it gets 1st level spells at level 1 instead of level 2. Also the bardic music ability is, in my opinion, slightly better (and definitely better defined).
Overall it's an improvement. There's one thing though that bugs me with the class and that while it gets enchantment spells about the same level (e.g. bard level 4) as full casters do the fact that it gets them at lower spell levels means the DCs are lower. I personally think the Bard class should get a +1 or +2 to the DC of all enchantment spells say +1 at first and +2 at eleventh. This would help mitigate the issue.
I'm rather looking forward to seeing the Pathfinder Bard. I've always enjoyed playing the class and find it to be a lot of fun, so hopefully that shall continue!
Also, I've played a Bard quite often in 2e and 3/3.5 using the core rules and haven't felt underpowered. You just need to accept that unlike most other classes you're a generalist rather than a specialist. A Bard gets to:
- be okay in combat,
- cast a good range of spells without needing to memorise anything,
- cast arcane magic in light armour,
- know all sorts of useful information tidbits,
- maintain a healthy range of skills that often make him the ideal party leader and
- use bardic music for some fun effects.
The Bard isn't the best at performing any of those functions, but he sacrifices power for range of ability. You don't get to make a lot of the 'big plays' as a Bard, so it doesn't suit everybody. But you do get to contribute something in most any kind of situation. I also find that the class really comes alive in urban based campaigns with a lot of non-combat encounters or involving a bit of swashbuckling.
But the Bard needs most of those things in order to be basically useful.
Overall bards are cool. And the Pathfinder bard is closer in power to where it should be. But the problem with balancing jack-of-all-trades types is that if they do 5 things instead of 1 thing they can't do each at 20%. They need to still do them at 80% to 90% because being effective means you can't be that far off from the purists. If you're too far you might as well not even be playing.
@Berik on DCs, That would actually apply across the board of the bard in my view. The Illusion spells could also use a built-in bonus to their DC for Bards. I'd also have loved to see the return of some of the non-illusory-mindbendy spells that were on the Bards 3.0 list. Things like Mage Armor/Weapon, the stat buffs (Bull,Cat,Bear, etc.), Dismissal, and especially Plane Shift.
Skipping that and speaking as another long time 3e bard player (a little bit in 2e but not as much), I have to stay that most of the improvements to the Bard in Pathfinder are a big help. For those in the MMO persuasion adding what amounts to enemy debuff abilities will make more sense to them, as most buffer class tend to also debuff foes.
Outside of direct combat abilities Bardic Knowledge was finally made usable. The 3e/3.5 one was a bad joke masquerading as mediocre class ability to anyone who hadn't actually taken the time to read it in full. If you don't quite follow what I mean go back and read the 3.5 ability, then try to figure out it can be used on, and how often such uses would come up in a regular game. The new Pathfinder Beta total redo is actually usable and quite good. It opens up the super-knowledge bard who specializes in Knowledge skill, along with a bit of Divination spells to research out foes and give the party exactly the weakness they need to exploit....
In MMO terms this feat is accomplished by using 3rd party Websites, but such resources in a PnP game like Pathfinder would be frowned on if not get you banned from the table. (buying/reading the module the GM is running, and looking up monster stat-blocks, then using all that info in-game). The Bard can be your in-game excuse at the expense of being the party super-star in combat.
*Edit*
I don't agree about the lack of combat ability, much like the Cleric the Bard self-buffs to bring his attack bonus back into warrior ranges. Especially from a Ranged combat standpoint the Bard comes out as one of the best as they can get more damage on ranged attacks then just about any core class.
A Bard is all but mandatory in our groups, nowadays.
Ever since I started really looking for those little +1's and +2's that stack, we've got some REALLY sick combat specialists going around and slaughtering.
Some things that (should really have been core) make the Bard even better are:
Song of the Heart. 1 feat, to increase almost every single buff you sing. Tasty.
Melodic Casting. Cast spells without interrupting your songs. Almost necessary, in my opinion.
Inspirational Boost. spell that makes your Courage go up by +1? Yes, please.
Add in the normal high-Charisma skill set of your standard talky-type Bard, and you have someone that can cast most of the spells worth casting in the game, can fake the rest (scrolls/wands), is the party's Face and Information Gatherer, and can still contribute in combat.
Sure, you can't run up and kill the monsters by yourself, but that's why you have a fighter/barbarian/paladin/ranger, anyways, no?
-t
Those bonuses do stack, and I'm very happy that they happen earlier than in 3.5, which was desperately needed. Part of the problem is that until the bard gets to +2 for inspire courage, most of what it does can be done with a bless spell. And blessing doesn't shut down the cleric from doing anything else magic related.
And while the bard can be made a kick-ass character with the splat books, that's not helpful to those of us limited to core. I would love to be able to take the feats you mentioned or cast the spells you mentioned, but somehow that's unlikely. I'm just glad that the Pathfinder bard doesn't need them as much.
@Berik on DCs, That would actually apply across the board of the bard in my view. The Illusion spells could also use a built-in bonus to their DC for Bards. I'd also have loved to see the return of some of the non-illusory-mindbendy spells that were on the Bards 3.0 list. Things like Mage Armor/Weapon, the stat buffs (Bull,Cat,Bear, etc.), Dismissal, and especially Plane Shift.
...snip...
Outside of direct combat abilities Bardic Knowledge was finally made usable. The 3e/3.5 one was a bad joke masquerading as mediocre class ability to anyone who hadn't actually taken the time to read it in full. If you don't quite follow what I mean go back and read the 3.5 ability, then try to figure out it can be used on, and how often such uses would come up in a regular game. The new Pathfinder Beta total redo is actually usable and quite good. It opens up the super-knowledge bard who specializes in Knowledge skill, along with a bit of Divination spells to research out foes and give the party exactly the weakness they need to exploit....
...snip...
*Edit*
I don't agree about the lack of combat ability, much like the Cleric the Bard self-buffs to bring his attack bonus back into warrior ranges. Especially from a Ranged combat standpoint the Bard comes out as one of the best as they can get more damage on ranged attacks...
Actually I'm happy with them being illusion/enchantment specialists. I like that they specialize. But I would like to see more benefit from that specialization (i.e. higher DCs for enchantment and illusion which tend to be save negates).
Also I disagree on the combat ability front. Even if their to-hit gets close to the full BAB range, they're still many strength mods away from doing any significant damage. I think the fighters 1d10+11 beats my 1d4+3 by a significant factor.
I agree however on the note about bardic knowledge in 3.x. It's only usable on a very limited subset of information and is specifically designed to not step on any toes. It's more about plot hooks than vulnerabilities.
Why 1d4? That seems to be a rather biased pick. The important part about Bards is that if you want them to take up a role you need to actually build them to that focus. There is no reason why they shouldn't be using a Longswords 1d8 (melee) or Shortbow 1d6 (ranged), not assuming they don't spend a feat on an exotic weapon with better returns.
Although to be honest I was mainly thinking more about the actually To-Hit number and not the damage in melee. Inspire Courage keeps a bard rather close to a warrior types base attack bonus value. Combined with an appropriate focus on strength over charisma (as melee bards can skimp on that stat quite a bit if need, more so then a typical caster)
If you just assume a standard non-specialized generalist bard then of course they he isn't going to particularly shine in the direct melee damage realm. This would be like asking a your typical TWF Ranger to tank like a fighter, not going to happen. I also would skip trying to go head to head with the Fighter, especially the PF-Fighter. A bard can catch back up to your typical non-focused warrior class if it specializes for combat. I suggest looking at a comparable Barbarian (although their focus is also on direct melee damage), Ranger or Paladin, and remember that the strength scores should be equal.
A specialized PF-Fighter is going to outclass everyone on melee damage, except maybe the rogue in some situations. The feats(class restricted) and class abilities make sure of that.
Why 1d4? That seems to be a rather biased pick. The important part about Bards is that if you want them to take up a role you need to actually build them to that focus. There is no reason why they shouldn't be using a Longswords 1d8 (melee) or Shortbow 1d6 (ranged), not assuming they don't spend a feat on an exotic weapon with better returns.
Although to be honest I was mainly thinking more about the actually To-Hit number and not the damage in melee. Inspire Courage keeps a bard rather close to a warrior types base attack bonus value. Combined with an appropriate focus on strength over charisma (as melee bards can skimp on that stat quite a bit if need, more so then a typical caster)
If you just assume a standard non-specialized generalist bard then of course they he isn't going to particularly shine in the direct melee damage realm. This would be like asking a your typical TWF Ranger to tank like a fighter, not going to happen. I also would skip trying to go head to head with the Fighter, especially the PF-Fighter. A bard can catch back up to your typical non-focused warrior class if it specializes for combat. I suggest looking at a comparable Barbarian (although their focus is also on direct melee damage), Ranger or Paladin, and remember that the strength scores should be equal.
A specialized PF-Fighter is going to outclass everyone on melee damage, except maybe the rogue in some situations. The feats(class restricted) and class abilities make sure of that.
I was actually using a real bard 1d4+3 from my halfling bard (-1 str, +2 inspire courage, +2 weapon).
Yes a "full-grown" bard could be doing a lot better say 1d8+5 (+1 str, +2 inspire courage, +2 weapon) while the warrior is doing 1d10+11 (non-power attack; +7 str from double handed, +2 weapon, +2 inspire courage).
But I don't think the bard should have great fighting capabilities. There are points of goodness in the 3.x bard build. One of my favorite aspects is the whip proficiencies. I just wish whips threatened for AoO.
It's not so much that I think a bard should be great or even good at everything. I'm actually looking for something a little more focused and a little better in it's slightly smaller domain.
I think Bards for example should have Combat Expertise as a bonus feat. Then it would make it that much easier to get into Improved Trip and Improved Disarm. Don't make them versatile, but sucky. Make them true support characters that rock.
There are, however, feats that allow you to cast or otherwise act while performing, and these are a tremendous and important power boost for Bards.
[That should have been core.]
Hear hear.
|
|
I say, if the core class in the core book is not viable enough to be a worthwhile addition in any adventuring party, then it needs help.
I agree that a bard using other source books can do a wonderful job, I'm going to have to agree with this statement. The actual CORE class should be a viable character using JUST the core rules in my opinion.
I myself am a DM that allows most sourcebooks and such so it's not a big deal, but I DO feel that the core classes needed a tweak and they're getting it.
Strangely, I'm looking forward to the druid the most. I'd like to see the finished product.
|
Hear hear.There are, however, feats that allow you to cast or otherwise act while performing, and these are a tremendous and important power boost for Bards.
[That should have been core.]
So any suggestions for my 4th level bard out of the core PF beta? I would like to be able to wade into battle with the best all while buffing myself and others, provide a little back up healing and a few interesting effects.
I am human, so I took great sword but that is not my main weapon - it is the spiked chain. Feats: combat expertise, improved trip, and exotic weapon. I want to take combat reflexes at 5th. Then go to dragon disciple a 6th. I am not opposed to multiclassing into rogue or fighter or some other class for a level or two also.
That feat that allows you to perform and still cast spells sounds like a winner.
So taking all suggestions.