Director of Game Design
|
Yes. I like a lot of the new stuff. I liked the rounds per day mechanic but it would have been great if Inspire courage was great. But its isn't.
Who wants to nuke the bard? YThe attack boost a party can get from a paladin or ranger is much more powerful and these classes are muck more powerful.
Cmon now, the bard concept has never been one of raw power. The bard is good at a lot of different things, but he is not the master of any of them. If you are looking for that class, well.. there are 10 of them to choose from. Will he get nuked first.. probably not, unless the bad guys realize that everyone is getting +3 to hit and damage from the guy in the back, who is also casting haste on the party, greater invis on the rogue, and curing the barbarian. I know its not the same, and I suspect that most folks do, but that is the entire point of the bard. They help win the fight indirectly sometimes.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
I always felt the Bard was one of the best classes in 3.5, so seeing even minor improvements has me believing that the PF Bard will be quite powerful. Sure, the duration for the Bardic Music might not technically be as long, but I know when I was playing a Bard, I'd only have Bardic Music going on for a few rounds before I decided to stop and cast a spell, so it's really not that big of a problem in my eyes.
This whole previewing process has me feeling for Mr. Bulmahn. No matter what the preview is like, someone's going to complain about it, whether they don't like a nerf (as in this week) or are afraid it's too powerful (like the Paladin last week). I suppose this is what happens, though, when you preview a product that is in demand by a great number of people.
Yes I believe that the bardic performance should be able to do something useful to buff the party every round of every fight. Casters do it with a single spell every round.
Just using core you can do some significant buffing to the entire party using very little resources as a cleric or mage. Why shouldn't the bard do the same thing?
In my mind the Bardic Music ability should be superior to all other parts of the bard. But I do understand that that is one interpretation.
I'm not seeing where the bard can't do the same thing. Take a look at the bard's list of level 2 spells for instance.
However on your second point, I understand your opinion, and I believe that is how others who agree with you might perhaps feel.
|
Creative Director
|
tweaking? tweaking is the problem. He needed something really new and a BIG boost.
But I love Paizo and will buy the pathfinder. But the bard? I'm not happy. The Bard is hopeless.
I've played a bard to level 9 in a PFRPG game that's been going for several months now, and I've had a pretty good experience with it. Give it a try when the final game's out, and if it still feels like a hopeless class to you, I apologize. I do ask that you keep in mind that each class is built to appeal to different types of game play, and that it's easy to play a variant bard by doing a mix-match of, say, a rogue/sorcerer multiclass, just as you can kind of "fake" a cleric by doing a bard/paladin, etc. The game has a LOT of options, and not all of those options will appeal to everyone in the same way.
Yes I believe that the bardic performance should be able to do something useful to buff the party every round of every fight. Casters do it with a single spell every round.
Just using core you can do some significant buffing to the entire party using very little resources as a cleric or mage. Why shouldn't the bard do the same thing?
In my mind the Bardic Music ability should be superior to all other parts of the bard. But I do understand that that is one interpretation.
I'm not seeing where the bard can't do the same thing. Take a look at the bard's list of level 2 spells for instance.
However on your second point, I understand your opinion, and I believe that is how others who agree with you might perhaps feel.
He can do the same thing through magic, but I would have rather have seen it done through bardic abilities (while leaving his magical abilities the same or reducing them). I'm not saying the bard class is bad. Quite the contrary. I just feel that in my games and any game where combats last a long time that it's actually going to be a reduction in how often I get to use the bardic abilities since a much larger portion of uses will be spent on Inspire Courage than for, say, Inspire Competence or Fascinate.
Let the bard shine brightly through bardic song all day long. (Now that you're all fascinated by my rhyming oratory I'm going to suggest that you agree with me).
|
|
Gotcha never put any characters in situations they may not have been expecting to deal with.... [[snip the snark]]I am not really sure that this was necessary.
My point here was that over that long a distance characters are bound to fail no matter the bonuses. I am not, by any means, saying the characters should not have to undertake tasks that they do not expect. That is a big part of the game. What I am saying is that forcing characters to make dozens of repetitive rolls just to get over a simple obstacle, which does nothing more to cause them to deal with dice probability over a long sample, is not perhaps the nicest thing a GM can plan for in his game. Lets leave the sarcasm out of it for now.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
You're reading waaaaay more snark in that then I put in there, also I think what we have here is both of us misinterpreting each others comments and assumptions as to how one would run said climb. Anywho, that was just a light hearted sarcastic response to what came across as a dismissive and assumptive comment so I don't think either of us has clean hands, in the end I'm sure you weren't trying to be dismissive and I wasn't trying to be snarky.
What really troubles me is that I'm worried you missed the question I put right before that, which was a much more important comment than a throwaway sarcastic response.
I for one am glad that you can't use inspire courage every round of every combat now. Resource Managment seems to be dirty word to modern players. It's something that used to be an integral part of the game. OMG my wizard has to bust out a crossbow to save spells for later... MADNESS I say!
Bards still have resource management issues. All classes have resource management issues. And I don't think resource management is a dirty word to modern players (at least not the ones I play with). We end up burning potions, wands, scrolls, and other limited-use items all the time.
|
|
Personally, I love Lem's new look! I am blown away by the skill versatility and the creative new uses for the perform skill. And I am totally thrilled by the fact that performing bardic music is a free action, and (eventually) starting it doesn't require a standard action. I just about cried when my 1st level bard in Curse of the Crimson Throne had to stop inspiring courage to cast a spell during the middle of the group's first fight the other day! If only she were a Pathfinder bard :).
Thanks for another exciting preview!
I've played a bard to level 9 in a PFRPG game that's been going for several months now, and I've had a pretty good experience with it. Give it a try when the final game's out, and if it still feels like a hopeless class to you, I apologize. I do ask that you keep in mind that each class is built to appeal to different types of game play, and that it's easy to play a variant bard by doing a mix-match of, say, a rogue/sorcerer multiclass, just as you can kind of "fake" a cleric by doing a bard/paladin, etc. The game has a LOT of options, and not all of those options will appeal to everyone in the same way.tweaking? tweaking is the problem. He needed something really new and a BIG boost.
But I love Paizo and will buy the pathfinder. But the bard? I'm not happy. The Bard is hopeless.
I would honestly love to hear how you played the bard and to hear a sampling of what a combat and non-combat experience was like when you were involved (acknowledging the other classes). Oftentimes hearing what the designers were thinking when they were making their decisions makes a great deal into understanding how they envisioned the class to be played so that we, the players, can make a determination if the class, as intended, matches what we want to play.
|
tweaking? tweaking is the problem. He needed something really new and a BIG boost.
But I love Paizo and will buy the pathfinder. But the bard? I'm not happy. The Bard is hopeless.
I only see a level 8 preview...how do you know the level 13 bard doesn't have a more powerful ability?
You being the BBEG, aren't worried about the bard making EVERYONE else more competent?
How about when that L13 bard pulls out his wand of scorching ray? Then when the BBEG takes down the cleric the Bard whips out a scroll of raise dead...
Use Magic Device can be very powerful, and Bards are better than most at UMD...
Taken all in all the bard seems improved. Which would make it the first caster clearly in my mind better in pathfinder then in 3.5.
The rounds for perform seem more then enough, even at mid levels and high level. It simply would be the no need to think action it is now, that's fine from what I read it would seem they will have a few more spells to use so that should help. Unlike most casters they won't care as much about DC since their spell levels are lower, and they unlike other casters have plenty of skill points. Heck even more now since all knowledge skills are usable untrained by them. Rather useful buggers aren't they?
|
Creative Director
|
Well... the assumption we run with is that combats probably don't last as long as they do in your games. And that's not a bad thing. That is, in fact, a pretty good argument for a house rule that gives bards in your game MORE than the normal amount of performance rounds... you might want to do the same for barbarian rage, and other similar mechanics, in fact. Doesn't mean that the out-of-the-box bard is broken for all games, nor does it mean that you're playing the game wrong. One of the awesome parts of tabletop RPGs is the fact that each GM can tweak and adjust the game to make his or her own version of the game, after all! :-)
And if in a month or a year or 6 years it becomes apparent that we've underestimated the bard's capacity to perform, there's ways and opportunities in the future to fix it. For now, though, and for most games, I think it's probably at about the right place.
Taken all in all the bard seems improved. Which would make it the first caster clearly in my mind better in pathfinder then in 3.5.
The rounds for perform seem more then enough, even at mid levels and high level. It simply would be the no need to think action it is now, that's fine from what I read it would seem they will have a few more spells to use so that should help. Unlike most casters they won't care as much about DC since their spell levels are lower, and they unlike other casters have plenty of skill points. Heck even more now since all knowledge skills are usable untrained by them. Rather useful buggers aren't they?
They are very useful buggers. My complaint isn't that they aren't useful, but that most of their utility isn't through their Bardic Music.
Though a couple of counterpoints:
|
Director of Game Design
|
What really troubles me is that I'm worried you missed the question I put right before that, which was a much more important comment than a throwaway sarcastic response.
Well, to be honest, I am not really interested in reading an entire post of sarcasm is an already tense thread.
The answer is about 5 rounds... that is roughly where we were to be the critical length of the combat. This value changes of course, depending on level.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Well... the assumption we run with is that combats probably don't last as long as they do in your games. And that's not a bad thing. That is, in fact, a pretty good argument for a house rule that gives bards in your game MORE than the normal amount of performance rounds... you might want to do the same for barbarian rage, and other similar mechanics, in fact. Doesn't mean that the out-of-the-box bard is broken for all games, nor does it mean that you're playing the game wrong. One of the awesome parts of tabletop RPGs is the fact that each GM can tweak and adjust the game to make his or her own version of the game, after all! :-)
And if in a month or a year or 6 years it becomes apparent that we've underestimated the bard's capacity to perform, there's ways and opportunities in the future to fix it. For now, though, and for most games, I think it's probably at about the right place.
I want to make clear that I really do love what you all have done to the game. Simply removing the de-leveling from Energy Drain attacks made me go all weak in the knees.
And I appreciate the suggestion that we should house-rule it. My GM doesn't like house-ruling much and having an official seal of semi-approval on the idea will make it a lot easier to get past. Or perhaps I can get him to reduce the length of combat some (which would have the added boon of getting more RP in).
Overall excellent job to your entire team on, what has become, a very, very excellent product. Now get back to work on a feat book with tons of feats that includes things that make using bardic music better. :)
What really troubles me is that I'm worried you missed the question I put right before that, which was a much more important comment than a throwaway sarcastic response.Well, to be honest, I am not really interested in reading an entire post of sarcasm is an already tense thread.
I can understand that this can be incredibly frustrating. You put yourself out there and create a product for the greater populace which proceeds to tell you either a) you did great or b) you utterly failed. Take note I believe most everyone here thinks a).
If all you did was create something that needed a little tweaking, then you did way better than most and I hope you realize that most of us aren't trying to make this tense. And I hope you don't take what I'm saying as anything more than you created something that I can be passionate about and that because you did such a good job, you're going to have the problems associated with that success -- lots of people who care just a little too much about your product.
|
Director of Game Design
|
And I appreciate the suggestion that we should house-rule it. My GM doesn't like house-ruling much and having an official seal of semi-approval on the idea will make it a lot easier to get past. Or perhaps I can get him to reduce the length of combat some (which would have the added boon of getting more RP in).Overall excellent job to your entire team on, what has become, a very, very excellent product. Now get back to work on a feat book with tons of feats that includes things that make using bardic music better. :)
The first actual rule you come across in the book states quite clearly that this is your game and that you should feel free to change it to suit your play style. No game is perfect for every group and we understand this fully. If your group deviates from our assumed norm, then by all means change it to make it work for you. We cannot hope to anticipate every play style or group dynamic.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Let me see if I am understanding things so far.
Those that are concerned about the Rounds per Day of Performance are those that think/feel the only mechanical reason to play a Bard is to do something useful (buffing the party) every round of every fight. (Not as glorious as actually performing the killing blow, but in a way you can claim credit for every killing blow.)
I am one of those.
Those that love the Rounds per Day of Performance think/feel that Performance was silly as was, and/or broken as was.
Is this about the jist of it?
I would say that it sounds more like:
Those that are concerned about the Rounds per Day of Performance are those that think/feel the only mechanical reason to play a Bard is to make Bardic Performance do something useful (buffing the party) every round of every fight.
I don't think it's an issue of whether a bard can do "something useful" every round of every fight. The new bard seems to have the ability to contribute often and in a variety of ways, moreso than ever before. It's just not solely with Bardic Performance anymore.
Personally, I like the tactical aspect it seems to have now. Not that it didn't have one before, but there is no question a player of a Bard now has to manage this resource more carefully. I like the fact that a bard might now be encouraged to Inspire Competence when it matters instead of at the beginning of every combat.
This.
I met my husband for lunch today and discussed this change, and we both like it. He doesn't think Bardic Performance should have to apply to every round in every combat. It's like we're just carrying the bard around, setting him down & pushing "Play."
Also, I should note that my Second Darkness bard actually does roleplay in out-of-combat situations. It's only when the initiative rolls start that he turns into a boom box.
Yes I believe that the bardic performance should be able to do something useful to buff the party every round of every fight. Casters do it with a single spell every round.
So every single round of combat your caster cast spells? Juts wow, you guys most have the shortest day ever. Lets see we had 14 rounds of combat I cast 14 spells the bard has rounds left But I am spent need to go rest now.
I have been playing a bard, he casts spells, inspires a bit and wades into combat swinging. I do not bardic preform every round.
Lets looks before at level 10 I could do 10 times per day for 60 rounds. However if I used it just 3 rounds it still used my "6 rounds" If I started and had to stop, which I have a few times...lost If I started and the fight was over in 1 round...lost
Now I have options I can use my ability as I see fit to use them for as long as I see fit to use them.
Your a BARD, dont let yourself just do one thing. Be a bard do everything.
Maybe you can give us one more preview. Does the final version have more feats associated with Bardic Music than just Extra Music? This is an area where I would love to see additional feats. In general I would love to see more feat trees for casters as I'm not really big on meta-magic personally and really casters get a very small, sometimes unimaginative, set of feats to pick from. We don't all want to be crafters of wands and silent spells.
Though, to be fair, I do applaud the addition of Arcane Armor Training and Arcane Strike. Any news on if those survived the final?
|
Also, I should note that my Second Darkness bard actually does roleplay in out-of-combat situations. It's only when the initiative rolls start that he turns into a boom box.
There is an aweful lot for bards to do in SD, isn't there? :) I'm really enjoying that AP with all of the different tactical and roleplaying scenarios presented (favourite so far is the tower rolling down the hill with us in it).
I figure that as long as the bard is doing something positive every round and can muster a better diplomacy check than the CHA dump statters, they're doing just fine. I'd rather have the big box of tools to work with than just a sledgehammer (or mix tape in the case of the bard). :)
I'm a big fan! Can't wait to play one! Way to go Jason!
Yes I believe that the bardic performance should be able to do something useful to buff the party every round of every fight. Casters do it with a single spell every round.
So every single round of combat your caster cast spells? Juts wow, you guys most have the shortest day ever. Lets see we had 14 rounds of combat I cast 14 spells the bard has rounds left But I am spent need to go rest now.
I have been playing a bard, he casts spells, inspires a bit and wades into combat swinging. I do not bardic preform every round.
Lets looks before at level 10 I could do 10 times per day for 60 rounds. However if I used it just 3 rounds it still used my "6 rounds" If I started and had to stop, which I have a few times...lost If I started and the fight was over in 1 round...lost
Now I have options I can use my ability as I see fit to use them for as long as I see fit to use them.
Your a BARD, dont let yourself just do one thing. Be a bard do everything.
You misunderstand me. It's not that I'm saying the caster gets to cast every round, but that their effects last the whole combat. So the caster can cast Good Hope, Haste, Bless, and a host of other spells that have a round per level (or better) and get the same or better at the bard's bardic music while sacrificing a smaller percentage of their overall spells/bardic music points.
...and this review was the final dealbreaker for me.
-Yes, I know this means the "swashbuckler Bard" concept is no longer viable under PF's vision.
-No, I don't care for "strategic use" nor "the way it's meant to be played".
Would you mind telling me what the Beta and 3.5 bards have that makes them better swashbucklers than PFRPG (Final) ones? Because I took 30 on my perception check and still found nothing. And I have levels in rogue extra so I could search for everything!
Yes, Tashas at low level was tough. But the higher you got the less and less Enchantment spells became useful
So, you say that because higher-level enchantments suck, low-level ones should be game breakers? Because Power Word Kill isn't that great, Sorshen's hideous laughter needs to be the best spell in existance?
I'll change the fighter, then. Weapon Mastery (the 20th-level ability) just gives you +1 to attack rolls with that sort of weapon (weaksauce), but to compensate, a fighter's grapple lasts forever ;-P.
Secondly our casters were doing just fine after 20 rounds of casting. They now have at-will powers that make it easy to last for an entire combat.
Had. We don't know if they still have them. In fact, the cleric preview seems to indicate that they have been changed to a couple of uses per day.
I wasn't quite imagining time square when I was coming up with this example. More like a small town or village where it might take a few rounds to get people together because there aren't 7+ million in the city.
You should go to a concert some day. You'd see how things really work. It's not like those performers just storm onto the stage at the set time and launch into their best songs from 0 to 100 in 3 secs or something.
A lot of the time, there's a supporting act first, to get people into the mood (get the blood pumping). And even if not, a lot of the time, they'll say hallo first, or have an intro, to tell people that it's going to start (i.e. "shut up and take your place" warning).
A bard and rogue trying to work the crowd wouldn't start with fascinate from day one - especially not in a small town. You'll play a bit (with regular performance) to draw a crowd, and when you think it's enough, you'll play the good songs to really get their attention.
My GM is a good GM and does sometimes go out of his way not to do a TPK even though we do really stupid things.
Bah, that's not a GM, it's a wuss! A true GM will punish stupidity mercilessly }>
;-P
Just kidding. Mostly. Partly. Because while I'm not a Tyrant with a Screen, I do think that while bad luck shouldn't ruin the players' act, persistent stupidity should not be tolerated. If the players do something stupid, I'll call them on it (I usually do the windows routine, i.e. "Are you sure?", and I might let the first one slide and tell them afterward). If they keep doing dumb stuff, I'll throw the dice at them. The last thing I want is the players realising that I use kid gloves.
I played in one campaign where the GM did that. He wouldn't kill players. He was really obvious about it. Destroyed all sense of excitement, danger, or story. Players would start testing the boundries of their apparent immortality. The "crowning achievement" was where the party entered Waterdeep (for those who don't know the realms, Waterdeep was a mega-metropolis with a population of a couple hundred thousand, and with more than their fair share of high-level characters, including several archwizard chosen of the goddess of magic spellcasters living there who really cared about the city) and started killing people randomly and openly.
They all got out of that. They fought off two or three waves of guards.
A good GM would fire off one or two warning shots, and after that break out the heavy stuff. And with that, I mean something with a CR equal to 2-3 times the characters average level.
Gotcha never put any characters in situations they may not have been expecting to deal with.
That's nonsense and you know it. There are worlds between "never challenge the group" and "routinely expect the impossible and suicidal"
((In all seriousness though, I really do think it is fine to see the use of the ability that way, as long as you know when the checks are about to occur. It really is probably not the best ability to use while climbing a 500' rock wall, but then again, making a bunch of unskilled PCs climb that wall is a little cruel to begin with))Gotcha never put any characters in situations they may not have been expecting to deal with. No ship combat if they've never invested ranks in swim, just fast forward till when they land so they don't have to make balance or swim checks since they never bothered to train in them, and no being transported by a magic ritual to the beach of a strange and mysterious island where they have to scale a cliff just to get off the beach. Anything else I'm being cruel to my players for throwing at them in the interest of not fighting a band of orcs/demons in an open field for the 500th time being experienced gamers and all?[/sarcasm]
No, I have to agree with Jason on the 500' cliff thing. Unless you expect them to fly or spiderclimb over the cliff, there is no way a party of adventurers with normal adventuring gear is going to actually climb that cliff without deaths.
Give them ledges or caves every hundred feet or so, which allows one good climber to climb up there and lower rope for the bad climbers, then it's not so cruel.
But if you really set up a challenge that will require a wizard or sorcerer or a cleric in full plate, etc., to climb 500' without failing any checks, you will have player deaths. And that is cruel.
I played a number of bards in 3.5 -- and I never kept up the music all day (personaly felt it was cheesy), and in many combats didn't use it at all, because "wasting" the first round of a 4-round fight on activation killed the deal -- I knew I'd get better mileage out of a glitterdust spell. I'd MUCH rather have performance limited to rounds/day, and get quicker activations at level breaks. Add that to the new uses in the Beta, and as a whole, I LOVE what Jason has done with bardic music.
Getting rid of the 0 spells/level is a nice touch as well.
The only thing about the new bard I don't like so much are the goofy "substitute Perform (guitar) bonuses for Climb or Craft (woodworking) bonuses instead." If the bard didn't have enough skills, then combining all the performs into one skill that gives multiple types over time (much as Linguistics is all one skill now) would have been equally viable, and made more sense. Or, in addition to 1 knowledge rank/level for free, also give bards 1 perform rank/level for free. Either of those solutions would make vastly more sense to me than "substituting" performances for other skills.
Also speaking of previews, it would be wonderful if we could get a PDF addendum to the final that includes the names of all the spells that have been changed since 3.5.
Last night while playing my bard, one of our newer players asked if they could learn rope trick and our GM had long since banned it for being vastly better than other "sleep safe" spells. But he couldn't figure out why we had a problem with it and so we explained it to him and he told us that's not what it said which lead us to re-examine it only to find out that it had in fact been fixed (yet another "Yay! We love Pathfinder moment).
|
Just to chime in since I've been playing a bard lately in Second Darkness with the beta rules (house ruled slightly with stuff from the forums), and I have to say that playing a bard is above and beyond more fun than I imagined from 3.5. The biggest drawback that I saw was skillpoints, and the final directly addresses this in an interesting way. While both bards and rogues, in my opinion, are "skill monkeys" they both work at it in different ways. I'm going to really look forward to seeing the final rulebook for the associated skills with perform.
On a side note, would you suggest converting previous feats/abilities that "took one bardic use" to be 2 rounds of bardic use? Or do you think there should be a variable between 1-4 or something depending on the specific ability?
You misunderstand me. It's not that I'm saying the caster gets to cast every round, but that their effects last the whole combat. So the caster can cast Good Hope, Haste, Bless, and a host of other spells that have a round per level (or better) and get the same or better at the bard's bardic music while sacrificing a smaller percentage of their overall spells/bardic music points.
But do your casters actually buff for every combat? In our group, they only bother for major battles, which you usually don't have 4 of in a day. I don't see the problem in saving Inspire Courage for combats when your allies really need it. If it's just a random encounter of kobolds or something, does the bard really need to give everyone a plus 2?
Xuttah:
|
|
Also speaking of previews, it would be wonderful if we could get a PDF addendum to the final that includes the names of all the spells that have been changed since 3.5.
Last night while playing my bard, one of our newer players asked if they could learn rope trick and our GM had long since banned it for being vastly better than other "sleep safe" spells. But he couldn't figure out why we had a problem with it and so we explained it to him and he told us that's not what it said which lead us to re-examine it only to find out that it had in fact been fixed (yet another "Yay! We love Pathfinder moment).
+1
Just a simple list of which ones had changes (no matter how small). I'm just so used to not looking up a spell, or only looking up a small portion of it since I've used the spells for so long.
Though a couple of counterpoints:Wizards tend to have a ton of skill points as well.
And rogues. But the bard has the better class list.
And his knowledge modifiers rock. Even a wizard cannot quite compete (unless we're talking about a stupid bard)
Clerics got improvements as well from 3.x (i.e. extra special abilities and channel energy, which is huge)
They also got the big Divine Power nerf.
Meh.... Board ate my super-exuberant laudatory post...
Suffice to say: The New Bard Rocks!!!!
The approach of allowing Performance "substitutions" seemed a bit odd at first, compared to say, how Ranger Enemies/Terrains progress, but then again: the Bard *IS* odd, and it *DOES* encourage more vivid roleplaying in a certain way...
I also have to say from this preview and the others so far covering spells, the efforts to "tweak" certain spells seem to be very spot on so-far, seeming to make the game more fun overall ("supple" is a good word for what I'm trying to express), as well as bringing some spells closer in to the average power level for that spell level. Bravo.
|
WHERE ARE YOU PUTTING THAT HAND, JASON?!? STEP AWAY FROM THE SHEEP!!Unfortunately, Perform (saucy puppet show) replaces Handle Animal and Slight of Hand...
Oh yeah.. umm.. wait.. nevermind.
Really? No one else noticed Jason got that idea from watching too much Broke Back Bard?
+1 to hogarth
+10 to Jason for making that post
|
|
Bardic Knowledge hasn't been brought up yet. This has been down-powered and to get similar result levels you have spend a lot of skill points. Where as I think it makes sense, I don't like the expense of it now.
Was it really broken before?
If you can't make a knowledge check you can't make the check. It's not like "I rule combat" or I defuse a situation completely with my 72 diplomacy check.
Thoughts?
I actually do like it, because I know what the ability actually does now. It was way too handwavy in 3.5; in the wrong hands, it either made all knowledge skills obsolete or never applied to anything ever. There were people who went rather middle-of-the-road, of course, but for those people, while the ability isn't as strong, it applies to a lot more things. You'd have to stretch to argue that 3.5 bardic knowledge allowed you to, say, warn the wizard not to throw lightning bolt at the shambling mound; now, however, that's explicitly within their capabilities. And you can actually be better at the things you want to focus on than you were before - bardic knowledge was basically limited to Int mod + level + 2, but if you actually dedicate some point to a Knowledge skill, you can get to Int mod + ranks + 3 + level/2! Much higher potential than previously.
I played in one campaign where the GM did that. He wouldn't kill players. He was really obvious about it. Destroyed all sense of excitement, danger, or story. Players would start testing the boundries of their apparent immortality. The "crowning achievement" was where the party entered Waterdeep (for those who don't know the realms, Waterdeep was a mega-metropolis with a population of a couple hundred thousand, and with more than their fair share of high-level characters, including several archwizard chosen of the goddess of magic spellcasters living there who really cared about the city) and started killing people randomly and openly.
It's not so much that some of our players play stupidly. They're, in fact, stupid. And I try not to hold that against them too much because overall they're really nice people. They just suck at tactical gaming. They're never going to get really good at it.
Our GM has killed quite a few of us. He probably gets about one a month on average, but if he didn't play with the kids gloves a little, it would be a TPK every night and that's no fun -- especially given the amount of time put into the characters. We all fear death and we know we might die, but he does have to ease up on us some lest we completely lose interest and turn on those players who aren't up to snuff.
Good stuff for the bard IMO.
A few things make me wonder, please correct me if I’m assuming wrong or misunderstanding some options:
Lets’ say we have a pack of Harpies swooping down on the party.
Could a 13th level Bard (as a full-round action) whip up Inspire Courage, Dirge Doom and Countersong (using his std, move and swift actions) in a single round?
Could multiple performances be maintained (as free actions) while still being able to cast spell, fight, etc? I expect each performance would cost 1 round of use.
Could Fascinate and Suggestion be a one-two punch in one round for a 7th level bard (as a double-move)?
Can you take back skill points from skills that would be covered by Versatile Performance when you reach the required level?
It kind of looks that way since Lem doesn’t have skill bonuses for Bluff, Intimidate, Handle Animal or Diplomacy and it would be odd that he wouldn’t cover any of these at first level.
My very personal favorite: the Bard/Paladin multi-class now legal! Charisma has never been this deadly, heed my word spawns of evil!
My very personal favorite: the Bard/Paladin multi-class now legal! Charisma has never been this deadly, heed my word spawns of evil!
"Oh, I'm going to sing while I *smite* fight the demons! I'll sing *smite* while fighting dragons, and evil people!
Hey I should put ranks in Perform(Dance Fight) to go with my ranks in Perform(Smite Song)...
My very personal favorite: the Bard/Paladin multi-class now legal!
Agree! Loved it in 3.5, but now it will totally rock.
I have not been much of a Bard fan in the past, but that is not so much due to the mechanics as it is because of the 'frivolous' flavor - bard sings at enemies...
That said, I do recognize that it is a valid and historically rooted archetype that needs to be supported, so kudos to the Paizo people for upgrading it in such a good way. Mayhaps, bard has even been boosted too much, but the jury is still out on that one.
You misunderstand me. It's not that I'm saying the caster gets to cast every round, but that their effects last the whole combat. So the caster can cast Good Hope, Haste, Bless, and a host of other spells that have a round per level (or better) and get the same or better at the bard's bardic music while sacrificing a smaller percentage of their overall spells/bardic music points.
But do your casters actually buff for every combat? In our group, they only bother for major battles, which you usually don't have 4 of in a day. I don't see the problem in saving Inspire Courage for combats when your allies really need it. If it's just a random encounter of kobolds or something, does the bard really need to give everyone a plus 2?
Xuttah:** spoiler omitted **
Our random encounters tend to be pretty insane. And yes we need to buff because all of our enemies have fully buffed beforehand as well.
Our GMs have a nasty habit of having the enemies have multiple buffs on them. They hear us coming and then starting chugging all the potions they can. Perhaps they shouldn't, but that's something that should come up in the suggestions for GMing book that's coming out.
I remember the last two fights we had with Strahd in 3.5. In each, he had 13 buffs on him. I did a targeted dispel, followed by a quickened targeted dispel. Otherwise we'd have some dead PCs on our hands above and beyond the ones we normally get (about 1 every 2 sessions). I shudder to think what would happen if we had the Pathfinder version that only gets one spell.
Ultimately I'll have to talk to my GM about adjusting the rules for the way he likes to run his encounters. It does seem like a large number of posters experience the 5-round fight that the designers designed for which makes us the outliers and not the norm (and therefore we should adjust and not the game).
My impressions, questions and comments:
Great!
All in all I really like what I'm seeing. It seems that many of my concerns with the 3e/beta bard were addressed.
Frogboy -- in 3.5, Inspire Courage did not take a standard action each round. You could keep it going for free, you just couldn't cast spells or use wands at the same time. But you could certainly smack someone with your rapier (say) while singing.
- Round 1:
- So what do you do?
- I sing.
- Round 2:
- So what do you do now?
- I run up and attack whatever that thing is.
- The Boneclaw rips your throat out before you ever even get within range to attack it. You die.
- Round 3:
- Your turn. What do you do?
- I'm assuming I stay dead. I hate it when you forget you killed me. It's not like it doesn't happen every fight.
- Sorry, my bad.
Unless you have super-powered attributes, STR and CON are two that generally suffer at the hands of CHA, DEX and INT. You could even argue that WIS is important also since who wants to be the bard who gets charmed and dominated half the time. Of course, with the extra feats now, Force of Personality is an absolute must for any Bard or Sorcerer. Still, I've never seen anyone play the Swashbuckling Bard. We've always just played the Swashbuckler instead. With d6 HP, no CON and little STR, the bard usually just sat back with a shortbow or a crossbow and did 1d6+1 points of damage the 50% of the time that he actually hit. Obviously I'm exaggerating here but you have to admit, they didn't do much outside of singing.
My very personal favorite: the Bard/Paladin multi-class now legal! Charisma has never been this deadly, heed my word spawns of evil!
Carrot Ironfoundersson?
Makes perfect sense, if you ask me: A zealous champion of the law and irreformable do-gooder (Paladin: Check). Can really inspire people and has bardic knowledge (has put his knowledge skills into Knowledge(Ankh-Morpork) and Knowledge(Ankh-Morpork's Individual Citizens)) (Bard: Check).
|
|
You misunderstand me. It's not that I'm saying the caster gets to cast every round, but that their effects last the whole combat. So the caster can cast Good Hope, Haste, Bless, and a host of other spells that have a round per level (or better) and get the same or better at the bard's bardic music while sacrificing a smaller percentage of their overall spells/bardic music points.
But do your casters actually buff for every combat? In our group, they only bother for major battles, which you usually don't have 4 of in a day. I don't see the problem in saving Inspire Courage for combats when your allies really need it. If it's just a random encounter of kobolds or something, does the bard really need to give everyone a plus 2?
Xuttah:** spoiler omitted **
Our random encounters tend to be pretty insane. And yes we need to buff because all of our enemies have fully buffed beforehand as well.
Our GMs have a nasty habit of having the enemies have multiple buffs on them. They hear us coming and then starting chugging all the potions they can. Perhaps they shouldn't, but that's something that should come up in the suggestions for GMing book that's coming out.
I remember the last two fights we had with Strahd in 3.5. In each, he had 13 buffs on him. I did a targeted dispel, followed by a quickened targeted dispel. Otherwise we'd have some dead PCs on our hands above and beyond the ones we normally get (about 1 every 2 sessions). I shudder to think what would happen if we had the Pathfinder version that only gets one spell.
Ultimately I'll have to talk to my GM about adjusting the rules for the way he likes to run his encounters. It does seem like a large number of posters experience the 5-round fight that the designers designed for which makes us the outliers and not the norm (and therefore we should adjust and not the game).
Just pull a Beholder out of your pocket next time, and all those buffs will go away ;)
Unless you have super-powered attributes, STR and CON are two that generally suffer at the hands of CHA, DEX and INT. You could even argue that WIS is important also since who wants to be the bard who gets charmed and dominated half the time. Of course, with the extra feats now, Force of Personality is an absolute must for any Bard or Sorcerer. Still, I've never seen anyone play the Swashbuckling Bard. We've always just played the Swashbuckler instead. With d6 HP, no CON and little STR, the bard usually just sat back with a shortbow or a crossbow and did 1d6+1 points of damage the 50% of the time that he actually hit. Obviously I'm exaggerating here but you have to admit, they didn't do much outside of singing.
It's 1d8 now. A swashbuckler would shift his focus a bit: He'd probably not be a loremaster (and thus have lower Int). Average Wis is okay, too, since you get the strong will save (and bonuses against some of the will stuff via well-versed). So Dex, Con, Cha, with some Str thrown in (you'll use weapon finesse, anyway), and you have the swashbuckling bard.