OK, I don't know if have been adressed earlier in the thread since it virtually exploded since I last checked in (+200 posts or something)...
You still get to attack and disarm and trip and do all the other bard goodness. You're only prohibited from casting and using command word magic items.
The 3.5 bard couldn't do much more than maintain his music and move. Maintaining bardic music in 3.5 requires a standard action. This means that you can't attack, disarm or trip as long as you are using the ability.
...but then again, making a bunch of unskilled PCs climb that wall is a little cruel to begin with))Wait, so I have to remove all 500' cliffs from my game if my idiot players don't spend points in climb? And if I don't, I'm cruel???
;)
Yep yep yep!
As I see it, with a movement rate of 30, that cliff requires 34 climb checks. Dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and anyone in medium or heavier armor need 50 climb checks.
Even if they can only fail on a 1, pretty much everyone will roll at least one or two fails before they reach the top. Fall. Splat. Heal. Try again. Fall. Splat. Heal.
Kinda reminds me of Sisyphus, but more painful.
Yeah, it's cruel.
;)
So put some stairs in those cliffs. Or elevators. Or kindly griffons that offer rides to the top. Or a cave system that includes plenty of slopes, stairs, and other simple features that rises from the base to the summit.
Or at the very least, have a giant humongous haystack at the base of the most climbable (but still failable) section of the cliff.
Some bardic music abilities require concentration, which means the bard must take a standard action each round to maintain the ability.
Inspire Courage does not require concentration.
|
...but then again, making a bunch of unskilled PCs climb that wall is a little cruel to begin with))Wait, so I have to remove all 500' cliffs from my game if my idiot players don't spend points in climb? And if I don't, I'm cruel???
;)
Yep yep yep!
As I see it, with a movement rate of 30, that cliff requires 34 climb checks. Dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and anyone in medium or heavier armor need 50 climb checks.
Even if they can only fail on a 1, pretty much everyone will roll at least one or two fails before they reach the top. Fall. Splat. Heal. Try again. Fall. Splat. Heal.
Kinda reminds me of Sisyphus, but more painful.
Yeah, it's cruel.
;)
So put some stairs in those cliffs. Or elevators. Or kindly griffons that offer rides to the top. Or a cave system that includes plenty of slopes, stairs, and other simple features that rises from the base to the summit.
Or at the very least, have a giant humongous haystack at the base of the most climbable (but still failable) section of the cliff.
Screw that. Carrion birds gotta eat too!
As I see it, with a movement rate of 30, that cliff requires 34 climb checks. Dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and anyone in medium or heavier armor need 50 climb checks.
Come on DM_Math, you should know better.
Standard Climb checks can only be made at 1/4 your movement rate, rounded down.
So that is 100 Climb checks, unless you want to Accelerate Climbing.
In which you can move 1/2 your rate which would be 34 checks, or 50 checks (if base move is 20) at a -5 to your roll.
Myself I normally call for 1 check per 50 feet of climbing. so always at lest 1 but no need to roll 100 times or some such
As I see it, with a movement rate of 30, that cliff requires 34 climb checks. Dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and anyone in medium or heavier armor need 50 climb checks.Come on DM_Math, you should know better.
Standard Climb checks can only be made at 1/4 your movement rate, rounded down.
So that is 100 Climb checks, unless you want to Accelerate Climbing.
In which you can move 1/2 your rate which would be 34 checks, or 50 checks (if base move is 20) at a -5 to your roll.
Aww shucks, I guess I should have looked it up. Memory is a bit rusty after that 1,000 year nap...
I guess this proves that I don't use 500' cliffs very often at all.
You could just take 10. Or fly.
10+ skill does not always cut it nor dose fly.
Pretty sure fly automatically beats a cliff.
well when you
A: Have access to fly
B: can use it without drawlbacks
C: allow everyone else to fly as well
other wise no it does not help
My my my, aren't we in a pleasant mood. Here, let me help.
Thank you, Blake, for performing those rudimentary mathetmatical functions for me. Without your demonstration, I could not have possibly understood that a +8 bonus increased the chance of success of a particular roll by 40%.
Well then, I'm glad I could clear that up for you.
What you do not seem to understand is that 3.5 (and thus PF) is dominated by numbers skyrocketing straight into crazytown. The fact that you think a +40% chance to land an attack is broken is...well, laughable, and your insistence that it is somehow broken demonstrates a fundamental ignorance regarding the way 3e works.
You do realize that going from a 50% chance to succeed (on average) to a 90% chance to succeed does not mean you succeed 40% more often, but 80% more often, right?
Mechanically, in terms of a balanced game, that is pretty broken.
...WHOA! Dude! I just totally had a revelation! Like, let's say you have a fighter, and he takes the Weapon Focus line of feats. So he's, like, got a +2 UNNAMED bonus on attack rolls. And then, like, he has his weapon training, which increases his attack bonus by +4. And then, like, he flanks with someone, so he, like, has an additional +2 bonus on attack rolls. You're looking at a +40% CHANCE FOR HIM TO HIT AN ENEMY HOLY COW MAAAAAAAAAAAAAN.
And yet he won't always be able to flank. He might not even always be able to use his favorite weapon.
And even then, that's just his first attack. His second attack is 25% less likely to hit, third is 50% less likely to hit, and fourth is 75% less likely to hit.
And much of the game system is balanced around these abilities. They are taken into account already.
Sure that fighter will have an easy time hitting stuff. He's a fighter. It's what he does. It's virtually all he does (I do believe you said as much yourself).
Your additional +8 from the bard simply guarantees that the fighter's first two attacks automatically hit, his third attack is nearly automatic, and his fourth attack still hits better than 50/50. The game is NOT balanced for that.
And what about the other guys. The barbarian doesn't have all that weapon training, and he can't rage all the time. The paladin doesn't have it either, and he cannot smite everything he fights. The rogue can't always sneak attack. The ranger dosn't have every monster as a favored enemy. Give them all +8 and their attacks gain 80% more hits than before too.
And so do the bard's by the way.
And that's not even bringing skills into it. That trap with a specific DC just gets 80% easier to disable. That ambush is 80% easier to spot. Etc.
Still game breaking. Still snaps it right in half.
I do not think you understand how casters work. The wizard is well protected and probably nigh-unhittable to the minions. The cleric wades in and beats the tar out of them. It's pretty simple, actually.
Sure, that might work, unless your cleric is busy handling still more minions. Or too busy healing the guys fighting the boss. Or too busy fighting that boss himself. Or the minions themselves are not 8 levels below the group, but maybe even a level or two higher. Or have clerics of their own. Or they have buffs, magic items, etc. from the boss so they can run around, fly over, or in other ways neutralize the cleric, and the mage's protections.
Minions don't have to be stupid or worthless or weak. In fact, I quetion the choices of any DM who fills the battlefield with harmless fluff that cannot change the outcome of the battle.
Most fighters don't travel with bards.Prove it.
Good point sir. Fairly won. You've caught me at a poor choice of words.
What I should have said is "Not all fighters travel with bards." This statement is easily proven by this very thread in this forum where many people are saying no player in their group played bards. I have had one bard in my last 5 groups myself, and that player quit her bard at level 3 and rerolled a sorcerer. All 5 of those groups had a fighter who didn't travel with a bard.
The fact that every bard is affected by this change, but only some fighters are affected, simply denies your original statement when you said "Fighters are the ones hurt the most by this change." IF anyone is hurt at all, then every bard is hurt and only some fighters.
Nitpicking my choice of words doesn't change that fact, or the fact that my point was valid even if my word choice was dubious.
Now, cheer up!
(did that help?)
Myself I normally call for 1 check per 50 feet of climbing. so always at lest 1 but no need to roll 100 times or some such
You old softy!
How uncruel of you to give the players or their characters such a break!
Next you'll be handing out experience at the top for overcoming a challenge, won't you?
You could just take 10. Or fly.
Yes, but the original poster who mentioned the 500' cliff was referencing how the bard cannot use Inspire Competence to help the party climb the cliff.
If all they need to do is take 10 and get there safely, then no bard would be strumming his lute on the way up - every bard would be saving that bardic music to fight the monsters at the top of the cliff.
Likewise, if they're just going to fly up, again, no need for music at all.
Given the concern was for music to aid the climbing effort, one must assume that the scenario presented itself with a cliff too difficult for take10 and a party without access to levitate, flight, teleport, 500' of rope, or friendly griffons in their portable holes.
They're going to climb, or the bard is going to put his lute away for when he actually needs it.
Myself I normally call for 1 check per 50 feet of climbing. so always at lest 1 but no need to roll 100 times or some suchYou old softy!
How uncruel of you to give the players or their characters such a break!
Next you'll be handing out experience at the top for overcoming a challenge, won't you?
Yes I do, but my group normally get about half treasure and a bit under half the expected level of magic items. The need to earn em. Also outside eberron no ye old magic walmart ...find a wizard ask him really really nice and do him a few favors
You do realize that going from a 50% chance to succeed (on average) to a 90% chance to succeed does not mean you succeed 40% more often, but 80% more often, right?
Mechanically, in terms of a balanced game, that is pretty broken.
This part of your post contradicts
And even then, that's just his first attack. His second attack is 25% less likely to hit, third is 50% less likely to hit, and fourth is 75% less likely to hit.
this part.
So Valeros has a +13 attack bonus on his last attack or something. That isn't going to hit anything that is level appropriate. CR 14 monsters are like, "Teehee, you can't hit my AC." Take the astral deva, for instance. Base AC of 29, without wearing armor. Assuming he doesn't get any bonus AC from shapechanging, Valeros's final attack has a poop chance of hitting the deva. But, unfortunately, Valeros has to gimp himself by using the nerfed version of Power Attack in PF so that he can punch through the deva's DR 10/evil, so his attack chances are all lowered by 20%. So now he's even more gimped against the deva.
The bard's +8 bonus, however, grants the fighter an additional +8 bonus on attack and damage rolls. Thus, the fighter--with his gimped Power Attack--is up a total of +20% on his percent chance to hit.
...I am not impressed. And it's not like the fighter is doing much in the way of damage, either--even if all his attacks hit, he's only doing 3d8 + 3d6 + 105. (This is not assuming the +8 bonus on attack/damage rolls, by the way.) Buuuuut then Valeros loses 10 damage per attack from the damage reduction, so he's really doing 3d8 + 3d6 + 45. So, on average, he's doing 68 damage. In a round. To the astral deva. So the deva beats the tar out of the fighter the next round with his SLAs.
And that's assuming that ALL the attacks hit, and in reality, they're not. So, basically, the fighter needs that +8 to be less of a laughingstock.
And much of the game system is balanced around these abilities. They are taken into account already.
Sure that fighter will have an easy time hitting stuff. He's a fighter. It's what he does. It's virtually all he does (I do believe you said as much yourself).
Your additional +8 from the bard simply guarantees that the fighter's first two attacks automatically hit, his third attack is nearly automatic, and his fourth attack still hits better than 50/50. The game is NOT balanced for that.
The fighter does little in the way of damage, as I've already demonstrated.
And what about the other guys. The barbarian doesn't have all that weapon training, and he can't rage all the time. The paladin doesn't have it either, and he cannot smite everything he fights. The rogue can't always sneak attack. The ranger dosn't have every monster as a favored enemy. Give them all +8 and their attacks gain 80% more hits than before too.
And so do the bard's by the way.
Uh. So what? The bard doesn't do much for damage without tons of dumpster-diving, and the other classes can use those bonuses to function against level-appropriate encounters. They just don't NEED them like the fighter does.
And that's not even bringing skills into it. That trap with a specific DC just gets 80% easier to disable. That ambush is 80% easier to spot. Etc.
Still game breaking. Still snaps it right in half.
Skills don't get a free +8, not that it much matters. And you do realize there are items that hand out competence bonuses on skill checks like candy, right?
You just don't understand how D&D works. D&D is all about pushing numbers off the RNG. If characters DON'T do that, they're going to die.
I'm with houstoderek on this one, the Bard thread is already longer than the Fighter one. Of all things to argue about...
It actually makes me really scared about the Monk thread...
Wait! Next week we have druids! This will be nothing
+8 to both attack and damage, all the time??! So if no one plays bard in my group, I could just give them +8 weapons and it would be no biggie? Woah, DM's are getting soft around here =).
BTW I really like the new bard. Good job again, Jason.
|
Given the current situation I predict:
Druid thread: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! Massive outcry about how druid is weak, poor, underpowered and generally useless next to the Fighter. Jason reveals that Natural Spell was removed from the game, and the next day a bunch of guys in white robes with scythes and mistletoe assault Paizo offices.
Wizard thread: Because Jason will do it and he will preview an Universalist School wizard, there will be 30 pages of flamewar about the Mage Hand and bonus spells.
Barbarian thread: Barbarian becomes the new fighter. Caster fans threaten to kidnap SKR and shave The Poodle if any further buffs to melee classes are given.
Monk thread: The apocalypse. Half the thread are "Sorry, I quit Paizo" posts coming from caster fans, the other half is DM Blake running a live dynamic spreadsheet that calculated Flurry of Blows in all possible scenarios.
Given the current situation I predict:
Druid thread: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! Massive outcry about how druid is weak, poor, underpowered and generally useless next to the Fighter. Jason reveals that Natural Spell was removed from the game, and the next day a bunch of guys in white robes with scythes and mistletoe assault Paizo offices.
Wizard thread: Because Jason will do it and he will preview an Universalist School wizard, there will be 30 pages of flamewar about the Mage Hand and bonus spells.
Barbarian thread: Barbarian becomes the new fighter. Caster fans threaten to kidnap SKR and shave The Poodle if any further buffs to melee classes are given.
Monk thread: The apocalypse. Half the thread are "Sorry, I quit Paizo" posts coming from caster fans, the other half is DM Blake running a live dynamic spreadsheet that calculated Flurry of Blows in all possible scenarios.
There's only one thing I can say to that...
L O L
Given the current situation I predict:
Druid thread: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! Massive outcry about how druid is weak, poor, underpowered and generally useless next to the Fighter. Jason reveals that Natural Spell was removed from the game, and the next day a bunch of guys in white robes with scythes and mistletoe assault Paizo offices.
Wizard thread: Because Jason will do it and he will preview an Universalist School wizard, there will be 30 pages of flamewar about the Mage Hand and bonus spells.
Barbarian thread: Barbarian becomes the new fighter. Caster fans threaten to kidnap SKR and shave The Poodle if any further buffs to melee classes are given.
Monk thread: The apocalypse. Half the thread are "Sorry, I quit Paizo" posts coming from caster fans, the other half is DM Blake running a live dynamic spreadsheet that calculated Flurry of Blows in all possible scenarios.
There's only one thing I can say to that...
L O L
And the funny yet sad thing is...he's right :)
Edited. Just a lot of me b*@%%ing about needless nerfing of spells. No point seeing as what's done is done. Maybe I'll just cut the PRPG spells and replace them with the PH 3.5 spells and then tape a cut out of the 3.5 power attack and Weapon Expertise feats over their counter parts in the PRPG and lets not get started with the druid and his shapeshifting... though I kind of like the idea of that being a sort of 'natures fury' form where the druid becomes more bestial and effectively acts as a buff rather than an actual shapeshift... might add some nifty flavor as well.
Please don't screw over the monk, the poor little guy doesn't need to be weakened anywhere, please please please I hope you guys made him better rather than worse. The bard is cool save for the nerfing of spells (and it's yet to be determined how useful/useless his rounds/day will be but I think being able to cast and use wands and such will more than make up for it, if anything just increase the rounds/day if necessary), the paladin as well, the cleric is cool (again save for the nerfing of spells), the sorcerer is still kinda 'meh' but a slightly better 'meh', the fighter is now like wolverine (the best at what he does), the ranger is even more badass, just please don't screw the monk.
*continues praying to Gary and Dave the patron saints of RPG games*
Wait! Next week we have druids! This will be nothingI'm with houstoderek on this one, the Bard thread is already longer than the Fighter one. Of all things to argue about...
It actually makes me really scared about the Monk thread...
I've already got the popcorn.
I'll likely run out, though. Anyone have a Sam's Club card? :)
|
|
Wait! Next week we have druids! This will be nothingI'm with houstoderek on this one, the Bard thread is already longer than the Fighter one. Of all things to argue about...
It actually makes me really scared about the Monk thread...
I've already got the popcorn.
I'll likely run out, though. Anyone have a Sam's Club card? :)
I know a guy who went to school with a chick who got the paper delivered from a dude who claims he played bocci with Orville Reddenbacker's step-sister's hairdresser.
I think we're good!
;)
With regards to bardic music, I see alot of "Well we catered to this play-style" and "Just house-rule it" and alot of "The bard doesn't need that many rounds"
This worries me quite a bit, because it implies that, like the 3.0 designers, you're assuming that everyone will play the game the same way you do, and if not they can house-rule. This is somthing I hope ins't the case, since I think alot of aspects I really hate about 3.0 and 3.5 (some of which continue into PFRPG) could have been avoided if the origonal designers stopped to think "What if they decided to play the class this way?" CoDzilla, Batman Wizards and other issues never cropped up during their internal play-tests because they always assumed those classes would be played a specific way (I.E. Cleric as a healbot, even though the 2nd Edition cleric only received healing spells by taking either the healing or nature domain).
Please don't tell me "If you think XY or Z is a problem, you could always just house-rule otherwise" because it leaves me thinking that you're following the same style which is only going to result in other problems arising.
I had considered something similar. If the bard uses his/her bardic music for 3 rounds in a row for the same ability the effects would continue for a number of rounds equal to his/her charisma modifier.Hate to start proposing houserules before the preview is even one day old, but what about adding the following bit to the bardic music ability.
If a bard expends two uses of bardic music, he can establish a performance that lasts until the bard cancels it, or until the bard attacks or casts a spell.
With that little bit, our bard can still be sweet in combat and can still inspire competence, or fascinate, or whatever, without having to pay for it round by round.
3.5 Melee Edition will require many house rules to keep it working never mind compatable with 3.5. Since after all that is all 3.5 melee is, house rules put into a book. Much of what they have done is nice, pure beta though from what I have seen so far was a better product. If I could buy it in hard cover I would snatch it up, as is I will buy pathfinder (3.5 melee edition) but will also buy markers so I can edit it before use as it seems to need some.
"3.5 melee edition?" WHAT? are you kidding?
3.x was definitely the UBERCASTINGMONSTUOSITIES edition.
PF RPG is now 3.5 EVERYBODY edition. got the difference? Every class can gain the spotlight now.
|
You just don't understand how D&D works. D&D is all about pushing numbers off the RNG. If characters DON'T do that, they're going to die.
What is RNG?
Also, this post is hilarious - I don't even know what RNG is but i've been enjoying dnd for years, without the implied endless character death. Maybe enjoying and understanding are not reliant upon one and other?
"3.5 melee edition?" WHAT? are you kidding?
3.x was definitely the UBERCASTINGMONSTUOSITIES edition.
PF RPG is now 3.5 EVERYBODY edition. got the difference? Every class can gain the spotlight now.
Hello friend, pathfinder = 3.5 melee edition.
3.5 is most certainly not the everybody edition. But with your persuassive demanding I am sure to listen intently to your view point.
|
|
You just don't understand how D&D works. D&D is all about pushing numbers off the RNG. If characters DON'T do that, they're going to die.What is RNG?
Also, this post is hilarious - I don't even know what RNG is but i've been enjoying dnd for years, without the implied endless character death. Maybe enjoying and understanding are not reliant upon one and other?
Allow me to translate: "If you are not optimizing your characters to the fullest, stacking as many bonuses on top of any random role as possible, you are , quite frankly, made of suck and full of fail. It is a wonder you ever graduated from Chutes and Ladders, loser."
Or something like that, kids these days with their slang...
Given the current situation I predict:
Druid thread: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! Massive outcry about how druid is weak, poor, underpowered and generally useless next to the Fighter. Jason reveals that Natural Spell was removed from the game, and the next day a bunch of guys in white robes with scythes and mistletoe assault Paizo offices.
Wizard thread: Because Jason will do it and he will preview an Universalist School wizard, there will be 30 pages of flamewar about the Mage Hand and bonus spells.
Barbarian thread: Barbarian becomes the new fighter. Caster fans threaten to kidnap SKR and shave The Poodle if any further buffs to melee classes are given.
Monk thread: The apocalypse. Half the thread are "Sorry, I quit Paizo" posts coming from caster fans, the other half is DM Blake running a live dynamic spreadsheet that calculated Flurry of Blows in all possible scenarios.
I would say much of the dissatisfaction comes from the big changes that were not part of Beta and just sprung on us. Casters have been heavily nerfed and were looking for something to hang their hats on, but it just hasn’t come more nerfs have come but not much else. Another issue is even if you disliked a Beta change you knew you still had hope things would be better in release, here you have no such hope. If you dislike a change, it’s too late for that dislike to matter. So you get frustrated and the only thing you can do is vent.
At this point I think casters are already bolting, 3.5 melee edition isn’t what they signed up for, though some might hold out for the druid, but I expect it will disappoint and that will get ugly.
My players who have followed all this only slightly so far are telling me to just stick with 3.5, I had my hopes up that Pathfinder would be better, right now it appears well like Merlin once said, “a dream to some, a Nightmare to others.”
Funny part is we all like Beta better then 3.5, but many hate dealing with that large a book in PDF. I guess I could get it all printed and bound but that I suspect will be expensive if I want it done right. If I had the choice which went to print, Beta would be it, not 3.5 melee.
...Unfortunately, this rounds/day mechanic is a huge disappointment, as it largely cripples the bard unless you're assuming 3-5 round combat only. As our group is fairly unoptimized, combats frequently stretch out for 7-10 rounds, which means that our bard will be unable to use her defining class feature for much of the day.
What people don't seem to realize is that even if the bard's music were at-will, it would not be overpowered. Granting someone a +4 bonus on attack and damage rolls whenever one wants is hardly earth-shattering. Even with splatbooks, you can get that up to +7 fairly easily, and then you can activate your bardic music as a swift action. And even if THAT were at-will, it wouldn't be overpowered. Look at the wizard. Look at the cleric. Look at the druid. Look at what they do, and then compare it to a paltry +7 (+8 in PF) bonus on attack and damage rolls. Compare it to invisibility, compare it to flight, compare it to haste, compare it to having an animal companion, compare it to fabricate, compare it to solid fog, compare it to being a full caster with 3/4 BAB, a d8 HD, and good Fort/Will saves.
Then tell me how much that +8 is worth. Tell me why that +8 is going to shatter the game. Tell me how having that +8 on all day, every day, for the cost of a swift action, is going to snap the game in half.
And I'll tell you what: the fighter is the one who gets hurt most by this nerf. The fighter is unimpressive even with Pathfinder's revisions; he is weak and still useless. His only function is to whittle away at the enemy's health and then absorb their actions for a round or two so that the good character classes can win in combat. However, the fighter can be made less useless when buffed, and the bard's buffs were something that all classes--but the fighter especially--could appreciate. The fighter alone was the one who most benefited from the bard's abilities; he was less of a joke with that +8 bonus. But now the bard's abilities have been crippled, and
+8/+8 is a big deal. There actually aren't that many spells out there that can do that kind of bonuses all day long. Maybe at the highest levels at the cost of disintegrates, but I'm not enough of a D&D caster geek to know what's possible given X+Y out of book Z.
Just looking at core +4/+4 is big, but what's more likely is getting +2/+2 or +3/+3 for 2-3 combats at mid-level. My issue is that every other spell under the sun pretty much works the entire combat and I can memorize 4 a day to cover every combat, but Bardic Music should't be expected to do the same.
You just don't understand how D&D works. D&D is all about pushing numbers off the RNG. If characters DON'T do that, they're going to die.What is RNG?
Also, this post is hilarious - I don't even know what RNG is but i've been enjoying dnd for years, without the implied endless character death. Maybe enjoying and understanding are not reliant upon one and other?
Allow me to translate: "If you are not optimizing your characters to the fullest, stacking as many bonuses on top of any random role as possible, you are , quite frankly, made of suck and full of fail. It is a wonder you ever graduated from Chutes and Ladders, loser."
Or something like that, kids these days with their slang...
To me though in an optimized to the max game, generalists like the bard, are rarely a good choice. Since by definition they aren't optimal at anything. In most min/max situations your goal is to find something you do well and focus to the extreme on doing it as good as you can.
|
|
To me though in an optimized to the max game, generalists like the bard, are rarely a good choice. Since by definition they aren't optimal at anything. In most min/max situations your goal is to find something you do well and focus to the extreme on doing it as good as you can.You just don't understand how D&D works. D&D is all about pushing numbers off the RNG. If characters DON'T do that, they're going to die.What is RNG?
Also, this post is hilarious - I don't even know what RNG is but i've been enjoying dnd for years, without the implied endless character death. Maybe enjoying and understanding are not reliant upon one and other?
Allow me to translate: "If you are not optimizing your characters to the fullest, stacking as many bonuses on top of any random role as possible, you are , quite frankly, made of suck and full of fail. It is a wonder you ever graduated from Chutes and Ladders, loser."
Or something like that, kids these days with their slang...
Hence my post half way up the thread: We're talking about the bard, people. No need to get panties in a twist...
If you're a min/maxing power gamer, wtf are you doing worrying about the bard? If you're a role-player, why are you crying about numbers?
And, Thurgon, I tend to agree with some of your assessment. Look, I know I'm a huge fighter guy, but even I can't stand (with a capital WTF??) the spell nerfs. All I wanted was less mobile casters and a somewhat harder concentration DC. I didn't want their teeth pulled...
|
|
While at Paizocon I was lucky enough to get into Jason Nelson's game. I was pretty jazzed about it but when we all pulled our characters out of the hat I drew... Lem :( Rest assured I was not happy, I've never had a lot of bard love and didn't see this changing anytime soon, in particular since we were on 3.5 rules.
It turned out that Lem was a hoot to play. His skills were a great addition to the party and his combat mobility was great. I was a little frustrated that the first round of combat seemed to be dedicated to performance, but I don't get the folks who say that's all their bard does.
One thing I don't get is the issue people talk about maintaining bardic song. When I played Lem I would start inspire courage once then let it run for 5 rounds while I did more interesting stuff (spells,etc). Generally our encounters didn't last much more than 5 rounds (two encounters did) so this wasn't a huge issue. If I needed more rounds later in the encounter Lem would restart it when it expired.
Thanks for the input from someone who has actually played the updated bard.
If I'm reading your post correctly, you would use inspire courage on the first round of combat (using one round of bardic song) and then let the effect linger for five rounds (using zero rounds of bardic song), only to use an additional round if the combat went longer?
If inspire courage still lingers, I think this will allay some of the longer combat/mid to high level play concerns. Especially if you take a certain splatbook feat that increases the linger effect to 10 rounds.
Mechanically, this could be very cool. You start Inspire Courage on round one, let it linger, and on round two and use a different bardic song, say Dirge of Doom. This could be especially cool once bardic music can be started as a move or swift action.
This, of course, assumes I'm interpreting the mechanic correctly. I'm not sure, since some of Jason B's posts imply differently.
Thoughts?
With regards to bardic music, I see alot of "Well we catered to this play-style" and "Just house-rule it" and alot of "The bard doesn't need that many rounds"
This worries me quite a bit, because it implies that, like the 3.0 designers, you're assuming that everyone will play the game the same way you do, and if not they can house-rule. This is somthing I hope ins't the case, since I think alot of aspects I really hate about 3.0 and 3.5 (some of which continue into PFRPG) could have been avoided if the origonal designers stopped to think "What if they decided to play the class this way?" CoDzilla, Batman Wizards and other issues never cropped up during their internal play-tests because they always assumed those classes would be played a specific way (I.E. Cleric as a healbot, even though the 2nd Edition cleric only received healing spells by taking either the healing or nature domain).
Please don't tell me "If you think XY or Z is a problem, you could always just house-rule otherwise" because it leaves me thinking that you're following the same style which is only going to result in other problems arising.
This was also my worry as well and this is one area where I think more of a statistical analysis would squelch the worries of many players. If combat really does last 5-6 rounds for 80% of the players here, then I do see that they have to create rules that benefit the 80% most. But if combat runs more evenly across the spectrum then maybe a mistake was made, but I'm not ready to call that and I was one of the first people here calling foul on what was effectively a nerf.
But overall I do feel that they've made massive improvements to the game and you still have some leeway to play what you want and not just what they have in mind. But do understand that there are always going to be limits to what you can play with a class-based system since each class makes assumptions about a limited range of play styles. Sometimes you can only stretch a class so far.
+8/+8 is a big deal. There actually aren't that many spells out there that can do that kind of bonuses all day long. Maybe at the highest levels at the cost of disintegrates, but I'm not enough of a D&D caster geek to know what's possible given X+Y out of book Z.
Just looking at core +4/+4 is big, but what's more likely is getting +2/+2 or +3/+3 for 2-3 combats at mid-level. My issue is that every other spell under the sun pretty much works the entire combat and I can memorize 4 a day to cover every combat, but Bardic Music should't be expected to do the same.
Unlike those spells though bardic music can influence skill checks, counter sound effects, and be used to persuade as well. It's more flexible then those spells. And even skipping it's flexiblity it's for the most part more powerful at what it does, a +3/+3 for a group is more then most spells will do. Add in a solid list of buff spells that the bard has and he will out buffing most anyone else. But he also brings a massive bag of skills to the table that no class outside of a really dedicated rogue can compete with. His hit die is now tops for casters (same as cleric and druid now who got no such buff), his armor is pretty much second best amoung casters, and his weapon selection is top or near the top so he can act when spells/songs aren't his best option.
While at Paizocon I was lucky enough to get into Jason Nelson's game. I was pretty jazzed about it but when we all pulled our characters out of the hat I drew... Lem :( Rest assured I was not happy, I've never had a lot of bard love and didn't see this changing anytime soon, in particular since we were on 3.5 rules.
It turned out that Lem was a hoot to play. His skills were a great addition to the party and his combat mobility was great. I was a little frustrated that the first round of combat seemed to be dedicated to performance, but I don't get the folks who say that's all their bard does.
One thing I don't get is the issue people talk about maintaining bardic song. When I played Lem I would start inspire courage once then let it run for 5 rounds while I did more interesting stuff (spells,etc). Generally our encounters didn't last much more than 5 rounds (two encounters did) so this wasn't a huge issue. If I needed more rounds later in the encounter Lem would restart it when it expired.
Thanks for the input from someone who has actually played the updated bard.
If I'm reading your post correctly, you would use inspire courage on the first round of combat (using one round of bardic song) and then let the effect linger for five rounds (using zero rounds of bardic song), only to use an additional round if the combat went longer?
If inspire courage still lingers, I think this will allay some of the longer combat/mid to high level play concerns. Especially if you take a certain splatbook feat that increases the linger effect to 10 rounds.
Mechanically, this could be very cool. You start Inspire Courage on round one, let it linger, and on round two and use a different bardic song, say Dirge of Doom. This could be especially cool once bardic music can be started as a move or swift action.
This, of course, assumes I'm interpreting the mechanic correctly. I'm not sure, since some of Jason B's posts imply differently.
Thoughts?
The lingering is quite important here, but we haven't gotten an official ruling from anyone who has seen the final and the example that Jason gave on the forums is definitely not suggestive of that (quite the opposite in fact). I think it's critical that we get that official ruling before August 13th as it will assuage many people's issues.
To me though in an optimized to the max game, generalists like the bard, are rarely a good choice. Since by definition they aren't optimal at anything. In most min/max situations your goal is to find something you do well and focus to the extreme on doing it as good as you can.You just don't understand how D&D works. D&D is all about pushing numbers off the RNG. If characters DON'T do that, they're going to die.What is RNG?
Also, this post is hilarious - I don't even know what RNG is but i've been enjoying dnd for years, without the implied endless character death. Maybe enjoying and understanding are not reliant upon one and other?
Allow me to translate: "If you are not optimizing your characters to the fullest, stacking as many bonuses on top of any random role as possible, you are , quite frankly, made of suck and full of fail. It is a wonder you ever graduated from Chutes and Ladders, loser."
Or something like that, kids these days with their slang...
Hence my post half way up the thread: We're talking about the bard, people. No need to get panties in a twist...
If you're a min/maxing power gamer, wtf are you doing worrying about the bard? If you're a role-player, why are you crying about numbers?
And, Thurgon, I tend to agree with some of your assessment. Look, I know I'm a huge fighter guy, but even I can't stand (with a capital WTF??) the spell nerfs. All I wanted was less mobile casters and a somewhat harder concentration DC. I didn't want their teeth pulled...
It's more of an issue when you're the roleplayer and your fellow PCs are of the min/max variety. You get a whole lot less jeering when people don't think you're wasting a spot that they need to survive.
But then again why can't a person be both? Is there some rule that someone can't be an effective roleplayer and still want to be effective in the war game portion of the game as well?
"3.5 melee edition?" WHAT? are you kidding?
3.x was definitely the UBERCASTINGMONSTUOSITIES edition.
PF RPG is now 3.5 EVERYBODY edition. got the difference? Every class can gain the spotlight now.
Hello friend, pathfinder = 3.5 melee edition.
3.5 is most certainly not the everybody edition. But with your persuassive demanding I am sure to listen intently to your view point.
This is one of those situations where both are right I think. Pathfinder has boosted the melee classes far above and beyond what they were while nerfing specifically overpowered spells that are what made the caster classes so insanely good.
Now overall the casters got more goodies. Clerics only won in terms of raw numbers, but certain spells that had become staples because of their overall goodness are now more in line with their other less showy brethren.
Now I would have liked to have seen more previews of spells that showed boosts to spells that really, really sucked and were brought into a more reasonable power level. That might help with the hurt feelings of caster lovers who think that they're mostly getting bomped on the head with foam.
Edit: Forgot about the concentration check changes.
On that note though this is something that was fairly necessary as basically it became a total non-issue for casters after low- to mid-game. This is one that I felt very frustrated with as you could only effectively stop a spell from being cast with high levels of damage which sometimes had the added benefit of killing the caster. But all-in-all as someone who plays only casters and bards (though not by choice) I think the change was necessary to provide that stopping mechanism.
Hence my post half way up the thread: We're talking about the bard, people. No need to get panties in a twist...If you're a min/maxing power gamer, wtf are you doing worrying about the bard? If you're a role-player, why are you crying about numbers?
And, Thurgon, I tend to agree with some of your assessment. Look, I know I'm a huge fighter guy, but even I can't stand (with a capital WTF??) the spell nerfs. All I wanted was less mobile casters and a somewhat harder concentration DC. I didn't want their teeth pulled...
The funny part is my guy that I played through most all of 3.X came from 1st ed. A Cleric with some small number of fighter levels but basically a cleric. He was 19th level last I played him, and mobility was never his strength. In 1st ed he took a rather nasty beating once because he decided to be brave and attack solo the commanders of an army that had his friends trapped. It was bold and unexpected by the DM who truly thought I would hide out the fight and hope my pals could effect their own escape. But well my guy never has been one to sit back. To everyone's surprise my 1st ed cleric managed to send the army commander running and defeat their calvery but he got mangled for it and ever after had a limp. When we converted to 3.0 that limp had the effect of not allowing me to cast and move the same round. Basically the effect you would like to see all casters have in effect. And one I would be much more willing to deal with that having my spells crushed, my casting more easily interupted, and my skill points still sucking....
*Kicks back, eating popcorn, watching people argue over bards for whatever reason...*
Some people can be passionate about things that you can't fathom a reason to be passionate about. Are we crazy? Probably, but that's our right.
Thanks for the input from someone who has actually played the updated bard.
If I'm reading your post correctly, you would use inspire courage on the first round of combat (using one round of bardic song) and then let the effect linger for five rounds (using zero rounds of bardic song), only to use an additional round if the combat went longer?
I think you misunderstood Dennis, he actually played the 3.5 bard. I included the entire post in spoiler tags below.
While at Paizocon I was lucky enough to get into Jason Nelson's game. I was pretty jazzed about it but when we all pulled our characters out of the hat I drew... Lem :( Rest assured I was not happy, I've never had a lot of bard love and didn't see this changing anytime soon, in particular since we were on 3.5 rules.
It turned out that Lem was a hoot to play. His skills were a great addition to the party and his combat mobility was great. I was a little frustrated that the first round of combat seemed to be dedicated to performance, but I don't get the folks who say that's all their bard does.
One thing I don't get is the issue people talk about maintaining bardic song. When I played Lem I would start inspire courage once then let it run for 5 rounds while I did more interesting stuff (spells,etc). Generally our encounters didn't last much more than 5 rounds (two encounters did) so this wasn't a huge issue. If I needed more rounds later in the encounter Lem would restart it when it expired.
So under 3.5 short encounters burned one standard action and one bardic performance. Longer encounters would burn either 2+ standard actions and 2+ to bardic performances OR the bard could burn 1 bardic performance, a standard action and be limited in what actions he could perform (no spellcasting or wand uses... bleh). I can't see any situation where the PfRPG bard doesn't kick butt on this. The bard burns X rounds of bardic performance and at MOST 1 standard action ever. At 10th level he's burning move actions to initiate the song.
So IMO the PfRPG bards bardic performance wins by a mile because his ability allows him to do more cool stuff. On paper maybe the 3.5 version gets more rounds of song use but then he is forced to waste tons of potential actions on maintaining it. bleh!
By contrast the PfRPG bard is doing is using wands, casting haste, curing folks, blasting with glitterdust, charming monsters... I'll take the PfRPG one even if he might fail to inspire his teamates occasionally, because IMO characters are supposed to be FUN to play.
Yeah, the bard still lacks the earth shattering spells of the other casting classes, but he's going to be a hoot to play.
It's more of an issue when you're the roleplayer and your fellow PCs are of the min/max variety. You get a whole lot less jeering when people don't think you're wasting a spot that they need to survive.But then again why can't a person be both? Is there some rule that someone can't be an effective roleplayer and still want to be effective in the war game portion of the game as well?
Effective and optimal are not nearly the same thing. An optimal character can be a roleplayer as well, but he wont be a bard. Bards are as I said generalists, and by default because of how optimization works generalists are in general not optimal. But bards can be effective but you have to accept in a group of min/max'ers your level of effectiveness will be less then theirs.
Something else you have to consider in the
Rounds/Day
VS
Times/DayDebate:
You use bard songs out of combat too. Whether it be to fascinate a crowd of xenophobic townies, or to help your rogue make that Disable check. It's not just in-combat use. You might use 10 rounds of your fascinate just on the townies, alone.
This has been brought up before and dealt with partially on various issues, but it's never been dealt with fully. Certainly I don't want to blow half my Bardic Music rounds in a day on an appraise check or a lock that takes several tries, much less take 20 which isn't possible without feats until level 7 (and that's only once).