The bard - what the?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Zurai wrote:


Since very, very few people play core-only (there isn't one single group I'm aware of in my city that does), that's a bit of a specious comparison.

I can give you 3 more groups to add to your list. My Friday night game, the Saturday group at a different table, and my Saturday game. All of which involve different people at each table.

The Exchange

Xuttah wrote:


If you're using the final, suppliment-bloated version of 3.5 as the benchmark for comparison, then I admit the PRPG bard will fall short of your expectations. If, OTOH, you compare core rules to core rules, I believe you'll find the PRPG bard is superior to the 3.5 bard both in mechanics and power level.

If you aren't using the supplements, then what's the point of the whole notion of "backwards compatible"? PRPG replaces the PHB and DMG, The Bestiary (roughly) replaces the MM, so that's the core. If you don't count the splatbooks, where's the backwards compatibility come in?

I'm pretty sold on PF, but if it becomes apparent that it won't work with all the splatbooks I've got on my shelf, then I guess we're back to 3.5 with a few new PF-inspired house rules.

Liberty's Edge

Zurai wrote:


Since very, very few people play core-only (there isn't one single group I'm aware of in my city that does), that's a bit of a specious comparison.

I disagree. All of the supplimental rules, options and whatnot are fru-fru. Core rules vs. core rules is the only way to have a truly fair comparison IMO.

BTW I also play core only and have lots of fun. I have played D&D with the full range of products and options, and I find the simplicity of core only to be freeing.

[edit] that first statement came accross a little too absolute for my liking. Sorry. I do believe that a point by point comparison of the two base classes without the distraction of optional materials is the most constructive way to discuss their relative merits though.


Alright, I've got a few things to say.

Earlier in the thread, the feat lingering song was discussed. In my experience, the best way to handle that feat is to make it such that the bard only has to pay every other round. Pay one round of bardic music at round 1, round two comes around and it's just going, round 3 hits and you pay another round. In this way it doubles your value on your bardic music rounds, which I think is a fair trade considering in 3.5 it doubled how long a song would last after you quit singing (or died. Yup, in 3.5 bardsong's prolonged effect stayed around even after he died up to the 5 rounds, 10 with 3.5 lingering song)

The rounds per day mechanic isn't TERRIBLE, but the amount per day that was designated just doesn't seem to cut the mustard, especially at low levels.

And yeah, a simple solution was given in another thread for activating items and feats as were used in 3.5. Each use costs 2 rounds of music, the same amount a level gives, aka the translation of what you recieved per level in 3.5.

Infact... that's not a bad houserule, and it makes it such that the 3.5 bard's ability to sing actually recieves a significant boost from the pathfinder rules. Port back in the 'sing as long as you want' part of 3.5, and 3.5's lingering after-effect, and simply turn your rounds per day into 1 use per day / 2 rounds you would have as a Pathfinder bard.

It restores full backwards compatibility. (That and change Lingering song to +8 rounds, grrr lol)


The thing is, once you have Versatile Performance, you start needing to spend lots of skill points. It hardly matters what you spend them on when you were a wee bard lad, since by higher levels, you might have more skill points than skills you care about. Also, ranks spent on the basic skills are not completely wasted; they still count for prerequisites, and they are not necessarily affected by Charisma drain or damage.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
And yeah, a simple solution was given in another thread for activating items and feats as were used in 3.5. Each use costs 2 rounds of music, the same amount a level gives, aka the translation of what you recieved per level in 3.5.

The problem with this is that it breaks internal consistency. Suddenly your "rounds of bardic performance" are not how many rounds you can perform per day.


The problem here is as follows:

The 3.5 bard, core, sucks. Probably the worst class in 3.5.

Splatbooks did a lot to address this. Bardic music as a swift action, Knowledge Devotion, Snowflake Wardance, Lingering Song. These made bards kick ass.

Pathfinder comes along and breaks compatibility with every one of these splatbooks, while updating the 3.5 core bard. The 3.p bard is better than the 3.5 core bard. But it still sucks, because it's a slight improvement on something that was terrible.

The unforgivable sin, which is something that you all have hit on, is in breaking backwards compatibility with the things that made bards a good class.

I've played a bard in a 3.p campaign - it's not good. Full casters are good (it's still 3rd edition, after all), Fighters are good, Paladins are good. Rangers, Rogues and Barbarians are solid. Bards are poor. If you've got good other players to carry you through combats, you are a fantastic character out of combat...but that's about it.

-Cross


This one of those (unending, it seems) cases where it's not the destination, but the journey. If all you're concerned with is that number in the level box of your character sheet, you shouldn't be playing a "Role Playing Game." Levels, lives and kills are of utmost importance in FPS arcades, not here. If anything, let your character nurture a two-dimensional obsession for notches on his scabbard.

It makes complete sense that 20th level spell casters are going to have an advantage over their non-spell-dependent counterparts. You might have a fighter that can best any creature on the planet in physical combat, while shrugging off magic-based physical harm (fire, lightning, acid, etc.) But unless he's got friends in mystical places, when said melee master is flung into another dimension by a 100 pound nerd with a wand, he ain't coming back. Poof. Gone.

But, wait, Mr. Uber-Mage. How exactly did you reach such heights of power? Get any help along the way? Did a friendly paladin keep you from getting devoured by hell-spawn when that celestial summoning went wrong? Barbarian hold up the granite block trap from crushing you in that ancient tomb? When your quest for that absolutely essential lost scroll of incantations for planar movement found the party transported into a magical textbook of chronicled events where the only escape was to enact each story as it happened, would you ever have made it without the bard's expansive historical knowledge?

A good GM knows how to run a game according to PCs' strengths and dispositions. Do the new bards really need to be slapped around quite so much as I've seen on the boards? No. The real ultimate power a player should concern him or herself with is the GM. If you feel your character is letting you down, that is the person you should be talking to.

[edited and reposted from the "Ranger Spells seem a bit light?" thread]


That's the problem, though. It's fun to start off wimpy and become powerful. That's what levels are for. It's why you start off at 1st and work your way up to 18th or 20th or whatever. But for the non-casters, you start off comparatively powerful, and as you gain levels, you get weaker and weaker in comparison to your teammates and the opposition. No one wants to work their way towards mediocrity.

As far as the argument of "just roleplay!" goes, what fun is it to roleplay someone's caddy in a heroic type game? No DM on earth can fix that, unless he rewrites the classes from the ground up.

[Reposted here from that thread, because you evidently missed it there]


For the record, if anybody wants a look at a bard that does it's job and can contribute to the party equally to a full caster or a melee combatant(in a homebrew redesign where melee combatants are intended to contribute equally to full casters at all levels, though I'm not sure if I've quite reached that point) let me know and your email and I'll send it.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
For the record, if anybody wants a look at a bard that does it's job and can contribute to the party equally to a full caster or a melee combatant(in a homebrew redesign where melee combatants are intended to contribute equally to full casters at all levels, though I'm not sure if I've quite reached that point) let me know and your email and I'll send it.

You've got mine...


Elucidarian wrote:
This one of those (unending, it seems) cases where it's not the destination, but the journey. If all you're concerned with is that number in the level box of your character sheet, you shouldn't be playing a "Role Playing Game." Levels, lives and kills are of utmost importance in FPS arcades, not here. If anything, let your character nurture a two-dimensional obsession for notches on his scabbard.

Classic Stormwind fallacy.


Zurai wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Zurai wrote:
Fighters can fight all day long.
Not if the GM does his job - which is empower the rules with an actual, thinking brain to fill in the blanks.

I'm glad to hear you support the 15-minute workday, then.

And that you disbelieve in a variety of historical battles where people actually did fight for 8 hours or more.

How can you be glad of this? Did your belief that I do that stuff restore your faith in humanity? Did you win a bet?

Or are you just being argumentative?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
For the record, if anybody wants a look at a bard that does it's job and can contribute to the party equally to a full caster or a melee combatant(in a homebrew redesign where melee combatants are intended to contribute equally to full casters at all levels, though I'm not sure if I've quite reached that point) let me know and your email and I'll send it.
You've got mine...

It's been sent, it's in Microsoft Works, hope that's not a problem (if it is specify a file type and I can probably get it to you in that type), let me know what you think.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
It's been sent, it's in Microsoft Works, hope that's not a problem (if it is specify a file type and I can probably get it to you in that type), let me know what you think.

I'll try and open it this evening, and shoot you a reply. Thanks!


kyrt-ryder wrote:


So your saying it's unreasonable for a bard to hum a battle hymn as the party is making their way through a dungeon or to keep pace while their marching?

My asking personality wants to know why those fighters need the buff to attack and damage when they march?

Spoiler:
My pedantic personality wants to point out that you used the wrong "they're" :P


Did someone call me?


KaeYoss wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


So your saying it's unreasonable for a bard to hum a battle hymn as the party is making their way through a dungeon or to keep pace while their marching?

My asking personality wants to know why those fighters need the buff to attack and damage when they march?

** spoiler omitted **

Depends, they may be ambushed, or they might march right into a battle with an opposing force. There are alot of variables, and having bardsong there is a pretty fitting backdrop (Plus it keeps the bard shut up, I bet Roy wished they'd made Elan do that lmao. It's an order of the stick joke, incase your not familiar with it.)


kyrt-ryder wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


So your saying it's unreasonable for a bard to hum a battle hymn as the party is making their way through a dungeon or to keep pace while their marching?

My asking personality wants to know why those fighters need the buff to attack and damage when they march?

** spoiler omitted **

Depends, they may be ambushed, or they might march right into a battle with an opposing force. There are alot of variables, and having bardsong there is a pretty fitting backdrop (Plus it keeps the bard shut up, I bet Roy wished they'd made Elan do that lmao. It's an order of the stick joke, incase your not familiar with it.)

Heh. Singing non stop for hours is rather difficult, and if the Bard in question wants to change the affect being generated, this expends a use; if this happens several times, it could expend multiple uses in a single fight. Now, a bard will be able to use his performance for the same length of time regardless of whether he's doing the same thing or changing the affect to something else; countersong/distraction, for example, or a debuff like Dirge of Doom.

Liberty's Edge

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Plus it keeps the bard shut up, I bet Roy wished they'd made Elan do that lmao...

Technically, it does exactly the opposite. :)

Besides, do you really *want* to hear Elan sing for an 8 hour march? He'd run out of tunes and then just start singing his surface thoughts.

"Boy, is my throat sore, sore sore. I'm outta songs to siiiiing. I hope it's V's turn to make the sandwiches todaaaaaaay. Oh look! A butterfly!"

If you were Roy, could you endure that? :)


Xuttah wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Plus it keeps the bard shut up, I bet Roy wished they'd made Elan do that lmao...

Technically, it does exactly the opposite. :)

Besides, do you really *want* to hear Elan sing for an 8 hour march? He'd run out of tunes and then just start singing his surface thoughts.

"Boy, is my throat sore, sore sore. I'm outta songs to siiiiing. I hope it's V's turn to make the sandwiches todaaaaaaay. Oh look! A butterfly!"

If you were Roy, could you endure that? :)

Well, considering Roy doesn't really consider Elan's song beneficial to the party, I guess he could hope Elan lost his voice to it?

Liberty's Edge

kyrt-ryder wrote:


Well, considering Roy doesn't really consider Elan's song beneficial to the party, I guess he could hope Elan lost his voice to it?

Come to think of it, this may be best reason to convert to PRPG. Bards like Elan can run out of bardic performance rounds early in the day and then you don't need to hear from them again. ;)


Xuttah wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


Well, considering Roy doesn't really consider Elan's song beneficial to the party, I guess he could hope Elan lost his voice to it?
Come to think of it, this may be best reason to convert to PRPG. Bards like Elan can run out of bardic performance rounds early in the day and then you don't need to hear from them again. ;)

You know... it would be interesting to see him convert them over to PF, he did it from 3.0 to 3.5, but I think it would be more humorous now. (Heck, he'd probably throw in a minor 4E burn into the strip too)


I'm curious, am I the only one bothered with facinate DC nerf? I mean its a nerf that goes down to everything related to it.


pontoark wrote:
I'm curious, am I the only one bothered with facinate DC nerf? I mean its a nerf that goes down to everything related to it.

Your not the only one botherred by it. In my campaign the DC's not what it was in 3.5 but it is increased to the greater between the following.

DC = 10+1/2 bard level + Charisma modifier

OR

DC = Applied Perform Bonus (IE Ranks + 3 + cha + feats)

for examples

A 6th level bard with skill focus perform and a +3 cha would have 6+3+3+3 = DC 15, while 1/2 his level =3 so... 10+3+3=16, base wins.

A 12th level bard with skill focus perform and a +3 cha(keeping it simple people) would have 12+3+6+3= DC 24, compared to 16+3=19, the greater one wins, and it keeps advancing)

In all honesty, the base DC isn't bad at low levels, its the higher levels you need the boost.


pontoark wrote:
I'm curious, am I the only one bothered with facinate DC nerf? I mean its a nerf that goes down to everything related to it.

The fascinate DC nerf sucks, but makes sense.

Basically, there are 3 categories of rolls in 3.x:

Attack vs. AC
Saves vs. DC
Skill checks.

Point me to a place where you cross those lines (Attack vs. DC, Save vs. Skill, Save vs. AC, Skill vs. AC), and I will find you an exploitable rule. Because all of those things scale very differently.

They tried to remove these cross-checks. The ones they left in (The critical feat chain, intimidate/diplomacy checks) are still broken/dumb.


pontoark wrote:
I'm curious, am I the only one bothered with facinate DC nerf?

No, other people are wrong, too ;-P

The fact is that the old DC didn't fit, didn't make sense, and needed a nerf because it was too good.

Either that or make all DCs like that. Wizards make a Spellcraft check (which they have maxed out, have an item that grants them a huge bonus on, has skill focus, and all that), and if your save cannot beat it, his death spell will kill you.

There, the game's over. Winning initiative means winning the game.

Xuttah wrote:


Come to think of it, this may be best reason to convert to PRPG. Bards like Elan can run out of bardic performance rounds early in the day and then you don't need to hear from them again. ;)

They'd continue singing just out of spite.

Liberty's Edge

KaeYoss wrote:


They'd continue singing just out of spite.

Inspire Annoyance is an At Will ability.

Grand Lodge

Eltanin24 wrote:

No one plays Bards anyway.

Really? I do. After Ranger it is my favorite class. Granted I have not played the Pathfinder version yet but I don't see that changing much.


Wow. This threads didn’t die. Nice.
Let me add some thoughts from this thread

It’s all about IG (Inspire greatness) and IG vs. IC (Inspire Courage)

I asked the designers this (and didn’t get an reply), Inspire greatness:

  • how does it work? What does Boost the HD mean? Does a spell caster with +2 HD get +2 cater level, does a fighter get +2 BAB?
  • what was the designer’s thought?
  • when is it supposed to be used?
  • how is it supposed to be used?

    In order for you to understand why I’m asking all this here are some quotes from Dissinger and some reflections from me.

    Dissinger already gave me this answer on how IG works:
    “This means for spells that rely on how many hit dice you have (like sleep, daze, blasphemy ect.) you count as having two more hit dice. Its pretty straight forward.”
    Dissinger aslo said: "it can prevent certain hit dice dependent effects like sleep or daze. However it must be done ahead of time".

    I know all this. This is not new to me but my point is:
    - At level 9 most spells with hit dice dependent effects are not a problem.

  • Sleep, etc. - no longer a problem
  • Hypnotic Pattern and Rainbow Pattern - The bard has Distraction.
  • At level 11 Deep Slumber is no longer a problem.

    - That leaves Blasphemy (or holy word, etc)

    IG can't be activated as an Immediate Action. This mean that if the bard wants to mitigate the effect of Blasphemy "it must be done ahead of time." This mean the bard must win the initiative (or know the party will meet a foe that might use Blasphemy and the bard must also know when and where the party will meet that foe). Even if the bard wins the initiative he must know that there is a risk the foe is going to cast Blasphemy. Otherwise the bard must use IG in every encounter, "just in case".
    The bonus HD doesn't linger so the bard has to keep on using IG during the entire encounter “just in case” the foe will use it. That is, the bard must use IG all the time "just in case". Even if the bard is using IG it only affect 1 ally.
    Also, unless the bard knows the exact caster level of the foe he cant be sure the bonus HD will matter. If the Inspired ally HD is caster level -5 or caster level -3 doesn't matter.

    The usefulness of IG seems to be just theoretical.

    Let's take a look at party I'm playing in.
    Tank, Rogue, Cleric, Bard, Ranger. At level 11 the bard can use IC, giving the whole part +3 to attack, +3 weapon damage and +3 moral bonus to bonus charm and fear effects.
    Or he can use IG, giving one ally +2 to attack and +2HD and +1 to fort.

    Why would the bard use IG? The hit points is no big deal and IC is far better.
    Is it the hit point? If someone needs healing the cleric can heal or the bard can use IC and heal. At 13th level the bard can even cast Mass Cure Light Wounds or the bard can start IC as a swift action walk to a ally in need of healing and cast CMW or CSW.
    IG – what’s the point. If +2HD meant +2 BAB or +2 caster level then it would be great. But +2HD+con temporary hit point? Please. The “healing” aspect might be nice at level 9 but it sure isn’t great. And it sure isn’t great if you take in to consideration that at level 11 IC will give the whole party +3 to attack and +3 to weapon damage. Using IC means your foe will go down fast and thus it will do less damage. A dead foe doesn’t do damage.

    IG, why does it suck? You want my answer? Paizo messed up.
    In 3.x IG had it’s place. It Lingered and it stacked with IC. So it could be combined with IC. As Jason said himself “5 rounds... that is roughly where we were to be the critical length of the combat.” So start it, change you tune and you have both IC and IG working during the same combat. And since it lingered the bard could cast spells. In 3.x you could even perform and fight.
    Picking the Lingering Song feat would extend duration of most bardic music to 1 minute after an inspired ally stops hearing you play. You could start singing even before you entered the room with the big evil boss.
    Same goes for inspire heroics and you could combine it with the other songs.
    Paizo messed up.

    All this said I like the rounds per day concept but it is badly designed. The fact that at level 7 a bard never runs out of rounds and that songs can’t be combined and ....IG is more or less pointless.
    Have we used IG in our game? Yes. Once when we had a trap that always gave hit point damage. We saved some charges from our wand of CLW. That’s it.


  • Lets talk about the fantastic boost the bard got. Is it so fantastic?

  • The bard can use shield and cast spells. This is big?
    Now people have told me the bard can and should not compete with a sorcerer. True. And the bard hasn’t enough spells per day to rely on his spells.
    Has an archer Bard the need of a shield? No
    Can a melee bard combine his shield with spell casting? No, unless you want to use a Buckler. You can’t use a shield, hold a sword and cast spells. You need a free hand so you could use a buckler or an animated shield.
    Buckler then. Let's talk about Mithral: "Spell failure chances for armors and shields made from mithral are decreased by 10%"
    So even in 3.x a Bard could cast spells using a Buckler and not worry about spell failure.
    Honestly. A bard is not a spell caster. Haste + good hope can be cast during the start of a combat, then the bard can pick his shield if he wants to go melee. He doesn’t have that many spells per day anyway.

  • arcane strike. This feat is no big deal. It’s a swift action. So is activating a song or using or using a swift spell. You can't use two swift actions the same round. And the damage boost is no big deal.

    Speaking of swift spells. Have you ever seam a bard cast a quicken haste spell? No, you haven’t. They can at level 16 cast a quicken level 2 spell. Hurrah? Some of you might say: he can use a rod. I say: a rod is use activated. So either use no weapon that round, unless you pick quick draw, but then you have to drop the rod if you want to draw your weapon. Or you can hold the rod in your shield hand, but then shield AC goes bye bye.

  • More spells per day? Is that really so great? Our level 9 bard now has 5/4/3/ spells per day.
    In 3.5 she would have 3/3/2/ spells per day.
    And in 3.5 the need to cast good hope would now be as great because the bard could combine IG with IC.
    A level 20 bard has one more spell per spell level. But then we should remember that spells like glitter dust and Irresistible Dance have been nerfed. They needed to be nerfed, but I’m still upset Glitterdust allows a foe who acts after the bard two saves the first round.
    And I’m still upset the bards didn’t get even more spells per day and lot more spells known and better spells. Bull’s strength, etc.
    And I'm still wonder why see invisibility is a 3 level spell to bards and why the bard didn't get some spell like abilities.
    Do you want a class with a very powerful boost and more spells per day? Check out the Paladin. Come to think of it. Most classes have got a boost.

  • Versatile performance? Where is the refund?
  • Boost to hit points? All classes with 6HD got 8HD. All classes with 4HD got 6 HD.
  • Inspire Courage + haste + good hope is great. Yes they are. At level 7 but not at level 11 and at level 7 the bard doesn't have that many level 3 spells per day.

    All this said. A party with a sorcerer really benefits from a bard.
    If you play a sorcerer you don’t want utility spells, you pick fireball at level 6 and you probably just go for Dex, Con and charisma and leave Int at 10 or 12 so you don’t have many skill points. Sorcerer: not many skill points, not many class skills, not many spells known.
    The Bard on the other hand has many skill points, many class skill, more spells known than the Sorcerer.
    Problem with Bard. Bad DC not any good damage dealing spells/ not many attack spells.
    So a Bard should not pick slow but should pick spells like haste (or use scrolls), good hope, invisibility, Dimension door etc. The bard also lack spells like mage armor – great if you have animal companions, summon creatures, fight incorporeals, have a monk in the party, etc. The sorcerer have mage armor and can cast it many times per day.
    Then we have Dirge of Doom. Let the bard use it and let the sorcerer fire away or let the cleric cast holy smite, flame strike, etc.

    But still: The bard is not good enough.


  • Crosswind wrote:
    pontoark wrote:
    I'm curious, am I the only one bothered with facinate DC nerf? I mean its a nerf that goes down to everything related to it.

    The fascinate DC nerf sucks, but makes sense.

    Basically, there are 3 categories of rolls in 3.x:

    Attack vs. AC
    Saves vs. DC
    Skill checks.

    Point me to a place where you cross those lines (Attack vs. DC, Save vs. Skill, Save vs. AC, Skill vs. AC), and I will find you an exploitable rule. Because all of those things scale very differently.

    They tried to remove these cross-checks. The ones they left in (The critical feat chain, intimidate/diplomacy checks) are still broken/dumb.

    I always thought that the balance for such a good DC were in the effect itself of the ability, and since they nerfed the DC the next right thing in line would be to tweak it back to useful, but it stayed the same.

    Also, out of curiosity, how often did you see fascinate been used in 3.5? how often did you see it been used in pathfinder and most of all, how often did you find it to be unbalanced in all those times?


    pontoark wrote:

    I always thought that the balance for such a good DC were in the effect itself of the ability, and since they nerfed the DC the next right thing in line would be to tweak it back to useful, but it stayed the same.

    Also, out of curiosity, how often did you see fascinate been used in 3.5? how often did you see it been used in pathfinder and most of all, how often did you find it to be unbalanced in all those times?

    Fascinate? Agree, it's not that Fascinating. LOL.

    Well the nerf was logical, but as you indicate fascinate is not very useful.
    I actually used it in our last session. I tried, it failed. Low DC.
    You can't play a Bard and boost the char the same way a sorcerer boost her char. So low DC and a very limited use of it since it can't be used in combat and can't be used on minless creatures.

    But fascinate is nice if you want to sneak pass a city guard etc. Then it can be useful. So it's not totaly useless....but almost ;-)

    Suggestion? Suggestion suck, the foe get two saves. First save vs fascinate then save vs. Suggestion and it can't be used in combat.

  • I think I used Fascinating three or four times in 3.0 - it worked 50%.
  • Our Pathfinder bard is now level 9. She tried to used fascinate twice so she could use suggestion. It didn't work and her charisma is 18.
  • how often did I find it to be unbalanced? - Never.

  • Dark Archive

    Zark wrote:

    Lets talk about the fantastic boost the bard got. Is it so fantastic?

  • The bard can use shield and cast spells. This is big?
    Now people have told me the bard can and should not compete with a sorcerer. True. And the bard hasn’t enough spells per day to rely on his spells.
    Has an archer Bard the need of a shield? No
    Can a melee bard combine his shield with spell casting? No, unless you want to use a Buckler. You can’t use a shield, hold a sword and cast spells. You need a free hand so you could use a buckler or an animated shield.
    Buckler then. Let's talk about Mithral: "Spell failure chances for armors and shields made from mithral are decreased by 10%"
    So even in 3.x a Bard could cast spells using a Buckler and not worry about spell failure.
    Honestly. A bard is not a spell caster. Haste + good hope can be cast during the start of a combat, then the bard can pick his shield if he wants to go melee. He doesn’t have that many spells per day anyway.
  • Really I see it much like the cleric, where you have your shield out and cast with the other hand. You don't need to go into the thick of things, merely just function at the edge of the fray. Not back by the wizard but closer up. The fact you can cast with a shield means, no feat use required to negate arcane failure, nor the requirement of a move action to draw that shield. It opens you up to more actions like getting the hell out of dodge when things get dicey.

    Quote:
  • arcane strike. This feat is no big deal. It’s a swift action. So is activating a song or using or using a swift spell. You can't use two swift actions the same round. And the damage boost is no big deal.
  • Actually bard song CAN be a swift action. Its not required. This means you could move action begin the song, standard action attack after a swift arcane strike. Also this damage stacks with all the other damage modifiers a weapon can have as it is an untyped bonus. This is literally free damage they are THROWING out to the bard.

    Quote:
    Speaking of swift spells. Have you ever seam a bard cast a quicken haste spell? No, you haven’t. They can at level 16 cast a quicken level 2 spell. Hurrah? Some of you might say: he can use a rod. I say: a rod is use activated. So either use no weapon that round, unless you pick quick draw, but then you have to drop the rod if you want to draw your weapon. Or you can hold the rod in your shield hand, but then shield AC goes bye bye.

    Or you could use the buckler you mention. Really this whole "swift action spell casting" propaganda (and that's what it is as you are purposefully casting it in the most negative light) also applies to the myriad of spells bards get that are swift actions from the spell compendium. Its a great source for non-full casters, and Pathfinder is built from the get go to support it.

    Quote:
  • More spells per day? Is that really so great? Our level 9 bard now has 5/4/3/ spells per day.
    In 3.5 she would have 3/3/2/ spells per day.
    And in 3.5 the need to cast good hope would now be as great because the bard could combine IG with IC.
  • IG is good for other reasons, like literally being buffer temp hit points. If enemies can't burn through them on the tank, then the tank takes no damage, and less healing is needed, allowing a bard to play havoc with the rest of the battlefield. More spells are a GOOD thing, especially when you can actually deal damage.

    Quote:

    A level 20 bard has one more spell per spell level. But then we should remember that spells like glitter dust and Irresistible Dance have been nerfed. They needed to be nerfed, but I’m still upset Glitterdust allows a foe who acts after the bard two saves the first round.

    And I’m still upset the bards didn’t get even more spells per day and lot more spells known and better spells. Bull’s strength, etc.
    And I'm still wonder why see invisibility is a 3 level spell to bards and why the bard didn't get some spell like abilities.
    Do you want a class with a very powerful boost and more spells per day? Check out the Paladin. Come to think of it. Most classes have got a boost.

    The bard's boosts are more subtle, as is the role the bard plays. Remember this is jack of all trades master of none.

    Not, "I'm the replacement of any slot you need.", bard augments whats already present. They just do so in a different manner now, than they did back then.

    Quote:
    # Versatile performance? Where is the refund?

    You could just not spend to begin with, and prepare to take advantage of versatile performances first incarnation immediately. Its not that hard to plan ahead. While you might not be helpful for first level (lets face it first level sucks for way OTHER reasons) you get to pick up right where you would have left off when you get versatile performance. Intelligent design can get you through the first few levels, and as you expand your performance repetoir you get to replace more skills.

    Don't forget, when you use Perform dance to replace acrobatics, there IS no armor penalty.

    Quote:

    # Boost to hit points? All classes with 6HD got 8HD. All classes with 4HD got 6 HD.

    # Inspire Courage + haste + good hope is great. Yes they are. At level 7 but not at level 11 and at level 7 the bard doesn't have that many level 3 spells per day.

    Fair enough, but the bard is more effective than you realize. By upping their hit points it not only increases survivability, but also increases the likelihood that when they try something dangerous, it won't end with them in a pool of their own blood. More on this later.

    Quote:

    All this said. A party with a sorcerer really benefits from a bard.

    If you play a sorcerer you don’t want utility spells, you pick fireball at level 6 and you probably just go for Dex, Con and charisma and leave Int at 10 or 12 so you don’t have many skill points. Sorcerer: not many skill points, not many class skills, not many spells known.
    The Bard on the other hand has many skill points, many class skill, more spells known than the Sorcerer.
    Problem with Bard. Bad DC not any good damage dealing spells/ not many attack spells.

    Not true with spell compendium. It gives the abrd the toolkit they need to make their spells worthwhile.

    Quote:

    So a Bard should not pick slow but should pick spells like haste (or use scrolls), good hope, invisibility, Dimension door etc. The bard also lack spells like mage armor – great if you have animal companions, summon creatures, fight incorporeals, have a monk in the party, etc. The sorcerer have mage armor and can cast it many times per day.

    Then we have Dirge of Doom. Let the bard use it and let the sorcerer fire away or let the cleric cast holy smite, flame strike, etc.

    The bard doesn't NEED spells like mage armor because they actually, you know, GET armor. Mage Armor is for the mages who need to be able to withstand a modicum of pressure from the troll swinging at the party. You are trying to shoehorn the bard into the role of Wizard or Sorceror when hes NOT either of those.

    The bard is the bard.

    He does what he does, which is help the party make informed decisions and tries to get them through the dicier ones. He's the guy that leads the team because he knows how the other member's work together and helps coordinate them. His role is not to be a blaster or a wizard, his role is to be a gap fill, and in this role he functions not only efficiently...but THRIVES.

    Quote:
    But still: The bard is not good enough.

    So sayeth you.


    Dissinger wrote:
    IG is good for other reasons, like literally being buffer temp hit points. If enemies can't burn through them on the tank, then the tank takes no damage, and less healing is needed, allowing a bard to play havoc with the rest of the battlefield. More spells are a GOOD thing, especially when you can actually deal damage.

    That seems more like an emergent behavior not an intentional result. I'm still waiting to here from writers if it increases in BAB, Saves, Caster Level are also part of simply increasing the hit dice. Wasn't there some muttering to at some point.

    Dissinger wrote:
    Not true with spell compendium. It gives the abrd the toolkit they need to make their spells worthwhile.

    Splat which has been acknowledged as having a range of content from suck to broken. Regardless lets keep this Core from now on. Both 3.5 and Pathfinder Bards can be improved with supplements, although again his brings up the difficulties of backwards compatibility with how the Bardic Perform (rounds) works vs Bardic Music (days).

    Dissinger wrote:
    The bard doesn't NEED spells like mage armor because they actually, you know, GET armor.

    "Since mage armor is made of force, incorporeal creatures can’t bypass it the way they do normal armor."

    Zark's comment speaks more to the general lack of some of the major party buff spells. If you consider a portion of the Bards abilities to be based around tactically improving the parities abilities the not having counters to incorporeal creatures or all of the basic utility stat buff spells eliminates that.

    ===

    Knowledge, Buffs, and Battle Field Control (mostly through illusions). Those seemed to be the core three areas of the 3.5 Bard.

    In Pathfinder the Bard is finally and truly the undisputed Knowledge champion of core. No other class in core can come close.

    Battle Field Control/Manipulation is still on the weak side as their save DCs for Illusion and enchantment spells are typically weaker then a full caster of the same level. These DCs should be at least on par or higher, and the class most likely should have had a minor bonus to those spells.

    Buffs, this is where the Bard got both helped and in many ways hurt. While they have lots of new effects and can change up bardic effects quickly, they can no longer stack the way they did in 3.5. Their application is also more limited because of the lack of rounds. Using a generous assumption that a battle is only going to last 5 rounds on average, the Bard is still down almost 50% from what it could maintain in 3.5. 20 uses per day translates to (100 rounds), PF Bard on would get 45 low end or maxing out Charisma to 36 (55 rounds). Even assuming one used the 3 extra feats PF gives you against 3.5 to make up the short fall, that only brings you to 73 rounds. This meant that Bardic music went from being competitive to down right superior to spell based buffing to being only tactically better, while spell buffs are better for long term boots (see bless).

    However please note the lack of such long term options on the Bard spell list. No Bless or Bane, Aid, Bull's Strength, Bear's Endurance, and so on.


    Dissinger wrote:
    Zark wrote:

    All this said. A party with a sorcerer really benefits from a bard.

    If you play a sorcerer you don’t want utility spells, you pick fireball at level 6 and you probably just go for Dex, Con and charisma and leave Int at 10 or 12 so you don’t have many skill points. Sorcerer: not many skill points, not many class skills, not many spells known.
    The Bard on the other hand has many skill points, many class skill, more spells known than the Sorcerer.
    Problem with Bard. Bad DC not any good damage dealing spells/ not many attack spells.

    Not true with spell compendium. It gives the abrd the toolkit they need to make their spells worthwhile.

    Quote:

    So a Bard should not pick slow but should pick spells like haste (or use scrolls), good hope, invisibility, Dimension door etc. The bard also lack spells like mage armor – great if you have animal companions, summon creatures, fight incorporeals, have a monk in the party, etc. The sorcerer have mage armor and can cast it many times per day.

    Then we have Dirge of Doom. Let the bard use it and let the sorcerer fire away or let the cleric cast holy smite, flame strike, etc.
    The bard doesn't NEED spells like mage armor because they actually, you know, GET armor. Mage Armor is for the mages who need to be able to withstand a modicum of pressure from the troll swinging at the party. You are trying to shoehorn the bard into the role of Wizard or Sorceror when hes NOT either of those.

    Reading your posts I come to the conclusion you think everything I say say is wrong...with the exception of my point that all classes with 6HD got 8HD.

    You think the bard is Great. That's fine.
    I don't agree and I hope that's OK too, but reading your posts it seems that you are so bent on proving me wrong you just contradict anything I say. No matter what I say.
    Things really start looking like Monty Python's Argument Sketch.

    Please read what I post. Don't just look at the words. This is the second time you ascribe stuff to me I didn't write.

    Read my quotes above. What was my point? My point was: The bard is an excellent asset in a party with a sorcerer.

    As for Splat books. We don't use them. I'm not saying all books are useless. We just don't use them since:

  • a) our DM wants to playtest Pathfinder before we can dig into the splat books or start useing house rules
  • b) The splats were not written in a Pathfinder context. Extra Smiting wasn't broken i 3.5. It gave 2 more attacks per day. If our 9:th level Paladin would pick this feat when he hit level 11 it would grant him an average of 30 attacks per day (or 36 if he is hasted). While smiting he would also bypass any DR and get deflection bonus to AC. Broken in 3.5? No. Broken now? Yes.
  • c) most of The splats "has been acknowledged as having a range of content from suck to broken"

    If the spells I have to have pick to make the bard work as a spell caster or as a bard is not core it at least point to a weakness in the spell lists in the RAW.

    As Dorje Sylas put it: "Splat which has been acknowledged as having a range of content from suck to broken. Regardless lets keep this Core from now on. Both 3.5 and Pathfinder Bards can be improved with supplement"

    I'm saying the bard in the RAW is too weak if you compare him to the other core classes in the RAW....possibly with the exception of the monk.

    So lets make a deal. I will not talk about the lingering song feat and other splat book stuff to prove my points and you do the same for me. OK?

  • Dark Archive

    Zark wrote:
    Reading your posts I come to the conclusion you think everything I say say is wrong...with the exception of my point that all classes with 6HD got 8HD.

    Not wrong, merely arguing the other side. I keep getting the feeling you want more than a bard is supposed to give, but perhaps thats just my perceptions.

    Quote:

    Please read what I post. Don't just look at the words. This is the second time you ascribe stuff to me I didn't write.

    Read my quotes above. What was my point? My point was: The bard is an excellent asset in a party with a sorcerer.

    As for Splat books. We don't use them. I'm not saying all books are useless. We just don't use them since:
    # a) our DM wants to playtest Pathfinder before we can dig into the splat books or start useing house rules
    # b) The splats were not written in a Pathfinder context. Extra Smiting wasn't broken i 3.5. It gave 2 more attacks per day. If our 9:th level Paladin would pick this feat when he hit level 11 it would grant him an average of 30 attacks per day (or 36 if he is hasted). While smiting he would also bypass any DR and get deflection bonus to AC. Broken in 3.5? No. Broken now? Yes.
    # c) most of The splats "has been acknowledged as having a range of content from suck to broken"

    If the spells I have to have pick to make the bard work as a spell caster or as a bard is not core it at least point to a weakness in the spell lists in the RAW.

    Look, here is my point, when you sit here and tell me the bard is worthless I'm of course going to try and prove to you the bard just functions differently than you anticipated. It seems we have a disconnect on how we WANT the bard to work. I understood going into it that the bard was never going to be the spotlight of a fight, that's just not what he does.

    I get you want to get more out of the bard, hence the talk of spells and buffs. I still disagree anyone can buff better than the bard. There are a few awesome buffs that only the bard can give, and they are often immensely helpful to the party.

    Quote:
    As Dorje Sylas put it: "Splat which has been acknowledged as having a range of content from suck to broken. Regardless lets keep this Core from now on. Both 3.5 and Pathfinder Bards can be improved with supplement"

    A splat book considered OP for the orb spells, which people can't agree upon. Whenever I see an argument about the SC I only see bickering over the orb spells, when triad spell is a far better choice to argue the merits of that book.

    Also, this is a general discussion of bard. Nowhere was it implied this was SOLELY the realm of pathfinder. Closing off opposing arguments you DON'T want to hear seems childish to me. Perhaps that's not what you intend when you say such things, but I'm arguing from the entire works that are supported by Pathfinder, which includes what it inherited from 3.5.

    THAT'S why I bring up spell compendium. Also I'm pretty sure no one believes the spell compendium broke bards, only that it made wizards and clerics more broken. That's relatively easy to fix too, a modicum of glossing over things can tell you if you want something in the game or not.

    Quote:

    I'm saying the bard in the RAW is too weak if you compare him to the other core classes in the RAW....possibly with the exception of the monk.

    So lets make a deal. I will not talk about the lingering song feat and other splat book stuff to prove my points and you do the same for me. OK?

    Alright, lets talk about lingering song, lets talk about lyrical spell (which is now an obsolete feat), lets talk about bards. Lets talk about Lyrical Thaumaturge, lets go with captivating performance. Lets roll it all out.

    I don't think you understand when I say roll it all out, if I'm willing to go out of the bounds to things that Pathfinder inherited, I think these are things that should be discussed. I have a potential bard coming into my next campaign, I want to discuss this so when I tell him yes or no, I have discussions I can point to that talk about those very merits.

    So roll it out Zark, I'm trying to discuss it with you, you just complain I'm being argumentative.


    Dissinger wrote:


    Really I see it much like the cleric, where you have your shield out and cast with the other hand. You don't need to go into the thick of things, merely just function at the edge of the fray. Not back by the wizard but closer up. The fact you can cast with a shield means, no feat use required to negate arcane failure, nor the requirement of a move action to draw that shield. It opens you up to more actions like getting the hell out of dodge when things get dicey.

    A) an archer bard don't need a shiled

    B) a 3.5 bard could use animated shield, the shield spell from a wand/scroll or a mithral buckler or cast the spell the first round or before the combat started.

    Dissinger wrote:


    Actually bard song CAN be a swift action. Its not required. This means you could move action begin the song, standard action attack after a swift arcane strike. Also this damage stacks with all the other damage modifiers a weapon can have as it is an untyped bonus. This is literally free damage they are THROWING out to the bard.

    A) at level 13 it +2 to damage. Big deal. The bard still have trouble hitting his foes.

    b) at level 13 the BAB is +9/+4. with haste it's 3 attacks per round.
    swift action + move action + attack = 1 attack.
    Swift action + full attack = 3 attacks = more than 2 points of damage.
    c) I've been wring about how pointless IG is. And one of the recuring arguments I've heard about it's greatness is...let me quote you: Bard chooses to end the song at the beginning of his turn, then restart the bardic music each turn, allowing him to roll the temporary hit points each time it becomes his turn, hence creating a temporary hit point pool.". If you have this feat IG it's even more pointless.

    Dissinger wrote:


    IG is good for other reasons, like literally being buffer temp hit points. If enemies can't burn through them on the tank, then the tank takes no damage, and less healing is needed, allowing a bard to play havoc with the rest of the battlefield. More spells are a GOOD thing, especially when you can actually deal damage.

    In a party with ONE fighter And ONE bard. This might be true.

    Bard come to their right in larger parties. At level 11 the bard can boost a party of 5 or 6 giving all - and the bard included +3 to attack and weapon damage and the saves bonuses.
    This bonus ecual a 15-100 bonus to damage each round vs 2d10+con less healing. Please read this: a dead foe doesn't hit you. If he can't hit you he can't hurt you. = no hit point damage = less healing needed.
    And as pointed out before. Arcane strike and IG is not a great combo.

    Dissinger wrote:


    The bard's boosts are more subtle, as is the role the bard plays. Remember this is jack of all trades master of none.
    Not, "I'm the replacement of any slot you need.", bard augments whats already present. They just do so in a different manner now, than they did back then.

    I never said he should be "the replacement of any slot you need".

    "The bard's boosts are more subtle, as is the role the bard plays."
    This is not an universal truth. The bard, and the concept of the bard, changes. If you like the new bard, fine. I don't.
    the 3.0 bard had mage armor, Bull's strength, Greater Magic weapon, etc.
    If you think these spells are not subtle enough for you, fine. But don't tell me what Bard's role should be.
    and the 3.0 bard had see invisibility as a 2 level spell.

    Dissinger wrote:


    The bard is the bard.

    Not a very impressive argument.

    Dark Archive

    Zark wrote:
    Dissinger wrote:


    Really I see it much like the cleric, where you have your shield out and cast with the other hand. You don't need to go into the thick of things, merely just function at the edge of the fray. Not back by the wizard but closer up. The fact you can cast with a shield means, no feat use required to negate arcane failure, nor the requirement of a move action to draw that shield. It opens you up to more actions like getting the hell out of dodge when things get dicey.

    A) an archer bard don't need a shiled

    B) a 3.5 bard could use animated shield, the shield spell from a wand/scroll or a mithral buckler or cast the spell the first round or before the combat started.

    A) Playing an archer bard is different than what you were talking about. You were mentioning shields. I mentioned shields too. DOn't change your argument on me when I'm discussing a point you bring up.

    b) What's different now? Bard's still have UMD the only difference is animate shield is no longer an all day thing. It works for portions of time.

    Quote:
    Dissinger wrote:


    Actually bard song CAN be a swift action. Its not required. This means you could move action begin the song, standard action attack after a swift arcane strike. Also this damage stacks with all the other damage modifiers a weapon can have as it is an untyped bonus. This is literally free damage they are THROWING out to the bard.
    A) at level 13 it +2 to damage. Big deal. The bard still have trouble hitting his foes.

    Big deal? I don't see it as big deal. Weapon Specialization is the same amount of damage. This also scales to a point more damage than Greater Weapon Specialization. I always hear about how great that feat is for fighters. It's also incredibly narrow requiring three feats, for what bard get in one.

    Quote:

    b) at level 13 the BAB is +9/+4. with haste it's 3 attacks per round.

    swift action + move action + attack = 1 attack.
    Swift action + full attack = 3 attacks = more than 2 points of damage.

    I'm merely stating the bard has options. Something that some people (not sure if you're one of them) argue they lost. Its an options, and one the bard can easily see the benefit of.

    Quote:
    c) I've been wring about how pointless IG is. And one of the recuring arguments I've heard about it's greatness is...let me quote you: Bard chooses to end the song at the beginning of his turn, then restart the bardic music each turn, allowing him to roll the temporary hit points each time it becomes his turn, hence creating a temporary hit point pool.". If you have this feat IG it's even more pointless.

    That is a valid use of it, perhaps not intentional but valid. Also the +1 fort and +2 to all attacks is nice as well. Also to answer you question, its a resounding no. It plainly states;

    Pathfinder Core Rulebook Page 38 wrote:
    ...The bonus hit dice count as regular hit dice only for determining the effects of spells that are hit dice dependent.

    That brings it back to only stopping things like rainbow pattern, daze, ect. ect. You argue that you have to knwo ahead of time that the creature has blasphemy I argue that there are some creatures you know will ahead of time have that spell ready. A balor is KNOWN for having blasphemy and a bard that can easily succeed on the knowledge check could see whats coming down the pipe.

    It all comes down to knowing your foes and what they are capable of.

    Perhaps its not as good as you like, but it has its uses. I'm not TRYING to cram this down your throat, but you seem keen on saying I'm trying to do so.

    Quote:
    Dissinger wrote:


    IG is good for other reasons, like literally being buffer temp hit points. If enemies can't burn through them on the tank, then the tank takes no damage, and less healing is needed, allowing a bard to play havoc with the rest of the battlefield. More spells are a

    In a party with ONE fighter And ONE bard. This might be true.

    Bard come to their right in larger parties. At level 11 the bard can boost a party of 5 or 6 giving all - and the bard included +3 to attack and weapon damage and the saves bonuses.
    This bonus ecual a 15-100 bonus to damage each round vs 2d10+con less healing. Please read this: a dead foe doesn't hit you. If he can't hit you he can't hurt you. = no hit point damage = less healing needed.
    And as pointed out before. Arcane strike and IG is not a great combo.

    Its pick to match situations. I'm merely exploring other avenues of what you could do. Perhaps the fighter is the only one who can reach? If there's a choke point, it might be better to merely give the fighter the inspire greatness and wait for him to burst through that choke point, than to use inspire competence, on people who can't necessarily make use of it.

    Its flavor to taste.

    Quote:

    I never said he should be "the replacement of any slot you need".

    "The bard's boosts are more subtle, as is the role the bard plays."
    This is not an universal truth. The bard, and the concept of the bard, changes. If you like the new bard, fine. I don't.
    the 3.0 bard had mage armor, Bull's strength, Greater Magic weapon, etc.
    If you think these spells are not subtle enough for you, fine. But don't tell me what Bard's role should be.
    and the 3.0 bard had see invisibility as a 2 level spell.

    Don't tell me what to not say to you. I'm trying to have a discussion. I think you're rather close minded about what you want from the bard, and you don't like the direction it's going. That's fine and that's fair, but come out and say it.

    Don't tell me that the bard is crap when I think the bard is better than it used to be. It has more spells, better class abilities, (versatile performance is actually great and Bardic Knowledge is by far more usable than it used to be.) The ability to not leave things to chance with Lore Master is also immensely helpful as it saves the party actions they would not have had otherwise.

    Quote:
    Not a very impressive argument.

    Telling me that I'm merely being argumentative isn't a good one either.


    Dissinger wrote:
    stuff on shields

    Hey I'm not changing my argument, but perhaps I was a bit unclear on what i meant. My point was: Abraham and other have made a big thing out of Bard now can cast spells and use shields. I just said it no big deal. If you are an archer you don't need or use a shield and in 3.5 you could alwas use mithral, animated shield, etc.

    Dissinger wrote:
    Zark wrote:
    Reading your posts I come to the conclusion you think everything I say say is wrong...with the exception of my point that all classes with 6HD got 8HD.
    Not wrong, merely arguing the other side. I keep getting the feeling you want more than a bard is supposed to give, but perhaps thats just my perceptions.

    merely arguing the other side is cool.

    Telling me want a bard is supposed to give is your view point. Not a fact. The bard has changed over the years and will probably change again. One reason is people want change and and another is balance. Perhaps Paizo will come to the conclusion the bards need a boost. Who knows.

    Dissinger wrote:


    Look, here is my point, when you sit here and tell me the bard is worthless I'm of course going to try and prove to you the bard just functions differently than you anticipated.It seems we have a disconnect on how we WANT the bard to work. I understood going into it that the bard was never going to be the spotlight of a fight, that's just not what he does.

    I have NEVER since I got my hands on the Final or since I've read the prewiev said the Bard is Crap. NEVER.

    Yes, they are often immensely helpful.
    I have never said I a bard should be the spotlight of a fight
    The Bard functions differently than I anticipated? No it doesn't. I just hoped they were a little better. Some more spells, more spells known, some SPA, Some more songs, a boost to IG; better performance mechanincs.
    Dissinger wrote:


    Also, this is a general discussion of bard. Nowhere was it implied this was SOLELY the realm of pathfinder. Closing off opposing arguments you DON'T want to hear seems childish to me.

    I creating this thread out frustration of the bard in the RAW. If you think it's childish I want to talk RAW,...hey sorry.

    Dissinger wrote:


    I'm merely stating the bard has options. Something that some people (not sure if you're one of them) argue they lost. Its an options, and one the bard can easily see the benefit of.

    Good Point. I agree options are alwas nice. I think IG is a big problem, I just think they designed it badly.

    Dissinger wrote:


    [...]A balor is KNOWN for having blasphemy [...]

    If you meet a Balor at level 9 you are so dead. Bard or no bard.

    I made my points on IG before so no point doing it again.

    Dissinger wrote:


    Don't tell me what to not say to you.

    LOL, well you obviously tell me what not to say ;-)

    Dissinger wrote:


    I'm trying to have a discussion. I think you're rather close minded about what you want from the bard, and you don't like the direction it's going. That's fine and that's fair, but come out and say it.

    Are we having a discussion? You quote my post without actually reading them or missread them and you. If you don't respond to what I write but respond to what you think I write, or even when go as far as ascribing stuff to me that I have NEVER writen then we are not haveing a discussion.

    I'm rather close minded about what I want from the bard because I don't want what you want? I'm close minded?

    Dissinger wrote:


    Don't tell me that the bard is crap when I think the bard is better than it used to be.

    "Don't tell me..." oh...so I should not tell you what I think? ;-)

    I have never said the bard is crap. The Bard is in fact mostly better than 3.5.


    "Don't tell me that the bard is crap when I think the bard is better than it used to be."

    "I have never said the bard is crap. The Bard is in fact mostly better than 3.5."

    ...Why is it incompatible for the bard to simultaneously be crap and be better than it used to be?

    It was certainly crap in 3.5. It remains crap in Pathfinder.

    The bard is supposed to be versatile, right? Be good at a bunch of things, selectively choose which one to do? Not so much.

    A bard starts off combat by using Inspire Courage. If he can, Haste and Good Hope too.

    After that, you can put him on coast. I should know - in parties I play in, Bards are the most common cohort to grab with the leadership feat (outrageously broken in 3.5, still broken in PF). They're pretty terrific - you don't have to think about what to do with them, and they're good at giving bonuses and buffing.

    At least the class is popular as a minion?

    -Cross

    Liberty's Edge

    Crosswind wrote:


    At least the class is popular as a minion?

    Never thought of myself as a minion. Great, now I have identity issues! :)


    Crosswind wrote:

    "Don't tell me that the bard is crap when I think the bard is better than it used to be."

    "I have never said the bard is crap. The Bard is in fact mostly better than 3.5."

    ...Why is it incompatible for the bard to simultaneously be crap and be better than it used to be?

    It was certainly crap in 3.5. It remains crap in Pathfinder.

    The bard is supposed to be versatile, right? Be good at a bunch of things, selectively choose which one to do? Not so much.

    A bard starts off combat by using Inspire Courage. If he can, Haste and Good Hope too.

    After that, you can put him on coast. I should know - in parties I play in, Bards are the most common cohort to grab with the leadership feat (outrageously broken in 3.5, still broken in PF). They're pretty terrific - you don't have to think about what to do with them, and they're good at giving bonuses and buffing.

    At least the class is popular as a minion?

    -Cross

    Level 1 bard is just as good as level 1 fighter.

    fighter gets 1 BAB + power attack, assume both have 14 str, both using longspear fighter has +2 attack 1d8 + 6 killing most enemies at that level in 1 hit.
    Level bard takes arcane strike 0 BAB but has inspire courage, +3 attack, does 1d8 +5 MAGIC(overcomes most DR at this point) killing most enemies in one hit. Inspire courage and arcane strike also scale up with bard so no need for other feats.
    Bards also have an awesome ability called UMD that let's them be the party cleric druid and wizard with the right tools.


  • A level 1 character is just that. A level 1 charcter. Not too fantastic.
  • why would you asume a fighter would have 13 str?
  • Inspire courage. A bard has a limited round per day. A fighter don't have a linited use.
  • A level 1 fighter has one more feat. He can pick weapon focus and use medium armor or heavy armor if he has the GP. He has more hit points and can dump char and thus boost str dex con and even wis.
  • UMD is useless at level 1.


  • Xuttah wrote:

    Inspire Annoyance is an At Will ability.

    For me, it's always active. Unless I use a free action, in which case it is still always active.

    mmurphy1968 wrote:
    Eltanin24 wrote:

    No one plays Bards anyway.

    Really? I do.

    So do I. Biggest hero in the whole party.


    Zark wrote:
  • A level 1 character is just that. A level 1 charcter. Not too fantastic.
  • why would you asume a fighter would have 13 str?
  • Inspire courage. A bard has a limited round per day. A fighter don't have a linited use.
  • A level 1 fighter has one more feat. He can pick weapon focus and use medium armor or heavy armor if he has the GP. He has more hit points and can dump char and thus boost str dex con and even wis.
  • UMD is useless at level 1.
  • A) You said the bard sucked I just proved he holds his own.

    B) You need to read the post, it was 14 for both because when comparing melee to melee it's not really fair to give the fighter 18 STR and the Bard 14 and say oh the fighter's better in melee. No he's not, he's just stronger. Last I checked the Bard gets the same point buy so strength is really not an issue.
    C) Inspire courage has always been limited use only the mechanic has changed. Fighters have never had a limited use.
    D) The fighter can take one more feat. He can't take spells. I'll take the spells every day of the weak even on Sunday.
    E) Most bards are going to have at least 14 Cha so +1 UMD +2 CHA +3 class skill = +6 UMD which is much better than the fighter who as you said.. dumped charisma

    I used level 1 characters because they are simple and easy to understand. As the bard levels up he simply outshines the fighter more and more. The fighter can do more damage PER HIT however the bard can have an insane mischance, cast spells, buff the group, and when needed turn into a dragon and eat someone's head.


    KaeYoss wrote:
    Xuttah wrote:

    Inspire Annoyance is an At Will ability.

    For me, it's always active. Unless I use a free action, in which case it is still always active.

    mmurphy1968 wrote:
    Eltanin24 wrote:

    No one plays Bards anyway.

    Really? I do.
    So do I. Biggest hero in the whole party.

    So do I. I play a NPC Bard. She is not the biggest hero in the whole party, but she is very useful :-)

    ...But Inspire Greatness still suck ;-)

    Liberty's Edge

    KaeYoss wrote:
    For me, it's always active.

    I hadn't noticed. :)

    I play a bard too. He is awesomesauce with a side of awesome. Best fun I've had with a character in some time.


    grasshopper_ea wrote:


    A) You said the bard sucked

    No I didn't.

    grasshopper_ea wrote:


    B) You need to read the post, it was 14 for both because when comparing melee to melee it's not really fair to give the fighter 18 STR and the Bard 14 and say oh the fighter's better in melee. No he's not, he's just stronger. Last I checked the Bard gets the same point buy so strength is really not an issue.

    ? If you comparing melee STR is NOT an issue. Are you serious?

    and +6 UMD is not very useful.
    The fighter can do more damage PER HIT. Yes. This game focus a lot on combat.
    and when needed turn into a dragon?
    But I see your point. :- ) Not much differens between a level 1 fighter and 1 level 1 bard.


    Dissinger. Reading my post again I see I should cut down on the rhetoric and cool down. I will try do that.
    ..and I hope you read my posts without knee-jerk reactions.

    201 to 250 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The bard - what the? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.