When you come up with a rogue build that can buff like a bard, let me know.well actually a rogue who specializes in umd (use magic device) is amazingly versatile and can massively supplement herself or the party.
Again i still believe more effectively
Regards
Yes, and a bard who expends as much of it wealth on UMD requiring items is even better than the Rogue, because he can use all of the wands, gains many times the benifits from high charisma and has bard only buffs as well as spells.
My group currently has a bard in it. My players also do not stick to the "Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard" mentality when choosing classes most of the time.
Party currently consists of -
Dwarven Fighter 3(High HP TANK)
Human Fighter 3 (Dual-wield damage output)
Human Bard 2/Rogue 1
Human Sorcerer 3(Power word spells from Races of the Dragon)
Human Wizard 3(Conjuration Spec -Summoner/poke-master)
In this party, the bard fills in the healer/buffer roll of the cleric using a healing belt to increase the amount of healing.
As well, back-up melee support is added using a Varisian Bladed Scarf.
With combined bard/rogue levels, the character is the party skill-monkey bar-none.
In a party of eight people, your group should almost certainly be considering a bard.
At first level all PCs increase their chance of resisting charm and fear effects by 5%. All characters who make attacks hit 5% more often and do an additional point of damage. This is a staggering increase in a parties damage output when you have Eight PCs on the table. No other class can even approach this, the closest are the cleric and paladin, both of these however are restricted to evil or undead creatures.
Unfortunately, what you say in jest appears to be the main argument of the anti-bard posters here.
When you come up with a rogue build that can buff like a bard, let me know.well actually a rogue who specializes in umd (use magic device) is amazingly versatile and can massively supplement herself or the party.
Again i still believe more effectively
Regards
Except nothing gives the bonuses that inspire courage does, and it stacks with the next best hitting and damaging buff in the game Good Hope which is also bard only. These are in addition to the fact the bard can do both at once. Or he can actually hit, as had been shown (you ignored it by the way, something you seem good at) in addition to having several other great spells on his list and special abilities that no one else can do.
This thread confuses me. It seems as if most posters come to this discussion with a preconceived notion of what a Bard is or should be with out reference to the functional mechanics of the class as provided by PfRPG.
I will do my best to address the major themes I have identified, if I miss one that is important to you please don't hesitate to bring it to my attention.
1) There is always another class more capable of filling a specific niche than the bard.
2) The bard is not the best at anything.
3) There is no place for a bard in the classic four player group.
4) The bard is only a support character, which gets old pretty fast for most players.
1) Specialized Niches - The problem with this argument is that it looks at the class from only one facet and does not view the class holistically. For example, the bard is not as good at dealing out physical damage as the full BAB classes. This is true. However, that argument ignores that fact that the bard is almost as good as the full BAB classes and is simultaneously able to heal, use crowd control magic, and has enough skill points to fill social/stealth/knowledge roles. Can the bard deal as much physical damage as a fighter? No. But it can get very close to the fighter's output while retaining all of the other options its magical and skill based abilities provide at no additional experience or gold cost. In fact, the bard is more likely than the fighter to succeed at any given task because the bard employs a greater diversity viable of tactics.
2) The bard has no niche - The bard is hands down the best buffer in the game. The Inspire bardic music abilities are unmatched. Additionally, thanks to the changes in PfRPG, the bard can provide the best in game buffs while also attacking with an effective BAB equal to that of a full BAB class minus the final iterative attack or while casting crowd control or healing spells.
3) No place in the classic group - With the changes to the rules for traps the bard can easily fill in for a rogue in any group - it can detect and disable non-magical traps with skills and detect and dispel magical traps with spells. The bard gives up sneak attack dice in exchange for an effectively superior BAB, crowd control, and the ability to heal. Especially in a group where setting up flanks might be difficult or where healing is less available because the cleric slot is filled by a druid, a bard makes more sense than a rogue. A bard could also fill in for the arcane class especially if the group is lite on physical damage potential. A bard could replace a cleric if the party already has decent healing or turning thanks to the presence of a paladin. If you are playing with fewer than four players the bard is a superior choice because it is able to fill multiple roles. If you are playing in a group with more than 4 people the bard makes sense as it significantly boosts all other classes and can back-fill any of the 4 traditional roles.
4) Support character - The bard is far from a support character. Yes, the bard's abilities can significantly boost other classes, but those boosts also apply to the bard. With Inspire Courage running the bard's chance to hit is boosted to the equivalent of an uninspired full BAB class, making it more likely to succeed in physical combat than any 3/4 BAB class other than the monk. It is reasonable to argue that the bard can be the most martial of the 3/4 BAB classes. On top of which the bard gets the most mileage out of the Arcane Strike feat. The bard is a significant threat in the physical damage realm. They make excellent archers, Abraham Spalding posted and excellent power attack build, the class can also do well with sword and board or dual wielding finesse style combat. Additionally, the bard is a decent caster with a great spell list and a full caster CL. The bard can cast arcane spells in light armor with no ASF chance with out the need of additional feats and is the only class that can cast arcane spells with out ASF chance while using a shield. Just because the bard can boost other players doesn't mean the bard isn't also contributing themselves every round of every encounter. If the bard isn't contributing blame the player not the class's mechanics.
So why am I planning to play a bard in my next campaign?
1) 3/4 BAB that self boosts to nearly a full BAB and actually exceeds a full BAB once haste is in the mix.
2) Full CL caster with good spell list for performing crowd and battle space control.
3) Extra healing is never a bad thing; self-healing mage-tank ftw.
4) Great skills list.
5) Arcane Strike.
6) Bardic Music boosts for the rest of the party.
Build: Dex, Cha, Int priorities
Human: Point Blank Shot
1: Precise Shot
3: Rapid Shot
5: Song of the Heart - game is set in Eberron
7: Arcane Strike
9: Manyshot
11: Deadly Aim
13: Martial Weapon Proficiency - Composite Longbow
15: Weapon Focus - Composite Longbow
|
This thread confuses me. It seems as if most posters come to this discussion with a preconceived notion of what a Bard is or should be with out reference to the functional mechanics of the class as provided by PfRPG.
I will do my best to address the major themes I have identified, if I miss one that is important to you please don't hesitate to bring it to my attention.
1) There is always another class more capable of filling a specific niche than the bard.
2) The bard is not the best at anything.
3) There is no place for a bard in the classic four player group.
4) The bard is only a support character, which gets old pretty fast for most players.
1) Specialized Niches - The problem with this argument is that it looks at the class from only one facet and does not view the class holistically. For example, the bard is not as good at dealing out physical damage as the full BAB classes. This is true. However, that argument ignores that fact that the bard is almost as good as the full BAB classes and is simultaneously able to heal, use crowd control magic, and has enough skill points to fill social/stealth/knowledge roles. Can the bard deal as much physical damage as a fighter? No. But it can get very close to the fighter's output while retaining all of the other options its magical and skill based abilities provide at no additional experience or gold cost. In fact, the bard is more likely than the fighter to succeed at any given task because the bard employs a greater diversity viable of tactics.
2) The bard has no niche - The bard is hands down the best buffer in the game. The Inspire bardic music abilities are unmatched. Additionally, thanks to the changes in PfRPG, the bard can provide the best in game buffs while also attacking with an effective BAB equal to that of a full BAB class minus the final iterative attack or while casting crowd control or healing spells.
3) No place in the classic group - With the changes to the rules for traps the bard can easily fill in for a rogue in any group...
Excellent post. Although I now believe the OP's intent was really flame-bait, I do recognize that historically, the bard has been seen as the 'challenging' class because it's power is not entirely overt. Interesting again is the fact that over the months and years of 3rd edition D&D/3.5 D&D/PRPG playtesting, the bard has basically been cut from the same cloth with minor tweaks here and there. My point is, if the argument was that the class was underpowered, why has it 'always' been around this same power level?
The answer is this: the bard offers unparalleled diversity and flexibility in a balanced campaign. If all you do is run combat simulations door-to-door until you get to the BBEG and Pwn his mad Tr3asur3z, then the bard isn't exactly the strongest character.
Note that the two presented builds are iconically NOT how bards are typically built, either as handout characters in tournament play, sample characters found in adventures, or in my own experience, how bards are built in real life. I've never seen an 18 STR bard nor a 10 CHA bard. It just doesn't happen that way. It was a poor attempt to make a crunchy stat statement that the bard can be effective in combat. The effectiveness is that the bard ALWAYS has something to do, whereas other classes, in some situations, feel left out.
Bards are typically sought after not for their tremendous power, but their flair and flexibility. It is possibly the perfect hybrid class, but with that level of flexibility comes a slightly higher penchant for having under-developed characters because a bard can be spread too thinly for novice and average players.
Skilled and expert players, however, can make the bard sing. (Pun intended). I won't go into the various mechanics as many of them have already been discussed, but the bard can be generally what they want to be...and for those who actually use persuasion/diplomacy etc. skills (depending on the game system) there are some really broken possibilities that I know some DMs ban because the bard IS TOO GOOD. There are ways in 3rd edition and 3.5 D&D to build a bard that can literally talk the BBEG to join the party and put down his weapon unless the DM just says "that's not possible." However, from a pure game mechanics perspective and all the splat books, it isn't only possible, the Bard may be able to do it in round 1 and effectively choose whom and when the party (if ever) fights using the rules as written with no weird interpretations involved.
But besides being an active conversationalist (bard players tend to be communicative), bards can of course flex their might in various ways, whether it be defensive, utility, knowledge, social, and in some cases, combat. The bard does tend to lag a little in combat ability, but that's a small price to pay for a character, that if played well, should have some swagger, if only in a RP sense.
Thorgym I have to take exception to your statement. I do play bards with strength that high, and while I haven't (yet) played a bard with a Cha below 13 that doesn't mean I won't do it if I find an idea I like.
I also play wizard's with Int as low as 13, and do good while having a lot of fun too. Just because it isn't normal doesn't mean it's a poor attempt or that it shouldn't/can't/won't be done.
It takes more skill of course, however it is still worthy of respect for what it is.
|
...This thread confuses me. It seems as if most posters come to this discussion with a preconceived notion of what a Bard is or should be with out reference to the functional mechanics of the class as provided by PfRPG.
I will do my best to address the major themes I have identified, if I miss one that is important to you please don't hesitate to bring it to my attention....
+1, +1. Excellent points, both of you. I play bards (not exclusively, but often) because I have more fun playing bards. I almost always have something to do--even in combat (current char. is a sword-n-board Ulfen Skald with an AC only equalled by the party fighter's.) The old broken 3.5 "Diplomancer" describes one or two of my all-time-favorite characters. Essentially, adding the social skills to the battlefield usefulness (though bardic performance buffs) to a nice selection of spells (specifically those from the enchantment and illusion schools--I'd like to see a wand-wielding rogue match a bard's DC for those), you've got an eminently playable character. I have fun with bards.
Now, with regard to the original poster, troll or not--I'm mildly disappointed with PFRPG's version of the bard. I like the cool new abilities (Dirge of Doom), the D8 hit die, the free performance maintenance, and the new version of bardic knowledge, which, combined with versatile performance, makes the Bard the best skill-monkey in the game. In the end, though, I think this stuff came at the cost of a bit of a downsizing of the bard's iconic ability: essentially, with the strict rounds-per-day limitation (and no lingering effects), you have a)fewer rounds of Inspire Courage per day and b)a slight break with backwards-compatibility. Many bard feats (especially those in the Complete books) no longer apply or feel broken (Lingering Song--now you have 500% more bardic performance with just one feat!).
On the other hand, I can now have a multiclass Palbardin (CHA-blam!) (which, with the Devoted Performer feat from Complete Adventurer and the smite changes, would be questionably uber) and Intimidate is now a class skill ("Don't fear the Reaper, fear me!").
Oy, now I'm thinking I like the new Bard better. Damn. I think I'm looking very forward to the advanced adventurer's guide, or whatever it is.
Cheers,
J.
"Don't fear the Reaper, fear me!"
You have to update this one . . .
"I swear to god . . . "
"Swear to ME!"
(Sorry, just love that scene as an example of an intimidate check . . . )
Except nothing gives the bonuses that inspire courage does, and it stacks with the next best hitting and damaging buff in the game Good Hope which is also bard only. These are in addition to the fact the bard can do both at once. Or he can actually hit, as had been shown (you ignored it by the way, something you seem good at) in addition to having several other great spells on his list and special abilities that no one else can do.When you come up with a rogue build that can buff like a bard, let me know.well actually a rogue who specializes in umd (use magic device) is amazingly versatile and can massively supplement herself or the party.
Again i still believe more effectively
Regards
That doesn't seem like a fair representation at all. I just think that the thief and the bard are similar enough to overlap...Actually, I honestly think it might have been better had they merged them into one class and made them take a path between the two.
Reminder - I did say I was playing devils advocate.But, for the sake of argument, a rogue with UMD (a class skill that wouldn't require too much specialization to be effective) and appropriate gear is a fine multi-purpose PC, who's UNDENIABLY better then the bard in EVERY fighting scenario. How many situations have ANY of you ever been in where the bard honestly saved the day. It's not OUR fault that a GP level was written into effective character level power...and while the bard would have to spend all of his money on combat gear the rogue could worry about being a generalist with it's money without spending too much. A wand of cure light is a CHEAP item that would give them reusable healing, for instance. Oils, potions, etcetera.... I'm not saying that it makes the bard useless, just that a thief could fill the same niche.
I'll grant you the Bard is a GREAT buff class. Good hope is a damned fine buff. So is the singing, and I was a big fan of the level 20 kill performance.
My problem is all the people saying that bard is this mystical RP class. It is not, and if anything, the way the social skills are handled inhibit roleplaying by reducing it to a roll. It's an easy way out of a lot of situations, and it feels like game design cowardice. I feel, personally, that a well thought out lie or line of reason is MUCH better for myself, my players, and the game in general then a die roll. Glibness, anyone?
Bards are like that spell "find the path"...except they're a class. We're supposed to keep deus ex machina out of the players common perception, but if a class skill can provide an arrow to all relevant plot points, well it just doesn't seem right. If it's something the bard absolutely shouldn't know, and they make a really high roll on bardic knowledge and you tell them nothing they're going to feel like one of their core abilities is being dismissed. It's sticky.
Of course this is all just an opinion, and mostly because I enjoy the discourse. Your opinions are just as valid as mine :) .
I think what a lot of the anti-Bard camp are missing is that the point is NOT for a Bard to be as good at one role as any other class. Being as good or better at one thing as another class is not really what the Bard is for, except maybe knowing stuff. There shouldn't really BE a build that makes the Bard as good a Fighter as the Figher or as good a Rogue as the Rogue.
It's not the point.
I'm not saying that it makes the bard useless, just that a thief could fill the same niche.
"I'm not saying that Improved Critical is useless, just that making a weapon Keen could have the same effect."
The fact that a rogue needs to spend a load of gold in order to cover what a Bard does is in itself reason enough to be a Bard instead if you want a generalist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly? I see the bard save the day more often than not at our tables.
Beyond that though:
If the fighters weapon training is big, then the bard's inspire courage is HUGE. Of the spells that provide the same type of bonus as Good Hope only one offers a bigger bonus, greater heroism which is a much higher level spell, only gives the bonus to attack rolls (not damage) and only affects one person.
It has been shown that a bard can do almost as much damage as the fighter, at close to the same bonus to hit. So if it is good enough for the fighter then that in addition to spells and skills should be good enough for the bard.
The rogue might be able to duplicate what the bard can do, but the bard can do it without the skill (which until the rogue hits level 10 is still rather hit or miss, UNLESS he sinks extra feats into it, which is yet another resource he will have to spend to do what the bard does naturally) and with much less fuss and still get out other actions to boot.
Consider the case of a bard with the same amount of wealth as the rogue has spent on his wands, staves, and scrolls instead being spent on a rod of quicken spell.
The Bard's DCs will be higher which means his spells are already more effective if he uses combat direct spells, and if he doesn't he can instead do the following:
Inspire Courage (move action)
Quicken Haste (swift action)
Cast Good Hope
Everyone in his party now has 3 buffs active, getting + 6 to hit, + 5 to damage, and extra attack, + 1 to AC and reflex saves and whatever they were going to do to begin with.
In one round the bard has done more to cause his team to succeed at combat than anyone else can do. He now has the rest of the entire combat to do whatever he wants. A wizard or cleric would have only gotten two buffs out, and even then they aren't going to be as good.
The rogue with his staves, wands, and scrolls is only going to get one spell off, and spend long term resources in doing just that (since he can't actually recharge or make new items). Beyond the fact that the best DC the rogue can hope for is 23 (ninth level spell from an item).
Now granted situationally the rogue could do more damage. But what happens when the rogue can't sneak attack (either from lack of flanking, opponent being all but immune -- fortification, straight immunity -- or uncanny dodge). His damage dives. The bard's however stays the same.
That's in addition to the fact that the bard has another good save going for himself too, which the rogue is lacking.
My first character in 3.5 was a bard, and I got him all the way to 9th before drawing death on a deck of many thing.... I was very put out about that :( And so was the rest of the party.
Before that he rocked. I was able to have him step up to fight things when needed (or in an infamous game in our group where the barbarian ran away requiring the bard to step up). The buffs to the party were needed, and the ability to shut down a combat with facinate was trenmendous. But the whole ability to "know" stuff was the big clincher for a game where knowledge is everything made a huge difference.
So the big difference is that they are a class that is designed for role playing, and not roll playing.
My first character in 3.5 was a bard, and I got him all the way to 9th before drawing death on a deck of many thing.... I was very put out about that :( And so was the rest of the party.
Before that he rocked. I was able to have him step up to fight things when needed (or in an infamous game in our group where the barbarian ran away requiring the bard to step up). The buffs to the party were needed, and the ability to shut down a combat with facinate was trenmendous. But the whole ability to "know" stuff was the big clincher for a game where knowledge is everything made a huge difference.
So the big difference is that they are a class that is designed for role playing, and not roll playing.
Can't say that I agree with that. They just have big modifiers on the social rolls.
Problem presented again : Dice rolls for role playing. The bard is, however, the character of choice for both knowledge and social rolls. He's got the CHA and the skill points to make a game system that's already too dice happy even worse.
I don't see the bard as a useless class, I just personally wouldn't play it.
And how is it a problem that I'm counting magic items into a characters powers...again, go take a look at the character wealth by level chart.
I think, ultimately, this is an agree to disagree situation. I feel like bard could have been handled better in Pathfinder, and I really don't see a single RP archetype that can't be played just as well by another class. Is it better than it's been? Yes, I think so. Is it the definitive swing member in a party? No, that's the cleric.
All the buffing in the world is futile without healing, and Clerics can stack the buffs on pretty well themselves. Past the low levels a bard will not be able to heal effectively enough to keep up. At higher levels the differance in combat prowess becomes more noticeable. You're left with two options - Utility magic and Social skills.
Your save DC's are low enough to be resisted easily, you're not likely to bust spell resistance. You're attacks won't hit that often and when they do they'll be more of an annoyance then a threat. You'll be buffing the hell out of people, but I can't really see what else they'd have to offer at the higher levels of play.
One of the things the OP did mention was that in his 8 person 3.5 game Bards just didn't seem to survive as long as other classes and died off more often.
I find this slightly confusing as a 3.5 Gnomish Bard should have had as much if not more HP than your standard halfling rogue. Plus, have resistances to fort. saves vs. poison. Gnomes being just as "tough" as dwarfs that way.
With the upgrades of Pathfinder... the bard now enjoys a d8 Hit Dice and a wider range of Races that can take advantage of Racial mods. to drop a bonus on CON to make them more "survivable".
If he wishes to start his one man compaign to eliminate the Bard class, all the power to him, for this is America.
Actually, if I was playing a one man campaign, I'd probably play a bard. lol
He can fend for himself pretty well.
There is no such thing as healing effectively.
And how is casting cure serious wounds as a free action (while you cast it yourself) not worthy of consideration, especially when it clears conditions too?
Granted it's no heal, but you can get that from monsters you summon, or a staff of life, or scroll (if the rogue gets them the bard can too).
That's in addition to still buffing better than the cleric can do.
Best buffs == Bard
Clerics == Meh
Wizards == ok
You'll bust spell resistance just as often as any other full caster. And the save DC's are the same as they would be for any other caster casting a spell of that level. That's not counting all the times the bard can use bardic music to debuff, suggest, fascinate, or kill their enemies at a DC base that is higher than what a wizard can do.
You know, reading this thread just gave me an idea for a weird, but possibly interesting, character concept. Specifically, a bard character 'reflavored' to be a charismatic, paean-singing preacher/prophet type -- sort of a clerical version of the bard concept. Various types of chants and hymns to his/her god/goddess, saints or avatars, etc. in place of songs, the 'bardic knowledge' being due to divine inspiration, etc.
Mechanically identical, of course -- just a bard, but with different outward 'coloring' to make a different, and possibly fun, character.
Am I just crazy, or does this sound like it might be an interesting twist for a bard character? :)
Or you could use the Divine Bard out of unearth arcane. But it would still be a lot of fun!
|
|
Three thoughts:
1) If bards are ineffective in your world/campaign/game, I would suggest that the fault lies with either the gaming style or your player's playing skills. The bard is not a class to take if you don't want to exercise your brain. IMO, it requires a good deal of thought and some planning to make them work effectively. On the other hand, a barbarian is point and smash. Yes this is generalized, and yes you can do many clever things with true melees for example, but the game mechanic/base concept is easier. This does not mean the bard is useless. If you do take the time to learn how to effectively play a bard with your particular group, the payoff is very high. The hard part is looking at your party style of play and character makeup and figuring out how to maximize their effectiveness. None of the other classes really require a player to do this, but this is also, I would submit, what makes a bard really round out a party well.
In regards to the gaming style part of my leading comment, how effective a bard is allowed to be depends on the DM's style and the type of campaign you have going. If your game is heavy on combat, relentless BBEGs, and min/maxing, the bard is not going to play as well, even with an excellent player. A good illustration of why is the example of playing an illusionist vs playing an evoker. Illusionists are only as good as the DM and his world allows illusions to be. If everything gets an automatic save vs illusion, they are going to be crappy, because the strength of the illusionist is the power of belief and conveying things that aren't there. If your style reduces or negates that aspect of the game, they are not a class worth playing, especially when an evoker is completely black and white, primary damage output. Why would you pick an illusionist with options like that? By comparison, if there are never any situations that can't be solved with a fireball, greataxe, cure spell, or remove trap, then bards are not a class worth playing either.
2) Recently, I have noticed that a good majority of the games in my area have become primarily combat sessions, damage output, and min/maxing. This is not a Fantasy roleplaying game, it has now become a Fantasy combat game. In this type of game style, bards can be very effective as support classes, but no one wants to play a support class in this type of game usually either. Why be the waterboy when you can be the all-star quarterback? Perhaps this is why none of the OPs players want to play one?
3) Here are a few situations where a bard really shines imho:
- In a game where at least 50% of the game is roleplaying and social situations, mass combat situations, or problem solving/puzzle/riddles bards are highly useful and really shine, with many skill abilities, UMD, buffs, and song abilities that are more subtle than direct.
- The more players you have, the more powerful a bard becomes. This is because all their buffs are AOE, and having 20 combatants fighting at +1 is much better than having 1 or 3 fighting at +1 or even +2. If your party is indeed 8 players strong, a bard is going to make them more effective than any single other class. In one game I ran, the party ended up in mass combat for the last three levels of my campaign (10-12)a great deal, defending their lands, joining a holy crusade, etc. The bard was always the target the bad guys tried to take out first, even over the wizard, because wherever he was, the troops around him outfought their opponents consistently. Yes this is a very limited situation and somewhat rare, but even with a regular party of 5-8 players their effectiveness is pretty high.
Like I stated before, the class takes thought to play. Bards as a class have a lot more potential to do a LOT of things to help a party, where most of the other classes, generally speaking of course, have much narrower selections of actions. This means it is much easier for an unprepared or inexperienced bard player to choose an action that is less effective than if they were playing one of the other classes. If you play a bard and use 1 or 2 of his many skill, cast a couple spells, and run into melee with him (or her!), you are really doing the bard class a disservice, same as if you play your cleric like a healbot. The difference is that a healbot is a core usefulness that is easily seen by everyone, while what a bard can bring to the table is not as obvious when its missing. But believe me, if you have played with a good bard, you will miss them when they are not there.
I like bards. Played one once in an "historical" celtic setting (along with a druid, a ranger and a barbarian).
I had a real good time - political power was high for a bard in an oral culture, and the ability to inspire those warriors (npcs) on the field was the cause of many victories against roman legions.
I guess it does depend on the setting - I would probably not play one in a dungeon delving hack-fest (even if I'm sure a good Str build with arcane strike would be ok)
|
|
When you come up with a rogue build that can buff like a bard, let me know.well actually a rogue who specializes in umd (use magic device) is amazingly versatile and can massively supplement herself or the party.
Again i still believe more effectively
Regards
That's a total lie, yes the rogue can cast a spell each round and be a decent buffer. But he can't metamagic spells so that at high level he can cast two spells and start bardic music all in 1 round. How the heck is your rogue specializing in UMD matching that if you're goal is to play a dedicated buffer, heck even the wizard can't match that. And that's assuming you're playing a game where the rogue can just go out and buy scrolls of 5th level spells. Or you have a wizard in your party, but wait if the wizard is scribing all these scrolls and wands for your rogue, why do you need the rogue in the first place as the buffer, why not have the wizard buffing. And the wizard can cast stronger buff spells but can't get as many buffs running as quickly as the bard, because even if the wizard quickens a buff spell and casts a buff spell, the bard has him beat with a bardic music. and the bard was able to cast all those buffs without needing to buff himself to be decent if he needs to be a meleer because the fighter went down, or he needs to be a healer because the cleric went down. You tell me how any class can get the buffs going faster than a bard, or how that UMD rogue can do it "MORE EFFECTIVELY" I would have been fine if you had said almost as effectively, but you said the rogue did it MORE effectively, well you want to make a statement like that, lets see you prove it.
However, a rogue with no money cannot do it, and a bard can.
Which is a moot point because your wealth is factored into your character by level. You're going to have that gp worth of items because the game is designed for you to have it. It doesn't make any sense to argue against this, as your bard isn't going to do much of anything without a spellpouch and weaponry.
Now I won't, absolutely WON'T, say that a Rogue can buff like a bard. They can do some of it with scrolls and wands, but not that level of buff.... Just like a bard can do ok at healing but he's not anywhere near a cleric or paladin. And after reviewing the respective spell lists, the cleric has MORE buffs then the bard does... and a lot of them are a big deal. Magic circle against evil, Resist Energy, bless, etc...
How many buffs can a cleric put out in the first round of combat, again?
How many buffs can a cleric put out in the first round of combat, again?
With metamagic feats/items? What level Cleric? With Miracle I'd say quite a few.
How many fights last one round? Or if we're going at it that way, how many extra-planar beings can a bard dismiss? Can a bard bring anyone back from the dead? What's the most hp a bard can ever heal with one spell?
No, a bard cannot stand in for a cleric. One down.
Clerics however, CAN perform the majority of bard fill in roles admirably. They can melee reliably, heal well, buff well, diplomacy and sense motive are class skills (meaning....wait for it....social skills!) Proper use of Divination magic renders knowledge skills obsolete. Zone of Truth tends to render most of that useless anyway. The one thing they can't do is lie. Greater Magic Weapon and Greater Magic Vestment are pretty amazing spells and last hours per level. When your cleric can provide +3 - +5 weapons and armor, that's a big boost.
For utility as a character Cleric is CLEARLY superior. Clerics can Tank, DD through melee AND magic, and Heal, and are in no way inferior in terms of RP. Being able to roll to lie to someone is in no way, shape, or form role playing.
How many of those roles can the bard really keep up with? Honestly, tactically...an additional cleric is a better choice in game terms. The only thing the bard can do is Lore and Lie, and Lore at least can be done with a spell.
How many fights last one round?
The ones where one side takes the other by surprise and is able to butcher them before they can get all their buffs up, of course.
Or if we're going at it that way, how many extra-planar beings can a bard dismiss? Can a bard bring anyone back from the dead? What's the most hp a bard can ever heal with one spell?
No, a bard cannot stand in for a cleric. One down.
But once again, you're missing the point by insisting that the bard be able to completely replace another class in order to be viable.
If a bard could completely stand in for a cleric in all situations, then it's the cleric that would be underpowered, no?
Clerics however, CAN perform the majority of bard fill in roles admirably.
Generally? Not as well as a Bard can.
A cleric cannot buff as well as a bard. A cleric can beat a bard at social skills, but only if they ignore their other skills. Divining information would require them to rest for 8 hours before attempting to figure it out, and is thus not an option when time is critical. ZoT tends to have social penalties ("what, you don't trust me?") and can hinder getting the information you really want. Cleric buffs are single-target, and their benefit to the one character who gets them is about the same as the benefit a bard gives to the entire party.
Further, cleric buffs don't stack with themselves, so if you're looking for buffs, you're better off picking a bard instead of a second cleric.
For utility as a character Cleric is CLEARLY superior. Clerics can Tank, DD through melee AND magic, and Heal, and are in no way inferior in terms of RP. Being able to roll to lie to someone is in no way, shape, or form role playing.
You confusing acting and roleplaying here. Atleast part of roleplaying well is playing your character as he is, rather than how you want him to be. It is certainly possible to play a cleric as some one who is just as charming as you bad with better social stats, but you would failing to accurately represent your character. Social attributes and skills matter just as much as physical one.
They are a way of fairly resolving a conflict within the game. I player who claims his character is the greatest swordsman in all the world, without being about to back it up statisitically not the greatest swordsman in the world, what ever he might think. In the same way, if a PC's social skills are not good, he isn't socially able. If you then play him as such that is bad roleplaying. Bards, because of their talent for social conflict, open up many avanues for the player of the bard, which are simple not open to any other character in the game, mores the pitty. While a cleric has many interesting potential roleplaying avanues, he will always be limited in comparision to the bard in social conflict.
How many fights last one round?The ones where one side takes the other by surprise and is able to butcher them before they can get all their buffs up, of course.
Or if we're going at it that way, how many extra-planar beings can a bard dismiss? Can a bard bring anyone back from the dead? What's the most hp a bard can ever heal with one spell?
No, a bard cannot stand in for a cleric. One down.
But once again, you're missing the point by insisting that the bard be able to completely replace another class in order to be viable.
If a bard could completely stand in for a cleric in all situations, then it's the cleric that would be underpowered, no?
Clerics however, CAN perform the majority of bard fill in roles admirably.Generally? Not as well as a Bard can.
A cleric cannot buff as well as a bard. A cleric can beat a bard at social skills, but only if they ignore their other skills. Divining information would require them to rest for 8 hours before attempting to figure it out, and is thus not an option when time is critical. ZoT tends to have social penalties ("what, you don't trust me?") and can hinder getting the information you really want. Cleric buffs are single-target, and their benefit to the one character who gets them is about the same as the benefit a bard gives to the entire party.
Further, cleric buffs don't stack with themselves, so if you're looking for buffs, you're better off picking a bard instead of a second cleric.
No that's not the point, the assertion was that the bard was useful for it's ability to stand in for ANY other class when needed, and it's clearly not able to do that for a cleric. I don't feel that a cleric would have to ignore too much to take sense motive and diplomacy...they make sense. You are a wandering priest, after all. Gather Information takes hours depending on the check, and divination is a valid and useful tool if kept on hand (much more valid now that clerics can channel to heal). If you've memorized legend lore...well look at that you've got bardic knowledge.
Clearly, what the bard is good for is Buffing. NOT standing in for anything else.
Bless, Consecrate, The Mass ability buffs (bulls strenght etc.), Heroes Feast, Holy Aura, Magic Circle Against Evil, Prayer (bless and bane all together). That's not a bad suite of group buffs... and the cleric has access to more powerful, long lasting single target buffs as well. Good hope and Bardic Music are great, but it's far from necessary. Someone that can buff where it's needed, heal well, and do damage in the same fight as the need arises is better then a dedicated buffer.
For utility as a character Cleric is CLEARLY superior. Clerics can Tank, DD through melee AND magic, and Heal, and are in no way inferior in terms of RP. Being able to roll to lie to someone is in no way, shape, or form role playing.
You confusing acting and roleplaying here. Atleast part of roleplaying well is playing your character as he is, rather than how you want him to be. It is certainly possible to play a cleric as some one who is just as charming as you bad with better social stats, but you would failing to accurately represent your character. Social attributes and skills matter just as much as physical one.
They are a way of fairly resolving a conflict within the game. I player who claims his character is the greatest swordsman in all the world, without being about to back it up statisitically not the greatest swordsman in the world, what ever he might think. In the same way, if a PC's social skills are not good, he isn't socially able. If you then play him as such that is bad roleplaying. Bards, because of their talent for social conflict, open up many avanues for the player of the bard, which are simple not open to any other character in the game, mores the pitty. While a cleric has many interesting potential roleplaying avanues, he will always be limited in comparision to the bard in social conflict.
Again I disagree. Classicaly men of the cloth, particularly high ranking members of clergy, were some of the great movers and shakers of the political scene. Having a low social stat doesn't mean you're not likeable, or that others won't follow you, or that you're not destined to be a great leader. It also depends on your interpretation of the stats, and it's no one elses say. an 8 charisma person could be attractive and well kempt, but could suffer from crippling social anxiety. Or you could be a born leader who has yet to actualize himself because of a natural fear of the responsibility. Charisma, like Intelligence and Wisdom, is a enormously difficult stat to roleplay. You can't be anymore likeable, intelligent, or wise then you are in real life in a game... I have the same problem with alignment. In the REAL world, even heroic people are capable of doing monstrous things. Why then, is it NOT believable that an idiot could come up with a brilliant idea, or a social heel make the PERFECT social move at the exact required time? Your stats should guide your character concept, but they should in NO way be the end all definition of your character.
And, for the record, Role Playing IS acting. It's a shared storytelling experience and the single thing that I won't tolerate at the table is someone telling someone else how they would and wouldn't act.
And looking at your "greatest swordsman in the world" allegory... Do you know who cyrano de bergerac was? Miyamoto Musashi? They achieved that status largely by positing it to be true. That and cheating.
Going back to your post, and the final point about the bard playing a more integral roll in social unrest... people constantly underestimate the role of religion in society. A cleric would be FAR more likely to be rubbing elbows with the upper crust of society then a carny... and even a famous entertainer wouldn't hold the same regard as a well respected holy man politically.
Real world example.
The pope. Michael Jackson (prior, obviously, to his current state of...well....y'know). Which one would you be more likely to take political advice from? How many actors or musicians have spent time out of there lives to care for the sick or wounded, the outcast and the downtrodden?
|
Which is a moot point because your wealth is factored into your character by level. You're going to have that gp worth of items because the game is designed for you to have it. It doesn't make any sense to argue against this, as your bard isn't going to do much of anything without a spellpouch and weaponry.
However the argument I was seeing is that the rogue can do better than the bard, hence the bard is unneeded. Which is quite false. I was illustrating that 0 buffing skills + X cash vs 1 buffing skills + X cash does not prove that the 0 is more than the 1.