Why have any other class than your basic four classes of Fighter,cleric,Rogue,Wizard. What use is there for any other class beyond the four basic....I mean they can do it all
Good question, and to be honest that's the way it used to be. In 2nd edition the Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger fell under the warrior classification. Cleric and Druid under Priest, and thief and bard under rogue.
As long as you had one from each group you were basically set and I think that that tends to hold true. The bard changed a lot in the shift from 2nd edition to 3rd and it never really seemed to right itself out afterwards.
Personally I feel like people should play what they want to play, but from a game mechanics perspective I'm having a hard time justifying Bard. I'd still play a bard personally, but objectively it's a bit to swallow, and just being a lieing, stealing buff-bot's not massively appealing.
the assertion was that the bard was useful for it's ability to stand in for ANY other class when needed
And it can. Just because a bard doesn't perform as well as a cleric in filling that specific role doesn't change the fact that it can fill that role if required to.
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.
That's valid, let me rephrase then;
The only thing a bard can do better then a rogue is buff, and with the help of glibness, lie. Rogues have more skill points and as such are likely to spend some on knowledge skills, so the lore is kind of a wash. Rogues are better for combat in every way.
Unless buffing is what you want to be doing the majority of the time, you're probably going to be playing the rogue. A smartly played rogue can fill almost any niche in a team environment, including some of that group buffing (scrolls/wands/etc)... and can be a charismatic musician that is extremely social. Teamed with a cleric, there is no need for the bards buffing skills.
That's the hitch for me, I think. There's no NEED for a bard. Every other class brings something vital to bear, but even the other posters have said that they wouldn't pick a bard to be in the core of an adventuring party, but rather would take him as a support element. It doesn't seem right to me that a class would be so esoteric that it wouldn't have a place at the table ALL the time under it's OWN merits.
the assertion was that the bard was useful for it's ability to stand in for ANY other class when neededAnd it can. Just because a bard doesn't perform as well as a cleric in filling that specific role doesn't change the fact that it can fill that role if required to.
No, the fact that it's highest hp heal won't close up ONE hit from anthing providing a real threat at that point in the game proves that it very well can not. He couldn't do it well enough to adventure with, and if a situation went south quick he wouldn't be able to turn it around. He also lacks the ability to fill in for any of the clerics other roles regarding extraplanar threats, death, or damage dealing.
For the record, I LOVE talking about this stuff, it's great to have you guys as a sounding board and I completely understand and respect your opinions. I just don't want there to be any hard feelings over a civil debate. :) That and it's 0547 here and I've been up for 30 somewhat hours, so I'm sure some of this won't make much sense when I review it tomorrow... lol.
|
Hmm, I will agree with the 'smartly played' arguement, but to me that same thing could be said for the bard class. I think we're getting more into opinions now, as we've exhausted all our facts. ^_^ Either way, I've seen a bard or two played well, and other people haven't. Not much more to add to that.
Rogues have more skill points
By a grand total of two. One if you count the bard's uber-knowledge in one area. If your bard isn't spending anything on disable device, then he's equal in meaningful skill points with a rogue, and that's not taking into account his general knowledge ability.
Unless buffing is what you want to be doing the majority of the time,
Who says it isn't?
Quite honestly, the Bard buffs are powerhouses compared to what clerics and UMD-users get (even ignoring that if you're using UMDed wands and scrolls you're earning less overall per encounter)
That's the hitch for me, I think. There's no NEED for a bard. Every other class brings something vital to bear
What does a Barbarian bring, again? A Monk? What does a Wizard have that a Sorceror doesn't?
Or are you seriously saying that every PC class should be one that hogs the spotlight, and there is no room for characters with supporting roles in a D&D party?
The group is greater than the sum of its parts, remember.
|
A bard can do it through scrolls or wands fairly easily and that is not that difficult to do.
A) I'm assuming you meant to say rogue there
B) I don't doubt a rogue can use scrolls and wands to buff. You're being obtuse, of course a rogue can cast spells off of wands and scrolls. What a rogue cannot do, is as has been stated pull off 3 buffs in a single round of combat, in fact he can't even pull off two unless you're allowing rediculously easy access to 5th level metamagiced scrolls.
Which means that C) the rogue cannot do it MORE effectively which was your claim, and you have yet to prove because you want to say whatever. You even just proved our point, you said that the players who pick bards in your game tend to be less experienced and have trouble staying alive. Almost everyone who's defended the bard has said they aren't the best class for newer players. But the fact is that a bard can replace the rogue as a skill monkey then also take the buffing issue off the shoulders of the wizard or cleric in the party so that said spellcaster can focus on melee or blasting or healing whatever is their want to do.
You at this point have made a statement that you can't support. You said a rogue with UMD would be more efficient at buffing than a bard. I said prove how and you said it's not hard to do. Okay, show me using wands and scrolls how to get off 4 buffs in round 1. That would be more efficient than the bard. Oh yeah, and if the bard does it for free and the rogue pays for it, that is also not more efficient. Unless you are speaking some foriegn language that by complete coincidence also uses the word efficiently, only it means something completely different than the english definition of efficiently.
Saying something is easy to do is funnily enough easy... "It's easy to do 5 million damage in one attack with a first level character." See how easy to say that was, and apparently I don't even have to prove it if we go by your arguments.
|
|
That's the hitch for me, I think. There's no NEED for a bard. Every other class brings something vital to bear, but even the other posters have said that they wouldn't pick a bard to be in the core of an adventuring party, but rather would take him as a support element. It doesn't seem right to me that a class would be so esoteric that it wouldn't have a place at the table ALL the time under it's OWN merits.
Well I know personal experience is non-supportive, but I've had plenty of games where there were 4 players and the bard replaced some core party unit without the party feeling hampered for it, The primary spellcaster, the skill monkey, and the healer. The only role I haven't seen the bard filling is primary tank. But the bard shines when replacing the rogue, a rogue is more combat oriented, but a rogue and a bard are pretty much supplantable as the party skill monkey, the rogue is better if you want to go melee combat route, and the bard is better if you want to go buffing route. So that's the bards Niche and reason to be in the game, the skill monkey roll with buffing.
This thread is about the equivalent of saying why have a barbarian class. The fighter can do the same role better and the barbarian has a hard time filling in other roles, unlike the bard. So what's the point of the barbarian class.
The bard has a place at the table all the time as a skill monkey class in the same way the rogue does, but for different reasons.
even the other posters have said that they wouldn't pick a bard to be in the core of an adventuring party
I would and have. More than once :). In fact I hate the arguement that the bard makes a good 5th party member because I think the bard makes a good 4th party member, and the bards even better if you only have 3 party members, or 2. The fewer the players the better and better the bard gets for it flexibility and yet no ones made that arguement. You put me in a 3 person party, I'm gonna play a bard, because there are two roles that are gonna need to be filled and nobody does that better than the bard.
|
|
No, the fact that it's highest hp heal won't close up ONE hit from anthing providing a real threat at that point in the game proves that it very well can not. He couldn't do it well enough to adventure with, and if a situation went south quick he wouldn't be able to turn it around. He also lacks the ability to fill in for any of the clerics other roles regarding extraplanar threats, death, or damage dealing.the assertion was that the bard was useful for it's ability to stand in for ANY other class when neededAnd it can. Just because a bard doesn't perform as well as a cleric in filling that specific role doesn't change the fact that it can fill that role if required to.
Well in all fairness you and Boggle have used UMD as an excuse for saying the rogue does the bard class more effectively. Was there a rule saying that the bard can't put ranks in it and cast heal off of scrolls and staves that I wasn't aware of. In fact since the argument was the rogue could use those scrolls and wands to be just as good in the niche as a bard, how is the reverse not true for the bard in the clerics role. The bard can UMD a raise dead, a righteous might, and a dimensional anchor/protection from x as easily as a rogue can UMD good hope, bless, and haste.
So how does the bard lack the ability to fill the clerics other roles that then doesn't invalidate the argument for the rogue and thereby give the bard a permanent niche and reason to be in the game?
The
Bard
doesn't
have
to
be
as
good
as
the
"pure"
class
for
it
to
be
viable.
This is not World of Warcraft. You can be kinda good at a bunch of stuff to be a viable and useful party member.
D&D
is
not
about
1
versus
1.
It just isn't.
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.
Here-in lies the crux of your misunderstanding. The bard is the best buffer in the game, however, that doesn't mean they are a "dedicated buffer" or that all of their utility comes from their buffing. Yes, a bard can kick out effective buffs, they can also dish out physical damage better than most if not all of the 3/4 BAB classes, they can heal reasonably well, and they can cast battle field or crowd control spells. If a bard is not contributing effectively in every round of every encounter, blame the player, not the class.
if you want to play a buffer character play a cleric that way or a wizard.
Maybe if people really like this type of character maybe a tactician class should be designed to allow others options personally i think many will not play the bard class.
The bard is by far the best buffer. His inspire courage is unparalelled and he can use any spell the wizard or cleric can use.
Buffers can be rellay fu n to play - especially if you are tactically apt.Then of course there is the roleplaying - excuse my bluntness, but if you cannot see the point in having the bard class it might very well be because you are a roll player - and not a role player.
With their high charisma and ton of skills the bard is THE roleplaying powerhouse. He can succeed at any social interaction, can know more than most and at the same time is an actual fantasy rock star. If these arguments are not sufficient to convince you of the legitimacy of having a bard class, I suggest you stop thinking about it any more and take it at face value, when I say that other players can do things with a bard, that they would not be able to get away with with other characters.
You know, it's funny...
I understand that debating about a class options is interesting, but the question whether a class is needed or not seems odd to me.
The bard is an iconic figure in tales and in games.
He had a special niche in D&D since the 1st edition, along different incarnations and variants, getting balanced in the 2nd edition, and of course the 3rd.
Powerful or not, necessary or not ? That's irrelevant and subjective.
From one player to another the class will be played differently, which is the point of roleplaying games.
I currently have two bards in my campaigns.
Although their characters "could" get more power with another class or multiclass, i am sure the players would never consider dropping their bard class, as it brings them so much fun and options.
A bard can be anything in an adventure, a skill monkey, a fighter, a caster, a healer. Surely, he won't be the ultimate rogue, fighter, mage or cleric, but is it so important ?
More than that, his abilities and his type make him shine in social interactions and investigations.
The strongest points of the Bard are not his powers, they are his versatility and his roleplaying infinite possibilities.
Bla
bla
bla
I could not agree more.
This is not World of Warcraft.
I wish there would be a Bard class in World of Warcraft, like there were in Dark Age of Camelot (Bard, Minstrel & Skald)...
That's the hitch for me, I think. There's no NEED for a bard. Every other class brings something vital to bear, but even the other posters have said that they wouldn't pick a bard to be in the core of an adventuring party, but rather would take him as a support element. It doesn't seem right to me that a class would be so esoteric that it wouldn't have a place at the table ALL the time under it's OWN merits.
Several of us have also posted that we would choose a bard for a four player campaign. The bard can be extremely effective as a stand alone class, that the bard's buffs happen to assist the party as well is pure gravy. Even if the bard's buffs only affected the bard the class would still be versatile and effective in nearly all situations:
1)The class can self buff to where it is getting the same number of attacks, but at a better bonus, than a full BAB class.
2)The class can self heal.
3)The class can cast arcane, battle field or crowd control spells while wearing armor and using a shield.
4)The class can fill any or all of the skill monkey roles: social, stealth or knowledge.
5)The class gets the most mileage out of the Arcane Strike feat allowing for extra damage and cheaper weapons or weapons that focus on other enhancements like flaming or shocking.
With the changes Pathfinder made to the rules for traps one can very easily argue that you do not "NEED" at rogue either. Rangers, Barbarians and Bards can all easily fill the role of finding and disabling non-magical traps. The bard can also take care of magical traps via the use of detect and dispel magic. Meanwhile, in order to be effective in combat the rogue needs the support of another player to setup flanks or needs to spend a significant number of feats to setup a chain that will allow the rogue access to their sneak attack ability with out a partner. Absent sneak attacks the rogue is less effective in combat than the bard and the bard doesn't need to spend as many rounds setting up to be effective.
If there is a paladin or a druid at the table the party doesn't need a cleric and might benefit more from the superior buffing, combat and arcane casting abilities of the bard.
If the party has a lot of divine or nature based magic but is feeling short on physical damage potential a bard may be a superior choice to a wizard or a sorcerer. The bard has a good list of spells and can dish out far more dps than the other arcane classes.
If the party has fewer than 4 players the bard is the most obvious choice as it is the only class capable of filling multiple roles effectively.
I wish there would be a Bard class in World of Warcraft, like there were in Dark Age of Camelot (Bard, Minstrel & Skald)...
ZOMG I agree completely. I would love a Bard. When they announced the Bard as a joke class on April Fool's day, I was really upset because I knew at that point that they'd never seriously consider it.
I have been a dm in tournaments i have won many myself as a player.
???? How can you win in a cooperative game? A tournament for role-playing, how is that possible? They gave you a best actor trophy?
Seriously, I don't understand... please explain.
... typically the scores went to the fellow with the luckiest dice and the loudest mouth.
Aaah!... I see now.
LOL|
|
Well its been a fun and interesting debate thank you one and all for your thoughts comments and feedback.
I will add this it will be interesting to see peoples thoughts on this class after a few weeks and months to see if at has significantly improved.
Once again my thanks
you still haven't given any evidence of a rogue with UMD being a more efficient buffer than a bard
|
|
And again, Boggle, you have yet to show me how a 1st level cleric, wizard, or rogue can boost a save up to +13. The onus is now on YOU to prove to ME how a bard is ineffectual.Give it up LK, it's not worth arguing over.I could not agree more lol
Don't bother it's clear he's not actually justifying anything he says
|
|
Prove ineffectual
the only way i can do this add up all the bard deaths over the years
Hmmm, all the bard deaths over the years, lets see, I had one bard death at 2nd level to a crit hit that would have killed any character other than the fighter and the fighter would have been in negatives. I've lost sorcerers by the score, usually to inexperienced players who think that blasting a creature with a spell while standing without anything in between them and the monster is a good idea and subsequently getting eaten. By that standard the sorcerer class is innefectual. Well guys time to change the course of discussion, the question is why have a sorcerer class. The sorcerer is innefectual and anything the sorcerer can do the wizard with a few pearls of power is more effective.
Are you beggining to see the rediculous stance you have towards the bard. By the way all of the above about sorcerer deaths in my games is true. I've seen sorcerers die time after time after time. I've seen sorcerers abandoned and wizards come in their place. And a rogue with a high UMD can do everything a sorcerer can do more effectively by the logic you use.
Your group doesn't use bards and when newbies join your game and their bard dies that somehow makes the bard inneffective and not just the case that newbies aren't that great at running more advanced classes.
|
I am now thinking this whole thread reminds me of a Washington Post advertisement that was on the radio a while back... If you don't get it, you don't get it. Regarding the OP, I don't think any of us are going to be able to explain bard value to you when you have no shared context with most of us to make sense of our perception of the class. I am guessing the Pathfinder prestige class, loremaster, and many other "flavor" based classes are also non-existent in your game.
the only way i can do this add up all the bard deaths over the yearssurprising few, effective i hear you say no people learnt they just dont cut it.
I can actually make saves a guarantee with a rogue well almost and the bonuses are far greater than +13
but thats another story.
How can you have Bard deaths if no one in your group plays bards?
You fail in the logic, you move the goal posts, and you don't acknowledge arguments.
Start casting the fireballs boys, this one is ready for cooking.
the only way i can do this add up all the bard deaths over the yearssurprising few, effective i hear you say no people learnt they just dont cut it.
I can actually make saves a guarantee with a rogue well almost and the bonuses are far greater than +13
but thats another story.
How can you have Bard deaths if no one in your group plays bards?
You fail in the logic, you move the goal posts, and you don't acknowledge arguments.
Start casting the fireballs boys, this one is ready for cooking.
2 things...
1) I HATED the NPC that serves as your avatar. HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE! *cue dancing madness*
Now, completely separate from Abraham...
2) My argument for bards goes beyond just he mechanical. You have to understand Boggle, this isn't an argument that can be put into purely mechanical terms. If that was true, your groups would never play fighters, nor would they consider rangers till now.
You play a class because the aesthetics are pleasing. Then you look under the hood and begin the round of "Well, lets take this class for a spin and see what it can do..."
Bards are strong on two fronts;
A) They are the font of knowledge in the group. This allows the group for the most part to knwo what they're dealing with, and once per day, know beyond a shadow of doubt everything the bard knows.
B) They make for a patch fill that effectively helps out the cleric. Are bards the first character you pick for a party? No, they are a purely supplemental character. You usually include a bard AFTER you have included most other things. Once most of the other roles have been filled, THEN and only then, can you consider the bard.
At least till now.
Now, I see that bard will be able to effectively function on its own, as the arcane caster in a party. He could easily take the place of a wizard or sorceror, and in doing so the party is no worse off. Sure they won't have access to the game breaking spells like shape change and gate, but they didn't really need it either. Just view him as a battlefield controller, who seconds in healing, and he's a good supplement to a war priest who may not wish to spend spell slots to heal party members.
EDIT: Oh one other thing I noticed, mainly because it irked me. Bards lost the free skill point in a knowledge skill. Instead they only receive the 1/2 bard levels (min 1) to all knowledge checks.
|
|
Boggle almost everyone in this discussion has "shown the math" as it were and given detailed examples of how a Bard is a viable class option and yet you dismiss it out of hand by saying that for 26 years your group hasn't taken the time to really look at Bards because the noobs of your group chose them and couldn't utilize them effectively.
Not a very strong arguement. The Bard has really become a completely different animal in 3E and beyond than it was in previous editions. In my 21 years of gaming the Bard has been a ubiquitous class option at my table through 2e, 3e, and now Pathfinder. Some campaigns we've even had fights over who should play one!
Also could you please take the time to use some punctuation, complete sentances, and maybe a little formatting? From your profile you seem to be an english speaker. If you are not I apologize, but if you ARE you would have my thanks.
--Vrock Star!
You seem like someone who has never played the pure awesome that is a Bard. They are not for everyone but to write them off like you have then well as my group does not play full casters of any type I guess they are useless classes. Don't write the class off just because they do not fit your play style or group.
If ya have not played a bard your missing a lot of awesome Roleplay
Rogues have more skill pointsBy a grand total of two. One if you count the bard's uber-knowledge in one area. If your bard isn't spending anything on disable device, then he's equal in meaningful skill points with a rogue, and that's not taking into account his general knowledge ability.
Unless buffing is what you want to be doing the majority of the time,Who says it isn't?
Quite honestly, the Bard buffs are powerhouses compared to what clerics and UMD-users get (even ignoring that if you're using UMDed wands and scrolls you're earning less overall per encounter)
That's the hitch for me, I think. There's no NEED for a bard. Every other class brings something vital to bearWhat does a Barbarian bring, again? A Monk? What does a Wizard have that a Sorceror doesn't?
Or are you seriously saying that every PC class should be one that hogs the spotlight, and there is no room for characters with supporting roles in a D&D party?
The group is greater than the sum of its parts, remember.
No not saying that at all, just that the other classes have clearly defined roles that make them more viable in terms of party mechanics. A monk is a DD, a Barb is a DD and can tank off it's hp. Wizards have a more rapid spell progression but sorcerors have more spell repitition. It's really more "what flavor of arcane caster do you prefer"...but you're going to want one of the two.
That's the hitch for me, I think. There's no NEED for a bard. Every other class brings something vital to bear, but even the other posters have said that they wouldn't pick a bard to be in the core of an adventuring party, but rather would take him as a support element. It doesn't seem right to me that a class would be so esoteric that it wouldn't have a place at the table ALL the time under it's OWN merits.Well I know personal experience is non-supportive, but I've had plenty of games where there were 4 players and the bard replaced some core party unit without the party feeling hampered for it, The primary spellcaster, the skill monkey, and the healer. The only role I haven't seen the bard filling is primary tank. But the bard shines when replacing the rogue, a rogue is more combat oriented, but a rogue and a bard are pretty much supplantable as the party skill monkey, the rogue is better if you want to go melee combat route, and the bard is better if you want to go buffing route. So that's the bards Niche and reason to be in the game, the skill monkey roll with buffing.
This thread is about the equivalent of saying why have a barbarian class. The fighter can do the same role better and the barbarian has a hard time filling in other roles, unlike the bard. So what's the point of the barbarian class.
The bard has a place at the table all the time as a skill monkey class in the same way the rogue does, but for different reasons.
even the other posters have said that they wouldn't pick a bard to be in the core of an adventuring partyI would and have. More than once :). In fact I hate the arguement that the bard makes a good 5th party member because I think the bard makes a good 4th party member, and the bards even better if you only have 3 party members, or 2. The fewer the players the better and better the bard gets for it flexibility and yet no ones made that arguement. You put me in a 3 person party, I'm gonna play a...
I think I'm coming off wrong here. I personally like the bard, and I feel like ANY class can be a viable and valuable addition to the party. It's really more HOW you play then WHAT you play. However, from a game mechanics perspective (not how I run the game) I find the bard hard to swallow. And to whomever said the bard can do loads of damage...proof?
|
First, Roleplay seldom comes first. The game is geared HEAVILY towards combat. 75% of all printed material is based around combat in some way shape or form, and almost all of the modules are printed around combat encounters, in which case the bard is kind of hard to validate.
I'd have to disagree with this ...
How much of any module you buy is about combat? The majority (80%?) is about the story.
In one of the campaign's I play in, we get together for 4-6 hours every week and we get into 0-2 combats during these hours (yes, one time we didn't have a single fight).
Most of our time is spent role-playing ... we have an amazing time and our bard loves it.
Edit: You could also say 75% of all printed material is based around roleplay in SOME FORM.
First, Roleplay seldom comes first. The game is geared HEAVILY towards combat. 75% of all printed material is based around combat in some way shape or form, and almost all of the modules are printed around combat encounters, in which case the bard is kind of hard to validate.
I'd have to disagree with this ...
How much of any module you buy is about combat? The majority (80%?) is about the story.
In one of the campaign's I play in, we get together for 4-6 hours every week and we get into 0-2 combats during these hours (yes, sometimes we wont fight once during the evening).
Most of our time is spent role-playing ... we have an amazing time and our bard loves it.
Ideally that's how it works...but normally, in a 4-6 hour session of D and D at the higher levels you're lucky to muck your way through a fight in less then an hour. If it's a dungeon? I don't even want to think about it.
The motivations, and the stuff people tend to care about is from the story part of the game, but I doubt that most parties spend more time RP'ing the fighting. In terms of setting up the map even, drawing out the encounter, keeping initiative and general book keeping the fights can really drag on. The game is heavily geared towards combat by it's rules, the traditions behind it, and it's origin as a wargame (Chainmail, spiritual successor).Go take a look at some other game systems. White Wolf games come to mind, as does L5R or 7th sea. Those are games that more heavily encourage roleplay.
Don't get me wrong, you spend ALL of your time roleplaying, even when you're in combat. It's just that combat is the focus of almost all the game rules.
|
|
[
Ideally that's how it works...but normally, in a 4-6 hour session of D and D at the higher levels you're lucky to muck your way through a fight in less then an hour. If it's a dungeon? I don't even want to think about it.
The motivations, and the stuff people tend to care about is from the story part of the game, but I doubt that most parties spend more time RP'ing the fighting. In terms of setting up the map even, drawing out the encounter, keeping initiative and general book keeping the fights can really drag on. The game is heavily geared towards combat by it's rules, the traditions behind it, and it's origin as a wargame (Chainmail, spiritual successor).
Go take a look at some other game systems. White Wolf games come to mind, as does L5R or 7th sea. Those are games that more heavily encourage roleplay.
Don't get me wrong, you spend ALL of your time roleplaying, even when you're in combat. It's just that combat is the focus of almost all the game rules.
I apologize for the tangent ... But Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, etc. are not about combat. I've played D&D and AD&D and its always been about Tenser, St. Cuthbert and exploring in my games .. sure the fighting is there but in support of exploring IMO.
I have also played an anti-bard (diresinger from Libris Mortis) which you debuff the enemy rather then buffing the party. Would that make the bard more wanted?
I have also played an anti-bard (diresinger from Libris Mortis) which you debuff the enemy rather then buffing the party. Would that make the bard more wanted?
I like that idea. In general I feel like there's a lot you can do to a bard to give it a little more bite...my quick and easy fix is that all bards are lucky at first level (reroll one d20 roll a day/5 levels, max 4 at 20) and that they are heroic at 4th level (as per heroic surge : they may take one additional standard action once a day/4 levels, max 5 at 20) I really like viewing the bard as a swashbuckling, intelligent fighter. Kind of like Cyrano De Bergerac. I just feel like it needs a little tweaking is all.