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.[
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.
No need for apologies :)
No the settings aren't, but the system can't help but be. It's always about the storyline for me and mine too, but it seems like more and more people are running mods and dungeons these days, and there's a LOT of combat in a lot of those mods.
D and D encourages a kind of shoot first, ask questions later attitude. It's expected that you're going to run into big nasty bad things and the only way out is to fight (an alternative to this is something akin to the Star Wars Saga Edition system. Side note - Noble Talents are also very bard-esque, and some would have made amazing additions to the class).
It's just that fighting takes so LONG (especially at higher levels) that it feels like I'm spending a lot of my time bent over a combat map.
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.
This seems really off topic to me. I don't play WoW. I'm talking about game mechanics, which is a seperate issue from actually playing the game. I've said, repeatedly, that I like bards, I've played them, and I would play them again.
Mechanically, I find them inferior to the rest of the base classes. That's the point I'm making. Not that they're useless, or that they shouldn't be here (that's more boggle's schtick), but that it's hard to look at them from a game mechanics perspective and be wowed.
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?
Yeah you got me there. Point conceded on him being able to heal better.
I don't think the rogue can outdo the bard in spellcasting even with UMD, just that he can approximate some of it. However, even with equipment the bard won't EVER do damage like a cleric or rogue. I think what I was getting at was the bard would spend the gold getting better melee equipment that a rogue could spend on getting UMD items. Technically, with enough foresight I'd really day that the rogue/bard could both do the casting thing equally with UMD except for buffs (advantage bard). Then again, the thief does still retain the higher skill points and better combat abilities.
Yeah you got me there. Point conceded on him being able to heal better.
I don't think the rogue can outdo the bard in spellcasting even with UMD, just that he can approximate some of it. However, even with equipment the bard won't EVER do damage like a cleric or rogue. I think what I was getting at was the bard would spend the gold getting better melee equipment that a rogue could spend on getting UMD items. Technically, with enough foresight I'd really day...
Yeah, I know how that is. However, bards aren't meant to be the guy that explodes with 20 some odd damage on a hit. Bards are supposed to be the guy that allows rogues to HIT so they can do 20 some odd damage on the hit. They are first string casters, since with armor they can be near the front lines. They stand next to the cleric and give him something to do other than heal bot, because a Bard can patch heal until an actual heal spell is needed.
They really are a specific niche of character, and should be taken after the other niches are claimed. Until then they will always seem a bit underpowered.
Like an offtank that is the only tank in the party. He lacks the abilities a real tank needs to make enemies want to wish him dead, and so enemies lack the desire to beat them dead. In the end they feel like they're wasting their time.
|
I just want to thank you Nathan, for the concession you made in the arguement. I'm a bit stubborn, so I understand what it is to admit you may be mistaken. I get a little frustrated when my arguements are dismissed out of hand, so that helped make me feel like I wasn't just howling into the intertubes. You're welcome at my table anytime if we cross paths at a con. Then we can yell at each others faces!
|
I just want to thank you Nathan, for the concession you made in the arguement. I'm a bit stubborn, so I understand what it is to admit you may be mistaken. I get a little frustrated when my arguements are dismissed out of hand, so that helped make me feel like I wasn't just howling into the intertubes. You're welcome at my table anytime if we cross paths at a con. Then we can yell at each others faces!
What's funny, is that my name is Nathan also, so Nathan conceded the point to Nathan
|
|
Hi all
i will also concede a point at this stage the bard is better and as i have already said i look forward to others feedback about there bard characters over the next few weeks and months.
As a question would bard have been better made into a prestige class that players could strive towards.
Once again thank you for all your thoughts my respect and admiration
Boggle
Maybe, but then again that could be said about any class that isn't the core four.
But the problem with turning it into a PrC is that it would get lost in the shuffle. Which classes exactly do you make the bard a PrC for, and how does the bard then compete against the 60 or so other PrC options for those classes. Honestly I think the bard is under appreciated as it is and gets used less than it should.
Hokay, so, I have to chime in on zis von ya? YA!
Bards not only shine in MASSIVE combat, but in Taverns and Towns. Along with the rogue, a LOT can be done in town with the two of them. The Bard is essentially the GIANT ASS DISTRACTION that everybody pays attention to whilst the Rogue goes to work. Not to mention opening up a plethera of roleplaying opportunities while in the tavern itself. Remember that this class specifically hangs out around taverns (which is the basis of the bardic knowledge ability) and INTERACTS WITH DAMN NEAR EVERYBODY THAT WALKS IN!!!
In a 4 player set-up, with the set-up in pathfinder the way it is, and you were using a bard the other three I would suggest would be: Rogue, Barbarian/Monk (Monk would be moreso), and Ranger (Archery). At that point you have a Stealth based, quick moving unit where your frontline fighter can heal himself at higher levels (the reason for using the monk more was because he is harder to hit, with more skill based stuff, and a variety of "I gotta get out of this #$@%" abilities, but with the barbarian you are less likely to have opposing alignment issues--and barbarians are fun).
Another set-up I like is going Rogue, Rogue, Wizard, and Bard. The rogues do a FREAKY amount of damage to enemies now that the sneak attack ability has been tweeked that providing a flanking bonus to each other on top of potential grease which has the potential of making enemies fall...It kinda of turns rediculous when you consider the fact that two two-weapon rogues can take down most things of their level in one set of attacks (multiply the sneak attack damage by 4: 1d6 becomes 4d6, 2d6 becomes 8d6, 3d6 becomes 12d6, etc. etc. which becomes rediculous when the rogues get multiple attacks), when the heat gets too big, that's when the wizard steps in: a well place fireball, ice storm, etc. for the masses and slay living and the like for single targets. The point of this setup is to kill anything that comes within reach, not to just stop it, but stop it DEAD. The part the bard plays is buff spells for the rogues and having a bag of tricks up his sleeve that most classes can't boast on top of being a general support caster that can call on his entire spell list should any situation arise.
I just want to thank you Nathan, for the concession you made in the arguement. I'm a bit stubborn, so I understand what it is to admit you may be mistaken. I get a little frustrated when my arguements are dismissed out of hand, so that helped make me feel like I wasn't just howling into the intertubes. You're welcome at my table anytime if we cross paths at a con. Then we can yell at each others faces!
LOL good then... I'll play a bard. Yeah, people on the internet don't like to admit they're wrong at ANYTHING. It's important to be flexible, and it was a point I'd seriously NOT considered.
Yeah you got me there. Point conceded on him being able to heal better.
I don't think the rogue can outdo the bard in spellcasting even with UMD, just that he can approximate some of it. However, even with equipment the bard won't EVER do damage like a cleric or rogue. I think what I was getting at was the bard would spend the gold getting better melee equipment that a rogue could spend on getting UMD items. Technically, with enough foresight I'd really day...Yeah, I know how that is. However, bards aren't meant to be the guy that explodes with 20 some odd damage on a hit. Bards are supposed to be the guy that allows rogues to HIT so they can do 20 some odd damage on the hit. They are first string casters, since with armor they can be near the front lines. They stand next to the cleric and give him something to do other than heal bot, because a Bard can patch heal until an actual heal spell is needed.
They really are a specific niche of character, and should be taken after the other niches are claimed. Until then they will always seem a bit underpowered.
Like an offtank that is the only tank in the party. He lacks the abilities a real tank needs to make enemies want to wish him dead, and so enemies lack the desire to beat them dead. In the end they feel like they're wasting their time.
Agreed on that, and I think that's definately where I'm geting hung up mechanically.
Mechanics aren't everything of course, and classicly I'm MORE then happy to take a mechanical hit for the sake of storyline. Whenever I've played a bard its been because they're fun, I'd just like to see them a little more effective mechanics wise.
Our campaign wraps up in the 4 or 5 months, and I was thinking about rolling a paladin, but I might just have to roll a bard and take it from 1-20 so I'll have a better grasp of it. Maybe I'll keep a journal and stat log and I can post it so we can see how things pan out.
|
|
Brave
what do you think a bard can do that makes them special.
I think the whole point is that you don't want to be special!
Bards can identify everything so you know how to combat it.
Bards can buff the party in a number of ways.
Bards have some useful spells.There isn't anything wrong in not wanting to excel at one particular thing, imo.
Great
however buffing is incredibly boring and a wizard or bard can do that better.
Knowing your enemy isn't all its cracked up to be you still need to be able to hit it with either clever spells or simply laying damage on it.
Please tell me the useful spells?
Sculpt Sound is the ultimate "party stealth" spell
Glibness is out of this worldDon't have the book in front of me but almost all "bard only" spells are out of this world IMO.
Brave
what do you think a bard can do that makes them special.
I think the whole point is that you don't want to be special!
Bards can identify everything so you know how to combat it.
Bards can buff the party in a number of ways.
Bards have some useful spells.There isn't anything wrong in not wanting to excel at one particular thing, imo.
Great
however buffing is incredibly boring and a wizard or bard can do that better.
Knowing your enemy isn't all its cracked up to be you still need to be able to hit it with either clever spells or simply laying damage on it.
Please tell me the useful spells?
Sculpt Sound is the ultimate "party stealth" spell
Glibness is out of this worldDon't have the book in front of me but almost all "bard only" spells are out of this world IMO.
Keep rubbing my nose in it.
Damn, I loved playing that bard. Stupid party! If they listened to me, the whole party would still be alive!
Well, next stop: Dervish!
|
I got tired of reading all it so if I step on someone's toes my apology.
Simply put that I've seen. Bards are for people who want to play clever and inventive characters. They are all about options.
I'll admit I've seen some horrible bards, but then I've seen Bards that could charm a monster with a 40DC will save.
Bards and Druids are two of the most under used but strongest hybrid classes around.
You've just got to have that drive to play one.
|
I play a half-elf bard, and he's freaking awesome. I really like having a character that can hold his own in melee combat while still being able to cast spells and buff party members. In 3.5, I used the duskblade class, but it felt too combat only oriented to me (it was a good class, don't get me wrong). So when pathfinder came out, and I read through the bard, I decided it would fit my style of play best. My group's campaigns generally involved lots of both political intrigue and social interaction, and epic fight sequences. The bard is perfect for this, if you want to be useful in any situation.
At no time will I except a post wherein one poster insults the intelligence of another. That behavior might fly on other boards, but it has no place here. You will remain civil and keep the discussion civil. This is a discussion about the bard class, not an attack on specific posters and your impression of their intelligence.
I've removed several posts.
Best reason I can think of: Because the Editor-in-Chief's favorite class is the bard. :-)
May the Editor-in-Chief grant us some feedback on
We have no arcane caster in our group. Our PC Bard is fine, but she is dependent on scrolls and wands since she only has three 3:d level spells. This drains the group economically. In a big fight Haste and good hope is usually cast. Leaving the bard with one 3:d level spell for the rest of the day. During our last session she started with Good hope + perform, then haste + perform. Minutes later we meet the boss. Good hope was still in effect. First spell used in new fight was dispel magic since she had to help an ally. Then she was out of 3:d level spells. First and second level spells are not that great. Grease is usfull and so is Glitterdust, but the last is less powerful after the nerf. A good nerf IMHO.
Overall I say the bard is OK at lower levels if she has scrolls with haste and/or Good hope, etc. The combination of few spells known and few spells per day (and a limited spell list) makes the Bard dependent on scolls and/or wands. At higher levels I fear she will fall behind.
Again, the rounds per day mechanics is just great.
lot of stuff
I basically agree with most of the stuff you say. The Bard just isn't good enough. But up to mid levels it's OK if you use a lot of scrolls/wands and if you don't boost your char to high.
Yes, you need high char if you want a good DC. That shows that attack spells is not the road to go. I say it's a designer flaw. Frightening Tune, Charm monster, Gliterdust, Shadow Evocation, etc. all need a good DC and to get a good a DC you need a high charisma.As for the whole buff class concept. It is boring to most people. Why did they make the cleric so powerful in 3.0? The 1:st ed cleric was just too boring. Good for the group but boring to play.
I think the bard as a buffer lacks some buff spells and utility spells and it would benefit from more spells know and some more spells per day. IMHO. That said, the Paizo Bard is far better than the 3.x Bard.
But why have a bard class? Well some people like it and the class been around for a long time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, watch out the 4e bashing. That can get your post deleted. (Speaking from experience.)
Anyways, Hydro, you're making me want to smash my head with my keyboard repeatedly until clear liquid leaks out of my ears.
You don't have to be better than or as good as the "pure" classes at their own job to be viable.
The point is that the Bard can serve as either a backup or a case-by-case stand-in for another character. It's helpful for the player that shows up to the game a lot to play a Bard, because if one of the other players isn't there, he can fill in without too much trouble.
And, of course, the Bard does knowledges better than anyone. My wife is playing a Jester with Perform (comedy) in my next campaign and I am both dreading and loving it because her concept is great and the whole gather information/figuring crap out won't be bogged down at all. It will be very easy.
Also, some people like being able to do several things. These people might also make strange multiclassing choices that have no bearing whatsoever on optimization. It's nice for them to have an actual balanced class they can play that at least some of the optimizers won't scoff at.
So there are several reasons to play a Bard.
One of them is not "The Bard is as Good as if Not Better Than Another Pure Class at Their Niche Role". Nobody's arguing that.
In general...
The Bard IS better at healing than a Fighter.
The Bard IS better at buffing than a Rogue.
The Bard IS better at melee combat than a Wizard.
The Bard IS better at illusions than a Barbarian.
The Bard IS better defended than a Sorcerer.
The Bard IS better at social interaction than a Cleric.
In general, the Bard is BETTER at most things than any other character EXCEPT that one thing that makes that character shine.
And that's why you play the Bard.
In a way Loopy I agree. The pathfinder bard is not the best at many things but he is an excellent replacement or backup for many.
He can backup nearly any class, makes a strong arcane caster back up, a strong rogue/scout backup, makes a stronger then you would expect healer backup. He would be hard pressed to make a solid backup to a fighter, his AC and melee power is a little too weak but if he pours on the feats he could try. He does however make one of the best buffers which means every group that has one is a good deal more powerful for it. To me there is no better 5th man in a group then the bard, only the ranger comes close in my view. In an urban adventure I would think if you lack a bard you will notice like you would notice not having a ranger/druid in the wild. His social skills are so excellent it's almost silly and his knowledge skills are better then anyone's even a wizard.
I don't think he's perfect, but he's not broken either. I do think he could use some improvements, but am not completely certain on how best to improve him without overpowering him. Flexible classes are to me very difficult to balance.
I don't think he's perfect, but he's not broken either. I do think he could use some improvements, but am not completely certain on how best to improve him without overpowering him. Flexible classes are to me very difficult to balance.
You're absolutely right about this slippery slope. Improving the class's flexibility could overpower it. Giving it a greater ability to specialize in something could also overpower it. Certainly the Skill-based stuff is tight. I wouldn't improve that.
I think the best way to give the bard a little oopf (if you feel he needs one) is with custom-tailored feats. For instance, a Bard really can't take advantage of Arcane Armor feats due to the fact that their armored casting mechanic is markedly different. Perhaps this was intentional, but I think it would be great to add a caveat that a Bard could use his armored casting ability as a prerequisite for Arcane Armor Mastery rather than Arcane Armor Training. I dunno, little things like this.
But I don't think I'm preparead to make changes to the class, even shadow changes, at this point. I have yet to see it in action.
Then again, increasing inspire courage by +1 across the board would make the class very very appealing.
I don't think he's perfect, but he's not broken either. I do think he could use some improvements, but am not completely certain on how best to improve him without overpowering him. Flexible classes are to me very difficult to balance.You're absolutely right about this slippery slope. Improving the class's flexibility could overpower it. Giving it a greater ability to specialize in something could also overpower it. Certainly the Skill-based stuff is tight. I wouldn't improve that.
I think the best way to give the bard a little oopf (if you feel he needs one) is with custom-tailored feats. For instance, a Bard really can't take advantage of Arcane Armor feats due to the fact that their armored casting mechanic is markedly different. Perhaps this was intentional, but I think it would be great to add a caveat that a Bard could use his armored casting ability as a prerequisite for Arcane Armor Mastery rather than Arcane Armor Training. I dunno, little things like this.
But I don't think I'm preparead to make changes to the class, even shadow changes, at this point. I have yet to see it in action.
You could turn their armor casting ability into a straight ignore the first 20% of arcane failure and let the feats build from there.
|
|
I was lucky enough for my bard to end up with a belt of physical perfection and a +5 longsword, so he is also a beast in combat, lol. Plus, my group plays mostly urban adventures, and would NOT do very well without my bard's social abilities. As countless others have stated, a bard doesn't have to be as good as a specialized class in what it specializes in. A bard is the jack of all trades class. It's strength and usefulness comes from that it can fill MANY roles rather well, rather than just being a master at a single role (and sucking at other roles). If you're playing in a very small group, being able to substitute for all the other classes is a very useful ability (particularly when the other people in the group just want to be a fighter or a barbarian).
Sculpt Sound is the ultimate "party stealth" spell
Would you explain this to me please. I don't understand this spell.
I also don't get this. It says "Saving Throw Will negates (object)". does this mean it can't be used on a enemy spell caster, or does it mean the caster won't get a save?Some repeat that the Bard is the only class that can do a bit of everything and that makes it a good class.
I would say this is false logic. A 18 level Aristocrat with two level bard doesn't make a great character just because he can fight and cast cure spells, and can perform and can cast arcane spells and can use stealth, etc. You have do be good enough at what you do to be great. I think the Bard is a great class in certain campaigns and with the right DM, but just because he got some cure spells doesn't make him a cleric, Paladin or druid.
Just because he got 3/4 BAB doesn't mean he is as good as a cleric, rogue or druid as a melee character. I'm not saying he should be. I just find some of the arguments a bit far-fetched.
And the argument he got lots of skills is also a bit weak. A rogue that picks one level bard will have the same class skills, but will have 8 skills per level. A wizard with int 18 that picks one level bard vs. a bard with int 10. The wizard is just as good or better.
As for the bard being a good spell caster. I say that is just not true. His spells will never have a great DC and building a bard as a spell caster is just not what the bard is all about.
Sculpt Sound is the ultimate "party stealth" spell
Would you explain this to me please. I don't understand this spell.
I also don't get this. It says "Saving Throw Will negates (object)". does this mean it can't be used on a enemy spell caster, or does it mean the caster won't get a save?Some repeat that the Bard is the only class that can do a bit of everything and that makes it a good class.
I would say this is false logic. A 18 level Aristocrat with two level bard doesn't make a great character just because he can fight and cast cure spells, and can perform and can cast arcane spells and can use stealth, etc. You have do be good enough at what you do to be great. I think the Bard is a great class in certain campaigns and with the right DM, but just because he got some cure spells doesn't make him a cleric, Paladin or druid.
Just because he got 3/4 BAB doesn't mean he is as good as a cleric, rogue or druid as a melee character. I'm not saying he should be. I just find some of the arguments a bit far-fetched.
And the argument he got lots of skills is also a bit weak. A rogue that picks one level bard will have the same class skills, but will have 8 skills per level. A wizard with int 18 that picks one level bard vs. a bard with int 10. The wizard is just as good or better.
As for the bard being a good spell caster. I say that is just not true. His spells will never have a great DC and building a bard as a spell caster is just not what the bard is all about.
I think the part your not looking at is that while they may not be as good in a particular area as a specialist (the other classes), their abilities as a generalist means that no matter what situation the party finds themselves in, a well built bard has something to contribute.
Even among the 3/4 BaB classes you mentioned, none are on equal footing in melee. Among spell casters, the disparity is pretty rampant...don't call a cleric when you need a target nuked, don't call a mage when you need a bandaid, but you know wat, you could call up a bard for either. Need that lock picked and the rogue got his fingers broken? Call a bard. Need someone to liven up your day and make ya feel better, call a bard.
So yes, in the bards case, versatility is the strength, the ability to fill in multiple gaps in a party all in one character, with some rather nice buffs as you go deeper into the class.
I think the part your not looking at is that while they may not be as good in a particular area as a specialist (the other classes), their abilities as a generalist means that no matter what situation the party finds themselves in, a well built bard has something to contribute.
Even among the 3/4 BaB classes you mentioned, none are on equal footing in melee. Among spell casters, the disparity is pretty rampant...don't call a cleric when you need a target nuked, don't call a mage when you need a bandaid, but you know wat, you could call up a bard for either. Need that lock picked and the rogue got his fingers broken? Call a bard. Need someone to liven up your day and make ya feel better, call a bard.
So yes, in the bards case, versatility is the strength, the ability to fill in multiple gaps in a party all in one character, with some rather nice buffs as you go deeper into the class.
I don't agree with some of the things you say.
A cleric can't nuke and a bard can?Clerics got holy smite, flame strike, harm, slay living, Holy word, Fire storm, etc. And the bard?
Wizard can't heal. Right. But you don't play bard to be the group healer.
Also wizards have both wish and limited wish. Sure they can heal.
I think the part your not looking at is that while they may not be as good in a particular area as a specialist (the other classes), their abilities as a generalist means that no matter what situation the party finds themselves in, a well built bard has something to contribute.
Even among the 3/4 BaB classes you mentioned, none are on equal footing in melee. Among spell casters, the disparity is pretty rampant...don't call a cleric when you need a target nuked, don't call a mage when you need a bandaid, but you know wat, you could call up a bard for either. Need that lock picked and the rogue got his fingers broken? Call a bard. Need someone to liven up your day and make ya feel better, call a bard.
So yes, in the bards case, versatility is the strength, the ability to fill in multiple gaps in a party all in one character, with some rather nice buffs as you go deeper into the class.
I don't agree with some of the things you say.
A cleric can't nuke and a bard can?
Clerics got holy smite, flame strike, harm, slay living, Holy word, Fire storm, etc. And the bard?
Wizard can't heal. Right. But you don't play bard to be the group healer.
Also wizards have both wish and limited wish. Sure they can heal.
Yeah, clerics get bigger booms than the bard does. So does the wizard. But would you rather have the cleric have curative/preventative magic memorized, or attack spells?
So the wizard is upposed to burn a limited wish or wish just to patch up someone cause the cleric isn't available?
The point is that while the bard might not, without magic items, fill most of the main roles (fighter, nuker, healer), they can sub in in a pinch for any of those three, and do a pretty good job of filling the rogues shoes while he's at it. Oh, and the bard has those nifty buffs that only he hands out.
Yeah, nothing changes the fact that the bard is oriented towards support, and he's kind of the backup everything. But, by being that, a well played bard tends to be in the spotlight as much as, if not moreso, than other classes.
No one in our group had ever really run a bard until our current campaign (running Pathfinder Beta rules), so we weren't really sure what kind of impact he was going to be having. But there were several combats in which the pluses he was giving out from Inspire Courage and Inspirational Boost were the difference between hitting and not hitting for the big melee damage-dealers, and he turned a siren encounter into a piece of cake with Countersong, completely negating her main ability.
There was one time when the party was split and the non-bard part had an encounter with a group of pirates. When the pirate captain began to boom out a sea chanty, the players got really worried: "Oh crap, he's a bard! Where's our bard?!?"
Again and again people say. what if we have no cleric, what if the rogue broke his finger, what if the fighter is down.
I think this argument is odd. If a rogue is down, a wizard can use knock or the ranger, the dex fighter or the monk can use open locks.
This hole argument is based on that the praty is dependet on just the Bard.
I never seen this in a party. As for the buff. Only the bard can buff?
No, paldins, rangers, clerics, wizards, etc. can also buff. Just as good as a bard?
perhaps, perhaps not.
But that was a your point wasn't it. You don't need to be best at what you do to be good.
Again and again people say. what if we have no cleric, what if the rogue broke his finger, what if the fighter is down.
I think this argument is odd. If a rogue is down, a wizard can use knock or the ranger, the dex fighter or the monk can use open locks.
This hole argument is based on that the praty is dependet on just the Bard.
I never seen this in a party. As for the buff. Only the bard can buff?
No, paldins, rangers, clerics, wizards, etc. can also buff. Just as good as a bard?
perhaps, perhaps not.
But that was a your point wasn't it. You don't need to be best at what you do to be good.
Then what is your complaint with the bard? He can, if played well, do any of the jobs another character can.
Then what is your complaint with the bard? He can, if played well, do any of the jobs another character can.
My point was, other classes can buff to.
|
|
Again and again people say. what if we have no cleric, what if the rogue broke his finger, what if the fighter is down.
I think this argument is odd. If a rogue is down, a wizard can use knock or the ranger, the dex fighter or the monk can use open locks.
This hole argument is based on that the praty is dependet on just the Bard.
I never seen this in a party. As for the buff. Only the bard can buff?
No, paldins, rangers, clerics, wizards, etc. can also buff. Just as good as a bard?
perhaps, perhaps not.
But that was a your point wasn't it. You don't need to be best at what you do to be good.
Well try being in a gaming group with 2 players and one GM. Particularly when one insists on being a fighter or a barbarian every time. Without enough people to play the rouge, the cleric, the monk, the wizard, and all the other party roles, the bard is a very amazing addition to the team. While he may not be as specialized as the other classes, his versatility makes up for this. That's NOT to say the bard is the best class, or that being versatile makes him just as good in a role as a class that specializes in that role (I'm not saying a bard is a better cleric than the cleric), I am simply saying that the bard class is useful in the fact that it can do a good job at any role. There's nothing wrong with having a bard that functions as a weaker version of the cleric while fighting as a weaker version of the fighter and sneaking around as a weaker version of the rouge. While he may never MASTER any of these roles, he is a pretty good aid in any portion of the campaign. I've actually been running a campaign with only a single PC (rather boring, but my circle of gamers is limited, lol), and when there is only ONE member in the party, the bard is a great option.
I know some of you have trouble grasping that some people won't always have one person playing each of the other classes, but there ARE small gaming groups, or campaigns that call for only a small group. Again, the bard rocks, not because he can do a job better than a class that specializes in that particular role, but that he can do EVERY role. He's not a better cleric than the cleric, but when you don't HAVE a cleric, he's amazing. Just my two cents.
Creative Director
|
why the Song of Freedom was removed?
I actually can't address this exactly, but I suspect it was removed because of a desire to boost the bard's actual healing powers to help take some of that pressure off of clerics at higher level. Also, by giving the bard soothing performance we gave the bard a performance ability that doesn't just duplicate a spell he could already cast back at 9th level; it's more exciting to get a new power rather than one that could well just duplicate one of your spells.
his thoughts on Inspire Courage (IC) vs. Inspire Greatness (IG). We have a NPC Bard in our party. We are all level 8 and the rounds per day mechanics is just great. Though it's pretty obvious we won't use IG since it still is weak and since it no longer linger. Even at 9:th level IC will be better than IG. IC boosts the whole party and if someone needs healing the bard can use cure wands, cast CLW or CMW and perform at the same time. Or the cleric, druid, Paladin can heal. At level 13 the bard can start IC as a swift action, move and cast cure spell the same round,and at level 13 IC is +3. At level 14 the bard can cast mass CLW and use IC+3 the same round. IC will out trump IG any day.
There's a very strong possibility of some bard options in the upcoming Advanced Player's Guide that could well add lingering type effects. But as for the basic, core bard, inspire courage is meant to be the signature performance ability, so if bards use it more often than other performances, that's fine. Inspire greatness is a way for a bard to boost HD, which does a lot more than just boost hit points. It's very much a tougher version of inspire competence, but geared toward defense as well as offense, and not one that's as much a "Help EVERYONE" power as it is to help a few allies.
his thoughts on the Spell-Like Ability the bard get at level 14 level, Frightening Tune. round one: Enemy fail save, move away from the bard so itno longer is within range (35 feet from the bard), cast spell or shot arrow, or drink potion, etc. In plain words. If foe fails save it only has to move away so it is 35 feet from the bard and then the foe is no longer affected and is free to act. Thus a spell caster can move, cast spell and cast quicken spell. Archer can move and shot one arrow, etc.
Frightening tune is a pretty specialized ability, and not one you'd want to use in every battle. It's not as useful against archers or spellcasters, but against foes that are melee thugs who have a lot of attacks it can wreak havoc, especially since those foes tend to have lower Will saves. A melee fighter type hit by frightening tune each round has his mulltipe attacks dropped to 1 per round, max, as he'll need to keep moving back up to get in range to use his abilities. As for the range, though... note the end of the description. A creature affected by this ability only needs to be in the 30 foot range to be initially affected, and if he IS affected, he doesn't stop running at 35 feet. It basically shuts down the foe for a full round, and he has to move his full speed away from the bard, so at the MINIMUM, it'll keep even archers and spellcasters from doing anything for a round. It's a pretty handy power, especially considering that in combat, losing a round of actions is pretty harrowing.
|
Again and again people say. what if we have no cleric, what if the rogue broke his finger, what if the fighter is down.
I think this argument is odd. If a rogue is down, a wizard can use knock or the ranger, the dex fighter or the monk can use open locks.
This hole argument is based on that the praty is dependet on just the Bard.
I never seen this in a party. As for the buff. Only the bard can buff?
No, paldins, rangers, clerics, wizards, etc. can also buff. Just as good as a bard?
perhaps, perhaps not.
But that was a your point wasn't it. You don't need to be best at what you do to be good.
The bard is a class that excels at social situations. Being a wandering minstrel he has had to learn how to survive in situations where people might not trust what he says and does. Add atop this a smattering of spells (six levels worth) and the versatility to learn skills quickly (6 + int skill points) and you have someone who can replace the rogue as skill junky and has the ability to work through more situations.
Now, you argue that other classes can buff. This is not denied, what IS being said is that no one has all the spells the bard does on their spell list.
Also, I highly doubt that the wizard is going to waste all that gold to cast a wish for heal. The wizard has to expend a lot of resources to get that wish, and he is more likely to just use it to end the fight and have the bard/cleric/paladin heal the ones in trouble, than actually heal himself.
While the argument is valid, I highly disagree that any wizard would do such a thing, especially with a spell as strong as wish.
why the Song of Freedom was removed? I actually can't address this exactly, but I suspect it was removed because of a desire to boost the bard's actual healing powers to help take some of that pressure off of clerics at higher level. Also, by giving the bard soothing performance we gave the bard a performance ability that doesn't just duplicate a spell he could already cast back at 9th level; it's more exciting to get a new power rather than one that could well just duplicate one of your spells.
Thank you for all the answers. I agree soothing performance is more exciting than Song of Freedom. I'm just a little curious why both songs weren't kept.
There's a very strong possibility of some bard options in the upcoming Advanced Player's Guide that could well add lingering type effects.
Exiting. I can hardly wait.
There are of course more feats that we bard lovers want. Here are some proposals.+1 to Inspire competence.
I think the bard need a boost after level 9.
Inspire greatness is a way for a bard to boost HD, which does a lot more than just boost hit points. It's very much a tougher version of inspire competence, but geared toward defense as well as offense, and not one that's as much a "Help EVERYONE" power as it is to help a few allies.
Agree it's not about healing. That's why I have a problem with it. Boosting HD is someting you do preventiv. Otherwise your stuck waiting to use it, a bit like couterspell, which is no good. IMHO.
That's why I'm a little surprised the HD didn't linger.
A creature affected by this ability only needs to be in the 30 foot range to be initially affected, and if he IS affected, he doesn't stop running at 35 feet. It basically shuts down the foe for a full round, and he has to move his full speed away from the bard, so at the MINIMUM, it'll keep even archers and spellcasters from doing anything for a round. It's a pretty handy power, especially considering that in combat, losing a round of actions is pretty harrowing.
That is good. I have read the rules wrong. Thank you for the clarification.
So far the our Bard has done well. The rounds per day is brilliant and she has not run out of rounds at later levls. Activating is as a move action is a blessing.
The bard is a class that excels at social situations. Being a wandering minstrel he has had to learn how to survive in situations where people might not trust what he says and does. Add atop this a smattering of spells (six levels worth) and the versatility to learn skills quickly (6 + int skill points) and you have someone who can replace the rogue as skill junky and has the ability to work through more situations.
So what you are saying is the bard is an unique class. True. But all classes are unique.
Now, you argue that other classes can buff. This is not denied, what IS being said is that no one has all the spells the bard does on their spell list.
No one has all the spells the bard does on their spell list?
The same can be said of the Cleric and druid, and no class has all the spells the Wizard/Sorcerer have on their spell list. The Bard hasn't, the cleric hasn't, the druid hasn't, the Paladin hasn't.All classes are unique and all spell casting clases are unique in their way. As for spells, a Mystic Theurge would have more spells, more powerful spells and a more versatile spell list than the Bard. Sure a Mystic Theurge is not a bard, but then again a Bard is not a Mystic Theurge.
But do not doubt, I like the Bard. I guess most people on this thread does. That's why we have a bard class.
I think the reason there's some disparity in the mechanical usefulness people are seeing might be due to the gameplay styles.
Not all games will take full advantage of what is naturally at the Bard's disposal.
Here's where I've seen a Bard excel:
In a game where the DM could literally throw anything at you, it's hard to have a specialized character fit every situation perfectly.
It's the "when you have a hammer, every problem is a nail" issue.. when you have an Evoker and Spiked Chain Tripper, you try and make every fight about shutting down creatures from advancing and blowing them up.
I've personally experienced encounters that wasted a lot of resources and time trying to get the playing field to work for the specialized characters, where a Bard could have contributed right out of the gate.
When it's not an adventure path with fairly set goals, a Bard can adapt to a situation and create success.
I guess this doesn't apply to sandbox gaming so much as "facing the unknown", which could be done in a well written adventure path. I see it more in sandbox games though.
Combat isn't necessarily all you'll face. Mechanically, the pathfinder Bard is decently powerful in combat when you take into account his buffing the group on top of his own damage output.
However, a Bard has a utility belt to match Batman when it comes to out-of-combat problem solutions (do I really need to list them here?).
The thing is.. the Bard can do both of those things, in a single build. Even if he didn't pick up the exact skill spread or feat selection to have a huge advantage in a social or skilled situation, he'll likely have a bardic use to cover it, and a night's rest gives him a spell selection to make him an impromptu expert.
It's hard to weigh mechanical benefits in a non-combat situation, since it's not quite as easy to determine success in numbers (hitpoints/damage, attack/AC, etc). But when you add up all the options at the Bard's disposal, he is mechanically quite powerful.
If you were playing the World's Largest Dungeon, then yeah.. maybe the Bard won't seem too up to snuff. If much of your gaming is hackfest (I have no problem with this kind of gaming personally, btw), then the Bard will seem like a mediocre choice (even with his Inspiring ability).
If I'm playing a hackfest game, I build a character for hacking. But if I'm playing in a game that will require a full range of situations.. suddenly my Fighter has Diplomacy/Sense Motive and Knowledge Nature/Survival, Charisma and Intelligence might not be his dumpstats, and some of his gear will be intended to provide some benefit beyond "more pluses in combat".
In those games, a Bard is a serious consideration alongside the rest of the classes.
Here's where I've seen a Bard excel
Perhaps. But a balanced group with skilled players will do well too. It's more of a question if the players are stupid or not.
I have heard this argument before. This arguments sounds as if it comes from a Rollplayer. You don't need a charisma character to roleplay. You only need it if you want to Rollplay the Roleplay. I've seen friends play charisma characters and never roleplay. They just want their Cleric to cast flame strike or their Paladin to hit as hard as he can. And I'v seen characters with a low char played in a hilarious manner. Rollplaying is not all about charisma and skills unless you have boring players and a conservative DM.
Honestly you can't play a funny character if you are not funny.Hilarious charceters are usually played by hilarious people (or by people who at least put their soul into the game and are some what funny or try their best to be).
|
|
So what you are saying is the bard is an unique class. True. But all classes are unique.
Actually what I'm saying, is that they are the jack of all trades. Also as a skill monkey you don't need to have a rogue in the party if something occurs where a skill might be useful. Bards can do the rogues skill jobs as skills are less taxing on their skill points than other classes. (Their skill points per level is only second to the rogue)
No one has all the spells the bard does on their spell list?
The same can be said of the Cleric and druid, and no class has all the spells the Wizard/Sorcerer have on their spell list. The Bard hasn't, the cleric hasn't, the druid hasn't, the Paladin hasn't.
All classes are unique and all spell casting clases are unique in their way. As for spells, a Mystic Theurge would have more spells, more powerful spells and a more versatile spell list than the Bard. Sure a Mystic Theurge is not a bard, but then again a Bard is not a Mystic Theurge.
But do not doubt, I like the Bard. I guess most people on this thread does. That's why we have a bard class.
I think you're missing my point. The point you made was anyone can buff. My point was yes, anyone can buff, but to have the same selection of buffs, only the bard wins that game. Since they get a lot of divine AND arcane buffs, it helps make them uniquely placed to apply buffs that unless you had two other players playing both arcane and divine, would not be in combination.
The bard spell list is designed more for utility, less for damage. While its not completely free of damage dealing spells, bards do get a wider selection of buffing abilities.
Countering my counter argument with "well everyone is a unique snowflake" hardly discredits the point I'm trying to prove. I hope by clarifying my viewpoint you understand what I'm trying to accomplish.
Here's where I've seen a Bard excel
Perhaps. But a balanced group with skilled players will do well too. It's more of a question if the players are stupid or not.
I have heard this argument before. This arguments sounds as if it comes from a Rollplayer. You don't need a charisma character to roleplay. You only need it if you want to Rollplay the Roleplay. I've seen friends play charisma characters and never roleplay. They just want their Cleric to cast flame strike or their Paladin to hit as hard as he can. And I'v seen characters with a low char played in a hilarious manner. Rollplaying is not all about charisma and skills unless you have boring players and a conservative DM.
Honestly you can't play a funny character if you are not funny.
Hilarious charceters are usually played by hilarious people (or by people who at least put their soul into the game and are some what funny or try their best to be).
The 'rolepay vs. rollplay' is an outdated idea, and was always a little bit of a strawman anyway.
No, what bards are exceptionally well suited to achieving, outside of their excilent buffing skills, is social conflict. Bards have class features and skills which make them very useful in social setting.
The key statement you make is this "And I'v seen characters with a low char played in a hilarious manner" That statement is far truer than you seem to realise. What you have seen is how the character has been played, not how the character is seen by his fellow characters. The player might be a comic genious, it is true, but in the Game world, his character doing the same things, fluffs the timing, letting the joke die, or he stutters under the pressure of an audience, or he forgets the jokes structure and the only laugh he gets is one of scorn and derision. Pernilla, you are confusing good acting and comic skill, with good roleplaying. If a PC doesn't have a high charisma, it doesn't matter how charming, polite and eloquent a PC might be, he cannot convince a king to go to war, unless the character has the skills to back up the speech.
Think of it like this, how would you react to a player who, in a game of DnD, claimed his character was the greatest swashbuckler in all the world, and believe that by nothing more than giving an exciting discriptions of his actions in combat, should be allowed to win any encounter he comes up against, because he is after all, the greatest swashbuckler in all the world, and he really is quite enthralling to listen to in his discriptions of combat.
You, i have no doubt would laugh him off.
Well, it is the same with social conflict. Bards are very good at interacting with the social conflict rules(for what they are worth). They are in fact, very likely the best at doing so.
|
|
Honestly you can't play a funny character if you are not funny.
Hilarious charceters are usually played by hilarious people (or by people who at least put their soul into the game and are some what funny or try their best to be).
This is absolutely true, but like Zombieneighbors said, is a problem if the mechanics don't back it up. If said hilarious person is playing a fighter with CHA 8, he is not roleplaying his character. He is playing himself. The bard class has the mechanics to back up a witty charmer, with CHA-based casting, high skill points, and social skill selection. The effects of a characters CHA score on roleplaying is something a lot of people forget, including myself.