|
yeah, the bard with a few attack spells works great as a F/M really. Just use bardic performance as "mystic" chants or the like. Also they make a niffy blade dancer as well.
Sadly to many folks get hung up on "It's a bard it's SINGING!" when in fact your "bard" can have noting to do with music at all.
Kinda like how some people get hung up on 'it's a psion, it's PSIONIC!' when in fact your "psion" could be a sorcerer? :3
Dancing could be Kata, for those familiar with martial arts.
Oratory also includes speeches, so it could be a rousing speech in the middle of combat.
Sing could be a full throated heavy metal shout that goes on forever, or an arcane chant.
Comedy includes jokes, which could be one liners, insults (your MOM!), and the like, including prat falls, and other buffoonery (which is specifically included too).
Percussion... well I can do percussion on someone's head... ;D
Act could be getting "into character" (yes this one is super cheesy... no I don't really care).
Actually, Oratory is public speaking. It certainly could and was used to inspire troops before battle, and is consistent with being a war leader.
That said, the Bard isn't my idea of an arcane warrior - he is more of a jack-of-all trades, really. He can be a decent warrior, but some of his other abilities and his spell selection are not optimal for this.
Kinda like how some people get hung up on 'it's a psion, it's PSIONIC!' when in fact your "psion" could be a sorcerer? :3yeah, the bard with a few attack spells works great as a F/M really. Just use bardic performance as "mystic" chants or the like. Also they make a niffy blade dancer as well.
Sadly to many folks get hung up on "It's a bard it's SINGING!" when in fact your "bard" can have noting to do with music at all.
Not at all, if psionic uses the same rules as the sorcerer then maybe, if it uses a sub system or rules other casters do not use then no.
If a commoner with spellcaft can see your casting wrong, much less other spell casters then no.
No where in the league of the same thing.
|
|
Dude - "oratory" is story telling, and "dancing" is FREAKIN' DANCING in the middle of combat.
No thank you! I'm not going to recite The Odyssey in the middle of combat, or start moving w/pirouette's and crap. It's silly.
Insisting otherwise ignores one KEY element of those abilities - they are directly tied to and keyed off of Performance skills! Again - No thank you!
Not a bard, NEVER a bard for this combo in *my* mind.
Main Entry: 2oratory
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin oratoria, from feminine of oratorius oratorical, from orare
Date: 1594
1 : the art of speaking in public eloquently or effectively
2 a : public speaking that employs oratory b : public speaking that is characterized by the use of stock phrases and that appeals chiefly to the emotions
There are a number of military leaders who would beg to differ.
Good ol' ninjas. :)
And again with the spellcraft seeker? I mean really, make one little joke...
Dude - "oratory" is story telling, and "dancing" is FREAKIN' DANCING in the middle of combat.
Just wanted to say, "oratory" simply means "public speaking", and is not limited to "story telling" by definition.
Damn TOZ ninja'd me..
Edit: Looks like Dabbler did too.. lol, seems we just couldn't help but jump on that, eh? lol :)
Good ol' ninjas. :)
Thank you, but how did you know I used to do ninjitsu? :D
Look at everyone stretching the definition, or rather going to Merriam's, I'm going off of the Skill description that is specific to the GAME and the BARD in particular (since, you know, they PERFORM).
Pg. 103 of the book it states clearly, "Oratory (epic, ode, storytelling)"
So, I'll stick to my more traditional bard-based "I am Homer! Hear my poems and weep/be mesmerize/succumb to my awesomeness!" definition as I'm 90% positive that IS the intention, and other definitions, while interesting (not arguing against that) are NOT the intent of the bard's "Perform: Oratory" skill in the slightest.
As long as it is keyed off of perform (vs. some sort of just straight class feature outright) it'll be too hokey for me. Same w/Kata's or whatever. {interesting take - NOT the intended design}
|
|
Look at everyone stretching the definition, or rather going to Merriam's, I'm going off of the Skill description that is specific to the GAME and the BARD in particular (since, you know, they PERFORM).
Pg. 103 of the book it states clearly, "Oratory (epic, ode, storytelling)"
Each of the nine categories of the Perform skill includes a variety of methods, instruments, or techniques, a small sample of which is provided for each category below.
Next you'll tell me I can't have a trombone playing bard.
Pg. 103 of the book it states clearly, "Oratory (epic, ode, storytelling)"
Yes, it lists three examples of the skill, all three of which are examples of public speaking - reciting an epic, reciting an ode, or telling a story, and certainly these are the uses most likely for an entertainer to make of the skill. This does not change the fact that giving an inspiring speech is covered by the use of the skill Oratory, and the skill description does state quite clearly that these are examples, and there are other uses not listed. To argue otherwise would be like claiming that there is no application in mountaineering for the Climb skill, because it does not specifically mention cliff-faces or such.
A character class is what you make of it, a set of abilities and talents that allow you to construct a character. If I decide that rather than an entertainer I want to create a learned, intelligent, military commander, from the bard class, there is nothing in any rules stopping me from doing that. Oratory works mechanically and thematically for a bard as a way of inspiring men in battle by giving a speech and snapping orders.
|
|
One-eyed guy from 300 was totally a bard using the story of his king's fall oratory to inspire troops. Dance, well songblades were a popular Mage/fighter. If you're not going to get over the fact that the perform skill is used, it's you with the issue, nOt the Gish.
And if I don´t wanna tell an epic story of my kings death or dance while fighting? What I have to suck it up because it´s not an issue because you like your gish to tell epic tales and dance? No I think not.
who says you must tell epic tells in the middle of a fight? That is but one small use of the skill preform skills much like profession are vastly open
Cold Naplam you aren't listening.
Kata is a form of dance. Kata is a combat skill too. Just use the word Kata in the place of dance and you are still good.
Don't like the word oratory? Use the word Command, or Tactics. The mechanics are exactly the same. In fact oratory covers giving commands during combat. It doesn't have to be an epic or ode.
Again you could see the word "sing" and think mary poppins... or you can think of a long arcane chant that mystically increases the abilities of those that listen.
|
|
who says you must tell epic tells in the middle of a fight? That is but one small use of the skill preform skills much like profession are vastly open
I agree that oratory can be used for a vast array of public speaking...however thalin´s point wasn´t that. He was saying that if you can´t reflavor the bardic perform buffs to fit, it´s your problem and not an issue with the mechanics of trying to shoe fit a bard as a fighter/mage because the bard can be made into ANY gish from his wording. I strong disagree with that. Especially if you want a vanican system gish...in which case the bard is just out period. Yeah I´m wierd, I like the vanican system.
|
|
Cold Naplam you aren't listening.
Kata is a form of dance. Kata is a combat skill too. Just use the word Kata in the place of dance and you are still good.
Don't like the word oratory? Use the word Command, or Tactics. The mechanics are exactly the same. In fact oratory covers giving commands during combat. It doesn't have to be an epic or ode.
Again you could see the word "sing" and think mary poppins... or you can think of a long arcane chant that mystically increases the abilities of those that listen.
And if I don´t wanna do katas in the middle of combat? I actually study martial arts and to even suggest you do a kata in the middle of a fight is highly offensive to me. I don´t wanna give commands, or tactics (which is REALLY pushing oratory as that is less public speaking and more a listen to what I say or else...even if the or else is phrased in a diplomatic fashion) either. But that isn´t the point...the point is I don´t wanna do ANY of that.
|
|
This thread is fun.Well...yeah you do have an odd sense of fun...
I can appreciate that :) .
I really only posted that to claim the 666th post. ;)
In a completely unrelated threadjack directed to seeker, Psicraft is a bloody stupid skill. They should have left it rolled into Spellcraft. We don't have Arcane Spellcraft and Divine Spellcraft, so having Psionic Spellcraft is just another skill tax. It should only be used in Psionics and Magic are Different games. Psionic/Magic Transparency games should have Psicraft be a part of Spellcraft. This goes for Use Psionic Device as well.
This is why I split Spellcraft into the separate Knowledges in my game. Paladin/cleric spells to Religion, ranger/druid spells to Nature, arcane spells to Arcana.
</threadjack>
I really only posted that to claim the 666th post. ;)
"Give that back!"
well the issues with spellcraft covering psionics..is they are not spells they should be spells mind you..but as it stands they are not. Hopefully this will be fixed at some point
And if I don´t wanna do katas in the middle of combat? I actually study martial arts and to even suggest you do a kata in the middle of a fight is highly offensive to me. I don´t wanna give commands, or tactics (which is REALLY pushing oratory as that is less public speaking and more a listen to what I say or else...even if the or else is phrased in a diplomatic fashion) either. But that isn´t the point...the point is I don´t wanna do ANY of that.Cold Naplam you aren't listening.
Kata is a form of dance. Kata is a combat skill too. Just use the word Kata in the place of dance and you are still good.
Don't like the word oratory? Use the word Command, or Tactics. The mechanics are exactly the same. In fact oratory covers giving commands during combat. It doesn't have to be an epic or ode.
Again you could see the word "sing" and think mary poppins... or you can think of a long arcane chant that mystically increases the abilities of those that listen.
I've never had a problem with using Katas in combat... after all that's what they are designed for.
Beyond that:
I would suggest if you don't want to use the bard... use the Eldritch Knight. :D
|
|
well the issues with spellcraft covering psionics..is they are not spells they should be spells mind you..but as it stands they are not. Hopefully this will be fixed at some point
Well we could argue over them not being spells or just being spells with a different arbitrary number per day assigned to them, but this isn't the thread for it. ^_^
well you did start the thread jack if I recall :)
Anyhow back on topic as it stands you have 3 F/M options in core. Bard, arcane archer, Eldritch Knight. they all fill different niches
If ya open up the AGP classes ya get alchemist and summoner as well.
|
|
And if I don´t wanna do katas in the middle of combat? I actually study martial arts and to even suggest you do a kata in the middle of a fight is highly offensive to me. I don´t wanna give commands, or tactics (which is REALLY pushing oratory as that is less public speaking and more a listen to what I say or else...even if the or else is phrased in a diplomatic fashion) either. But that isn´t the point...the point is I don´t wanna do ANY of that.Cold Naplam you aren't listening.
Kata is a form of dance. Kata is a combat skill too. Just use the word Kata in the place of dance and you are still good.
Don't like the word oratory? Use the word Command, or Tactics. The mechanics are exactly the same. In fact oratory covers giving commands during combat. It doesn't have to be an epic or ode.
Again you could see the word "sing" and think mary poppins... or you can think of a long arcane chant that mystically increases the abilities of those that listen.
I've never had a problem with using Katas in combat... after all that's what they are designed for.
Beyond that:
I would suggest if you don't want to use the bard... use the Eldritch Knight. :D
No...no they are not. A kata is a training tool to build muscle memory. If your using them in a people are trying to kill you fight, you will die unless they are morons. I have actually been in real fights. I have been shot and stabbed and I know for a fact that you do not do a kata in those situations. In fact, the last moron who tried to show off his prowess with a kata in a fight ended up eating curb and had his jaw broken. He was lucky that the guy didn´t feel like finishing him off. Me, I just looked..,and thought that his sensei must be an idiot to allow one of his black belts to be so stupid. A kata is design to flow from one move to the next, so it is designed so you can move from one to the next easily...however if you follow the full kata, because of the way katas are formed, you become extremely predictable...and dead.
And the whole point was to NOT use the EK...which wasn´t even really a part of what started the thread anyways.
|
|
well you did start the thread jack if I recall :)
Anyhow back on topic as it stands you have 3 F/M options in core. Bard, arcane archer, Eldritch Knight. they all fill different niches
If ya open up the AGP classes ya get alchemist and summoner as well.
The bard is more a rogue/sorcerer and not so much a fighter/mage.
As for the two PrC...between the EK and AA, you can make a archery based gish as fighty or casty as you want. The EK is very non specific and works well as a filler where needed. What is needed is the spellsword. The spellsword is the melee version of the AA...we just need a GOOD one...both the 3.0 and 3.5 ones were bad...the conversion one isn´t much better. I think the AA makes for a good base...humm maybe I´ll work on that. Yes I realize that I am relegating the EK to it´s former role...but honestly, without having some of the spellsword stuff in there, it was gonna be a filler class when other PrCs came out anyways.
who says you must tell epic tells in the middle of a fight? That is but one small use of the skill preform skills much like profession are vastly openI agree that oratory can be used for a vast array of public speaking...however thalin´s point wasn´t that. He was saying that if you can´t reflavor the bardic perform buffs to fit, it´s your problem and not an issue with the mechanics of trying to shoe fit a bard as a fighter/mage because the bard can be made into ANY gish from his wording. I strong disagree with that. Especially if you want a vanican system gish...in which case the bard is just out period. Yeah I´m wierd, I like the vanican system.
For clarity, THAT is exactly the point of my objections. "Bard" can't do it all and Napalm nailed it.
So ... just a post to support him and add this as my original purpose in objection. The whole "purpose" of the bard is 'entertainer', and yes, while you can go websters for defining the term and find neat ways to tweak it out - the POINT of the Bard is to entertain {not command, or perform intricate leg-work to inspire others, or any other things you'd like to get at}.
At it's heart/core/theme is "I do this to entertain and I'm awesome at it."
That is NOT a Fighter/Mage concept, and so I will ALWAYS rail against it.
That said, when I want to play a BARD-type guy, those skill tweaks are certainly a fresh and interesting way ... to play a BARD (not a Fighter/Mage).
|
|
For clarity, THAT is exactly the point of my objections. "Bard" can't do it all and Napalm nailed it.
So ... just a post to support him and add this as my original purpose in objection. The whole "purpose" of the bard is 'entertainer', and yes, while you can go websters for defining the term and find neat ways to tweak it out - the POINT of the Bard is to entertain {not command, or perform intricate leg-work to inspire others, or any other things you'd like to get at}.
At it's heart/core/theme is "I do this to entertain and I'm awesome at it."
That is NOT a Fighter/Mage concept, and so I will ALWAYS rail against it.
That said, when I want to play a BARD-type guy, those skill tweaks are certainly a fresh and interesting way ... to play a BARD (not a Fighter/Mage).
No, at it's heart/core/theme is a medium BAB/HD that can cast enchantment and buff spells and grant bonuses to allies.
The fluff of 'traveling entertainer' is only one option. It could easily be a priest or thief, noble or general. And that includes fighting magic user.
Just because the underlying chassis of the class is not exactly what we want for a 'gish' does not mean it is stuck in a narrow definition of 'traveling entertainer'.
That leads to the 'base class for every character concept' mindset which I despise so much.
I So agreed with that.
lol, I wouldn't say that. I do so get tired of we need an ARcher base class! We need a juggler base class, We need a acrobat base class....and so on
The bard is solidly a F/M, might not be everyone ideal for it but saying he is only a wondering minstrel is a bit mind boggling. Kinda like saying a fighter is always the same or a rogue is always a thief
No, at it's heart/core/theme is a medium BAB/HD that can cast enchantment and buff spells and grant bonuses to allies.The fluff of 'traveling entertainer' is only one option. It could easily be a priest or thief, noble or general. And that includes fighting magic user.
Just because the underlying chassis of the class is not exactly what we want for a 'gish' does not mean it is stuck in a narrow definition of 'traveling entertainer'.
That leads to the 'base class for every character concept' mindset which I despise so much.
+100!
I like this. I keep trying to tell the others in my family game things like this. Just because it has the title of one thing, doesn't mean the in-game fluff is stuck with the narrow mindset that is usually attributed to that class.
Well I have to say that I liked the analogy to the ranger and the paladin. The ranger is a divine casting full bab fighter, so why have the paladin?
The bard can be built for some melee duty, but it doesn't fit all the need/desire for a ftr/mu by a long shot, anymore than the ranger would fit the call for a paladin.
-James
And I'll give my +100 right there.
Not everything needs a base class, but not every base class can be everything.
Perfect example above.
One last thing: if the class ISN'T supposed to take it's concept from ... a wandering minstrel, then why is it built around performance as its strongest class features?
Why even call it a "bard" at all if that's not the point of it? Why call the barbarian a barbarian and not just "Fighter ... with an attitude!"
Seriously ... lol
|
|
lol, I wouldn't say that. I do so get tired of we need an ARcher base class! We need a juggler base class, We need a acrobat base class....and so on
The bard is solidly a F/M, might not be everyone ideal for it but saying he is only a wondering minstrel is a bit mind boggling. Kinda like saying a fighter is always the same or a rogue is always a thief
A class that after some HEAVY reworking of core class features makes for a very limited type of fighter/mage does not make the bard a solid class to build a fighter/mage. Which is the same issue that the summoner and alchemist has. You say your against a bunch of niche classes...well hey guess what, that´s what´s happening now...when all you needed beyond the two prestige classes in core was a decent spellsword...preferable in core...preferably with the AA BAB and spell req (those who want more casty can dip the spellsword after a bit of EK like with the AA after all).
You may not like it and it may not fit your ideal but the bard is a solid F/M class. Medium BAB, Light armor, ok weapons 6 levels of spell , decent buffs. Solid all around
|
|
You may not like it and it may not fit your ideal but the bard is a solid F/M class. Medium BAB, Light armor, ok weapons 6 levels of spell , decent buffs. Solid all around
By that logic, clerics and druids make AWESOME f/m. They have all that the bard has...only 9 levels of spells. Yeah I could re-work either of those to be a fighter/mage too...You being too simple.
Has anyone Pathfinderized Arcana Evolved's mage blade base class yet?
That would seem to be what most people are looking for in a gish base class...
You may not like it and it may not fit your ideal but the bard is a solid F/M class. Medium BAB, Light armor, ok weapons 6 levels of spell , decent buffs. Solid all aroundPeople keep listing those things. Those are the least important parts of any class. Flavor and abilities and spell selection overwhelm the specifics of BAB and saves and whatnot.
You could make an entire 3e-variant game with nothing but classes with medium BAB, all simple/some martial weapons, and six levels of spellcasting with 1:1 caster level, and not a one of them would step on each other's toes.
I agree. I have been saying all along that it is not the BAB or the spell-levels available that make the fighter/mage combo or break it, it's the lack of spells and feats that help this happen. This is why a dedicated class would be a good thing, because the spells could be restricted to that class. I even gave examples of spells and feats that could be desirable above.
|
|
You may not like it and it may not fit your ideal but the bard is a solid F/M class. Medium BAB, Light armor, ok weapons 6 levels of spell , decent buffs. Solid all aroundBy that logic, clerics and druids make AWESOME f/m. They have all that the bard has...only 9 levels of spells. Yeah I could re-work either of those to be a fighter/mage too...You being too simple.
Um, yeah. They totally can. We have the term CoDzilla for a reason you know.
One last thing: if the class ISN'T supposed to take it's concept from ... a wandering minstrel, then why is it built around performance as its strongest class features?
You think Bardic Perfomance is its strongest class feature? Well, okay.
In any event, 'wandering minstrel' is the concept ascribed by the fluff. As soon as you can divorce that from the mechanics, you can turn the class into a military leader or priest.
The thing you're not getting is that they are not 'build around performance as its strongest class feature'. They are build around an ability that lets them help their allies break free of enchantments, give bonuses to attacks, damage, and skill checks, distract and weaken opponents, and other such abilities.
Just because the rules state 'the most common expression is through magical song' does not mean it cannot be 'the inspiring commands and savage threats of a towering military commander' or 'the holy prayers and orations of the Pope praising the faithful and condemning the heathens'.
As was said, a Bard need be a minstrel no more than a Rogue needs be a thief. A Rogue could easily be the sheriff of the town, experienced in tracking down criminals through social skills and catching them by surprise and subduing them efficiently through Sneak Attack.
You think Bardic Perfomance is its strongest class feature? Well, okay.In any event, 'wandering minstrel' is the concept ascribed by the fluff. As soon as you can divorce that from the mechanics, you can turn the class into a military leader or priest.
The thing you're not getting is that they are not 'build around performance as its strongest class feature'. They are build around an ability that lets them help their allies break free of enchantments, give bonuses to attacks, damage, and skill checks, distract and weaken opponents, and other such abilities.
Just because the rules state 'the most common expression is through magical song' does not mean it cannot be 'the inspiring commands and savage threats of a towering military commander' or 'the holy prayers and orations of the Pope praising the faithful and condemning the heathens'.
As was said, a Bard need be a minstrel no more than a Rogue needs be a thief. A Rogue could easily be the sheriff of the town, experienced in tracking down criminals through social skills and catching them by surprise and subduing them efficiently through Sneak Attack.
Amen, Brother! lol
As was said, a Bard need be a minstrel no more than a Rogue needs be a thief. A Rogue could easily be the sheriff of the town, experienced in tracking down criminals through social skills and catching them by surprise and subduing them efficiently through Sneak Attack.
"They told me you was hung!"
"They was RIGHT!"
Hehe. Except Bart didn't exactly sneak attack with brute force, he snuck attacked them where they were weak: their stupid, stupid brains.
You think Bardic Perfomance is its strongest class feature? Well, okay.
Yes ... if you don't, then we'll simply have to disagree vehemently and leave it at that.
All of the BEST bardic features center around his perform skill, for you to deny this denies the structure of the class itself. They can fight ... some, and they can cast ... pretty terribly, but what do they do better than (and really ONLY them) everyone else? Perform and do things with their magical skills at song and dance and all the rest.
When you say, look at the capstone - it's not awesome combat prowess, it's not magic amazement, and it's not even something that blends well with either. It's a performance, Deadly Performance, now ... you want to have a military commander ... I don't know, YELL so loud at the enemy he has a heart attack ... WTF!?!?!?
It's D&D and so suspension of disbelief abounds, but some things are just too far wide of the mark and need redesigning to work right.
As far as what class takes on what role - sure, totally back you on that. IT IS NOT THE PROBLEM!
However, we're clearly of too vast a difference in thought to really have anything productive there. {Beyond which, this is so far off topic I think it best to simply let the thread die in peace ... }
|
|
You think Bardic Perfomance is its strongest class feature? Well, okay.Yes ... if you don't, then we'll simply have to disagree vehemently and leave it at that.
Yes, which is why I made no mention of anything but Bardic Performance.
All of the BEST bardic features center around his perform skill, for you to deny this denies the structure of the class itself. They can fight ... some, and they can cast ... pretty terribly, but what do they do better than (and really ONLY them) everyone else? Perform and do things with their magical skills at song and dance and all the rest.
All of his best features center around a single number(Perform bonus). Just as a wizard's best features center around a single number(caster level). I think making the bard spend resources on it like that is bloody stupid, but that's neither here nor there. You are continuing to ignore that Perform is a very broad topic and is not limited to 'song and dance'.
When you say, look at the capstone - it's not awesome combat prowess, it's not magic amazement, and it's not even something that blends well with either. It's a performance, Deadly Performance, now ... you want to have a military commander ... I don't know, YELL so loud at the enemy he has a heart attack ... WTF!?!?!?
It's D&D and so suspension of disbelief abounds, but some things are just too far wide of the mark and need redesigning to work right.
You are right, Deadly Performance is rather focused. However, I have no problem with a military commander having such a frightening presence that his enemy drops dead from sheer terror. Nor do I have a problem with a priest censuring his foe with a holy proclamation that strikes him dead on the spot.
I feel you are limiting yourself far too much, especially in a game where heroes slay demon princes and thwart inter-planar invasions. (Savage Tide and Shackled City Adventure Paths.)
As far as what class takes on what role - sure, totally back you on that. IT IS NOT THE PROBLEM!
However, we're clearly of too vast a difference in thought to really have anything productive there. {Beyond which, this is so far off topic I think it best to simply let the thread die in peace ... }
I will agree there. We both believe the other to be wrong, and nothing we say will get through to the other. I only continue the discussion so others who read our discourse can decide which argument they agree with.
Hehe. Except Bart didn't exactly sneak attack with brute force, he snuck attacked them where they were weak: their stupid, stupid brains.
<highfive>
You make me want to go watch that again. XD