I haven't read all the thread but I enjoy the Bard as it is but would also like to see a more musical Bard with songs and things of that nature. Something I would like to see changed on the current Bard is allowing it to cast spells by using a Perform skill rather than having to use the normal components, that would make it more "musical" without having to change a whole lot. Although I would still like to see a Bard that uses "songs" instead of spells and Bardic Music because as a musician that would probably be my favorite class.
Having a Feat or Class Variant to gain a Familiar seems like it would be interesting for Bards, especially given their # of skill ranks... (if only Diabolist worked better with Bards)
Then you should check out the "Obtain Familiar" feat from Complete Arcane. This feat lets you (wait for it) obtain a familiar, counting all your stacking caster levels in the relevant class for the familiar's abilities.
You might even upgrade that later with "Improved Familiar" using the list from Complete Warrior - where you find all the info you need to take a Hippogriff or Worg as a familiar.Now THAT sounds like a cool Bard to me.
BTThread:
Imagine Aragorn from LotR being a Bard instead of a Ranger (quite frankly, he didn't even have an Animal Companion, how embarrassing... ^^) - he encourages his fellows to fight against impossible odds, he sings and the elven beauties fall for him in spades. It's all a matter of perspective.
I don't really understand the complaint that bards aren't musical enough. They aren't supposed to be.
Look at the 1e bard. He wasn't a dancing ninny with a lute. He was a rogue/fighter/druid, a complete awesome badass who you didn't want to mess with. You know. Like actual bards.
Look at the celtic bards that the game (tries) to deride inspiration from. They didn't dance around playing a lute in green tights. If they had a perform skill, it was in poetry and oratory. They didn't tumble here and there, they'd point at offenders and speak horrible curses for pissing off those who carried the knowledge of the Old World. The bard as it stands now is far closer to that then any other bards we've seen.
That's the issue I see. "Perform" doesn't have to equate to "song and dance." The whole "song" part was added in second edition, along with a whole slew of other terrible ideas. Have you seen the Complete Book of Bards? My god it's terrible! Other then the Blade kit, it's just a wreck, complete with every horrible picture a bard should never have to go through. Halfling whistlers for crying out loud.
2e had a lot of good stuff, but their image of the bard? That's something I think we're better off straying away from.
Bard is but one component of the most amazing build ever:
Bard/Ranger/Mystic Theurge.
....
OK, I guess I need to put a few more ranks in Bluff before anyone believes me on that one. :)
I totally want to play this now. I really do.
(Not for any SANE reason, mind.)
Now, Bard/Ranger/Arcane Archer might be fun, and actually effective (not necessarily a powerhouse, but effective).
Woo-hoo! Someone rolled a 2 on their Common Sense check. :)
Just after 3.5 came out, I was at a convention with a 'build your most optimized 20th level character with stuff from <laundry list> of splatbooks. I'll fit you into the adventure.'.
Clearly, the GM was expecting Something Minmaxed. So...I brought a Gnome Ranger 7/Bard 6/Mystic Theurge 7.
Rest of the group were things like Half Ogre War Shaman Dusk Blades and the like. I was the designated boat anchor, holding the party back.
I was also the only one that lived through the entire adventure. :)
As another musician, I have to chime in on this topics as I have always have the desire to play bards, but rarely do because of reservations regarding both execution of flavor and underpowered/unusually organized class abilities. I want to love bards, but I can't, which sucks since I'm about to get enter a master's program in early music (Medieval, Renaissance, and Baroque music) and I'm working on a book that explores the historical relationships between singing and magical practice.
Suffice to say, I've got a lot of opinions on the subject.
Problematically, the bard tries to be too many things for too many people. It draws its name from the lorekeepers and songsters of ancient Druidic faith, but comes off more as a Renaissance dandy who dashes out of maidens' bedchambers when he hears their fathers coming. The bard concept has changed dramatically through each edition and the class in the Pathfinder rules maintains 3.5's version as jack-of-all-trades support class with a handful of musical abilities, Knowledge skills, and some cure spells. Frankly, I have no idea what to make of the class, but I too, like Evil Lincoln, wish the bard had a better realized system of magical music that captures the true spirit of the concept without being ridiculous and unreasonable (I sure as hell wouldn't sing madrigals during combat). I also think that to sincerely implement a more flavorful, engaging interpretation of magical music, we should look to its precedents in our world's traditions.
In mythology, we've got two really important human figures that used music to produce magical effect: Orpheus of Greek mythology and Väinämöinen of the Finnish Kalevala[i] saga (though this second example has left folkloric 'heft' since its written form is a 19th-century epic, piecemealed from Karelian folktales). Orpheus used singing to magically control plants, rocks & animals, change the course of rivers, and even charm the gods themselves (he was also responsible for Hecate-worship in some regions of the ancient world). Väinämöinen's [i]songs, on the other hand, described the origins of things (like metal, natural forces, mankind) because, magically speaking, to know the true nature of something is to have power over it (which is basically just sympathetic magic).
In antiquity, Pythagoras was credited with the invention of musica mundana, aka. the music of the spheres. While not actual music that could be heard, the planets were thought to move in proportion to one another as found the tuning of musical intervals (a ratio of 2:1 is an octave, 3:2 is a fifth, and so on). This was expanded on later when . . .
In the Italian Renaissance, a philosopher named Marsilio Ficino (same guy who translated the Corpus Hermeticum into Latin) wrote extensively on magical music (much of which was included in H.C. Agrippa's De occulta philosophia). He primarily believed that actual music could be used to capture the influences of heavenly bodies to produce magical effect. A song with venerial (Venus) qualities could inspire love or create beauty, while one with jovial (Jupiter) qualities could cause thunderstorms or grant nobility, and so forth.
There are plenty of other examples in Western history about music and magic, but these are sufficient to illustrate certain basic concepts about musical magic. First, it's its own tradition unqiue from simply being music + arcane spellcasting. Secondly, its mythological representations captured the full breadth of magical possibilities and not simply illusion, enchantment, and some conjuration. Thirdly, the study of magical music has historically not been the province of charming vagabonds, but of learned men, scholars, and philosophers.
Anyway, I have seriously digressed. What would I change about the bard? Two paths, just like the wizard, the druid, the ranger, the paladin, etc. One path could be a jack of all trades, if that's your fancy - no music, but extra skill ranks, bard "tricks" (like the rogue), and maybe "all skills are class skills" (though this could fast be a cherry-picker's wet dream). The other path would be a musical bard; one without the knowledge abilities (and maybe sans the medium attack bonus), but one with REAL musico-magical ability. Songs that provide clear, tangible benefits, alter the course of combat in remarkable ways, and interact with a bard's spells to create even greater effects (like the Lyric Spell and Metamagic Song feats).
Wow, this turned out to be long . . . Enjoy the history lesson. >_^
You know what, mentioning Orpheus and the Kalevala ... man. Now I'm just outright *let down* with the class for never having gone as far as it *should* have with musical magic.
I would disagree with the "learned men" part, mostly based around the fact that the figures that *used* the magic were extremely charismatic (Orpheus charmed Hades into giving him a chance to win back his wife, man - that's NO joke *charms* right there, and generally he charms darn-near anything w/his music). I think it should remain the charismatic class and the magic they cast should be charisma-based (ie: the music). The "learned men" seem more the theory types vs. practice in how it's presented above. The "real" magical musicians are the legendary figures (not book writers), though, so that's where I'd put my stock. The theories of the "learned" would be a good source of inspiration for what they can accomplish with music, though.
I absolutely LOVE the idea of the bard using magic to create allies out of the freakin' tree-branches nearby, though! Instant "living forest" after a song or three - that's fantastic!!! Guaranteed to creep out the opposition when grappled by the whole darn forest!! Other effects of charming inanimate objects in general I think would be a great idea for the class.
I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel, though (might be more trouble than it's worth), but maybe just rehash the spell list a bit?
Playing a bard currently and here are the tweeks I'd make:
1) power up bardic performance
This feature should be the bards primary weapon, but I've always found that unless we had a round to prep I'd rather lead with a spell in combat. PF does give it a good tweek by reducing the starting time as you go up levels, but at the low levels I/C +1 just isn't worth your time when you could be casting sleep. It should start as a +2 bonus. Limiting the Fascinate ability to out of combat is disappointing and I think it should be a case of that the target gains a bonus (say +5) to their save if its attempted in combat.
2) versatile performer
Love this ability and think its great even if some of the associated skills are a stretch. I do however agree with the above posters that SKPs spent on the skills covered by this ability should be allowed to be reallocated.
3) the alternate bard songs
I love the idea of unique songs/performances that bards discover and learn like spells. Bravo to that poster. A power boost that comes packing with flavour. These songs/performances would allow you to individualise your bard rather than having all bards packing the same weapons. It could be a mix of new ones and/or simply just kickers added to the core book ones. Say you gain this and select one for your skald style bard so that your inspire courage now gives its bonus to confirming criticals and maybe increases the critical threat range by 1. A comedy based part might be more about zingers and attacking the self esteem with demoralise effects that boost the effect of Dirge of Doom. Plenty of places to go with this. Anything that makes Bardic Performance become a Bard's primary option in combat is good.
4) spell list revamp
Like most I can't understand why the bard doesn't have more of the utility spells on the sor/wiz list. Bull's strength, Bear's endurance, resist elements, etc. make sense that they'd be on the bard spells. The bard is there to help heroes overcome obstacles and these sort of spells fit that theme.
5) Image reveamp
Like everyone I hate the pussy image of a bard with a lute/mandolin.
My experience with the bard is that its excellent outside of combat in the right players hands, but its pretty dull combatwise in the low levels. Your I/C isn't all that impressive and its up to your spells, which are okay, but run out quick. For my mind the Bard's role in combat is a mix of utility, support and control. A number of the abilities and spells support this, but I think its quiet underpowered and late compared to those of other classes. Its a good class, particularly in the right campaigns and in the right hands, but it isn't one of the gun classes.
3) the alternate bard songs
I love the idea of unique songs/performances that bards discover and learn like spells. Bravo to that poster. A power boost that comes packing with flavour. These songs/performances would allow you to individualise your bard rather than having all bards packing the same weapons. It could be a mix of new ones and/or simply just kickers added to the core book ones. Say you gain this and select one for your skald style bard so that your inspire courage now gives its bonus to confirming criticals and maybe increases the critical threat range by 1. A comedy based part might be more about zingers and attacking the self esteem with demoralise effects that boost the effect of Dirge of Doom. Plenty of places to go with this. Anything that makes Bardic Performance become a Bard's primary option in combat is good.
I think it would be interesting to make Bardic Music more similar to Rogue Talents so you can choose which "songs" you learn, some would be more powerful so you would add advanced and maybe even greater Bardic Music and the Bard could still capstone with Deadly Performance.
4) spell list revamp
Like most I can't understand why the bard doesn't have more of the utility spells on the sor/wiz list. Bull's strength, Bear's endurance, resist elements, etc. make sense that they'd be on the bard spells. The bard is there to help heroes overcome obstacles and these sort of spells fit that theme.
I know everyone agrees on this. I also think that allowing Bards to use a Perform skill in place of material, somatic, and verbal components would be an extremely good addition.
5) Image reveamp
Like everyone I hate the pussy image of a bard with a lute/mandolin.
You guys are going to piss off Mussolini's ghost :P
You know what? On the front of the "mandolin" playing priss ... IF the performance was beefed up like we're sort of chatting about, AND the music gets bumped up to bonafide "magical" effects and status, I'll play a mandolin-playin' dandy all day LONG, man!!!
Seriously, if say, playing a few *potent* notes could come off as powerfully as say a "mass daze" or "mass charm" why would you NOT want to do this?
If you could wail on the thing and play some "power chords" or something and generate a sonic wave of force that could literally, pummel the bone beneath the skin of your enemies, why wouldn't you?
To me, it's not at all about making the mandolin-player/harp-player/whatever a non-option. It's about making those particular options worth a damn in the first place.
Current bard and music = useless (thus nearly the universal revilement and the hate-on for not going w/instrument-based performances for utility/power gaming/optimization/whatever). If you make their *specifically* music more potent, then the harp-playing guy makes total and complete sense.
After reading Mikael's post ... I *really* think this should have been their primary thought in the first place with this class.
You know what? On the front of the "mandolin" playing priss ... IF the performance was beefed up like we're sort of chatting about, AND the music gets bumped up to bonafide "magical" effects and status, I'll play a mandolin-playin' dandy all day LONG, man!!!
Seriously, if say, playing a few *potent* notes could come off as powerfully as say a "mass daze" or "mass charm" why would you NOT want to do this?
If you could wail on the thing and play some "power chords" or something and generate a sonic wave of force that could literally, pummel the bone beneath the skin of your enemies, why wouldn't you?
To me, it's not at all about making the mandolin-player/harp-player/whatever a non-option. It's about making those particular options worth a damn in the first place.
Current bard and music = useless (thus nearly the universal revilement and the hate-on for not going w/instrument-based performances for utility/power gaming/optimization/whatever). If you make their *specifically* music more potent, then the harp-playing guy makes total and complete sense.
After reading Mikael's post ... I *really* think this should have been their primary thought in the first place with this class.
I completely agree that you should be able to use a "prissy" instrument and get some terrifying effects out of it. Nothings stopping people from playing the Druidic Bard but what about the people that want to carry around a mandolin, harp, or lute? I will say that they kind of play up the renaissance era type guy with a rapier and a feather in his hat a bit too much though. On a side note, I play the mandolin (as well as the guitar and bass) and power chords don't sound that great on it :P
Tangent:
That's it. As a mandolin player, I am sick and damn tired of being maligned as "prissy." I am about the least prissy person you could meet (cranky, yes, prissy no); also, I do not prance. And I will be Battle of Evermoring IN YOUR FACE the next person who uses that instrument as an example of a wuss.
;p
(Please carry on your bard build discussion. :) )
|
I see a lot of mention of the Bard's versatility.
Problem is, when people use this word, they don't always mean the same thing; versatility means radically different things to different classes.
For the Fighter, their advertised versatility exists in the ability to pick from a wide variety of feats, to make each Fighter potentially different from the next.
In practice, that isn't the case, since;
a) once you've taken the essentials, the pointless gateway feats, and the feats for Commoner abilities that should never even be feats, you're left with very little left over for flair, meaning the vast majority of combat feats will never be taken, and are a total waste of ink.
b) what feats you take, you're stuck with for your entire career.
For the Cleric/Druid/Wizard, versatility means, potentially, radically redesigning the majority of your powers, every single morning from a vast laundry list. This is impossible to prevent, under RAW, for the former two classes, and can only be done for the latter by imposing strict changes to the default economy, which hurt all classes, unless they are applied solely to casters.
So the question arises, what sort of 'versatility' are people looking for in the Bard?
How much were they expecting?
Given the changes in PF, especially in the 6 new classes from the APG, for which they had a blank slate, it seems clear that the designers are aiming for more limited casters and semi-casters, possessing smaller list of spells known, and smaller lists of spells to pick from.
If it weren’t for tradition, nostalgia, or fear of backlash from the old guard, would they have chosen to leave the Cleric/Druid/Wizard free to pick freely from 9 levels of spells?
We should be able to aim for a middle-ground, in which the Bard has several variant paths (similar to schools/domains), with their own class features, and the possibility of refocussing some of their abilities on a regular basis, without totally rewriting themselves from the ground up every morning.
|
|
And, further to that last post;
Are we all agreed that we would like to see the following;
a) several equally attractive and flavourful archetypes (Skald/Enchanter/Minstrel/Swashbuckler, etc),
b) there should be more than one default path within each archetype,
c) that no ability should be seen as a 'tax', or 'gateway', but be useful in its own right,
d) they should have some small opportunity to shift focus from day to day,
e) the player should be rewarded for clever forward planning, by having these powers be carried over from the campfire camaraderie of the previous day.
The latter adds some resource planning to what is otherwise a spontaneous caster, and reduces some of the implied silliness that Bard-haters find suspension-breaking I.E; the Bard does not whip out a flimsy, encumbering instrument, and sing a whole song in six seconds, while fighting, running, tumbling, and shouting replies to other PCs commments, but takes a few seconds to remind his allies of the rousing song/speech he gave the night before.
Done well, this means the Bard may never need to whip out his instrument in the midst of battle, but can keep it safe, in a fire-proof, water-proof, armoured case, until it's required at the end of the long day.
Not to derail the thread, but I think it is a pertinent question:
Why is there a bard class at all? Moons ago, why was it introduced in the first place?
To emulate a historical "job"/"position"?
A meta-game thing to create a character that could do a little bit of everything (cast, fight, thieve)?
With that said, spell songs from "The Book of Eldritch Might II: Songs and Souls of Power" (or "The Complete Book of Eldritch Might") help me justify the bard a bit more...
With that said, spell songs from "The Book of Eldritch Might II: Songs and Souls of Power" (or "The Complete Book of Eldritch Might") help me justify the bard a bit more...
I love that Bard.
Happy gaming.
Barator
And, further to that last post;
Are we all agreed that we would like to see the following;
a) several equally attractive and flavourful archetypes (Skald/Enchanter/Minstrel/Swashbuckler, etc),
b) there should be more than one default path within each archetype,
I disagree that this is needed. All these archtypes can already be satisfied with the existing bard. I have seen quite powerful swashbucklers. The bardic skald is entirely viable with the existing class, though some may wish to multiclass with barbarian or fighter. Their spell list already suits an enchanter. And none of these concepts are mutually exclusive with the minstrel. I have even made ninja bards that are very effective. The current bard fits all of these, and many more, with one, powerful, versatile, ballanced chassy.
I wouldn't mind seeing bardic performance broken up differently. But I wouldn't do it with specific paths. I would do it like a Rogue. Tallents that the players can mix and match to build what they want. But the current abilities very wildly in power. Some of them are very weak compared to others. They work as a whole because you have to take the good with the bad.
Though I just thought of a new improvement for the bardic ability. Fascinate should be able to give penalties on saving throws to their spells, not just give them the single suggestion. It should roughly scale with level to make it so that their highest level spells have the same save as a full caster's highest level spell (+1 at 3, +2 at 11, +3 at 17). This would help with their saving throw problem, and make their low level spells more difficult than a full caster's under certain circumstances.
One more shows up, head buried in the sand, and is now trying to tell the rest of us to join him ...
Love these posts for the clear absurdity of the assertions sometimes.
*rollseyes*
Less glibly, how about this as a rider, "For those of us actively looking for revisions ..." to the rest of the statements.
At least it'll keep the focus of the thread going in the right direction.
@snorter: Yeah - I can back those assertions. The final one (e) looks a bit problematic, but it'll depend on the implementations. I mean, a nice, rousing performance right *before* something takes place would be a good effect to add to them. So they can use "music" help everyone for a good, long time, and then if combat matters they don't have to be playin' a flute or singing to still contribute w/their "thing" more or less.
I am going to spin-off the bardic music fix to this thread.
I think it merits its own discussion and detracts from what the OP intended.
b) what feats you take, you're stuck with for your entire career.
Not true for the fighter:
"Upon reaching 4th level, and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, and so on), a fighter can choose to learn a new bonus feat in place of a bonus feat he has already learned. In effect, the fighter loses the bonus feat in exchange for the new one. The old feat cannot be one that was used as a prerequisite for another feat, prestige class, or other ability. A fighter can only change one feat at any given level and must choose whether or not to swap the feat at the time he gains a new bonus feat for the level."
I have been searching through the forums on bards and see that you either "love" them or "hate" them. I love them, but I am wondering what all the "haters" would like to see happen to the bard. What extra powers would you give him or what would you change about him?
I love Ryan Costello's bard in Strategists & Tactitians from 4 Winds
|
Fighters have several "Paths": Mageslayer line, "Critmaster", "Jouster", "Shieldbashing ArmorMonkey", "Mega-Archer".... they're so much better than in 3.5; and in party situations they do a lot better than the "Everything needs to be a mage" crew gives them credit for (this was NOT true in 3.5 after splatbooks btw).
Bards similarly have 3 distinctive "Combat Style" paths: The archer bard, the melee bard, and the "Straight Support" bard. All are good; all give some level of support (just as all fighters are mostly focused on damage output), and all are upper-epsilon characters. They have a good selection of spells, some of which are exclusively at lower levels; and they previously were the only ones to mix arcane and healing (witches have joined them in this now). Yes, their songs all do the same thing; and I would love to see a change here (Versitile performer is nothing more than "what 2-for-1 skill branch do I want to base on charisma"). But they still have a wide variety of play options, which is more than can be said for, say, the ranger (switch-hitter), the barbarian (widely regarded as suicidial garbage, has at least the Scaremaster as a variant), the monk (feat selection is their choice? And not even as varied as fighter), and the Rogue (show me a viable non-two-weapon rogue?)
So aside from "I wish they were cooler", what's the real complaint here? Level 7, give party +3/+2 (TH/Damage), +1 reflex, and an extra attack by casting haste and song. Best group buffing ever, all in 1 round.
On a side note, I play the mandolin (as well as the guitar and bass) and power chords don't sound that great on it :P
Just a few things for the record and for ha-ha's!
1) I am NOT a musician at all. I can sing, and took many chorus classes over many years ... but I don't know the first thing about instruments.
2) "Power Chords" I've heard mentioned, but have NO idea what they are - like AT ALL.
3) When I made the reference, it was more like "magical power" that I had in mind as I was talking about unleashing some sort of musical WHAMMY on the enemy with the activation of the proper musical notes.
So, yea ... take any "music" stuff from me very, very lightly as I'm so not an expert like some of the people weighing in musically. I'm just tossing ideas to the ether for considerations of enhancing the musical theme. If a mandolin's "power chord" proper is less than impressive - I totally have NO frame of reference. BUT as an activation note or series of notes to unleash some crazy magic-stuff ... "power chord" works just fine.
;-)
b) what feats you take, you're stuck with for your entire career.
Not true for the fighter:
"Upon reaching 4th level, and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, and so on), a fighter can choose to learn a new bonus feat in place of a bonus feat he has already learned. In effect, the fighter loses the bonus feat in exchange for the new one. The old feat cannot be one that was used as a prerequisite for another feat, prestige class, or other ability. A fighter can only change one feat at any given level and must choose whether or not to swap the feat at the time he gains a new bonus feat for the level."
Ok, so, throughout the course of their careers to 20 levels (assuming they live this long) they can change/retrain their feats a total of 5 times ... is this really being used as "versatility" by comparison to spell-selections and daily memorizations???
Sorry, but 5 times period, at pre-defined levels and ONLY when you level just doesn't come off as versatility to me ... like at all.
:shrugs:
There actually was a PrC in 3.5 meant to emulate the idea of Music of the Spheres granting more potent power - Sublime Chord required Astrologer profession and knowledge arcana, and expanded your bard casting into sorcerer casting (that is to say, it went past level 6).
b) what feats you take, you're stuck with for your entire career.
Not true for the fighter:
"Upon reaching 4th level, and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, and so on), a fighter can choose to learn a new bonus feat in place of a bonus feat he has already learned. In effect, the fighter loses the bonus feat in exchange for the new one. The old feat cannot be one that was used as a prerequisite for another feat, prestige class, or other ability. A fighter can only change one feat at any given level and must choose whether or not to swap the feat at the time he gains a new bonus feat for the level."
Ok, so, throughout the course of their careers to 20 levels (assuming they live this long) they can change/retrain their feats a total of 5 times ... is this really being used as "versatility" by comparison to spell-selections and daily memorizations???
Sorry, but 5 times period, at pre-defined levels and ONLY when you level just doesn't come off as versatility to me ... like at all.
:shrugs:
Yeah because a fighter would never want cleave at low levels and then want to trade it out at higher levels.
Besides he was incorrect. Had to fix that -- this is the internet you know ;D
I would not change anything but add stuff and Tweak some stuff....Well I would probably let Bards be Proficient with all bows.
Did I say I love the round per day mechanics? It's great.
Add some sort of mechanic that allows a bard to "cash out" any skill ranks he spent on skills that, later on, get "replaced" by a versatile performance. Similar to how a sorcerer can unlearn a spell or how a fighter unlearn a feat.
Add new feats that boost performance or make the linger.
One of the stuff I hate is Inspire greatness. It's too weak.
Create a feat that boost it.
Make the 2 bonus HD mean something.
Inspire greatness:
Prereq: Bard level 9, char 17
In addition the normal effect
The bard is affected for free and he is considered two levels higher for the purpose of the bardic abilities and how many he can target
In addition to the normal effect the recipient may choose one of these effects.
+2 to BAB, skills and saves
+2 to caster level, skills and saves
or a nerfed version.
Inspire greatness:
In addition the normal effect
The bard is affected for free and he is considered two levels higher for the purpose of the bardic abilities and how many he can target
In addition to the normal effect the recipient may choose one of these effects.
+2 to BAB,
+2 to caster level
+2 skills and saves
Lingering performance:
Prereq: Bard level 5, Char 15
Your performance linger for 2 rounds. You can have a maximum of two performance active at the same time.
This ability can be used 3 times per day + char modifier.
Improved performance
Prereq: Bard level 5, char 15
The bonus by Inspire courage is increased by +1 (or +2)
The time to activate a bardic performance is decrease by one step.
When calculating how many targets a bard may affect add 4 levels to the bard.
All the feats should have prereqs.
Give the bards new performance. Just add them or let the bard pick them as feats. If the bard must pick them as a feat I would make a list of new performance and the add a feat that let you pick 3 new performance.
I do miss Song of Freedom.
Add a feat so bard can use Quicken Spell if he has the Quicken Spell feat or a rod. Now the bard can't.
If he is a melee bard or an archer bard he has his hands full and can't use a rod.
If he picks the feat Quicken Spell he can't use it because he hasn't high enough spell slots.
Suggestion: a feat that let you cast spells with the same hand you hold the rod.
or
A feat that give the bard 3 virtual spell slots per day.
highest Spell level = half bard level.
Perhaps casting these spell would still drain the bard's highest spell slot. If these spells slots is empty he can't use the ability or casting quicken spells this way would drain the bard some of his performance.
So a 10 level bard with char 20 could cast two Quicken 1:st level spells per day. This would drain him of XXX rounds of performance.
Feats that give the bard more spells know and more spells per day.
So, yea ... take any "music" stuff from me very, very lightly as I'm so not an expert like some of the people weighing in musically. I'm just tossing ideas to the ether for considerations of enhancing the musical theme. If a mandolin's "power chord" proper is less than impressive - I totally have NO frame of reference. BUT as an activation note or series of notes to unleash some crazy magic-stuff ... "power chord" works just fine.
;-)
I knew you were just joking around, I can actually see power chords played on a mandolin dealing some sonic damage or making people go deaf though :P
Yeah because a fighter would never want cleave at low levels and then want to trade it out at higher levels.
Besides he was incorrect. Had to fix that -- this is the internet you know ;D
Ok ... so, problematic implications there. Power Attack --> Cleave --> Great Cleave, then unlearn "cleave" is GC "unlearned" by extension of no longer meeting pre-req's?
That's just ... weird. Regardless of where that answer falls - it'll be strange *almost* for the sake of being strange. Swapping out a feat is ok, but doing so at the confusion of feat interactions of feats in chains, etc ... bit of a headache. I'd think, at the very least, that if you swapped out 1 lesser feat in a chain, you'd not be able to progress further in that chain as you no longer meet all prereq's for the chain (example was just the cleave stuff, but it can apply elsewhere, too).
I still call it "less than versatile" in the end.
:shrugs:
It's just mucky, limited, and less than useful given access and implementation (see mucky for overlap).
Speaker you didn't actually read the section did you? It's quite clear on how it works you can't drop a feat that is a prerequisite for another feat you have.
And compared to "Chose your feats and stick with them FOREVER!" it is more versatile. It is something no one else can do and gives the fighter more forgiveness for decisions made at the start of a campaign.
Consider:
Perhaps the fighter started out with weapon focus in a weapon. At about level 3 they find a different weapon they would rather focus in. So at level 4 they redo their weapon focus and take weapon specialization in the new weapon.
Now they also took combat expertise at lower levels thinking to be a tripper later. By level 8 this hasn't really manifested as a good idea and they decide to retrain combat expertise for great cleave.
|
|
b) what feats you take, you're stuck with for your entire career.
Not true for the fighter:
"Upon reaching 4th level, and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, and so on), a fighter can choose to learn a new bonus feat in place of a bonus feat he has already learned.
You're quite right; the option does exist for retraining.
I posted in haste, so as not to lose a large block of text.I did intend to include the word 'most' in there, but I was typing at work, and got interrupted before I could check the name of that ability.
Nevertheless, as mentioned by others, that only accounts for a quarter of the feats gained during the character's career, and, due to the nature of many combat feats being in long chains, needing prerequisites, only allows the swapping of the feats at the current tips of the chains.
Your PC is still going to operate very much the same as he did the level before.
Meanwhile, the full casters can wake up each day, with a selection of spell abilities that contain nothing carried over from the day before.
The Inquisitor has an ability that models what I'm looking for, relating to their Tactical feats. The earlier ones are fixed, but whichever Tactical feat was gained last may be swapped for another eligible Tactical feat, on a daily basis.
Honestly that's something I wouldn't mind seeing happening to the fighter. Personally I think he should get an ability called, "Practice makes perfect" where he can choose one stat to ignore for the purposes of prerequisites of his bonus feats. So if he chose strength he could take power attack with his bonus feats even if he only had a 12 strength.
On the Bard (to be slightly on topic):
I honestly don't think much needs to be done to him. I've seen a variety of bards used in no less than 4 campaigns since the release of the finished rules and I've not seen the class lacking. We've had Oratory bards, dancing bards, singing bards, melee bards, ranged bards, casting bards, etc. They've all worked. They've all had wonderful flavor and utility and they were good in a variety of situations.
Most of my complaints with the bard have been answered with the pathfinder bard. I don't think much could be done at this point without either:
1. Completely rebuilding the mechanics of the class.
2. Putting the class over that very small line between "good" and "Too Good".
1. Completely rebuilding the mechanics of the class.
2. Putting the class over that very small line between "good" and "Too Good".
Yeah - that's where I'd lay down myself, honestly. I said like 85% fine earlier for pretty much these reasons.
However, making the instrument-wielding guy viable really *is* a glaring omission, IMO. So, on that front at least, I'd risk either or both to at least attempt it (that last 15% for me).
On the feats thing - my bad. I missed the junk about the chain-stuff, but otherwise, the other points stand {but .... TOTALLY irrelevant to this topic, so whatever. ;-) }
1. Completely rebuilding the mechanics of the class.
2. Putting the class over that very small line between "good" and "Too Good".Yeah - that's where I'd lay down myself, honestly. I said like 85% fine earlier for pretty much these reasons.
However, making the instrument-wielding guy viable really *is* a glaring omission, IMO. So, on that front at least, I'd risk either or both to at least attempt it (that last 15% for me).
On the feats thing - my bad. I missed the junk about the chain-stuff, but otherwise, the other points stand {but .... TOTALLY irrelevant to this topic, so whatever. ;-) }
The instrument wielding guy is viable. You don't need your instrument out to use bardic performances unless you want to use countersong. Distraction and countersong are the only abilities that require rolls, so for all the others you can use a perform you are untrained in.
As a musician, I hate bardic music. I feel if those powers exist, they should be more akin to actual musicianship instead of the weird abstract thing they are now. As a class ability, it seems really poncey and idealized.
My recommendations for "fixing" bardic music are the same as they were for the beta:
Bard songs should be powerful, unique spells that must be "learned" as a wizard learns new spells. This would allow the bard to be a song collector, and open opportunities for cool treasure. It would also encourage the bard to play into his social role in the party, connecting on a musical level with the cultures he encounters.
I hope you can take a look at my thread on converting the Virtuoso to Pathfinder. I am thinking, instead of doing a straight conversion from 3.5's Complete Adventurer, of redesigning the class.
I like your idea about learning bard songs and would like to incorporate it into my design. My thought is to have a list of possible songs that the Virtuoso could choose from when she reaches a new level, instead of just being given what appears on the list. This way two Virtuosos might have different lists of things they can do.
I haven't posted this idea on that thread yet, but would be interested in reading any ideas you might have.
The thread can be found here
One irritating thing about bards, and this is irrespective of edition, is that every time one is pictured, or made into a figure, they have a lute, or a harp, or some other totally impractical instrument in one or both hands. Yet no-one, except maybe the odd naive, new player, ever uses one.
Given the choice of being effectively unarmed, unable to take advantage of AoO, and risking 100s of gp of equipment being sundered/disarmed at will, losing your concentration and focus, just so you can perform one action all encounter (inspire), or
taking 'Voice' as your chosen focus, and being able to run, jump, climb and fight, while also inspiring your party.
It's a complete no-brainer choice, and unless you give some actual mechanical reasons for using an instrument as accompaniment, you should just cut the crap, and accept that no-one is going to use one, except in a deliberate attempt to cripple their PC, through a misguided belief in the Stormwind Fallacy (ie; that intentional bad choices somehow prove your PC is 'deep' and well-roleplayed).
Some good suggestions upthread, by Evil Lincoln; assume all the bard's combat inspiring is vocal-based (as well as evening the baseline, this makes sense; I've got far too many distractions, when faced with enemies trying to cut my head off, to be looking around for a morale boost from your interpretive dance), but bring out the instruments when you're in the safety of civilised company.
Allowing for the possibility of these extra long-lost songs to be written for a wide variety of instruments encourages the bard to be proficient in a range of styles, without forcing him to be reliant on an albatross round his neck, when in combat.
I've also been thinking that there should be a reason for a bard to use the instrument that he does.
I am currently playing a bard whose style is "a capella". I felt that best suited the concept I had, but it is also be far the best choice mechanically.
One thought is to have different instruments have different bonuses. Playing a violin, for example, may require two hands, but one hand can quickly be used for a quick AoA (okay, I suppose we'd need to add Sharpened Violin Stick to the weapons list, but I like the idea), and the violin would give an advantage to mind-affecting spells and effects.
An unwieldly two-handed instrument like the bagpipes could give a bonus to Inspire Courage, Inspire Competence, and Inspire Greatness, and to effects that demoralize enemies.
Such an approach could be implemented piece-meal with house rules. "So you are going to play a saxophone? What kind of benefit do you expect to get from that?" This would not work very well with munchkin players.
Another thought I have is that instruments would count as tools, granting a +2 bonus to Perform checks. Masterwork instruments would grant a +3 bonus. For an "a capella" bard like my own, there could be an A Capella feat that grants the +2 tool bonus when singing without instruments.
I honestly don't think much needs to be done to him.
Perhaps, but I think some stuff still need to be Tweaked and I still think he is to weak at higher levels, say at level +13.
I still have a problem with not being able to play a charisma bard.
Melee is OK and Archer is fine, but charisma is not good.
But there might be some new cool stuff in the Advanced Player’s Guide.
I really hope the will have new bard feats, new Bard ONLY spells, and some new Bardic performance...and some fixes, especially on versatile performance and Inspire greatness.
What I would like, however, is one spell per level that is evocation based! I'm fine with Bards having limited access to certain spells, but since Bards are "all about flavor," it would be nice to be able to have one that uses Magic Missle, Flaming Sphere, etc as a warchanter.Just my 2.5 cents.
In my 3.5 campaign, I house ruled that an arcane caster could learn and cast spells from another arcane caster class list as if it was two levels higher.
So a Bard could learn Magic Missile as a 3rd level spell.
It might not really be worth it, but I like options. At least a bard could cast Magic Missile without having to take the trouble to multiclass.
The other option is to play a sorcerer/bard. With only one sorcerer level, I don't think it is a major sacrifice, and you can get any sorcerer/wizard spell you want. Unfortunately, sorcerers don't get enough spells known, in my opinion, but that is another topic for another thread.
As another musician, I have to chime in on this topics as I have always have the desire to play bards, but rarely do because of reservations regarding both execution of flavor and underpowered/unusually organized class abilities. I want to love bards, but I can't, which sucks since I'm about to get enter a master's program in early music (Medieval, Renaissance, and Baroque music) and I'm working on a book that explores the historical relationships between singing and magical practice.
Suffice to say, I've got a lot of opinions on the subject.
Problematically, the bard tries to be too many things for too many people. It draws its name from the lorekeepers and songsters of ancient Druidic faith, but comes off more as a Renaissance dandy who dashes out of maidens' bedchambers when he hears their fathers coming. The bard concept has changed dramatically through each edition and the class in the Pathfinder rules maintains 3.5's version as jack-of-all-trades support class with a handful of musical abilities, Knowledge skills, and some cure spells. Frankly, I have no idea what to make of the class, but I too, like Evil Lincoln, wish the bard had a better realized system of magical music that captures the true spirit of the concept without being ridiculous and unreasonable (I sure as hell wouldn't sing madrigals during combat). I also think that to sincerely implement a more flavorful, engaging interpretation of magical music, we should look to its precedents in our world's traditions.
The computer didn't retain the part of the post that I wanted to respond to, which was the idea of having two paths of Bard.
This idea is what attracts me to the Virtuoso prestige class. For my own homebrew, for example, the Bards can be the jacks-of-all-trades who do what bards do per the rulebook. Those who wish to specialize in the magic of music go into a prestige class like Virtuoso, or Sublime Chord, or Seeker of the Song. I'll probably end up creating a PrC that combines these ideas.
For my homebrew, I also conceived that Bards were the original keepers of the law, eventually forming the Judge prestige class whose task it is to travel through the kingdom and make sure that the laws are upheld. So Bards literally rule.
Iron Kingdoms has some interesting ideas regarding "Warbards" which are a variant of the class that exists in that setting. In my homebrew, I see bards as more like that than like the maiden-seducing minstrel.
I honestly don't think much needs to be done to him.Perhaps, but I think some stuff still need to be Tweaked and I still think he is to weak at higher levels, say at level +13.
I still have a problem with not being able to play a charisma bard.
Melee is OK and Archer is fine, but charisma is not good.
But there might be some new cool stuff in the Advanced Player’s Guide.
I really hope the will have new bard feats, new Bard ONLY spells, and some new Bardic performance...and some fixes, especially on versatile performance and Inspire greatness.
I am having no problem with my Charisma bard in Pathfinder.
However one tweak that could work might be to allow Bards to add their Bard level to their caster level for the purpose of calculating spell effects, when casting a mind-affecting spell from another class.
But I don't think such little things seem to be very popular with most designers. I'm always coming up with little ideas like this, but the usual critique is that such things only help in special corner cases that hardly ever come up.
After reading all these posts, I forgot what change I wanted to make to the Bard class. Perhaps something to make Bards more versatile with performing. Currently, my bard can sing and act, but has no ranks in Dance, and if she tried to pick up an instrument she'd be helpless.
I don't even recall seeing anything to say that she can either play an instrument or get her class bonus with an instrument if she has no ranks in that field.
I kind of like separating out the Perform skills into separate skills. Perhaps Bards, due to their training, could get free ranks or bonuses to distribute among these skills. But this seems to be a nit because just one Perform skill is enough to get by.
One interesting thing about having multiple Perform skills: by choosing Acting as her Versatile Performance ability, this led me to describe her as not only a singer, but also a thespian, and to ask the GM about whether there were any actors guilds in the area. I might even have her build a theater when she gets enough money.
I would never have thought of that if I didn't have to put ranks into Perform (Acting) to use Versatile Performance
I've been thinking about the minstrel-stereotype problem, and this seems to be a failure of imagination.
As written, the Bard is plenty versatile in terms of being able to support different kinds of Bards. They don't have to play mandolins, although they certainly may if they want to.
For my homebrew, I wrote a few words about how the bards of the different cultures differed. Taking the theme of the elements, I came up with the following:
* The Dora-Tachuk bards specialize in "Water Music", which is [u]like[/u] country/western. Clear lyrics that flow like a stream and telling a clear story.
* The Dormac bards specialize in "Earth Music", which is [u]like[/u] heavy metal. Haunting lyrics and melodies with power chords and existential tones and themes.
* The Kosaka bards specialize in "Air Music", which is [u]like[/u] pop music, especially the "bubblegum pop". The Kosaka also have different styles for male and for female bards, enforced by cultural traditions. High pitched, fast paced melodies with a strong beat and exotic instrumental effects.
* The Toranian bards specialize in "Fire Music", which is like Latin/Salsa. Rhythmic and fast-moving and mesmerizing like a flame.
I kind of want to tread carefully here, because I don't want to say the Dora-Tachuk are country-western singers, especially since I defined that culture as being like the Vikings. (So you would expect them to be the heavy metal guys, but I like to mix things up.) I was just trying to get across different ways that bards can by portrayed in this world.
I think it worked because the PC bard was understood as having a "heavy metal" style of music with the only thing distinguishing him as a bard being his instrument and the pins and medallions he might have from his colleges.
I've introduced two NPC bards. One was a princess who went around singing sweet music in the castle. The other was a warbard who, after being rescued by the party, followed them with her wardrums to help them beat the final monster in the dungeon. (She had had a cursed item placed around her neck which prevented her from singing, so in that circumstance some sort of instrument was required.)
So who needs a mandolin?
|
|
Charisma bards are just like defensive clerics and non-combatant Druids; they start off far worse, and after about level 10 become far better. Their enchantment/illusion focuses start pushing DCs off the chain; and thanks to versitile perform they have a lot of skills (fly, sense motive, acrobatics) based on charisma.
Low levels combat always outdoes magic; at mid it starts to split, at high magic is god. Things are no different with bards. After 10 you'll regret every combat feat you took.
The instrument wielding guy is viable. You don't need your instrument out to use bardic performances unless you want to use countersong. Distraction and countersong are the only abilities that require rolls, so for all the others you can use a perform you are untrained in.
This is *exactly* what I'm talking about, though. {I think many of us on the side of "add an option" are talking about this as well - not 100%, though.}
Let the music be used for ALL things bardic, and thus the musician is as valid as the comedian or the dancer *IN* combat.
The instrument wielding guy is viable. You don't need your instrument out to use bardic performances unless you want to use countersong. Distraction and countersong are the only abilities that require rolls, so for all the others you can use a perform you are untrained in.This is *exactly* what I'm talking about, though. {I think many of us on the side of "add an option" are talking about this as well - not 100%, though.}
Let the music be used for ALL things bardic, and thus the musician is as valid as the comedian or the dancer *IN* combat.
Except then you need to rework the entire class so that someone with no physical combat capabilities can greatly influence the battlefied, since they wont be able to fight with their hands at all. Some instruments would require him to even stand in 1 spot. And then you still need the class capable of supporting the many physical combat focused concepts that the current class does quite well. Now, I'm not saying these things can't be done, but I think what you are going for would be better suited as a wizard/druid hybrid that utalizes music to modify its spells.
I'd like him to use the sorcerer/wizard spell list and get the cure spell of each level for free (this isn't so much a problem with the bard as it is with class specific spell lists, but whatever). It might pose some balance issues but to me the bard shouldn't be limited to mostly enchantment/illusion spells but should rather be a dabbler of magic in general.
I'd also like his soothing performance to come in a lot earlier in a weaker form, so he could serve as the party healer between combat.
The instrument wielding guy is viable. You don't need your instrument out to use bardic performances unless you want to use countersong. Distraction and countersong are the only abilities that require rolls, so for all the others you can use a perform you are untrained in.This is *exactly* what I'm talking about, though. {I think many of us on the side of "add an option" are talking about this as well - not 100%, though.}
Let the music be used for ALL things bardic, and thus the musician is as valid as the comedian or the dancer *IN* combat.
All you have to do is take Catch Off-Guard and you're able to use an instrument as a bard and fight. Or use 1 of these
My group never liked the flavor of the bard (harps and flutes?) until I came up with this idea:
Let him play a guitar! At high levels get a magic eletric guitar! And if someone comes in melee range while you're singing you go El Kabong on them! EL KABONG!!!
Now it doesnt matter if it is a half-orc wearing black leather or an elven maiden in a dress, playing a bard became possible.
I know a guitar would be out off place in a medieval setting but if you are playing in a FANTASY setting...
Except now that we like the flavor of the bard we started looking at the mechanics. And our veredict is:
The bard is a jack of all trades.
You all know that already. But what does that Mean?
It means he can heal, he can use magic, he can use skills and he can fight. He's good at all those. But not really good at any. He's great in small groups (2 or 3 PCs) cause he can cover a lot of bases. If you have 4 or more people in the party tough, you have someone that can heal better, someone that can fight better, someone that can cast arcane magic better, your only chance is if noone wants to play a rogue, cause thats the niche the bard fills better.
So we're making a new class to replace the bard, working name the Musician or the Entertainer. Basic idea so far: take off the spells, give him a list of performances to choose from when he gets a new one(at first, second and and every even level), give him something like the rogue talents (at every odd level starting from the third).
When I have a rough draft I'm going to make a thread so people can help me balance it.
Except then you need to rework the entire class so that someone with no physical combat capabilities can greatly influence the battlefied, since they wont be able to fight with their hands at all. Some instruments would require him to even stand in 1 spot. And then you still need the class capable of supporting the many physical combat focused concepts that the current class does quite well. Now, I'm not saying these things can't be done, but I think what you are going for would be better suited as a wizard/druid hybrid that utalizes music to modify its spells.
Ok ... you *did* read the thread title, right?
If that's what it would take to rework the class - I've NO objection to tearing bits and pieces of it off outright and starting over again.
:shrugs:
Except now that we like the flavor of the bard we started looking at the mechanics. And our veredict is:
The bard is a jack of all trades.
You all know that already. But what does that Mean?
It means he can heal, he can use magic, he can use skills and he can fight. He's good at all those. But not really good at any. He's great in small groups (2 or 3 PCs) cause he can cover a lot of bases. If you have 4 or more people in the party tough, you have someone that can heal better, someone that can fight better, someone that can cast arcane magic better, your only chance is if noone wants to play a rogue, cause thats the niche the bard fills better.
It depends on the campaign, and how the character is used/played. The bard can make a fantastic 5th/6th party member precisely because of the things you say--you have to be willing to play someone who isn't the "star" of a given ability, but rather is happy to support/assist everyone else, and fill in what's needed.
Examples:
- The cleric is busy channeling energy into undead, so the bard takes over healing and buffing for the time.
- The ranger or rogue wants to scout ahead, but the party thinks it's unwise to send her alone. The bard is skilled enough to accompany and be a help rather than a liability.
- Rogue and/or fighter needs a flanking buddy. Bard steps up because he's got enough HP and abilities to take it (plus his friends are easily in the range of his performance effects, which he can set up before wading in to help).
- Mage is doing AOE damage, so Bard does buffing/debuffing. Mage is buffing/debuffing so bard does some AOE damage with a Shout spell.
- Bard can easily "Aid Another" just about anyone anytime very well.
Not to mention in an urban/social/heavy RP game, the bard can easily still be "the star." With high charisma, lots of skill points, and versatile performance, he's best suited of all classes to be party face and talk the party through various hairy situations.
Some people like to be supporter and party face; some don't. The fact that some don't doesn't make the class flawed, it just doesn't make the class for them.
If the bard needs improving, IMHO it needs to be in the direction of what he can do, he can do effectively, rather than change his specialization.