|
To the OP, you missed the threads complaining about the lack of bard abilities stacking and being underpowered in pathfinder. The APG is definitely a step in the right direction for bards. Still, bards are not common through there was a post about them being being listed more than barbarians as characters on paizo.
A lot of the abilities you suggested seem extremely powerful. I would focus more around a role plus the ability for the bard to contribute directly as well. Hopefully, tomorrow I can give a more in depth review. This most likely belongs under house rules.
I plan to play a arcane duelist or archivist as my next society character. I plan to post my thoughts on the boards about the power level.
The APG offered some different and cool niches for the bard to focus in on. I wonder if it is enough though. While almost every class got better, with new neat abilities etc, did the bard get it's fair share?
So firstly, I'm wondering if people find my story to ring true in their gaming worlds and secondly, would these abilities seem balanced and in line with the other classes.
Yes. We've seen bards played, even the most rolE playing intensive player got tired of being useless in combat.
I think the problem is that
1) There is no consideration of opportunity cost
2) The bard doesn't help everyone equally
Opportunity cost.
The person playing the bard could be bringing an entire other character that's effective on their own. The bard should, theoretically, add an entire other characters worth of combat in the form of buffs and bonuses onto the existing other characters. Given that action economy is the name of the game, this is unlikely especially given
2: Unequal help.
In a 4 person party, the bard can only help the martial characters. If you have a bard in a 4 person party, they are most likely replacing the rogue.. meaning that the bard buffs himself, the fighter, and mayby the cleric. The wizard is getting little to no benefit, and if the cleric is casting, only he and the fighter get the bonus. this means instead of needing to make up for 1 character over 4, he needs to make up for one character spread over 1 to 3.. a more difficult proposition.
The wizard does not get help.. true for every wizard? What about one strong in Summonings and Callings?
My experience with bards is that they are frequently played by ineffective players. (I'm sure there are outstanding players with bard characters, but I've only seen it happen once or twice.) Bard is written such that it traps players who don't have a thorough knowledge of the game. "I can wear armor & wield weapons only one step down from what a fighter does, and cast arcane spells just one step down from a wizard, and can heal, and I get tons of skills? Also, I get to be the party's front/face/talker? Sign me up!".
These players don't realize that, unless you build and play just right, "one step down" can be the difference between being effective at a given task and being ineffective. They end up able to do everything, but do all of it quite badly.
Second Blueluck, bard needs a loving touch and smart play. All of the 3.5 splat books certainly help as well. I have taken a bard through rise of the runelords and felt effective in a min maxed party.
|
You say that your group is quite large? If s then the bard is a great idea. I play a bard in a group of 7 players and buffing 7 players is a lot more useful than buffing 4.
Bards can be great if you have an understanding of action economy. Knowing when to sing and when to fight instead is important.
One thing I learnt when I was playing PFS at a con recently was sometimes how unwilling a bard player is to actively make knowledge checks instead of waiting for the GM to ask. You're a fountain of knowledge for gods sake. If you're not keeping you GM on his/her toes with knowledge checks then you're not doing your job.
If you want some good ideas on builds then check out Treankmonk's guide to bards.
I've played bards and enjoyed them.
Sure they where not movers and shakers in the combat but then combat isn't every thing.
I found bards to have a huge impact in battle, effectively turning misses into hits, failed saves into succesful ones and generally just inflicting more damage. She is a support healer, flanking buddy, skill monkey, buffer and counterspeller, she is a character that has a hard time focusing in any particular path, but it does wonders for a well-rounded party even though she rarely takes the spotlight in combat.
It is a great character to play for people that do not want to play specialized characters and still pull their weight remarkably well, played well they have options in every situation. The archetypes in APG allow for a better fit with a party, but their role doesn't usually change.
In my experience they are often the 5th or 6th party member, that is fine really, many people dislike to have another rogue, arcane or divine caster besides beside themselves, stealing a bit of their shine, but a bard is always well received.
|
Bards are awesome. The 3.0 bard was badly designed but 3.5 fixed that. The Pathfinder bard is different from the 3.5 one but not weak either.
He's just not very good at shining outside of social situations. But that not because he's weak, it's because the bard lets anyone else shine, too. And I don't see that as a bad thing.
|
|
Bards are awesome. The 3.0 bard was badly designed but 3.5 fixed that. The Pathfinder bard is different from the 3.5 one but not weak either.
He's just not very good at shining outside of social situations. But that not because he's weak, it's because the bard helps anyone else shine, too. And I don't see that as a bad thing.
|
I've played a Bard several times, experimenting a couple views (Arcane Archer was grand). And each time I am the mastermind of the party. Everyone comes to me for advice and knowledge. If I couldnt figure it out, I knew someone or something that did. In combat, I realized Im not the front line death machine, or the arcane/divine wrath laying waste to my foes. I'm the shadow of death on the field, the dirge of doom that strikes down the archmage that thinks he can port away or swallow a potion to get back into the fight. I pick my targets with care and style. In MMO's I'd be the Kill Stealer. When I play a bard, the figter doesnt control the flow of battle, I do. I make sure the Cleric doesnt burn his spell levels for a Cure Light. I make sure the Wizard doesnt take a slot because the group wants to use Identify. When I play a bard, I speak to the enemy and scare them to flee not because of how awesome I am; I tell them of how awesome the fighter is, or how deadly an assasin my rogue is. When in town, before the party even reaches town, thier legend has already spread and diplomacy checks are easier, because I've been in town for the last two hours laying down rumor after rumor. When I play a bard, Im the center of attention only when I want to be. When I play a bard. I'm the power behind the throne. Its where I want to be.
I've played a Bard several times, experimenting a couple views (Arcane Archer was grand). And each time I am the mastermind of the party. Everyone comes to me for advice and knowledge. If I couldnt figure it out, I knew someone or something that did. In combat, I realized Im not the front line death machine, or the arcane/divine wrath laying waste to my foes. I'm the shadow of death on the field, the dirge of doom that strikes down the archmage that thinks he can port away or swallow a potion to get back into the fight. I pick my targets with care and style. In MMO's I'd be the Kill Stealer. When I play a bard, the figter doesnt control the flow of battle, I do. I make sure the Cleric doesnt burn his spell levels for a Cure Light. I make sure the Wizard doesnt take a slot because the group wants to use Identify. When I play a bard, I speak to the enemy and scare them to flee not because of how awesome I am; I tell them of how awesome the fighter is, or how deadly an assasin my rogue is. When in town, before the party even reaches town, thier legend has already spread and diplomacy checks are easier, because I've been in town for the last two hours laying down rumor after rumor. When I play a bard, Im the center of attention only when I want to be. When I play a bard. I'm the power behind the throne. Its where I want to be.
nice flavoring ;)
I have not seen the bard yet in Pathfinder, save a 1st level one I ran in a brief demo (it performed fine, no pun intended).
I played a bard in 3.5 (albeit briefly, in a two-shot game), and saw several bards played, both in my and other campaigns. They all did well--got off heroic moments, got in some kills, got in some good intrigue, their knowledge helped in a lot of situations etc. I imagine these characters were only better in PFRPG as they had better hit dice and a few more options.
I've not seen a character type be better at teamwork. If your idea of "effective" is your individual character's DPS, you do not want to play a bard. If being versatile but not the best is something you handle well, then you can play a bard well. For example, Bards are adept enough at fighting that with fellow party members they can help turn a melee in the party's favor--they flank, they maneuver with Acrobatics, they can maintain a song while they fight, etc. They will contribute to damage and other effects done. They will probably not deal the most damage, but they will probably have helped the party Fighter or Barbarian get into the position to deal the most damage. This is rewarding for some kinds of players and not others, so much of "is the bard fun to play" depends on YOU. When the "is the bard good?" question is asked, generally people who play them well say yes, and those who don't play them well or see them played poorly or just don't like the idea of them say no. I would say overall therefore it's a good class, just not an easy class to play.
Bards particularly shine in urban campaigns and well-rounded campaigns where their skills and versatility outside combat also comes in handy. A hardcore combat heavy monty haul dungeon crawl will be less satisfying for a bard, probably, but it also depends on the build and how you play it.
The APG adds to what works well for the bard. I particularly like the look of the Arcane Duelist and would love to play one sometime.
I think some of what affects the bard's image isn't so much the class itself, but the negative portrayal of the bard as a character who prances and strums a lute while Hrothgar the Barbarian is slicing enemies in two with his axe. Depending on the group you are in, no one wants to play the prancey dancey character. Of course, generally people who play bards well do not play prancey lute playing goofballs--but even if you're playing your brilliantly concepted explorer who regales friends and family at home of tales of his exploits, if the guy who sits next to you is making fun of you for prancing and dancing, it gets old. (This has not happened to me, but I've seen it come up in conversation.) So there's more of a weird social stigma that I think is the bigger problem than the class build itself.
As for the proposed build, I'd copy and repaste that into a thread in the homebrew forum, the OP will get better replies on that there.
lots of great stuff just above this post
+1
.
In my experience they are often the 5th or 6th party member . . .
Yes, exactly! One of my players said just a few weeks ago, "Being called a good 5th party member is the worst rating you can give a class. It's like saying, 'I would never ask you out, but if I were at a movie and you were at the same movie, I wouldn't mind if you sat near me and my friends.'"
I like bards. I think it's a class that should be in Pathfinder, and I enjoy playing characters who support the team. But I also prefer small-ish gaming groups of 3-5 players, so there's rarely room for a bard. (3-5 players depending on the game. D&D and PF work best with either 4 or 5, but I never add a 6th or join a game that already has 5 players.)
The bard is fine (and pretty damn good with the APG stuff for flavor). It all boils down to the play style - if it's all about DPS and players competing against each other, then a bard probably isn't what you want. If the play is more co-op and/or story involved, a bard will fit nicely in a group of four.
I disagree, if your game is all about dps then chances are the bard is a good choice. Its ability to buff can pay some serious dividends in the right group. In my group which is rather large, it would be a very large dps bump if we had a monk. But for the most part no one plays them. For me its about the story side and not the combat side. I dont like the image of the bard, and I really cant get over the whole 'guy who is performing in the middle of combat'. Whether its singing, or chanting, or playing a lute, it just seems silly to me.
I was actually looking at it recently, and really the only way I would play a bard is if I removed the bardic perfromance. Which ofcourse then begs the question...why play a bard in the first place?
Bards are great '5th' PCs. And being a '5th PC' is not a bad thing.
Think about a football offense: you need linemen and running backs. That's all you need. However, will you win many games? Probably not. Your basics are covered, now time to add '5th PC' players. Receivers, Quarterbacks, Tight Ends. Suddendly your options have opened up. Now you don't have to play "Three yards and a pile of dust". Your more robust offense can now dictate to the defense how they will play.
Or, you could just be one-dimensional. After all High Schools and many College teams do that: get one play and milk it.
Another way I look at is "how do I like art?" Monochrome and stark? Sometimes. But I prefer color and variation.
I am currently playing a Bard and I think she will do just fine. +0 to hit, d8 damage with a longspear. And songs to buff the party. Healing to save the Cleric's mojo. Crowd Control too.
Bards are fine. If your play style supports it. No, I am not suggesting it requires DM Favoritism, just a less combat driven campaign.
GNOME
My first Pathfinder character was a bard. I've been playing class/race combinations I've never tried before for the last few games and gnome bard ended up being next in my queue when we made the transition from 3.5.
I went into the class knowing the basic premise of the bard was this: it's a support class. As a bard you will never fight as well as a melee class, cast as well as an arcane class, heal as well as a divine class. So I did everything I could to make an amazing support character that could do anything, and act as backup whenever the other characters needed it. I plundered the Spell Compendium and Complete Mage from 3.5 thinking I had to work to make the class playable, but the strides Pathfinder has made in making bards a functional class is incredible.
At the moment, my bard is party leader in the Curse of the Crimson Throne AP. She's nullified encounters with a single Charm spell and some clever roleplaying. She consistently boosts the damage and accuracy of every party member, even the wizard (Harmonic Chorus + Sonorous Hum from SC). I'm primary healer over the cleric of Gorum. The only thing I'm not actively doing is blasting; we have an Alchemist and a Cerebremancer (Wizard/Kineticist) for that. First round of most combat I drop Inspire Courage with a move action, Haste with a standard, and Inspirational Boost with a swift, granting extra accuracy, damage, attacks, AC, and movement. When I'm done buffing the party (only takes me 2 rounds at the moment!), if anything is still standing, I'm likely debuffing it with illusion or enchantment spells.
I may not be the one dealing 90 damage a round, but I am always doing something. I heal, I buff, I debuff, I even had to save the party by meleeing!
You have to wrap your head around efficacy outside the standard combat paradigm (woo, that's a mouthful). Other players excel because of what a bard does for them, as a class dedicated to support. If you must have the number crunching goodness, try and add up all the damage from Inspire Courage, from extra attacks, from AoOs because of Illusion or Enchantment spells befuddling your enemies. Add all that damage to your tally and see how you stack up.
Now, to be fair, I'm in complete agreement that the bard is very much the "5th slot". The schizophrenic nature of the class makes it difficult to do any one thing especially well, and forcing it to do so begs the question of 'Why aren't you playing a pure class?'. In the 4 person party, focus is quite crucial, so a thinly spread character may not be advisable. As a bard, you want to be doing a little bit of everything, always doing something, just not doing that something as impressively as a pure class could.
End of the day though, bard works. It does what it's supposed to. Clever players, as with any class, can take advantage of what's there to make something excellent. With the right party composition, the bard can fit into the 4 person party. If bard doesn't suit your playstyle, don't bludgen it with feats and alternative rules until its bruised remains more closely resemble the other class you wanted to play; just play something else.
Bard IS a damage boost and not a small one at that. My point was that if the players compete by measuring the individual damage dealt (like in some games I know), then a bard won't be shining.If you think that performing is the only thing a bard does in combat, think again - keeping up the performance is still a free action and you do have the whole round to do stuff. Just think about everything else you can use as a performance - dancing in the melee or shouting (commands/insults/whatever) at people while twanging away with his bow or in between castings. It kinda changes the whole picture.
Still, bards aren't for everyone.
Oh I am fully aware that a bard won only be performing in combat, its just the concept. It has to be an application of the perform skill, whether its dance, or oratory or whatever, it just doesnt sit with me, and seems rather silly. I know that the bard can and should do other things in combat (use his spells, or provide secondary combat with blade or bow), but the idea that he's doing this WHILE performing in some way isn't a character type I am interested in playing.
PF bards are great in my experience.
It’s true their awesomeness is in some ways proportional to the size of the party and it’s not the most optimal class choice for just any generic 3-4 man party. As has already been discussed, the specific builds and tactics of the other party members, the GM’s style, and the setting’s support of the social skill-set can affect the bard’s ‘success’. I also concur that if your players don’t like playing ‘support’ or ‘feminine’ that’s a legitimate preference, but doesn’t say anything about the class’s viability.
But I feel that low appreciation of the bard is more due to the bard’s contribution being hard to perceive than any of the specific complaints people give. The bard’s MO is:
A) Improving the average and variation which can only be seen over time and with a properly controlled verification ‘data set’ for comparison.
B) Filling in the cracks which can be even harder to quantify because in theory most anything the bard can do some other class can do that thing better (outside of perform, knowledge and social skills, that is) and usually a whole lot better and without even trying hard.
C) Highly situational abilities which don’t come up every encounter or even every adventure and so are unfairly dismissed or even forgotten about altogether.
D) Working with others which involves too many uncontrollable variables to depend on, so is also ignored.
All of these are basically fallacies that are quite common and easy to fall into if you never see the class played by someone who enjoys the face/support role and doesn’t mind having to maybe pay a little closer attention to what’s going on and be a little extra creative. And truly, if the party has no use for a face-man the bard can easily put those resources to another use and lose nothing in the trade.
Another problem for the bard is the bane of melee characters: the full attack. At a certain point, meleers are almost guaranteed to hit on the first shot, making the + to hit worthless. The +s only matter for iterative attacks... which don't seem to happen all that often.
Another problem for the bard is the bane of melee characters: the full attack. At a certain point, meleers are almost guaranteed to hit on the first shot, making the + to hit worthless. The +s only matter for iterative attacks... which don't seem to happen all that often.
Inspire courage also boosts damage, perhaps all the more important for a single attack, and of course a number of the other bard songs boost saves, HP, and so on---plus debuff the enemy--and that's before we get into the buff spells a bard can cast. By the time iterative attacks possibly become important, the bard should have more tricks up his sleeve than boosting attack bonuses (but still of course can do that too). If the bardic buffs keep someone from dying, that's as important as their ability to dish out attacks.
Also, IIRC, as CM checks are "attack rolls" (usually) the boost to "attack rolls" from bardic performances like courage and greatness would also boost combat maneuvers, which could come in handy.
|
|
I certainly have seen few bards played or perhaps more accurately fewer bards than other class. (I was surprised by the comment early on that barbarians are rare because I see them all of the time in PFS) In 3.5 I had a bard forced upon me as a cohort. He was a liability for many levels but the Divine Chord prestige class helped out a lot and by the end of the campaign he was the most effective arcane caster in our group.
You know, Kolokotroni, Perform is really what you flavour it. Oratory doesn't have to be recitation of an epic poem in the middle of a swordfight. Sure I can imagine dwarven skald recounting a glorious epic before the fight and the party then drawing inspiration from it when he shouts something like "Remember Grugni! He spilled the blood so that our fathers could fight and so can we now!" (actual bard music use) or it could realy be an enormous knowledge on how to deliver a speech used in combat, chosing the right time and tone to remind his friends not to falter. He can play a tune on his lute to set the rythm for his friends, so that they can coordinate their hits in rapid sucession (something like work songs) and then just humming the tune or shouting to keep the group fine-tuned while swinging his own sword. A dance may really be just a series of fencing figures, that would point out openings in enemmy defense or help to create them.
I's really a matter of flavour and description. Standing in the middle of everything while stroking youw lyre while fire and blood are raging around looks rather silly, unless your character is named Nero.
The one bard I played for a long time, I would describe as the point man. Everyone else in the group had very defined roles. The Fighter smashes things. The wizard does spells. The cleric heals. I did a little of everything. As such, there were many times where I ended up being the focal point in combat. The cleric is down and no one else can heal. The rogue needed a flank I could get in there. I was the floater filling whatever job needed to be filled.
To play a bard well, you have to understand that a bard is more in combat than just a +1 to hit/damage. A bard is also a potential flanker, spell interrupter, backup healer, etc.
Another problem for the bard is the bane of melee characters: the full attack. At a certain point, meleers are almost guaranteed to hit on the first shot, making the + to hit worthless. The +s only matter for iterative attacks... which don't seem to happen all that often.
The bonus helps maneuvers too. Charge (maybe) + Bard + Class feature (Weapon Training, Strenght Surge..) means that an impossible roll becomes possible, or a "maybe" roll becomes "2+"
Director of Narrative
|
I’ve been playing a bard in our Sunday night Council of Thieves campaign and I’ve been having a blast. I’m sure by messageboard standards, he’s a “bad build”, but I’ve leveled him organically, responding to the story and anticipating what he’s gonna need in the future. We’ve got a group of five PCs, so he’s certainly the “5th party member”. Turns out he and one other PC are the only ones who haven’t died yet in the campaign.
I’ve found bards are great for players who enjoy the teamwork aspect of an adventuring party. The glue that holds things together, the insulation that fills in the cracks. It works best to go into a bard with the attitude of not being your best, but making sure your friends are their best. Go with a helpful role instead of a spotlighter.
Bards are great '5th' PCs. And being a '5th PC' is not a bad thing.
When there are only 4 players, being the 5th PC is pretty bad:)
Something that's been said here a few times, is that playing a bard requires a lot of skill. Yes, that's true. A bard has a very large toolbox full of slightly undersized tools. A skilled player can carefully choose the right tool for the job, and apply it in the right way, making a bard very useful.
There's a second skill-set that's been alluded to. Social skills, and I don't mean the ones listed in the book. If you are a natural leader, or are a charismatic and outgoing roleplayer, then being the "party leader" or the "face" can have a lot of meaning. But watch a non-charismatic player try to take that role, and they're just a jerk who's always trying to take over the game.
Inspire courage also boosts damage, perhaps all the more important for a single attack
No, because then its additive. If you spend a round adding +2 to 2 peoples damages you've added 4 damage. Thats Meh at first level and inconsequential at 10th.
and of course a number of the other bard songs boost saves, HP, and so on---plus debuff the enemy--and that's before we get into the buff spells a bard can cast. By the time iterative attacks possibly become important, the bard should have more tricks up his sleeve than boosting attack bonuses (but still of course can do that too). If the bardic buffs keep someone from dying, that's as important as their ability to dish out attacks.
That depends. Is it equal to or more preventative than another character would be?
Also, IIRC, as CM checks are "attack rolls" (usually) the boost to "attack rolls" from bardic performances like courage and greatness would also boost combat maneuvers, which could come in handy.
It might, but unless you add almost an entire other characters worth of effectiveness you would have been better off doing the combat maneuver yourself.
|
|
Inspire Courage doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's supported by spells like Good Hope. That's +4 on to hit and damage by level 7.
There are quite a few ways to make a bard pretty useless, though, like taking Weapon Finesse or making charisma your highest stat.
Bards are automatically the best skill users and party buffers. They are also able to become viable combatants.
A lone bard is still viable, buffing anyone else is just a bonus.
|
|
I think the biggest problem with Bards, though, isn't players who don't know how to play them, but a@%@&&% GMs. A Bard character may well have an insane knowledge skill to figure out what a monster's weakness is, he may make an insanely high skill roll, but some a@%@&&% GMs will -still- tell the Bard "okay, you know that creature you've already identified as a Salamander is a Salamander and that's all your skill roll tells you". By doing so, the Bard player doesn't know how to target the monster's weaknesses. This is every bit as bad as insisting that a wizard character is always in an anti-magic zone.
Absolutely.
Even worse than what I mentioned earlier about bard players not actively making knowledge rolls is GM's who think protecting the secrets of their monsters is more important than rewarding a player for investing in a particular skill. I don't mind occasionally being told that the monster is unknowledgeable, but that must be an exception, perhaps once every 4 levels.
I think Adam (and others) hit on a component of the bard play. Are you, as a player, going to be happy contributing but not being the major player in many scenes (until the blood soaked psychopaths are brought to court).
|
|
In case it hasn't been mentioned, here's Treantmonk's Build guide. It's just the core book (no APG), but is still very impressive.
There are lots of people on these forums who think the Bard class is absolutely amazing. It's got all sorts of tricks and can be built in a number of different ways. It was the level-one Gish class even before the APG.
I hated bards in 3.0/3.5 as well, but in Pathfinder they are one of my favorite classes.
My wizard has a high int and going for loremaster so he is more knowledgeable then me at the moment.
He may. For now. Assuming you stick with a core bard (or any archetype that doesn't drop or hamper Bardic Knowledge), the fact that you get +1/2 Level to *all* Knowledge Skills is pretty amazing. At sixth level with a 12 INT you are looking at +4 to Knowledge (Anything Without Ranks)! Put *one* rank in and you get a total of +8 :D Sure, the Wizard can 'match' you, but he has to spend a lot more effort than a bard. And, again, a Bard's knowledge is only one part of what they bring to the table.
Bards Rule! and if you don't beleive me, ask any Bard: after all, they are the one's that write the tale ;)
*edit*
Also, if you think your twelve rounds of Performance are too few, think about the feat Lingering Performance: Sing, then Stop: buff last for two more rounds ;) It costs a bit in action economy, but you can also maintain the Performance (Free Action Style), and drop it when you feel 'safe' doing so :)
GNOME
Stuff.
I think you are falling prey to the logic-traps I described above.
Firstly, inspire courage takes a standard action to start (it’s a move action at 7th, a swift at 13th), but can be kept up round after round using a free action. So to describe it as you spend a round improving 2 peoples’ damage by 2 resulting in +4 damage total is not the whole story. I’m not saying inspire courage is the most optimal choice every fight/every level. It’s not, but it’s a better trade-off then how you describe it. It would be more like improving 2 peoples damage by 2 for 3 rounds and your damage by 2 for two rounds for a total of +16 damage for one partial action. Not the most impressive damage, but respectable (and more than +4) and more consistent than any attack/spell performed in its place.
Comparing a bard’s single action/ability to that of the most optimal action/ability possible of all other classes for a singular purpose may be useful for theorycrafting or a fun intellectual exercise, but its highly disingenuous to present as a way to judge the viability of the bard overall or even that one ability on a practical level.
I don’t see the problem with comparing apples to oranges, just don’t compare a single slice of apple to a fruit basket and act like it’s a fair contest.
I think one important aspect of the bard that has only been touched upon lightly in this thread is that, as a 5th character, the bard actually allows the party specialists to specialize further in their particular specialty. The party skill monkey doesn't have to make such hard choices with her skill ranks. The party casters don't have to worry quite as much about what spells to learn or prepare. The party fighter doesn't have to worry with killing all of the mooks on his own or making sure that he stays close enough to the rogue to flank.
Having a bard present allows the other party members more freedom to optimize.
My last bard was the Divine Bard variant from Unearthed Arcana with 5 levels in the Evangelist PrC from Complete Divine. He focused on oratory as his performance skill and recited verses from religious scriptures in combat. Everyone just thought he was an overzealous cleric.
|
|
Summoner really stabbed the bard right where it hurt; providing many of the more powerful buffs while simultaneously providing massive damage output machines.
Like the summoner (or probably "instead of"), the bard should get many buff spells as Lower-level spells; not being able to haste/slow until 7th level is unacceptable. And while bardsong is a solid buff, there are many spells and domain abilities that do it better. Glory subdomain clerics also step on their toes.
They are still a solid skillmonkey, especially the detective (who handles trapfinding nicely and gives a great perception/init buff).
But I have not seen a bard in a long, long time... and think like Barbarians and Rogues they could use a "strictly better" upgrade to keep interesting. I don't mind power creep on the weak guys.
|
|
Summoner really stabbed the bard right where it hurt; providing many of the more powerful buffs while simultaneously providing massive damage output machines.
Like the summoner (or probably "instead of"), the bard should get many buff spells as Lower-level spells; not being able to haste/slow until 7th level is unacceptable. And while bardsong is a solid buff, there are many spells and domain abilities that do it better. Glory subdomain clerics also step on their toes.
They are still a solid skillmonkey, especially the detective (who handles trapfinding nicely and gives a great perception/init buff).
But I have not seen a bard in a long, long time... and think like Barbarians and Rogues they could use a "strictly better" upgrade to keep interesting. I don't mind power creep on the weak guys.
At which level does the summoner gain access to inspire courage or good hope? Or the cleric? One of the greatest improvements for bards in Pathfinder was the change of inspire courage's bonus type.
It would be more like improving 2 peoples damage by 2 for 3 rounds and your damage by 2 for two rounds for a total of +16 damage for one partial action. Not the most impressive damage, but respectable (and more than +4) and more consistent than any attack/spell performed in its place.
You're right, that is a better comparison, but it still falls short of what a player should be doing.
Comparing a bard’s single action/ability to that of the most optimal action/ability possible of all other classes for a singular purpose may be useful for theorycrafting or a fun intellectual exercise, but its highly disingenuous to present as a way to judge the viability of the bard overall or even that one ability on a practical level.
There's nothing disingenuous about it. It's the bards signature ability, in my experience the most often used, one of the few that can't be duplicated by a cleric (which could be in the party instead of the bard), and the one that gets misunderstood as adding to EVERYONE's combat ability when it only applies to some party members.
|
|
Although I'm prepared to accept the idea that my group may be unusual, I haven't seen this problem.
Since Pathfinder released, I've played in numerous 1-offs and short campaigns, and two long running adventure path campaigns. In those two campaigns we've seen 3 bards (2 PCs, 1 cohort) and they've all proven quite useful.