I have yet to see that sentiment on online. You have some links for that?
The issue is that people think that bards must have inspire courage, or else they are not true bards. Or that if an archetype gives up Inspire Courage, it's generally not worth considering.
Have you read this thread? It has quite a few such posts.
It seems that half the posts in this thread are saying that if you don't have inspire courage as a bard, you may as well be playing another class.
I said ninja and I meant ninja. You are not contemplating a ninja that doesn't sneak attack.
Excellent point. It's now explicitly for rogues and ninjas, rather than implicitly due to ninjas being a rogue variant class.
So yes. Yes I am considering a ninja without sneak attack. And they are still a ninja.
Posting on the original topic.
I am the Cleric in my Kingmaker party and I FEEL like a healbot.
This is so even thought I am not a heal optimized character. I don't have the healing domain AND I'm a dwarf with just 12 cha.
I got a bunch of useful spells from my domains (Charm and Travel), yet I don't get to use them half the time! Why? Cos the party needs healing all the time...
So its positive energy channel again and again.The bard in my party, Magician Archetype, on the other hand does not even need to worry about buffing ,cos he can use his performance while casting spells. Meaning that he is always buffing when he cast spells. The fact that he has a bunch of nasty crowd control spells with a high DC makes him more of a debuffer then a buff in my party.
So to turn the topic tittle around, Clerics are still seen as healbots (in combat) and Bard can easily not need to buff, especially if they are of certain archetypes.
If the players are getting beatup all the time, and expecting you to cover their foolishness, which is normally how healbots are used, then stop healing them for not being tactical.
KM is one of the easier AP's so unless the GM is changing things the party should not be in danger enough to have you always healing.
I have yet to see that sentiment on online. You have some links for that?
The issue is that people think that bards must have inspire courage, or else they are not true bards. Or that if an archetype gives up Inspire Courage, it's generally not worth considering.
Have you read this thread? It has quite a few such posts.
It seems that half the posts in this thread are saying that if you don't have inspire courage as a bard, you may as well be playing another class.
That is not what I read at all. I read a false comparison between a bard and a cleric.
The cleric has to choose between healing and doing something else. The bard, assuming it is not an archetype can buff, and still not lose his actions, so there is no reason not to buff.
I don't see a consensus of bard archetypes are useless.
I'm with Wraithstrike on this one.. I'm not seeing the sentiment.
I think Cheapy, you are getting confused as to what people are talking about. Saying that Inspire Courage is good doesn't mean that that's all they think the Bard is about.
Rather, if you are making an archetype that takes away something that is so good, they should give something that is equivocal in return.
In other words, it should likely be something that has low action economy and still give a wonderful benefit.
I have yet to see someone insist that it needs to be a group buff.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
"old edition gamers" who remember when the bard was at best a good 5th member.
Really "old edition gamers" remember when bard was the first proto-prestige class and kicked a lot of butt, if only by gaining about 10 levels in the time it took the rest of the party to gain 1. Heck, bards were the only way to ID magic items that didn't involve 8 hours of casting and drinking wine with a pearl in it.
Hard to qualify for, though. IIRC, you had to have four 15s, a 12, and a 10. You also had to do some crazy dual-classing shenanigans from fighter to thief to bard, and it was unclear if this somehow violated the normal dual-classing rules(which would have raised one of those 15s to a 17). Ah, 1e.
"Buff-bot" is a much more recent thing. I blame 2e. ;)
When bards can attack and buff with the same action
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the issue may be that some of the things Bards, as a Class, are particularly good at are 'DM dependent'.
For example, high social interactive Skills can rock with the right DM, but some DMs will run the game like a tactical miniatures skirmish game (so the only use you'll get out of social Skills will be to feint or demoralise in combat), while others may ignore (or largely ignore) the character's Skill bonuses in favour of the player's role-playing talents. In either case having the best social Skill bonuses on your character sheet amounts to very little advantage.
Knowledge Skills are another area where the way the DM runs things varies their use a lot: sure, there are guidelines to how much information a good roll will get you on enemy weaknesses, but even that aspect of the Skill has its usefulness based on how much the DM is onboard with supporting the Skill's use, and some DMs will completely ignore any use of Knowledge Skills beyond such spelled out mechanical benefits. On the other hand, some DMs won't care if you simply look the critters up in the Bestiary anyway - so actually having a good bonus in the Skill loses its value.
The same can be said for a lot of Skills - who takes Appraise when the DM just tells you the value of all the loot you find anyway?
Some spell effects fall under the same sort of category too: charm effects and illusions being the classic examples (and sometimes divinations). If the DM is on board then these two types of spells can rock, but if they're not then it's pretty simple for the bad guys to (essentially) choose to ignore the effects.
The tricky thing is that these aren't always really deliberate DM nerfs either - a DM who's not great at getting 'into character' as NPCs can often fall foul of some of this stuff, for example: hey, if he was playing and your low level Wizard appeared to summon up a wall of fire, then he'd give it a poke with a sword to see if was an illusion... so that's what every low-level, low-intelligence mook he NPCs does too...
So, if a player comes up against this sort of stuff from a DM, they'll naturally tend towards the Class Features which give clearly defined mechanical benefits, without falling foul of the whims of the DM. Cries of 'just don't play with that DM' don't really cut it either, because there's no reason it can't be a perfectly good game aside from these few things... just a game which doesn't really fit well for a character who relies on them.
This stuff doesn't just apply to Bards, of course, but they do have a lot of their Class strengths in these sorts of areas. You can sometimes see a similar thing with Wizards and their Arcane Bonds, for example - if the DM lets you play your own familiar, or happens to play your familiar himself but plays it well, then chances are the Wizard characters tend towards taking the familiar option. If the DM plays the familiar like it's an idiot, or has it generally sit there and do nothing unless directly prompted, or has it do unhelpful but 'funny' stuff, then chances are the Wizards will all be taking bonded objects instead.
The bard's best buffs buff the bard best.
The Cleric's cure cures the coolest Cleric?
The Fighter's falchion fights the Fighter's foes fantastically?
The Wizard's whine wins the wanderer's wails?
Stuff
This is a really insightful look at the bard class and the influence a DM/gaming group can have on the particular character. Good stuff.
|
Have you read this thread? It has quite a few such posts.
It seems that half the posts in this thread are saying that if you don't have inspire courage as a bard, you may as well be playing another class.
Yeah, not seeing that either.
What i do see people saying is that bards buff because they can do so easily, without cutting into their action economy much.
And I see people saying that if an archetype switches inspire courage out for something else, they want the archetype to give fair value for the ability.
I don't see them saying *I'd never take an archetype that switches inspire courage out, no matter what*, or *I'd never play a bard without inspire courage ever.*
You seem to be interpreting the desire for a fair trade for some obsession with keeping inspire courage.
I will go a step further here, and say that I would happily play a bard without inspire courage, and I don't think anyone I play with would complain about it.
You keep replying with generalizations about how many posts share the sentiment that a bard must have inspire courage. After reading through this thread, I don't recall seeing many at all. Show your evidence, specifically, post by post from this thread.
A better argument might perhaps be that there should be more bard archetypes that trade fair value for inspire courage. But saying few archetypes provide a fair trade =/= a bard MUST have inspire courage.
You keep replying with generalizations about how many posts share the sentiment that a bard must have inspire courage. After reading through this thread, I don't recall seeing many at all. Show your evidence, specifically, post by post from this thread.
You know, the reason I didn't do that already is because it's a lot of work for something that people have already decided is not the case, and no amount of debating will change their view.
A better argument might perhaps be that there should be more bard archetypes that trade fair value for inspire courage. But saying few archetypes provide a fair trade =/= a bard MUST have inspire courage.
Actively discouraging players from choosing archetypes that don't give Inspire Courage because they don't give inspire courage is saying that a Bard must have inspire courage. Saying that a bard who doesn't buff his teammates (read: doesn't have inspire courage, since let's be honest, that's the one used 95% of the time) "isn't a bard" is saying that a bard must have inspire courage.
IS there an ability that's so good for the bard to replace inspire courage that its worth not buffing the party like they usually do?
When the bard has another character option that contributes as much.
Their BAB is 3/4 and they don't have the rogues theoretical extra damage or the melee clerics self buffs.
They have fewer spells and the DC's are easier because of the slow progression.
So if they're not buffing the party... why wouldn't you be better off with a cleric?
How is this not saying "if you aren't buffing the party, you shouldn't play a bard"?
Bards should be buffing the party. The key is that they should be doing that and doing everything else they do well.
It's not necessarily that they're not worth a party slot, it's that they're not filling the bard role. Sandman is a perfectly good rogue archetype, it was just listed under bard because bards already have a spell list. It's having the ability to go Henry V and have everyone suddenly hit like they're under an untyped bull's strength or bull's strength and a half that makes bards more than a fifth wheel.
A bard without performance is like a ninja without sneak attack. You wouldn't go around asking for ninja archetypes that didn't have sneak attack, would you?
Hence my incredulity that 3 people thus far have claimed to have read the thread, but not see this sentiment. It has been stated explicitly three times already!
Once I find the thread that prompted this one, I'll gladly link that one as well.
I'll own up to asking that.
IS there an ability that's so good for the bard to replace inspire courage that its worth not buffing the party like they usually do?
Thanks for providing another example.
To me, this is barely a valid question. It is expressing the very sentiment that I am railing against: that the bard must buff, or else the archetype is not worth it.
Just to be clear, I do respect BigNorseWolf's posts, and I am not railing against him specifically, but rather the position he espouses regarding this particular topic.
IS there an ability that's so good for the bard to replace inspire courage that its worth not buffing the party like they usually do?Thanks for providing another example.
To me, this is barely a valid question. It is expressing the very sentiment that I am railing against: that the bard must buff, or else the archetype is not worth it.
Sorry, the burden of proof is on you here. You claim that giving up Inspire Courage to do something else aside from party buffing is a good choice. This restriction means that a number of the potential replacements don't count - they're still buffing, just buffing different things.
So if there's something better to do than buff with Bardic Performance, what is it?
Why must the Bard buff?
I think this is the core issue which is causing so much misunderstanding.
I don't think Bards must buff to be bards. A lot of people do think that.
To me, Bards are jack of all trades first, and buffers a distant second. So many of their abilities, class skills, and progressions play up the jack of all trade idea, whereas essentially one class ability, however seemingly major, is mostly about buffing.
Well, if there was an alternate ability that you traded for performance that distilled the awesome you gave the party and gave it to yourself such that the single party contribution , to you, made up for the greater but more diffuse buffs to the party it might be worth it.
I'm unaware of any such ability, and was wondering if you could name one.
Its not that its IMPOSSIBLE such an ability exists, i just don't think that it does.
Why must the Bard buff?
Because to the best of my knowledge he doesn't have anything better to do. Its their neigh unique ability to provide competence bonuses that stack with nearly everything else tha's their signature and unique ability. Anything else they might do someone else does better.
Well, if there was an alternate ability that you traded for performance that distilled the awesome you gave the party and gave it to yourself such that the single party contribution , to you, made up for the greater but more diffuse buffs to the party it might be worth it.
I'm unaware of any such ability, and was wondering if you could name one.
Its not that its IMPOSSIBLE such an ability exists, i just don't think that it does.
And I won't answer it, not because there isn't such an ability, but because it, I believe falsely, assumes that Bards must be buffers.
All this talk about action economy, etc is great, but it doesn't answer the question of why Bards must be buffers.
It's like saying that a cleric must heal, since they get what is essentially a localized fireball that heals. 3-5 free heals that affect everyone in 30 feet? Awesome! If you take a variant channel, you can also give pretty decent buffs (depending on choices made).
Does this mean that archetypes that either give up channeling or alter it to be less effective aren't really clerics? This really does seem to be the same logic that most people apply to bards, bardic performance, and inspire courage in particular. Clerics don't "choose" Channel Energy. They don't have to "focus" on it. [Although, to refer specifically to wraithstrike's argument that a healbot cleric needed to focus on healing...that's not the case. They just needed to have spell slots to spontaneously convert into healing. And bam, they were the healbot.] They just get it. Much like how the vanilla bard just gets Inspire Courage et al.
That's not even remotely an answer. The bard has a resource in the form of Bardic Performance rounds. Its' most obvious, most consistent use is a team buff. It doesn't prevent them from taking other, non-performance actions at the same time. The only justifiable reason NOT to buff is if there's something else they can do with it. Therefore, if the bard isn't buffing, what IS he doing? If the answer is "not using bardic performance" then he's not making good use of his class abilities and should be playing another class.Why must the Bard buff?IS there an ability that's so good for the bard to replace inspire courage that its worth not buffing the party like they usually do?Thanks for providing another example.
To me, this is barely a valid question. It is expressing the very sentiment that I am railing against: that the bard must buff, or else the archetype is not worth it.
Sorry, the burden of proof is on you here. You claim that giving up Inspire Courage to do something else aside from party buffing is a good choice. This restriction means that a number of the potential replacements don't count - they're still buffing, just buffing different things.
So if there's something better to do than buff with Bardic Performance, what is it?
And bam, another example.
Why must the Bard buff?
Because it is their best option.
You say it is not, but what else can they do as effectively?
People think of bards as buffbots because they do it so well.
So all Druids should be wildshaping druids with Natural Spell and a Big Cat companion?
All wizards should be pure battlefield control, a God wizard?
A rogue should just be a trapmonkey, since they are the best trapmonkeys after all?
More generally, you are saying that all characters must be optimized towards their class's strengths. Is that correct TOZ?
If that's not what you are saying, then what makes Bards different such that they must be optimized towards buffing the party?
Actively discouraging players from choosing archetypes that don't give Inspire Courage because they don't give inspire courage is saying that a Bard must have inspire courage. Saying that a bard who doesn't buff his teammates (read: doesn't have inspire courage, since let's be honest, that's the one used 95% of the time) "isn't a bard" is saying that a bard must have inspire courage.
No its not. Saying you would like for someone to do X because it is better for the party is not the same as saying you are expected to do ______ or you are doing it wrong. With the healbot issue the cleric was expected to heal. The bard can be useful with skills and other things depending on archetype even if it does not buff.
Sure I would prefer a bard to buff if he has inspire courage, but if he does not that is cool too. The most important thing to me is that the character is generally useful. That is how most of us feel.
In short saying X is better most of the time is not the same as if you don't do X you suck.
|
People think of druids as Druzillas because they do it so well.
People think of wizards as Gods because they do it so well.
...er, I can't really say trapmonkeys with a straight face, because I've never seen traps be anything more than a joke.
I'm saying characters are expected to do something because they are good at it.
Nothing says they have to, just that they are expected to.
If you want to change peoples expectations of a class you need to show them a new way of using it, not just say 'it doesn't have to be this way'.
Sure I would prefer a bard to buff if he has inspire courage, but if he does not that is cool too. The most important thing to me is that the character is generally useful. That is how most of us feel.
Then we are in agreement. I've already shown a list of posts that say they must buff. Which is the sentiment I'm against.
How is this not saying "if you aren't buffing the party, you shouldn't play a bard"?
Bards should be buffing the party. The key is that they should be doing that and doing everything else they do well.
That is taken out of context. BNW is around to speak for himself. The person in this case is assuming the core bard, not an archetype since there is no reason the core bard should not be buffing since at this point in the discussion everyone is assuming the core bard is the point of discussion. It is not until later that archetypes come up.
It's not necessarily that they're not worth a party slot, it's that they're not filling the bard role. Sandman is a perfectly good rogue archetype, it was just listed under bard because bards already have a spell list. It's having the ability to go Henry V and have everyone suddenly hit like they're under an untyped bull's strength or bull's strength and a half that makes bards more than a fifth wheel.
A bard without performance is like a ninja without sneak attack. You wouldn't go around asking for ninja archetypes that didn't have sneak attack, would you?
This one I have to give to you since the archetype arguments were in place. So you got one.
Back to BNW:I know, I know. He seems to be asking a question to me instead of making a demand. In short he is saying what is the bard without buffing bringing to the table that can't be done by someone else. I think that is a fair question of any class.
Example:If I want to make a skill focused fighter why not go ranger or rogue? That does not mean a skill focused fighter can't pull their weight, the same way nobody is saying a bard without buffing won't be useful. What it does mean is that people are just wanting to understand the decision, which is, once gain, fair.
Asking for understanding is not a demand/request to do something.
And bam, another example.No, it's you dodging a reasonable question. What is the alternative? Seriously? What do you expect them to do instead? There has to be something.
A lot of people seem to be completely misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying that if they have inspire courage, they should never use it. I am specifically talking about archetypes that give up Inspire Courage: aka, giving up the extremely cheap ability to highly buff multiple people.
This is why I see that as a barely valid question. You and other people seem to think I'm saying that a bard with inspire courage shouldn't ever use it.
Maybe the question should be "Given the choice between fighting and using Inspire, and fighting and NOT using Inspire, why do the latter?"
This quote in particular shows that there's been a big misunderstanding about my argument. See the above paragraph on that. I am not saying a bard shouldn't inspire courage ever.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my original postings that the point of this topic was archetypes that gave up bardic performance, and Inspire Courage in particular.
And I won't answer it, not because there isn't such an ability, but because it, I believe falsely, assumes that Bards must be buffers.
It does quite the opposite, and I would ask that you respect my knowledge of my own brain in this matter.
The ability to provide buffs for your group is powerful. It is the most powerful weapon in the bards arsenal. When they trade that in they need to get something roughly as powerful back, and currently they do not (again, given any alternate ability i'm aware of. Consult your cleric if symptoms persist for more than 4 hours...)
All this talk about action economy, etc is great, but it doesn't answer the question of why Bards must be buffers.
Because as soon as your bard is not buffing the party they're not contributing nearly as much.
It's like saying that a cleric must heal, since they get what is essentially a localized fireball that heals. 3-5 free heals that affect everyone in 30 feet? Awesome! If you take a variant channel, you can also give pretty decent buffs (depending on choices made).
The difference is that we've seen the stereotype breaking badass battle cleric charge into the front lines, toss save or die spells to obliterate foes, and then play Babe Ruth with a big honking mace to smash his foes heads into gooey pulp then kneel down in the carnage to thank his god for the glorious slaughter which he has been delivered unto him...
In other words the mechanics supported something other than a bandaid. When the mechanics support the bard as something other than a buffer I'll buy that they can be something other than a buffer.
Does this mean that archetypes that either give up channeling or alter it to be less effective aren't really clerics? This really does seem to be the same logic that most people apply to bards, bardic performance, and inspire courage in particular.
The argument doesn't hold because spells, not channel energy, are the clerics main course. Channeling is a side salad, and one that can be replicated with CLW wands.
So all Druids should be wildshaping druids with Natural Spell and
YES. That ability is too good to give up
a Big Cat companion?
I can make a good argument for the raptor. (dino, not bird)
In the right party a constrictor snake can be pretty lethal.
A different animal might suit the druid's personality better.
The thing is that even a badly played druid is going to contribute a lot to the party. A bard, like a rogue, needs to work at it IMHO.
All wizards should be pure battlefield control, a God wizard?
There are arguments to be made for blasty wizards.
A rogue should just be a trapmonkey, since they are the best trapmonkeys after all?
*paints optimizer on his own forhead*
All rogues should be ninjas.
If that's not what you are saying, then what makes Bards different such that they must be optimized towards buffing the party?
The difference is when other classes get asked "why are you giving up X for y" there's usually an ok explanation for it. I'm not seeing that for a bard.
Because to the best of my knowledge he doesn't have anything better to do. Its their neigh unique ability to provide competence bonuses that stack with nearly everything else tha's their signature and unique ability. Anything else they might do someone else does better.
Nevermind I guess it is a request, but it is still a fair question, which I think it boils down to who else is in the party, and group playstyle among other things. I would like to think the other archetypes are useful, but I only glanced at them.
Cheapy what other archtypes bring something useful(note I did not say equal to inspire courage) to the table assuming the traditional roles are filled? There is nothing wrong with doubling up, but many players don't want to play second fiddle to another player. Even if the bard is in a four man party who do they replace if they are not buffing? These are the questions that need to be answered if the bard is not going to buff.
So all Druids should be wildshaping druids with Natural Spell and a Big Cat companion?All wizards should be pure battlefield control, a God wizard?
A rogue should just be a trapmonkey, since they are the best trapmonkeys after all?
More generally, you are saying that all characters must be optimized towards their class's strengths. Is that correct TOZ?
If that's not what you are saying, then what makes Bards different such that they must be optimized towards buffing the party?
I personally feel that the Bard is much more than a buffer, and heck, I even enjoy many of the bard archetypes; but I feel that you are being a bit stubborn.
The bard does the buff from little to no expense to any of its other abilities which no class can do. If all Druids could shapeshift at will with no investment and no cost to anything else, it would be ridiculous to not take advantage of that ability when it's useful. Buffs, they're always useful both in and out of combat. If clerics continually healed their party members at the same efficiency as a bard could buff while still being able to fight and cast spells, I'm pretty sure the posters would feel that replacing it with the ability to shoot shards of ice is pretty underpowered.
The real problem is that many of the posters in this forum think in the mindset of optimized games where they expect the players to play optimized builds. Most people aren't saying that the bard necessarily need be a buff bot, they're simply asking for a replacement that provides the same amount of utility or power to the party.
IS there an ability that's so good for the bard to replace inspire courage that its worth not buffing the party like they usually do?Thanks for providing another example.
To me, this is barely a valid question. It is expressing the very sentiment that I am railing against: that the bard must buff, or else the archetype is not worth it.
Sorry, the burden of proof is on you here. You claim that giving up Inspire Courage to do something else aside from party buffing is a good choice. This restriction means that a number of the potential replacements don't count - they're still buffing, just buffing different things.
So if there's something better to do than buff with Bardic Performance, what is it?
Why must the Bard buff?
I think this is the core issue which is causing so much misunderstanding.
I don't think Bards must buff to be bards. A lot of people do think that.
To me, Bards are jack of all trades first, and buffers a distant second. So many of their abilities, class skills, and progressions play up the jack of all trade idea, whereas essentially one class ability, however seemingly major, is mostly about buffing.
The issue is this: The "Jack of all Trades" only matters when the primary is not there to do the job. That is a rarity. When not playing backup, bards buff. If the bard is going to lose its ability to buff then it should become a primary in another area. Losing inspire courage means the bard gave up home turf, and might not have gained anything else. Is that always a bad thing? It depends on the game in question. I don't think a bard has to buff. I do think whatever is replacing it needs to be good though so the group finds it useful on a fairly common basis.
In short:If you are giving up option 1 for option 2 then you it needs to be pretty good. That also goes for any class. Rangers give up favored enemy for ranger's focus. Many of the fighter archetypes give up the armor training for specialized training.
To me, Bards are jack of all trades first, and buffers a distant second. So many of their abilities, class skills, and progressions play up the jack of all trade idea, whereas essentially one class ability, however seemingly major, is mostly about buffing.
I'm with ya!
To me the 'jack of all trades' has always been my definition of a bard. someone who's ok at a lot things, but not really GREAT at any of them. Kind of why I went that route for my holmes/detective character. Lots of skills, lots of knowledge... He may HAVE some buffs.... but I'll be VERY surprised to see how often they show up.
As for what do they do WITHOUT buffing? I notice that they got a moderate BAB, so Attacking isn't out of the question. They can cast SPells pretty freely... and unlike 2E they now have Cure spells available.
All of which are options for the 'non-buffing' bard.
Can they do them BETTER then a Fighter, mage, or cleric? Probably not. Can a 3 level bard be more effective then a fighter 1/mage 1/cleric 1? I'm not sure... but POSSIBLY ;)
Probably not. Can a 3 level bard be more effective then a fighter 1/mage 1/cleric 1? I'm not sure... but POSSIBLY ;)
Since multiclassing does not make you better in pathfinder, especially across three classes I would expect for any single class character to be better in most situations.
PS:Everything you named is something a buffing bard can do so between the buffer, and nonbuffer only one class loses anything, and it is not the buffer. Knowledge skills are still skills so "Lots of skills, lots of knowledge" could just be lots of skills which apply to many 6+int classes to many people.
Jack of all trades is the definition I use also, but it is not what they are best at.
Optimization aside though, which is the issue any class can do well in any campaign.
End point:From an optimization stand point the bard is the buffer.
If optimization is to be ignored almost any class can do ok I guess, which is not a bad thing. I think if cheapy wants to argue for the bard being useful in an optimized(a game where the GM is not expected to compensate to help the players since that assumes various levels of GM fiat) game you need to give people a reason to play a non-buffing bard.
In actual play, as opposed to theory play I think a non-buffer will be ok in more than 50% of the games, but for most discussions online you can't assume the GM plays nice, since that does nothing to prove X works.
I mean it basically depends on edition, since literally every edition has had a different take on bards to some degree.
1e bards are different from 2e bards are different from 3.x bards are different from 4e bards.
1e bards are fighter/thief/druids.
2e bards are mage/thieves with a variant emphasis on different skills and abilities.
3e bards are sorta jack of all trades sorta buffers depending on how they're built.
4e bards are either warrior skalds or tricky magician types, and have all of the skills, all of them.
I think they're probably the class that changes the most in every edition.
I told you to stop these discussions and get back to buffing the party. No, you cannot melee. Let the wizard do the casting, you fop.
*dimension doors his fighter next to maddigan's wizard* :)
Bard's are nasty now aren't they.
I had a bard use bard's escape to move an entire party of bad guys around the battlefield right on top of the PCs. They were not happy. They thought they were safe behind their wall.
Bard's are nasty now aren't they.What do you mean 'now'? My player did that to me in 3.5.
They weren't too bad in 3.5.
But they're worse now. Heroic Finale and Bard's Escape are really nasty spells.
I love the archeologist archetype. I enjoy playing skill monkeys, but sneak attack annoys the heck out of me, so rogue or anything roguish tends to be out right away, and bardic performance on the whole tends to be meh to me. Certain specifics performances can be nice, like inspire courage, but on the whole, I haven't really seen any others, in either the core or the archetypes that jump out as being particularly great. Having archeologist as a bard archetype works well in my opinion; it gives access to a wide variety of abilities, not just a lot of skills, but one of the better spell lists in the game, enough rogue talents to make interesting builds, but not so many that it takes away from the rogue, and a decent unique ability. It would have been a lot harder to accomplish that within the rogue class.