| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Split off here from another thread, to not derail it even further.
There seems to be a decent sized group of people who think that the most important part of the Bard is his ability to buff his allies. Nevermind their amazing social prowess, or their powerful enchantments. Nevermind their wonderful skills with knowledge, and their 6 skill points per level. Nevermind their supreme versatility, that allows a party to be composed of entirely bards, and have all the archetypical rolls covered.
To these people, a bard's main purpose, nay their raison d'être, is just to buff the party.
When will this idea die?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the whole, this reasoning seems to stem from a combination of two things: 1) simply looking at the class features and reasoning that the large amount of buffs make this a buff class, and 2) "old edition gamers" who remember when the bard was at best a good 5th member.
Bards are excellent at buffing the group. In fact, there's no other class better than the bard for one simple reason: bard buffs hit lots of people, and the bard doesn't have to dedicate his whole turn to helping both himself and his allies.
But bards are also excellent skill bots, and competent spellcasters, and synergize well with social encounters. They're also surprisingly good at weapon combat. Archetypes have done a lot to draw people away from the idea that a bard must buff his allies, but the fact remains: a core bard is an excellent buffer.
I think the real thing we need to get away from is the idea that the bard isn't worth a slot in a four man party. Every time I read "the bard is an excellent 5th party member" I curl my fists in anger. Bards are excellent and versatile, and very capable of filling a single role when the player sets his mind to filling that role.
I'm a big fan of more warriorish bards.
I jumped for joy at the arcane duelist, dervish and archaeologist specifically, though really even the core bard is a great warrior on her own. Spells and move and swift action self-buffing is icing on the cake. They are potentially the best at mixing melee and ranged combat, the best warrior-controllers bar-none, and they cap out with songs that make things heads explode from sheer awesomeness.
None of that screams "5th wheel party buffer to me"
Besides...
The bard's best buffs buff the bard best.
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?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bards should be buffing the party. The key is that they should be doing that and doing everything else they do well.
|
The bard's best buffs buff the bard best.
You sir, win the thread. Alliteration FTW.
On a separate note, bards rock at combat, and the Inspire and other quick action spell casting plus movement make them on par if not outright better than a full BAB fighter standing his ground and whacking away at the enemy willy nilly like. Plus, its way funner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love bards.
I've played bards in two man parties, and I've played bards in six man parties- effective in both.
The thing about bards is not that they are amazing buffers (they are)- it's that they can buff so easily. Inspire Courage at later levels is a single swift action to decently buff everyone you want in a very large range, all encounter long for pretty much every encounter.
I spend a swift action to give myself and my party amazing buffs, and then I do whatever the hell else I want for the rest of combat. I can be an uber buffter and keep throwing up buff spells like haste and heroism. I can be a front line fighter, or I can be ranged specialist. I can use my vast repertoire of skills to solve all kinds of problems (pick locks, identify creatures, or use any sort of magical device). I can do any of these things, and still put up some great basic buffs.
Your comparison to the healbot cleric is a flawed one. The healbot cleric specializes in healing, spends most of combat using healing actions, and occasionally does something else when there is no one left to heal.
On the other hand, no one really expects the bard to do anything other than spend a single action (a standard, move, or eventually swift) to get a good performance up. Then he can do whatever he wants for the rest of battle so long as his other actions are meaningfully contributing in some way.
Inspire Courage let's a bard be a really good buffer, while letting him do all those other things he wants. That's why I get really upset when Inspire Courage get's removed in an archetype and nothing really kick ass replaces it.
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?
lolwut? Bards don't get self-buffs? What's mirror image then? Or Blur? Or Allegro (at level 4, 3 levels before the cleric gets a haste effect!)? Or Dance of a Hundred Cuts? Or Dance of a Thousand Cuts? Or Heroism? Or Good Hope? Or Vanish?
And why wouldn't you play a cleric? Perhaps it's the ability to do extremely well in social situations. It doesn't matter what your charisma is at as a cleric. You won't be beating Suggestion. Or maybe it's being more useful than healing and hitting things with sticks and the occasional utility spell. Perhaps you'd like to trapfind! Maybe you want to be knowledgeable in all things! Perhaps you like the spell list better, since it emphasizes active spells, rather than passive ones. Not to mention the really cool Bard only spells.
Maybe you want to be an archer who can also support! Bards are far better at that than Clerics, especially with Arcane Strike. Maybe you want to steal the spells of your enemies. Perhaps they want to have an immediate action counterspell! Maybe they wanted some of those delicious rogue talents without having to be that crummy rogue!
I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
The comparison between healbots and bards is not of actions, but rather of people saying "X must do Y". A cleric MUST heal everyone. A bard MUST buff everyone. It was a very real thing that many people thought of clerics as just healers.
Inspire Courage let's a bard be a really good buffer, while letting him do all those other things he wants. That's why I get really upset when Inspire Courage get's removed in an archetype and nothing really kick ass replaces it.
This opinion right here is the very reason I made this thread.
It's the idea that Inspire Courage is what the class is all about. Tangentially, it's that the bard must buff the party. People pondering a bard character are actively discouraged by members of this community to pick an archetype that doesn't have Inspire Courage.
It's the idea that without Inspire Courage, a bard is no bard.
Are bards the best buffers in the game? Undoubtedly. The only thing that comes even somewhat close is the Evangelist Cleric, and they're missing out on quite a few things (Good Hope, the Inspiration spells, the Finale spells).
Do Wizards get the best blasting spells? Undoubtedly.
Should Wizards always use blasting spells?
Cheapy, you missed my entire point.
It's about efficiency, and action economy.
Stop comparing Inspire Courage to single use, standard action abilities/spells.
At 7th level, my vanilla bard can buff everyone in the party AND cast a spell, make an attack, use an item, make a skill check, etc... on the first round of combat, then he never has to worry about buffing again in that combat if he doesn't want to. And the buff remains all combat. For the entire party.
At 7th level, your Wizard is using a blasting spell instead of doing something else. And if he wants to blast again, he has to spend another action to do it.
That's what's great about Inspire Courage- the opportunity cost to use it is so low at levels 7+.
Free, almost nigh unlimited, good, quickened buffing that effects the entire party is amazing. That's not the only thing great about the bard, but that doesn't make this any less amazing. And if you are going to take it away, I want something damn good in return.
When the party (GM & players) only understand one style of play, each character will only ever have one job.
If your games change their dynamics, the Bards can shine in a lot of other ways, as can any class.
If it is more MMO style, then a Buffbot you will be.
Cheapy, you missed my entire point.
It's about efficiency, and action economy.
Stop comparing Inspire Courage to single use, standard action abilities/spells.
At 7th level, my vanilla bard can buff everyone in the party AND cast a spell, make an attack, use an item, make a skill check, etc... on the first round of combat, then he never has to worry about buffing again in that combat if he doesn't want to. And the buff remains all combat. For the entire party.
At 7th level, your Wizard is using a blasting spell instead of doing something else. And if he wants to blast again, he has to spend another action to do it.
That's what's great about Inspire Courage- the opportunity cost to use it is so low at levels 7+.
Free, almost nigh unlimited, good, quickened buffing that effects the entire party is amazing. That's not the only thing great about the bard, but that doesn't make this any less amazing. And if you are going to take it away, I want something damn good in return.
I didn't miss your point. At level 7, a bard can Inspire Courage, Haste, and Good Hope the entire party. That's extremely good. I have yet to find a set of actions that can be done in one round that can, without fail, swing the favor of combat towards the party by such a wide margin. This is great, and it is always my bard's first turn in combat (unless circumstances are dire, and something else is needed).
Action economy isn't the issue. At all.
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.
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.
I'm with you on this one. I find that the Magician and Sandman archetypes are two of the strongest archetypes available to purpose the bard towards something other than combat buffer and magical diplomat. Magician is simply the best for bards who want to pretend to be full casters, and Sandman makes for a very powerful stand-in for scout/trap finder.
lolwut? Bards don't get self-buffs? What's mirror image then? Or Blur? Or Allegro (at level 4, 3 levels before the cleric gets a haste effect!)? Or Dance of a Hundred Cuts? Or Dance of a Thousand Cuts? Or Heroism? Or Good Hope? Or Vanish?
You're, respectfully, missing the point.
The 3/4 BAB classes that are meant to deal physical damage pretty much all have "selfish" class features that get their damage up vs. what a 3/4 BAB class would otherwise be able to accomplish. The bard mostly doesn't have this. The rogue does (sneak attack), the monk does (flurry, etc.), the inquisitor does (banes/judgement/etc.) and so on. Sure, the bard can get his attack roll up by casting heroism on himself, but he can help the party much more by casting it on a different character. Sure, good hope helps the bard but it helps the two-weapon fighter a lot more. Etc.
(Granted, you could make a decent case that the PF cleric doesn't have this so much either, given that what it can accomplish with its selfish buffs is dramatically reduced vs. 3.5.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lolwut? Bards don't get self-buffs? What's mirror image then? Or Blur? Or Allegro (at level 4, 3 levels before the cleric gets a haste effect!)? Or Dance of a Hundred Cuts? Or Dance of a Thousand Cuts? Or Heroism? Or Good Hope? Or Vanish?
You're, respectfully, missing the point.
The 3/4 BAB classes that are meant to deal physical damage pretty much all have "selfish" class features that get their damage up vs. what a 3/4 BAB class would otherwise be able to accomplish. The bard mostly doesn't have this. The rogue does (sneak attack), the monk does (flurry, etc.), the inquisitor does (banes/judgement/etc.) and so on. Sure, the bard can get his attack roll up by casting heroism on himself, but he can help the party much more by casting it on a different character. Sure, good hope helps the bard but it helps the two-weapon fighter a lot more. Etc.
(Granted, you could make a decent case that the PF cleric doesn't have this so much either, given that what it can accomplish with its selfish buffs is dramatically reduced vs. 3.5.)
Mongoose, I believe the point that Cheapy is trying to make is that he opposes the idea of a bard not being worth a party slot if they don't provide buffs to other members of the party. Nearly every bard archetype that gives up inspire courage replaces it with an ability that helps the bard contribute in the role that the archetype was designed to. Or it gives you a weaker version of the ability because the rest of the archetype is theoretically stronger.
lolwut? Bards don't get self-buffs?
Not what i said. I said they didn't have the CLERICS self buffs, ie, clerics self buff better.
Or Heroism? Or Good Hope?
Heroism does more for the fighter and good hope affects the entire party.
And why wouldn't you play a cleric? Perhaps it's the ability to do extremely well in social situations. It doesn't matter what your charisma is at as a cleric. You won't be beating Suggestion.
Well, if you're going to do it THAT way you may as well have the wizard charm them.
Or maybe it's being more useful than healing and hitting things with sticks and the occasional utility spell. Perhaps you'd like to trapfind!
Everyone finds traps now.
Maybe you want to be knowledgeable in all things! Perhaps you like the spell list better, since it emphasizes active spells, rather than passive ones.
???
Maybe you want to be an archer who can also support!
.. the entire question was why aren't people uncoupling Bard from support. This (and half your other answers) are about.. the support they can give the party.
Sean understands my point. I realize I tend to muddy the arguments I'm making, but Sean has the gist and the spirit of what I'm trying to say.
To BNW, I apologize for the tangent I went off on, since it seems to have confused many people about what my argument is.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
The other thing that Bards are really good at is being flexible. For this reason, I find Bards to be basically the perfect class for Pathfinder Society play. I'm at a table with two Rogues and a Fighter? Awesome, I'm playing healer and ranged support. A table with a Wizard and two Clerics? Trap-spotter and skill monkey, it is! A table with a Wizard, a Witch, and a Sorcerer? I guess I'm the front-line fighter, then.
Being able to easily throw down some buffs is great. But the real strength in the Bard is that he can fill just about any party role if he puts his mind to it.
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?
That's exactly the point here, though. You, as a person, have assigned a role to the bard class. The bard itself does not have a role beyond what a player builds it into. This is true for every base class, give or take. Cheapy's original argument what that bard options are dismissed entirely when they step away from this assigned role, and that this is incredibly frustrating.
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?
I'm working on a rogue archetype right now that entirely replaces Sneak Attack.
So yes. Yes I would.
Why? Because a class isn't defined entirely by one ability. They are the sum of many parts.
For a long time, Clerics were seen entirely as "the person who heals".
And as you, and many others in this thread, have shown, many people still think of the bard as a mobile Inspire Courage platform.
I really do not understand that reasoning at all. It's saying "No, screw you. You can't play the character you want if you desire to play a bard. You must play a bard with inspire courage. Or else you may as well be some other class."
In 3.5, there were two things I hated: Half-elves and bards. Now I love them both. Good job, Paizo! :D
Out of curiosity, what did you replace it with?
I'm working on a rogue archetype right now that entirely replaces Sneak Attack.
** spoiler omitted **That sounds easy enough, at least off the top of my head:
** spoiler omitted **
That close to what you're doing?
Not really, but same idea. Dirty Trick would be quite useful for my implementation.
Back to bards, eh?
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
The comparison between healbots and bards is not of actions, but rather of people saying "X must do Y". A cleric MUST heal everyone. A bard MUST buff everyone. It was a very real thing that many people thought of clerics as just healers.
Inspire Courage let's a bard be a really good buffer, while letting him do all those other things he wants. That's why I get really upset when Inspire Courage get's removed in an archetype and nothing really kick ass replaces it.This opinion right here is the very reason I made this thread.
It's the idea that Inspire Courage is what the class is all about. Tangentially, it's that the bard must buff the party. People pondering a bard character are actively discouraged by members of this community to pick an archetype that doesn't have Inspire Courage.
It's the idea that without Inspire Courage, a bard is no bard.
People like inspire courage:
1)Inspire courage is a huge buff. Look at how most damaging builds scale with attack bonus.
2) Inspire courage is nearly 0 cost. First, it burns bardic music which isn't a precious resource. Second, it plays very nicely with the action economy. There are very few rounds where a character can use both a move and a swift action, especially a bard. In essence most characters waste a move or swift every round and a bard has an option to use them. Losing that option is lame.
I think this is what the poster is acknowledging. A Bard can still make a full attack or cast a spell and buff at the same time. This makes up for the fact that he is a worse spellcaster/fighter than a similarly well crafted straight caster or straight fighter. Trading Inspire Courage away gets rid of that edge. That is a pretty costly trade off.
3) Many of the bard's best abilities function best out of combat. It is great to have them, but when in combat, why not avoid sucking.
One issue is how bards are always portrayed as fops who use lutes and rapiers, forgetting that 'light armor' includes boiled leather studded with iron, or even a suit of chainmail.
Split off here from another thread, to not derail it even further.
There seems to be a decent sized group of people who think that the most important part of the Bard is his ability to buff his allies. Nevermind their amazing social prowess, or their powerful enchantments. Nevermind their wonderful skills with knowledge, and their 6 skill points per level. Nevermind their supreme versatility, that allows a party to be composed of entirely bards, and have all the archetypical rolls covered.
To these people, a bard's main purpose, nay their raison d'être, is just to buff the party.
When will this idea die?
That is actually what they are really good at. It also depends on what the player is used to. Many GM's don't do a lot of social stuff, they don't really give much for knowledge checks. The bard is not built to be great in combat. That leaves buffing. I do think that it is their main purpose, but a bard can perform, and still do other things, not like a cleric who has to choose between healing or doing something else it would like to do.
That does not mean a bard has to buff the party or I would get upset. As long as the character is played in a useful manner I am satisfied.
[QUOTE="Merkatz"
It's about efficiency, and action economy.
Stop comparing Inspire Courage to single use, standard action abilities/spells.
At 7th level, my vanilla bard can buff everyone in the party AND cast a spell, make an attack, use an item, make a skill check, etc... on the first round of combat, then he never has to worry about buffing again in that combat if he doesn't want to. And the buff remains all combat. For the entire party.
At 7th level, your Wizard is using a blasting spell instead of doing something else. And if he wants to blast again, he has to spend another action to do it.
That's what's great about Inspire Courage- the opportunity cost to use it is so low at levels 7+.
Free, almost nigh unlimited, good, quickened buffing that effects the entire party is amazing. That's not the only thing great about the bard, but that doesn't make this any less amazing. And if you are going to take it away, I want something damn good in return.
It seems I was ninja's by 3.5 hours.
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.
I have yet to see that sentiment on online. You have some links for that?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still expect clerics to heal; and so does just about everyone else at the convection when they're mustering tables in a hurry and the judges ask "Who's a cleric?" while attempting to "balance" parties.
A "cleric" who doesn't heal and a "bard" who doesn't buff/face are like a "wizard" who doesn't cast spells or a "fighter" who avoids combat.
-- There are certainly lots of fun new archetypes out there, but you have to be careful how you present yourself.
If you just want to buff yourself and smash face without being distracted by the pleas of bleeding allies, call yourself a fighter.
Yeah Bards Rule! Check out Pike Macky. What in Hades is
"raison d'être" ;)
.
.
.
I agree with a lot of what has been said about Bards in previous posts, primarily that:
- Bards are good at lots of things and can contribute much to a party by way of spells, skills, and fighting.
- Inspire Courage is an outstanding ability. It's a hallmark of the class, and one of the many reasons to want a Bard in your party.
There's a different issue emerging that goes beyond the Bard's role in a party, and that is, "Are there specific roles that must be filled to make an effective party, and if so, what roles?" I was going to post a short diatribe on that topic, but in the tradition of our OP Dire Mongoose, I'm going to make a new thread for that. I think it's worth discussing.
I've got a bard detective waiting in the wings... I think my party will quickly get past the 'must buff' concept.
As a rule, I'm not fond of the performance 'ideas'... Yet for a Sherlock, High Intelligence,Skill monkey, knowledge guy... it REALLY is the best choice!
Careful Planning is nice... but the rest.. ehhhh...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
"I'm the best at what I do, but what I do is make everyone else hit hard."
ahem,
Anyone who thinks, or plays, a bard as a buff monkey only loses the point. Bards just take a gentle hand to run correctly.
To wit:
|
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.
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?I'm working on a rogue archetype right now that entirely replaces Sneak Attack.
So yes. Yes I would.
Why? Because a class isn't defined entirely by one ability. They are the sum of many parts.
For a long time, Clerics were seen entirely as "the person who heals".
And as you, and many others in this thread, have shown, many people still think of the bard as a mobile Inspire Courage platform.
I really do not understand that reasoning at all. It's saying "No, screw you. You can't play the character you want if you desire to play a bard. You must play a bard with inspire courage. Or else you may as well be some other class."
the reason these classes are defined by their abilities is for the most part they are the only ones that get them. Rogues are thought of as the Sneak Attack death dealers, because they alone got Sneak Attack, Clerics were for the most part the only healers (PF has reversed this quite a bit, so good on them for that!), only Bards could Inspire Courage and so on. So when you give up what is your ability alone, it can cause a bit of headscratching.
In many cases there may be a better class option for a build that doesn't center on one of these specialities. For instance if you wanted to instead play a holy warrior that was interested in healing or support but instead of just laying the smack-down on the baddies, it might make more sense to play a Paladin, instead of a Cleric who never takes a healing spell or uses Channel Energy to heal.
to sum up, I don't think it is as bad as "screw you, you can't play so and so" but more that if you aren't playing to the classes particular ability, it may be better to choose something else instead.
|
The other thing that Bards are really good at is being flexible. For this reason, I find Bards to be basically the perfect class for Pathfinder Society play. I'm at a table with two Rogues and a Fighter? Awesome, I'm playing healer and ranged support. A table with a Wizard and two Clerics? Trap-spotter and skill monkey, it is! A table with a Wizard, a Witch, and a Sorcerer? I guess I'm the front-line fighter, then.
Being able to easily throw down some buffs is great. But the real strength in the Bard is that he can fill just about any party role if he puts his mind to it.
Very good point. Inquisitors can also do this.
I said ninja and I meant ninja. You are not contemplating a ninja that doesn't sneak attack. You are contemplating a, to use old fashioned terminology, thief that doesn't sneak attack. Outside of AD&D most thieves don't sneak attack. They steal stuff. Burglar, for instance, is a silly archetype in that it retains sneak attack. Ninjas sneak attack. It is the very essence of ninja to kill unsuspecting people.
Tangent alert: NO this is not true except in the bad pajama wearing movies of the 80's and beyond. If they existed they were spies, poisoners, infiltrators and thieves. The equivalent of the various intelligence, psy ops, and covert ops agencies today.
So lets not make faulty arguments if you are trying to defend your position.
@OP The answer is as more people begin playing bard variants that do not Buff the party, and parties playing with them not only survive but thrive then this is going to be an issue.
Face contributions like many skill monkey contributions don't get validated as highly because its not a save or suck or big damage hit in combat even if they make the check to know what the baddie is vulnerable to. People fixate on those types of actions i first described rather than looking at the combat holistically (let alone the game outside of combat/ obstacle overcoming)