Combat Bards aren't bad, they're just not as good at the things the Bard does best.
A Bards spells, for the most part buff, debuff, and control. His performances buff, debuff, and control. Notice a trend?
Can a Bard buff himself for better combat? Sure! But he'll still be pretty much the worst damage dealer on the field. Almost every class has combat options that will deal better damage than a Bard with Inspire Courage. Rage, Weap Spec/Train, Smite, Fav En, FoB, Sneak Attack, Wild Shape, even the Cleric has better buffs (Divine Power, Righteous Might). The only thing IC has going for it is that it affects everyone (a pretty nice perk!)
So, any other character built for combat will out perform the Bard. The Bard is the worst. That's not to say he is "bad" he can still hold his own, and will be better than a character not optimized for combat, but combat just isn't his forte.
So a combat Bard will be spending anywhere from 1 to 3 feats or more on combat and focusing on Str and Dex over Cha, leaving his DCs 3 to 6 points or more below a casting Bard.
So the choice is, a combat bard that pretty much can't cast spells with saves, his performance DCs are a little low, and he still does half of his damage via other characters, or a caster bard that doesn't attack so much, but with DCs only few points shy of a Wizard's.
I'm not saying that either choice is "unfun" or "can't contribute," and I'll say again than Combat Bards aren't "bad," but casting Bards definitely are "better" if only because they specialize in their strongest area.
|
Counterpoints!
1) Bards are FAR more accurate than Rogues in similar situations, and can gain more static modifiers to damage, which can easily make up any flat damage differences. Same goes for Monk.
2) Cleric attack buffs are better? I've got haste, good hope, and inspire courage running. Even counting only my abilities, I've got better buffs.
3) I totally agree with the statement that Fighters, Rangers, Paladins, and Barbarians are better than bards at combat.
All I'm saying is that bards can meaningfully contribute to combat without dumping their casting stat. (You don't even need a strength modifier, maybe +1, because of all the static bonuses you give yourself).
Add to that that the fact that bard has several specializations that emphasize his combat abilities (Arcane Duelist, for example), and that provide him with tools very few classes have access to (such as Disruptive and Penetrating Strike), and you get a competent combatant (who's at least as good as the cleric :P).
In short, the higher level you go, the more you wish you'll have focused.
*Game and GM dependent.
If your GM is perfectly fine never putting you in a circumstance where your character needs to have combat functionality outside of your role, that's fine. I just find that boring.
Yah, i don't think the suggestion was that a bard should be able to challenge a dedicated martial class at what they do. But that they can contribute meaningfully in the same roll while also being able to succeed as a casting buffer/debuffer/controller.
All I'm saying is that bards can meaningfully contribute to combat without dumping their casting stat. (You don't even need a strength modifier, maybe +1, because of all the static bonuses you give yourself).
Unfortunately, the same can not be said about casting. If a Bard can still be competent in combat without devoting considerable resources, it stands to reason that he should devote those resources to casting where, otherwise he would not be able to meaningfully contribute.
Additional counterpoints! Consider a group consisting of a Ranger, Fighter, Cleric, Bard. Now Bard build A(pure buff) starts his inspire, casts a buff spell and maybe a debuff engaging in 2-3 out of 6 rounds of combat he then stands in a corner and cowers while waiting for the rest of the group to finish up.
Bard build B(Hybrid Buff/Archer) has devoted some of his surplus resources into archery, he has a 10-15% less effective debuff DC, however he has significantly more longevity, and equivalent buffing capability. Additionally he can contribute the equivalent of 2 full attack rounds from the Ranger over the course of the four rounds Bard A was doing nothing.
Now if you had a spell that would let your Ranger take 2 additional full attacks in combat would you scoff and say it's a waste of time you could be spending casting debuffs?
Bard A doesn't have to stand in the corner and cower, with his buffs up he can still contribute to combat, Bard B, however, will have a hard time getting any of his debuffs to stick, and on a successful save, most of them do nothing.
So, against an opponent that is built for combat, (high AC and hp) Bard B will have trouble keeping up with his martial buddies. Bard A however will still be able to soften him up for his combat savvy party to smash.
This all ties back to basic party dynamics. Specialization is Good. A party of characters who are each very good at their own 2-3 things will routinely outperform a party who are each adequate at 6-7 things.
In short, let the Fighters fight. Bards should be barding, (or something to that effect.)
|
In my current game, one of my players is playing the Whip-Wielding Court Bard, and she's quite frustrating to deal with. Just as has been being suggested, she uses Whip and Net, but didn't take the EWP for Net, and just eats the -4 to hit, because she only needs to hit touch AC. She begins every combat with either a spell (like Hideous Laughter), a thrown net, or Satire. From there, she moves in and begins utilizing her combat maneuvers.
In combat, she did something fairly unique, getting herself up to Improved Whip Mastery (to threaten out to 10' and not provoke), but also spent the time building out the Dirty Trick feat chain, including Quick Dirty Trick. At level 11, she is currently able to get a total of -6 penalty (or more) to most rolls an enemy can do by performing Satire on round 1, then following up the second round with her two attacks performing Dirty Tricks: One to blind or sicken, the other to make shaken. If both of those stick, she can keep the enemy almost permanently debuffed between those three conditions. Even if an enemy uses its move-action to remove one, the following round she applies two conditions again. Even if an enemy moves in on her, her whip gives her the advantage to hit them with a Dirty Trick with an AoO, thanks to Quick Dirty Trick.
I'm truly going to fear when she's able to cast 5th level spells and throw around Mind Fogs around, she's even spoken of saving up money to buy a Persistent Metamagic Rod to use her Mind Fogs, Hideous Laughters, Confusions and Holds with, to "make sure they stick."
SOOOO many problems with this post. first off quick dirty trick CANNOT BE USED FOR AOS. it can only be used for a single attack each round and it must be an attack at your highest bab. therefore a charge, spring attack,move and attack, or as the first attack of a full attack. furthermore it specifically stats 1 per round. so you cannot stack multiple ones up on a person without the use of GREATER DIRTY TRICK. the only class i have found that can execute multiple dirty tricks in one round is the maneuver master monk since he flurry of maneuvers specifically stats he can attempt any maneuver regardless of its normal action time. now you come into the problem of there not being any dirty trick weapons. therefore you cannot add any weapon enhancement onto the roll. please reference the errata on this page http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons#wpn-quality-performance
making it difficult to execute a combat maneuver against a decent cmd unless your weapon possesses the property. understandably this is a new weapon and none have been printed with the ability yet probably because of its inherent power.so let your bard do what she wants but by and interpretation of the rules that includes reading your whip user is not nearly as devastating as you think she is.
|
Unfortunately, the same can not be said about casting. If a Bard can still be competent in combat without devoting considerable resources, it stands to reason that he should devote those resources to casting where, otherwise he would not be able to meaningfully contribute.
Sure! If you have a build (say, a human melee character with Spell Focus and Arcane Strike at 1st, Power Attack at 3rd, then grabbing the other spell-involved Feats from then on), that does both that's the best build of all. :)
Bard A doesn't have to stand in the corner and cower, with his buffs up he can still contribute to combat, Bard B, however, will have a hard time getting any of his debuffs to stick, and on a successful save, most of them do nothing.
So, against an opponent that is built for combat, (high AC and hp) Bard B will have trouble keeping up with his martial buddies. Bard A however will still be able to soften him up for his combat savvy party to smash.
That's not the argument that's being had. Yes, if you can do good, focused, casting and be effective in combat as well you should do that. The argument was between a Gnome Bard with Str 5, Dex 10, and maxed Chr and all the spell feats focused solely on spells, who'll use a net on rounds he doesn't cast vs. a more combative build.
This all ties back to basic party dynamics. Specialization is Good. A party of characters who are each very good at their own 2-3 things will routinely outperform a party who are each adequate at 6-7 things.
In short, let the Fighters fight. Bards should be barding, (or something to that effect.)
They should! But Barding involves serving as a backup combatant in rounds he's not casting, since there are gonna be quite a few of those.
|
|
So, against an opponent that is built for combat, (high AC and hp) Bard B will have trouble keeping up with his martial buddies. Bard A however will still be able to soften him up for his combat savvy party to smash.This all ties back to basic party dynamics. Specialization is Good. A party of characters who are each very good at their own 2-3 things will routinely outperform a party who are...
So against enemies that have strengths against my character build, I will be less effective.
|
It's not a change of 2; it's a change of 5. The difference between a DC 23 glitterdust and DC 18 is significant.
For the ranged guy, you forget that about half of shots are through cover (sadly); people move around too much. Improved Precise coming online @ 6 makes Zen Archers / Rangers invaluable midlevel. So on top of the other missing bonuses, you're also lacking important feats.
You also qualify for multishot @ 9, not 7 (or 6 for fighters).
If you front line, you're basically damage + power attack, with poor feat qualification for things like Improved critical. And your armor class is terrible, and you probably put your Con to 12 to get all of those other stats higher.
"Meaningful" contribution is fairly relative. You can play the combat bard (as stated, I effectively do; though feel the Evangalist does this better). They do 40 damage to a not-terribly challenging CR 10, after buffing. I wouldn't even bother taking debuffs at this point (that hit on the DCs); you'd be buff and utility with some pot shooting. Fine till about 6, manageable till 9, bad above.
In PFS you can get away with anything; if you are in a lower "power game" level it's good. And I'm sad to say in the same way I'm sad to point out the awfulness of the rogue, if you're at a reasonably competent table (as it sounds like the OP is) trying to prove the validity of a class, that's not the way to do it. Focused characters lose far less.
|
|
Okay... and the Fighter oustrips lots of classes at combat ability, therefore all combat characters should be Fighters.
Just out of curiosity, how much damage is the Archer Ranger doing to a CR10?
Assuming +4 Strength, +6 deadly Aim, +1 bow w/1d6 enchant, I'm seeing (with your listed example earlier), 3d6+11, plus the possibility of Instant Enemy MAYBE 2 times per day. ~damage per shot at 22, with about 4 arrows per round, assuming no elemental resistance. True, you're more accurate, but that's to be expected.
Again:
How is this far, far better than the bard, who hits for an average of 18 per hit, and fires just as many arrows at level 10?
I'm not disagreeing that the ranger is better at archery. All I'm saying is that I think you're overestimating its abilities, as well as underestimating what viable damage is.
|
|
It's not a change of 2; it's a change of 5. The difference between a DC 23 glitterdust and DC 18 is significant.
Yes it is. The sample build I made (in about five minutes, btw) is DC 19, and goes to DC 20 at 11th, and 21 at 13th, 22 whenever he gets a +6 Belt, 24 at 16th level, and then two more to 26 when Wishes/Manuals come into play, then 27 at 20th level. On a second level spell, mind you.
Whereas you get better at most of the same points, but not 11th or 13th, and are only 2 points better by 13th level, and that only on illusions.
For the ranged guy, you forget that about half of shots are through cover (sadly); people move around too much. Improved Precise coming online @ 6 makes Zen Archers / Rangers invaluable midlevel. So on top of the other missing bonuses, you're also lacking important feats.
You also qualify for multishot @ 9, not 7 (or 6 for fighters).
Avoiding the enemy being in cover isn't that hard with some decent positioning.
If you front line, you're basically damage + power attack, with poor feat qualification for things like Improved critical. And your armor class is terrible, and you probably put your Con to 12 to get all of those other stats higher.
Not if you build right and maybe use a shield. It drops damage some, but sends your AC way the hell up. You also have3 defensive spells like Blink and Mirror Image available.
"Meaningful" contribution is fairly relative. You can play the combat bard (as stated, I effectively do; though feel the Evangalist does this better). They do 40 damage to a not-terribly challenging CR 10, after buffing. I wouldn't even bother taking debuffs at this point (that hit on the DCs); you'd be buff and utility with some pot shooting. Fine till about 6, manageable till 9, bad above.
It's a damn sight better than nothing. And more than half of your foes are likely below that at that level, considering most fights aren't with one single big villain.
In PFS you can get away with anything; if you are in a lower "power game" level it's good. And I'm sad to say in the same way I'm sad to point out the awfulness of the rogue, if you're at a reasonably competent table (as it sounds like the OP is) trying to prove the validity of a class, that's not the way to do it. Focused characters lose far less.
PFS is indeed a very artificial environment. So are theoretical optimization arguments, actually. Actually playing the game (which I did with a combat bard from 4th to 15th, just for example) would seem to be the right way to judge this...but that's so subjective it doesn't work that well either. We make do with what we've got.
|
Dazzling Display is a fine choice to build around. If you're not dealing damage ignore it, and put CHA first then DEX, INT, CON, WIS, STR.
Other things to pick up:
- Agile Maneuvers
- Exotic Weapon Proficiency (net)
- Weapon Focus (whip)
- Improved (greater too, if there's room) Trip & Disarm
- Perform (comedy), for intimidate via versatile performance
- Maestro of the Society (trait, if it's allowed)
- Some sort of Masterwork Tool for Perform (comedy)
Put some cash into enhancement bonuses on a Scorpion Whip, so you can deal some damage with it when push comes to shove. Don't buy anything better than masterwork for nets, anything better is a waste; you should keep at least 4 of these on you pre-folded. Don't bother with enchantment school based spells, focus on cures & buffs for your party instead of debuffs on the enemy. You don't want to risk a successful save on their part.
Each round, your arsenal will include:
- Perform (comedy) to grant a -2 penalty to attacks
- Trip with reach to help the melee guys stab things
- Disarm with reach to help keep someone alive
- Entangle with ranged touch attacks to help ranged keep targets in sight
- Inspire Courage to make allies stab more efficiently
- there might be more...
So against enemies that have strengths against my character build, I will be less effective.
So, against an opponent that is built for combat, (high AC and hp) Bard B will have trouble keeping up with his martial buddies. Bard A however will still be able to soften him up for his combat savvy party to smash.This all ties back to basic party dynamics. Specialization is Good. A party of characters who are each very good at their own 2-3 things will routinely outperform a party who are...
OK, yeah, but a lot more creatures have high AC than 3 high saves or unreasonable SR.
I'm saying that not only do spells cover more bases than combat, but since most of a Bards damage is actually dealt by other members of his party skimping on combat gives up less than skimping on casting
Sorry but you're wrong because if a change of 2 in the DC on your spells is going to cause you serious trouble getting your spells to stick chances are pretty damn good you were already failing miserably.
Also as a side note if we should leave bards to "barding" as you put it then they should be dumped in a castle somewhere to make up songs about the daring deeds of others.
Also Specialization is good, sometimes.
However the more you specialize, the easier you are to counter. This will get you dead assuming the enemy has more than a brick for brains.
For example if you only have 1 legitimate threat on your team (DPS role) the enemy merely has to kill him and suddenly your group struggles with basic mobs likewise with your only means of healing. If you only have one caster and he's arcane a quick feeblemind negates all of your spell damage.
If everyone has some other abilities the options for your enemies become far more difficult.
First, we're not talking about a change of 2 to the DC. 2 isn't so bad, 2 a Bard can deal with, but a Bard is already 2-3 behind a Wizard out of the gate. PLUS a Bard that doesn't emphasize CHA is 1-2 starting DC behind, plus 1-2 more if he favors other stats with his level ups and equipment, plus 1-2 more if he picks combat feats instead of casting feats (An archer bard needs min 4 feats).
So we're not talking 2 points, we're talking 5-9 points, and that IS going to cause serious trouble.
"Barding" as I put it, is focusing on buff/debuff/control spells and out of combat utility. i.e. what a Bard is naturally good at. If your Bard can do this from the safety of a castle, more power to you.
The less you specialize the less effective you are at everything, not just the things that are designed to counter you. And since a party will specialize in different things, even if one character can't contribute as much, the other three will contribute that much more since the monster has a specialized defense.
The best thing about Bards is that even if you fight nothing but monsters with high SR and immune to mind-affecting, you can still buff all day long.
