I really don't know why so many want to cling to spamming thunder call and ignore the other Thundercaller abilities. Yes the mimic spells that are normally pretty bad but read the abilities. They do not eat up actions unlike the spells they are based on.
Start call lightening and maintain it with Virtuoso Performance. Next round Thunder Tall, call lightening hits and you can still cast something else. If you want to go hard on the nuking bard they have plenty of passable spells for that.
My bold.
I guess that depends on how the GM reads the rules, but I agree with your reading that unlike the spell it doesn’t cost a standard action to call down the bolt. That said, the ability is poorly written and any ruling could be made on how the ability does work.Still, even with a lenient reading one bolt per round and (usually) only one target iper bolt s hardly good.
Thunder call, call lightening, and say Discordant Blast (or a number of other spells.) in one round is in no way a weak blaster. On top of that is the control from Thunder Call and Discordant Blast.
Actually I would say they are not only weak, but very weak. Building a blaster is hard enough as it is even if you use a full casters + a lot metamagic feats + the Magical Lineage trait.
Thunder call does very little damage, has a small Area, Close range so allies may be caught in friendly fire, isn’t as spell so you can’t add any metamagic feats, etc.
As for call lightening and say Discordant Blast, they are both weak
Call lightening is just really bad if you want to build a blaster.
Discordant Blast is something the bard can pick at level 10 at the earliest and at level 10 he gets one level 4 spells per day (or 2 if he has +18 char). Considering what a real caster can do at level 10 Discordant Blast and Call lightening is just a waste of time. There are far better things a bard can do. Call lightening isn’t bad as a utility ability, but a substitution for a blaster? Hardly.
As pointed out before building a bard as a full caster is not wise. The bard isn’t a full caster and shouldn’t be treaded or played as one if a power caster is what you are aiming for. They will never get the same DC as a full caster and they will never get the same options as a full caster and they will never get those high spell slots.
Also, as always it only takes Silence to shut down a bard caster.
Creativity and tactics trumps trying your hardest to cheese one ability.
On this we agree.
Personally I would not play it like that. It was just an example if someone really wanted to go hard on the blast. Though 3D8 (or more. Example is low lvl.)AoE stun + 3d6 single target + Whatever other spell you want to cast in one round with minimal recourse use (easy to get a ton of performance rounds.) isn't as weak as you seem to think. In anything but the most munchkined of groups that is more then enough to be worth a party slot.
But How I would use it would be more like a normal bard with a nice SUPER cantrip (I say this because again very easy to a ton of rounds.)
First round would be IC maintained with quickened Virtuoso Performance (through a rod most likely.) and then cast haste. I would also be using the flagbearer feat. I very much love that feat on bards. Now you bard buffing role is covered.
Rounds after that its thunder call when useful along with other spells. Emergency healing if you must. More buffing if you like. Some control spells. I would be hard pressed to find a bard that contributes more then this could. A battle bard or archer bard maybe but out a bit more damage on a single target sure. But single target damage is something that is not really a bards job.
I am honestly getting a bit sick of this "If its not as strong as 9th lvls spells its trash." attitude around here. Not everything needs to be that strong and frankly the problem is more that high lvl spells are TOO strong not that everything else it too weak.
As a small side note I know bard has better spells then Discordant Blast. I used it for example though as someone could use it to set up a better enemy placement for thunder call.
-EDIT- yes it can be shut down. But unsurprisingly pretty much everything else can be as well. So... the point is?
That dealing 3d8 damage even if has no save and is automatic is a very underwhelming at that level and having a fort save rider effect whose DC doesn't scale with your bard level is extremely underwhelming. Anyone who spent lets say... 10 minutes perusing any of the handy class guides in the Advice section of this forum could come up with something much better. Doing this very weak thing twice, doesn't actually improve much, but it makes a neat trick rather than terribly weak.
I can not help but wonder where you get the idea that thunder call's DC does not scale.
"having the same range and area and allowing the same saving throw"
Same saving throw. Meaning a fort save. It does not say same DC. The Dc would be that of a bardic performance. (10 + 1/2 bard lvl + cha modifier.)
If you are going to try thinly veiled insults that amount to "You don't have a lick of system mastery herp derp." You should at LEAST make sure you know what you are talking about.
Still complaining about 3d8 (and higher.) AoE stun that is nearly limitless in use and can be done on top of your normal bard buffing with ease is pretty munchkiny to say the least. Also its SU so it is not subject to SR nor does it provoke.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can not help but wonder where you get the idea that thunder call's DC does not scale.
"having the same range and area and allowing the same saving throw"
Same saving throw. Meaning a fort save. It does not say same DC. The Dc would be that of a bardic performance. (10 + 1/2 bard lvl + cha modifier.
1. The general rule for DCs is:
"Saving Throw Difficulty Class: A saving throw against your spell has a DC of 10 + the level of the spell + your bonus for the relevant ability (Intelligence for a wizard, Charisma for a bard, paladin, or sorcerer, or Wisdom for a cleric, druid, or ranger). A spell's level can vary depending on your class. Always use the spell level applicable to your class."
2. Specific overrides general.
3. There is no specific rule for the DC of Thundercall under the ability itself.
4. There is no specific rule for the DC of a Bardic Performance. Yes, there are plenty of Bardic Performances that specify that the DC is based on half the Bard's level, but that is not the same thing as saying "all Bardic performances have a DC of X"
5. Given that there is no specific rule to override the general and the save is supposed to be the same as the spell, then by RAW the DC is based on the Bard level of the spell which is 2nd.
Now I can see some excellent arguments that RAI should be based on half the Bard's level but that's not what RAW says.
I can not help but wonder where you get the idea that thunder call's DC does not scale.
"having the same range and area and allowing the same saving throw"
Same saving throw. Meaning a fort save. It does not say same DC. The Dc would be that of a bardic performance. (10 + 1/2 bard lvl + cha modifier.)
If you are going to try thinly veiled insults that amount to "You don't have a lick of system mastery herp derp." You should at LEAST make sure you know what you are talking about.
Still complaining about 3d8 (and higher.) AoE stun that is nearly limitless in use and can be done on top of your normal bard buffing with ease is pretty munchkiny to say the least. Also its SU so it is not subject to SR nor does it provoke.
I get that is doesn't scale from the text of the spell. Now you can interpret same saving throw to only mean that it is a Fort Save, but even if we assume that interpretation its still far from good (though the stun is slightly more reliable). But no really 3d8 damage at 7th and 5d8 damage at 11th is terribly underwhelming. By 7 level your melee's should be dealing far more damage to a single target, and fullcasters should be dealing significantly more AoE damage and throwing out equaling disabling conditions. I'm sorry but if using Thunder Call twice at 7th or higher level (even three times later on) is overshadowing your other players you must be playing with a very low amount of optimization, or there's something missing to the story.
If it seems too strong, then have monsters realize this and target the bard more often. Or, better yet, mix in some creatures with resistance/immunity to Sonic.
Personally I would not play it like that. It was just an example if someone really wanted to go hard on the blast. Though 3D8 (or more. Example is low lvl.)AoE stun + 3d6 single target + Whatever other spell you want to cast in one round with minimal recourse use (easy to get a ton of performance rounds.) isn't as weak as you seem to think. In anything but the most munchkined of groups that is more then enough to be worth a party slot.
So people that don’t agree with you are munchkins?
You are talking about a 10 th level character. I have no problem seeing other classes or even other bards making more good than pretending to be something it is not. Both Discordant Blast and Virtuoso Performance are 4 level spells and a bard only have one or two per day at level 10.
But How I would use it would be more like a normal bard with a nice SUPER cantrip (I say this because again very easy to a ton of rounds.)
I agree. It is a bit like a very nice cantrip, but unlike cantrips it eats resources.
First round would be IC maintained with quickened Virtuoso Performance (through a rod most likely.) and then cast haste. I would also be using the flagbearer feat. I very much love that feat on bards. Now you bard buffing role is covered.
Average starting wealth is 62,000 gp. A lesser quicken rod costs 35,000 gp. So no I don’t think a rod is viable options in most campaigns. Considering the bard get both heroism and good hope the flagbearer feat is a pretty lame feat. If the bard plans to use rods the feat is pretty useless.
Invest in craft wand and the bard can craft a wand with heroism with cl 4 or just do what my bard did: get one or two Extend rods and cast heroism on those in the party that need it. I also used to cast feather step on the rogue and fighter.
Rounds after that its thunder call when useful along with other spells. Emergency healing if you must. More buffing if you like. Some control spells. I would be hard pressed to find a bard that contributes more then this could. A battle bard or archer bard maybe but out a bit more damage on a single target sure. But single target damage is something that is not really a bards job.
If Emergency healing really is needed a bard isn’t good enough at it. He/she is better off drawing fire from the foes and as for single target damage. I’ve played an Arcane Duelist and she was a really good damage dealer and buffer and she wasn’t even optimized for damage.
I am honestly getting a bit sick of this "If its not as strong as 9th lvls spells its trash." attitude around here.
I haven’t seen that attitude around here. What people are pointing out is that a bard is 6/9 caster, a hybrid class.
And as a 6/9 caster he isn’t good played as a sorcerer or any other 9/9 caster. Basically, the bard can't compete with full casters on their own turf. The bard isn’t even the best caster among the 6/9 casters. So giving other players (or other GMs) the advice that a bard can be played as a full caster is not a good or truthful advice.
Not everything needs to be that strong and frankly the problem is more that high lvl spells are TOO strong not that everything else it too weak.
No one has said that a high level bard needs to be as strong as a sorcerer and I don’t think the problem is that Paizo have nerf the casters.
As a small side note I know bard has better spells then Discordant Blast. I used it for example though as someone could use it to set up a better enemy placement for thunder call. .
It was a bad example and regardless what spell you choose we are still talking about your 6/9 caster at level 10 vs. other level 10 characters.
-EDIT- yes it can be shut down. But unsurprisingly pretty much everything else can be as well. So... the point is?
You might want to reread my post:
Also, as always it only takes Silence to shut down a bard caster.
My point is that the bard is [the only[/b] class that can’t use Silent Spell.
I can not help but wonder where you get the idea that thunder call's DC does not scale.
"having the same range and area and allowing the same saving throw"
Same saving throw. Meaning a fort save. It does not say same DC. The Dc would be that of a bardic performance. (10 + 1/2 bard lvl + cha modifier.
1. The general rule for DCs is:
"Saving Throw Difficulty Class: A saving throw against your spell has a DC of 10 + the level of the spell + your bonus for the relevant ability (Intelligence for a wizard, Charisma for a bard, paladin, or sorcerer, or Wisdom for a cleric, druid, or ranger). A spell's level can vary depending on your class. Always use the spell level applicable to your class."
2. Specific overrides general.
3. There is no specific rule for the DC of Thundercall under the ability itself.
4. There is no specific rule for the DC of a Bardic Performance. Yes, there are plenty of Bardic Performances that specify that the DC is based on half the Bard's level, but that is not the same thing as saying "all Bardic performances have a DC of X"
5. Given that there is no specific rule to override the general and the save is supposed to be the same as the spell, then by RAW the DC is based on the Bard level of the spell which is 2nd.
Now I can see some excellent arguments that RAI should be based on half the Bard's level but that's not what RAW says.
Humm in fact yes performance does not have a general DC. You are right there.
But with the lack of specific DC given in the ability then it would default to the general rule for SU DC's. Which is exactly the same as the DC I listed.
Just want to say the bard is probably the best buffer in the game. He has some great choices for 'save your butt' spells and a huge range of good spell choices too.
That said...
No he really isn't a 'full caster' type.
WITH THAT said...
You can get away with playing him as such.
Because of his huge buffing potential, and with good spell choices you should still have enough to do each round to be useful to your team and pull your own weight even if you aren't exactly 'as good' of a full caster as a full caster -- you have enough other perks to help overall still.
Silence does hinder the bard significantly -- however several of his abilities can be run visual based instead of auditory (not all, but a decent portion).
|
I have put up a FAQ question here about the DC of the Thunder Call ability and other abilities that say "allow the same saving throw" of spell X.
BTW, we have got a "Question unclear" reply about the FAQ questions in this thread.
Just want to say the bard is probably the best buffer in the game. He has some great choices for 'save your butt' spells and a huge range of good spell choices too.
That said...
No he really isn't a 'full caster' type.
WITH THAT said...
You can get away with playing him as such.
Because of his huge buffing potential, and with good spell choices you should still have enough to do each round to be useful to your team and pull your own weight even if you aren't exactly 'as good' of a full caster as a full caster -- you have enough other perks to help overall still.Silence does hinder the bard significantly -- however several of his abilities can be run visual based instead of auditory (not all, but a decent portion).
What bugs me about this whole thing is the kneeejerk reaction people have. The whole "Using a damaging spell/ability?! Hes trying to pretend to be a full caster!!11!"
I don't know where people get this silly idea. Frankly full casters shouldn't be using blasting anyway. They are much better served with save or die/suck and control spells.
The hate that a bard would use a nuke on top of his buffing rather then shot some arrows or get in a hit or two is pretty strange.
Just want to say the bard is probably the best buffer in the game. He has some great choices for 'save your butt' spells and a huge range of good spell choices too.
That said...
No he really isn't a 'full caster' type.
WITH THAT said...
You can get away with playing him as such.
Because of his huge buffing potential, and with good spell choices you should still have enough to do each round to be useful to your team and pull your own weight even if you aren't exactly 'as good' of a full caster as a full caster -- you have enough other perks to help overall still.Silence does hinder the bard significantly -- however several of his abilities can be run visual based instead of auditory (not all, but a decent portion).
I agree not all party need a full arcane caster and a bard in such a party can dabble as full arcane caster using haste and some utility spells, but he can never be a sorcerer and frankly I don’t know why you should play him that way. It is especially problematic to try to build him and play him as a blaster since even full casters are hard to build and play as blasters. Mind you, I’m not saying full casters should be played as blasters, I’m only pointing out they are hard to build (and play).
@Stome: I think we are talking past on another. I’m not saying that you never should use blast spells or blast abilities if you are a Bard, nor did I promote the idea of a the Bard as a blaster or that blasting is something full casters should do. You and Devilkiller were the ones that started talking about the bard as a blaster. I just pointed out that the bard isn’t a blaster and isn’t really well suited for it. If you read earlier post you will also notice that Devilkiller talk about “Intensified Spell and the trait to lower the metamagic cost of the spell by 1”. These are stuff full blasters use. The Bard isn’t one.
I’m done debating it. At least in this thread.
The main question still remains. How is the DC calculated. Is it 10 + spell level + char mod or is it 10 + ½ bard level + charm mod.
I have moved on to Diego Rossi’s thread and hit the FAQ.
Oh yeah full agreement, a bard generally sucks as a blaster. As a utility caster he can do fine, especially if the focus is buffs and utility -- but that's about the only way he works 'full caster'.
The next best thing in my opinion is as an evangelist cleric/bard/mystic theurge -- that can work... but even then it's going to be a bit wonky.
So virtuoso performance is the way to make the thundercaller not suck?
At level 10 that is his only max level spell. So to pull off what was suggested you use up all of your highest level spells and a good deal of other resources.
I will not do the math but I am pretty sure that a wizard using up all his highest level slots at level 10 (2 fifth level spells) and some other resources (like school powers or level 1 spells and such) will do better than a thundercaller casting virtuoso performance and using 1 thundercall + another performance per round.
By allowing more thundercalls per round the bard would at least come closer.
Frankly full casters shouldn't be using blasting anyway. They are much better served with save or die/suck and control spells.
The problem is that most control spells are save or suck. Most blast spells are save and suck.
Some people (and I'm one of those) hate it when they try something and nothing happens. That's boring and makes me not enjoy what I'm doing. With my witch I tried to find spells that are nor only blast spells but have some control added and are still save and suck. But for most casters the easiest way is to blast and still deal decent damage if the victims make their save.
|
|
So virtuoso performance is the way to make the thundercaller not suck?
The Thundercaller does not suck any more than any other bard (and how much a bard sucks is very much an issue of opinion). I merely put out a viable tactic that neither sucks, nor is overpowered.
I actually like the Thundercaller for PFS because it can at least do some acceptable damage. Since you never know the table makeup you will end up with in PFS, being able to do some damage when you need to can be very important.
At level 10 that is his only max level spell. So to pull off what was suggested you use up all of your highest level spells and a good deal of other resources.
I will not do the math but I am pretty sure that a wizard using up all his highest level slots at level 10 (2 fifth level spells) and some other resources (like school powers or level 1 spells and such) will do better than a thundercaller casting virtuoso performance and using 1 thundercall + another performance per round.
By allowing more thundercalls per round the bard would at least come closer.
So do you complain when your Wizard can't heal as well as a Cleric and your Fighter can't remove traps as well as a Rogue?
So do you complain when your Wizard can't heal as well as a Cleric and your Fighter can't remove traps as well as a Rogue?
No, I complain that people here call something overpowered in the bard that would hardly be viable in a wizard.
I would complain, too if you called a specialized melee cleric op that deals damage that's hardly viable for a fighter. Same thing.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Head over here and hit the FAQ button, please :)
I'll give you a cookie.
|
|
So do you complain when your Wizard can't heal as well as a Cleric and your Fighter can't remove traps as well as a Rogue?No, I complain that people here call something overpowered in the bard that would hardly be viable in a wizard.
I would complain, too if you called a specialized melee cleric op that deals damage that's hardly viable for a fighter. Same thing.
Here's the issue:
The bard is actually capable of doing a lot of damage, he just does it indirectly. How much damage he does can depend a lot upon both the makeup and size of the party and can be very difficult to quantify. We assume that the designers have done at least a rough job of balancing the indirect damage the bard does compared to the direct damage of other classes. So if an Archtype were to be able to do most of the indirect damage a bard could do AND do direct damage close to that of a class designed to do direct damage, then you have an issue of balance. There is nothing wrong with a Bard archtype that could deal descent direct damage, but you would have to remove a good deal of his ability to do indirect damage in order to make him balanced. When the new class book comes out with its synergistic classes you might actually see a bard blaster class, but I don't think the Thundercaller was meant to be it.
|
|
Head over here and hit the FAQ button, please :)
I'll give you a cookie.
Been there, done that. Where's my cookie!
Been there, done that. Where's my cookie!Head over here and hit the FAQ button, please :)
I'll give you a cookie.
|
|
Here!Been there, done that. Where's my cookie!Head over here and hit the FAQ button, please :)
I'll give you a cookie.
Yuuuum!
This thread grew quite a bit in my absence. I'll probably move any further posts to Cheapy's thread since the FAQ questions there seem clearer and more generally useful.
@Zark - I’m not applying a metamagic feat to Bardic Performance. I’m applying the metamagic to Intensified Spell to Thundering Drums, which is a spell, not Thunder Call. The TD spell is a 15 foot cone of up to 5d8 sonic damage. Intensified Spell takes it up to 10d8. Enemies who fail the save are knocked prone. This is a pretty decent damage AoE for a Bard. I was just trying to supply a damaging Bard AoE for you - sorry for any confusion
@Anzyr - I don’t see why we need to compare the Thunder Call ability to a bunch of things it isn't like instead of the Sound Burst spell which it largely emulates. When you get Thunder Call it is as good as Sound Burst, which is still a pretty reasonable spell at that level. By the time Sound Burst might start going out of vogue you can Thunder Call as a move action. Eventually you can do it as a swift action. This is a very nice ability. It shouldn’t have to be as powerful as a pouncing Barbarian’s full attack or a Sorcerer spending every spell slot she can to pump out damage.
If a Bard archetype got the ability to use Magic Missile as a performance would you demand that this needs to be usable 3 times per round because else it doesn't compare with the powers that other 11th level characters have? Wouldn't the fact you could cast Magic Missile as a swift action by spending a round of bardic performance be nice enough?
No not really. A weak option that can be used only once a round is no substitute for better actions and should be seen as such. It is perfectly valid to compare it to other actions that can be taken in the game, since those are the actions that you are giving up for playing a Thunderaller archetype Bard. If Thunder Call is only once a round then there extremely limited reasons to use it instead of Inspire Courage discounting the above mentioned strategy at 10th level with Virtuoso Performance. The "magic missile" option would be a "trap option" much like 3.5 toughness.
Also, I'm not demanding anything, I'm just assessing the balance of the ability and as is it's balanced compared to other options that exist in the game and thus making it it go from "useful niche" to "mostly useless" is undesirable.
Head over here and hit the FAQ button, please :)
I'll give you a cookie.
Uh...yeah... I see no possible reason for FAQing that thread other than seeking to nerf an ability that's still weaker than a primary caster with Dazing Spell. So, I'll pass.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since it wouldn't increase the power of anything, I already figured you wouldn't be FAQing it.
@Anzyr - You're not giving up full casting, Barbarian pouncing, etc by taking the Thundercaller archetype. You already gave those things up by being a Bard. The Thunder Call ability replaces Inspire Competence. I think Thunder Call is at least as powerful as Inspire Competence.
Whether or not Bards are worth playing is a separate question. I like playing them and think they do fine even without an AoE which forces 3 saves vs stun and does 15d8 sonic damage with no attack roll and no save for half damage.
@StreamOfTheSky - Cheapy's FAQ request covers more than Thunder Call. For instance, it might be useful to know whether a Bard can make a full attack using the bonuses from Inspire Courage and then switch to Dirge of Doom as a swift action to give enemies -2 on their attacks. I'd think not since the bardic performance rules say "Changing a bardic performance from one effect to another requires the bard to stop the previous performance and start a new one as a standard action." It seems worth clarifying though.
Then perhaps his FAQ should have asked in general, "Can I start a bardic performance more than once per round, such as when doing it as a move or swift action becomes an option?"
Indeed, that would probably be a great question to ask. I think the answer is clear, but can see the opposing case to be made based on that one sliver of text about doing it once per round.
But that's not what the FAQ thread is about. It's explicitly about the Thundercaller archetype, because some people think it's overpowered. If what he wants to know is whether performance can be started multiple times per round, it has nothing to do with Thundercaller. Either a bard can, or he can't. In general.
Cheapy has two FAQ questions in his thread. One of them actually does ask about the more generic case of a Bard using abilities other than Thunder Call.
Specific Question: Can the Thundercaller activate Thundercall twice or even three times per round (at 7th and 13th level, respectively)?General Question: Can the bard activate multiple performances a round if he ends one before starting the other? For example: At level 13, can the bard end the performance he was using between rounds, start Dirge of Doom as a swift action, cast a spell as a standard action, end Dirge of Doom as a free action, and then start Inspire Courage as a move action?
There might be a guideline somewhere which says that you should only ask one FAQ question in a particular thread. I'm not sure though. Maybe I should post a FAQ request about it (just kidding)
Quick question, is the thundercaller a type from the 3.5 pathfinder? Because I'm having a hard time finding it in the pathfinder books.
edit-nvm, I found it in the companion book from last year.
Well, using 2 performances per round will double how fast you run out of Bardic Performance. Seems fair to me.
Besides, it doesn't seem like the Thundercaller in question is causing much damage anyway. Stun is pretty strong, though.
Been there, done that. Where's my cookie!Head over here and hit the FAQ button, please :)
I'll give you a cookie.
+1
And I left a cookie to Cheapy in that other thread :D
This thread grew quite a bit in my absence. I'll probably move any further posts to Cheapy's thread since the FAQ questions there seem clearer and more generally useful.
@Zark - I’m not applying a metamagic feat to Bardic Performance. I’m applying the metamagic to Intensified Spell to Thundering Drums, which is a spell, not Thunder Call. The TD spell is a 15 foot cone of up to 5d8 sonic damage. Intensified Spell takes it up to 10d8. Enemies who fail the save are knocked prone. This is a pretty decent damage AoE for a Bard. I was just trying to supply a damaging Bard AoE for you - sorry for any confusion
Oh, My bad. Sorry.
weaker than a primary caster with Dazing Spell.
I'mm... not sure how you got to that conclusion. Say at 10th level (because that is a common level to compare).
A wizard using dazing spell will probably be human admixture evoker with SF/GSF (Evocation) and Dazing spell and Magical Lineage for the chosen spell, and Int of 26. I don't know what spell people generally go with this dazing spell, but Flaming Sphere seems a strong choice since you can have two going at the same time (after the first round). Snapdragon Fireworks is another option but can't go admixture with that.But let's go with Flaming Sphere in this case. So, with the investment of three feats, you can cast this spell dazing as a fourth-level spell 6 times per day, plus a potential extra 4 times by using your highest-level slots. Note, using this is really using basically _your only available resource_, spell slots.
The effect:
First round, one target has to make reflex save or takes 3d6 damage and be dazed for two rounds.
Second round and following, two targets has to make reflex saves or take 3d6 fire damage and be dazed for two rounds, or one target has to make two reflex save, failing one deals 3d6 and dazes for 2 rounds failing both deals 3d6 and dazes for 2 rounds.
The DC is at 22.
For the thundercaller, it's probably an aasimar (with FA in thundercalling), having Ability Focus, and Harmonic Sage to allow the effect to last if inside any kind of artificial structure (like dungeons). The Charisma is likely around 24, allowing 29 rounds of bardic performance per day. Each round used will drain two rounds of bardic performance, so can be used ~10-12 rounds while still leaving a few rounds left to do other stuff. It also isn't the only relevant resource the bard has, as she still has four 4th level spells per day (also a bards 3rd level spells are much more effective offensively than 3rd level wizard spells, IMO).
The effect:
First round and following: Everyone in a 10ft radius takes 14d8 damage and must make two fortitude saves or be stunned for 1 round.
The DC is 21 if using the more strict reading of the rules.
Comparison:
Flaming sphere pro's and cons:
+ Save is 1 pt higher.
+ Flaming sphere has great range at 200 ft.
+ Flaming sphere causes two rounds of lockdown, while sonic burst causes one round of lockdown plus being disarmed which only matters for some enemies.
+ If needed, the wizard can use dazing on another spell instead, but it will be more expensive in terms of spell level.
- Flaming sphere does not do relevant damage at all.
- Flaming Sphere will often get countered by fire resistant enemies, and unless you have invested and roll well on the knowledge checks you won't know until it's cast. Admixture fixes this if you know the targets weaknesses though.
- Dazed, while being a powerful condition, isn't nearly as crippling as stunned is.
Sound burst pro's and cons:
+ The damage is high enough to be relevant - while it does not compare to a fighter's damage unless you hit many enemies which is hard with that limited range and area, 14d8 is an average of 63 damage which is nothing to sneeze at as area damage at level 10.
+ There is no save against the damage.
+ Sonic is the rarest resistance/immunity around.
+ Stunning is an absolutely devastating condition.
+ Many more uses per day, unless the wizard chugs into the 5th level spell slots which is the only other thing the wizard gets.
+ Does not provoke.
+ Does not require concentration checks even in bad conditions.
+ The bard only put two feats into it, while the wizard put three.
- At 60ft, the range isn't bad but not nearly as good as 200ft.
- If an enemy is immune to the effect, not much can be done at all.
- The save DC is 1 point lower.
Of course these could both be further optimized but it's still a pretty hefty investment. The wizard used 3 feats and a trait, the bard used 2 feats and it's favored class bonuses.
If one instead goes with area effect or many-target spells for the wizard, it will lose in terms of usage per day and rounds of effect. At 13th level when the wizard could start using more effective spells, the bard will start requiring 3 saves per round and the damage will jump to 27d8.
Conclusion:
Personally, I see the thundercalling as the stronger option. And when something is stronger than a focused wizard that says a lot. It also required less investment, and I feel that the bard is more well-rounded in terms of what other abilities she could have. I mean, this power is in addition to being a 2/3 caster, being able to at that level use quite powerful spells like using a lesser rod to cast Persistant Confusion, which is in the same league as what the wizard could do with her 5th level slots.
If a Bard archetype got the ability to use Magic Missile as a performance would you demand that this needs to be usable 3 times per round because else it doesn't compare with the powers that other 11th level characters have? Wouldn't the fact you could cast Magic Missile as a swift action by spending a round of bardic performance be nice enough?
If the ability to use magic missile as a swift action would keep him from using his normal bardic music (except by spending his only 4th level slot) I would see it as vastly underpowered. While dealing force damage can be useful now and then it would still be too situational to be worth exchanging another class feature for it.
If you could either use it more often or use it in addition to other things (that don't cost a swift action) it could viable.