Bards and versimiltude


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 133 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whilst I understand how bards work, I have a real difficulty visualising bards as part of an adventuring group.

I imagine a group walking along relatively quitely, exploring their way around an unknown dungeon/building/forest etc and occasionally entering into situations where all the party members are fighting for their lives against foes who are equally committed to living. Having one member of the group standing to one size singing an encouraging ditty or playing his flute does not really sit well with that image.

In fact every time I think of a bard the lyrics to Monty Python's 'Brave Sir Robin Ran Away' spring to mind.

How do other people see them?


Don't let the name get to you. The power to charm and dominate and know everything is perfect for a lot of roles. The brave commander shouting and laying support from the back, the dervish dancer putting down foes in a bloody dance, the agent who uses his spells and skills to get by, the aristocrat who rises to power. I think of the bard as being able to be a lot of things. Archetypes only open up more options(mostly npc..)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well most bards I have played or encountered primary in something that they can do with a weapon in hand; comedy, oration, singing, dancing rather than whipping out the lute mid fight.

I tend to think of it more like the bard is insulting the enemy like Spiderman while kicking tail.

Dancing about acrobatically in a performance o death.

Calling out an ancient tale that invokes power that blurs the line between arcane and divine, Aragorn yelling about Elbereth while hacking at wraiths in Fellowship of the Ring.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Bard performances don't have to be musical numbers.

A drill sergeant chastising his troops to excel is a bard performance.

A dancer spurring her allies on to greater inspiration in battle is a bard performance.

A general giving orders to the army at the start of the fight is a bard performance.

A tactician shouting out battlefield advice is a bard performance.

Furthermore, once a bard starts a bard performance... he doesn't have to "stand to one side singing." It's a standard action to start a bard performance, and at higher level this turns into a move action and finally a swift action. Once the performance starts, the bard gets to maintain the effects each round for free—he doesn't have to keep spending actions to perform. His performance becomes a part of all the actions he takes AFTER he starts the performance, be that fighting alongside the rest, casting spells, sneaking around, disabling traps, or whatever.


That sounds like you really want to cast them as hard, masculine generals. That is nice, but it is called "bardic performance", not "chastise troops", "the mighty general give orders" or "tactical commands".

Performance, not command in sum.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I wanted to link an Order of the Stick comic, but that site seems to be down for maintenance right now, so for now, here's a transcript:

Panel 1
Durkon is jumping over a pit.
Elan (sings): Jump, Jump, Jump, Jump, over the Pit!

Panel 2
Roy: What are you doing?
Elan: I'm inspiring competence!

Panel 3
Elan: I use my magical songs to lift the spirit and make any task easier!
Roy: Whatever.

Panel 4
A big scary ogre appears.
Ogre: Hunh. Hunnerd gold to pass.
Roy: Let me handle this.
Durkon: Aye, lad.

Panel 5
Roy: Oh, uh, hello, we, uh, paid yesterday.
Ogre: Oh, okay...

Panel 6
Elan (sings): Bluff, Bluff, Bluff, Bluff the Stupid Ogre!

Panel 7
The team is running away from the ogre.
Elan: I guess he rolled his Sense Motive.
Roy: I hate you.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber

My bard specialises in perform: oratory.

Think of Elizabeth's speech to the troops at Tilbury. Shakespeare is a good source, too: take a look at Henry V (either the St. Crispins Day speech or "Once more into the breach, dear friends ...").

I'm sure you can think of any number of examples from war movies (for a fairly recent example, try Mel Gibson in Braveheart).

Edit: I love the smell of Napalm in the morning ...

or
For a moment there I thought we were in trouble

I'm not sure about "I find your lack of faith .. disturbing", though.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:

That sounds like you really want to cast them as hard, masculine generals. That is nice, but it is called "bardic performance", not "chastise troops", "the mighty general give orders" or "tactical commands".

Performance, not command in sum.

"Inspire Competence" does not requires singing or dancing. Some leaders are great because of how they inspire others. It makes sense to me. It does not even require ranks in perform. The name of an ability should not handicap RP. Just like a barbarian's rage can be focused anger.

edit:I was thinking of inspire courage, but the same rules apply with regard to no "performing" being needed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the advice so far, but unfortunately it's not helping greatly.

Three of James' examples are appropriate for mass battle at the brigade/legion level and I have no problems with those as there are plenty of real-world examples of army bands, standard bearers and rousing speeches.

But looking at the far smaller scale of Pathfinder and the PRD, these specialist roles aren't appropriate. As Gnomezrule has pointed out using any sort of instrument playing isn't practical. By RAW it would be allowed as a free action, but I can't visualise it - the bard would have to be juggling his weapon and instrument to make that work and I can't really see anyone doing that when facing a dangerous opponent.

This leaves vocal (singing, oratory, perhaps comedy) and movement (dancing and acting) based performances, both of which conjure the image of a deadly combat turning into something akin to a Bollywood musical, or at best a Monkey Island style sword fight. Again this destroys the mental image.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Often the bard is not the military commander type, and that is the crux of Hugo's grievance. They could be 3.5 marshals, but they are not by default or typically.

So on they sing and play, and powerful verisimilitude shattering effects come from that. I know I know, sometimes it isn't the dragons or orcs and chests that seem off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bollywood fantasy battles, lol, just spotted that. Ha ha.

Sovereign Court

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

That sounds like you really want to cast them as hard, masculine generals. That is nice, but it is called "bardic performance", not "chastise troops", "the mighty general give orders" or "tactical commands".

Performance, not command in sum.

I think that's what makes the bard so great. They can be leaders while being in the trenches with the grunts. They build morale and push you on as an ally not an authority figure.


The best bardic performance and the one that most people care about is inspire courage. I have never seen anyone use an instrument during combat. You also don't need to perform to do a performance, so there is no reason to have a guitar or flute in hand when you can have a falchion or bow.

As for versative performance nobody(99%) takes the instrument based ones anyway, so it is still a nonfactor.

I am sure in a novel it happens, but not at the table so verisimilitude should not be ruined.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bard clerics can be dangerous foes if they get all those buffs going.

Orcish bardarians (bard + barb) are not to be underestimated as they sing the song of total war, rage and charge, lol.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't really see the problem; music and battle have gone together in both real-world history and fantasy literature since pretty much the beginning. War drums are mentioned all the way back in the Rigveda, and battle cries or chants are attested from Japan to New Zealand to Africa and Europe. Likewise, one can think of the fife and drum corps of early modern armies, the marching cadences of the present US Army, or all the songs that the lead characters in the Lord of the Rings trilogy (the books) are always singing.

Ethnomusicologist Joseph Jordania has gone so far as to suggest that dancing, singing, and procussion can produce an altered state of conciousness that subsumes the individual identities of soldiers in a unit, allowing them to function better as a group and commit acts of violence that they would otherwise hesitate to consider.


I tend to favour high magic conceptions of my campaigns, so I tend to view bardic performances as rather like another form of spell, in the cases where instruments and forms of song less generally appropriate to close combat are involved. The idea would be to work the (Su) tag in the description, as it were. :)

More specifically, I guess I default to an extremely cinematic idea of what a bard's supernatural performance would sound like. I tend to think of it as getting not just the sound effect of the spell itself, but also the soundtrack in the background. I imagine bards making more and more complex noise than any normal person has any business making. If it makes it any clearer, I would think a bard's performance isn't just singing in the middle of combat, but something that can be heard over a fireball going off, or a room full of cultists who have just chanted a portal to the hells open.

I admit, having one's hands full with an instrument in a melee is a baffling image, but I wonder if presence and timing might help. I often imagine the bard sweeping along, surrounded by her or his minions (errr... allies (Grins.)) to do the dirty work. I think it depends on how one imagines combat: again, I tend to stylize it, extending the perceived length of each round, as opposed to how quickly one might be able to land a lucky sword swing or too. Might the Lingering Performance feat help, depending on how long your combats tend to last? I often play in small groups, so mine last longer than average, but that would let the bard be a bit of a diva and then switch to something less immersion-breaking for you while still having the effects of the performance continue for a couple of rounds.

I'm afraid I'm rambling, so in closing I'll just add a literary reference. I always think of the characters Meran and Cerin Kelledy from Charles de Lint's Newford stories when I think about bards, though his work tends to urban fairy tale rather than high fantasy, and I don't think he's done sword and sorcery for years. Their music is just another form of magic, and they have enough presence to cow the opposition to have an opportunity to use it. In role-playing terms, it works best if the performance starts before the actual combat, because the effect may be to neutralize the threat.


It's called bardic performance, not bardic music.

A speech is a performance, a drill sergeant is very much a performer (as much as he is everything else -- it isn't just an act but the acting is very much a part of it).

Me thinks someone is too caught up on the age old, "perform means music means bard with instrument or singing."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I find bards to be mechanically very solid but the fluff seems silly to me.

Wizards have magic du to their intense study of the arcane, Sorceres have the heritage of magical creatures, Clerics are the mortal vessel of the divine, etc...

At least in 2e bards were like wizards. They learned magic due to their curiosity and study. But in 3E/PF bards have magaic ...because?? (the same goes for rangers)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Think about a bard humming or singing the equivalent of Ride of the Valkyries as you charge into battle, the way the commander in Apocalypse Now had the song playing on his choppers as they flew into the beachhead.

Or go watch Hudson Hawk to see a couple of thieves singing their way to success.

Or the dwarves of The Unexpected Party striking up a jaunty tune to help them wash the dishes and clear out Bilbo's Hobbit hole.

The dancing, though...yeah, that seems kind of odd to me, as I can't imagine someone dancing inspiring me to do battle better.

Also, a lot of bardic instruments require two hands to use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you choose a musical instrument (like Orpheus from myth with his lyre), for his Bardic Performance I would just picture him strumming the lyre once and then it magically plays while slung over his back for the rest of the performance time, and he can then fight or do other things normally. It is a magical spell-like ability after all.

Silver Crusade

James Jacobs wrote:


A dancer spurring her allies on to greater inspiration in battle is a bard performance.

I've wanted to see a bard/monk "battle dancer" concept like this for a long time. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cyrano de Bergerac : bard/duelist
Hudson Hawk: bard /rogue

You can also have a bard's bard, wearing tights and strumming his lute, but it takes some player skill. In fact I'd very much like to see a well done novel with a true bardic bard protagonist. KAM could do it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot of people seem to grab Perform (Oratory) or (Sing) or (Dance) or some such as to avoid the problem, but the fact remains that instruments are iconic. I also have trouble imagining a character jamming on his mandolin in the midst of battle. It just doesn't seem right...

My solution for this is to say that a bard doesn't have to continue playing his instrument. Once he's started, he can put away his instrument, as the music hangs in the air, magically playing (on repeat, if you will). Still, that means a bard that uses an instrument has to waste extra actions pulling out his instrument and then putting it away again, before drawing his weapon.

Suffice to say, I'm with you on this one, OP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've played two bards, now.

One was a buccaneer in Skull & Shackles, a dispossessed noble full of flowery speeches and perfect aplomb, even when chastising an enemy. Whenever he fought, he always had long-winded monologues (or dialogues, if the DM was up for it) with his enemies. Very Errol Flynn-ish. He tended to use perform oratory for most things.

The second was a Paladin that took a two level dip into bard. He had bells hanging from his armor and weapon hilts, even from the bridle of his horse. When you heard the jingling of those bells, it was rather intimidating if you were a foe, and inspiring if you were a friend. Even the horse seemed to respond to them pretty well (i.e. Versatile Performance with percussion).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Viking battle cries, Hospitalar prayers, and Maori haka are all a form of bardic performance. There is little doubt that it raises the morale of allied warriors.

Hardly breaks verisimilitude at all. The class doesn't need adjustments, just your perceptions.


Not everyone wants to play a bard that sings or tells stories or dances. When I think of a bard, I think of instruments. I think of minstrels playing mandolins, lutes, drums, and flutes. Why should I have to sacrifice mechanically for what amounts to flavor/roleplaying? I'm not saying that the non-musical performances are invalid, just that they shouldn't be the only mechanically-viable option.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've seen bards get along just fine without a single rank in Perform. The notion that they MUST sing and dance doesn't really exist anymore within the rules.


I like the idea of a bard (or warlord, if you're a 4E fan) leading by example, wading into combat with sword and shield. That's inspiring! Probably more so than any performance could ever be. Of course, a preemptive speech would be covered by Perform (Oratory), but actual bravery (and skill) in battle would be inspiring in its own right.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Gee, it's almost like bards have proficiency with those weapons and shields on purpose, as well as enough BAB and HP to actually engage in combat...

Like perhaps they are capable of leading from the front and being inspiring and all.

WHAT COULD THIS MEAN?!?


A bard, according to the rules, "is trained to use the Perform skill to create magical effects on those around him, including himself if desired."

And yes, I realize no check is actually required for the vast majority of those performances, but that doesn't mean the bard is "off the hook". He still has to perform, which means using a the Perform skill.

That said, I don't think there's a Perform (Fighting) skill, Abraham. Thus, my point is perfectly valid. If I'm in error, please elaborate... because I'm not seeing it ~_~


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's because you can't see the forest for the trees. You are too huge up on what you think you've read and what you think those words mean.

Think about it, if simply 'fighting from the front' was inspiring then the fighter should probably have the same ability right? Maybe the barbarian as well.

Fighting from the front can help someone be inspiring but in and of itself isn't going to do it.

It's that extra something that you do or say (visual or auditory components!) that inspires people. Also just because you are trained to use your skill in performance to inspire doesn't mean you are using that precise skill in the same way you would normally use it when not inspiring people. Indeed when you consider the fact that a bard can use a perform check in place of other skill checks (like using oratory for diplomacy and sense motive) it becomes obvious that while the bard is definitely drawing on an experience with perform skills he is not using it in the same way someone else (without his training) is using it.

In fact it doesn't even make sense to suggest that the pathfinder bard uses any instruments when using bardic performance. Notice that a bardic performance that has an auditory component is language dependent -- which wouldn't make sense if you were using an instrument to inspire people. A visual performance requires being seen, but that doesn't mean you are literally performing prat falls with perform(comedy) in the middle of combat, nor are you likely actually dancing or juggling anything.

You are using your knowledge of how people react to presence and you're knowledge of timing and delivery to inspire people as well as some of the actual skills as other people know it. Perhaps in this round of combat you wait until just the right moment to strike and that inspires your allies, and maybe next round you are so deft at not being hit that it continues to inspire them... maybe you took the hit well and the fact you are bleeding enrages your allies.

In the end it's all just fluff -- the only mechanical part to this is that you are spending rounds of bardic performance to provide a bonus to your allies (or penalty to your enemies) using either auditory or visual components that are generally not tied to your performance skills in any direct way.

So just what is causing the inspiration? Quite frankly magic. Most performances are supernatural abilities, which means that they won't function in an antimagic aura so at the end of the day it's magic and provided you have the mechanical parts covered exactly how you pull it off is fluff and doesn't matter -- if it's with a song, a shout, a dance like dodge, making your enemy look like a buffoon, or simply being heroic in front of your allies it's all acceptable and correct interpretations of the ability.

At the end of the day it is strictly a perception problem on what you see when you read the words not a mechanical flaw with the system.


I think you're right in that the bard's performance is magical, but I don't agree with the rest of your assessment.

You're inferring a great deal without actually referencing the rules. Perhaps I am preoccupied with "what I think I've read", and but for good reason. I care about how the rules actually work.

If you're telling me that the bard doesn't actually have to perform, and that by virtue of him being present, he can inspire his allies--I'm going to have to object.

We simply do not agree on our interpretation of the rules.

From my interpretation, there is a mechanical flaw in the system in that it punishes players that want to use music-based perform skills, as opposed to non-musical perform skills (like singing, dancing, etc).

I do not think you're justified in merely dismissing my interpretation. Perhaps you're the one that is too concerned with "what you think those words mean".


Granted, you have provided that the rules for bardic performance is "language-dependent". I think that is the most convincing aspect of your argument, but still one I'm not ready to accept. And here's why:

Language is essentially the transferring of information from one individual to another. Music does this, but in a way that conveys emotion.

Perhaps the phrase, "capable of being understood by the listener", would be more appropriate.


No, really, take a closer look at the rules.

What is the difference in effect between a bard with +1 perform and a bard with a +30?

In 3.5, where the DC was set by the skill of the bard, it mattered a great deal. That's not the case in Pathfinder.

Which bardic performances require the Perform skill?

Go ahead, count them up. I think you're in for a surprise.


Look at the first sentence in the description of Bardic Performance. The ability is still dependent upon the skill, even if a check is not necessary for most types of performances.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just keep your instrument on a cord or strap. When battle breaks out you can swing it into position as a swift action (as weapon cords allow you to do with weapons), pluck out a couple notes to get the tune going (using whatever action you use to start performing), and then drop it as a free action. The magic keeps the performance going from there.

I probably wouldn't even make the PC use a swift action. I'd treat it like spellcasters and material components, where pulling stuff out of your pouch is part of the action of casting the spell.


That will put the final nail in the coffin, at least for my group, Benchak. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Now all I gotta do is convince them that bards are cool! Haha.


rkraus2 wrote:

No, really, take a closer look at the rules.

What is the difference in effect between a bard with +1 perform and a bard with a +30?

In 3.5, where the DC was set by the skill of the bard, it mattered a great deal. That's not the case in Pathfinder.

Which bardic performances require the Perform skill?

Go ahead, count them up. I think you're in for a surprise.

There are 2, Countersong and Distraction. The rest that are beneficial to the party are fixed bonuses (for a given level) and those that are harmful to an opponent are based on the Bard's level, plus Charisma.

Thinking about why that might be for a moment, if they were Perform skill based then the benefits might be game-breakingly large (even if it was a +1 for every 5 points) or the DCs game breakingly hard to overcome if the bard had a highly achievable +30 by level 10. Whereas the two performances that are Perform based release the party from bad effects so having a massive bonus is not a game breaker


Alright so what happens when the bard has no ranks in the perform skill whatsoever?

That's right, absolutely nothing.

The only bardic performances that care at all about the bard's perform skill is distraction and countersong.

Now they had (back in beta) left the skill tie in that had been part of 3.5 in... but deliberately took it out in the final rules.

It might be a good idea to go to the archived beta threads and read up on where the bard came from, those conversations we had back then can be very enlightening today.

With that said You are hitting one sentence that states one specific thing that has no mechanical influence on the ability whatsoever. I mean I could see your point of view if there was something there that stated that it relied on a specific subset of the perform skill, or if some ranks were required but as it stands a bard's basic knowledge of the perform skill is all that's referenced.

Quote:
A bard is trained to use the Perform skill to create magical effects on those around him, including himself if desired.

You are in effect telling me that one sentence is more important than all of the following:

Quote:

He can use this ability for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + his Charisma modifier. At each level after 1st a bard can use bardic performance for 2 additional rounds per day. Each round, the bard can produce any one of the types of bardic performance that he has mastered, as indicated by his level.

Starting a bardic performance is a standard action, but it can be maintained each round as a free action. 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. A bardic performance cannot be disrupted, but it ends immediately if the bard is killed, paralyzed, stunned, knocked unconscious, or otherwise prevented from taking a free action to maintain it each round. A bard cannot have more than one bardic performance in effect at one time.

At 7th level, a bard can start a bardic performance as a move action instead of a standard action. At 13th level, a bard can start a bardic performance as a swift action.

Each bardic performance has audible components, visual components, or both.

If a bardic performance has audible components, the targets must be able to hear the bard for the performance to have any effect, and such performances are language dependent. A deaf bard has a 20% change to fail when attempting to use a bardic performance with an audible component. If he fails this check, the attempt still counts against his daily limit. Deaf creatures are immune to bardic performances with audible components.

If a bardic performance has a visual component, the targets must have line of sight to the bard for the performance to have any effect. A blind bard has a 50% chance to fail when attempting to use a bardic performance with a visual component. If he fails this check, the attempt still counts against his daily limit. Blind creatures are immune to bardic performances with visual components.

Which are the parts that actually tell us how bardic performance works.

Nothing in that even implies that music has anything to do with bardic performace at all, in fact the only thing we know mechanically speaking is that a bardic performance has an action cost, a number of rounds per day (based on level and charisma) and requires a visual or auditory component (possibly both) despite generally being supernatural in type (which normally requires neither).

Yes the bard uses the perform skill in some fashion to do this, but again -- how isn't described and what's more we know the bard uses skills in ways other people simply cannot do.

Like I said we don't even know what sort of perform skill is required and we know that ranks in perform are not required.

Heck lets look at the actual perform skill too:

Quote:


You are skilled at one form of entertainment, from singing to acting to playing an instrument. Like Craft, Knowledge, and Profession, Perform is actually a number of separate skills. You could have several Perform skills, each with its own ranks.

Each of the nine categories of the Perform skill includes a variety of methods, instruments, or techniques, a small sample of which is provided for each category below.

So we know there are nine categories, but we we also know that each category employs a large variety of methods, instruments or techniques of which only a small sample of actually provided.

So my question then becomes what is the full list of methods, instruments, and techniques used in each of the nine categories of perform and are you certain that a supernatural use of those techniques by a bard that already uses these skills in ways no one else can wouldn't look, sound and be like what has be describe in the ways we are describing them?

Because I'm positive you can act heroically and inspire people by leading from the front, just as I'm certain you can pivot, dodge and strike in a flowing, graceful manner that reminds one of dancing and can inspire people to do likewise. I'm also positive that you can block and insult your opponents in such a way as to make others think they can easily do so too and inspire them to do such.

All because of your skill at performing. Besides what is a performance other than an attempt to elicit the response you want from your audience?


Maybe this isn't totally relative but...
When I ref soccer the best teams seem to be the ones that have 1-2 vocal players that direct and exhort their teammates to perform better. Midfielder's move their attackers around and yell at them to go harder, faster, etc. Goalies are always shouting at defenders about who to mark and if they don't do it fast enough or good enough they get a real earful. A little encouragement goes a long way to doing it better the next time.
Finally, if the coach's halftime speech doesn't inspire enough courage or competence from you, then maybe he's just a Barbarian, when a Bard would be more beneficial.

EDIT: And not a one of them sings or plays instruments. Some of their moves might have a little dance-like quality to it...you be the judge.


Nicos wrote:

I find bards to be mechanically very solid but the fluff seems silly to me.

Wizards have magic du to their intense study of the arcane, Sorceres have the heritage of magical creatures, Clerics are the mortal vessel of the divine, etc...

At least in 2e bards were like wizards. They learned magic due to their curiosity and study. But in 3E/PF bards have magaic ...because?? (the same goes for rangers)

He's a dabbler in many skills , arcane magic among them. He still learns his spells but casts them differently than a wizard in an intuitive improvised way similar to a sorcerer.


Are you even disagreeing with my premise? I've said that the bard is using his Perform skill as part of the his bardic performance (which the rules support). You seem to agree by saying something to the effect of, "the bard's knowledge of the Perform skill is what allows him to create magical effects". Exactly what I've been saying. How might knowledge of the Perform skill be represented, then? Ranks perhaps?

So, what I'm saying is that the bard needs to invest skill ranks into at least one Perform skill, otherwise he will lack the knowledge necessary to use his Bardic Performance ability. I suppose you disagree with that, because you're telling me that the bard isn't actually using the skill.

That makes no sense to me.

Anyways, back to musical instruments. You've said that whilst fighting the bard can emulate dance moves and such, which is fine if say he has ranks in Perform (Dance), but how is he going to inspire his allies whilst having ranks in Perform (String), for example? Is he an inferior bard because he can't move as gracefully? Is it assumed that his performance is somehow unrelated to his musical talent? He's just going to fight and thereby inspire his allies? How then is he using his knowledge of the Perform skill?

Suffice to say, I'm very confused by all of this. My point, the one I've been trying to make all this time, is that I don't think that one particular Perform skill should be considered the optimal choice because of how the rules mechanics work. I suspect that on a subconscious level, perhaps, you agree with me that some options are better than others, otherwise you wouldn't be such an advocate of the non-musical Perform skills. Or perhaps you just don't like musical bards? Seems a shame; they're pretty iconic (even the "iconic" bard, Lem, uses a flute, after all).

Then again, I might be entirely wrong about everything.


Detect Magic wrote:
Not everyone wants to play a bard that sings or tells stories or dances. When I think of a bard, I think of instruments. I think of minstrels playing mandolins, lutes, drums, and flutes. Why should I have to sacrifice mechanically for what amounts to flavor/roleplaying? I'm not saying that the non-musical performances are invalid, just that they shouldn't be the only mechanically-viable option.

What exactly are you sacrificing mechanically?

Well it's a different style of bard. A minstrel won't excel in combat naturally, but maybe he boosts his cavalier companions skills in a joust or tourney melee, or he excels in social encounters or he's just a performer, and/or spy.

The 2e complete bards handbook had great RP advice for different bard kits. It also featured a fame/infamy subsystem which interacted with performances.

All in all a bard will not quite fit in a combat oriented vagabond hack and slay or dungeon crawling group/game though he can be made to fit. A lot depends on the game/campaign's style and the GM including social elements and a social environment.


As others have mentioned, the problem doesn't seem to be with the class itself but rather with how people perceive it.

If you look closely at the rules, Paizo seems to have put a great deal of effort to separate the actual perform skill from the Bardic Performance ability, I'm guessing specifically to make bards more varied and to provide more options than the lute-strumming rapier-wielding quick-witted scoundrel traditional depiction of the bard.

Basically, you need to think of the Bard as the Fighter - a generic class framework you base your character on. Just like a fighter can be anything from a surly mercenary guard to a dashing swordsman to a knight in hulking plate, the bard can take any form your creativity and rule savvy can create.

Personally I'm playing a Dervish of Dawn bard in a CotCT campaign and I'm having a blast with it.

Actually, let's do a quick experiment: Mentally change the name from 'Bard' to 'Leader'. Do you feel better about the class now?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since we're piling on with examples... basically, what a lot of us are trying to convey is that the Bardic Performances can cover the full range. You don't like the militarized general shouting at their troops? Me either! That's why when I play bards, they eventually pick up a variety of methods to do this and I pick which one seems best.

Does the group need silence while they work? Dancing.

Is it a small group of rag tag rebels? One of my bards works as a motivational speaker urging others to embrace benevolent freedom as a path to self-improvement (e.g. Chaotic Good). It's like having a talk show radio host accompany you, except they know when to shut up and can actually back up their big mouth in any event.

Or perhaps what they need is someone to mock and parody their enemies, belittling them to make the party feel superior. Comedy!

Maybe there's a classic tale that illustrates an important moral to the party. Storytelling!

Music has also been cited. All of these can work. Militarized, artsy, smooth talking, dancing... a good performer should have a background in most of these styles and more, and will pick whichever one is most appropriate at the time. Even while the party needs to be quiet. Even while the Bard is fighting. There are tons of options.


Thanael wrote:
What exactly are you sacrificing mechanically?

Action economy. You have to play your instrument each round, which means you can't really do anything else except for casting spells.

Unless you use house rules (like I do), or subscribe to the idea that the bard's performance is more about magic than actually performing (not saying that's an invalid interpretation of the class, but it's one I just don't happen to subscribe to). Both approaches solve the problem of action economy, but without them there's a huge problem with the class, at least if you want to play a musical bard.

Combat is an integral aspect of this game. If you don't contribute meaningfully, which often includes damaging opponents, must groups will consider your character a burden (and that's no fun).


Moving the goal posts isn't a very endearing trait.

It's seems to me your compliant is, "I can't have everything at once" at this point.

You were asking for a 'lead from the front type' and we pointed out how you could have that. Now you are complaining that your lead from the front type isn't a musician.

It's not that I don't like musical bards -- it just seems to me you are asking for all bards to be filling the same thing at one time.

You want a stand up lead from the front sword and shield bard -- that's also playing a flute at the same time to inspire his allies.

Which alright that's flat silly I agree. However he doesn't need to play his flute at all to inspire his allies. How does that work? Magic. Perhaps it's "music from his soul" that the other characters hear and that inspires them. Maybe the supernatural effect extends to the point of making the instrument play without him having it in the normal position.

Maybe it's none of the above and he is inspiring with speak and acting even without ranks in those particular skills.

But alright lets say he's also a musician -- it's not like the bard doesn't have good reason to invest in multiple perform skills already (what with his ability to use them as other skills). Perhaps he has some weird contraption like those one man band things to play the instrument -- maybe he has a tribal spear (iirc) that is a weapon and an instrument. Heck maybe he's a drummer with a special drum that can stand up to sword blows.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter how you fluff it as long as you meet the mechanical aspects -- which is an action type (dependent on level) have rounds left to use and provide either an auditory or visual component.

Please note that a musician bard with his hands on an instrument can still contribute: Bardic performance doesn't hinder you in anyway, so you could be casting a spell at the same time as you are performing (trumpets only "need" one hand for example) -- drum while you cast, whatever most instruments can be handled for a few seconds while you do something else and continue playing. Heck the instrument itself might cover the somatic components (horn waving and pops like marching bands do).

A sound striker bard (to point out an archetype) could conceivably deliver damage while still playing too.


Detect Magic wrote:
Thanael wrote:
What exactly are you sacrificing mechanically?

Action economy. You have to play your instrument each round, which means you can't really do anything else except for casting spells.

Unless you use house rules (like I do), or subscribe to the idea that the bard's performance is more about magic than actually performing (not saying that's an invalid interpretation of the class, but it's one I just don't happen to subscribe to). Both approaches solve the problem of action economy, but without them there's a huge problem with the class, at least if you want to play a musical bard.

Combat is an integral aspect of this game. If you don't contribute meaningfully, which often includes damaging opponents, must groups will consider your character a burden (and that's no fun).

I'm confused - where in the rules does it say that you have to continue playing your instrument or use actions to maintain your performance? Inspire Courage is a Standard Action to activate and a free action to maintain.

And while I do agree that combat is certainly an integral aspect of this game, I don't agree that bards can't contribute with damage, either directly (through attacks and spells) or indirectly (through buffs or debuffs).


Also agreed to what kudaku said.

A bard that drops good hope, haste, and inspire courage on his party at the same time (or just good hope and inspire courage) has vastly contributed already: A +5 to hit +4 to damage +2 on saves +1 on AC +30(ish) feet of movement and an extra attack on a full attack for the entire party is going to account for more hits, more damaging hits and more flat out awesome than most people realize.

I mean that amount of passive contribution is enough to change an encounter and turn even a wizard into a death dealing melee machine (well, at least as good as the monk or rogue... I kid!).

Most casters just wish they could regularly contribute that much to a combat situation. The fact that the bard is then free to continue how he wishes is just icing on the cake.


I haven't shifted the goal post. I never said a bard can't be a leader-type that wades into combat with sword and shield. I said I like those sort of characters, but that there's no applicable performance for use inside of combat. Such a character would have to perform some sort of speech before combat, using Oratory. He would be unable to inspire his allies by sheer force of personality.

If his performance is more about "the magic of his soul", then sure. But I never said that it was. You did.

As a cleric prays for spells, a wizard studies and masters them, I believe a bard uses his performance (and in some cases, music) as a conduit for his. He must still rely on that performance, though, as a means to channel his power.

Thus, a bard must perform to affect his allies (and himself).

My second complaint about the class is that musical bards seem to be less viable. This is a completely unrelated claim, and one that I've dealt with already with house rules. Still, RAW seems to imply that they must eat their action performing their instrument, rather than say, fighting. That's boring and breaks immersion (and largely why I suspect most of my players have never touched the bard class; I've provided them with the above mentioned house rules, to fix this apparent problem, but they're still not interested--that of course, is irrelevant, but illustrates how the rules confusion affects players, and thus, the game).

I think that we're largely misunderstanding one another, and that this conversion has perhaps reached the point of no longer being helpful. It's clear that we interpret the class differently and that's not likely to change, and it's true that I want a musical bard that isn't a crappy bard. I don't see why that's a problem.

I'm not sure about you, but I'm not really interested in carrying this conversation any further. We both like the bard class, so let's just agree on that shall we.

Edit: Ah, I accidentally typed "don't" when I was trying to say that I think that we are misunderstanding one another. Exactly opposite of what I meant.

1 to 50 of 133 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Bards and versimiltude All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.