the secret fire wrote:
Say you're using Oratory (Comedy) to fascinate an enormous, ancient troll who is ready to tear you limb from limb. Let's say you now launch into a Jerry Seinfeld routine. While I might find it funny, and you might find it funny, I have a really hard time believing that mr troll would find it funny.
But...but...they're magic jokes, you say. Yeah, that really helps my suspension of disbelief. Now it's magical goofiness that is supposed to tame the snarling beast. People can play however they want and I have seen the class played well, but with the Bard it is very easy for the flavor of the performances to be both out of synch with the flavor of the campaign and immersion-breaking, all at once. I am sort of mystified that more people don't seem to grasp this.
I think a ventriloquist act with a half eaten corpse might amuse the troll for a moment and get a guffaw from him.
Of course the problem occurs when you run out of bardic performance...
Bob Bob Bob wrote: the secret fire wrote: Bob Bob Bob wrote: Fascinate doesn't use a Perform though. If I'm going to Fascinate a troll it's going to be by jingling my keys and waving them around. Or something else shiny, maybe a necklace. Whether or not a use of a Bardic performance requires a Perform skill check is irrelevant; it is still a performance. The special effect is that the Bard is performing, which can be anything. If you want to jingle your keys to fascinate a troll, I'd say good, that's an appropriate way to achieve your ends, but there's nothing stopping you from creating the same effect with a Seinfeld routine, and that is just the problem. No, you can't do it with a Seinfeld routine. You need both audible and visual components, so you can make the audible components a Seinfeld routine while the visual component is you waving a pendulum back and forth or something. Either way it doesn't matter, this is pure fluff. The only way to prevent this from happening is to restrict how the class is allowed to do things, heavily curtailing player freedom to refluff. Do you include the exact words and hand gestures for every spell? Is every longsword the exact same sword design, down to the hilt and handguard? Because that sounds boring as @#$%. Yup. And if you insist on having only certain kinds of fluff, just talk to the players beforehand. If I find out that everybody else is fine with having a Seinfeld-style bard in the game but I still can't deal with it, then I probably need to either suck it up and adjust my plans for the campaign, or find a new table to GM.
Quote: And as to the bard casting as a wizard, I didn't think so. I thought he was originally based on the druid, which is why he still has cure light wounds on his list. I don't have the books in front of me, but, yeah, I believe the casting was indeed based on the druid. It always seemed to evoke more of an arcane/wizard flavour for me, though. I actually think that the oratory/performance/music-magic thing suits more of a primalistic/druidic/nature-worship type of magic than a wizardy, arcane style. There are a lot of things I like about the 4e bard, but the implied emphasis on being wizard-like is not one of them. It doesn't bother me or wreck anything for me, though.
Thymus Vulgaris wrote: CigarSmoker wrote: Now, inline with the actual thread.
I have problems with the bard but it has nothing to do with the performance issues everyone has been talking about.
I have issue with the bard spell list.
I know the "back in the day" argument is kind of crap, but here goes anyway.
The bard used to be a Jack-of-all-Trades, a little fighting ability, a little thief ability, and a little magic ability. Not really a powerhouse at anything but good support for any other class. With the d20 combat system they can still do a little bit of fighting, and the skill system allows them to do their little bit of thievery, but their casting got trashed.
When AD&D was updated to the new d20 system and everything got an overhaul they threw out the bard spell casting in favor of something useless. Bards used to cast like Wizards, need spell books, intelligence, but max out at 6th level spells. So if you were playing a bard you could replace a wizard's versatility in the party so long as you made good spell choices.
With the d20 system you were put on a spell list that does illusion and enchantment spells with a few healing spells thrown in for some reason I still cannot fathom.
The 'new' list does not offer the versatility that was the idea behind the previous edition of the bard. Most players that played bards now, even without having played the previous edition of the bard, that I have played with forgo nearly all spell casting because most of the spells are useless without the bang of higher BAB or AoE damaging spells. Usually they just fill all their slots with the cure spells and call it a day. Not really what I and the people I've played with would call a "Jack-of-all-Trades" anymore.
I'd hate to say anyone is playing the game wrong, but... seriously? Only heals? No haste or good hope? Those are some of the most important spells on the bard spell list in my little world where every bard's goal is to make the frontliners extra amazing. I understand that, but to get to those spells you have to go through level after level of shyte spell casting and the people I've played with get tired of being half a character before those levels. 7th level to get haste or good hope.
Sure there are defensive spells, but the Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid or the Cleric are better casters of those. They get their spells sooner and then more of them. By the time the Bard can cast the defensive spells those other classes have them out stripped with higher level spells.
Bards don't even get the best offensive Illusion spell Phantasmal Killer! You would think the Bard being the Master of Illusions and performance and Enchantment would get Phantasmal Killer, but nope. Not on the list. Makes no sense.
That might be in part because Bards probably have more in common with real life druids (from what little we know) than Druids do.
Though I personally kinda like 4e's magical maestro style Bard too.
Ashoka wrote: And as to the bard casting as a wizard, I didn't think so. I thought he was originally based on the druid, which is why he still has cure light wounds on his list.
I don't have the books in front of me, but, yeah, I believe the casting was indeed based on the druid. It always seemed to evoke more of an arcane/wizard flavour for me, though. I actually think that the oratory/performance/music-magic thing suits more of a primalistic/druidic/nature-worship type of magic than a wizardy, arcane style. There are a lot of things I like about the 4e bard, but the implied emphasis on being wizard-like is not one of them. It doesn't bother me or wreck anything for me, though.
D&D the original D&D from the 1970's had bard as an odd sort of combination class. You would do X# of levels as a Thief, then as a Fighter and finally as a Druid. It was horrendously complex and a royal pain in the ass.
For AD&D they simplified the Bard to a single "Bard" class. It did a little of everything as I said and the spell casting was Wizard based with a max spell level of 6th. Because they could learn and cast any spell on the wizard list a bard was able to be more versatile in combat: filling a hole left by a downed party member or supplementing another party member's abilities in the field.
By the way, there's a pretty simple fallacy here. I see it a lot.
The bard isn't just standing by and singing.
The bard is right in the fray, slashing and bashing and headbutting with the best of 'em. Or he's feathering the troll with arrows, or he's healing the fallen and sending them right back into battle.
All while singing his epic chorus-of-one, or mocking the enemies, or giving a rousing oratory to inspire his friends to new lengths of heroism.
Squiggit wrote: That might be in part because Bards probably have more in common with real life druids (from what little we know) than Druids do. I don't know enough about it to really comment properly, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Quote: Though I personally kinda like 4e's magical maestro style Bard too. I like it, too. It's sort of a different take on the idea. I would have liked a primal-powered version, too. Wait... is the Skald a primal bard?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Here, let me provide some constructive criticism.
Zolan, you keep raising extreme examples like the "Perform (comedy)" bard doing a Seinfeld routine.
Most people have been raising examples like battle chants, or shouting advice, or magical music (which is, y'know, no different from any other verbal component), or inspiring his comrades in a "always have someone holding up the flag and bashing the enemy's skull in with the shaft" sort of way. A bard who points out enemies' flaws to make his allies feel like they have a better chance, or who sings a song that emotionally invigorates his allies because the song reminds them of home.
Maybe you should stop raising the "worst case scenario" bards as a serious argument. Any class can be played terribly if the GM doesn't know when to say no—just look at paladins! But that's no reason to ban the whole class from play.
CigarSmoker wrote: D&D the original D&D from the 1970's had bard as an odd sort of combination class. You would do X# of levels as a Thief, then as a Fighter and finally as a Druid. It was horrendously complex and a royal pain in the ass.
For AD&D they simplified the Bard to a single "Bard" class. It did a little of everything as I said and the spell casting was Wizard based with a max spell level of 6th. Because they could learn and cast any spell on the wizard list a bard was able to be more versatile in combat: filling a hole left by a downed party member or supplementing another party member's abilities in the field.
Yeah, I was thinking of the weird combo-class bard. Any idea why it was changed? Think it was it just the "increased combat versatility" you mention? Or do was it a flavour-thing (I don't remember specifically what the early druid was like)?
Zolanoteph wrote: So what do I think is wrong with the bard?
I must state clearly that my problems with the bard have nothing at all to do with power level. I'm a part time powergamer at worst and will play anything (even something suboptimal) if I like the concept. My problem with the bard is bardic performance.
Singing in battle
I have exactly two things to say here:
1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLSBNIMDp9Y
2) If that didn't persuade you, then just don't play a bard.
There you go, solved it for you.
Wheldrake wrote: Nevertheless, I can genuinely sympathize with some of the bard hate. If you're the kind of player who takes the game seriously, and tries to go for a grim, tough-guy feel in your games, then it's very clear why the bard is such a thorn.
Because, from its very conception, the bard class's primary function was as comic relief.
At the risk of pointing out the redundantly obvious, pathfinder is a game where you can buy a mithral skillet, a magical mask that makes you better at lying (but is an obviously magical mask that you wear in front of the people you're lying to, who apparently are too polite to ask you to remove it), and where you can, if you so choose, create a character for whom wrestling is a sensible response to an allosaurus.
As an added bonus, that last character could be a teenage girl with a really short skirt and her hair in pigtails, and she could be wrestling an allosaurus because wants it to be her pet and wear a fabulous pink sequin coat.* Or possibly dress it up as a giant pony and teach it lessons about the power of friendship.
This is not a grim and serious game. It just isn't. And making it into one is going to involve hacking away so much stuff it would be easier to just start with a serious game.
*and now I have a new idea for a character
As for being a "tough guy", someone needs to tell you this and it might as well be me: "tough guy" is not necessarily a good thing to be. Worse, "pretend tough guy" takes any of the virtues "tough guy" had and throws them away, while exposing you to total derision from anyone who either a) is a tough guy, b) realises that notions of "tough guy"-ness aren't really important, c) thinks being a tough guy is important but is just a little bit closer to it than you are because they do it in a marginally less fake way than you do, or d) any combination of the others (a and b together is surprisingly common). So if you're trying to get a manliness fix because you're worried you aren't tough enough, then I suggest doing some kind of real life thing. Or getting over it and not worrying about it. You're never going to be rambo because rambo isn't real, so don't worry about it.
the secret fire wrote: Simply put, not all acts in the "fantasy universe" exist at the same level of abstraction. The comparisons between throwing fireballs, executing crazy martial attacks and doing a Bardic performance badly miss this point.
...
But I cannot accept that when it comes to social skills (where the Bard is often problematic) or the vast majority of "flavor" explanations given for Bardic performances, such as "giving commands or rousing speeches in combat", "cracking jokes", "war chants", "intimidating dance", "playing a lute", etc. These activities are not nearly so abstract to me. I cannot kill a man in full plate with a longsword, nor even conceive of it, and I haven't yet tried to cast Magic Missile, but I'm fairly confident I'd fail at that, as well. But I most certainly can crack jokes, dance (poorly), give commands and/or encouragement, etc.
This is a familiar conversational tack, and one where I have a small amount of sympathy with your position... but only a really small amount. Because as it happens, I do have the requisite skill set to kill a man (or woman, or non-binary person...) in plate armour with a long sword (or a variety of other weapons that I would mostly prefer, since swords aren't great against armour). On the other hand, if called upon to tell a joke on command or have my "comedy" performance fail, I would probably fail to come up with something. And then I would lose the character ability. Don't get me wrong, I would love to be able to come up with jokes on command, and I would totally give it a go. But being penalised IC for an OOC failure is just unfair. Ultimately, I paid for that IC ability. Taking it off me is not fair.
Oh, hey, sorry, Ash. I was looking at your name when I wrote my previous post—I meant to address the OP.
Kobold Cleaver wrote: By the way, there's a pretty simple fallacy here. I see it a lot.
The bard isn't just standing by and singing.
The bard is right in the fray, slashing and bashing and headbutting with the best of 'em. Or he's feathering the troll with arrows, or he's healing the fallen and sending them right back into battle.
All while singing his epic chorus-of-one, or mocking the enemies, or giving a rousing oratory to inspire his friends to new lengths of heroism.
Yes, but he's not casting spells. And that's supposed to be part of his repertoire. Previously he was able to dish out some damage with those spells maybe the final kick to lower the bad guy enough that he dies or the next attack from the fighter kills him.
Now the bard can't do that.
And what if you don't want your bard swing swords in the front line with the fighter? If you wanted that you'd play a fighter too! You play a bard, or at least used to play a bard, for the versatility. Now it's stand in the back and sing and heal or charge ahead and sing and swing your sword. No offensive casting at all. No utility spells.
The bard's become a one trick pony. And it shouldn't be.
My grievance with the Bard is mostly that I can't play one as effectively as normal if I'm a Dwarf. Where is my Skald archetype, specifically for Dwarves, that lets them cast off Wisdom, Paizo?!
CigarSmoker wrote: Kobold Cleaver wrote: By the way, there's a pretty simple fallacy here. I see it a lot.
The bard isn't just standing by and singing.
The bard is right in the fray, slashing and bashing and headbutting with the best of 'em. Or he's feathering the troll with arrows, or he's healing the fallen and sending them right back into battle.
All while singing his epic chorus-of-one, or mocking the enemies, or giving a rousing oratory to inspire his friends to new lengths of heroism.
Yes, but he's not casting spells. And that's supposed to be part of his repertoire. Previously he was able to dish out some damage with those spells maybe the final kick to lower the bad guy enough that he dies or the next attack from the fighter kills him.
Now the bard can't do that.
And what if you don't want your bard swing swords in the front line with the fighter? If you wanted that you'd play a fighter too! You play a bard, or at least used to play a bard, for the versatility. Now it's stand in the back and sing and heal or charge ahead and sing and swing your sword. No offensive casting at all. No utility spells.
The bard's become a one trick pony. And it shouldn't be. Archer Bards are awesome. Archer anything is awesome, really, but Bards that don't want to melee will never find a problem with pincushion-ing stuff.
And as KC points out, you absolutely can cast spells while maintaining bardic performance. Even Skalds can still cast while using their Raging Song (though their allies can't unless they don't accept the benefits).
The bard can cast while performing.
Also, you just listed two "pony tricks". The bard is also amazing at skills (tragically, better than even the rogue), makes an excellent archer, a skilled buffer (especially once you hit seventh level), and has a handy mix of utility spells. To say nothing of the varied applications of his performances.
Zolanoteph wrote: With the benefit of hindsight I see all you clowns for what you are. Go, all of you, pile back into your tiny car and crash it into a balloon factory. Weren't you the one talking about "contemptible weaklings" only two lines above this statement?
I mean... those were your words, but it seems like a fairly accurate descriptor of someone who would, say, start sniveling about a few people on the internet not being nice to him and disagreeing with him. Someone who'd, for instance, tell people he wants to see them go get hurt rather than actually put forth any effort to discuss the topic or defend his position in any meaningful way.
I mean come on man.
Kobold Cleaver wrote: The bard can cast while performing.
Also, you just listed two "pony tricks". The bard is also amazing at skills (tragically, better than even the rogue), makes an excellent archer, a skilled buffer (especially once you hit seventh level), and has a handy mix of utility spells. To say nothing of the varied applications of his performances.
I think his objection was more that the bard spell list is lacking in offensive punch, compared to pre-3rd edition.
Ashoka wrote: CigarSmoker wrote: D&D the original D&D from the 1970's had bard as an odd sort of combination class. You would do X# of levels as a Thief, then as a Fighter and finally as a Druid. It was horrendously complex and a royal pain in the ass.
For AD&D they simplified the Bard to a single "Bard" class. It did a little of everything as I said and the spell casting was Wizard based with a max spell level of 6th. Because they could learn and cast any spell on the wizard list a bard was able to be more versatile in combat: filling a hole left by a downed party member or supplementing another party member's abilities in the field.
Yeah, I was thinking of the weird combo-class bard. Any idea why it was changed? Think it was it just the "increased combat versatility" you mention? Or do was it a flavour-thing (I don't remember specifically what the early druid was like)? It was changed for ease of play, a first level bard under the old D&D system was effectively a 13+ level character but it had the Hit Dice of whatever level fighter you were, same with your attacks per round and THAC0. You cast as whatever level druid you were and the Thief skills were set at whatever level Thief you stopped at. It was a real mess.
When they did AD&D you got a single class with all the abilities neatly put together and easy to play. The druid casting was changed to wizard casting because I think it gave one more arcane caster. There was the Cleric/Druid/Paladin/Ranger divine camp and the Wizard/Bard arcane camp. Still way outnumbered, but at least there was another option.
Yeah, I noticed that after posting.
At first level, the bard gets Daze as a cantrip, and Cause Fear, Charm Person, Lesser Confusion, Grease, Hideous Laughter, Summon Monster and Sleep as first-level spell options.
No, he can't hurl fireballs. That's what the Magician is for. Standard bard is a support caster, and he's powerful enough as it is.
It's also worth mentioning that there are several bard archetypes that address some of these issues. The Flame Dancer adds several standard damage nukes to the bard spell list, and the Thundercaller can use Bardic Performance to cast Sound Burst, an AoE minor damage/stun with added scaling damage, unique to the bard.
Kobold Cleaver wrote: Here, let me provide some constructive criticism.
Ashoka, you keep raising extreme examples like the "Perform (comedy)" bard doing a Seinfeld routine.
Most people have been raising examples like battle chants, or shouting advice, or magical music (which is, y'know, no different from any other verbal component), or inspiring his comrades in a "always have someone holding up the flag and bashing the enemy's skull in with the shaft" sort of way.
Maybe you should stop raising the "worst case scenario" bards as a serious argument. Any class can be played terribly if the GM doesn't know when to say no—just look at paladins! But that's no reason to ban the whole class from play.
Oh no, this isn't at all what I was trying to say. I'm sorry if anything came across like this.
The Seinfeld example came from somebody else and I was actually trying to support the idea that people should be allowed to play whatever type of bard they want. And stand-up isn't what I think of when I picture a bard doing some sort of performance-thing in combat, anyway. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I picture stuff more like capoeira, war chants, inspiring speeches, religious recitations, tactical commands/advice, etc.
In the case of comedy, I've usually pictured it more like infuriating insults (or biting satire, if the enemy is intelligent enough to get that sort of thing) -- not necessarily ha-ha funny, per se, but using elements of humour. Kind of like various training scenes in movies, where the grizzled veteran is giving the young hero his first fighting lessons and keeps goading the young kid into making dumb mistakes and disregarding tactics, etc. Except more vicious and violent.
Ventnor wrote: Physically Unfeasible wrote: the secret fire wrote: Physically Unfeasible wrote: To the Mary Sue thing - I just don't see that either. Sure, the Bard solves most skill challenges, but the battle skills and tone suggest a support character. With Mary Sue being, in its origins, a power-play/self-insertion - I just do not see it. Who Mary Sues as Luigi when Mario is an option? The accusation of Mary Sue in regards to the Bard class probably revolves around the fact that the Bard is the clearest "everybody loves me" class in the game. To the extent that you think this particular form of power would be more attractive to Mary Sues, I can see the argument, though I do not find it compelling. Mary Sues comes in all stripes, as far as I can tell. You're right with this, really. But I just think Paladin works far better if you want the ultimate "I am the amazing-est, loveliest, strongest!" power-trip. Heck, your class has it written in that you're a paragon of goodness that people should strive to! The most mary-sueist class of them all is either the Wizard or the Arcanist. They can make people love them, they can smite people with meteors from the heavens, and they can assume any "inner animal" form that they desire. And they don't need to justify any of those abilities at all, because magic.
Heck, Arcanists can get a super-special talking katana if they want one. My wizards hat is actually a glamered fedora.
Kobold Cleaver wrote: Oh, hey, sorry, Ash. I was looking at your name when I wrote my previous post—I meant to address the OP. That's all cool. I replied before seeing this post, but there's no problems on my end.
Kobold Cleaver wrote: By the way, there's a pretty simple fallacy here. I see it a lot.
The bard isn't just standing by and singing.
The bard is right in the fray, slashing and bashing and headbutting with the best of 'em. Or he's feathering the troll with arrows, or he's healing the fallen and sending them right back into battle.
All while singing his epic chorus-of-one, or mocking the enemies, or giving a rousing oratory to inspire his friends to new lengths of heroism.
Well, to be honest, if you are a Chelish Deva or a Soundstriker, you probably ARE sitting in the back doing performances... its just that your performance is LITERALLY hurting the enemy... (i always imagine this like reading the US tax law Codes....)
K177Y C47 wrote: Kobold Cleaver wrote: By the way, there's a pretty simple fallacy here. I see it a lot.
The bard isn't just standing by and singing.
The bard is right in the fray, slashing and bashing and headbutting with the best of 'em. Or he's feathering the troll with arrows, or he's healing the fallen and sending them right back into battle.
All while singing his epic chorus-of-one, or mocking the enemies, or giving a rousing oratory to inspire his friends to new lengths of heroism.
Well, to be honest, if you are a Chelish Deva or a Soundstriker, you probably ARE sitting in the back doing performances... its just that your performance is LITERALLY hurting the enemy... (i always imagine this like reading the US tax law Codes....) If you're an archaeologist you don't even have performances. You have badass points.
Kobold Cleaver wrote: The bard can cast while performing.
Also, you just listed two "pony tricks". The bard is also amazing at skills (tragically, better than even the rogue), makes an excellent archer, a skilled buffer (especially once you hit seventh level), and has a handy mix of utility spells. To say nothing of the varied applications of his performances.
Sure he can cast while he's performing provided the spell doesn't have a verbal component while he's singing. Or a somatic component while he's playing an instrument. Your voice and hands cannot be otherwise engaged to cast a spell.
Any class using Dex makes an excellent archer.
The issue is GETTING to 7th level. The players I've played with and myself included became very bored with combat as a bard.
Sure your skills make sure you KNOW EVERYTHING, literally everything. There's not a knowledge check you can't make, but that doesn't help you nearly as much as you'd think in combat. Knowing the thing you're fighting take extra damage from X doesn't help unless you can cast something that does X. And if your Wizard is loaded up with different damage and utility spells? Guess you're doing it the hard way. If you as the bard were carrying those utility spells or some sort of typed damage spell to cover those areas the Wizard can't for whatever reason that helps the party a hell of a lot more than the tiny moral buff to attack and damage the bard gives.
A little history:
In AD&D 1st edition, the bard used the "Character With Two Classes" rules (which was a different thing than a multiclassed character). The character had to start as a fighter for 5-8 levels, then change to thief for another 5-9 levels and finally change to druid, which made them actually a bard being instructed by druids. They cast spells up to 4th level using the druid spell list.
In AD&D 2nd edition the bard became a standalone class under the rogue heading (alongside thief). They could cast spells up to 6th level, using the wizard spell list. Also like wizards, bards kept spell books, which they had to study in order to prepare their spells.
In 3.0 bards gained the ability to cast arcane spells without preparing them first. That was also when bards for the first time got their own spell list, again extending up to 6th level, and became the only arcane casters with access to Cure spells.
CigarSmoker wrote: Kobold Cleaver wrote: The bard can cast while performing.
Also, you just listed two "pony tricks". The bard is also amazing at skills (tragically, better than even the rogue), makes an excellent archer, a skilled buffer (especially once you hit seventh level), and has a handy mix of utility spells. To say nothing of the varied applications of his performances.
Sure he can cast while he's performing provided the spell doesn't have a verbal component while he's singing. Or a somatic component while he's playing an instrument. Your voice and hands cannot be otherwise engaged to cast a spell. Is there a rule that actually says a bard's singing can't be the verbal component of a spell, or that playing an instrument and/or dancing can't be the somatic component, or is that just your interpretation?
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
to me bards are people who do this.
CigarSmoker wrote: Kobold Cleaver wrote: The bard can cast while performing.
Also, you just listed two "pony tricks". The bard is also amazing at skills (tragically, better than even the rogue), makes an excellent archer, a skilled buffer (especially once you hit seventh level), and has a handy mix of utility spells. To say nothing of the varied applications of his performances.
Sure he can cast while he's performing provided the spell doesn't have a verbal component while he's singing. Or a somatic component while he's playing an instrument. Your voice and hands cannot be otherwise engaged to cast a spell. Sorry, but that's incorrect. Look at the context of James Jacobs's post.
Oh and for those saying bards are not the Mary Sue of all classes... the Chelish Deva I think takes the cake xD
CigarSmoker wrote:
Sure he can cast while he's performing provided the spell doesn't have a verbal component while he's singing. Or a somatic component while he's playing an instrument. Your voice and hands cannot be otherwise engaged to cast a spell.
This is false. It's flatly stated and intended for the bard to be able to use spells while performing. James jacob even said so in the thread stating it.
Quote:
Sure your skills make sure you KNOW EVERYTHING, literally everything. There's not a knowledge check you can't make, but that doesn't help you nearly as much as you'd think in combat. Knowing the thing you're fighting take extra damage from X doesn't help unless you can cast something that does X. And if your Wizard is loaded up with different damage and utility spells? Guess you're doing it the hard way. If you as the bard were carrying those utility spells or some sort of typed damage spell to cover those areas the Wizard can't for whatever reason that helps the party a hell of a lot more than the tiny moral buff to attack and damage the bard gives.
Competence buff actually. Morale is a different bonus. The actual size of the bonus is relative to however many characters use it.
Also, it sounds less like a problem with the bard and more like a problem of not knowing what you're doing with him.
Kobold Cleaver wrote: CigarSmoker wrote: Kobold Cleaver wrote: The bard can cast while performing.
Also, you just listed two "pony tricks". The bard is also amazing at skills (tragically, better than even the rogue), makes an excellent archer, a skilled buffer (especially once you hit seventh level), and has a handy mix of utility spells. To say nothing of the varied applications of his performances.
Sure he can cast while he's performing provided the spell doesn't have a verbal component while he's singing. Or a somatic component while he's playing an instrument. Your voice and hands cannot be otherwise engaged to cast a spell. Sorry, but that's incorrect. Look at the context of James Jacobs's post. That's not taking into account the rules for spell casting. The rules for spell casting say that if you can't speak the words of the spell or perform the hand gestures for the spell you can't cast the spell.
Page 213 from the Core Rule Book:
Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.
CigarSmoker wrote: Kobold Cleaver wrote: CigarSmoker wrote: Kobold Cleaver wrote: The bard can cast while performing.
Also, you just listed two "pony tricks". The bard is also amazing at skills (tragically, better than even the rogue), makes an excellent archer, a skilled buffer (especially once you hit seventh level), and has a handy mix of utility spells. To say nothing of the varied applications of his performances.
Sure he can cast while he's performing provided the spell doesn't have a verbal component while he's singing. Or a somatic component while he's playing an instrument. Your voice and hands cannot be otherwise engaged to cast a spell. Sorry, but that's incorrect. Look at the context of James Jacobs's post. That's not taking into account the rules for spell casting. The rules for spell casting say that if you can't speak the words of the spell or perform the hand gestures for the spell you can't cast the spell.
Page 213 from the Core Rule Book:
Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.
The assumption is that a bard can do things like weave spellcasting into his performance. Because, you know, performers can often do two things at once.
TarkXT wrote: CigarSmoker wrote:
Sure he can cast while he's performing provided the spell doesn't have a verbal component while he's singing. Or a somatic component while he's playing an instrument. Your voice and hands cannot be otherwise engaged to cast a spell.
This is false. It's flatly stated and intended for the bard to be able to use spells while performing. James jacob even said so in the thread stating it.
Quote:
Sure your skills make sure you KNOW EVERYTHING, literally everything. There's not a knowledge check you can't make, but that doesn't help you nearly as much as you'd think in combat. Knowing the thing you're fighting take extra damage from X doesn't help unless you can cast something that does X. And if your Wizard is loaded up with different damage and utility spells? Guess you're doing it the hard way. If you as the bard were carrying those utility spells or some sort of typed damage spell to cover those areas the Wizard can't for whatever reason that helps the party a hell of a lot more than the tiny moral buff to attack and damage the bard gives.
Competence buff actually. Morale is a different bonus. The actual size of the bonus is relative to however many characters use it.
Also, it sounds less like a problem with the bard and more like a problem of not knowing what you're doing with him. Sorry I thought I knew the buff type. I didn't double check in the book and I should have. My bad!
I know exactly what to do with the current bard, but it only works in a home brew sort of way: Change the spell list to something that works. :D
But seriously, my problem with the bard is still what I stated: The loss of spell casting versatility and damage from AD&D to 3.0 that was continued up through pathfinder.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
hmm, I read more, I simply cannot be in the same group as someone who actually tries to lute mid-battle, i simply find it immersion breaking.
Pretty simple really, if someone starts doing "bard" things to enemies, i'm out.
Also, people keep saying that it's based on history and mythology, I can only think of one(/two) culture that had something like a bard in it's mythology, and that would be GrecoRoman, there was that guy who went down into Hades and tried to get his wife back, and then of course Pan and Pan-like creatures.
beyond that, bards never had any exceptional ability to influence people. sure something called the bard existed, but they did not behave like a bard in pathfinder.
TarkXT wrote: CigarSmoker wrote: Kobold Cleaver wrote: CigarSmoker wrote: Kobold Cleaver wrote: The bard can cast while performing.
Also, you just listed two "pony tricks". The bard is also amazing at skills (tragically, better than even the rogue), makes an excellent archer, a skilled buffer (especially once you hit seventh level), and has a handy mix of utility spells. To say nothing of the varied applications of his performances.
Sure he can cast while he's performing provided the spell doesn't have a verbal component while he's singing. Or a somatic component while he's playing an instrument. Your voice and hands cannot be otherwise engaged to cast a spell. Sorry, but that's incorrect. Look at the context of James Jacobs's post. That's not taking into account the rules for spell casting. The rules for spell casting say that if you can't speak the words of the spell or perform the hand gestures for the spell you can't cast the spell.
Page 213 from the Core Rule Book:
Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.
The assumption is that a bard can do things like weave spellcasting into his performance. Because, you know, performers can often do two things at once. So, you can sing two different words at the same time?
One of which is an arcane amalgam of consonants and vowels with odd inflections and tonal qualities, and the other is some single word that would inspire your comrades.
The mouth, tongue, and voice box don't work like that.
And while you're doing that you've stopped playing your instrument, an integral part of your perform skill, to wave your hand about in the minute and intricate gestures of a spell.
I don't think so.
Bandw2 wrote: hmm, I read more, I simply cannot be in the same group as someone who actually tries to lute mid-battle, i simply find it immersion breaking.
Pretty simple really, if someone starts doing "bard" things to enemies, i'm out.
Also, people keep saying that it's based on history and mythology, I can only think of one(/two) culture that had something like a bard in it's mythology, and that would be GrecoRoman, there was that guy who went down into Hades and tried to get his wife back, and then of course Pan and Pan-like creatures.
beyond that, bards never had any exceptional ability to influence people. sure something called the bard existed, but they did not behave like a bard in pathfinder.
Did old timey wizards behave like Pathfinder Wizards.
I didn't include a question mark because I already know the answer.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
CigarSmoker wrote: TarkXT wrote: stuff So, you can sing two different words at the same time?
One of which is an arcane amalgam of consonants and vowels with odd inflections and tonal qualities, and the other is some single word that would inspire your comrades.
The mouth, tongue, and voice box... more like his song now is being said in spell lingo, but keeping the tune, his dance changes to have the correct movements at the correct times.
Bandw2 wrote: beyond that, bards never had any exceptional ability to influence people.
FFS who do you think were the people going from village to village telling these mythologies, sharing these stories, passing on the tales from one dirty village to another for some hospitality and a warm bed?
They weren't part of the stories because it's rude to put yourself in one. BEcause they didn't want to hear about how Rolfgar Harlsson had to put down his horse on the way to the village and had to run like hell from a group of bandits accosting him on the road. They wanted to hear how Loki convinced Thor to crossdress to get his hammer back, or how a warrior dressed in an armor of rainbow colors laid with a thousand nymphs.
These people fascinate historians purely because they performed a function both remarkable and difficult at a time where a lot of people never traveled more than a days distance from their village.
CigarSmoker wrote: TarkXT wrote: CigarSmoker wrote: Kobold Cleaver wrote: CigarSmoker wrote: Kobold Cleaver wrote: The bard can cast while performing.
Also, you just listed two "pony tricks". The bard is also amazing at skills (tragically, better than even the rogue), makes an excellent archer, a skilled buffer (especially once you hit seventh level), and has a handy mix of utility spells. To say nothing of the varied applications of his performances.
Sure he can cast while he's performing provided the spell doesn't have a verbal component while he's singing. Or a somatic component while he's playing an instrument. Your voice and hands cannot be otherwise engaged to cast a spell. Sorry, but that's incorrect. Look at the context of James Jacobs's post. That's not taking into account the rules for spell casting. The rules for spell casting say that if you can't speak the words of the spell or perform the hand gestures for the spell you can't cast the spell.
Page 213 from the Core Rule Book:
Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.
The assumption is that a bard can do things like weave spellcasting into his performance. Because, you know, performers can often do two things at once. So, you can sing two different words at the same time?
One of which is an arcane amalgam of consonants and vowels with odd inflections and tonal qualities, and the other is some single word that would inspire your comrades.
The mouth, tongue, and voice box... Show me visual components and the rules for them. While you are at it show me auditory components. Then show me where it says either of those are somatic or verbal or prevent you from using somatic or verbal components.
Good luck with that.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
DominusMegadeus wrote: Bandw2 wrote: hmm, I read more, I simply cannot be in the same group as someone who actually tries to lute mid-battle, i simply find it immersion breaking.
Pretty simple really, if someone starts doing "bard" things to enemies, i'm out.
Also, people keep saying that it's based on history and mythology, I can only think of one(/two) culture that had something like a bard in it's mythology, and that would be GrecoRoman, there was that guy who went down into Hades and tried to get his wife back, and then of course Pan and Pan-like creatures.
beyond that, bards never had any exceptional ability to influence people. sure something called the bard existed, but they did not behave like a bard in pathfinder.
Did old timey wizards behave like Pathfinder Wizards.
I didn't include a question mark because I already know the answer. no but mythological wizards did, there aren't really mythological bards. So, if I can understand casting a fireball requires doing specific things that make the universe hick-up out a fireball, and that fire hurts people, my immersion is fine. However, songs and dance giving my character a constant bonus to attacking, a bit more confuddled.
|
