I remember in normal 3.X they were really weak and hardly anyone played them. Are they worth playing in Pathfinder?
Very much yes.
Yeah, but they still don't have much for offensive power. They make a great 5th player class.
In magic, they can heal with cure spells, screw up enemies easily but not kill them, they've got lots of skills (so most of them have a high intelligence, charisma and dexterity). I think they even have some buff spells.
I dont get where you think bards can't kill. I mean, they literally can sing people to death.
Most players never get that high level a character. Bards can't do direct damage, and their spells don't do the whole "save or die" thing.
Never knew they could do decent archery though. The last guy to play a Bard in my game was Giantslayer, and he had a tweaked out heavy repeating crossbow (+5, Holy, Bane (giant), and I think the infinite ammo enchantment.
Bards are excellent arcane warriors. Arcane strike keeps damage up. 3/4 bab + scaling buff from inspire courage + spells means accuracy is great too. With the armor expert trait they can wear mithril breastplate with no penalties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like most classes in the conversion from 3.5 to PF, they raised the floor and lowered the ceiling. It's easier to make a competent Bard in Pathfinder but you're wrong that they were weak in 3.5. It's just that, like every class in 3.5, they unlocked a lot of their power through prestige classes. 3.5 Bards did stuff like Inspire Courage for +10 or cast up to 9th level spells and effectively outdo the Sorcerer (or both). PF Bards don't get that powerful but their basic set up is a lot stronger out of the gate and better suited to playing the Bard in the way most people believe the Bard is supposed to be played*.
FWIW, even 3.5 Core, I'd probably play a Bard over a Sorcerer or Rogue. They do the skillmonkey thing pretty close to Rogue standards and do battlefield control just as well as a Sorc until level 8ish without being as useless out of combat and liable to die. After a point, they begin blowing the Rogue out of the water in the skills department because of how much better it is to have magic, and they're debatably better than a Sorc at support casting at any level. They're easily the 5th most powerful class in the PHB and I'd personally rank them as being more powerful than Sorcerer for the first 5 levels and as being on pretty even footing for 6-10.
I think if you find 3.5 Bard weak, you'll find PF Bard weak, tbh. Unless swift action Inspire Courage and no more "0 spells per day unless you have the Charisma to cast them" is worth that much to you.
*As a charismatic swashbuckler type who does skills and spells decently enough. Obvious caveat of "supposed to be played" being subject to personal opinions.
Most players never get that high level a character. Bards can't do direct damage.There are so many archery and two weapon fighting bard builds out there how can you say they can not do direct damage?
Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Burning Hands. Direct damage is a term used to indicate damaging spells.
Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Burning Hands. Direct damage is a term used to indicate damaging spells.Most players never get that high level a character. Bards can't do direct damage.There are so many archery and two weapon fighting bard builds out there how can you say they can not do direct damage?
There are bard archetypes that do all that while using a bow.
Haste is just more efficient.
My very first character was a bard. Granted, she died right after reaching level 2, but that was more of my not understanding all the rules yet and less of what her class was. I rebuilt her later and she's a lot better. I focused on combat maneuvers like trip and disarm as well as her knowledge skills so she's not a heavy hitter, but she's great at backing up her teammates even with her archetype replacing bardic performance.
I think most Bards in PF tend to have a focus in Charisma, then Intelligence and Dexterity. Typically Wisdom and Strength tend to be dump stats. I always tell them as DM that they're better off using missile weapons instead of melee with their generally bad AC ratings, but hey, whatever they want.
There's an aasimar variant called Azata blooded/Musetouched that works wonderfully for Bards, as do Halflings.
"Better" than what exactly? My bard in AD&D was straight up awesome. Old school bards are the real bards. Fighter. Thief. Then bard.
"Better" than what exactly? My bard in AD&D was straight up awesome. Old school bards are the real bards. Fighter. Thief. Then bard.
Didn't you need druid in there somewhere, too?
No. Bards accessed the druid spell list.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bards deal lots of damage. They just do it via their friends' weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but they still don't have much for offensive power. They make a great 5th player class.
Ok, first, strict party role seperation is actually suboptimal in Pathfinder, and second, Bard is one of the best skillmonkey classes in the game (second only to the Investigator). And if 6+int skills/level plus versatile performance isn't enough for you, there's the Chronicler of Worlds archetype that shifts the Bard's focus from charisma to intelligence.
Furthermore, there's an archetype for dwarfen Bards that changes the key ability score to wisdom, and replaces Inspire Courage with a performance that transfers combat feats to the party (ignoring prereqs, RAW).If you want more focus on combat prowess over skills, there's also Bard's angry brother, the Skald. My current campaign includes a Skald of my own creation that combines Desna's Shooting Star with Lesser Spirit Totem to do even more damage, both directly and via party.
I'd rather have a Rogue along than a Bard if I had a choice, thanks.
Second, as GM I don't allow anything from the ACG. It's precisely the sort of thing you cite that makes me disallow them.
I'd rather have a Rogue along than a Bard if I had a choice, thanks.
Second, as GM I don't allow anything from the ACG. It's precisely the sort of thing you cite that makes me disallow them.
What in particular, if you don't mind my asking?
What in particular, if you don't mind my asking?I'd rather have a Rogue along than a Bard if I had a choice, thanks.
Second, as GM I don't allow anything from the ACG. It's precisely the sort of thing you cite that makes me disallow them.
Actually, I do mind. To be frank, I am tired of all the hate Rogues get on this website, and I don't want to get into that again. I have no problems with them.
Okay. *shrug*
Yeah, but they still don't have much for offensive power. They make a great 5th player class.
They do make a great 5th player class because Bards get better the more people you have in your party. The thing is, they can also do well in the role of 3rd player (replacing the healer or controller) and 4th player (replacing the skillmonkey/secondary melee).
As for offensive power, you're just wrong.
Half-Elf Bard 5
STR 14 DEX 19 CON 12 INT 10 WIS 8 CHA 14
Feats Skill Focus: Perform, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot
Relevant Items: +1 Composite Shortbow
Relevant Buffs: Heroism (pre-cast, long duration), Inspire Courage ("cast" opening round)
Shortbow +10/+10 (1d6+5/x3) = 17 average damage, plus 2 damage for each successful attack an ally makes.
Half-Elf Bard 10
STR 14 DEX 22 CON 12 INT 10 WIS 8 CHA 16
Feats Skill Focus: Perform, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Deadly Aim, Manyshot
Relevant Items: Belt of Dexterity +2, +2 Composite Shortbow, Headband of Charisma +2
Relevant Buffs: Heroism (pre-cast, long duration), Inspire Courage ("cast" opening round as Move action), Haste (cast opening round)
Shortbow +16/+16/+16/+16/+11 (1d6+10/x3) = 67.5 average damage, plus 2 damage for each successful attack an ally makes, plus however much damage your party's Haste attacks are doing.
Half-Elf Bard 15
STR 14 DEX 27 CON 12 INT 10 WIS 8 CHA 20
Feats Skill Focus: Perform, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Deadly Aim, Manyshot, Great Fortitude, Weapon Focus: Shortbow, Improved Precise Shot
Relevant Items: Belt of Dexterity +4, +4 Composite Shortbow, Headband of Charisma +6
Relevant Buffs: Heroism (pre-cast, long duration), Inspire Courage ("cast" opening round as Swift action), Haste (cast opening round)
Shortbow +25/+25/+25/+25/+20/+15 (1d6+15/x3) = 111 average damage, plus 3 damage for each successful attack an ally makes, plus however much damage your party's Haste attacks are doing.
That's not optimized damage, that's just a 20 point generic Bard with CRB archer feats using items equivalent to the Automatic Bonus Progression (which strikes me as the most fair way to assign items in some forum example character). That Bard should be able to kill at least one CR=APL creature per encounter, which is definitely enough offensive power. Again, not optimized - you could have a bard that does more damage pretty easily with better race choices, archetypes, etc. I'm not saying that they're better at damage than other classes either, I'm just saying that the Bard has enough offensive power.
Okay. *shrug*
Note Taudis and doomman47 here. I didn't want to get into an argument, but one is trying to find me anyway. But since I won't participate, it goes nowhere.
What Taudis doesn't like to point out is that Bards can only heal HP, and not the rest of the ailments. This means a Cleric might be a better choice for healer. Also, Rogues have skills (and more skill points to work with) Bards lack class access to. Taken together, they make Bards unnecessary. Me, I prefer that Bards remain the 5th member of the party at most. With a balanced party already consisting of a warrior, skill man, healer/buff spellcaster, and arcane spellcaster, Bards are nice to have but not essential. That's fine by me. Typically I point new players with only a little experience to Bards because they are a little of everything, meaning you get a sample of the game.
In most builds, Bards don't have much in direct offensive power. That's okay. It's not what the class is about. Yeah, you can try to make it more offensive if you really want to, but it's a lot of mostly wasted effort.
BTW, telling me I am "just wrong" without having voice and facial expressions alongside it can be taken as an attack.
Okay. *shrug*Note Taudis and doomman47 here. I didn't want to get into an argument, but one is trying to find me anyway. But since I won't participate, it goes nowhere.
What Taudis doesn't like to point out is that Bards can only heal HP, and not the rest of the ailments. This means a Cleric might be a better choice for healer. Also, Rogues have skills (and more skill points to work with) Bards lack class access to. Taken together, they make Bards unnecessary. Me, I prefer that Bards remain the 5th member of the party at most. With a balanced party already consisting of a warrior, skill man, healer/buff spellcaster, and arcane spellcaster, Bards are nice to have but not essential. That's fine by me. Typically I point new players with only a little experience to Bards because they are a little of everything, meaning you get a sample of the game.
In most builds, Bards don't have much in direct offensive power. That's okay. It's not what the class is about. Yeah, you can try to make it more offensive if you really want to, but it's a lot of mostly wasted effort.
BTW, telling me I am "just wrong" without having voice and facial expressions alongside it can be taken as an attack.
No skin off my back; I'm a diehard rogue aficionado and was one before Unchained. I've also built some bards that are primarily support and a few that are pretty good offensively. The latter takes more work than making a pretty good offensive character out of more martial, blasty, or summony classes. That's fine too; classes are good at some things, but there's plenty of room within most classes to add and subtract roles and qualities.
I was more wondering about the "sort of thing you cite that makes me disallow them" comment regarding ACG, but I'm not looking to change anybody's mind about it. I'm not terribly fond of a lot of ACG either, but I allow it anyway. Doesn't mean you or anybody else has to. : )
Okay. *shrug*Note Taudis and doomman47 here. I didn't want to get into an argument, but one is trying to find me anyway. But since I won't participate, it goes nowhere.
I actually deleted a bunch of stuff on my post that was about Bard v. Rogue when I hit the preview button and saw that you didn't want to turn this into a thread about Rogue hate. I left the rest because you didn't say "I don't want to argue", you said "I don't want to get into that again" and I assumed "that" referred to Rogues. Skillmonkey=/=Rogue in my post, it's role that can be filled by a number of different classes to me.
I like the thematic role a Rogue fills, FWIW. Mechanically, I like the Pathfinder Rogue - the HD and skill changes from 3.5 were a great buff (so was the nerf to Knock*) and being able to play a dexterous debilitator right out of the box with Unchained is very nice.
It's fine for you not to participate in the argument if you don't want to. I'd still like to say my piece.
What Taudis doesn't like to point out is that Bards can only heal HP, and not the rest of the ailments. This means a Cleric might be a better choice for healer.
It's a Charisma class with a ton of skill points and UMD as a class skill. Bard also has Dispel Magic and Remove Curse. They're not in the same tier as the Cleric but they'll do fine as a healer. You're right, I shouldn't have called them a Healer replacement, though. They're more of an adequate substitute. I'd like to restate that as a Bard being able to fill the main role of a Cleric, which is a support caster. They're amazing as a buffer, and a lot of their best buffs have good defenses to prevent nasty stuff from happening to your party in the first place.
In most builds, Bards don't have much in direct offensive power. That's okay. It's not what the class is about. Yeah, you can try to make it more offensive if you really want to, but it's a lot of mostly wasted effort.
It's not really wasted effort. I mean, their iconic performance is the one that boosts attack and damage. The build I posted uses most of its feats, sure, but will still have its spell selection open, most of its spell slots, and its skills. The character will still be good at being a skillmonkey, support caster, etc. but it's also good at combat. Hardly a waste.
I just don't agree with the "in most builds" statement. Is that anecdotal, or do you have some stats here? Do you just consider effects like Heroism, Inspire Courage, and Haste to not be "direct offense"?
BTW, telling me I am "just wrong" without having voice and facial expressions alongside it can be taken as an attack.
My telling someone they're wrong isn't an attack. I apologize if you interpreted it that way, it's not my intention to hurt you when I state something like that.
*And, like, every arcane spell that just let you fill the role of Rogue. People still call Summon Monster a trapfinding spell but it's a lot harder to use that way now that the Celestial template doesn't give your monkey the ability to understand Common. It's reasonably difficult to replace Rogue skills with spells alone now and that's a good thing.
I don't allow the ACG for several reasons: The first is that by reputation the classes are more potent overall than any other source of classes, to the point that they make the rest "underpowered". I don't allow power creep in my games. It was enough that I allowed Unchained versions of the Monk, Rogue, Barbarian (Summoners have a different problem that wasn't resolved by Unchained so I banned them).
The second is that by nature, they are all hybrids of the basic classes in the core rulebook. I tend to have 4 players, not 6 or more. And, I run APs, which means I need to have a balanced party or the players get frustrated and PC's die. Within that framework, there just isn't room for hybrids (the classic example is the Bard, which was usually the 5th man of a 4 member party).
Your point, doomman47, is quite inaccurate/wrong. You forget things like diseases, ability point damage, death outright, etc that simple Cure spells won't address. Basically Bards don't get most of the things more specialized classes get, so no, they don't do ANYTHING better than other classes other than being a jack of all trades. When was the last time a Bard, without specialized archetypes or character traits and a permissive GM, could disarm traps for example? Your argument doesn't have evidence to back it up, and simply doesn't work.
Bards get what's on the Bard spell list, and no more. Research is pointless, and only a newb DM will allow a Bard to do that. Especially when the typical campaign has a limited timeframe. I don't allow Summoners period.
Oh, please start using punctuation. Your last post was very hard to make out. To be frank, I am done arguing with you. You don't have a proverbial leg to stand on, just some specialized circumstances using archetypes that may or may not be useful or available during a given campaign. You seem to be arguing just to argue, and I just don't wanna.
PS Spells are wonderful things, but they have to be taken beforehand and they are very quickly used up. I'd rather have a PC that can do the needed tasks all day long.
I don't allow the ACG for several reasons: The first is that by reputation the classes are more potent overall than any other source of classes, to the point that they make the rest "underpowered". I don't allow power creep in my games. It was enough that I allowed Unchained versions of the Monk, Rogue, Barbarian (Summoners have a different problem that wasn't resolved by Unchained so I banned them).
Not even close to being true.
The most powerful classes in the game are in the PHB and APG.
Fighter's have the potential to be the highest single target DPR in the game.
Wizards are the most versatile and the best battlefield controllers.
Witches are the best save/suck.
Clerics/Oracles don't even have competition for best divine.
Paladins are still the hardest to kill.
Back to the original post, competent bards are easier to make in PF than 3.5; though lack the prestige class combinations that highly optimizing 3.5 players could use (unless you "convert" 3.5 stuff into your home game - not an option in organized play).
I played a 3.5 campaign as a bard, and always found ways to be useful. Summon monster became my trap detector (and kept the party from drowning by summoning dolphins). Silence spells on arrows let me shut down enemy spellcasters. Creative applications of your abilities was the key to staying relevant.
Your point, doomman47, is quite inaccurate/wrong. You forget things like diseases, ability point damage, death outright, etc that simple Cure spells won't address.
APs use settlement rules, so you can buy the majority of this stuff. Ability damage is curable at 60gp a d4. Diseases are also 60gp to get removed, though it'll be closer to 300gp for the guaranteed removal. Antiplague is an Alchemical item available to anyone that has pretty good shot at curing disease for 10gp less than the local temple and is portable.
Raising the dead isn't available just anywhere but it does only take a town of over 2000 people.
There are very few APs that deprive you of access to spellcasting services for an extended period of time. If you don't have foreknowledge of what you're facing for your Cleric to prepare the correct spells, that means access needs to be further than a day's rest away to be meaningfully lost. The ability to operate a CLW wand is going to be 90% of a healer's job.
Archetype stuff
It's not very reasonable to assume that someone's DM is going to block a player from taking archetypes to preserve the Rogue as sole trapfinder. Considering the Bard has three different archetypes available that disarm traps (at least? could be more), I'd venture that the designers think a specialized Bard should be able to disarm traps.
Only if the party plays things poorly, I have been in several campaigns were the casters regularly have five or more spells left over at the end of the day.
Eh, this is sort of a hard spot for a Bard. They can blow through spells pretty quickly when you're sharing them around. I mean, a Bard without spells still has a lot of class features to make up for it (on top of whatever feat choices they made to make their 3/4 BAB combat capable) but a Bard would have to be pretty conservative to finish a day with 5+ spell slots left. I'd argue that their limited spell slots is one of their faults and a legitimate concern. It can be handled by an experienced player, sure, but if your DM is really challenging you, you'll likely be running out.
That said, what, like 75% of the classes are casters? When the casters run out of slots, you go to bed. That's not advocating for a 15min. adventuring day, it's just unreasonable for a party to go all day when it's very likely that they have more than one person who can't.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When was the last time a Bard, without specialized archetypes or character traits and a permissive GM, could disarm traps for example?
When the Pathfinder Core Rule Book was released and made it so that anyone with ranks in Disable Device could disarm nonmagical traps, not just rogues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Better" than what exactly? My bard in AD&D was straight up awesome. Old school bards are the real bards. Fighter. Thief. Then bard.
Yeah, Cea, my AD&D bard was a real badass... I always regretted that none of the later editions could ever regain the feel of such a character... first the planning from low level on, then enjoying the fruits of that plan... even the 3.5 PrCs failed to give that kind of satisfaction... too much loss on some aspects because of the silly multiclassing rules and the way the PrC s are built.
Sigh. Once again, Rogue hate hits online posts.
I could go into chapter and verse to refute much of these assertions, but I am not gonna get into that again.
I'm just gonna state that Bards cannot fill in effectively the healer, skill man, or warrior well in the long run. I've seen it happen too many times where it fails.
I recently had a related example while running Reign of Winter. The player had a arctic archetype druid, and I loved it. However, after a few encounters, he began changing it to be more like a cleric to increase healing capacity, and finally went all the way to my dismay, citing the need for healing and buff spells. We didn't have enough players to be able to ignore a balanced party, and there were few cities around to buy healing scrolls (disease, ability damage, removal of curses etc).
I like Bards as a class, but really, they are a 5th man class, and very much the support PC normally.
BTW, there IS such a thing as magical traps needing disarming, and party spellcasters don't always have Dispel Magic due to experience level, not picking it in the first place, running out of spells per day etc.
It'd be nice if this reality would be acknowledged on this thread, but I am not holding my proverbial breath.
Suffice it to say, OP, that bards are better in Pathfinder. : ) Bowing out as it's getting a bit prickly in here.
@PIccolo
Of course a bard fills adequately neither of those roles, it specific role is party support and Jack of All Trades... it's got access to some healing spells, if not to all of them, it's got fewer skills than the rogue, but it has other abilities the rogue can't emulate, it's not a front line fighter, but it doesn't fight as bad as a full arcane caster... its niche is that it covers all of them and none really.
Suffice it to say, OP, that bards are better in Pathfinder. : ) Bowing out as it's getting a bit prickly in here.
Well, I for one hold no animosity toward you.
@PIccolo
Of course a bard fills adequately neither of those roles, it specific role is party support and Jack of All Trades... it's got access to some healing spells, if not to all of them, it's got fewer skills than the rogue, but it has other abilities the rogue can't emulate, it's not a front line fighter, but it doesn't fight as bad as a full arcane caster... its niche is that it covers all of them and none really.
Which is why I tell new players that they are a great 5th man in a previously 4 man party.
Suffice it to say, OP, that bards are better in Pathfinder. : ) Bowing out as it's getting a bit prickly in here.Well, I for one hold no animosity toward you.
Likewise!
|
I feel the derailment of this thread has gone on long enough, and it's being made even more derailed if we're starting to bring in unrelated threads into this. It'd be best if Piccolo and Doomman simply drop the discussion on Rogues vs Bards.
Obviously the two of your experiences with bards vastly differ but the glory of a game like Pathfinder is that isn't uncommon. Let's just leave it at that.
OP, bards make for very fun and potentially powerful characters, but obviously it's not everyone's cup of tea. At higher levels they can control entire towns with their voice, and even at level 1 can easily contribute 6-7 damage a round with Inspire Courage.