Bards and the lack of choice

[chellter]

The Bard class has a serious issue with lack of choice. They have by far the fewest class feats of all the classes. They have about twenty-three class feats with Sorcerer coming next with a totally of twenty-seven feats. All the other classes fall above thirty. These numbers only count what is in in the initial release to making counting easier for me. But if you add the feat that allows bard to gain access to tenth level spells then that brings their total up to twenty-four.

This lack of choices comes from two things:

1) The influence of the Bardic Muse is very low. When you make this choice at first level the only thing it gives you is a feat and a spell. Beyond that your muse does not influence your play in any way. If you compare this to other casters who get things like bloodlines, schools, orders or domains it’s pretty lacking. I feel when picking a muse, it should influence your class more. Such as giving you specialized compositions or changing how the class plays. But as it stands I can barely remember which muse I choose because it has such a small impact.

This also means that the muse has a smaller effect on class feats. A lot of classes will have feats that can only be chosen if you picked a certain thing at first level. This also makes your choices at first level feel more significant. While some bard feats are influenced what you pick at first level you can easily pick up these feats using an ancestry feat if you are human.

2) Bards also lack a lot of the feats many the magic casters share. Things like Widen or Reach are completely missing from the bard class feat list. While I understand Bard went from 6th level casters to 9th level casters I do not feel this is enough of a change to exclude them from things that some of the other spell caster get. If I was a new player, I would not know a bard as a 6th level caster and this lack of choice would just stick out. So why not give the bard these choices or if the desire is to make the bard have their own thing why not give them more metamagic feats that play into the idea of their song? They have a few of these but I would argue not enough.

I like bards because they are unique in the ability to make the party better through buffs. Their spell list is great and they do have some feat choices. But their limited choice means a player has less options to customize them and after one play you feel like you have fully experienced the class. This sucks in a game that should be about choice and replayability.

[Mark Seifter]

One thing you don't have to worry about: every class is going to get more pagecount in the final book, and that generally means a wider variety of feat options.

Muses are intentionally a little more flexible to see how people like that flexibility compared to later abilities locked into your 1st level choice (barbarian, cleric, sorcerer, wizard) or feats that withhold some of their punch if you didn't pick the matching 1st level choice (druid). It's been interesting to see the different responses to the different styles.

[chellter]

Thanks for the reply that is good to know. I think overall has a lot of strength and I will be super curious to see it in it’s final form. I am super curious to see if Muse stays the same or goes through some changes.

[Anguish]

Mark, I know we touched on this in another thread about a month ago.

Your response here is insightful and interesting. I had complained that I didn't see any meaningful theme linking the various feats, with some having muse feats as prerequisites but not feeling like they actually thematically made a feat chain.

Anyway, this insight makes sense, and in general I applaud it. While "fire sorcerer" makes sense to have a variety of fire-themed options, not everything actually fits into themes.

I'd humbly submit that maybe this (the bard muses) would be best carried to the extreme and the muse/feat-chain thing dropped entirely if there's no real reason not to, and if you're trying a "more flexibility" approach.

Anyway, thanks for everything.

[breithauptclan]

Personally I like the 'locked in' style for some classes like barbarian, cleric, and sorcerer. It feels like a proper sub-type of the class and having a pile of class feats that are forever forbidden doesn't feel too bad.

For the other classes, I prefer the druid style. Have that sub-type give bonuses to certain related feats, but not prevent taking the basic form of the others. I think that would be useful for classes like bard and the 1.3 rogue with the new sub-types.

Paladin is a bit odd. It has its sub-type choice (Righteous Ally) come in at level 3 instead of level 1. I think that one does feel better as a locked-in choice like barbarian totem. Though the option to get a second ally does make it feel a bit like the current bard style choice where you can pick up a second sub-type. It also has some feat chains with the various 'oath' feats.

What feels bad to me about the bard/paladin style of sub-types is that the higher level feats are all available technically. It just requires spending a high level feat slot on a low level feat in order to get it.

It feels like a bad choice to do that. The 'jack of all trades' doesn't typically work out well in Pathfinder. But those other high level feats are so tantalizing. They are just sitting there waiting for you. All it costs you is that one low level feat choice...

[Neume]

I come to talk specifically of this topic and I find it here. Huzzah!

1. MUSES: If they don't mean anything, then why have them? At the moment they don't really mean anything. I get not wanting to create restrictions like Domains, but in my mind, the bard isn't like the Cleric so why add something like this if they don't need it. I say cut it.

2. I agree with the OP, the more I play, the more I feel that bard feels like it has fewer choices and worse still, it plays second fiddle to everyone else. This may have something to do with how the Perform skill turn out in this edition, but the things that made "bard" unique are gone. While we got 10 spell levels, we didn't really get anything that feels bardy.

3. Ear Piercing Scream, the Inspiration Spells, and the Finale spells really must make a comeback. OR we need to rethink bards and spells all together. Occult just doesn't feel so bardy - especially as we move up in levels. I feel like I'm playing a shadowcaster, not a bard.

The more I think about it, the more I think that maybe, it is time to rethink spells and bards, maybe even remove them have bards focus on compositions (similar to 1ed's Masterpiece system). Maybe bards do everything with Spell Points.

As someone who studied music and acting in college and professionally I can say the idea of a bard sounds more like someone who has a "repertoire" that they study to remember what they are doing that day but then can switch out for something else next week.

This is just more comments on real life stuffs:

At the moment, I am in 3 different Christmas Caroling groups. I have a binder full a music for each. Some of the songs are the same, some of them I have committed to memory (because it's the Hallelujah Chorus and you just commit that one because you've performed it more times than you can count) some of them I read from my songbook on Sunday because we're only doing that one a few times for the little, old, blue-haired ladies, and some I refresh my memory on just before we sing at a party because it was a "special" request. We'll probably never sing that one again.

Acting is the exact same thing (albeit the time frames tend to be longer). I'd memorize all my lines for a show and perform it a million times in about 30-60 days, then forget them as I begin memorizing for the next show. At the same time, some soliloquy I've got down for life (I'm looking at you Marcus Anthony's mount speech from 'Julius Caesar') and others I keep for a short while, maybe for an audition or a film. It's the same concept.

To me, it would be cool if bards casting was more like the Esoteric Scholar Class Feat, in general. Bards mix the study of Wizards with the talent of Sorcerers. So casting with a crossover system would be cool. Cooler still would be if bards could write Arcane, Divine, and Primal spells to their repertoire book and attempt to cast them using Spell Points and a performance check. You fail the check you lose the spell points with no effect.

This would mean now bards WANT to find new texts, stories, and arcane lore to add to their rep. Re-enforcing the lore that bards are looking for new texts to add to the repertoire.

Compositions should be different from spells because their outcome depends on the bard's performance result. Where as spells bards relay on magical effect, Compositions relay on the bard's skilled performance. If they fail the result should be lessened, but if they do well the effect should be empowered.

Or, maybe compositions fill the design space masterpieces left behind? Performances bards can learn in place of a new spell or class feat.

[Draco18s]

breithauptclan wrote:

Personally I like the 'locked in' style for some classes like barbarian, cleric, and sorcerer. It feels like a proper sub-type of the class and having a pile of class feats that are forever forbidden doesn't feel too bad.

Barbarian gets to choose whether he wants his totem feat or a different feat. He may only have one choice of the same level of feat, but h has a choice. So does the cleric, bard, wizard, and druid.

The sorcerer is literally the only class that is not even ALLOWED to have a choice (pre 1.3).

[Shaheer-El-Khatib]

Mark Seifter wrote:

One thing you don't have to worry about: every class is going to get more pagecount in the final book, and that generally means a wider variety of feat options.

Muses are intentionally a little more flexible to see how people like that flexibility compared to later abilities locked into your 1st level choice (barbarian, cleric, sorcerer, wizard) or feats that withhold some of their punch if you didn't pick the matching 1st level choice (druid). It's been interesting to see the different responses to the different styles.

That is really interresting.

I like that choice at level 1 and important by I strongly dislike when this importance is made like "You have to expand every feats in your tree To milk you level 1 choice because everything else is locked".

Did you consider giving a level 1 choice that give free Fixed feats as you level up ? Doing so would make level 1 choice meaningfull while still giving the player a real choice when picking class feats because he won't be forced to pick one.
Though it would need a very bit changes of the feat List to make it balanced.

[Gortle]

chellter wrote:

The Bard class has a serious issue with lack of choice.

Yep. Bards suck. They don't feel like bards at all. They have little to no reason to use musical intruments. Fascinate is a pointless condition.

Making them full casters is lazy design. Bards are not normally spell casters in fantasy literature they have other cool bard skills and abilities.
They should be leaders, they should be inspirational, they should have great skills, not just another type of wizard.

[Siro]

Yeah, I'm having some problems and the feel of the bard class to, and their ability to be the Jack of All trades class. Now, bards do get what seems to be a lot when they start, Spells, Light Armor and Shields, a small but workable group of weapons, and some pretty good skills. And for the 1st couple of levels, they can pull off the Jack-of-All-Trades decently well. The problems that mess with the feel and gameplay comes afterwards

1)Spells, I did not think it was a bad decision to make them full spellcasters in this edition, because of the way the spell system works. In PF1 the main reason why Bards could be at least be in the shadows of Wizards and such when it came to spell casting was because of early access spells, Spell caster levels, and a couple of Bard only spells, all of which all not a part of PF2. In this edition, the power of the effects of your spells solely corresponds to the level casted. Without the other advantages of prior editions, a half caster would fall behind very quickly. However, this means a Bard is now more focused of Spells, especially given the saves creatures have. Now you could just have a list of just non-DC spells {Summon Monsters, Buffing ect) but that would mean the spell proficiency increases, which themselves take away Class Feats, go to waste. Generally, your focusing on spells.

2)Armor and Weapons. Trained is not bad at the beginning, and can be servable throughout. But you will slowly start getting pushed into the back row as you don't get any better with them, in comparison to the creatures you are facing. Now buffing can help, so its not the most major of issues, but you are going to hit a ceiling much sooner then you would like. Multiclassing in this regard can help, but you also don't have as many class feats to do so. For this case, I would not say its a major issue, as bards were a class that could engage with weapons but were never the MVP's, it just starts to become much less of a valid option the higher you go a bit too quickly.

[Siro]

3) Skills-This is a major sticking point for me, and what makes the bard lose its feel. 8 Skills in total at the beginning seems like a lot, and it is. The problem is you get no more resources then other classes to increase these skills. Beginning its not a problem, as you are not expected to have these resources, but as the DC's go up, your going to have to focus on certain ones and let other skills fall. Now with the 1.3 update, it has helped with this problem somewhat. However a lot of the classic skills of a Bard {Diplomacy, Deception ect) are not affected by this new update, as these skills were not decided by a DC, but contested by the creature it is being used on.

And because of the way Bard feats are structured, you are either have to focus on "Performance" and or "Occultism". Out of the 24 current bard feats, 15 of them either rely on one of those two skill, and or have one of those skills as a perquisite, including all three beginning bard feats. These means at least one of the skills your focusing on is already earmarked, in a class that's desperate for skills increases, and you are holed into only a certain set of feats if you do not do both. This is made doubly so with Performance as the skill itself in many ways is a weaker Lore, and the class feat of Versatile Performance to help strength this does too little and causes to many problems.

-To sum up, the Bard does have the bones to be the Jack of All Trades class, but as the levels increase, they find themselves lacking the resources to upkeep this, and are generally forced to specialize in certain areas, often decided by class itself, leaving the other aspects that were payed for in the balancing of the class behind. In doing so, they slowly lose the ability to be a little bit of every class, and ironically lose that which made them unique.

[PCScipio]

A bard can make a good frontline character if you take Fighter Dedication. You can still cast Inspire Courage and Shield while wielding your bastard sword two-handed. My Doomsday Dawn part 2 character took armor proficiency (heavy) and wore full plate (retrained for the 1.3 update).

[Mats Öhrman]

Siro wrote:

3) Skills-This is a major sticking point for me, and what makes the bard lose its feel. 8 Skills in total at the beginning seems like a lot, and it is. The problem is you get no more resources then other classes to increase these skills. Beginning its not a problem, as you are not expected to have these resources, but as the DC's go up, your going to have to focus on certain ones and let other skills fall. Now with the 1.3 update, it has helped with this problem somewhat. However a lot of the classic skills of a Bard {Diplomacy, Deception ect) are not affected by this new update, as these skills were not decided by a DC, but contested by the creature it is being used on.

And because of the way Bard feats are structured, you are either have to focus on "Performance" and or "Occultism". Out of the 24 current bard feats, 15 of them either rely on one of those two skill, and or have one of those skills as a perquisite, including all three beginning bard feats. These means at least one of the skills your focusing on is already earmarked, in a class that's desperate for skills increases, and you are holed into only a certain set of feats if you do not do both. This is made doubly so with Performance as the skill itself in many ways is a weaker Lore, and the class feat of Versatile Performance to help strength this does too little and causes to many problems.

-To sum up, the Bard does have the bones to be the Jack of All Trades class, but as the levels increase, they find themselves lacking the resources to upkeep this, and are generally forced to specialize in certain areas, often decided by class itself, leaving the other aspects that were payed for in the balancing of the class behind. In doing so, they slowly lose the ability to be a little bit of every class, and ironically lose that which made them unique.

With the Tight Math, it does not matter how many different capabilities you start with; what matters is how many you can keep up to par as you level up, considering number of available feat picks, skill and attribute increases, and magic item picks from the loot pile.

[Siro]

Mats Öhrman wrote:

With the Tight Math, it does not matter how many different capabilities you start with; what matters is how many you can keep up to par as you level up, considering number of available feat picks, skill and attribute increases, and magic item picks from the loot pile.

Exactly :)

[Neume]

Siro brought up a point that I think is important in my head. Bards are Jacks of All Trades, however in 1ed, Bards started that way and could specialize in one area or stay more generalized in all.

In this edition, so far, as they progress Bards don't specialize well and they don't generalize well. The result is they end up becoming more and more lackluster as they grow. That's one of the reasons I was thinking of creating something that is "Bardic" in nature to tie bards to that can grow so they don't get left behind the other classes that specialize.

Again, Bards began to shine when the Archetype system was released in 1ed. With the way the Class Feat system works they should be doing more and their path should be clearer. I was thinking more about this when I realized, what needed to happen was their tie to their muse should get stronger as they choose feats that are connected to the muse.

For instance, each muse should have clearly defined feats. Such as the Lore Muse: Bardic Lore -> Loremaster's Recall -> Mental Prowess -> Mental Stronghold. Instead of the feats giving additional skill points, they should increase based on how many feats you have with that Muse. In this way you're rewarded for sticking with your Muse, but you still have the flexibility to do what you want.

[sherlock1701]

I think the Starfinder envoy is closer to what I'd like to see for a bard than the current iteration of the bard. I've never really thought of spells as the bard's defining feature, and giving them 9th level casting feels kinda wrong.

The envoy passes out a lot of buffs and debuffs without using magic, by force of personality. I think bards could have something along these lines, at-will abilities that they can empower with spell points to weave in a bit of bardic magic for extra effect.

[Siro]

Neume wrote:

...For instance, each muse should have clearly defined feats. Such as the Lore Muse: Bardic Lore -> Loremaster's Recall -> Mental Prowess -> Mental Stronghold. Instead of the feats giving additional skill points, they should increase based on how many feats you have with that Muse. In this way you're rewarded for sticking with your Muse, but you still have the flexibility to do what you want.

So something like Druids and there Druidic Orders. {Where any Druid can pick feats more tuned to other orders, but if your are part of the right order, you get additional benefits.). I can get behind that.

[Lightning Raven]

sherlock1701 wrote:

I think the Starfinder envoy is closer to what I'd like to see for a bard than the current iteration of the bard. I've never really thought of spells as the bard's defining feature, and giving them 9th level casting feels kinda wrong.

The envoy passes out a lot of buffs and debuffs without using magic, by force of personality. I think bards could have something along these lines, at-will abilities that they can empower with spell points to weave in a bit of bardic magic for extra effect.

While Bard is nowhere near close to perfection, I think you guys here in this thread are underestimating the power of the Bard Cantrips. They're all free to cast, with several metamagics to enhance and combine them, they also fit quite well into your actions (2 actions for spell/cantrip and 1 for compositions), with lingering composition you can further enhance your action economy. To me, the Bard is in a better state than most classes in the playtest, some improvements and buffs would definitely bring it up to an appropriated level.

Also, Envoys are terrible. Specially compared to Bards. Their action economy is awful, their choices are often very weak or too situational (Both even) and even worse is the fact that they don't scale past level 8, while other classes in the same game gain a ton of inherent features on top of scaling AND better choices, while ALSO having a lot of intersting paths of playstyle.

PF2e's Bard is miles ahead anything the envoy can do and I'm completely disregarding any spells, only talking about the compositions.

[Neume]

I've now played 5 different bards at various levels and 1 from level 1 to 10. Cantrips are not living up to the hype, especially after level 5. Spells in general are a big problem.

Part of me feels bard may feel very different is spellcasting wasn't so pointless at the moment. Not only do you not have enough spells, you run out quickly (at least in the play test) and are left with cantrips that don't do a lot. Like melee combat, around 7 or 8 the effectiveness of spells wear off. Bard is suffering from all the problems Wizards and Sorcerers are seeing.

I know the design team is aware of both the issue with melee for casters and casting, however, cantrips do not in any way "save" the bard from the issues we're talking about. Though, I agree, if one or both of those issues are fixed it would make bards feel more relevant.

Though, I think one vein that bards are lacking on the class feat spectrum is actually combat feats. Maybe Diva Style type feats for a new Melee focused Muse. This would add both new options for bard and help shore up weaker points. Maybe there is a Caster Muse introduced as well that introduces more spell options.

But spells are in a not good place right now and that includes cantrips and compositions.

[Tunewalker]

Neume wrote:

I've now played 5 different bards at various levels and 1 from level 1 to 10. Cantrips are not living up to the hype, especially after level 5. Spells in general are a big problem.

Part of me feels bard may feel very different is spellcasting wasn't so pointless at the moment. Not only do you not have enough spells, you run out quickly (at least in the play test) and are left with cantrips that don't do a lot. Like melee combat, around 7 or 8 the effectiveness of spells wear off. Bard is suffering from all the problems Wizards and Sorcerers are seeing.

I know the design team is aware of both the issue with melee for casters and casting, however, cantrips do not in any way "save" the bard from the issues we're talking about. Though, I agree, if one or both of those issues are fixed it would make bards feel more relevant.

Though, I think one vein that bards are lacking on the class feat spectrum is actually combat feats. Maybe Diva Style type feats for a new Melee focused Muse. This would add both new options for bard and help shore up weaker points. Maybe there is a Caster Muse introduced as well that introduces more spell options.

But spells are in a not good place right now and that includes cantrips and compositions.

I fully agree with this, but I also feel like Skills are a big problem as well. Being gated into having to take and upgrade Performance and likely even Occult skill while not getting any more upgrades than a fighter or any other class except a rogue makes every "skill" based class other than Rogue feel like they aren't skill based at all. It doesn't feel like it matters that bard has the second highest base starting skills when we are pigeon holed into upgrading one of them and we do not get more upgrades.

In addition to this anyone that wants to play the swashbuckling bard is also at a big disadvantage because while bards can get shields, and finesse martial weapons in addition to light armor the rogue is once again the only character that gets access to dexterity being added to damage.

This is not simply a problem with bard either, Ranger is feeling this same problem. I always thought of the ranger as a nature and survival skills based ranged fighter, but right now they get nothing in terms of extra skills by comparison to the fighter and thus live and die simply by the feats with what feels to me like very little real identity.

To me the best designed classes right now are, Fighter, Rogue and Cleric, probably Barbarian as well, have not played with and do not know enough about Monk or Druid to have an opinion on them.....

For spell caster fixes I really think they should make spell casters stronger early and may drop off the scale a little bit in the late road if they are worried to much about later strength.

For Example: Instead of having 3 of every spell level as you get higher, Have it more like
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th
1: 4
2: 6
3: 6 3
4: 6 5
5: 6 5 3
6: 6 5 4
7: 6 5 4 3
8: 6 5 4 4
9: 6 5 4 4 2
10:6 5 4 4 3
11:6 5 4 4 3 2
12:6 5 4 4 3 3
13:6 5 4 4 3 3 1
14:6 5 4 4 3 3 2
15:6 5 4 4 3 3 2 1
16:6 6 5 4 3 3 2 1
17:6 6 5 4 3 3 2 1 1
18:6 6 5 4 3 3 2 2 1
19-20:*******************************************

Basically allowing lower level spell casters to feel stronger while also taking away some strength of higher level casters by severely limiting higher level spells and spell slots. This way you can also make mid level spells a little bit stronger as well, or even have spells that scale all right with character level.

[Gaterie]

PCScipio wrote:

A bard can make a good frontline character if you take Fighter Dedication. You can still cast Inspire Courage and Shield while wielding your bastard sword two-handed. My Doomsday Dawn part 2 character took armor proficiency (heavy) and wore full plate (retrained for the 1.3 update).

... Or you could play a fighter with bard dedication. You can cast Shield and, starting from level 8, inspire courage, and you're an actual fighter with weapon mastery and everything.

Right now, I fail to see any compelling reason to play a bard past level 8. A Cleric with enough Cha to multiclass as bard is a solid build, and with a bit of system mastery I'm quite sure it's possible to make an efficient Rogue/Bard or even a Fighter/Bard.

And I think the Cleric/Bard and the Rogue/Bard feel more "bardy" than a straight Bard (the first one is a strong support character while the second one is very good at skills, especially social skills).

[Agyra Eisenherz]

Gaterie wrote:

PCScipio wrote:

A bard can make a good frontline character if you take Fighter Dedication. You can still cast Inspire Courage and Shield while wielding your bastard sword two-handed. My Doomsday Dawn part 2 character took armor proficiency (heavy) and wore full plate (retrained for the 1.3 update).

... Or you could play a fighter with bard dedication. You can cast Shield and, starting from level 8, inspire courage, and you're an actual fighter with weapon mastery and everything.

Right now, I fail to see any compelling reason to play a bard past level 8. A Cleric with enough Cha to multiclass as bard is a solid build, and with a bit of system mastery I'm quite sure it's possible to make an efficient Rogue/Bard or even a Fighter/Bard.

And I think the Cleric/Bard and the Rogue/Bard feel more "bardy" than a straight Bard (the first one is a strong support character while the second one is very good at skills, especially social skills).

Actually I played a Bard/Cleric on lvl 7. I bought myself the proficiencies with heavy armor and martial weapons with my general and ancestry feats. With my class feats I took Weapon surge. I never took a single bard feat.

I could inspire courage and deal more damage than the fighter (Inspire Courage+True Strike+Weapon Surge)... I had to haste myself to give me all my buffs, using them for one mighty single strike. (+2 to attack, +1+one Die to damage, rolling the attack twice). Surely I used a D12 weapon, even if I couldn't cast many things without taking actions to take the grip again.

I first tried to build a caster bard, but the caster bard was underwhelming, in comparison to this.

[Siro]

Yeah I've seen more than a couple of Bard builds that use Muticlassing {myself I was with going into Rogue for the Skill mastery Feat to help with Bards problems with skills.} Like others, I found the Bard by itself lacking, and at least on face value, it was better to multiclass into.

This points to 1 to 3 things= 1) Bard Feats are not impactful enough/ require to much investment for to little payoff 2) Bards don't have the resources or options available, and so must look for it else where and/or 3) Mutliclassing in general is a powerful option.

Personally, I believe it is 1 and 2.

[Neume]

I would also say that in 1ed Bard was the one who benefited the most from Archetypes and multiclassing. This is mostly due to the fact that many archetypes traded out "social" abilities for "combat" abilities in a way that was satisfying.

I say this to say, it is entirely possible the issue is that at its core bard has always had this issue. Now that it has been striped bare in the playtest this has revealed itself.

I too feel like Fighters, Rogues and Clerics feel really solid in comparison. Bards aren't even good at the thing they should be (buffing the party) when Clerics can do it just as well with Bless (which doesn't stack).

[Zman0]

Bard is my favorite of the classes so far. I've just built a melee Bard who yells(inspire courage) at his companions and is a reasonable combatant. He can multiclass to fighter or rogue for tons more fun. Add in tons of skills and I'm happy as a clam. Only thing that i wish I had was a Ring of Wizardry that worked with Occultism not just Arcane so I can get more True Strikes in. Oh, and no easy access to magical striker. I did consider a Bard Sorcerer Gish for more spells, Arcane access to True Strike, and Magical Striker, but the feat load is brutal.