A real fighting bard.

[Lord Pendragon]

Out of curiosity, say that they had rewritten the bard in 3.5 exactly as they did, except that they also gave the class a full BAB progression.

How would this change the balance of the bard? Strong? Still weak? Too strong? Broken?

 

[Camarath]

IMO it would be a little strong. If it did not ignore ASF in light armor I think it would be pretty well balanced with a Full BAB.

 

[Fedifensor]

Hmm. So I get full BAB, bard song, Cat's Grace (great with Weapon Finesse), and several spells that incapicate an opponent unless a save is made (Tasha's, Hold, Confusion, etc)?

Yeah, that's probably a bit too tough. The attack and defense-enhancing spells and songs in a bard's arsenal balance out with the extra feats of the fighter, and you're adding "save or you're hosed" spells on top of that. It's like a Tenser's Transformation that still allows you casting capability. Five extra points of attack bonus over 20 levels is nothing to sneeze at, and it gives you an extra attack as well.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don`t think a full base attack progression mixes well with the d6 HD. Maybe you should increase the HD first. I think that would probably be perfectly balanced with the other revision changes, though one might wonder why the rogue still has only a d6. (And sorceror/wizard a d4)

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I don`t think a full base attack progression mixes well with the d6 HD. Maybe you should increase the HD first. I think that would probably be perfectly balanced with the other revision changes, though one might wonder why the rogue still has only a d6. (And sorceror/wizard a d4)

This is actually why I'm thinking it may be balanced. The d6 hit die prevents the bard from being too strong a melee combatant, but it would allow him to be a decent archer, and a good lightly-armored, swashbuckler character.

Consider that the half-casters, paladin and ranger, each only get 4 levels of spells to the bard's six, but also get a d10 HD (two steps up) along with generally more potent bennies than the bard. The bard does come up ahead in skill points, though.

Consider that of other classes with 3/4 progression, two of them (druid and cleric) get lots of bennies and nine levels of spells, compared to the bard's six. The last class, the rogue, gets a ton of bennies, more skill points, and sneak attack, though he lacks spellcasting.

My thinking is that, say in 4e, there are two ways to really balance out the bard. One is to give the bard nine levels of spells. At first, it seems overpowering, but I don't believe it would be. Consider, again, the cleric and druid. How would a bard with nine spell levels outclass them? Is bardic music more potent than an animal growthed animal companion? Than domain abilities and turning attempts? Not really, though it would put the bard in contention.

Or, one can leave the bard's spells alone and give him a full BAB. This makes his melee potential better than a druid or cleric's (slightly--they'll still have a bigger hit die), but, due to his still weak d6 hit die, weaker than the paladin or ranger (who only get four levels of spells.)

Since giving the bard full BAB is easier than reworking the bard's list to go up to ninth level (which would probably involve creating a couple dozen new spells,) I figured I'd sound out other people's thoughts with that.

(Jonathan, if you read this, I am NOT going to try and convince you to give my new bard a full BAB I'll play a 3.5 bard. But researching and discussing the bard has piqued my interest in this kind of speculation.)

 

[Lord Pendragon]

IMO it would be a little strong. If it did not ignore ASF in light armor I think it would be pretty well balanced with a Full BAB.

I'm not sure the ASF is really an issue. The 3.0 bard had Mage Armor. The 3.5 bard has lost Mage Armor but can now wear a chain shirt. It evens out. The only real advantage is in getting mithral medium armor, and that's only a couple points of AC at best. Compare that to the bard's new loss of Greater Magic Weapon and again, I'm not sure it's an issue.

Still, it might be strong. But would it be too strong? Would it make the bard patently better than a druid or cleric or fighter? The bard would still have a d6 HD, making him fragile and unable to really stand toe-to-toe with the enemy, though full BAB would grant him another attack at high levels, and make him a more dangerous archer and support melee combatant.

Strong...or too strong?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Yeah, that's probably a bit too tough. The attack and defense-enhancing spells and songs in a bard's arsenal balance out with the extra feats of the fighter, and you're adding "save or you're hosed" spells on top of that. It's like a Tenser's Transformation that still allows you casting capability. Five extra points of attack bonus over 20 levels is nothing to sneeze at, and it gives you an extra attack as well.

So you're saying that a bard's six levels of spells are worth 11 feats, full BAB progression, and an extra d4 in hit points?

Granted, that's not an entirely fair comparison, because a bard also has three times the skill points a fighter does, but I'm not sure you aren't giving more weight to the bard's abilities than they are due.

The current "rank the 3.5 classes" thread has the bard consistantly (with one exception,) coming in last or next-to-last place in terms of power. So I think that it should be clear there's some room for improvement.

+5 BAB doesn't seem like too much. Consider that the bard still has that vexing d6 hit die, so he won't be able to get an extra melee attack often, if he expects to live. He will become a better archer, though. Although that doesn't seem such a bad thing, really. In fact, when you consider that the 3.5 bard has lost Greater Magic Weapon, then most of that BAB is merely in regaining what the 3.5 bard has lost, in terms of overall attack bonus.

 

[Ravellion]

I think the good will and reflex saves might make the bard too strong with a full BAB. Casting in chain shirt is also very good because it is more easily upgraded than bracers of armour or the MAge Armour spell, which will net a slight increase in power. Craft MAgic Arms and Armour would be a very good feat to take for the full BAB Bard.

Rav

 

[Ashe]

I don`t think a full base attack progression mixes well with the d6 HD. Maybe you should increase the HD first. I think that would probably be perfectly balanced with the other revision changes, though one might wonder why the rogue still has only a d6. (And sorceror/wizard a d4)

Mustrum Ridcully

I know this is slightly off topic, well who am I kidding it IS off topic, but I never understood why the sorcerer was a d4. Since the spell casting ability is innate, you would think the sorcerer would spend less(if any) time in the library and more time conditioning if an adventuring life lay ahead of them.

 

[Technik4]

I have issues with the bard in general. I know they were going for a Poor, Medium, Good progression with spellcasting, but it seems like too many classes got "Good". Everyone hurrah-ed when druids and clerics got 9 levels of spells (IIRC they only had 7 in 2ed) but why were bards left behind?

Consider this, a bard has a HD slightly larger than a wizard or sorceror, but less than a cleric or druid. He has the ability to cast in armor, but not as much as a druid or cleric, but more than the wizard or sorceror. And his BAB is equal to the druid and cleric, but more than wizard or sorceror.

For all that he is weaker than the druid or cleric, youd think he would have more to show for it than a couple class abilities. I mean, his best spell is inherently 3 points behind on DCs, just because a bards best is only 6th vs 9th. Not to mention, he gets those later than everyone else. What was the reason again? Clerics and druids have equal if not better attack, utility, and healing spells. Bards only rule with a couple niche spells (doesnt the druid have a couple niche spells?), otherwise they are enchanter/illusionists a few levels behind the real thing.

I would like to see a d8 Full BAB bard with other abilities as 3.5, or full 9th level spell progression with everything as 3.5. Obviously, its easier to add a few points of BAB and a couple hit points than it is to create 3 more levels worth of spell lists, then extend both the spell/day and the known spells charts.

If the ranger can score a d8, I think the bard could (should?) too, at least as long as he is left with his weak spellcasting (but stronger than ranger's). For further comparisons to the ranger, they both have the same skill points, and they both have 2 good saving throws. Ranger has a host of abilities which easily outstrip bardic song and knowledge, as well as a better HD, better BAB, and he still has spells (although far weaker than the bard).

It would also be nice if there was a built-in mechanic so that a bard could take sorceror levels to improve bardic spellcasting, at the cost of reducing nearly all stats and missing out on bardic abilities for a few levels.

Technik