Is the Bard broken?

[ARandomGod]

You have started out with the assumption that bards are broken and then challenged others to help you fix it. Others have countered that your base assumption is incorrect and that the bard does not need to be fixed.

Now, personally, I see this as a big problem. When someone starts out with "Given: The bard is underpowered and needs to be fixed." And then asks for opinions on how to "fix" it, that person is not asking to be told the bard is fine.

And doing so is extrememly counterproductive and at least a little rude, at least beyond a token "I disagree, but if I agreed I'd do the following".

I mean, stick to the point when there are points like this. The point wasn't "I have an opinion, show me where it's wrong" it's "Treat this as a fact, and help me". I think that people should either help with his alleged fact or get off it already. Now, I'm as up for a good arguement on facts as the next guy, but I really hate it when ppl almost maliciously attempt to derail people like that.

IF someone thinks the sky isn't blue enough and wants help making it blue-er, it's counter productive to point at him and shout "The sky is too blue! TOO BLUE ALREADY!!" And even simple opinions that the sky is blue enough are the opposite of helpful.

So saying, I have no opinions on how to improve the bard, and in general I've improved the class by calling it an NPC class, where it's power level is indeed rather high. There are only a few bards, and they service royalty in general, and they are in charge of large armies. Where they belong.

 

[Dimwhit]

All I'll say about this is that the Bard in one of our main campaigns (around 14-15th level) is one of the most powerful in the group. Without him, the group as a whole is significantly less effective. So I'm in the 'there's nothing wrong with Bards' camp.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

ARandomGod... agreed on your point on the given.. but when the post is "Given: Bard is underpowered and need fixed... provide what you think needs fixing..."

To me what needs fixing is not the Bard class itself, but the way the normal adventure setting is prepared. More social, non-violent options. Hence my initial reply to the previous thread.

I have said the same thing in the "Druid is underpowered" threads {as well as the 'Druid is overpowered'...}. The DM must provide proper encounters both in type and CR for any character class. Bards are just the most obvious in this requirement.

 

[Xereq]

Now, personally, I see this as a big problem. When someone starts out with "Given: The bard is underpowered and needs to be fixed." And then asks for opinions on how to "fix" it, that person is not asking to be told the bard is fine.

And doing so is extrememly counterproductive and at least a little rude, at least beyond a token "I disagree, but if I agreed I'd do the following".

I mean, stick to the point when there are points like this. The point wasn't "I have an opinion, show me where it's wrong" it's "Treat this as a fact, and help me". I think that people should either help with his alleged fact or get off it already. Now, I'm as up for a good arguement on facts as the next guy, but I really hate it when ppl almost maliciously attempt to derail people like that.

IF someone thinks the sky isn't blue enough and wants help making it blue-er, it's counter productive to point at him and shout "The sky is too blue! TOO BLUE ALREADY!!" And even simple opinions that the sky is blue enough are the opposite of helpful.

people would not challenge him if he did not ask them to

he has challenged all players who read his thread to prove him wrong, he says the bard needs to be "fixed" without giving a clear reason why

he does not attempt to define what is an iconic bard but tells people that they are wrong and that thier idea of the iconic bard is not "bardly" enough, without saying why or what "bardly" really means, if he would difine his idea of an iconic bard I would be more than happy to help him come up with some mechanics for it, but as it is he seems to want a nonspellcasting enchantment specialist, which is by the way a contridiction.

fire beetle, please define for us what your iconic bard looks like and come up with a better adjective, we might be able to come up with a new core class here. But right now you seem to be chasing off al the creative people who usually come up with new feats and monsters and mechanics with your zealous quest to make the bard more "bardly"

the bard can easily be adapted into a new class, for example:
The Pirate:
take away the music,
d8 hit dice,
fighter's base attack bonus,
leadership at 5th level
bonus feats every four levels and your enemies will always forget one thing,
you're Captian Jack Sparrow

 

[Xereq]

oh, and one of you're previous gripes was that DMs don't use bards as NPCs and when they do the players don't scream in terror, thats because the players don't like failing thier sense motive checks and and end up drinking what they are convinved is a "healing potion" but that is in reality a flask of dragon bile poison

if I were to use a bard NPC reapeatedly my players would groan and prepare to watch helplessly as thier low charisma character did stupid, stupid things

Again it is all in how creativly you use social skills

 

[Geron Raveneye]

To answer the title question...no.

To pose a counter question: Why do you think the bard sucks?

A bard is a secondary fighter and a secondary caster. He can cast spells while wearing light armor and using a sword or rapier. He can cast most of the low- and mid-level buff spells a cleric can cast, except for the purely divine ones. For those, he can buff with his songs, for as long as he is singing + 5 rounds. He can heal. He has a decent skill selection and ample skill points to stat them up...he has 2 skill points/level less than a rogue, and 3 or more class skills less to cater to. On top of it, a bard gets Bardic Knowledge, which can come up with the answer for a lot of questions others have to spend skill points for Knowledge (Local), Knowledge (Nobility) or Knowledge (Obscure ancient legends).

Handwaving a bard's combat abilities away is as silly as doing so with the rogue. A 1st level bard has the same combat abilities as a rogue, instead of the sneak attack (which depends on the opponent losing his Dex bonus) he has spells (who depend on him not getting konked on the head while casting them). With a well-placed Daze I can be as much of a threat. And my buffing runs as long as I sing. Bless, a cleric buff with comparable effects, doesn't give me the +1 to damage, doesn't give me +1 to saves vs. charm effects, its range is 50' around the caster instead of every ally who can hear me (which can be much further than 50'), and lasts for 1 minute = 6 rounds, while the bardic music lasts for as long as the bard can sing + 5 rounds afterwards. So I'd say bardic buffing at first level is already as good as a cleric's.

And one more thing...those "bardy" things mainly revolve around interactions with NPCs, influencing the mood and disposition of others, and providing answers for questions about lore, legend, nobles and heroes. Saying those activities don't influence the game is cutting off a lot of potential roleplaying material in order to make a character class look broken. A bard can easily hold his own without DM's preferred treatment. Some adventures emphasize combat and dungeon-crawling, and some emphasize social interactions and detective work. Not every class is equally useful in a one-on-one blood brawl deep under the earth, and not every class is equally useful in rooting out informations about the assassin of the duke's son and his hideouts from the local underworld. Whoever claims that every class has to be equally useful in every kind of situation has missed the point in a class-based system.

 

[TheRelinquished]

Well, I have to admit that there is a little power gamer inside of me that is screaming, "A broken Bard? Brilliant!" However, I understand that I can't let that part of me control this situation. Because I know plenty well that there is nothing wrong or at least nothing lacking in the Bard's department.

First of all, I think you're assuming too much about who's playing. Fighters are great at fighting, Wizards are great at casting, Clerics are great at buffing, and Rogues are....well, they're just great at what they do. But who says that they're in the party in question? Who says that you have to use the classic line-up for your game?

Well as far as I'm concerned, they aren't necessarily in the picture. And therefore I won't consider them compared to the Bard. Because sometimes parties just don't balance out like that.

In the game I'm playing in, there are four members: a Rogue, a Psion, a Druid, and my Bard. My Bard (Lingus the Cunning) is by far the heaviest hitter in the group.

My character serves as the diplomat, the know-all, the arcane caster, the fighter, and still provides massive support to the party.

The Bard, in the hands of a very skilled player, is an effective replacement for multiple roles in the party, even if it can't replace single roles.

If anything, think of the Bard as a gateway to playing unorthodox parties and campaigns. Some things just aren't cut out for mainstream.

 

[Crothian]

No, the Bard does not suck. I would argue, and oddly enough have on many time, that plenty of people don't know what a Bard does and how to play one properly. And in the beginning of this thread expecting a Bard to be as good as a Cleric, Rogue, fighjter, and wizard at what those classes do best is absurd. Guess what? A fighter can't cast spells as well a wizxard, buff like a cleric, or out rogue the rogue. And hew's not suppossed to.

 

[Dimwhit]

No, the Bard does not suck. I would argue, and oddly enough have on many time, that plenty of people don't know what a Bard does and how to play one properly.

I endorse this sentiment.

 

[Firebeetle]

Saying that the bard is broken because it doesn't directly compare to a fighter or sorceror is like saying a scalpel is broken because it isn't a longsword.
Two very different tool with very different uses. You don't perform surgery with a longsword, and you don't slay orcs with a scalpel.

But what would you rather go into a fight with, a scalpel or a longsword? Sure, the scalpel might get in a lucky and devastating shot, but you're better off with a longsword, shortsword, or even a sharp, pointed stick. Since this is D&D, we can be expecting to fight (and hopefully kill) orcs, not perform surgery on them.

Trying to make one thing act like another doesn't prove that thing is broken.

I am not trying to get one thing to act like another, I'm trying to make a good class concept into a good class with it's own, distinct flavor.

It only proves that you don't know how to properly use it.
Bards are not broken. However, players who want a min-maxed character focussed on a single facet of the game, and players with no ability to multi-task have no business playing a bard. Or arguing that the bard is broken.

Now now, there is no need to get personal or to make attributions about my person with untruths. It's rude, nasty behavior and has no place here, stick with the argument please. If you must attack me personally for whatever depraved reason, do it via e-mail please.