• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Power levels and more - Andy Collins quotes

Erithtotl

First Post
I don't know exactly how I feel about this subject. I have been bothered by the idea that the concept of roles turns the game into WoW. I have heard a lot of evidence that the core design team has been heavily influenced by WoW's success, but what that says to me is that in combat you do one thing, or one small set of things, every single battle, over and over, which sounds tedious. I'm hoping this is not how things work out.

I do know from owning the Star Wars Saga Edition, that I like a lot of what they are doing in there. It seems clear their goal is to create character differentiation by more prestige classes. Looking at the iconic characters from the movies, most of them have a large number of prestige classes. That may explain the lessened focus on multiclassing in 4e.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Brother MacLaren said:
And I have NOT had the experience that bards suck. They have been amazingly effective as support, defense, direct offense, and out-of-combat challenges in my experience. Perhaps just very skilled players that I was watching.
They can be amazingly effective - if in a group, and if the player knows what he does, and doesn't care that he will never have the spot light in combat. Which might be the case more often than it sometimes seems in the "anti-Bard" threads.
But I still tend to agree that the Bard is just weak. I think the Bard is basically the only class in D&D that you can't use as a direct "BBEG" in your campaign. Sure, he is very effective in the background, but basically none of his bardic abilities let him outshine a Rogue in that role.
But in a combat? He surely needs some powerful allies, which begs the question - why have him there in the first place - couldn't you just up his allies to be a full threat without bardic music?

That's certainly not a _real_ problem with the class. But it all shows the same - the Bard can do nothing himself. Others need to provide him scrolls, wands or staffs, or they have to fight for him. That's certainly okay for some players, at least for a while. But would it hurt them or the Bard if he was a bit more effective in a specific role?
 

Majoru Oakheart

Adventurer
Brother MacLaren said:
And I have NOT had the experience that bards suck. They have been amazingly effective as support, defense, direct offense, and out-of-combat challenges in my experience. Perhaps just very skilled players that I was watching.
Frankly, it's been my experience that the difference was like this:

Bard: "This round my action is to give you all +2 to hit and damage."
Barbarian: "I attack, I hit ac 38. Their ac is 24, so I hit, I do...48 damage...oh, 50 due to the bard song."
Wizard: "I shoot an orb of force at him, I hit touch ac 22..Oh, right, 24 with the bard song. Their touch ac is 11, so I do...40 damage..right, 42 with the bard song."
DM: "Hah. 42? Well, the enemy only had 25 hit points left, so 42 kills it."
Bard: "So, wait, you both would have hit without the song and the damage without the song would have killed the enemy, anyways? So...I accomplished...nothing?"

They just don't have a combat niche. What role do you play in defeating the enemies? Haste is about the closest they get to actually beating the enemies. And they don't defeat anyone, they just make their allies better at doing what they do.

That was one of the main reasons I'm happy about the roles. It means that you don't have to be a wizard, fighter or barbarian to know that you have a job to do in combat. And you know that your job will be useful.
 

Mercule

Adventurer
Andy Collins said:
Our group in Monte Cook's Ptolus game included a sorcerer, a monk, a rogue, and an archery-based fighter, and the monk player was constantly frustrated that the party needed him to do things (like tank) that he wasn't built for. The rogue ended up being pushed into multiclassing as a fighter, which meant the party was short on rogue talents, so my sorcerer dabbled in rogue and thus didn't have the spell power he really needed in the toughest fights. And our lack of a cleric caused no end of headaches.

Sounds like the RtToEE group I was in. We decided to go with a themed group; specifically, stealth. So, we end up with a halfling rogue (stealth focused), a human rogue (working toward thief-acrobat, so combat focused), a fighter/rogue working toward duelist, a monk, a bard, and a barbarian (with "maxed" stealth). A "sneaky" cleric and the world's unluckiest ranger also passed through.

We were mobile enough to avoid dying too often. That pretty well covers it. My theif-acrobat and my wife's duelist were the two PCs to be reckoned with (we work well together, what can I say). The others were non-entities, for all practical purposes.

The monk and halfling waited for an opening, but rarely got one. When we intentionally switched things up, the halfling always got dropped and the acrobat or duelist replacement always made the monk look bad.

The barbarian was no better at combat than either the acrobat or duelist, switched to the ranger and looked worse, then left the group. Both looked good on paper, but didn't have the mobility to keep up with the others and didn't have better armor or do more damage (sneak attacks were not a problem).

The poor bard had to play both cleric and wizard and spent most of his time with a wand of CLW in hand. After the acrobat took a single level of wizard, he was almost as good of an arcane striker as the bard. Both the duelist and acrobat had roughly equal Diplomacy scores as the bard, too. In his defense, the bard did survive one of the toughest solo scenes.

The cleric was the replacement for the dead halfling. He didn't want to play the healer, so didn't. He pretty much just buffed himself and did his own thing, which usually meant acting like a tank. IIRC, he insisted on wearing his plate armor in a boat on a lake in the Water Temple and didn't survive (go figure), so he left. If he'd been more of a team player, he would have been a great asset in the tougher fights.

So, what started off as a really great, themed group ended up being a bunch of people watching two extremely effective strikers act like all the world was a nail. If a hammer was the right tool, life was great. If it wasn't, it was a painful, frustrating night -- usually several nights.
 
Last edited:

Majoru Oakheart said:
They just don't have a combat niche. What role do you play in defeating the enemies? Haste is about the closest they get to actually beating the enemies. And they don't defeat anyone, they just make their allies better at doing what they do.
As I've said in other threads, MarauderX's campaign has this as the core group:
Drd20
Rog16/Clr3
Rog7/Ran2/Shadowdancer10
Rog3/Sor6/AT9 (LA +1 race)
Brb1/Brd14/Seeker of the Song4

In that group, the bard is the best melee combatant (the rogue comes close). He has a ton of HP (due to the druid's Craft Wondrous Item), excellent saves, songs that boost his own attacks and those of the party members, and feats like Leap Attack.

Sure, a pure barbarian would have a higher BAB. But the bard in that role is still good enough to destroy opponents of higher CR than his level in melee, as he routinely does. Isn't that the benchmark? Not how he'd do relative to a hypothetical fighter, but how he actually fills the role in the game? When you factor in Inspire Greatness and Inspire Courage, the difference between him and a pure barbarian is negligible. The saves, particularly Will saves, are such a big advantage that they more than offset any minor loss of combat power. I'm a big fan of well-rounded characters, and this bard is exactly that.
 

Ridley's Cohort

First Post
It is possible to go Tankless, but you have to adjust your tactics appropriately -- put more emphasis on stealth, mobility, and boost HPs to buy some wriggle room.

The real problem is the Healer.
 


hong

WotC's bitch
Ridley's Cohort said:
It is possible to go Tankless, but you have to adjust your tactics appropriately -- put more emphasis on stealth, mobility, and boost HPs to buy some wriggle room.

... oh, TANKLESS. I thought you said TOPLESS.

Never mind.
 



Remove ads

Top