[3.5] Perform -- Does it annoy you as well?
- Thread starter Charwoman Gene
- Start date
Lichtenhart
First Post
Lord Pendragon and Fenes already said most of what I wanted to say about the new perform better than I could.
There are people who love simple rules. People that things that Perform working as Craft or Knowledge adds something to their game, because it 'should' be so. I don't think the scholar who spent ages researching info about obscure alien beings, and the armorer locked in his forge night and day to fix the Realm's soldiers' armors would say that the other one put the same effort honing his skills than he did.
There are people that think 3e perform was unrealistic because they think it's not fair to instantly become a 'master' of an instrument. Instantly? How do a bard gets the skill points to become 'instantly' a master of an instruments? He gets them by staying there and singing in the face of the dragon, when all people in their good mind whould have stayed miles away. In real life it takes a lot of effort and pain to master an instrument. In the game it takes a lot of effort and pain to level up. Do your characters need some more effort and pain? Then why don't you show me the pain a ranger endure getting accustomed to the jungle and the tundra alike? Why don't you show me the effort a sorcerer put in identifying the same spell cast by the somber prayers of a cleric and the swirling dance of a bard? Why don't you show me the pain the young dwarven squire endured trying not to chop his own head off with his urgrosh while clinging to his last bow lesson?
There are people who love simple rules. People that things that Perform working as Craft or Knowledge adds something to their game, because it 'should' be so. I don't think the scholar who spent ages researching info about obscure alien beings, and the armorer locked in his forge night and day to fix the Realm's soldiers' armors would say that the other one put the same effort honing his skills than he did.
There are people that think 3e perform was unrealistic because they think it's not fair to instantly become a 'master' of an instrument. Instantly? How do a bard gets the skill points to become 'instantly' a master of an instruments? He gets them by staying there and singing in the face of the dragon, when all people in their good mind whould have stayed miles away. In real life it takes a lot of effort and pain to master an instrument. In the game it takes a lot of effort and pain to level up. Do your characters need some more effort and pain? Then why don't you show me the pain a ranger endure getting accustomed to the jungle and the tundra alike? Why don't you show me the effort a sorcerer put in identifying the same spell cast by the somber prayers of a cleric and the swirling dance of a bard? Why don't you show me the pain the young dwarven squire endured trying not to chop his own head off with his urgrosh while clinging to his last bow lesson?
chalcedony
First Post
A high-level mage with 0 ranks in Spellcraft and 0 ranks in Concentration can stop time and blast his enemies into the abyss (as gunslinger said), a high-level cleric with 0 ranks in Knowledge (religion) and 0 ranks in Concentration can ask his diety to do the same. A high-level fighter with no skill points in anything can slice through his enemies like butter. A high-level ranger with no skills can still snipe his enemies if he so much as sees a foot sticking out/dish out seven attacks with a quarterstaff.
And so on.
A high-level bard with no ranks in Perform (and only Perform) is party baggage. In fact, he's hardly even a Bard if he doesn't max out Perform.
Perform is not only just a class skill, it is a skill that must be maxed for Bards in order to gain access to their class abilities. I wonder if a lot of the readers here ever play bards. A Rogue with no ranks in disable device STILL gains trap sense and the (permission?) to disable traps with a DC >20. A Ranger gets his feats even without any prerequsites. I'm speaking out of memory here, but AFAIK the Bard is the only class apart from sorcerors who don't get special abilities by virtue of just being in that class. (Aside from reduced ASF).
So why force Bards to spend more and more points in Perform to do something that they SHOULD be good at above and beyond everyone else? Why not require that mages take Spellcraft(abjuration)/Spellcraft(divination), etc to cast their spells? Why not require, as Belen said, that Rangers take Survival(mountains), Survival(urban), etc?
You don't get it - Bards are supposed to be jacks-of-all-trades. Your build essentially has 5 skills. And as I pointed out earlier, there's gonna be an explosion of Bards who take Perform (sing) as the no-brainer skill in combat.
An additional form of Perform for every 3 ranks in the skill seems reasonable to me, still.
Why give Bards more skill points if he must spend it back on Peform? I am not so much complaining about having to spread my skill points in Perform (I am willing to sacrifice the points for RP), but it's just that it takes away from the other skills that Bards are by definition supposed to dabble in.
And so on.
A high-level bard with no ranks in Perform (and only Perform) is party baggage. In fact, he's hardly even a Bard if he doesn't max out Perform.
Perform is not only just a class skill, it is a skill that must be maxed for Bards in order to gain access to their class abilities. I wonder if a lot of the readers here ever play bards. A Rogue with no ranks in disable device STILL gains trap sense and the (permission?) to disable traps with a DC >20. A Ranger gets his feats even without any prerequsites. I'm speaking out of memory here, but AFAIK the Bard is the only class apart from sorcerors who don't get special abilities by virtue of just being in that class. (Aside from reduced ASF).
So why force Bards to spend more and more points in Perform to do something that they SHOULD be good at above and beyond everyone else? Why not require that mages take Spellcraft(abjuration)/Spellcraft(divination), etc to cast their spells? Why not require, as Belen said, that Rangers take Survival(mountains), Survival(urban), etc?
You don't get it - Bards are supposed to be jacks-of-all-trades. Your build essentially has 5 skills. And as I pointed out earlier, there's gonna be an explosion of Bards who take Perform (sing) as the no-brainer skill in combat.
An additional form of Perform for every 3 ranks in the skill seems reasonable to me, still.
Why give Bards more skill points if he must spend it back on Peform? I am not so much complaining about having to spread my skill points in Perform (I am willing to sacrifice the points for RP), but it's just that it takes away from the other skills that Bards are by definition supposed to dabble in.
Last edited:
Etan Moonstar
First Post
How many people who like the 3.5 change to Perform play bards? I do, as often as I play any other class (although I mostly DM). And a fair number of my other characters have taken musical skills (Etan himself, a 2E thief, put a fair number of proficiency slots into his Musical Instrument skill and developed a reputation comparable to that of many bards). Let me pose a counterquestion: how many ranting about the 3.5 change to Perform have only played bards in 3rd edition? For all of you without previous edition experience, let me summarize the history of the bard and his performing abilities (sticking with core rules only for simplicity's sake).
1E: Bard was an optional "prestige" class (for humans or half-elves only) that first required at least 5 levels of fighter, then at least 5 levels of thief, at which point they finally started taking levels as bard. They were required to always have a stringed instrument. Their poetry inspired friends in combat, and a combination of singing and playing could counter sound effects or charm. Thus all 1E bards were required to have poetry, singing, and be able to play a stringed instrument, with no mention of any other types of performance.
2E: Bard became a core class requiring 12 Dex, 13 Int, and 15 Cha (and could only be human or half-elf). All bards could sing and play ONE musical instrument (not one group of them) of his choice. He could learn more instruments by spending proficiency slots--he got three slots to start, and gained another every four levels (and spending another slot on Musical Instrument meant you couldn't spend one on another skill). Either his music or his poetry/stories could now produce the bardic special abilities.
3E: No more requirements for bards, as they become a basic core class. Again, only music or poetry/stories produce bardic special abilities. The difference now is that, for the first time in D&D history, bards (and other characters) suddenly became virtuosi at everything as they put more ranks into Perform. An 8th-level bard with a 16 Cha who had no prior flute training could, by choosing flute as his new performance type at 9th level, suddenly have a 50% chance of playing the flute well enough to gain a national reputation doing so. Which brings me to my second question: how many of you ranting about the 3.5 Perform skill have any actual musical training? It takes years of training, practice (at least 6-8 hours a day, often even more than that), and dedication to develop a national reputation.
3.5E: Not much has changed about the actual bard class itself, except for getting 6 skill points/level instead of 4. Bardic abilities are still activated by music or poetics. Perform is now split into nine groups of generally-related specifics (although brass and woodwinds should have been separate--the flute players in my trumpet class several years ago didn't have any advantage at all, while my trombone experience made me a decent trumpet player from the beginning; the situation was reversed in oboe class).
So, from a multi-edition perspective, 3E is the only edition that actually had bards automatically become able to do every type of performance at an astounding level of virtuosity. Similarly, I cannot think of any historical or literary tradition that portrayed bards as invariably being experts in every type of performance--at most, notable examples could sing, play a single musical instrument, and recite poetry and stories; classically, Orpheus was only known for his harp, Homer for his poetry, and the god of music Apollo himself only ever mentioned playing a lyre. The 3E anomaly in the general bardic tradition is likely what the designers realized and corrected.
So why are these "true" bard players whining so much? Frankly, it smacks of powergaming to me (something I wouldn't expect from a bard player). 3.5 still penalizes "roleplaying" (roleplaying apparently defined in this case as being able to do all types of performance) much, much less than 2E did (almost forgot to mention that Singing and Dancing were also separate proficiencies from Musical Instrument), especially considering that your bard gets an extra two skill points each level. For roleplayers, how badly off are you when your 16 Cha 9th-level bard with only Perform (Singing) tries to play the flute? 45% of the time you'll play it enjoyably, and you'll manage a great performance 20% of the time. If you have access to a masterwork flute, you still have a 5% chance of a landmark performance that might garner some national attention. That's not much of a roleplaying nerf if you ask me.
All this said, your DM's game, your DM's rules. Just don't look so surprised when some of us (particularly those of us with actual musical training or previous edition experience) disagree with you (and provide solid foundations for our disagreement), and please especially don't imply that we don't like or play bards.
1E: Bard was an optional "prestige" class (for humans or half-elves only) that first required at least 5 levels of fighter, then at least 5 levels of thief, at which point they finally started taking levels as bard. They were required to always have a stringed instrument. Their poetry inspired friends in combat, and a combination of singing and playing could counter sound effects or charm. Thus all 1E bards were required to have poetry, singing, and be able to play a stringed instrument, with no mention of any other types of performance.
2E: Bard became a core class requiring 12 Dex, 13 Int, and 15 Cha (and could only be human or half-elf). All bards could sing and play ONE musical instrument (not one group of them) of his choice. He could learn more instruments by spending proficiency slots--he got three slots to start, and gained another every four levels (and spending another slot on Musical Instrument meant you couldn't spend one on another skill). Either his music or his poetry/stories could now produce the bardic special abilities.
3E: No more requirements for bards, as they become a basic core class. Again, only music or poetry/stories produce bardic special abilities. The difference now is that, for the first time in D&D history, bards (and other characters) suddenly became virtuosi at everything as they put more ranks into Perform. An 8th-level bard with a 16 Cha who had no prior flute training could, by choosing flute as his new performance type at 9th level, suddenly have a 50% chance of playing the flute well enough to gain a national reputation doing so. Which brings me to my second question: how many of you ranting about the 3.5 Perform skill have any actual musical training? It takes years of training, practice (at least 6-8 hours a day, often even more than that), and dedication to develop a national reputation.
3.5E: Not much has changed about the actual bard class itself, except for getting 6 skill points/level instead of 4. Bardic abilities are still activated by music or poetics. Perform is now split into nine groups of generally-related specifics (although brass and woodwinds should have been separate--the flute players in my trumpet class several years ago didn't have any advantage at all, while my trombone experience made me a decent trumpet player from the beginning; the situation was reversed in oboe class).
So, from a multi-edition perspective, 3E is the only edition that actually had bards automatically become able to do every type of performance at an astounding level of virtuosity. Similarly, I cannot think of any historical or literary tradition that portrayed bards as invariably being experts in every type of performance--at most, notable examples could sing, play a single musical instrument, and recite poetry and stories; classically, Orpheus was only known for his harp, Homer for his poetry, and the god of music Apollo himself only ever mentioned playing a lyre. The 3E anomaly in the general bardic tradition is likely what the designers realized and corrected.
So why are these "true" bard players whining so much? Frankly, it smacks of powergaming to me (something I wouldn't expect from a bard player). 3.5 still penalizes "roleplaying" (roleplaying apparently defined in this case as being able to do all types of performance) much, much less than 2E did (almost forgot to mention that Singing and Dancing were also separate proficiencies from Musical Instrument), especially considering that your bard gets an extra two skill points each level. For roleplayers, how badly off are you when your 16 Cha 9th-level bard with only Perform (Singing) tries to play the flute? 45% of the time you'll play it enjoyably, and you'll manage a great performance 20% of the time. If you have access to a masterwork flute, you still have a 5% chance of a landmark performance that might garner some national attention. That's not much of a roleplaying nerf if you ask me.
All this said, your DM's game, your DM's rules. Just don't look so surprised when some of us (particularly those of us with actual musical training or previous edition experience) disagree with you (and provide solid foundations for our disagreement), and please especially don't imply that we don't like or play bards.
Etan Moonstar
First Post
A rogue with no ranks in Disable Device or Search might as well not have "permission" to disable traps with DC>20 for all the good it does him. A high level bard with no ranks in Perform can still fight as well as a rogue, cleric, or druid (better than a wizard or sorcerer), can still cast spells better than a paladin, ranger, or non-spellcasting class, and can still use whatever skills he took instead of Perform. He also still has access to his wealth of Bardic Knowledge. How exactly does this not fit the "jack-of-all-trades" description?
chalcedony
First Post
Oops. I forgot Bardic Knowledge in my above post. 
Etan Moonstar
First Post
One more thing I just noticed that can't go unanswered: you get better at singing or playing an instrument while most of your concentration is focused on dodging dragon breath, fangs, and claws HOW??? The bard gets better through the hours of practice he puts in while walking down the road, in camp, in town, or any other non-stressful situation where he can focus on developing his talents--all of this represented by spending skill points.
The bard gets better through the hours of practice he puts in while walking down the road, in camp, in town, or any other non-stressful situation where he can focus on developing his talents--all of this represented by spending skill points.Etan Moonstar
First Post
And final post for the night: jack-of-all-trades, as I see it, doesn't apply strictly to skills, but rather to all abilities. A bard is as good or better at fighting as most classes (but not as good as the combat masters), as good or better at spellcasting (including healing) as most classes (but not as good as the spellcasting masters), and, in a similar vein, as good or better at a variety of skills as most classes (but not as good as the skill masters--rogues). Again, it follows the trend quite nicely in my opinion.
Lord Pendragon
First Post
After you're finished crying "powergamer" and "whiner" to those people who prefer the 3.0 Perform, perhaps you could explain to me how non-weapon proficiencies worked in 2e? My recollection is fuzzy. I mean, goodness, with all the separate proficiencies, if a 2e bard player spent all of his non-weapon proficiencies on instruments, he must have been really hindered! His ability to maneuver in combat (such as with the Tumble skill), or lower his opponent's AC (such as with Bluff,) or change NPCs' attitudes (such as with Diplomacy), or use magic items (such as with UMD,) or find (Search) and remove (disable device) traps must have seriously suffered.Etan Moonstar said:
Last edited:
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
Well, basically in 2e, proficiencies were by-and-large a complete waste of space which unnecessarily complicated the character generation process.Lord Pendragon said:
I think there WERE actually proficiencies which could make a difference, but they were few and far between.
In other words, 'wasting' one on another form of performance was no worse than 'spending' one on brewing or firebuilding.
Last edited:
