Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Pendragon" data-source="post: 1025426" data-attributes="member: 707">Here's another way to look at 3.0 Perform:1st-level fighter (excluding feats) has a +1 with any weapon.20th-level fighter (excluding feats) has a +20 with any weapon.1st-level bard (excluding charisma) has a +4 with any instrument.20th-level bard (excluding charisma) has a +23 with any instrument.So for a fighter fighting, or a bard performing, the difference between a 1st-level character and a 20th-level one is a net +19 to the relevant role, with any of each class's tools (weapons, instruments).Now granted, in each case the 20th-level character can use feats to specialize.  The fighter might have Weapon Focus, Specialization, and improved Critical with a +5 greatsword of smackdown.  And the bard may have Skill Focus (Perform) and a Celestial Harp of Angelic Song (+10 to perform checks).But the bottom line is, unspecialized, the 20th-level character is +19 better than the 1st-level one.So what's the problem here?  Why is it more unrealistic for the bard to be good at all instruments but the fighter can be good with all weapons?What kind of realism is gained from restricting bards, that isn't immediately lost again by leaving fighters unhindered?Perform is a bard's "musical aptitude" that goes up in levels, even as BAB is a fighter's melee aptitude.  And like the fighter, the bard shouldn't have to worry about which instrument/method of performance he uses.  It makes no mechanical difference, and only serves to screw those players who want a more varied, archtypal bard.  (Others might have different knowledge, but as far as my reading is concerned, fantasy bards have always been masters of several different kinds of performance.)</blockquote>

Verification