A real fighting bard.
- Thread starter Lord Pendragon
- Start date
LazarusLong42
First Post
Progressive Inspire Courage.
The reason the Bard doesn't get--or need--the six levels of spells is Bardic Music. I think part of the problem here is that most of us haven't yet had a chance to play a mid-to-high-level Bard in an actual game, but think about this:
A 16th-level bard is missing three levels of spells as compared with a wizard or cleric. But he adds a stackable +3 to all attack and damage rolls, pretty much every combat. Bless is the only other morale effect I can remember off the top of my head, but at 16th level the cleric should be casting prayer anyway... which is a luck bonus.
In a large party, a single bard can make all the difference. Everyone (unless they're deafened) has a 15% greater chance of hitting the enemy.
In fact, as I think about it, except at low levels where he can't really use it every combat, this makes the Bard's effective BAB progression very nearly full. Let's see:
The only problem is that he doesn't get the extra attack, but otherwise he's basically 1 BAB behind the Fighter. And, because he's a nice guy, he gives those bonuses to all of his allies, too.
I started this off talking about spell levels, but I think the basic thing is: a Bard doesn't need a full BAB progression; he already has one.
The reason the Bard doesn't get--or need--the six levels of spells is Bardic Music. I think part of the problem here is that most of us haven't yet had a chance to play a mid-to-high-level Bard in an actual game, but think about this:
A 16th-level bard is missing three levels of spells as compared with a wizard or cleric. But he adds a stackable +3 to all attack and damage rolls, pretty much every combat. Bless is the only other morale effect I can remember off the top of my head, but at 16th level the cleric should be casting prayer anyway... which is a luck bonus.
In a large party, a single bard can make all the difference. Everyone (unless they're deafened) has a 15% greater chance of hitting the enemy.
In fact, as I think about it, except at low levels where he can't really use it every combat, this makes the Bard's effective BAB progression very nearly full. Let's see:
Code:
lvl Effective "BAB"
1 +0
2 +1
3 +2
4 +3
5 +4 (by fifth level, the Bard can definitely use Music every combat)
6 +5
7 +6
8 +8 (inspire courage +1 --> +2)
9 +8
10 +9
11 +10
12 +11
13 +11
14 +13 (inspire courage +2 --> +3)
15 +14
16 +15
17 +15
18 +16
19 +17
20 +19 (inspire courage +3 --> +4)The only problem is that he doesn't get the extra attack, but otherwise he's basically 1 BAB behind the Fighter. And, because he's a nice guy, he gives those bonuses to all of his allies, too.
I started this off talking about spell levels, but I think the basic thing is: a Bard doesn't need a full BAB progression; he already has one.
Mercule
Adventurer
A don't really see the Bard as more accurate in combat than a Cleric, Monk, Druid, or Rogue. I don't think the full BAB is a good plon.
I would, however, endorse a d8 hit die. That makes them just slightly tougher than Rogues, which is about right. It also makes them the equivalent of a Druid (lighter armor, limited weapons) for straight-up combat, which is also about right, IMHO.
I would, however, endorse a d8 hit die. That makes them just slightly tougher than Rogues, which is about right. It also makes them the equivalent of a Druid (lighter armor, limited weapons) for straight-up combat, which is also about right, IMHO.
PA
First Post
Voadam said:
I can see one, if we consider its gaming (and not historical or literary) roots: the 1st edition Bard had to start as a Fighter (then become a Thief, after what he would become a Bard, with some Druid spells).
Some of the 3.5e bardic songs give a good boost to fighting abilities, but on the other hand, no more greater magic weapon... Full BAB? I do wonder if it would be balanced. Compared to a Cleric, I guess the Bard would not be overpowered, but then, the Cleric is everybody's monster.
Other possibilities to boost the bard:
1) 8 skill points. Yes, as skillful as a rogue.
2) HD 8 (though he would still be way below the cleric in power).
The reason Bardic Music is so good is not because of the quantitative bonus it provides, or because of the number of allies it can affect, but because, unlike the cleric, the bard can do other things while providing those bonuses. He can attack, and, because of the minimum duration of Bardic Music, he can also cast spells. Not to mention that the bonuses he does provide stack with a lot of other things, which can't be said of the cleric. Many people forget that TIME is a resource in this game.
how about as a PrC
In AD&D ("v.1.o")
Bard was basically a prestige class.
After a few levels of Fighter and a few levels of Thief/Rogue you could become a Bard. I Think they were restricted to chain shirt or lighter and certain weapons. (bascially no Greatsword or Greataxe or polearms, etc.)
Maybe you could handle it that way?
d8 hd sounds good to me-
right in the middle of the d6 and d10.
In AD&D ("v.1.o")
Bard was basically a prestige class.
After a few levels of Fighter and a few levels of Thief/Rogue you could become a Bard. I Think they were restricted to chain shirt or lighter and certain weapons. (bascially no Greatsword or Greataxe or polearms, etc.)
Maybe you could handle it that way?
d8 hd sounds good to me-
right in the middle of the d6 and d10.
Lord Pendragon
First Post
Re: how about as a PrC
You also can't say "with bardic music the bard's BAB is nearly as high as a fighter's" because you're forgetting that bardic music also effects the fighter. So while the bard has a +19 at 20th-level, his bardic music is also giving his fighter buddy a +24. Again, the bard is left behind.
D&D-wise, PA already gave a good answer. literature-wise, I'm hard-pressed to find any fightin' bards (save perhaps Robin of Locksley, who could arguably have been a bard or a rogue, or perhaps a multiclass). But I'm just as hard-pressed to find a cleric in full-plate, so it's a wash. Legend-wise, again, the other D&D staples are as absent as the bard.
I think a part of what the bard represents is the swashbuckler, more than the fighter or the rogue. The agile PC who whistles a merry tune as he's fighting the mooks up the staircase, then swings across the ballroom on a chandelier. That archtype deserves a better BAB.
)
The bard is already generally considered the weakest class in the game. Who in the world would take it as a prestige class? It'd have to be powered up far more than we're talking here to be attractive vs. the Arcane Trickster, that's for sure...paulewaug said:
I don't think this holds water. You can't base a class's BAB on their ability to buff. If you could, then the wizard has a +15 (Greater Magic Weapon), the cleric has a +20 (same), and the druid, wildshaped into a dire ape and animal growthed...well, let's just say it's high.
You also can't say "with bardic music the bard's BAB is nearly as high as a fighter's" because you're forgetting that bardic music also effects the fighter. So while the bard has a +19 at 20th-level, his bardic music is also giving his fighter buddy a +24. Again, the bard is left behind.
Which flavor are you talking about, game-wise, literature-wise, legend-wise?
D&D-wise, PA already gave a good answer. literature-wise, I'm hard-pressed to find any fightin' bards (save perhaps Robin of Locksley, who could arguably have been a bard or a rogue, or perhaps a multiclass). But I'm just as hard-pressed to find a cleric in full-plate, so it's a wash. Legend-wise, again, the other D&D staples are as absent as the bard.
I think a part of what the bard represents is the swashbuckler, more than the fighter or the rogue. The agile PC who whistles a merry tune as he's fighting the mooks up the staircase, then swings across the ballroom on a chandelier. That archtype deserves a better BAB.
When you say "too strong" what are you comparing it to? Do you believe such a bard would be more powerful than a wizard? Or a druid? Or a ranger? (I'm dropping cleric. After all, we definitely don't want something as or more powerful than the cleric!
)
Voadam
Legend
Re: Re: how about as a PrC
OK, I just wanted to get a handle on what class concept would work for a warrior bard.
A swashbuckler can be a strong warrior base deserving of 1/1 BAB. Good attacks but poor defense(hit points) does not match well however. And I just don't get a magic music swashbuckler as a noncampaign specific concept. I get the jack of all trades including arcane magic that is the current magical musician bard. He's a wierd concept himself but he's been around since 2e (1e was just too rare to count, I never saw one except, I think, in a Celtic based module)
As far as the 1e bard, remember their THACO froze when they switch classed until it got better than their fighter one, which wouldn't happen for what fifteen more levels or so? Not quite a solid argument for continuous 20 level 1/1 BAB.
The bard spells are stronger (a lot of will save attack spells) than the ranger or paladin ones and they get them from level 1.
If a bard got 1/1 BAB they would be close mechanically (attacks skills, class abilities, spells) to the ranger, so I think that would be the best basis for comparisons of class balance. It might work out, it might be too much, it is a close issue I think.
Lord Pendragon said:Which flavor are you talking about, game-wise, literature-wise, legend-wise?
D&D-wise, PA already gave a good answer. literature-wise, I'm hard-pressed to find any fightin' bards (save perhaps Robin of Locksley, who could arguably have been a bard or a rogue, or perhaps a multiclass). But I'm just as hard-pressed to find a cleric in full-plate, so it's a wash. Legend-wise, again, the other D&D staples are as absent as the bard.
I think a part of what the bard represents is the swashbuckler, more than the fighter or the rogue. The agile PC who whistles a merry tune as he's fighting the mooks up the staircase, then swings across the ballroom on a chandelier. That archtype deserves a better BAB.When you say "too strong" what are you comparing it to? Do you believe such a bard would be more powerful than a wizard? Or a druid? Or a ranger? (I'm dropping cleric. After all, we definitely don't want something as or more powerful than the cleric!
OK, I just wanted to get a handle on what class concept would work for a warrior bard.
A swashbuckler can be a strong warrior base deserving of 1/1 BAB. Good attacks but poor defense(hit points) does not match well however. And I just don't get a magic music swashbuckler as a noncampaign specific concept. I get the jack of all trades including arcane magic that is the current magical musician bard. He's a wierd concept himself but he's been around since 2e (1e was just too rare to count, I never saw one except, I think, in a Celtic based module)
As far as the 1e bard, remember their THACO froze when they switch classed until it got better than their fighter one, which wouldn't happen for what fifteen more levels or so? Not quite a solid argument for continuous 20 level 1/1 BAB.
The bard spells are stronger (a lot of will save attack spells) than the ranger or paladin ones and they get them from level 1.
If a bard got 1/1 BAB they would be close mechanically (attacks skills, class abilities, spells) to the ranger, so I think that would be the best basis for comparisons of class balance. It might work out, it might be too much, it is a close issue I think.
Last edited:
Argus Decimus Mokira
First Post
Hey
I just gave them Magic Weapon and Greater Magic Weapon again ... problem solved.
Thanks
-Matt
I just gave them Magic Weapon and Greater Magic Weapon again ... problem solved.
Thanks
-Matt
Lord Pendragon
First Post
Re: Re: Re: how about as a PrC
So flavor-wise, it fits for me.
So let's go with that. How do they compare?
Bard vs. Ranger
Spellcasting: 6 levels, full Caster Level, 4 levels, 1/2 CL
Skill points: 6+Int, 6+Int
Hit points: 1d6+Con, 1d8+Con
BAB: 3/4, Full
Bonus Feats: None, Track, Endurance, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Improved Precise Shot
Special Abilities: Bardic Knowledge, Bardic Music, Favored Enemy, Wild Empathy, Animal Companion, Woodland Stride, Swift Tracker, Evasion, Camouflage, Hide in Plain Sight.
So, would a +5 BAB give the bard more than the ranger?
For me, it's a matter of personality, more than anything else. When I think of the IMO classic swashbuckler, Errol Flynn playing Robin Hood, the class that seems to fit it more than anything is the bard. They have the same high-charisma flair. They have the same happy-go-lucky attitude. They have the same way with the ladies. Sure, Errol never cast Sound Burst, but you get the idea.Voadam said:
So flavor-wise, it fits for me.
This is very true. And a big reason for that is that a bard's caster level is effectively double that of the ranger's. The bard is an odd spellcasting duck. He has only 6 spell levels, but casts them as if he were a full-fledged caster. This is head-and-shoulders above the ranger, who has only 4 levels of spells, and casts even those with a 1/2 level caster level.
This is true. Also, since the ranger is, to my knowledge, hardly ever considered one of the strongest 3e classes, it affords us some flexibility. Changing the bard so that it is only slightly less strong, equal to, or slightly stronger, will create a class that is more in-line with the other core classes, without being overpowered.
So let's go with that. How do they compare?
Bard vs. Ranger
Spellcasting: 6 levels, full Caster Level, 4 levels, 1/2 CL
Skill points: 6+Int, 6+Int
Hit points: 1d6+Con, 1d8+Con
BAB: 3/4, Full
Bonus Feats: None, Track, Endurance, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Improved Precise Shot
Special Abilities: Bardic Knowledge, Bardic Music, Favored Enemy, Wild Empathy, Animal Companion, Woodland Stride, Swift Tracker, Evasion, Camouflage, Hide in Plain Sight.
So, would a +5 BAB give the bard more than the ranger?
Similar Threads
