Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Starfox" data-source="post: 6275405" data-attributes="member: 2303">The 2e bard was only weak until you took the differentiated xp tables into account. In the low-middle range (wizard levels 2-9) the bard generally got access to the same spells as the wizard at about the same times the wizard, and had better caster level, hp, ac, to-hit and some thief skills on top. Yes, bard fireballs did more damage that wizard fireballs. It was an odd and class, and might have missed the desired concept, but by no means weak. It was also an illustration of why differentiated xp tables are so misleading.What you're really saying here is that support classes can't be heroes. A valid view, but not a universal one. I know my group appreciated the 3.5/Pathfinder bard, and finds it more powerful than most classes. In the meaning "you can add one more character to the party, what class should he be?". Unless you already have a bard or are lacking any warrior class at all, the answer to that is usually bard.The pathfinder bard looks weaker on paper. In particular, the spell list is very heavily nerfed, to open viable niches for the alchemist, magus, and summoner. It also lost the ability to have 2 bardic effects running at once until it gets 4th level spells. But versatile performance is a very high-utility ability, making the bard THE skill monkey from around level 7. Yes, more so than the rogue. Top that off with Jack of All Trades. Combined with (arguably improved) bardic knowledge, bardic performance (improved from 3.5 except for the one-performance-only thing) and spells, bard is a very strong class in Pathfinder.Does this have a bearing on the bard being a full caster in 5E? Considering how skills are no longer a thing in 5E, I suspect the bard will now have many spells that does what it used to do with skills. 9 levels of bard spells are not the same as 9 levels of wizard spells.</blockquote>

Verification