Bardic Rant

[Apok]

DnD is CENTERED around combat.

Better to say that D&D is balanced around combat, or that the game's mechanics are centered around combat (not the game itself). Any DM could run a game with no fighting and such a game wouldn't be centered around combat, but you also wouldn't be using 90% of the mechanics presented in the rulebooks. You don't need 300+ pages of mechanics to handle roleplaying (though a few guidelines do help ).

However, the designers didn't balance things around how good character's are in social situations; they balanced things around a character's ability to kill things and take their stuff.

Does the Bard fall short in this area? Yes. Is the Bard a hopeless case? I seriously doubt it, but I will reserve judgement until I see the class with my own eyes.

So, I don't agree that the Bard is as in as much trouble as you say, but I do agree that it does not appear to be on par with the other classes in terms of combat ability.

 

[Hikaru]

So basically they don't buff as good as the buff specs, they don't heal as good as the heal specs, nuke as good as the nuke specs, are as skillful as the skill specs, and are on par with the bulk of the sorta-melee classes. Problems?

Hm, yeah. Bards don't buff as well as Clerics, don't heal as well as Clerics, don't spell-nuke as well as Clerics, are not as good in melee than Clerics, don't have better saves than Clerics, only have better skills. Does it fully compensate?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Bards can cast Shadow Evocation and Shadow Conjuration.

Good lord ... the latter spell is broken enough that bards might be overpowered

They've got some decent songs, too. Last time I checked, a song lasts 5 rounds past singing time, so use your one standard action and get 5 rounds of a powerful benefit.

 

[Belen]

Those Shadow spells allow for 2 saves....WON-derful spells those.

 

[nimisgod]

If you have a GM that loves to run combat, and you want to play a Bard just for flavor or as a character concept, then you're hating life. You're the henchman and may as well just be someone's cohort.

Tons of fun...

Not being in the spotlight can be fun too, you know. Just watching the other players succeed because of something you've done, can be fun. I do that all the time... its called GMing.

If you want to play a blaster, you play a wizard or a sorcerer. If you want to play a tank, you play a fighter, paladin or barbarian. If you want to play a scout, you play a ranger, monk, rogue or bard. If you want to play a diplomat, play a bard, rogue, paladin or cleric.

Do you play a blaster cleric? Do you play a melee wizard?

Bards are not necessarily for all kinds of game styles. Do you play a Paladin in an Evil Campaign? Do you think that a barbarian or a fighter is somewhat sub-par for a campaign of political intrigue?

The bard requires a certain playing style to be maximized. I've heard tell that the bard archer is pretty darned good bec. of his buff spells. A bard can use wands or scrolls of fireball or magic missile to compensate for his lack of blaster ability.

Besides, not all of us want to be specialized in something. The bard allows for a generalist class, akin to a rogue that can literally DO everything. When you're a bard, you don't really need anyone else.

You don't need a fighter (you can just turn invisible and run away or negotiate/charm the enemy). You don't need a healer. You don't need a scout.

 

[DreamChaser]

I guess all of you have magical GMs that know how to run social interactions for the Bards. Therefore, since EVERY GM can run a game full of social stuff, then the Bard is balanced.

Sorry to say...that is the most useless argument alive. DnD is CENTERED around combat. Every other class is balanced according to combat except the Bard. The bard is social guy and really cannot do much at all in combat.

The problem with this argument is that it can be adapted for any class (except fighter and barbarian) and any situtation without ever leaving combat behind.

--> My DM runs tons of combat but we never leave the city. (There goes druid and ranger).

--> My DM runs tons of combat but it is always against creatures with tons of SR (there goes wizard and sorcerer).

--> My DM runs tons of combat but it is always against undead (there goes rogue).

--> My DM runs tons of combat but there is never any undead (there goes cleric).

--> My DM runs tons of combat but he also runs a world with relative morality so truely evil creatures are rare (there goes paladin).


Do I like the 3.0 bard as it stands in the PH? No. Not really. I think it lacks flavor. It tries so hard to be a performer but then drops the ball at the last second. I use Monte's bard.

Will I like the 3.5 bard? I don't know. I'll have to check the whole package and decide.

I don't see the bard as being useless in combat or even a "cohort" class, even as written in the 3.0 PH. I think that it is a matter of style. I have watched people drop the ball on any number of classes.

--> I had a gamer who masacred the idea of a druid so thoroughly I wondered what could have possibly gone wrong.

--> I had a woman who could not for the life of her play a rogue (no matter how many times she tried) because she could not stop herself from running in on the first charge. She had fighter insticts and they got in the way.

Some of the people I've dealth with noticed that they are not really fit for the class. Others have feel that I messed up somewhere or that there was an intrinsic problem with the class.

I remember one guy who got really ticked because the healer/illusionist was more effective in combat than his druid/invoker (this was homebrew 2e). He had all the direct damage spells but was painfully uninventive with them. She had very few direct damage spells but managed to be very inventive with what she had and managed to adapt her nondamage spells to great effect.

He blamed me for his lack of ability to play the class. I rolled my eyes.

Not everyone is suited to every class, even if they like the idea of it. That does not make it the classes fault. Nor is it really their fault.

There are plenty of varients of most of the classes. Use one more suited to your style if you DM is up for it. It is OUR game after all. Not everyone has to like the same things. The core books are just that: the core. We can expand as much as we like...we can even do it legally.

DC

I for the record, cannot play paladins. For a while I thought it was because the code was too vague or too strict (figure that out) but it turns out that I just could not stand the perfect goodness in the class. Only a very liberal DM would ever allow me to get away with the crap I would try to pull. Not a flaw in the class; just a bad fit for me.

 

[ajanders]

Hm, yeah. Bards don't buff as well as Clerics, don't heal as well as Clerics, don't spell-nuke as well as Clerics, are not as good in melee than Clerics, don't have better saves than Clerics, only have better skills. Does it fully compensate?

Actually, I think you're pretty much completely wrong.
Bards can buff competitively with clerics you if you add the bardsong to any spells they care to cast, although a cleric who decides to only carry buffs will outpace them quickly.
They will never heal like like a cleric, however.
Bards will never spell-nuke like clerics, but a cleric will never throw enchantments or charms like a bard does (unless they take the charm domain). Which is worse, Flame Strike or Dominate Monster? I'd say they're even, on the average, though the Dominate Monster is an all or nothing spell and the flame strike can be save against. A bard with a emphasis on magical power can be pretty scary.
Bards do fight better than clerics because they have a better weapon selection (unless the cleric has the War Domain, which puts the advantage squarely in his court.)
The saves are even, as noted.
Bards have a lot better skills however: more points and more in class skills. That is a big compensation.
Sum up, bards are on par with clerics in a lot of things, but much better in skills.

If I don't want to play a fighter, but want a heavy armor "Warmain" character, I play a cleric.
If I don't want to play a fighter, but want a swashbuckler or archer, I play a bard.

If I want a "nuke'em" caster who's not a mage, I play a cleric.
If I want a subtle caster who's not a mage, I play a bard.

Different tools for different uses.
Just remember, if your only character is a sorceror, every problem looks like a heap of charred corpses

 

[DreamChaser]

What's a mage?

DC

 

[sithramir]

One of the meanest opponents my group has had to fight thus far was a Half Fiend(Human) Bard/Spelldancer with one level of Shadowdancer.

HiPS, Sound bubble, (brought back from 2nd ed.. good spell, heh) Displacement. .. spelldance, curse, slow, debuff, debuff, debuff.. oh look.. and there's nothing you can do about it because you can't frickin' FIND him. And he had some frickin' bone flute thing that could Create Undead but required a perform check to use.


Man I still get pissed when I think about fighting that guy.

Sounds like a cool character to fight. But in a decent group he'd be blown to pieces. Can't hide without shadow within 10 feet. Oops daylight spell.

I'd also like to mention the main ability this character depends on comes from Shadowdancer.

 

[Hikaru]

--> My DM runs tons of combat but we never leave the city. (There goes druid and ranger).

--> My DM runs tons of combat but it is always against creatures with tons of SR (there goes wizard and sorcerer).

--> My DM runs tons of combat but it is always against undead (there goes rogue).

--> My DM runs tons of combat but there is never any undead (there goes cleric).

--> My DM runs tons of combat but he also runs a world with relative morality so truely evil creatures are rare (there goes paladin).

--> Neither the Druid nor the Paladin lose their spells in the city. The Ranger still has full BAB and free fighting-related feat. Their favored enemies can be in the city, too.

--> Tons of SR hurts, but you still can summon monsters and use other spells without directly targeting the creatures.

--> Yup, poor rogue.

--> Uh, Clerics are useless unless they have undead to fight? Since when??

--> The Paladin loses his BAB and hit die and armor and bonuses to saves and all when not fighting Evil creatures? I was not aware.