blargney the second
blargney the minute's son
I enjoy bards a lot, and liked them lots more when we played them wrong by accident. (Used to do Inspire Courage as a free action... fun, but oops!)
Bards - Likes and Dislikes?
- Thread starter TheLe
- Start date
Rystil Arden
First Post
I think what actually gives them higher survivability, against intelligent opponents, is the fact that don't perform any crucial function for the party that, once removed, will cripple them. Thus, they are the least enticing target. Even their song buff is probably already up before you can kill the Bard and will linger for a while after the Bard stops singing, alive or dead. Compare that to killing the Cleric and ending the flow of healing or killing the Rogue or Sorcerer to end the painful damage.
Estlor
Explorer
As kind of an aside, I REALLY like Bardic Knack as introduced in the PHB2. It might seem like a big hit to loose Bardic Knowledge, but Bardic Knack + Jack of All Trades greatly makes up for the Bard sacrificing one skill point a level to perform. By the time you hit 10th level, you have a reasonable chance at making any skill check and by the time you max out at 20th level, you'll be putting the rogue to shame. Yeah, you're still only limited to a handful of skills that you can perform superhuman works with, but at 10th level it's like you have five ranks in EVERY SINGLE SKILL in the game. That almost demands you take a level of rogue to pick up Trapfinding.
Psion
Adventurer
I like the general concept of a hero who is about lore, knowledge, and well rounded skills.
I don't like that the bard is so painfully specific. People complain about the monk being specific; I think the bard is worse. And the worst part is that it's such a missed opportunity -- there are all manner of oral historians in different cultures, the the bard could have been modeled to encompass many of them. Instead, the class gets hung up on the "celtic spellsinger archetype". (The BoeMII variant is even more entrenched in this archetype.)
I liked FFG's Path of Magic in that it expaned the performance styles of bards so that bards using different types of perform skills have different abilities. If this concept was reworked and expanded, it has a lot of potential to broaden the number of concepts the bard handles.
In a similar vein, I mainly think of the Jester class in the Dragon Compendium as a variant bard. If the bard was given flexible performance styles like in Path of Magic, there would be no need for extra classes like this. You could make a jester by defining a "perform(comedy)" performance style.
I don't like that the bard is so painfully specific. People complain about the monk being specific; I think the bard is worse. And the worst part is that it's such a missed opportunity -- there are all manner of oral historians in different cultures, the the bard could have been modeled to encompass many of them. Instead, the class gets hung up on the "celtic spellsinger archetype". (The BoeMII variant is even more entrenched in this archetype.)
I liked FFG's Path of Magic in that it expaned the performance styles of bards so that bards using different types of perform skills have different abilities. If this concept was reworked and expanded, it has a lot of potential to broaden the number of concepts the bard handles.
In a similar vein, I mainly think of the Jester class in the Dragon Compendium as a variant bard. If the bard was given flexible performance styles like in Path of Magic, there would be no need for extra classes like this. You could make a jester by defining a "perform(comedy)" performance style.
I like bardic knowledge, the light weaponry and being able to cast spells in light armor.
I dislike that the bard spell-list is so tightly structured. I understand why they would favor "entertainment" type spells of various schools, but that's not quite how I envision bards.
Like rogues, bards make their living with their wits, but accentuate that with a little arcane knowledge. To my mind, bards should have an advantage when trying to learn enchantments or illusions, etc., but shouldn't be barred from learning other arcane spells- a bard PC should have a limited storehouse of spells he can learn, not a limitation on which spells he can learn. A wandering minstrel has as much reason to learn burning hands to protect himself after a disasterous show or to stave off muggings as he does to learn spells that enhance his performance. Mechanically, this could be done with bonuses to learn divinations, enchantments and illusions, and penalties to learn everything else.
I dislike that the bard spell-list is so tightly structured. I understand why they would favor "entertainment" type spells of various schools, but that's not quite how I envision bards.
Like rogues, bards make their living with their wits, but accentuate that with a little arcane knowledge. To my mind, bards should have an advantage when trying to learn enchantments or illusions, etc., but shouldn't be barred from learning other arcane spells- a bard PC should have a limited storehouse of spells he can learn, not a limitation on which spells he can learn. A wandering minstrel has as much reason to learn burning hands to protect himself after a disasterous show or to stave off muggings as he does to learn spells that enhance his performance. Mechanically, this could be done with bonuses to learn divinations, enchantments and illusions, and penalties to learn everything else.
Ralif Redhammer
Legend
I've always liked the bard class, but it's generally been a troubled class in most editions. Heck, even the C&C bard took a bit of getting used to. I've played more than my share of the so-called support classes.
With the 3x iteration, I liked both the bardic music and knowledge traits. About all I really disliked was the weapon proficiencies. It seemed like the weapons available were closely aligned with the concept of the bard as a swashbuckler.
With the 3x iteration, I liked both the bardic music and knowledge traits. About all I really disliked was the weapon proficiencies. It seemed like the weapons available were closely aligned with the concept of the bard as a swashbuckler.
Since Complete Adventurer came out, I like bards a lot more.
I've always liked the flavor of bards, I love bardic knowledge, but like many found their mechanics lacking.
CA helped change that somewhat. Some of the bard feats in there are great, the spell that boosts inspire courage makes the bard a lot stronger. With a +3 to attack and damage, the bard is not a bad fighter by any stretch. Also the introduction of swift spells allows a bard to use his magic as an enhancment to his other abilities, and so don't compete with bardic music, fighting, or doing cool stunts.
I also don't like that bardic music is tied to perform skill. They should either remove the requirement or give bards free ranks in the skill, because no bard can be a bard without perform.
I've always liked the flavor of bards, I love bardic knowledge, but like many found their mechanics lacking.
CA helped change that somewhat. Some of the bard feats in there are great, the spell that boosts inspire courage makes the bard a lot stronger. With a +3 to attack and damage, the bard is not a bad fighter by any stretch. Also the introduction of swift spells allows a bard to use his magic as an enhancment to his other abilities, and so don't compete with bardic music, fighting, or doing cool stunts.
I also don't like that bardic music is tied to perform skill. They should either remove the requirement or give bards free ranks in the skill, because no bard can be a bard without perform.
Firebeetle
Explorer
I love bards, I play a bard every single chance I get. I love bards because they match my personality. I like to talk my way out of danger, or do something outrageous to trick an enemy, being constantly handy, I like the concept of the bard.
As for execution, I've said it before and I'll say it again (wait for it, wait. . .)
BARDS SUCK!
Many bard players will tell you that the "suck" I am experiencing is some sort of aberrant dissatisfaction for "being above combat". Whatever
I manage to play a bard well, but the only way to make a bard worth a darn is to multiclass and borrow another class's abilities. My recent successes have been a strong whip-weilding human bard who took fighter second and third levels to get improved disarm and improved trip and such. The other was a halfling first level rogue then bard with two-weapon fighting and knives aplenty. With sneak attack this guy has been pretty devastating. If he was just a straight bard though, sucksville. .
I don't WANT to multiclass. I want bards to be powerful on their own without having to multiclass. In particular:
Bards are great at Bluff and Diplomacy, right? Wrong, they get no buffs to those, even though they are our suppoused forte. Very easy for a rogue, sorcorer, or psion to beat Bards at this game.
Unless I'm using comedy, acting, or oratory, then my hands are full while I use Bardic Music. Why can't I cast spells and play a mandolin at the same time?
d6 hit die is too low, needs to be d8.
Bardic Lore is poorly defined and never useful when you need it. Why shouldn't I know the abilities of an artifact or what a famous monster can do? I SHOULD know Olidammara damn it.
All my skill points get sucked into Perform.
If I am a Jack-of-all-Trades then the rogue is a Greater Jack-of-all-Trades.
Countersong, yeah, that's useful.
Most of all, Bards need to be the person-to-person MASTERS. You can actually build a bard without a high charisma and it doesn't have a tremendous impact. That's just wrong.
As for execution, I've said it before and I'll say it again (wait for it, wait. . .)
BARDS SUCK!
Many bard players will tell you that the "suck" I am experiencing is some sort of aberrant dissatisfaction for "being above combat". Whatever
I manage to play a bard well, but the only way to make a bard worth a darn is to multiclass and borrow another class's abilities. My recent successes have been a strong whip-weilding human bard who took fighter second and third levels to get improved disarm and improved trip and such. The other was a halfling first level rogue then bard with two-weapon fighting and knives aplenty. With sneak attack this guy has been pretty devastating. If he was just a straight bard though, sucksville. .
I don't WANT to multiclass. I want bards to be powerful on their own without having to multiclass. In particular:
Bards are great at Bluff and Diplomacy, right? Wrong, they get no buffs to those, even though they are our suppoused forte. Very easy for a rogue, sorcorer, or psion to beat Bards at this game.
Unless I'm using comedy, acting, or oratory, then my hands are full while I use Bardic Music. Why can't I cast spells and play a mandolin at the same time?
d6 hit die is too low, needs to be d8.
Bardic Lore is poorly defined and never useful when you need it. Why shouldn't I know the abilities of an artifact or what a famous monster can do? I SHOULD know Olidammara damn it.
All my skill points get sucked into Perform.
If I am a Jack-of-all-Trades then the rogue is a Greater Jack-of-all-Trades.
Countersong, yeah, that's useful.
Most of all, Bards need to be the person-to-person MASTERS. You can actually build a bard without a high charisma and it doesn't have a tremendous impact. That's just wrong.
Similar Threads
