Bards - Likes and Dislikes?

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I don't WANT to multiclass. I want bards to be powerful on their own without having to multiclass. In particular:

They're not combat meisters by themselves. Never will be.

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.

Hardly. A sorcerer or psion isn't going to have the skill points to compete, and a rogue (despite their skill points) probably isn't go to max Diplomacy. Bluff, maybe, but they won't have the CHA that a bard will. Plus bards can take personality-affecting spells like charm person, and they can take Eagle's Splendor.

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?

That's not a limitation of bardic music, per se. It's a function of being able to maintain concentration on only one effect at a time. Casters have the same disadvantage. And even at first level, Inspire Courage lasts for 5 rounds after singing for one.

d6 hit die is too low, needs to be d8.

An average of 1 pt per level isn't worth quibbling over, and I'd be hard-pressed to buy into bards and rangers having the same hit die.

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.

Bardic lore isn't supposed to take the place of ranks in Knowledge skills, its there to complement them. Want to know everything about Olidimmara, put some points in Knowledge (Religion). Want a chance to recognize the abandoned temple without those ranks, use Bardic Knowledge. Think of it as being able to do untrained Knowledge checks, which no other class can do. (That said, I'd have rather seen Bardic Knowledge as an enhancement to skill checks rather than its own mechanic.)

All my skill points get sucked into Perform.

1 per level. But yeah, more than anything else, that sucks. Bad design, and totally inconsistent with the other classes. Especially stupid in 3.5, where Perform ranks have to be divided among performance types.

If I am a Jack-of-all-Trades then the rogue is a Greater Jack-of-all-Trades.

Against your typical rogue, you'll have better face skills, better knowledge skills, better language skills, and various spells including healing. Nnot to mention not having to make UMD checks for lots of useful things. You can be pretty sneaky on your own, and in a stand-up fight are as good at combat.

Countersong, yeah, that's useful.

That is kinda weak in that it never comes up. Something that let the bard force a concentration check for any enemy casting a spell with a verbal component would have been more 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.

That's true across the board. Stats matter less and less (skillwise) the higher in level you get. The difference for a fighter between STR 14 and STR 18 at 1st level is immense; much less so at 12th.

 

[Snapdragyn]

Against your typical rogue, you'll have better face skills, better knowledge skills, better language skills, and various spells including healing.

Spells, granted, but I think the point was meant to focus on the skill aspect, where rogues outshine bards. If a 'typical' rogue isn't as good at face skills, that's by choice of the build not inherent quality of the class. Knowledge yes -- but then the rogue can deal with traps, so I'd say that's going to balance out on a utility basis (at least). Spells aside, then, more skill points to the rogue gives them the j-o-a-t advantage here IMO.

You can be pretty sneaky on your own, and in a stand-up fight are as good at combat.

Hrm. The sneaky I'll give you (though with less skill points & the expectation of sinking many of those into social skills, it's close; I recognize the skill expectations a rogue faces as well, of course). But as good in a fight as a rogue? Are you serious? Same BAB, no sneak attack -- how exactly does the bard compare to a rogue in combat? Note that I'm not saying that they should (though my own preferences do lean this way), merely wondering how on earth you can say this.

 

[Drowbane]

For the most part, I'm on the fence in regards to bards. I don't like them, and it would be a rare day indeed if I chose to play one. In my ideal D&D, every character contributes something unique that only they can do really well.... the Bard doesn't fit this at all... unless you count "Jump... jump... jump over that pit!!".

 

[JVisgaitis]

For me I've always had a special place for bards. I think they're a cool concept. They certainly don't get the love though. Here's my short list:

Likes
• Skill Points
• The fact that they can cast healing spells
• Casting in Armor
• Bardic Knowledge (great for DMs and its cool how they can always know stuff)

Dislikes
• Not enough songs for Bardic Music
• Nothing really flavorful other then Bardic Music (they should get some kind of Diplomacy bonues or social skills in addition to what they have already)
• Not having Open Lock as a class skill

There were quite a few tweaks we made to bards in Violet Dawn. Additional songs which do healing, and other types of rejuvenation. We also gave them some additional spells and made them the favored class for the sulwynarii. All in all, I like them, but I'm just not sure what's really missing from them to put them over the edge for me.

 

[TheLe]

Maybe Wotc should considering dropping the Bard altogether in future editions?

`Le

 

[Aus_Snow]

Sure, no-one would miss it. After a little - predictable - while, I mean.

Or.. they could make it a PrC again (like in Unearthed Arcana, I guess).

Or they could model it off the Complete Book of Eldritch Might's Bard class (which I more or less like, myself).

Um.

/ramble

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Maybe Wotc should considering dropping the Bard altogether in future editions?

`Le

Bite your tongue!

 

[doghead]

I think wotc should get away from the old classes altogether and go with more generic classes. Start with a clean sheet and build a ste of core classes that are not so culturally specific. Then from this basis, settings can devolop their own specific classes, either in addtion ot or in place of the 'core' classes.

thotd

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Quick question for you all concerning D&D 3.5.

Be as specific or non specific as you like.

What do you like , and dislike , about the Bard?



~Le

It's a bit weak.

Their social skills are available to rogues, who have better non-skill abilities. There's nothing preventing a rogue from maxing out Charisma, but it rarely happens because rogues have good combat abilities too. Being nearly as good at social skills and having other useful abilities is more fun than being good at Diplomacy ... and pretty much nothing else. Diplomacy and Intimidate, as written, are so confusing and unbalanced that they're not fun to use.

Most bards I've seen act like spellcasters. They can cast up to 7th-level spells, and some of them are good, so it's not suprising they go that route. They're just outpowered by spellcasters, however. They're too weak to fight in melee, and rarely have the stats or feats to be a decent archer.

From a flavor PoV, they seem a bit like pansies. No one can take their singing seriously. They can use oratory and stuff, too, but it never seems to work out that way.

The last bard I've seen in-game did nothing but sing and cast haste. The person playing the bard quit to play a rogue after that, as that way they could have some fun.

 

[der_kluge]

I loathe the bard as written.

I think it's an extremely weak and goofy class, especially if it's not played on its strengths.


The major thing I hate about the bard in 3rd edition is that, unlike in 2nd edition, the bard is no longer a jack-of-all-trades. It's very clearly, and precisely an enchanter. Pure and simple. Unless the player making the bard applies skill points and spell selections towards enchantment, and skills related to charisma, they are very clearly missing the boat with the bard. That is, if I made a bard and took combat-related feats, and damage-dealing spells, I am going to be the suxxor. But if I put in a high charisma, take suggestion and charm person type spells, spell focus (enchantment) and max ranks in Bluff, Sense Motive, and Diplomacy, then I'm going to be a very effective character.

At least so long as the party is actually interacting with other humanoids on a regular basis. If they're fighting undead, well, the bard will be next to useless.

The bard's spellcasting should be Int-based not Cha based, as described above. He can't learn new spells in his travels, if they are inate to who he is. Sorcerers have a background and a reason to have inborn spellcasting. Bards do not. So, they're internally inconsistent from the get-go.

Secondly, if you give Sorcerers Diplomacy as a class skill, you almost negate any reason for having a Bard in the group.

The Bardic Music thing is also problematic. I think people who play a more leisurely, casual style of game don't mind the Bardic Music thing, because for them, it's a game effect, pure and simple, like casting a bless spell. No different. But for those that actually like a little verisimilitude to their game, the idea of a guy singing Freebird in the corner of the dungeon while the party faces off against an 8 headed Hydra is a *little* absurd.


I tried one time to create a replacement for the Bard (actually two) - one called a Minstrel, and the other called a Jack-of-all-trades. The latter being more of an Expert type - nothing fancy. The former was a lot of work, and would require extensive playtesting. Essentially, it was modeled on the bard from Everquest (the MMORPG, not the PnP RPG, though it might be similar, I don't know). The idea was that Bards could choose two songs every level (out of 4 possible songs) from one of 5 categories (defense, offense, utility, charm, and healing) and it could play the song and create the effect. The effects lasted as long as the minstrel was playing. In this sense, the minstrel was like a spellsinger of a sort, and used magic to create effects. One doesn't even need to tie the idea of music into it. It would work just as another kind of spellcaster.

I'd way prefer to see that kind of Bard over the existing incarnation.