Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Firebeetle" data-source="post: 2891378" data-attributes="member: 34506">Why not? Why does "good at talking" mean "bad at combat"? Remember, bards were warriors as well as lorekeepers historically. And 1st edition bards (the first prestige class) had many levels of fighter.Probably, schobably. Who cares about stereotypes? The Rogue or Sorcerer CAN beat a bard at his own game if he wants to, which means the bard class is broken if he can't be best at what he's suppoused to be best at. If I want to make a Bluff heavy character, I multiclass Rogue and Sorcerer, NOT bard. I get mondo skill points, a viper familiar (+3 to Bluff), sneak attack (usable with feint), AND Eagle's Splendor. We can Bluff better than a bard, and get combat results for his trouble which a bard can't. Once again, the bard is shamed.I understand the mechanic, thank you. That doesn't change the "stinkiness" for me.If it's not worth quibbling over then why be "hard-pressed"? You're still in the "bards are pansies" mode I guess. You haven't addressed my point, which is that Bardic Knowledge doesn't tell you anything useful unless the DM happens to think of it. In particular, it DOESN'T allow you know about monsters or magic items, which seems silly.Glad we are in agreement here.If I want to make a "face man" character, I'm better off with rogue, period. That's just wrong. Bard should be the clear first choice.I'd rather have something useful instead, like the ability to try any skill untrained.A fighter with STR 8 or DEX 8 would be not very good as a fighter. Yet a bard with CHA 8 wouldn't make much of an impact. Try it.Oh, I forgot to mention.WE DON'T GET OUR OWN SPELL LIST! We get a few spells and a list of hand-me-down spells from other classes. Joy. Bards need and deserve their own spell list.</blockquote>

Verification