Boosting the bard=> full BAB; d8 hit die?

[Li Shenron]

I don't agree with Rogues being better in social skills compared to Bards. Social skills are basically Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information and Sense Motive. If you max them out (which is not necessarily a must) the bard still has another skill to max, assuming he obviously maxed Perform.

A Rogue with the same Int has therefore 4 skills left to max out, 3 more than the bard, but that means to necessarily sacrifice other typical rogue skills among Hide/Move Silently, Search/Disable Device/Open Lock/Sleigh of Hand, or Tumble.

I don't think those more skill points are a big advantage if you want a social rogue. And since the bard is going to get a much larger use of his Charisma, it is in a way more expensive for a rogue to have a higher bonus in those social skills.

On the other hand, obviously any bard (or anyone else!) would like to have more skill points it's just that I don't think those more skill points would make him better in society, he'll spend them in something else.

 

[Thanee]

When prestige classes were first introduced, one of the key concepts was that a roleplaying consideration should never be used to offset bonus abilities.

Which, however, isn't completely true with some PrC (and other concepts, like exalted stuff), since there are some that do this.

I agree with that but, the more I look at the bard, the more I see a class that is 100% dependent on being roleplayed well to actually get any value out of it.

Social skills do not have to be roleplayed, as a matter of fact, a simple die roll is enough. Really, you do not even have to talk in character to make use of the bard's abilities. Of course, then it's only half (or a much smaller fraction) of the fun!

I really wonder, that you think it's obviously bad, that a class leans well to roleplaying. I'd rather say, that this is a good thing!

Anyway, the title contains my proposed solution. This would only bring him up to a ranger but I was wondering if anyone might have any comments.

Well, it makes no sense. Bards are no fighter-types.

Increasing the number of spells per day might be a viable solution, if you think a beef-up is needed.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Angel Tarragon]

I've personally been contemplating getting rid of the bard and adding a PrC called the Song Mage. Would gain a few bardish abilities, would integrate the Resonance rules from Twilight of Atlantis.

 

[Al]

The whole point of the bard is that, unless you customise him directly for that role (a role to which he is ill-equipped), combat is meant to be his weak link. No fighter has ever complained that non-combat situations are "boring" for the fighter. Whole sessions of intrigue can go past where fighters and other socially retarded classes can twiddle their thumbs and nod their heads to the party bard, sorceror or social rogue. If the bard doesn't shine in combat, excuse me if I don't express my heartfelt sympathies.

 

[Khaalis]

Personally I think the Bard's biggest problrm is that it is not well defined. What is a Bard? What is the Bard class trying to be?

A bard is technically, simply a lyrical poet, or one of an ancient Celtic order of minstrel poets who composed and recited verses celebrating the legendary exploits of chieftains and heroes. Basically a performer.

So what does this mean in a D&D setting? Well there are many forms of baridc performers we have seen emerge over the years: the swashbuckler, the jongleur, the jester, the game/riddle master, the skald, the marshal, etc. What is the bard trying to be? Where are the classic celtic roots to the feel of the class?

The problem with the core class is that it has no real definition. INstead of being a "Bard" the class has attempted more to be a "Jack-of-all-Trades." It is part Fighter, part Wizard, part Cleric, and part Rogue. Sorry - but for me this doesnt work. It attempts to be a little of everything but accels at nothing. The Bardic abilities, as they exist, do little to define them as a class in my opinion.

I personally thingk that to truly make the Bard an interesting and balanced class, would require a core re-write. A basic idiology along this line was the Marshal from the Mini's HB. A new variant on the concept of a Charismatic Leader character - a specfic form of Bard but with new mechanics.

Just some rambling humble thoughts from one who would see the Bard re-written and reformed into a more fitting image of the poet/performer/celtic tale teller.

 

[LazarusLong42]

Ay yi yi, all the bard bashing in here... wow.

The thing about bards is, you can make them whatever you want them to be, without worrying about multiclassing.

You want a more martial bard? Take Weapon Finesse, work up the tree to Spring Attack, and put ranks in Tumble. You'll do as much damage as the rogue except when he gets a sneak attack, and you'll be more mobile than the cleric. Alternatively, bards make impressive archers--not as good as a ranger of the same level, but with a lot more options than the ranger.

You want a spellcasting-focused bard? Take Spell Focus (Enchantment) or (Illusion) or both, puff up your Charisma with a cloak, and focus on taking the enemy out by befriending them or misdirecting them. Srop ranks into Spellcraft and Use Magic Device, so that by eighth or ninth level you can use any wand with high success. Now your bard can toss fireballs/scorching rays/what have you like the wizard. Even better, take Craft Wand and convince your favorite spellcaster to help you prep the wands with their spells.

You want a sneaky bard? Invest ranks in Hide and Move Silently, or go social-sneaky and try out Forgery and Disguise, two very neglected skills. Skill Focus is your friend here, along with a gamut of spells that can make you sneakier. Who needs the Open Lock skill when you have the shatter spell prepped?

Or, you can literally be the jack-of-all-trades, which is how the Bard class was really designed. A little of this, a little of that. Your AC and attack bonuses are higher than the wizard's but lower than the fighter's, but your spellcasting is, well, in between as well. You're the backup healer, the backup lockpick with shatter, a good support fighter, an excellent buffer... and you're pretty good at leading the party when it comes to social situations, too.

Of course, it doesn't hurt to mention the +1 or more to attack and damage in just about every battle you'll ever see. For everyone in your party.

Bards don't need a higher BAB or higher HD; and personally, I have plenty of fun with mine. But they aren't for everyone--just as I would find playing a fighter rather dull.

/Bard apologist since 2000.

 

[ForceUser]

You want a more martial bard? Take Weapon Finesse, work up the tree to Spring Attack, and put ranks in Tumble. You'll do as much damage as the rogue except when he gets a sneak attack...

None, you mean. A rogue without sneak attack is no damage, basically. It's laughable.

Bards don't need a higher BAB or higher HD

I love bards, and I disagree. And I've changed my bards to reflect my view that the class as written is weak.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm not sold on changing anything about Bards personally, but the one area that I might consider is looking at their spell list. Having 6 levels of spells where spell levels are accessed later than the other caster types seems strangely out of kilter.

An interesting comparison that I've not seen anyone do is between bards and clerics.

BAB - same
HD - cleric better
saves - same (both have two good saves)
Skills - bard better (more skill points, bigger list)
Armour - cleric better
Special abilities - cleric gets turning and a domain ability, bard gets singing and general knowledge. tough call as to which is better.
Spells - cleric better (9 spell levels instead of 6, unrestricted choice, cast in full armour, earlier access to higher level spells). Bards get spontaneous casting but can't use Silent Spell or Quicken spell and they don't get many castings of their spells.

Now, comparing *anyone* to clerics tends to make them look bad But I think it does make an interesting comparison.

I think I might be tempted to tinker with the rate at which Bards get access to spells, if anything.

Cheers

 

[Al]

I'm not sold on changing anything about Bards personally, but the one area that I might consider is looking at their spell list. Having 6 levels of spells where spell levels are accessed later than the other caster types seems strangely out of kilter.

Of course, having said that, it does tend to be the case that bard spells are better on a level-by-level basis. At the low levels, they get some spells before their clerical or wizardly counterparts : they get Hideous Laughter a level before wizards and likewise with Suggestion; and Undetectable Alignment a level before clerics. Even at higher levels, spells which appear on both lists tend to be lower level for the bard: Confusion (Brd 3, Sor/Wiz 4), Fear (Brd 3, Sor/Wiz 4), Dominate Person (Brd 4, Sor/Wiz 5), Hold Monster (Brd 4, Sor/Wiz 5), Greater Dispel Magic (Brd 5, Sor/Wiz 6, Clr 6) and Irresistable Dance (Brd 6, Sor/Wiz 8) being just some examples.

 

[Evilhalfling]

*double post*