Did you notice this?

[MarauderX]

It all seems a bit silly trying to pump the bard given the changes coming soon.

The whole article was a big thrashing on the bard and bard spells, and I thought the spell choices weren't thought out that much IMO. I am gearing up to play one to replace the party wizard so I am getting psyched about it and then this article comes along and takes the wind right out of my sails, especially after reading the articles title.

Not that I have ever played a bard before, but I know I wouldn't choose what he had for my spell list. Every party I have known needs extra healing spells, and he flipantly chooses mage armor and expeditious retreat over CLW. I think the rest of the article spirals downward from that paragraph.

 

[Oni]

Yeah I will add that when I was done reading the article all that it had really succeeded in doing was reminding me of reasons I don't really want to play a bard.

 

[Victim]

That article really sucks. It talks about third level spells without mentioning Charm Monster.

 

[JoeBlank]

Sure, the 3 vs. 2 spells known could be an honest mistake for someone unfamiliar with playing a bard. That would be understandable. But then is that person the right author for a series of articles on playing a bard? Couldn't they find someone who actually plays bards to write the article?

Of course, the spell recommendations and overall tone of the article clearly show that the author does not care for bards at all.

I am also striken by the fact that this error has been on an easily and instantly correctable web site for days, and has been discussed on WoTC's own heavily moderated messageboard, and yet nothing has been done to correct it.