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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="paradox42" data-source="post: 5652951" data-attributes="member: 29746">I certainly was. Really, in any campaign featuring any social interaction at all, I'd much rather have a Bard in the party (most times) than a Rogue. Bards as the "party face" are scary good. Seriously, in 3.5 one of my players- the one who is least interested in statistics and character optimization- made a Bard who had a Diplomacy modifier in the mid-20s at 8th level. He did this without even trying hard. Now, PF Bards lost some options, but the skill consolidation if anything makes them even more effective this way than the class was in 3.5. As far as I can tell they still rock on toast when it comes to any social interaction at all.So: need to sell that loot? The Bard will get you the best price. Need to find that one special scroll? The Bard will take you to the seller (and convince him to give you a discount), or let you know unequivocally that there isn't one to be found. Need to talk your way past those guards so as to not make noise and draw lots of other guards onto you? Let the Bard smooth your way. Sure, he can't find traps like a Rogue could, but if you can hire an NPC trapfinder at reasonable rates, why care about that? And how often are you really in a situation where traps are likely, anyway?I ran two campaigns during most of my time DM'ing 3.X, and for several years one campaign had a Bard (the one I mentioned above) while the other had no real "party face" at all. After a couple of years, the differences between the parties was striking and unmistakeable- the Bard-equipped party had plenty of good equipment, mostly the best possible stuff that they could get, and plenty of cash stashed in the party Portable Hole to get more with when they needed to. The other party had taken a lot longer to acquire a party Portable Hole, had substandard equipment for their level, and were notably resource-poor. And the difference was very clearly due to the second party not having a "face," because shortly after one player retired his old character and made a new one that was designed (among other things) to act as a "face," the second party quickly started to improve their situation. The moral I took: it isn't a spectacular role, but being able to find the right deals (and jobs) and get the best prices in a town or city is vital to an average adventuring party. And Bards do it better than anybody else.So yes, it's campaign-dependent to a degree, but Bards definitely do not suck (and never really did IMO).</blockquote>

Verification