Help me design a halfling bard!

[uzagi_akimbo]

Ch=14 gives bonus spells. By the time a bard is casting level 5 and 6 spells, he's gonig to have a +4 to CH item. Bonus spells and minimum caster level requirements are not an issue. The Ch=14 is for a 1st level character, remember.

The idea behind not maxxing out charisma is that it does not make THAT much difference. Ch=14 or Ch=18 is a difference of +2 bonus. The point buy difference is vast.

"Even" with a Ch=14, the bard can easil be an excellent diplomat, singer, etc. Countersong is used rarely; fascinate ramps up so fast that an extra +2 fron an 18 Charism (vs. 14) is not a big deal.

Basically, out of the box, the bard is by default going to be a good diplomat/skill guy. Even with an Int=10, and a Ch=14. So why go crazy upping the Bard's skill from Excellent to Stupenduos? 99% of the time Excellent is plenty! On the other hand, points saved not buying a superfluous Ch=18 (if you are not the enchanter bard type) can be used to beef up the bard is ways the minimize the bard's "out of the box" weaknesses. Meaning, d6 hit die (up con), melee weakness (up strength), or light armor (up dex).

You can have a Bard with:
(Charisma=14 to start, saved points spread out among other stats)
Social skills: excellent
Ranged OR melee combat: good (pick one or the other)
Spell DC: average
Other skills: excellent
Hit Points: good

or (Charisma = 18 to start, relatively low other stats)
Social skills: stupendous
Ranged OR melee combat: bad
Spell DC: good (on par with wizard)
Other skills: good
Hit Points: Average at best

Most people like to be able to spread out point buy points to get a decent dex, con, str, etc. instead of spending 16 points on an 18 charisma and then just being average in a lot of other ways.

Actually I was arguing for a CHA 16 bard, as had been proposed by Dark Jezter. And yes, while CHA 14 give bonus spells of first and second level, I think we agree that third or fourth level bonus spells are a tad more handy.

As for the CHA+4 items... well personally, I play, have played and GM in campaigns which are universally very restrictive about Stat-bonus items, and especially the ones handing out mental boni, and only once-in-a-blue-moon +4 or better ones - so building a character on the assumption that I will acquire a specific magic item by level so and so seems pretty absurd/a long-shot to me. I certainly do acknowledge that mileage on this will differ for each and every campaign and GM's style , but assuming a certain magic item will be available in another GMs campaign smacks slightly presumptuous to me , if someone asks me for the feasibility of a specific PC concept, sorry to say. And well, a character relying on a very specific item to work looks pretty lop-sided to me, anyways.

 

[uzagi_akimbo]

Agreeing with SJ here. My bardmulticlass was a typical Jack of all Trades, useful in combat, secrecy, magic, scouting and mostly anything else due to skills, mobility, spells and songs. He was not an expert in anything and got whooped more than once by pure fightertypes (which he still kept busy till the rest of the party came for the rescue)... but being three levels below the party average and the fifth character, he still contributed and saved the party more than once.

A bard has so many possibilities which you forgo if you specialise him while you don't lose a lot if you don't. If you want to fight as a bard, why not play a fightertype? See above. Spells, skills, versatility. You're not the best, but you're the coolest. And you're the last of the party who looks through his character sheet in awe and admits: "I have nothing else left."

Well, differrent take on bards there. Personally, if I play a character, I ask myself what it could and does contribute to the party besides it being fun to play for myself (always the primary question, hehe ) - so I do rather opt for excellence in the skills/abilities I contribute or open up, rather than be an 'also-ran'.
And I don't have a problem leaning back in a dungeon crawl and leave the melee-monsters their moments of glory, the same way they lean back in situations when they cannot contribute much - like say, in trap-disarming, figuring out the magical conundrum or socialising with the underworld and nobility. But maybe that's just me.

 

[Darklone]

As for the CHA+4 items... well personally, I play, have played and GM in campaigns which are universally very restrictive about Stat-bonus items, and especially the ones handing out mental boni, and only once-in-a-blue-moon +4 or better ones - so building a character on the assumption that I will acquire a specific magic item by level so and so seems pretty absurd/a long-shot to me. I certainly do acknowledge that mileage on this will differ for each and every campaign and GM's style , but assuming a certain magic item will be available in another GMs campaign smacks slightly presumptuous to me , if someone asks me for the feasibility of a specific PC concept, sorry to say. And well, a character relying on a very specific item to work looks pretty lop-sided to me, anyways.

Same for me usually, but not a good argument in a rules discussion where such items can be purchased or build easily at the relevant levels

And noone said the jack of all trades bard can't still shine in social situations, he's just by 5 points or so behind in the skill check... not that much.

 

[uzagi_akimbo]

..... And noone said the jack of all trades bard can't still shine in social situations, he's just by 5 points or so behind in the skill check... not that much.

As I said - a different take on how to play

 

[The Souljourner]

Well, differrent take on bards there. Personally, if I play a character, I ask myself what it could and does contribute to the party besides it being fun to play for myself (always the primary question, hehe ) - so I do rather opt for excellence in the skills/abilities I contribute or open up, rather than be an 'also-ran'.

That's the thing... the bard does well at a lot of things, he's just not the best. Sure, you'll look like an also-ran next to the frenzied berzerker, but next to the ranger, paladin, cleric, and rogue, you'll be right up there.

And I don't have a problem leaning back in a dungeon crawl and leave the melee-monsters their moments of glory, the same way they lean back in situations when they cannot contribute much - like say, in trap-disarming, figuring out the magical conundrum or socialising with the underworld and nobility. But maybe that's just me.

But our point is that you can contribute much to a fight. Bards have 3/4 base attack bonus for a reason. You're really only slightly behind the fighter types in melee ability. My bard mixed it up with the best of them and contributed quite a bit to the fight.

The only way a bard comes up useless is if you make him that way.

-The Souljourner

 

[Darklone]

Right. Singing and the long time buff Heroism make up for the "low" BAB. Too bad the real combat buff spells were removed...