How bad does the bard suck?

[CRGreathouse]

My campaign is medium roleplay-heavy and very strong in Knowledge skills*, and yet we still find the bad weak. I made some changes to the bard to make it stronger in combat (modeled after the skalds), giving it 3.0 skills but fighter base attack, and now it's sometimes played -- but perhaps still weak. Certainly our strongest characters have been other than bards (usually clerics, fighters, paladins, wizards, or druids).

* We'd rather give up a healer, provided someone can at least use wands after combat, that to give up a wizard with Knowledges. Many players have taken Skill Focus (Knowledge (blah)).

 

[Crothian]

Are you going to keep renewing the issue until your opponents ignore you and you can get a poll with the answer you want?

Just another one of his trollish posts

 

[Thurbane]

IMHO, Bards don't suck at all. Even in a "worst case" type campaign (no social interraction with NPCs, most foes are Undead or Constructs), the Bard can still be a great utility character.

Spells like Haste, Cure Wounds etc. are always useful; morale bonuses to allied creatures always appreciated; UMD as a class skill means you can pick up and use a wide array of wands (fireball etc.); and a decent selection of weapons, armor and shields allow him to be a good ranged attacker and a fair second rank fighter...

...now, in a campaign that features social interraction with NPCs, and foes that are vulnerable to spells like Charm, Suggestion, Tasha's Hideous Laughter etc. a Bard will positively shine.

I truly don't get the whole "Bards suck" line of reasoning - I can only out it down to tank/blaster syndrome - where a characters' worth is measured solely on their individual damage output per round...

 

[Nifft]

["bards suck"] reasoning - I can only out it down to tank/blaster syndrome - where a characters' worth is measured solely on their individual damage output per round...

I think it boils down to: Bards are not first rate at anything. Fewer skills than a Rogue (and no Sneak Attack dice), low hit points, lower level spells (thus lower save DCs), no unique shtick except Bardic Lore (which is a passive, DM-plot ability) and Bardic Music (which helps everyone else more than you).

Basically, it's not a spotlight hog. Which is amusing, since it's a performer.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Felix]

Firebeetle,

Not that you owe me anything, but would you care to respond to some of these rebuttals? Surely if you hold the opinion that you do, it is well founded, thought out, and can withstand the rigors of having other people disagree with it.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Same answer as always - Bards do not suck. (Why keep asking the question when it keeps getting the same answer?)

They are, in my estimation, the best fifth character.

The Auld Grump, who typically runs six player games....

 

[Thurbane]

I think it boils down to: Bards are not first rate at anything. Fewer skills than a Rogue (and no Sneak Attack dice), low hit points, lower level spells (thus lower save DCs), no unique shtick except Bardic Lore (which is a passive, DM-plot ability) and Bardic Music (which helps everyone else more than you).

Basically, it's not a spotlight hog. Which is amusing, since it's a performer.

Cheers, -- N

True, but the same could be said of many other classes - The Duskblade isn't as good at fighting as the Fighter, and not as good at spells as a Wizard; the Beguiler isn't as good at (skill based) stealth/subterfuge as a Rogue, and not as good at spellcasting as a Sorcerer.

Yet I rarely see these classes get the bashing that the poor old Bard does.

I guess I just see versatility where others see lack of focus...

 

[Nifft]

True, but the same could be said of many other classes - The Duskblade isn't as good at fighting as the Fighter, and not as good at spells as a Wizard; the Beguiler isn't as good at (skill based) stealth/subterfuge as a Rogue, and not as good at spellcasting as a Sorcerer.

The Duskblade gets flashy spells. He's not as good as a Wizard, but he does get some spotlight.

The Beguiler is really quite good at being an enchanter -- some would say he's better than an actual Enchanter. His shtick isn't as flashy, but he can lay down some OMFGPWND when push comes to thwack. (Or so I've heard.)

Bards? They can buff the party. Not much spotlight. So, how could we fix that?

1/ Highlight the unique Bard spells. Glibness should have a lot of applications, especially if the court system uses magic items to invoke zone of truth and the like, but does not employ actual spellcasters who can recognize spellcasting.

2/ Bardic Lore. Who uses this, and how do you use it well?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Fishbone]

Double digit bonuses to attacks and damage backed up with a DC 40 Mass Suggestion or multiple Fanfare autostuns. Is that enough?
I'm sorry that the Bard isn't a Druid with 2 more skill points and a mandolin but all these threads about how they "suck" really piss me off.

 

[satori01]

Put bluntly the Bard class as it now stands could be better designed.
Bardic Music could be designed so that various powers can be selected instead of every Bard getting the same.

Bardic spell casting is also woefully underpowered. The Bard acquires spells too slowly, learns too few of them, and simply can not cast enough per day.

Spell Compendium introduced a lot of very cool, very flavorful spells that are also extremely situational in nature. Do you utilize one of your very few Spells Known to learn a spell that might, just might be perfect, and cool and flavorful for a very rare circumstance, or do you settle for a more conventional spell like Rage or Cure Moderate wounds?

Bards need a mechanic, like Clerics or Druids were they can convert spells to some other thing, like say Sonic damage.

I also think that a generalist is less useful in 3.5 than it was in 1E or 2E. 3.X rewards specialization. A +4 to +8 Spot or Move Silently might be fine at low to early mid levels, but eventually I think you find that if you spread your skill points thin, and have a broad but shallow Skill point allocation, you find you that your can try and fail at a lot of things.

In 1e even a couple levels of Fighter would net you the 3/2 attack progression that was better than what almost any other class got, and in 2e the Bard due to his lower XP requirements could cast spells on par with the Magic User.

I do not think the Bard class is unplayable as written, but I also do not think it is wringing the most out of the concept, or is a class that makes the person that plays it feel heroic.