-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
How bad does the bard suck?
- Thread starter Firebeetle
- Start date
Gort
Explorer
As lots of people have pointed out, bards get better the larger your party - buffing everyone for (up to) +5 attack and damage is really powerful in larger parties. Also, buffs like greater invisibility, heroism and displacement are incredibly powerful on the right targets. However, there's a big difference between being powerful and feeling powerful. Much of the effect you'll have on the party will be expressed through the other players - the fighter hits harder, takes less damage, can stay in the fight longer thanks to your healing spells... but those all make HIM better, not you.
In smaller groups, the bard's a pretty poor class compared to the others on offer. There're only a few niches that need to be covered in a group - healing, protection from attackers, damage, and trap bypassing. A standard cleric is a far better healer, is far better at taking damage and keeping the rest of the group safe, and has a number of spells that either directly damage the enemy or make them into melee monsters. Plus, since the bard lacks the all-important "trap-finding" class feature, it can't take a rogues niche.
All that said, I do like bards, because you've always got a lot of options in combat and out of combat. You're very versatile, so you can contribute to most situations - it's just a pity that in most situations there's always someone better equipped to deal with them around.
As anecdotal evidence, every time a player I don't know has played a bard, the character has been really useless. At the lower levels where these kinds of pickup games tend to be played, they often build their bard to be the best spell-caster possible, to the point of weakening them in other areas bards have to be able to cover, like melee. Too many people play bards like wizards in a chain shirt, they're not like that. You don't just have one area you're good at and that's it - that's both the strength and weakness of the class. You have to cover as much as possible or yes, you do suck.
In smaller groups, the bard's a pretty poor class compared to the others on offer. There're only a few niches that need to be covered in a group - healing, protection from attackers, damage, and trap bypassing. A standard cleric is a far better healer, is far better at taking damage and keeping the rest of the group safe, and has a number of spells that either directly damage the enemy or make them into melee monsters. Plus, since the bard lacks the all-important "trap-finding" class feature, it can't take a rogues niche.
All that said, I do like bards, because you've always got a lot of options in combat and out of combat. You're very versatile, so you can contribute to most situations - it's just a pity that in most situations there's always someone better equipped to deal with them around.
As anecdotal evidence, every time a player I don't know has played a bard, the character has been really useless. At the lower levels where these kinds of pickup games tend to be played, they often build their bard to be the best spell-caster possible, to the point of weakening them in other areas bards have to be able to cover, like melee. Too many people play bards like wizards in a chain shirt, they're not like that. You don't just have one area you're good at and that's it - that's both the strength and weakness of the class. You have to cover as much as possible or yes, you do suck.
Judging from the original poster's behavior, the bard haters would appear on the sand in the colosseum, shout, "They suck!", and then retire before they could be called to answer the rebuttals offered them.DungeonmasterCal said:
That, or as XO has exemplified, resort to flowery prose sounding the conclusion without offering any premises whatsoever.
And navy on black really is quite tasteless from a fashion point of view.
Scroll down to the bottom of this page. On the left hand side you will see a drop-down menu which likely says, "Default".Gort said:
The options are:
Default, which you see here.
Light, which is a slate background with black lettering.
Stealth, which is black and white and helpful for office-time browsing.
Player's Handbook, which it somewhat resembles.
Thurbane
First Post
Good point(s).Nifft said: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
MoogleEmpMog
First Post
I don't think bards are the *most* powerful class, but of the core classes I'd put them 4th or 5th, competing for a slot with sorcerers and beaten by druids, clerics and wizards, in that order. Barbarians and rogues can maybe compete, but paladins, monks, fighters and rangers don't have a patch on them.
Group buffs are just stupidly powerful, and while bard spell progression is poor, their actual spell list is one of the best in the game.
Most people seem to want bards to be either jacks-of-all-trades (they aren't - their spells have a very specific role and are not general utility, and they can't fight worth a hill of beans) or social skill masters (they're no better than rogues or clerics, except while singing). They're not. They're buff and bluff specialists, with the buff coming from their songs and the bluff from their spells.
EDIT: To use an NBA analogy, bards are like Andre Miller (or, more iconically, John Stockton) - pure point guards who make their teammates look vastly better than they are, while not getting much, if any, spotlight. Which means, apparently, that you can trade an overrated Fighter/Rogue of the same level for a Bard, two 1st level prospects with 32-point point buy, and the gear of a retiring high level character.
Maybe bards are the best class after all...
Group buffs are just stupidly powerful, and while bard spell progression is poor, their actual spell list is one of the best in the game.
Most people seem to want bards to be either jacks-of-all-trades (they aren't - their spells have a very specific role and are not general utility, and they can't fight worth a hill of beans) or social skill masters (they're no better than rogues or clerics, except while singing). They're not. They're buff and bluff specialists, with the buff coming from their songs and the bluff from their spells.
EDIT: To use an NBA analogy, bards are like Andre Miller (or, more iconically, John Stockton) - pure point guards who make their teammates look vastly better than they are, while not getting much, if any, spotlight. Which means, apparently, that you can trade an overrated Fighter/Rogue of the same level for a Bard, two 1st level prospects with 32-point point buy, and the gear of a retiring high level character.
Maybe bards are the best class after all...
Last edited:
Similar Threads
