How bad does the bard suck?

[Vague Jayhawk]

I would like to introduce you to a little guy by the name of Miggins. He is a gnome about yeah high and he rocks.

Every Sunday night he uses Snow Song, Elation, Haste, inspire competence and inspire greatness on the party. One right after the other, but not in that order. By the second or third round of combat the melee fighters are doing +6 to hit, +4 to damage, an extra swing, extra movement, +5 to AC. The whole party really appreciates him. While he is not the most powerful character, he makes everyone around him better. He makes the DM sweat.

 

[Illirion]

Bards are, in fact, the most powerful class!

I'm telling you, it's a conspiracy .

I mean common! How can the only class that has Summon Instrument suck?

Cheers,
Illirion.

 

[Rystil Arden]

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

Nifft--agreed on your 'Bards suck' reasoning. They don't shine because you can rearrange any five-man group with a Bard to be better without the Bard (by changing classes until you have specialists that cover everything the Bard can do, but better). That said, a group can be just awesome with a well-played Bard too (there's no need to have a totally optimised party to be successful if you have skilled players).

For Bardic Knowledge, the few times I've had Bards in my games, I've used it all the time. I encourage the Bard's player to ask for Bardic Knowledge checks on everything that seems interesting, and I usually throw in some useful tidbits, especially on a high roll.

 

[Plane Sailing]

1. Can cast in light armor. Wow. Whoopidity doo. That's a worthless ability. A sorcerer's Mage Armor provides the same amount of AC as a chain shirt (the best kind of light armor you can buy). It lasts an hour per level, has no check penalty or weight, and provides its bonus against incorporeal creatures. So that means that every arcane caster who has Mage Armor can already cast in light armor.

You miss a very important point. The bards light armour can be enchanted with magic - so what starts off as +4 armour from a chain shirt could turn into +9 armour from a chain shirt +5 with light fortification, silent moves and fire resistance, for instance.

Good luck doing that with mage armour.

 

[Darklone]

Hehehe. Yeah, PS, I tried to explain that to him by using the Celestial chainmail as example... but he didn't understand.

Melee bards: They work if you multiclass. Friend of mine had a bard (str 18, con 10) and complained that he was useless. One level of barbarian and picking a polearm changed a lot... the DM stopped the campaign because the bard in combination with the tank cleric were too powerful for his monsters.

 

[Felix]

Nifft--agreed on your 'Bards suck' reasoning.

I believe Nifft's point was that while they didn't suck, their abilities which center around buffing others are neither flashy nor spotlight hogging; thus the irony of the performer class not wanting the spotlight.

 

[Darklone]

I believe Nifft's point was that while they didn't suck, their abilities which center around buffing others are neither flashy nor spotlight hogging; thus the irony of the performer class not wanting the spotlight.

My bard was happy to collect the praises, applause and money when the group got back in town after saving it from the BBEG they just killed

 

[diaglo]

To quote Bart Simpson: "I didn't think it was possible for something to suck and blow at the same time." The bard does.

qft.

they have sucked since their introduction in The Strategic Review.

 

[Crothian]

qft.

they have sucked since their introduction in The Strategic Review.

It is obviously too new school for you.

 

[Firebeetle]

Rebuttals, part one

Ladies and gentlemen, I love the bard. I love playing a bard. I love to talk my way through things, to make a joke and have it be a game mechanic (my personal favorite is to play "Eye of the Tiger" when I use bardic music), but let's face facts. Our class sucks. We deserve better. I understand the desire to see "suckage" as "exclusive" and I indeed enjoy making the best out of a rotten class. But a class' strength should not be based on that ability of the player or the DM. I should be based on the rules and the rules alone.

Responses so far:

I hope RP isn't just identical to "has high Cha" or "has high social skills".

Of course not, I meant roleplaying. Hence the word “roleplay.”

When it comes to #3 ... heck no! WotC needs to fix Diplomacy and Intimidate so they make some semblance of sense before they start handing out buffs. Right now Diplomacy is flatly overpowered and Intimidate just doesn't make any sense at all.

Bluff makes sense as written, but when a bard casts spells that grant +10 (or is it more?) to Bluff, it gets overpowered, too. Bluff is mildly broken, in that your opponent has to have Sense Motive to have a chance of not being fooled, but Sense Motive is not a class skill for most classes. Even highly intelligent wizards usually fall for a bard's bluff, and that seems kind of wrong to me.

You’ll need some detail here, because I’m not seeing it. Intimidate isn’t a bard class skill, btw. No level of Bluff can convince someone to do something that might hurt them. You can’t Bluff someone past the boundaries of logic.

Bards are weak, IMO, because they can only cast 7th-level spells and have a limited variety. They do have some unique spells available to them - there's that wonderful 5th-level spell that can force opponents to fight each other, 50% of the time, after multiple opponents have failed their Will save ... well, it seemed like a great spell on paper.

Bards don't even fight as well as a rogue and don't have the same wide variety of skills or skill points, either (although they have close to that). A bard can buff himself, sure, but right, you can buff the fighter types instead. If bards could buff themselves the way the much more powerful cleric class could, maybe they wouldn't seem like wimps in combat.

The bard's unique class feature, the song, just doesn't do enough. If bards got much better songs, they'd rock, both in-combat and out.

True that! Double true! More and better songs please!

If you play them right and they are effective, how do they still suck? You can't have it both ways.

Bards are a fine class.

No, most are Small or Medium, not Fine.

I multiclass, each of my bard builds is built around “borrowing” abilities from another class.

“The Scoundrel” Bard/Rogue- uses knives, Bluff, and feign to get targets to lower AC, still lots of skill points that cross over. Rogues are, after all, better at being bards than bards are. More on that later.
“The Skald” Barbarian/Bard- High STR, CON and Goad feat to draw fire and damage while dishing it out. With a little player knowledge of historical bards, this one works well.
“The Stage Actor” Fighter/Bard- A Petruchio style character with a whip, high STR, and Improved Disarm and Trip.
“The Standard Bearer” Bard/Marshal- Sadly, the Marshal is better at buffing characters than the bard is : (. This is a morale-boosting military man with decent fighting skills. I could go straight marshal with this concept and probably be far more effective though.
“High Priest of Olidamarra” Bard/Cleric. Haven’t done this one yet, but I’m looking forward to it.

Multiclassing is the only way to remove the bard’s ills. I would ultimately prefer a class I could just play straight up without feeling the need to apologize to the rest of the party every time.

Bards work well, however they do take more effort than most classes

Negative on the first, My closest mirror class is superior in every way. Rogues get the same hit die, better skill points, better fighting ability, and special abilities and buffs. I get less skill points, less fighting ability, and no buffs to my ability (that I don’t make myself.) I get in return, a hand-me-down spell list with a mediocre spellcasting ability. I don’t even get many spells that are bard only. I don’t get any spells that would be considered “powerful” for their level except on paper.

Positive on the second. They do take more effort, a LOT more. But that’s just to survive.

This notion that bards suck because they don't compare to a couple of broken as heck classes (Druid, I'm looking at you) always made me shake my head.

They made them MUCH better in 3.5 and people still whine about them.

They're not the best at anything. Get over it. They're highly useful and complimentary in almost any situation.

Druid? 1st level bard vs 1st level druid.
Bard: I sing
Druid (to wolf): sic ‘em Wolvie!
Bard: AAARGH, HE’S GOT MY LEG! HE’S EATING MY LEG! NO BEATING HIM WITH MY LUTE WILL ABATE HIM!
You know, historically speaking these guys were warriors, right?

We are MUCH better in 3.5? 6 skill points and Gnome as favored class? What are you talking about?!

They are not best at anything, including what bards are suppousedly “good for”, Bluff and Diplomacy. That would be rogues, sorcerers, and psions.

No buffs to Bluff, eh?

edited so the moderator won't frown
You mean the spell you get when you’re SEVENTH LEVEL (presuming high attribute?) Your contention this is a buff for the bard is laughable. The bard gods have a cruel sense of humor. Yes, I’m aware of the existence of Glibness “eh?”

If I have to give it to myself, it’s not a buff. It’s a spell. A rogue doesn’t have to give herself the ability to disable magical traps, she just has it. A ranger doesn’t cast “favored enemy”, he just has it. Why don’t I HAVE a buff to Bluff or Diplomacy? You’re smugly saying I can use a rare high level (for me) spell slot for a buff and that’s it, that’s my Bluff buff? No double Charisma modifier for those skills? No bonus for one or the other like a +3 familiar/psicrystal bonus? A 3rd level SPELL is my BUFF? I want my money back on my PHB if that’s the case.

A core bard is pretty weak. An Eberron bard using Complete Arcane or Spell Compendium is very powerful indeed. In our experience _too_ powerful. Not quite Bo9S too powerful, but close. +3 attack and damage to the whole party at level 3 is HUGE, even just once a day.

Mark

Core bard is weak! Thank you, thank you, voice of sanity there.

Be aware, anytime a bard manages to shine, people say “it’s overpowered” JUST because it’s a bard.

How bad? Well, not at all, actually!

A bard can wear mithral breastplate, wield a sword and cast rage, heroism and Inspire, turning into a veritable warrior. If he chooses to don, say, a mithral chain shirt (0 check penalty), he has access to skills and spells to sneak about as well as a rogue (albeit he won't be able to disarm traps, but that's what temporary hit points are for). He can cast cure spells, so he's just a Spontaneous Healer away from healing spontaneously.

IME, the bard can be geared toward being REALLY good at one aspect of the game, while remaining reasonably competent at several others.

So I’m supposed to carry two suits of armor around like summer and winter jackets? It takes several minutes to change, not exactly convenient given most combats don't give minutes to prepare. None of the other classes have to carry two suits of armor around! Yes, we’ve established that I can use spells to improve my effectiveness, so can a (in alphabetical order) cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, sorcerer, and wizard. Often to far greater effect.

As for the cure spell thing, can someone please tell me WHY bards have Cure spells? What legendary bard could also Cure Serious Wounds? Anyone? Anyone? It certainly seems out of character. Oh, wait, I know why. It’s because the designers know that BARDS SUCK and they give them a little stick, a little bone there to make us feel better. Having said that, I have started using cure spells in my high level campaign. They help. A jester casting a cure spell sure seems weird though.

I tend to think of bards as worthless, but that's because the only person I've ever seen play a bard in 3E is someone who is very non proactive in games. If the party wasn't so in need of a cleric, I would roll a bard for my next character just to see how they work.

I recommend it. Please post your response I would love to hear about your first level bard experience.

Druid: “I have my animal companion with me at all times”
Cleric: “I can turn undead many times today”
Bard: “I can buff everyone for +1, but only for once a day since I’m first level. My primary ability will be much more useful when I reach many more levels, provided I survive that long.”
Barbarian “Roc take Extra Rage feat to rage more than once a day, you take Extra Pretty Singing feat!”
Bard (tears well up in eyes): “I wish I COULD do that Roc, I wish. . .”

How about bardic music uses per day equal to number of bard levels plus Charisma modifier. THEN you could add abilities or feat that take up multiple bardic music uses (some exist already to some degree in CA.) That would be nice, wouldn’t that be nice?

Bard is IMHO by far the best multiclass class. A few levels bard and you can save your party in many many situations. Played a level 7 bard multiclass thing in a group with two other "noobs" (level 6 and 5) and three "old pros" (level 9-12). After half a year the group started to rely on my bard to save the day with some weird idea or action. One year later it went too far... and the bard died in a battle against a bone devil cause he went into melee against a level 10 fighter to save the level 5 monk. Well, it worked, the fighter went down as well.

Ever played a bard in big groups? 9 - 12 players? Count how often that +1 from Inspire Courage changed a miss into a hit or caused the final point of damage. Simply lean back and enjoy, your bard wins the day.

Edit: This may sound a little bit aggressive... but in my experience bards are horribly effective when played by creative imaginative players (even without rules knowledge) or horribly boring and very fast dead when played by CRPG dudes or "simple" players. YMMV.

What do those last four letters stand for? Year 2005? : )

I agree with the multiclass thing. It is a great multiclass class. I don’t want it to be, I want to play a straightforward bard and have it be constantly and consistently effective.

I’m glad you had a successful experience with one, good for you. No sarcasm, I’m glad when other people enjoy the class.

As for big groups, if my party has to have 12 guys to quantify his abilities, I’m going out on a limb and saying it’s broken.

I am a creative, imaginative player who milks the bard for every penny he’s worth. I’m also a DM with 25 years experience who knows how to compare a class. I guarantee you it is not my handling of the bard, it’s much bigger than that. I play in two campaigns and run a gameday. I don't have an experience limited to a single table.

If you focus on the buff/social skills role and use stuff from the ECS and CArc, then bards aren't so bad (I'm playing one right now). But it's not an easy class to kick butt and take names with, and even when you're contributing a lot, it's often subtle (though between a Inspirational Boosted, ECS-feat boosted Inspire Courage, Haste, and Inspire Greatness, my party's front-line warriors are often picking up a +8 to hit/+4 to damage/+1 AC due to their gnomish friend).

Yes, many little boosts have been included in later material, that’s because the designers know more than anyone else that BARDS SUCK!
You see, if I’m a fighter, I can do my fighter thing straight out of the PHB. If I’m a wizard, or sorcerer, or cleric, the PHB is all I need. If I’m a rogue, I might want to see the Arms and Equipment guide, but I’m OK just as is.
But if I’m a bard, I have to buy at least $60 more of books just to get my power level up to “not so bad?” Geesh. Again with the money back thing.

I voted "Bards don't suck," but please disregard the "people don't play them right" clause -- I've seen many people play them right (in Living Greyhawk, the Duchy of Urnst has no shortage of bard PC's!), and I've even seen some people play them "wrong" and still not suck. Maybe it's your group that has a problem, not the class...

Nah, it’s the class dude. You may choose not to see it, but it’s there, it’s so there. I played a Verbobonc mod with another bard at the table at Gen Con. We were so very, very lucky to have survived. Many went to “dying” on that day.

Ah, this again.

Bards don't suck. Still.

Bards that focus on being bards and not trying to be somebody else do damn well.

You know that’s totally weird, because I find being effective as a bard means being somebody else, as per the prior response.

Core bard (SRD) is not weak but very difficult to min/max. Still gets some excellent defensive spells (mirror image, alter self), but difficult to make a powerhouse - not impossible.

Each new addition to the D&D family has made the bard more powerful.

Particularly the feats which increase inspire greatness (or spells). Do some basic piling on, getting +3/+3 or +3/+4 at 3rd level (using an instrument) and the bard honestly becomes extremely powerful - almost overwhelming at that low level. But that's a very simple and VERY effective trick. Pile on the inspire greatness more, even get an item created which boosts it more, and you are the party's best friend for every level up to and including 20.

Plus full caster = full dispel magic and other benefits, which are sometimes subtle.

Not weak? I have a lousy BAB, lousy hit die, lousy spell casting ability, and the one area I’m good in, the Rogue does better! I get 6 skill points per level, she gets 8 points AND Bluff and Perform. Why in the name of Olidamarra does Rogue have Perform?

Again with the “I have to buy a bunch of new books” thingie. I shouldn’t have to invest a paycheck into getting a class to be decent.

1. It's good to love at least one class in D&D 3.0/3.5. While the one I like may be the sux, the fighter, the Bard is actually a pretty good class. They can be a back up healer, booster to attacks and damage, and get you all sorts of good information thanks to Bardic Knowledge.

2. It's good that you can play the Bard right because I have seen some Bards played badly. I know I cannot play anything other than a combat class like the fighter, and talk about your shafted class all they get is the next to highest HP's, a free Feat from a limited list of feats and 2+int modifier skill points from their base and their skill selection stinks.

3. There are buffing feats for those skills you listed above, at least 2 in the PHB and possibly more in other Splatbooks. I think the only other class that gets Bluff, Gather Information and Diplomacy as class skills is the Rogue. The Fighter, Monk, Wizard, Druid do not get those as class skills and the other classes only get only 1 or 2 of those skills as class skills.

Mr. Beef

1. Back up healer AND a attack/damage booster? Wowsers, I can be a secondhand Cleric! Of course, they get 8 hit dice and a better BAB. Why can’t I have that BAB. Historically bards were warriors, while priests were, well, not warriors. Warrior clerics are called "Paladins"

Bardic Knowledge? The single most vaguely defined class ability in the book! Where is it? Right smack dab at the top of the bard class abilities. Can I tell what a legendary monster’s weakness is? No. Can I tell what a fabled artifact does? No. Many use it as a de facto Knowledge (everything) skill, but it’s not that either. You will almost NEVER find a Bardic Knowledge table in an adventure or mod.

More soon. . . .