How bad does the bard suck?

[molonel]

How bad do bards suck seems like a really loaded question.

Fortunately, they suck hard enough and long enough that the load in question won't remain locked up for long.

 

[Crothian]

And no evidence seems to be able to sway him from his position. Like Darklone said, it really does feel like being trolled.

He doesn't offer evidence either. It feels like being trolled because it is a troll.

 

[Darklone]

Ya know what I miss the most from the 3.0 bard? Bestow Curse. Man I loved singing curses at people.

It was on my wishlist, sadly that bard/bbn/rog died a little bit too early for 3rd level spells.

 

[Fishbone]

Which is strange, because Greater Bestow Curse is a 6th level Bard spell. 75 percent chance for a loss of all actions or an ability score reduced to 1 is pretty strong, not sure if it is 6th level worthy, though.

 

[Firebeetle]

Responses part 2

Bards are definitely the best at being bards.

Bye
Thanee

Sadly NOT true. Bards are great for Diplomacy, Bluff, and Perform right? Everybody says so.
WRONG! If I want a Diplomat I’m much better off with the Rogue, who has the same skills and more points to spend on them. I have a “Patron Saint of Liars” player in my Eberron campaign with an incredible Bluff. He never even considered Bard, we went straight for Rogue/Sorcerer. He has a higher Bluff than the bard could ever obtain.

Bards are supporters, right? Clerics do that way better. Sure, Bless doesn’t add damage bonuses, but it can be cast many more times and lasts much longer without being maintained.

Bards are great at knowing all sorts of things, right? Wizard is better, they get less skill points, but have fewer skill demands upon them. Wizards also get quicker access to scrying magics while we get the vague and underused or misused “Bardic Knowledge”

Then there are the classes that do a bard’s job better than a bard does, which really hacks me off. See below.

I played a bard (under 3.0, without armored casting) who did duty as a healer, a negotiator, and a front line fighter. He landed the killing blow on an adult blue dragon. I think people are prejudiced against bards because you don't see "big numbers". Instead, you get a +1 here, a +3 there, a decent armored class, some buffs, a couple of handy offensive spells, etc. A good bard is synergistic.

I had a first level bard that managed to do final damage on a lot of big creatures. I’m glad you had a good experience. You do describe his piecemeal approach, little bits to add to a greater whole. It is a Frankenstein sort of thing, sometimes the combination works, sometimes I am completely and utterly useless even at high level.

I usually (lately( run for large groups (6-8 players).

I cringe when someone decides to play a bard.

I know my job just got a whole lot harder.

The bard is really great at making everyone else better at what they do best.

The Bard can also fill it for about any other class (some combat, some healing, some thievery, some spellcasting).

The Bard can about do it all. It just can't do it as good as the core class can.

I've found that in larger groups, Bards are an exceptionally powerful class.

As long as they are helping to carry the load, as opposed to toting the whole darned thing, they can really shine.

I think of the bard as the best 4+ Class I've seen (CW of 1 Fighter, 1 Healer, 1 Spellcaster, 1 Skill Monkey-Rogue). After you have the 4 down, Bard just makes everyone else better, and fills in wherever needed.

Plus, I give a lot of Background Info away with Bardic Lore that can come back to aid the party later (if they pay attention the first time).

As I’ve discussed before, bards should not have to rely on a large party to shine. I would further argue that given the choice of possible supporting classes, cleric, druid, wizard, sorcerer, or bard, that bard would be the least potentially helpful.

Bards are a fine class for many things except going into the dungeon with a small party. If they lure a group [or a mob] of commoners to go along with the party the bard's worth increases since they provide damage soaking and cheap trap detection. Most groups ain't cool wth that though...

Bards can work, but suffer from not being focused in any one area. Something monks suffer from as well. Fighters slightly less so since stronger feats with high requirements are now more available.

Unfortunately, going into dungeons with small parties is something we do a lot of in D&D. The bard should be able to shine there as well.

A player in my Planescape campaign is currently enjoying a tiefling bard 11. Not even trying to minmax everything, he is the AC powerhouse of the party, reaching into the high 30s with Alter Self (so he doesn't get hit too often). His skill selection and spells allow him to contribute to the party effort, and the +3/+3 bard song is just a killer in combat. *shrug* Honestly, I don't think the bard is too weak by any means. It's just not a class for everyone, since you have to be content with being a jack-of-all-trades, but one who can at least try to to everything. Most people I game with prefer a character that excels in one regard.

If your bard is an AC powerhouse, it’s not because he’s a bard. It’s because of some other boost. Bards have no AC boosting abilities.

Compare that same 11th level bard (more ECL with the tiefling) with the capabilities of the rest of the party. It’s pretty sobering real quick.

I’d like to excel at being a bard. I’d like to be able to use Bluff and Diplomacy better than anyone else, but Rogue, Sorcerer, and Psion can all beat me easily. I’d like to cast mind-control magics better than someone else, but wizards and sorcerers get those spells before I ever do, I’d like to be able to pick up a rapier and kick some butt, but doing so with my lousy BAB and hit points is suicide!

I say, Not so Bad. They are jacks-of-all-trades: decent attack bonus, decent spellcasting, decent hit points, lots of skill points. Definitely don't suck, but take some finesse to play to their full potential. I could see how they might be unsatisfying to play for a player who needs his PC to be best at one thing, rather than second or third best at everything.

Are we talking about the same class? My d6 hit die is DECENT?! It’s obscene is what it is, total disregard for the bard’s historical and literary fighting ability. My attack bonus is DECENT?! It’s absolutely pitiful! DECENT SPELLCASTING?! Now that is a joke. I have s substandard ability and a hand-me-down list of spells that aren’t even mine.

Again, I’ll repeat. I just want bards to be the best at being bards. We get buffs for everybody except ourselves.

Unless these players (like me) notice that with a bard who supports the other specialists they can shine 5 times per evening, not only once

Actually, I can’t shine 5 times per evening until I’m 5th level. You see, that’s when my Bardic Music gets to be used 5 times a day. I’d prefer not to wait until 5th level to “shine 5 times a night” thank you.

I said Bards dont suck they, people dont play them right. Though to be honest they are the worst class in the game, but in the right hands could be very good. Too bad in my group the only people who like playing bards are in fact crappy players in the descisions they make.

I agree with your second sentence. As I’ve stated, I enjoy making the most of what I’ve got. I shouldn’t have to, it should already be there for me like the rest of the classes.

Inspirational Boost+Masterwork War Drums+Elation+Song of The Heart+Battle Rattle=The guys playing the 3/4 Base Classes high fiving you a lot.
Melodic Casting and DC bumping magical instruments also means your Suggestions will be rocking the house with DCs approaching the 30s very quickly. They've got tons of good buffing and defensive spells and with things like Sound Burst, Cacaphonic Burst, Fanfare, Wail of Doom, Shout/Greater Shout, they've got plenty of good blasting spells, too in their careers. Seriously, whats the problem here? I'd take a Bard over a Rogue any day, and rogues are regarded by many as one of the most balanced classes in the game.

I have an equations for you:
Poor BAB + poor hit die + poor spellcasting ability + vague abilities + limited use of bardic music + the never used “countersong” at first level = SUCK!!!

All these spells you refer to I cannot access until well after my wizard and sorcerer counterparts can. If you’re going to compare Bards to Rogues remember that rogues get the same hit die, better BAB (they’re thieves, we are fighters, why??), better skill points and access to all the same skills that bards need (Bluff, Diplomacy, Perform.) We suck compared to rogues.

In a historical campaign, the bard class could be used not only for entertainers but also politicians, priests, teachers, historians, military officers, lawyers, rebel/cult leaders--lots of professions could easily be represented by low-level bards, and bards could be quite successful in many professions.

A high level bard can be a good nemesis character for the party, blackening the party's reputation when they are not around, popular and untouchable in public, and capable of influencing the other NPC's to oppose the party. The party may not even immediately realise who is opposing them!

Bards also make good colour characters.

All in all, a useful class for any creative DM.

I concur completely, Bard would make an EXCELLENT NPC class. Right there with warrior, expert, adept, and aristocrat. Yet, it never happens. I have seen ONE bard as a possible combative NPC for a party in a module, representing a group of artists about to be crushed by the Royal Guard unless the PCs help them. That’s right, the bard was playing the role of the underdog loser. How appropriate.

It's not like anyone's dissing Henry V for using his Perform (oratory) skill to Inspire Greatness in St. Crispin's Day...

"Bardic Music" need not be music.

I have a “stage actor” bard who does exactly this.

Bards are very late in being fun to play in combat. This is one reason why they are a hard class to play. Now on the reverse they are great out of combat, even early on. They are amazing at 9th level and on.

I had one of the most enjoyable games with a bard. I played the bard because it was the weakest class. It was a very enlightening experience.

Tell me about it. You have to get improved initiative just so you have a chance to fascinate you opponent before the real combat begins. Did you have any further enlightenment?

Last time I remember you bringing up the topic, you also had a seperate "hatemongering" post discussing how bards suck. IIRC, then, like now, the majority of voters disagreed with you. Are you going to keep renewing the issue until your opponents ignore you and you can get a poll with the answer you want?

All I see is someone who bashes bards and exalts their suckage from on high.

As Crothian mentioned, you have contradicted yourself.

You mean like Eagle's Splendor? It adds +2 to any Bluff, Gather Information, and Diplomacy checks. Other complimentory spells include Charm Person/Monster, Comprehend Languages, Disguise Self/Alter Self (Elf attempting Diplomacy with an Orc? No problem), Detect Thoughts, Enthrall, Hold Person (1 round/lvl or less; talk fast, Suggestion, Tongues (Oh, you don't speak the language of the creature you're trying to bluff? No problem.).

The bard is great as he is. He is not a one-character army. He can't mass heal and throw 12 fireballs per day and I hope he never can. Keep your hatemongering to yourself, please.

Nobody seems to have brought up the 1,000 man poll were the bard was the clear loser. Besides the vote getter, many mentioned they voted for something else because the bard was so obvious and they wanted to call attention to their class (fighter, monk, druid, etc.)

Eagle’s Splendor is a spell. Again, a spell is an ability, not a buff unless I give it to myself. Other classes get direct buffs they don’t have to cast. There is no “Turn Undead” spell, for example.

As for the “hatemongering”, I was referring the typical venom that is thrown at me when I discuss this.

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)).

Thank you. Modifications made, clear sense that despite modifications, the class is still weak. That is exactly what I have noticed.

Just another one of his trollish posts

There will be a time when the bard is going to be revised (which is like, next week if you believe some people.) At that time, there needs to be a very clear cut case for what needs to be done. This obviously WASN’T done prior to 3.5. When it comes to knowing why the bard just doesn’t work, threads like this one or others that crop up because of it will be quite useful. It’s ugly work, but it must be done. We CANNOT have people saying, “the bard is just fine leave it be for 4.0”, that would be a disaster.

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...

I am not measuring my worth against any tanks/blasters/bricks/buckets of cement or otherwise. I am measuring success by bards being bards. We are secondhand clerics, we are secondhand rogues, we are secondhand wizards, we are thirdhand fighters, what we AREN’T is first rate bards.

No buffs to social skills
No early access to mind affecting magic
No decent BAB
No decent hit die
Limitations or general vagueness about our abilities.

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

Thank you, exactly! That’s it in a nutshell. A performer that doesn’t stand out.

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.

I have answered since then, devoting many more words than you, and you apparently decided to back out. C’est la vie.

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....

To keep that fire alive. As the bard gets more and more “band-aids” from different D&D products, we must remember that it’s flawed at the core.

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...

Ahhh, the Duskblade! The Beguiler! The Dragon Shaman! The Knight! The Marshall! The Jack-of-all-Trades!

ALL classes that truly shame the bard. The class is now next to irrelevant in the face of these classes. They either boost other players better, or do some other function better than the bard. It’s truly shameful. Shame on you WotC, shame!

 

[Trench]

*blink*

Kay. In our Midwood campaign, the bard has become rather essential. If for no other reason than he ends up driving the plot half the time. He also saved our bacon multiple times with his arrows and some rather creative spellcasting.

Stats? enh. Not so concerned. But the game we're playing is rather story intensive.

I find these threads bore the tar out of me. Our players barely optimize, Min/Max, whatever. As long as the story works, who cares about stat suckage?

 

[Sound of Azure]

Mmmmm, rant-alicious!


Firebeetle,

Why don't you start a thread in House rules to make a more "Bardly" Bard, if only to present something that really makes you happy. You never know, people might like it!

 

[molonel]

I may have said this already, but I like Monte Cook's bard in the Complete Book of Eldritch Might. Bards got their own music system, and their own spells, which is in my opinion what they deserve.

Bards are an imaginative and fantasy trope and archetype that deserved better than what either 3.0 (piss poor) or 3.5 D&D (marginally better) gave them.

I don't fault the fantasy character of the bard. I fault D&D for representing that character poorly in a badly designed class. I'm glad some folks out there have managed to make lemonade out of lemons, but it's still a bad class.

 

[Sejs]

More yelling at a brick wall.

Sadly NOT true. Bards are great for Diplomacy, Bluff, and Perform right? Everybody says so.
WRONG! If I want a Diplomat I’m much better off with the Rogue, who has the same skills and more points to spend on them. I have a “Patron Saint of Liars” player in my Eberron campaign with an incredible Bluff. He never even considered Bard, we went straight for Rogue/Sorcerer. He has a higher Bluff than the bard could ever obtain.

The 'king talker' thing again. Bard has the skill points to be king talker without sacrificing his expexted abilities in other areas. A bard focuses on charisma naturally - it's what fuels their spellcasting. A rogue focuses primarily on dex and int. If the rogue wants to keep up with the Joneses, he's diverting his efforts from elsewhere. A bard already has the inclination to shine socially, a rogue who does so does it at the potential sacrifice of his other, uniquely rogue areas of focus (locks, traps, etc).

The bard is capable of a higher overall diplomacy score than a rogue is. Numerical fact, Firebeetle. Sorry. The bard is capable of a FAR higher Bluff score than the rogue/sorcerer, straight sorcerer, or psion is. They can get a snake familiar or a psi crystal for +3. The bard can cast Glibness (a bard only spell, natch) for +30.

Bards are supporters, right? Clerics do that way better. Sure, Bless doesn’t add damage bonuses, but it can be cast many more times and lasts much longer without being maintained.

Bless and Bardic Music arn't even in the same ballpark other than at 1st level, particularly when feats start coming into the picture. A cleric tossing around Bless, Prayer, and Holy Aura pales in comparison to a bard with Song of the Heart using Inspire Courage, Inspire Greatness, Inspire Heroics, and Ironskin Chant.

Bards are great at knowing all sorts of things, right? Wizard is better, they get less skill points, but have fewer skill demands upon them. Wizards also get quicker access to scrying magics while we get the vague and underused or misused “Bardic Knowledge”

One of the few areas we agree upon is how rarely implemented Bardic Knowledge is. As for scrying, sorry. Both classes get access to the spell at 7th level. The skill point demand on both classes is equally spread. Wizards have 2+ but need Concentration and Spellcraft to do their jobs. Bards have 6+ but generally need social skills. 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

If your bard is an AC powerhouse, it’s not because he’s a bard. It’s because of some other boost. Bards have no AC boosting abilities.

Inspire Heroics grants dodge AC, but comes to the table late. Other than (Blur, Mirror Image) that (Cat's Grace) I guess (Blink, Haste) bards really (Displacement, Greater Invis) don't have a way to keep from being hit.

I’d like to excel at being a bard. I’d like to be able to use Bluff and Diplomacy better than anyone else, but Rogue, Sorcerer, and Psion can all beat me easily.

If they devote themselves to trying to be the bard.

I’d like to cast mind-control magics better than someone else, but wizards and sorcerers get those spells before I ever do,

At about the same time, actually - charm monster/confusion at 7th for both, dominate person at 9th/10th. And they can NEVER match a bard's save DC against fascinate/suggestion.

I’d like to be able to pick up a rapier and kick some butt, but doing so with my lousy BAB and hit points is suicide!

Except that with your inspires, that also effect you btw, you can indeed. A bard is as durable as a rogue in melee unaugmented, when singing about as durable as a fighter.

Are we talking about the same class? My d6 hit die is DECENT?! It’s obscene is what it is, total disregard for the bard’s historical and literary fighting ability. My attack bonus is DECENT?! It’s absolutely pitiful! DECENT SPELLCASTING?! Now that is a joke. I have s substandard ability and a hand-me-down list of spells that aren’t even mine.

Yes. Decent. Middle of the road all across the board. More BAB and HD than a wizard or sorc, more spellcasting than a rogue, more skills than a fighter.

Again, I’ll repeat. I just want bards to be the best at being bards. We get buffs for everybody except ourselves.

What makes you think your buffs don't work on yourself?

All these spells you refer to I cannot access until well after my wizard and sorcerer counterparts can. If you’re going to compare Bards to Rogues remember that rogues get the same hit die, better BAB (they’re thieves, we are fighters, why??),

Round about the same time, actually. And would you care to explain how a rogue's 3/4 BAB is somehow better than a bard's 3/4 BAB? Is one somehow more 3/4 than the other?

Tell me about it. You have to get improved initiative just so you have a chance to fascinate you opponent before the real combat begins. Did you have any further enlightenment?

Yeah, fascinate 'em before they realize you're presenting a threat. Walk up to some guards solo and apparently unarmed, pretending to be lost or confused - they don't think you're a threat, don't instantly go defensive. Walk up to some guards in the middle of a cloud of hooligans hooting and waving swords - they get all antsy and call for reinforcements. Damndest thing.

 

[Klaus]

Half-Elf Bard 4:
Diplomacy 7 (ranks) + 2 (racial) + 2 (Negotiator) + 3 (Skill Focus) + 2 (Bluff sinergy) + 2 (Sense Motive synergy) + 2 (Knowledge: nobility synergy) + 3 (Cha 16) = +23.

Given 1 minute, this bard can turn a Hostile (frothing at the mouth, gonna kill ya til yer dead) enemy into an Indifferent (not caring bout you much) 95% of the time! He can turn an Unfriendly creature into a Friendly one with the same odds! He's like a walking Charm Person machine!