Is the Bard broken?

[Firebeetle]

I've started the "Fix the Bard" thread which is here
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=157691&page=1&pp=40
and I've gotten response after response, "Bard's aren't broken"

I've already stated that the position of that particular thread is that they are and they need to be fixed, but I can't tell people to keep this irrational idea of bard adequacy alone. I can, however, give them a place to debate. So here it is.

I'll cast the first stone.

I love bards. I love to play bards. However, I feel that bards truly do suck. By being non-specialized they suck at everything. If you compare a 1st level bard to other classes, he sucks. If you compare 20th level bards to other classes, he sucks. Bards suck. Prove me wrong.

Below I am quoting previous responses to the previous thread to the contrary.

I know for a fact that Bards are not underpowered. They are not Fighters, Mages, Thieves, or Clerics, but they can help all of those classes. Even one bard can help an army immensely, possibly more than a Wizard and definitely more than a rogue. If a party does not have a rogue, then you can settle for the bard as far as skill points go. If the party sorcerer doesn't get buffs, then the bard is your man. A bard, unlike the four beforementioned, is not a one man army, and should not be compared to the classes that attempt to be.

Howwever, I have seen an epic bard cast Wish and Meteor Storm, and I then witnessed the DM rip the sheet from the player and burn it out of frustration. Damn spoilsport.

Yes, they are supporters. However, a cleric is definately better support than a bard. Why is that? When presented with a choice of having a Cleric or Bard, I don't know of a single party that would say "Bard"

FireBeetle.. the problem with threads names 'Fix the Bard' is that the base assumption of Bards being broke is based on something very touchy in most gaming groups... its the dreaded combination of player skill requirement and DM planning involvement. Regardless how talented the player is at creating and playing the Bard, a DM who fails to offer the opportunities causes the character to 'suck'. Regardless how much the DM caters to the class, a players unskilled handling causes the character to 'suck'.
When attempting to 'Fix the Bard', a folks who have seen a skilled player in a game that caters to the class will invariably wonder why as the Bard can be quite powerful as written.

This is the age old argument "Blame the DM." I have to disagree. A game should work regardless of the level of roleplaying elements, which are subjective and prone to unequity. Bard should kick @$$ outside of using Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate.

. . . my players are hardly ever happy when they think they have encountered an opponent giving one side bonuses. They are even more unhappy when they figure out that the same bard is giving them minuses at the same time. Point and Counterpoint, it's a nice little feat. Especially when coupled with Inspire Courage & Inspire Despair.

That's true, but the bard does not have significant impact on a combat. Honestly, could someone show me, in a published adventure, where a bard has been included to "toughen up" an encounter. I can't think of a single one myself.

The next is in reference to a band of gnolls with a bard.

Song of the Heart (requires a whopping 6 ranks in Perform).
Harmony (a 1st level Bard spell).

All of a sudden each of those 10 gnolls is getting +3 to hit and +3 to damage while that bluegrass gnoll plucks his banjo.

Toss in some Belagarn's Iron Horn (another 1st level Bard spell: AoE trip made with a base 20 str), maybe some Lesser Confusion or Grease and all of a sudden that crooner is looking a good bit more worrysome.

Bards are not to be discounted, particularly when they've got a group of allies. Later on, you add in things like Inspire Heroics (which grants temporary hp, which are ablative), Ironskin Chant (granting 5/- DR), Silence (the caster-bane), Shatter (ranged sunder that's resisted with a Will save), Sound Burst (AoE damage and stun), Blindness/Deafness, Dispel Magic, Crushing Despair, and Slow and things get mean.

Bards don't blow things up - they make you wish you were dead. My only real lament was with 3.5 Bards no longer had access to Bestow Curse. That was just the icing on the cake, but the other things they gained made up for it in the end.

Best argument so far. I note there are some non-SRD things here. Much of this is spell based, which bards do not get until higher levels. I think you'll find the comparison of a bard at these levels and a sorcerer or wizard to be disappointing.

Lay into it folks!

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I've enjoyed reading this guy's bard stuff. I haven't played/witnessed enough bards in play to really have an informed opinion myself, though. I like 'em a lot, though. I desperately want to play a bard/war chanter with the Wild Cohort and Summon Familiar feats for two ravens ^^

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

This is the age old argument "Blame the DM."

No, thats the age old argument of "Its imposssible to create a socially skilled class that works in virtually every game because every player/DM combination will treat it differently."

You want the Bard to "kick @$$ outside of using Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate."

If you compare a 1st level bard to other classes, he sucks. If you compare 20th level bards to other classes, he sucks. Bards suck. Prove me wrong.

Yup, compare the Bard fighting against how well the Fighter does his thing.. he sucks.
Compare the Bard against the Wizard at spell casting.. he sucks.
Bard vs Cleric at buffing.. sucks
Bard vs Rogue {who spent skill points that way} at Diplomancy.. sucks

Correct me if I am reading this wrong, but you want a Bard who can handle himself in combat close to the same as a Fighter, has support role type abilitys on par with the Cleric, has skillz in keeping with the Rogue, and fits the poor man's Mage with spell progression?

What is the Bard's thing? being able to fill the gap, doing at least enough to get by at fighting, casting, buffing, and is naturally talented at diplomancy. PARTY SUPPORT

The only way to prove you wrong, as I noted in the post you quoted above, is to play alongside you at a DM's table who caters to the fact that a Bard is in play. Then you might see how the Bard can be a powerful force within the party... or maybe you might not as you are having too much fun hitting more often, avoiding some nasty combats, and having an additional caster backing your play, and the virtually everpresent morale bonuses



I dropped from that thread back last month... which is about the same time the last "irrational idea of bard adequacy" was mentioned... not sure why you are posting this thread now....Christmas day debate maybe

Checking back over the thread.. Seems you went with D8 HD, 3/4 BAB progression, some additional Bardic Songs and a plethora of feats.
That puts the Bard about even with the Cleric.. of whom I have heard once or twice is the most 'broken' of the core classes.
Add in the normal skill class list and a capable player.. hehehe.. I have gotten DM's frustrated with using the Core bardic abilities. I would have a field day with this!

 

[magic_gathering2001]

Maybe it's just me but I have never seen an underpowered bard. They are the only class who can participate in every encounter: Frontline combat, buffing, healing, sneaking, RPing, DM annoying, you name it. They may not be able to do so as well as the specialists but the fact that they can do it all more than makes up for it.

PS: A first level bard could beat up a first level fighter, outsneak a first level rogue, and buff for waaaaaayyyyyy longer than a cleric and almost as well.

 

[Sravoff]

Jack of all trades, master of none.

The bard is a dabbler. He dabbles in magic, dabbles in skills, dabbles in sword play.

While I have never played a bard, I recognize their complete uniquness at being able to do almost everything. While not quite as good as the other classes. They still can. I usually play highly focus characters, which is why the "dabbler" aspect doesn't apeal to me much.

So if we are voting on wheather or not it is broken, I say it is fine the way it is. The bard is a dabbler in all things, and therefore a master of none.

 

[Kisanji Arael]

Yes, they are supporters. However, a cleric is definately better support than a bard. Why is that? When presented with a choice of having a Cleric or Bard, I don't know of a single party that would say "Bard"

EDIT: Oh, and I did try to stay out of your other thread when you asked me to.

That's largely because the bard has been played out as being useless for so long. But consider this: What size of party?

And, as has already been stated, the Cleric is broken. However, for the sake of argument...

When presented with a choice of cleric or bard, a single fighter would invariably choose the Cleric, as would two fighters, as would three. but what about the Paladin? What if there was one paladin in the group. At this point, it becomes a little less certain. When you get into higher numbers of fighters, even if there isn't a healer, things start to blur.. When presented with any number of fighters greater than 1, the cleric's usefulness diminishes relative to the amount of people he has to spread his healing over. However, the bard's usefulness only grows with numbers, because he does not have to micro out his best effects. He does not have to worry about who is affected by his abilities.
---
In addition, his abilities are augmented by some of the most "broken" Prestige Classes and feats that have been made. Why are they broken? Because people have been screaming out that the bard is pointless for so long. Almost all of the classes gain Bardic Music uses without any loss of level. they allow uses of Bardic Music to put them on level with mages near their level. As an example, lets take the stormsinger from Frostburn. Keep in mind that I'm arguing for the bard as an army's best friend.

First.... the stormsinger benefits at any point that she is in a storm herself (Stormpower). Then, when she reaches 7th level, she is able to make storms, In addition, she is able to use the Great Thunderstroke ability, This is a 60 foot line (remember -- armies) dealing damage based on a perform check. It only takes up 2 uses of bardic music. It also has a chance to deal 2d6 additional damage plus permanent deafness. In addition, four uses of Bardic music give her access to Storm of Vengeance. Suddenly, 20 uses of bardic music equals five 9th level spells/day. And she hasn't lost any uses of bardic music or spells/day, or even spells known.

From that same book (since it's out, and since I'm lazy), an example of the feats I'm talking about is snowflake wardance. 1 use of Bardic music adds your Charisma mod to all attack rolls, as long as they're one-handed and slashing. It's a free action, and lasts a number of rounds equal to your perform dance skill.

These are just examples, but that's the point. If you don't confine yourself to a straight bard, you'll be easily in line with the regular classes, and have the freedom to decide whether you want to be a powerful mage, fighter, or rogue based on the circumstances, something that rogues, fighters, and wizards can't do.

---

I think that it is the best conspiracy ever. By saying the class is underpowered, it makes people believe it. I know people who have never seen a bard played that say it is underpowered. I would say that it is closest in power to a straight fighter (which is to say: they're fine, but boring after a bit). However, no one plays through 20 levels of fighter. A lot of people play through 20 levels of Bard. Even if I couldn't have a stormsinger, I would definitely prefer a level 20 bard in my party to a level 20 fighter. Especially if he's been taking advantage of the spells not found in the Core Rulebooks.

Oh, also... bard's probably make the best use of the Leadership feat of all the core classes.

 

[Firebeetle]

Missed one from Arkandus from the other thread

My opinion on the bard issue......yes, the bard is underpowered simply because it requires the player and DM both to be good at providing the bard sufficiently numerous and useful opportunities to be as useful as any other class. Other classes generally don't require the player and DM to both be puissant in the proper ways to make them fully useful.
(Goes one to post minor changes)

What I'm getting from this and others is that for a Bard to be useful, they need DM favoritism. I don't think that's right. I think the Bard should work consistently regardless of DM attitude.

 

[Firebeetle]

No, thats the age old argument of "Its imposssible to create a socially skilled class that works in virtually every game because every player/DM combination will treat it differently."


You want the Bard to "kick @$$ outside of using Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate."

But why are social skills equated with other abilities. Honestly, they don't have that great of an impact on the game and you know it.

Yup, compare the Bard fighting against how well the Fighter does his thing.. he sucks.
Compare the Bard against the Wizard at spell casting.. he sucks.
Bard vs Cleric at buffing.. sucks
Bard vs Rogue {who spent skill points that way} at Diplomancy.. sucks

That's right, he sucks all the way around. 24/7

Correct me if I am reading this wrong, but you want a Bard who can handle himself in combat close to the same as a Fighter, has support role type abilitys on par with the Cleric, has skillz in keeping with the Rogue, and fits the poor man's Mage with spell progression?

I shall correct. My 3.51 bard fights better than before, but still can't rival a fighter, can't compete with a Cleric for support but does better, still has they same problem rivaling a rogue (although the suggested Perform skill fix may help this) and doesn't have any spells at all. I think the 3.5 bard sucks and needs fixing, not super-sizing.

What is the Bard's thing? being able to fill the gap, doing at least enough to get by at fighting, casting, buffing, and is naturally talented at diplomancy. PARTY SUPPORT

I disagree. I don't think they should "get by", but rather have a chance to excel in a "bardy" way. Bards should create situations that engender roleplaying and are unexpected. I definately don't see him as a party band-aid. That role regulates him to eternal suckdom forever.

As for party support, I think expanding on his bardic music abilities is enough.

The only way to prove you wrong, as I noted in the post you quoted above, is to play alongside you at a DM's table who caters to the fact that a Bard is in play. Then you might see how the Bard can be a powerful force within the party... or maybe you might not as you are having too much fun hitting more often, avoiding some nasty combats, and having an additional caster backing your play, and the virtually everpresent morale bonuses

On the contrary, I do favor bards as a GM and they still don't last long. That last one didn't even last a whole session. I try to give them every opportunity, and yet they still managed to get squished.

I think a truer test is how my 3.51+ does in an anti-bard DM's campaign.

I dropped from that thread back last month... which is about the same time the last "irrational idea of bard adequacy" was mentioned... not sure why you are posting this thread now....Christmas day debate maybe

No, just got tired of "Bard are OK sometimes" posts in a working thread. Detracts from the goal of a better bard tomorrow.

Checking back over the thread.. Seems you went with D8 HD, 3/4 BAB progression, some additional Bardic Songs and a plethora of feats.
That puts the Bard about even with the Cleric.. of whom I have heard once or twice is the most 'broken' of the core classes. Add in the normal skill class list and a capable player.. hehehe.. I have gotten DM's frustrated with using the Core bardic abilities. I would have a field day with this!

Please feel free to use it and give some feedback. Note the 3.51 BAB is not changed at all and d8 HD is not a big change. I DON'T think it's on par with a Cleric yet. In fact, I don't think it's on par with a rogue or monk, which are my main comparisons.

 

[magic_gathering2001]

where did this come from?

 

[magic_gathering2001]

Look at your own therad