Is the Bard broken?

[Primitive Screwhead]

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.

That depends entirely on how the campaign is run.. ie, DM catering. Social skills can be as big a peice of the game as combat is. If your game slants in such a manner that social skills do not have a great impact on the game, then yes the Bard sucks. In a game where social skills can have an impact on the game, then the Bard rocks.

Combat and spell slinging are staples in every game.. hence Fighters, Mages, and Clerics have thier play no matter what.

Traps and sneaky has a play in most games, so the Rogue gets the limelight often enough.

Wilderness stuff crops up, usually when a Druid or Ranger is present, and most DM's can handle running this sort of encounter fairly well.. but most people think these classes are underpowered or pointless duplicates of the Fighter...and most 'wilderness' encounters end up being a flat, level ground with no underbrush or fallen logs.....

Social skills? Show me a published module that actually has enounters designed to challange the party in the social arena... and I will buy it DnD is about dungeon crawling and monster slaying.. not debating with the Mayor or winning a local election. The biggest use most people get out of the social skills is the diplomancy of 'dont fight us, just let us in'
Part of this is due to the need for a robust social skill resolution mechanic, something like Penumbra's book delivers {which would take players some time to get used to}. But most of it is because DM's don't encourage a non-violent solution to encounters.

YMMV, of course.

To me, the DM's job is to present opportunities for each character in the party to hold the limelight for a bit.. preferably an equal share. This means if I have a Bard in the group, non -violent options will be viable and part of the planned story arc. Social skill use would be a major part of some of the encounters. If your DM is not doing this.. sit down with him or her sometime and say "Man, tell me straight, do you want me to play a fighter or a bard? cause all this bardy type stuff just doesn't fly the way you set us up."

BTW.. what exactly do you mean by 'bardy' anyway?

 

[Kisanji Arael]

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.

Have you tried the Leadership feat? A bard likely has the same Charisma as a Sorcerer, but his spells are more in tune with buffing than the sorcerer and he does not have a familiar, meaning that he will not suffer a -2 to his Leadership score. A bard with 18 Cha is probably the only class that qualifies for 5 first level follwers at 6th level.

EDIt: It is also only one level before he learns Good Hope.

 

[Khairn]

Firebeetle, I hate to say this as I love to read and participate in a passionate and well reasoned discussion into the effectiveness of character classes, but in this situation you have not proven your case to me.

You have started out with the assumption that bards are broken and then challenged others to help you fix it. Others have countered that your base assumption is incorrect and that the bard does not need to be fixed.

As a long time bard player I tend to agree. My actions are oftentimes the difference between our party surviving or not. With my wide range of skills and abilities I am involved in almost every aspect of an encounter be it social, combat, trap, puzzle, magical or knowledge oriented. My GM makes no "special allowances" for a bard being in the party, yet I easily find ways to be effective.

Combat wise, I can't stand alone against a well played fighter (barbarian, ranger or paladin), and I will loose a mages duel with a wizard or a sorcerer, but I can hold my own against anyone else. With me in the party, my party members are much stronger, more effective, and regularly take on higher lv CR's than our party level warrants.

But that is my group, with my GM and players. Which is where I have gained the experience that I use as the foundation for my opinion. Your group, with your GM and your players obviously find the bard to be less effective. You claim the bard is broken, but I haven't seen any real evidence of how.

Sure, your new bard is more powerful than the 3.5 version. There are lots of suped-up versions of ever class on the boards. But since we find the bard to be effective as is, we'll just stick with them as they were written.

 

[zoroaster100]

I am running a city campaign right now where gather information checks and diplomacy checks are vital to the the overarching success or failure of the party. A bard just joined the party and this is already helping them primarily with these skills outside of combat (though the morale bonuses in combat help a bit too). Even though the party already had a rogue, cleric, fighter, druid, barbarian and wizard, none of these other characters had good charisma or social skills, which are vital in this campaign. The bard has something to offer which none of the others are reasonably good at.

 

[Tinner]

Saying that the bard is broken because it doesn't directly compare to a fighter or sorceror is like saying a scalpel is broken because it isn't a longsword.
Two very different tool with very different uses. You don't perform surgery with a longsword, and you don't slay orcs with a scalpel. Trying to make one thing act like another doesn't prove that thing is broken. It only proves that you don't know how to properly use it.
Bards are not broken. However, players who want a min-maxed character focussed on a single facet of the game, and players with no ability to multi-task have no business playing a bard.
Or arguing that the bard is broken.

 

[Firebeetle]

Look at your own thread

The first of two and less than 24 hours. The bard has shown an early lead (I voted for it myself), yet there is not nearly enough response yet to be conclusive. As a good scientist, I will challenge my own hypothesis.

Yes, this is a completely unscientific survey method. Those of you dying to say it may if you wish, but I'd rather you didn't waste the post space.

 

[Firebeetle]

Firebeetle, I hate to say this as I love to read and participate in a passionate and well reasoned discussion into the effectiveness of character classes, but in this situation you have not proven your case to me.

And I doubt I shall.

You have started out with the assumption that bards are broken and then challenged others to help you fix it. Others have countered that your base assumption is incorrect and that the bard does not need to be fixed.

Good summary, thank you.

As a long time bard player I tend to agree. My actions are oftentimes the difference between our party surviving or not. With my wide range of skills and abilities I am involved in almost every aspect of an encounter be it social, combat, trap, puzzle, magical or knowledge oriented. My GM makes no "special allowances" for a bard being in the party, yet I easily find ways to be effective.

Someone playing an expert or adept could easily say the same thing, their actions spelled the difference between life and death. I'm glad you're involved in every encounter, that doesn't make your bard powerful, that makes you engaged. As for special allowances, that is the argument I've heard from others constantly, you'll have to take that argument to them.

Combat wise, I can't stand alone against a well played fighter (barbarian, ranger or paladin), and I will loose a mages duel with a wizard or a sorcerer, but I can hold my own against anyone else. With me in the party, my party members are much stronger, more effective, and regularly take on higher lv CR's than our party level warrants.

Combat-wise you can't stand against a monk or rogue, of lower level, even though they have the same BAB progression as you. As for buffing the group, a cleric of lower level would still be more effective.

But that is my group, with my GM and players. Which is where I have gained the experience that I use as the foundation for my opinion. Your group, with your GM and your players obviously find the bard to be less effective. You claim the bard is broken, but I haven't seen any real evidence of how.

I've shown plenty, the lackluster spell progression, the limited utility of bardic music, the utter lack of combat effectiveness. The constant advice of "take this feat, that makes it work". Finally, I've yet to be made aware of even a single instance of bard being used to buff up an NPC in a published scenario.

Sure, your new bard is more powerful than the 3.5 version. There are lots of suped-up versions of ever class on the boards. But since we find the bard to be effective as is, we'll just stick with them as they were written.

Of course he is, when you're competing with the adepts for who is the most powerful, anything would be more powerful. This is not an attempt to "supe-up" the bard, it is an attempt to "fix" a class and make it desirable to play. I don't know who "we" are, it doesn't really matter to me. This is an exercise to produce a class for bard lovers that they can take without feeling selfish because we really want to play a bard.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

In a game with a lot of interaction with NPCs the bard rules. Me, I run a game that involves a lot of dealing with NPCs, so Gather Information, Diplomacy, and Bluff all come into play. I always make sure that there is something for Bardic Lore to find out. (And not doing so is what I personally call 'lazy DMing.')

In a dungeon crawl he will fair poorly, except as a walking, talking, buff machine. (Even then I feel he is the best 'fifth' character in the game.)

One thing I notice is that you do not like people telling you, loudly as to one who is hard of hearing, that the bard does not suck. Consider mine one more shouting voice.

The Auld Grump

 

[ARandomGod]

...
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

I'd say go with Arcane Trickster, sorc based. You'd get someone with plenty of fighting ability (poor BaB, but rogue sneak attacks!) casting just a few levels below a pure sorc (1 1/2 spell levels, he'll still get 9th level spells at 20), and naturally talented at diplomacy.

That's a lot better party support.


Ahem, anyhow. In general I agree with the OP, bards are broken. However I'm not going to say which WAY they're broken. In a game that's all social, they're overpowered socially. In a game that's all combat, they're not nearly as good as having hired a torchbearer. At least the torchbearer isn't pretending he earned some of that treasure.

...
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.

...

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.

Point. Some PrC's make the bard much better. As to whether this is a good thing... see my above opinion and apply it to which game type you're in.

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.

Also a good point. Ppl just don't play it enough. Personally I'd argue that this is on the "bards are underpowered" side... there are SOOO many people that if bards were truely overpowered... or even on par in total power level I think there simply would be more of them. There are plenty of people who hear "that class sucks" and take it as a personal challenge to break the character in overpoweredness. And if I haven't seen at least a half dozen ways to do just that, I'd say that the class isn't as powerful as the others (cause I've seen more than a few ways to break other classes!_

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.

Of cousre, a lot of ppl don't like to allow in non-core material, and almost everyone allows that the Leadership feat itself is pretty broken. Now I do take your point that the bard is AWESOME as a part of a large group. However I don't like to have large groups, either as a GM or as a player. They're too cumbersome. You really will have combats lasting over an hour if you're taking advantage of the bards power in this way (or, at any rate, we would in our campaigns), and everyone would hate the bard for taking up 95% of all the game-time on his turn.

Which, by the way, is also how the players would feel in general with a bard in a mostly social setting. A group of adventurers with little social skill would wonder why they're hanging around listening to this bard talk to people for them. They'd in general rather pay the bard a fee for his services, and go about their business without being bogged down in the details.

Social skills? Show me a published module that actually has enounters designed to challange the party in the social arena... and I will buy it

OK... but you'll have to move away from DnD (I know, that IS your point).


Off Topic:

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.

Best Spoiler Ever!

 

[Xereq]

could you define "bardly" for me, i can't seem to find it in any dictionary. what is your ideal of an iconic bard? from your previos thread i gathered that it warps minds and twists psyche of allies and enemies, if thats all you want play an enchanter! the bard is a jack of all trades and a master of one, diplomacy, not hte skill necicerily but the tactic. An issue of dragon magzine listed "free xp" on the cover. it did not clarify that issue but later the editor said that it was refering to the fact that you get full xp for diplomaticly handling a encounter as you do for killing everything, minus the cost of spells canst hitpoints wasted, healing to be used and magic item charges expended.
Imagine talking an antipalidin out of the service of his dark god, converting him back to paladinhood and forever changing the powerstructure of your campiegn's churches, a sorcer or wizard would have to cast geas and he could just shrug that off somehow, the bard just buffs charisma and diplomacy, makes one roll and the final boss is nuetralized, without character death or a cunning plan, just social skills. how can you call that underpowered? Plus most powerfull creatures and npcs you face will be easily influenced. you can leave the ogres guarding the gate scratching the heads trying to remeber whether or not the lich actually ordered them to let anyone claiming to be an interrior decorater into the dungeon with bluff. you can sell a troll alchemist's fire as mouthwash claiming to beonly concerned about his health, he's pretty much always going to fail his sense motive checks. Social skills are power only limited by your creativity, which could make the bard a the most broken class of them all.
And by the way, including NPCs and accounting for a bards abiliy to use social skills is not DM catering the same way that including monsters is not DM catering to a fighter.

as far as the bard sucking goes,
I think i just proved you wrong