Is the Bard broken?

[Firebeetle]

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 ^^

Thank you! Good link to someone else who clearly likes bard and feels the same way. Particulary the breakdown of the spell table.

 

[Firebeetle]

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.)

OK, so let me get this straight. D&D is a game of dungeon crawls, no ifs, ands, or buts. By your own admission, the bard "fairs poorly" (i.e. sucks) in this category. Thank you, I think that does it there. You are willing to accept suckage and call it another name and sit on your hands through the three to five sessions of dungeon crawling to get the one session of NPC heavy city adventuring, where you get to steal the show from all the other players. And this doesn't suck how? Is it not sucking when your party has to constantly spend resources to keep your pathetic self alive, which they do mainly because they like you? Or does it not suck when the other players watch you hog every city scene thinking "man, I'm losing hours at work for this?"

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.

And HOW do you know what I like? Again with the attributions, of which I have made none about you. Shout yourself hoarse my friend, it doesn't bother me.

 

[Firebeetle]

could you define "bardly" for me, i can't seem to find it in any dictionary.

I found Xereq though (different spelling), adapted for a dry climate. Nothing about "lack of indentations" which is what I expected.
"Bardy" (or "bardly" I guess) means "like or being of a bard." You won't find it in a dictionary, the same way you won't find "hit point". It's subculture lingo that helps define our subculture, so revel in it.

what is your ideal of an iconic bard?

I'm not fond of the iconic characters honestly, although I played Devis once in a Dungeon playtest with the former editor (he was quite complimentary of my performance, BTW). I think a bard should:

1.) Be a master of mind, not of sound. I hate all the sonic crap. Suggestions, Charm X, Dominance, that's the stuff. Bardic Music is a sound foundation that needs to be expanded.
2.) Be able to fight. The original bard could fight, the historical bard could fight. Our bard could beat a sorcerer or wizard at a game of slapjack and that's about it.
3.) Be able to do stuff, especially Perform and talk. 3.5 gives us more points, but we have to spend more on the various performs! We've lost ground there.
4.) A bard should know stuff. Bardic Knowledge is a swell, yet ignored, ability and poorly defined. It would be more useful for a Bardic Knowledge roll to allow you to know a monster's weaknesses or allow you to easily identify magic items.

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.

Necicerily is not in the dictionary either, just so you know. Yes, bards should enchant in various ways related to their Performance (which an enchanter does not do), they also need to talk up a storm, hold their own in a fight, and pull some surprising skills out of their pocket.

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.

And yet you had to clarify that, something that is not explicit in the rules (to my knowledge). Nice try, but that's effectively a house rule (one I use, BTW, half XP for that session, the other half on completion of adventure.)

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?

Nice idea, but I've always found it difficult to convert antipaladins when they are spilling my little d6 hit die blood all over the floor. What exactly about the bard allows him to do this? Is it any different than a sorcerer with suggestion could do?

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.

Again, a rogue with Charisma can do the exact same thing. If fact, I have a changeling rogue/sorcerer who does this sort of thing all the time in my campaign. Why didn't he take bard instead? Simple, it sucks.

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

I think you've just proved that Bluff and Diplomacy have uses at high level. Congratulations, I personally knew that but it may be news to some. Nothing you mentioned (feel free to correct me) is a particular bardic ability.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

For the record, you gain XP for defeating an encounter. It is explicit, but not in the SRD's, that 'defeating' is not purely violent means. If your DM choses to have only violent means for defeating things.. well.... sounds like something needs fixed!

Thats what I mean by catering to the Bard. Its not about special attention. Its the same as if you have a Hunter of the Dead in the party. You design encounters to challange the make-up of the party. Hunters mean encounters with undead for them to slay. Bards means encounters that can be defeated by non-violent means.

In the response to AuldGrump, its mentioned that DnD is a Dungeon Crawl. I would agree in its basic form, but it is the reponsibility of the DM to provide appropriate types of challanges for the characters being played.. and the Players have the responsiblity to play characters that fit with the rest of the group and with the theme of the campaign.
This, of course, requires that the folks actually talk to each other instead of walking in at the start of the game playing the only Lawman in a GURPS Western game of outlaws.
{funny story there.. involved a very surprised player and education on what a .30 rifle does from close range to a character with a badge... we thought he was out to get us....}

1.) Be a master of mind, not of sound. I hate all the sonic crap. Suggestions, Charm X, Dominance, that's the stuff. Bardic Music is a sound foundation that needs to be expanded.
2.) Be able to fight. The original bard could fight, the historical bard could fight. Our bard could beat a sorcerer or wizard at a game of slapjack and that's about it.
3.) Be able to do stuff, especially Perform and talk. 3.5 gives us more points, but we have to spend more on the various performs! We've lost ground there.
4.) A bard should know stuff. Bardic Knowledge is a swell, yet ignored, ability and poorly defined. It would be more useful for a Bardic Knowledge roll to allow you to know a monster's weaknesses or allow you to easily identify magic items.

Thank you for the clarification.
I agree that Bardic Music can (and should be) expanded on. More options are better. This also makes the class special in that only Bards can use this ability.

Spell lists.. I use Elements of Magic anyway But yes, the Core spells do not give the Bard much distinction over a Mage.

Fighting.. umm, my group freely multiclasses so if I want Fighting ability, I'd simply Multiclass to get it. The Core Bard is a fairly decent fighter as is, not front line, but not hide in the back either. Perhaps grant INT mod*2 worth of Martial Weapons and all simple weapons instead of the foppery based choices currently offered.
And, 1e Bard was indeed a fighter {he multiclassed to get it}.. the historical Bard.. the Viking/Celtic Skald, did not fight in battle. It was dishonorable to attack a Skald in combat. They were there to record the heroics of others, whether freind or foe. Not to be heroes themselves.

Bardic Knowledge... I would agree with ignored, and swell.. but not well defined.

A bard may make a special bardic knowledge check with a bonus equal to his bard level + his Intelligence modifier to see whether he knows some relevant information about local notable people, legendary items, or noteworthy places. (If the bard has 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (history), he gains a +2 bonus on this check.)

A successful bardic knowledge check will not reveal the powers of a magic item but may give a hint as to its general function. A bard may not take 10 or take 20 on this check; this sort of knowledge is essentially random.

DC Type of Knowledge
10 Common, known by at least a substantial minority drinking; common legends of the local population.
20 Uncommon but available, known by only a few people legends.
25 Obscure, known by few, hard to come by.
30 Extremely obscure, known by very few, possibly forgotten by most who once knew it, possibly known only by those who don’t understand the significance of the knowledge.

monster's weaknesses.. are they legendary creatures? in other words, to they show up as bad guys in stories told on cold winter nights huddled up next to the hearth? If so, then they are covered.
identify magic items...special items {which I think all magic weapons qualify for}.. sure.

The key to Bardic knowledge is that it is not pure black and white knowledge. Instead of the dry 'Indentify' spells results of "this is a +1 Flame Burst sword" you might get "The inscription is an archaic Flandry tongue and spells the name of 'Borimer'. Once you heard a master tell the tale of Blond Borimer and how he weilded this sword when he cleared the Dire Swamps of such creatures as the Haggis, a gangly giant-kin with green skin."...
This gives you an idea of what the power could be, but not exactly.

The other key is that it is based on local folklore and legend, sometimes providing the wrong information or exaggerated information {low rolls}. Things not worthy of bar-room debate are not covered.
And note the DC's.. at 3rd level a Bard would be able to know alot of 'common' stories. The hard part is for the DM to create these stories and tie together a weave of hints and tips that can lead the group to or past encounters {incidently, 'defeating' them when bypassing them...}


IMHO what it boils down to is that the Bard is harder for the GM to have in the game. It takes more prep time and work. Hence the noted lack of NPC Bards in published works.
Dungeon Crawl is easy. Grab some monsters from the Manual, through together a maze and call it a dungeon. Cram some silly conceit as to why the dungeon exists.. and maybe pay attention to why the monsters are sitting in thier rooms waiting to be slain rather than out ravaging the country side.
Adventuring is hard. Guild influence, political influence, fuedal land ownership, taxes, compitition, local legends.... intelligent foes that fit in the setting instead of being plunked down willy-nilly when thier CR is right. That takes work.

Quoted for truth:

Think of the Bard as a gateway to playing unorthodox parties and campaigns.

Unorthodox <> Dungeon Crawl hack and slash... { or "beer and pretzal's" in case the H/S term doth offend }


And lastly, 'bardly' is not a common gamer term as is hit point. HPs are well defined in the PHB glossary. 'Bardly' is a matter of opinion, much as the meaning of the class name 'Monk'.

 

[Firebeetle]

To answer the title question...no.

To pose a counter question: Why do you think the bard sucks?

Hmmm, lousy hit die, no direct combat abilities, a lackluster spell list AND spell progression, the sheer rarity of a bard as either a PC or NPC? Shall I go on?

A bard is a secondary fighter and a secondary caster. He can cast spells while wearing light armor and using a sword or rapier. He can cast most of the low- and mid-level buff spells a cleric can cast, except for the purely divine ones. For those, he can buff with his songs, for as long as he is singing + 5 rounds. He can heal. He has a decent skill selection and ample skill points to stat them up...he has 2 skill points/level less than a rogue, and 3 or more class skills less to cater to. On top of it, a bard gets Bardic Knowledge, which can come up with the answer for a lot of questions others have to spend skill points for Knowledge (Local), Knowledge (Nobility) or Knowledge (Obscure ancient legends).

A.) Why can a bard heal? Does he sing the sutures together? The answer: to help shore up suckage. A bard needs CLW to have something in common with the better party supporter, the cleric. Y'know, that class that was made more powerful so people would want to play it when they just sat around behind the rest of the party before, like bards do now.
B.) as for class skills, you are forgetting the many version of Perform, all of which are seperate skills now.
C.) Bardic Knowledge is so vague and undefined as to be effectively useless. Completely reliant on the charity of your DM.

Handwaving a bard's combat abilities away is as silly as doing so with the rogue. A 1st level bard has the same combat abilities as a rogue, instead of the sneak attack (which depends on the opponent losing his Dex bonus) he has spells (who depend on him not getting konked on the head while casting them). With a well-placed Daze I can be as much of a threat. And my buffing runs as long as I sing. Bless, a cleric buff with comparable effects, doesn't give me the +1 to damage, doesn't give me +1 to saves vs. charm effects, its range is 50' around the caster instead of every ally who can hear me (which can be much further than 50'), and lasts for 1 minute = 6 rounds, while the bardic music lasts for as long as the bard can sing + 5 rounds afterwards. So I'd say bardic buffing at first level is already as good as a cleric's.

Almost as good as a rogue? At first level our rogue friend gets at least 8 more skill points and sneak attack. So, we square off. He has a higher DEX (since I went CHA), so my chainmail is about equal. Let's presume the standard best feat "Improved Initiative" We start combat, with a high DEX he gets the drop on me while I'm still flatfooted with a shortsword. Presuming he hits, I take 7 points (3.5 from the sword, 3.5 from the sneak attack) and go down. If he misses, his improved skill points mean that he can either feint (Bluff) or flank (Tumble) and get that sneak attack in the two rounds minimum it's going to take me to poke him with my rapier. Of course, I can counter mightly, if I manage the Concentration check AND spell failure chance, to hit him with a devastating ZERO level spell.

Suckage if I ever saw it.

And one more thing...those "bardy" things mainly revolve around interactions with NPCs, influencing the mood and disposition of others, and providing answers for questions about lore, legend, nobles and heroes. Saying those activities don't influence the game is cutting off a lot of potential roleplaying material in order to make a character class look broken. A bard can easily hold his own without DM's preferred treatment.

Not according to many here, who claim suckage on a bard's part is because of the DM, not the horrendously underpowered class after all. Those activities do influence the game, but are not strong enough to do so mightly. Further, they are not even exclusively "bardy". A wizard with points in Knowledge or a Charismatic rogue or sorcerer can do all that and often BETTER than a bard.

Some adventures emphasize combat and dungeon-crawling, and some emphasize social interactions and detective work.

You make it sound so equal. Nearly all adventures emphasize combat and dungeon-crawling, so much so that the exceptions are notable for doing so.

Not every class is equally useful in a one-on-one blood brawl deep under the earth, and not every class is equally useful in rooting out informations about the assassin of the duke's son and his hideouts from the local underworld. Whoever claims that every class has to be equally useful in every kind of situation has missed the point in a class-based system.

But every class should be of SOME utility in a scrap. As a bard, my options are limited (despite my suppoused versatility) to bardic music, a spell (which will be of considerably less power than my spell-casting peers), or a combat action IF I've spent all of my feats in a chain and even then a well placed shot might off me.

Suckage. What is the point of a class that, by the admission of many on this thread, is of little good in a fight because that's not "his purpose". Give me a break. Half of a bard's social skills are of use to the DM and not the player, it helps unfold the story to be able to recall some ancient legend or parley past the guards. It speeds the plot up and keeps everything from being entrenched in combat. Bards are great for DMs, why shouldn't they be great for players too?

 

[Crothian]

Hmmm, lousy hit die, no direct combat abilities, a lackluster spell list AND spell progression, the sheer rarity of a bard as either a PC or NPC? Shall I go on?

d6 hit dice is good enough for the rogue and better then wizard and sorcerer. But I think it shows the Bard is not a combat class. No direct combat abilities...again, not a combat class. Lackluster spell list...perhaps you are not creative enough to make use of it but from the first teo complaints I imagine its because thereis no fireball on the list. Spell progression is better then the Paladin, Ranger, fighter, barbarian, and rogue. But its not relaly the only focus of the class. Rare as a PC or NPC? Maybe in your ghames and that's to be expected from somewone who hatews the class. But its extremely common in my games.

I think you need to go on, as this only proves you want the Bard to be a fighter/ Wizard. And that's not what a Bard is.

 

[Firebeetle]

d6 hit dice is good enough for the rogue and better then wizard and sorcerer. But I think it shows the Bard is not a combat class. No direct combat abilities...again, not a combat class. Lackluster spell list...perhaps you are not creative enough to make use of it but from the first teo complaints I imagine its because thereis no fireball on the list. Spell progression is better then the Paladin, Ranger, fighter, barbarian, and rogue. But its not relaly the only focus of the class. Rare as a PC or NPC? Maybe in your ghames and that's to be expected from somewone who hatews the class. But its extremely common in my games.

AGAIN with the attributes. I wasn't going to stoop to defending myself, but best to clear the record.

A.) I love bards. Always have, always will. I played bard in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 3.5, along with bard clones in GURPS, Talislanta, and even in Champions. Just because I love something doesn't mean I can't criticize it. To paraphrase a famous quote "I love my class and reserve the right to criticize it perpetually." I want a bard class that doesn't consist of overcoming suckage to shine, which everybody here seems to revel in.
B.) I am the zero level spell king, hands down. I've had DMs give me magic items with zero level spells just to see what I would do with them. One time I defeated a small mephit with presdigitation (well, it was the blow that knocked him out.) Plenty of creativity there.
C.) Of course it doesn't have fireball, why should it? I don't want a wizard, on the contrary, I want a bardic spell list with BARDIC SPELLS. We have a hand-me-down spell list with spells that don't really belong to our class (some happen to fit well) and for the most part are not powerful as written.
Once again, if you want to personally attack me, please do so via e-mail.

I think you need to go on, as this only proves you want the Bard to be a fighter/ Wizard. And that's not what a Bard is.

No it doesn't, the class I've proposed in the other thread is definately not a wizard and has different fighting abilities than a fighter. I shall not be "going on", thank you very much.

 

[Crothian]

AGAIN with the attributes.

Each character has 6 so they ar epart of the game. Other then that I have no idea what you mean here.

C.) Of course it doesn't have fireball, why should it? I don't want a wizard, on the contrary, I want a bardic spell list with BARDIC SPELLS. We have a hand-me-down spell list with spells that don't really belong to our class (some happen to fit well) and for the most part are not powerful as written.
Once again, if you want to personally attack me, please do so via e-mail.

The Bardic spell list has bardic spells. And with the many other d20 books out there I have found a host of great bard themed spells for my bards. And I haven't seen anything remotely close to an attack here on you.

[quote[No it doesn't, the class I've proposed in the other thread is definately not a wizard and has different fighting abilities than a fighter. I shall not be "going on", thank you very much.[/QUOTE]

What other thread? and why are you splitting things between threads. These discussions work much better if you actually have comments in the smae place.

 

[Cabral]

See if your DM will let you use Forgotten Realms material. The Bard spells there are pretty Bardy. And now with the Spell Compendium, they are less Forgotten Realmsy

All I want for Christmas is the Spell Compendium, All I want for Christmas is the Spell Compendium ... bah, too many syllables

 

[Kisanji Arael]

I don't want a wizard, on the contrary, I want a bardic spell list with BARDIC SPELLS. We have a hand-me-down spell list with spells that don't really belong to our class (some happen to fit well) and for the most part are not powerful as written.

Ohhh... that's what you meant by being more bardy.

Ok, I'm withdrawing from this argument(not that I think it will make a difference). This entire time, I've assumed that you wanted the bard to be able to... something? It wasn't quite clear. It seemed like you wanted more battle orientation, and to ignore the socia spectrum of the game. I thought that you were saying that they were battle-underpowered. On this note, I found myself disagreeing with you (as I think they are balannced with the other classes). However, I can completely understand if you have a flavor issue with the class. It makes a lot of sense. I agree-- for the most part, their spells are handmedowns (with a few notable exceptions). I don't have a problem with it. If you do, then that's why this is house rules.

I can logically argue against a power dilemma. I cannot argue against your opinion on flavor. In that light, all kudos to you.