Is the Bard broken?

[Primitive Screwhead]

On a related topic...has anybody checked out the The Enchiridion of Mystic Music ?

Its an older publication, but only $10..... ?

 

[Crothian]

On a related topic...has anybody checked out the The Enchiridion of Mystic Music ?

Its an older publication, but only $10..... ?

It's brilliant. It might be the single best book on Bards

 

[zimdanen]

I play with a very effective gamer who happens to play Bards a lot - and it's their bardic abilities that he uses to really make his character powerful. Things like fascinate really make him a powerful character as others suddenly fall into his sway and become helpless.

 

[Brother Richard]

Great Idea

I think bard should be buffers through and through with social skills. If tey're full time buffers they would rock with many songs and thats basically it. Rystil Arden had a troubador just like what I am describing. I don't remeber where the thread is on it, but bug him to tell you.

 

[wolfpunk]

Am I the only one who thinks that the bard outfights the a wizard, outspells the fighter, and outsneaks the cleric?

The ability to give a +1 to hit and damage (or more with feats and spells) to all party members in a big battle has saved our party from a TPK on more than one occassion. I think bards are great if they are used properly. Put them on the fringe, give them a ranged weapon and have them sing to high heaven. Not complicated.

In fact, I think, the only real problem with the bard might be that they tend to be a bit boring.

 

[Bront]

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.

But that arguement then only values a bard based on pure combat abilities, and that is not what the bard is about. A bard is a roleplaying oriented class, which means it needs RP and use of it's class features in order to prosper.

Bardic Knowledge I feel is an underutilized aspect of the bard. It is a very flexable ability, and i've found as a GM wishing my party had a bard because otherwise they lack some of the skills to determine some useful bit of information, sometimes simply for story enhancement, sometimes something that would make their quest easier.

Some of the Bardic Musics can be very benificial to the bard's party, and many are more powerful than spells. While non-SRD, the newer bardic music feats (particular Song of the Heart) help give the bard extra flavor, and add some power to bardic music.

Now, am I saying a bard is a power house? No, but they aren't as underpowered as some people give them credit for. I think that bardic music needs to be expanded a bit more.

I'm in the process of deveolping a PrC that helps tweek the bard's singing abilities, The Seeker of the Llanno (thead here in the house rules section). I think that's part of the Bard's biggest failing, is the lack of good PrCs, as many cease to be a bard instead of being a different type of bard.

 

[ARandomGod]

Classes - Is the Bard broken?

Yes. The bard class is broken. Note that there are two potential meanings of the phrase, and I personally mean it in both ways.

Broken could mean too powerful. I do believe that the bard is too powerful in some campaign/circumstances.

Broken could mean too weak. I certainly believe that in come game/situations the bard is too weak.

What I don't think, however, is that bards are ever NOT broken. Oh, I suppose there could be a case wherein they aren't, but I've yet to experience that case myself.


Now: The feat/spell combo that lets you get +3 to hit and damage... you only need a first level spell to be able to do that, and you can get first level spells pretty quickly. I don't feel that you can justify the power level of that combination by pointing out that bards get spells later. Four levels of bard is more than enough, and really you only need to be able to cast first level spells, so you don't even need that many levels.

Whoops. I felt I noticed this. I've already replied with as much above.

Yes, the bard is broken. In both conceptions of the word.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Bards are not broken, period. If you do think so, you just need to realize that there are only 2 situations that make bards worth playing:

1. No player should create a bard until all other basic archetypes are covered: warrior, rogue, arcane and divine. Replacing one of these archetypes with a bard only 'waters down' the party.

2. Social situations: diplomacy, bluff, sense motive and bardic knowledge can be a DM headache. If you have the 4 archetypes covered, a bard can be great to have in the group.

This is all assuming of course, that your DM runs a standard D&D environment. A DM running a pure dungeon-crawl makes the bard's social expertise useless, while a DM running a social-political intrigue game could easily make the bard of equal (or greater) importance than the 4 basic archetypes. My final note: think of the bard as a non-basic class or even a prestige class. Once you accept this philosophy, you will realize that bards are great for Situations 1 and 2 but only a burden otherwise.

-TS

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

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.

I would like to add that if this is true, than all classes that do not receive Bluff, Diplomacy, and other social skills are broken (because they can't function well in social situations, and all classes should work well in all situations, social and otherwise).

 

[airwalkrr]

Personally, I never make my players fight bards because I know exactly how broken they are. A properly built bard can take on anything (even undead and constructs). I have only one word for you, my friend: fascinate.