Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 3756998" data-attributes="member: 710">They can be amazingly effective - if in a group, and if the player knows what he does, and doesn't care that he will never have the spot light in combat. Which might be the case more often than it sometimes seems in the "anti-Bard" threads. But I still tend to agree that the Bard is just weak. I think the Bard is basically the only class in D&D that you can't use as a direct "BBEG" in your campaign. Sure, he is very effective in the background, but basically none of his bardic abilities let him outshine a Rogue in that role. But in a combat? He surely needs some powerful allies, which begs the question - why have him there in the first place - couldn't you just up his allies to be a full threat without bardic music?That's certainly not a _real_ problem with the class. But it all shows the same - the Bard can do nothing himself. Others need to provide him scrolls, wands or staffs, or they have to fight for him. That's certainly okay for some players, at least for a while. But would it hurt them or the Bard if he was a bit more effective in a specific role?</blockquote>