Statistical Analysis of the Classes - popularity vs. power

[Great Umbrage]

Of course, the virtuoso PrC opens another can of worms...

I suppose no one brought the matter of PrCs into the discussion b/c this is about core classes, but IMO, PrCs are the major culprit that can make or break a core class. For example, the Virtuoso pretty much allows you to advance most bard abilities at each level, as well as advance in spellcasting as a sorceror. You lose out on bard hp, but it's only an average of 1hp/level, and don't lose out to sorc on anything except a slightly slower advancement due to a level or two in bard. And in case of combat, any fighting sorc worth his salt has some enhancement spells like Tenser's Transformation.

 

[jmucchiello]

Bards have to be music-playing, enchantment-casting characters or they're nothing at all.

You could just recite poetry, chant, etc. One player in our games is a bard who carries no instrument. His Perform ability is in poetry and drama. He bores people into suggestion and heights of courage.

Joe

 

[der_kluge]

Re: Power patterns

However, the onus for full utilization of PC "powers" doesn't really fall to the player -- it falls to the DM.

That's very interesting. And, I disagree.

That's actually one of the reasons why I changed from my character from a bard to a rog/sor. (again with the bard discussion!)

The DM kept including little "challenges" that seemed to be geared to a bard. Like, he had my character quell an unruly group of citizens once, and there was something else (that I forget) that was right up my alley.

Know what - I hated it. I felt like he was intentionally "giving me something to do" so that I could feel like my class was validated. It was as if as though my character sucked (she has a 8 strength, and thus was horrible at combat), she only had a few cantrips for spells, and the only skills she was good at was bluff (of which she rocked). So, unless I was trying to bluff my way past someone, there was very little I could do to contribute to the party.

I guess I don't much care for "niche" PCs. I like having optons available to me, and I don't want to be useful in certain situations, and a wallflower in others. That's where PC power truly comes into play, IMHO.

 

[der_kluge]

Somebody official (I'm inclined to say Monte Cook?) said you shouldn't balance powers with role-playing penalties, because it's too easy to ignore the role playing aspect.

I'd have to agree with that. A lot of arguments I'm seeing in support of the bard have to do with how they're playing the bard. I could just as easily be a swashbuckler who recites poetry and woos the ladies as a rogue or as a fighter. Or hell, even as a wizard (though granted not as good on the swashbuckling side). I've been given no compelling reason to do this as a bard in this argument.

When you look at the bard class, it's basically a song-playing, spell-casting class. At least clerics can specialize in different domains, and thus have certain abiltiies. I could be good at destroying undead, or I could focus on knowledge-related skills, or I could be a fabulous healer, or whatever. Variety.
Bards can get heal spells, sure, but they'll never be as good as cleric. Bards get some spells, but they never get as many as the straight casters. I'm ok with all of this, actually, but what I dislike is how they limit the bard in other ways. Sorcerer casting so they can't diversify. They're not a jack-of-all-trades, like a sorcerer is not. They have to pick their spells carefully. A jack-of-all-trades can do many things, just do none of them well. An example would be a wizard with a spellbook full of low-level utilitarian spells. THAT's a jack-of-all-trades. A bard is not that. The bard can charm and cast suggestion real good. That's not a jack-of-all-trades; that's an enchanter.

Look, I know this has quickly boiled down into a "see how many ways die_kluge hates the bard class", but the fact that the bard scored a 10 or an 11 (mostly 11s) from everyone that gave me feedback suggests that I'm certainly not alone in my thinking that the bard is weak.

 

[Mark]

The Bard is a late bloomer. Once they get to 7th level (8th if non-human), they have a slew of options for their Bardic Music (once per day per level.) Anyone without a decent Will save better stay the hell out of the way of a high level bard or you'll be licking his shoes. If he gets ahold of a couple of tomes and a headband along the way, or has them made for him, watch out...

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I'm always surprised at how highly people rate the fighter. I always think they suck unless i'm playing in a dungeon crwal or really heavy hack and slash game.

The merchant you just saved intorduces himself as,"
...wait before he says anything I kill it.
this isn't a fight
I kill it hard, it's all I do.

 

[Umbran]

I'd have to agree with that. A lot of arguments I'm seeing in support of the bard have to do with how they're playing the bard...

The "Don't balance mechanics with roleplaying restrictions" is a good guideline. However, it's not relevant in this case.

Paladins are partially balanced with roleplaying restrictions (showing that even good guidelines have exceptions). The bard is under no such restrictions, unless you'd also call not being able to play your wizard like a front-line fighter a "role-playing restriction".

Every class has a preferred modus operandi. A certain role to fill in the party, certain tactics that work better for them than others. To say that a person doesn't know how to play a bard means that they have not yet found the bard's niche. If you try to wedge a class into something it isn't, yes, you'll find it less effective.

 

[Graythebruce]

Amendment and response

die_kluge wrote:

The DM kept including little "challenges" that seemed to be geared to a bard. Like, he had my character quell an unruly group of citizens once, and there was something else (that I forget) that was right up my alley.

Ah, well. You have a point there.

If the DM's challenges are *so obviously* designed just to give you something to do, that certainly could get annoying pretty quick.

Allow me to amend my earlier statement by breaking it up a bit:

1. DMs should balance scenarios and campaigns so a wide range of activities (intrigue, politics, warfare, investigation, dungeon-delving, wilderness exploration) are incorporated into the story. This necessarily has the effect of discouraging dominant classes.

2. When designing encounters, DMs should keep an eye out for ways they might provide openings for the application of underutilized class abilities, provided these challenges are good ones (see #3 below).

3. A good challenge for a specialized ability should not seem contrived; it should grow organically from and have real consequences for the storyline. The DM should not goad the PC (directly or through NPCs) into using his or her ability; simply putting the opportunity there is enough. As a final condition, the specialized challenge ideally should not sideline other PCs. (This is the portion I should have included in my earlier post. Apologies.)

Hence, a musical duel between bards in a bar isn't great. But if the chief villain's herald (a bard) arrives in a bar and tries to convince the locals to lynch the party, that's another thing. The party's bard has an obvious target for abilities like Countersong, and the rest of the party is still engaged. Moreover, the encounter seems like a plausible extension of the storyline.

One good test for such a challenge is this: Would the story move forward if the key PC weren't there? The aforementioned singing contest fails this test. But the villain's herald passes because the party still has to deal with him -- having a bard of their own just makes the whole encounter easier.

This was the philosophy that guided the other encounters I described. I don't think my players have even picked up on the fact that the current setting is designed to give our archer the limelight for a change. The other PCs, after all, are still effective -- it's just that their kill ratios have dropped while the archer is killing a greater proportion of enemies than he used to.

Moreover, I didn't force them off the beaten path into these woods -- I gave them a bunch of choices and this was their pick; when planning the encounters, I simply designed the sets and foes to encourage sniping.

The no-sideline rule is a good one for even "routine" specialized encounters like trap disarmament. An example: assume the party has some sort of time limit, during which it must get past a door, secure an object, and return to some location where said object is handy. Unfortunately, the door is both locked and guarded. The chief guardian is a singing golem whose voice has a *hold person* effect on those within 15 feet of it -- and the floor around the door is littered with the corpses of slain would-be intruders, who animate to attack anyone left helpless by the golem's song. Here we have an encounter in which a rogue uses trap/lock skills, the party's bard can use countersong, the cleric can use turn undead, and the fighter can focus on the golem while the rogue is inside grabbing the loot. This is an extreme example, in that it threatens to violate the "contrivance" rule I listed above -- but it is a fair example of what I mean by no sidelining.

In short, if your DM had you quell an unruly crowd as a kind of "random" solo encounter, then yuck. In fact, double yuck.

But if the unruly crowd was a logical consequence of the existing story, if the PCs still had something to do during the scene, if the DM didn't goad you into using your ability (it's your call after all), then I don't see why anyone would complain about it -- at least, not as it's described.

- Graham R. Scott

 

[tarchon]

Re: Amendment and response

die_kluge wrote:
3. A good challenge for a specialized ability should not seem contrived; it should grow organically from and have real consequences for the storyline. The DM should not goad the PC (directly or through NPCs) into using his or her ability; simply putting the opportunity there is enough. As a final condition, the specialized challenge ideally should not sideline other PCs. (This is the portion I should have included in my earlier post. Apologies.)

One reason a lot of DM's run into trouble here is that they just don't use a very wide range of antagonist abilities. From the start, a DM should be throwing in a rich variety of creatures and situations - that way, it isn't necessary to contrive situations to suit abilities that the PCs get later. Of course it does mean that sometimes the PCs will be facing problems they don't have easy solutions to, but it's supposed to be hard.
This is why it's important for the DM to have a fairly broad knowledge of the game when creating encounters.

I've also mostly completed my Bard's Munchkin Fakebook to explain some things about the art of bardery.

 

[Victim]

The "Don't balance mechanics with roleplaying restrictions" is a good guideline. However, it's not relevant in this case.

Paladins are partially balanced with roleplaying restrictions (showing that even good guidelines have exceptions). The bard is under no such restrictions, unless you'd also call not being able to play your wizard like a front-line fighter a "role-playing restriction".

Paladins have roleplaying restrictions, however they aren't balanced by them. It's just that without the roleplaying restrictions, there's no point to the class. Mechanically, though, I'd actually consider the paladin to be balanced without the restrictions.