Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="der_kluge" data-source="post: 339782" data-attributes="member: 945">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.</blockquote>

Verification