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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Forrester" data-source="post: 4271799" data-attributes="member: 1279">Ooh, snark. Obviously it's in-concept for any Leader, but it is*especially* so for the Bard -- at least my concept of the Bard as the go-to utility guy. I doubt I'm alone in that. Back in 3E-land, the bard was usually played as a support character, in that he'd throw out general affects-everyone bumps (that would fall under the 'utility' banner in 4E) while most everyone else (except for the healer-cleric) was attacking. I think there should be room for that concept of the Bard in 4E. However, at this time, every single 4E class (and I know they constructed them this way purposefully) has attacks for 99% of it's non-utility abilities, even leaders. And most abilities are not utilities.In other words, the 4E conceit is that with the majority of one's powers, the main way to help allies is to attack enemies with an ability that gives an ally or allies some little extra boost. Even the leader features like the power allowing allies to heal are usually 'minor' actions, so that they can spend a standard attacking enemies . . . thereby helping allies. Like I said, I know they intended this as a feature, not a bug -- theoretically, it helps all characters be involved more fully, so the support cleric isn't stuck dancing around in the back doing nothing but casting Cure Wounds. Nevertheless, I know from talking with my friends that there is a desire out there for at least the OPTION to play it more old-school, and not have to attack an enemy to help an ally. On that note, I think creation of a bard class that has a richer breadth of utility powers is called for . . . because some people just want to stand in the back and sing  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />. Under this concept, the bard will have weaker attack options, but no one should be better at helping out his buddies, whether it be by inspiring them to another second wind, shake off an effect, gain a bonus to hit and damage, etc. At least, that's what I'm going for (in case it's not obvious, working on a bard class of my own). Of course, because I'm not a 4E expert, and because it's not obvious what's over- or under- powered yet, I absolutely think it makes sense to examine the utility abilities of other classes when evaluating new bard powers. Powers that are similar in efficacy should probably be a little lower level for the bard, but not a lot lower. (More specifically, when I think about what what makes sense to do with the Power of Song, my gut tells me that the bard should be worse than the cleric at utility heals, about the same as the warlord with inspirational battle bumps, and better that anyone at helping people resist effects, shake off effects, and -- yes -- regain their second wind. Of course, it's foolish to ask "What Makes Sense?" in 4E given goofiness like characters using Charisma to determine attack and damage bonuses, but what the hell . . .)</blockquote>

Verification