[Weekend Design] New Classes?

[Alzrius]

Let's see if you guys can settle a quick disagreement between GlassJaw and myself:

1) Should the bard have the full spellcasting progression or a one-half spellcasting progression?

One-half spellcasting progression. If he can cast up to 9th-level spells like a wizard or sorcerer, and has a better BAB and more class abilities, why would anyone ever want to play either of the latter two classes?

2) Based on your decision regarding the above point, do you consider it merely reinforcing the class as the bard has been historically understood; or a change to the bard, as something that needs to happen?

I think keeping the bard to one-half spellcasting progression reinforces how the bard has always been understood; he was never meant to be a strict alternative to a fully-fledged spellcaster - rather, bards were meant to be generalist utility characters.

3) What is the bard? Is he a spellcaster with some fighting ability, or a fighting class with some spellcasting ability?

To me, a fighting class with some spellcasting ability, as well as some other abilities to round that out. He's the guy who has a little bit of everything, and so always has something for whenever the specialists are out of their element.

 

[GlassJaw]

Bard as a half-caster = booo!!

Ben and I just had another class discussion. Our consensus was "stupid bard" because we are still unsure where it fits in the grand scheme of things. Heh.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

So much for my posture of neutrality.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Ben and I just had another class discussion. Our consensus was "stupid bard" because we are still unsure where it fits in the grand scheme of things. Heh.

You're not the only ones.

I was really, really, really tempted to bump the bard up to full BAB and leave him at 2/3 casting for my games. While they've got a wealth of awesome features, what they have doesn't synergize. As such, bards suck in a fight. Period. Which is totally unfun and generally untrue to the source material.

To be true to their roots, bards either need to be able to beat booty in a fight or be okay in a fight and back it up with powerful-enough magics that they can be as much of a big-damn-hero as the Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, or other classes.
The 3.X Bard does not do that. At all.
Like the Monk only more so, he's got so many special features that people assume he's capable, but the features don't have any synergy, which means a Bard isn't relying upon his entire class to be cool; he's relying upon one class feature at a time to be cool. No one that I'm aware of ever designed a 3.x class feature that would make a character a big-damn-hero all by itself because of the assumption that it would be terribly broken in the context of a full class (and it probably would be). The problem is, the Bard as-written is the class context that makes such an ability balanced, because the ability would be used essentially outside the context of the rest of the class.
Interestingly, the 4E Bard does make you a big-damn-hero, and from the stories I've heard so did the 2E Bard. Might be worth looking at for some direction or at least inspiration.

 

[GlassJaw]

Like the Monk only more so, he's got so many special features that people assume he's capable, but the features don't have any synergy, which means a Bard isn't relying upon his entire class to be cool; he's relying upon one class feature at a time to be cool.

Completely agreed. And it's why I would prefer the bard to be a full caster.

Of all the classes, the bard suffers the most from the "economy of actions" problem. His main class abilities all require actions to use, and so do his spells. The bard almost has too many things he can do, but none of which define him as a class.

On top of that, the majority of his abilities aren't empowering for the player. Sure it's great to give everyone in the party a +1 bonus but the player doesn't get the same feeling that the fighter or wizard does laying the smack down on the bad guys.

Bear in mind that this is coming from someone that doesn't mind taking the backseat in the party and playing the buffbot. I found the bard a bit lacking. There were many times where I felt very underwhelmed by the options the bard offered to the party. This usually ended with me shrugging my shoulders and saying "Ok, I guess I use my bard song. +1's for everyone".

So giving the bard a full caster progression will at least give him more spellcasting options. It's also the path of least resistance as far as class design goes.

It doesn't address the bard being a lackluster class in general or his economy of actions problem. Ben and I have talked about making the "influential" abilities auras that the bard can select and change more frequently.

Interestingly, the 4E Bard does make you a big-damn-hero, and from the stories I've heard so did the 2E Bard. Might be worth looking at for some direction or at least inspiration.

Good idea. We did that with the monk.

 

[GlassJaw]

One-half spellcasting progression. If he can cast up to 9th-level spells like a wizard or sorcerer, and has a better BAB and more class abilities, why would anyone ever want to play either of the latter two classes?

But if you make him a half-caster, you are essentially removing the bard class as it stands now. The bard is already considered underpowered. You will have to give the bard a LOT of new abilities to a) make up for the loss of spells and b) make the bard more attractive in the first place.

I think keeping the bard to one-half spellcasting progression reinforces how the bard has always been understood; he was never meant to be a strict alternative to a fully-fledged spellcaster - rather, bards were meant to be generalist utility characters.

Really? Is that true? I don't think the bard was even understood, that was (and is) the problem. And generalists in 3ed are predisposed to fail. I'm not saying every class has to be a specialist or a one-trick pony but the bard lacks that one definable and FUN ability that makes him stand out and makes him attractive to players.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Wasn't the 1e bard pretty badass?

I seem to recall he was.

 

[GlassJaw]

Wasn't the 1e bard pretty badass?

I seem to recall he was.

Yes, but the requirements were extremely steep and you had to dual-class up the wazoo.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Of all the classes, the bard suffers the most from the "economy of actions" problem. His main class abilities all require actions to use, and so do his spells. The bard almost has too many things he can do, but none of which define him as a class.

Agreed.

Thought: Why not shift his Bardic Music abilities down to Move actions? Suddenly he can be using his inspiring performance and do something direct. Bonus, this could bump up his own ability that he could actually be the central figure in one or two of his stories.

The one thing that struck me about the 4E bard the most was that it can get allies out of trouble while helping them. It can shift an ally a square when it uses its basic healing power, it can grant saves to end effects with a lot of its attack and utility abilities, and it generally keeps that sense of "buffbot" while participating fully. Seeing that was one of the few times I haven't rolled my eyes at the hideous power-bloat of 4E (each class has around 100 powers to choose from over 30 levels, with another 50 showing up in other books).

Good luck and keep us informed, please.

 

[Alzrius]

But if you make him a half-caster, you are essentially removing the bard class as it stands now. The bard is already considered underpowered. You will have to give the bard a LOT of new abilities to a) make up for the loss of spells and b) make the bard more attractive in the first place.

I agree; I think the bard, as it stands now, fails in its design goals to the point where applying "patches" won't work. It needs to be almost completely torn down and rebuilt from the ground up in terms of class abilities to fix it.

Really? Is that true? I don't think the bard was even understood, that was (and is) the problem. And generalists in 3ed are predisposed to fail. I'm not saying every class has to be a specialist or a one-trick pony but the bard lacks that one definable and FUN ability that makes him stand out and makes him attractive to players.

Well, the idea of the bard as generalist is how I always perceived the class. And while I do think that generalists are harder to design, I wouldn't go so far as to say that they're predisposed to fail. I think a good generalist is one that can serve as any of the major roles in a party, but not in an optimized fashion.

For example, I recently found a third-party product which had a feat called Incantationist. This feat let a character cast any spell as an incantation, laying out a series of guidelines for converting a spell to an incantation that serve to limit the feat's versatility. For example, the casting time is ten minutes per spell level, requires one assistant per spell level, requires several successful skill checks, has gp and XP costs, requires either a spell scroll of the spell or a spellbook entry of it to work, etc.

That's the sort of thing I mean in regards to having the ability to serve in a party role without eclipsing a specialist character. Someone with the above feat can serve as an ad-hoc spellcaster, but nowhere near as well as an actual spellcasting class. That's generally how I thought the bard should function for most (if not all) of its abilities...it just isn't built that way in 3.X.