Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ValhallaGH" data-source="post: 5020634" data-attributes="member: 41187">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.&nbsp; While they've got a wealth of awesome features, what they have doesn't synergize.&nbsp; As such, bards suck in a fight.&nbsp; Period.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Might be worth looking at for some direction or at least inspiration.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ValhallaGH, post: 5020634, member: 41187"] 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 [I]as much[/I] 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 [I]is[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification