Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6836764" data-attributes="member: 4937">Agreed.  A bard could be functional in this party.That's the problem with THIS bard, and not the problem with Bards generally.  The problem with Bards generally is exactly what I said - they are a support class whose value depends on the number of allies that they have receiving support.  Glitterdust can be quite effective and is possibly even OP, but it presumes that the Will save will be failed.  Eventually that will save isn't failed, and you die.  Buffs and debuffs both have a place in your arsenal.I don't underestimate or over estimate anything.  I count.  I'm not sure what tables you play at, but at mine bonuses are horded and the accounting for them borders on tedious.   A bonus of +2 to hit and damage is effective.  But it has to be more effective than a Sorcerer throwing scorching rays and fireballs, or a Barbarian swinging a two handed sword, or a Druid creating a whole mini-party to fight for him before you get too excited about it.  If the party lands 5 weapon attacks in a round, then that's 10 points of damage contributed by the Bard.  Yay!  The Bard also will convert about 1 in 10 swings from misses to hits, the utility of which depends on how hard the other players hit.  Also good.  But is it better than what a similar level character would be doing on their own?  With only 1 or 2 allies, it's clear the Bard is subpar in a combat role because the buffs just don't enhance their allies enough to make up for their decreased personal combat contribution.  Even 3 allies is marginal.  Four is good.  Five or more is better.  And that's not even getting into the problem of effectiveness decaying exponentially once allies start dropping.  But sure, if we already have 7 PCs and are adding an 8th, go for a bard!  And that's not to get into the synergy between a summoner build and a Bard.How bad players play compared to a skilled player shouldn't be the metric.  The metric should be "Count the actual amount of damage I did this round.  Subtract from that the amount of damage I could have done as say a flanking rouge, a tripping fighter, a raging barbarian or throwing spells every round with a full caster with Craft Wand.  Is the total positive?"  It's not that hard for a mid-level character to do 20 damage or more a round.  It takes a lot of +2 bonuses to damage and such to make up for losing that in the Bard's slot.  Wizard's and Sorcerer's can cast haste as well, have a lot more spell slots, gain access to higher level spells more quickly, and have access to much more versatile and aggressive spells.  By the time the Bard is like, "I haz haste", the wizard is like "Me too.  And I haz turned the Barbarian into a Stone Giant, haz cast black tentacles, and haz Wall of Fire". Maybe it's true that part of the reason Bards have a bad reputation is poor play, poor optimization, and players forgetting to add in bonuses.  But part of the reason is that they don't shine in small parties.  And even if you don't agree, it's clear that they shine more in larger parties.  By the time the Bard can cast haste, they are at least 7th level.  If they don't have 7 allies, part of that spell's power goes wasted.  Buffing three allies is good.  But seven(!) buffed allies is more powerful than 3 and yields more damage per action spent.  The number of allies you can effect with Bardic music is limited to what you can pack near you.  The more allies you boost, the more damage that action yields, and the more powerful it is relative to other things you could have done.</blockquote>

Verification