Where's the Bard?

[Reynard]

All Possible situations implies that everyone can do anything equally good. No. I think that we can facilitate social roles just like we have combat roles. This way everyone is balanced, but they're balanced by being good at Something in combat and Out of combat, without stepping on someone else's toes.

The problem is that this ends up being defined as "dealing damage". The 3E baerd *is* good at something in combat -- he is good at buffing his party and doing support work that helps keep everyone going. Unfortunately, this isn't seen as "good enough" because it measn the poor bard's player doesn't get to do anything "useful" like cause lots of damage or immolate a bunch of goblins.

What I reject is the idea that every character needs to be able to contribute equally (notice I didn't say "in the same way" either) to every encounter. But when the game's basic unit of fun shifts from the adventure or the campaign to the encounter, it becomes necessary to allow every to contribute equally to every encounter. That means either everyone needs to be able to fight well, for example, or every encounter needs to include fights and social interaction and traps etc...

One of the issues here is the presumpotion that characters that aren't "contributing equally" are -- or their players are -- sitting on their thumbs. That's not necessarily the case, and even when it is it is okay. Expeciaally if you consider that 4E fights are supposed to be faster than 3E fights -- ostensibly this would suggest that less session time is consumed by combat and can be dedicated toward encounters that aren't combat meaning that different characters can be good at different kinds of encounters because everyone still gets to be useful and do fun things throughout the evening.

Despite this, we still see design notes pointing toward every character being awesome (even if not in the same way) and the vast majority of design intent pointed at one thing: combat.

 

[Rechan]

The problem is that this ends up being defined as "dealing damage". The 3E baerd *is* good at something in combat -- he is good at buffing his party and doing support work that helps keep everyone going.

I disagree. A simple +x to attack and damage isn't good buffing.

The cleric can beat the pants off that in spades. The Cleric has access to far more buff spells. As does the Druid. The wizard. Even the sorcerer. Hell, the Artificer is the Buffing Master.

If the Bard was good at that, then he would have much more versatile buffing capacities.

What I reject is the idea that every character needs to be able to contribute equally (notice I didn't say "in the same way" either) to every encounter. But when the game's basic unit of fun shifts from the adventure or the campaign to the encounter, it becomes necessary to allow every to contribute equally to every encounter. That means either everyone needs to be able to fight well, for example, or every encounter needs to include fights and social interaction and traps etc...

It means that everyone needs to do something well in the combat. Not do something half-assed. The Warlord, for instance, doesn't need to swing his sword. But he can get everyone with a missile weapon to get an extra attack. He can get the wizard to let loose a spell when it's not his turn. He can give everyone blanket bonuses to saves, et al. He can heal.

That's not related to the Warlord directly doing damage, just like the Bard isn't doing the damage himself with his Song. But it is making your party better at what they do. And that is something that can be done.

One of the issues here is the presumpotion that characters that aren't "contributing equally" are -- or their players are -- sitting on their thumbs. That's not necessarily the case, and even when it is it is okay.

I've never seen it not be the case, and that may be okay with you, but not with me.

Expeciaally if you consider that 4E fights are supposed to be faster than 3E fights -- ostensibly this would suggest that less session time is consumed by combat and can be dedicated toward encounters that aren't combat meaning that different characters can be good at different kinds of encounters because everyone still gets to be useful and do fun things throughout the evening.

I think you're wrong here.

Combat is faster turn by turn, round by round. But we've seen indications, especially from Ari, that fights have much longer rounds. To use an example I pull out of my ass, a 3e fight may take 30 minutes Real time, but last 3 rounds, in 4e it may take 30 minutes real time, but last 9 rounds. That's still 30 minutes, but more is done in the fight. And if you're sitting on your hands the whole fight, that's still 30 minutes you're sitting on your hands.

I reject the notion that characters should not be balanced in all possible situations. I applaud the designers in making all characters useful in all situations. Otherwise, I'll bring a book to my gaming table for when I'm not useful in a situation.

 

[Vayden]

Two arguments here:

1) Everyone should have something useful to do in combat. Since combat is a major part of the game, suckiness in combat should not be a "balancing factor" for being good out of combat (and vice-versa). 4E, Rechan and I think this is a good idea, Reynard disagrees. I'm not sure how much argument you can have here - we think that "time that your character is doing something interesting" should not be a balancing chip (rogue, you're interesting during the trap, bard, you can have the conversation with the king, wizard, you're interesting until you run out of spells, fighter, you're never interesting after level 6), Reynard thinks its fine. *shrug* We disagree.

2) Doing something useful in a fight = dealing damage. I don't think 4E is really going this way - the warlord and the cleric can do damage, sure, but they aren't going to be dealing anywhere near as much direct damage as the wizard, fighter, and rogue. They're going to be supporting the other characters, which is what the bard will be doing too (arcane leader). The problem w/ the 3E bard is that his support of the other characters a) sucked and b) was boring. I think the 4E bard will be much more dynamic, doing different things to support throughout the combat, ie
Turn 1 - I activate bardic music, that lasts for the encounter.
Turn 2 - I spin an illusion around the enemy wizard, causing him to fireball his friends instead of us
Turn 3 - I provide encouragement to the fighter who just got dropped, getting him back on his feet
Turn 4 - I move up to flank the enemy fighter, getting in a light hit and setting him up for the rogue to finish him.
etc etc.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Based on a few comments made by the WotC people here on the ENWorld boards, I expect the Bard to be an Arcane Leader.

If you ask me, the Bard should be a master of music, with all the other baggage associated with the name bard (jack-of-all-trades, swashbuckling, spellcasting, natural diplomat) being cast aside. After all, if the 4E Fighter is supposed to be able to be a great diplomat if he wishes, or could dabble in magic or thievery, I see no reason why the Bard has to be an inherently diplomatic class or be a jack-of-all-trades, because the choice is open to him to be such things by just being a PC character.

I would guess that the Bard would be the master of persistent ongoing effects. I would hope that the Bard would be the ultimate master of powerful combat buffs (hopefully buffs of real magic and power, not just a few static bonuses), can cause slow regeneration of health, and the master of magical illusions for those who hear his music. Maybe he can use a mechanic like the refrains from the fun Seeker of the Song Prestige class in 3.5E, which lets the Bard activate powerful attacks based on what buffing melody he is using at the time (so he can give fire Resistance and attack with fire spells at the same time).

 

[Rechan]

I would guess that the Bard would be the master of persistent ongoing effects. I would hope that the Bard would be the ultimate master of powerful combat buffs (hopefully buffs of real magic and power, not just a few static bonuses), can cause slow regeneration of health, and the master of magical illusions for those who hear his music. Maybe he can use a mechanic like the refrains from the fun Seeker of the Song Prestige class in 3.5E, which lets the Bard activate powerful attacks based on what buffing melody he is using at the time (so he can give fire Resistance and attack with fire spells at the same time).

The bard performing things like Blur, Displacement, Blink, etc - would be real great, I think.

Although I think that bards shouldn't be just Music based. Honestly, I want an orator. Or a writer. Or a debonair swashbuckler who inspires by action.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

The bard performing things like Blur, Displacement, Blink, etc - would be real great, I think.

Although I think that bards shouldn't be just Music based. Honestly, I want an orator. Or a writer. Or a debonair swashbuckler who inspires by action.

According to R&C, the otherworldly patrons that admire the bard do so because of the bard's gifts with oratory, painting, or song, so I suspect as long as it's artsy-fartsy you're good.

One of my friends is a long-time Bard player, enjoying the class even though they suck. When I read her the flavor text from R&C, her eye lit up and she said "Cool!" So certainly the flavor changes are very interesting to her - I bet the class will be much better designed to match.

 

[TerraDave]

It was "leaked" in the pages of Races & Classes.

Anyway, the bard will be available a month after 4E comes out in the Advanced Players Guide.

Just to sum up for Jeff: you will be getting at least two bards:

The official WotC one: the artsy "arcane leader" with "otherwordly patrons" who mixes deceptive magic with ye olde bard schtick. This will be in some WotC book, probably in 09, and may be on DDI first.

The one in Necromancer Games Advanced Player Guide: This will be released shortly after 4thed. I would guess that this will also probably be an arcane leader with powers that are similar to, but hopefully better then, bards of past editions (I say this since the goal of the book is to add back things left out of PHBI but be all 4thednized). It will be done by the one who posts here as "Mouseferatu" (sic).

 

[Rechan]

According to R&C, the otherworldly patrons that admire the bard do so because of the bard's gifts with oratory, painting, or song, so I suspect as long as it's artsy-fartsy you're good.

Painting? Huh.

"Okay guys. We're going into the dragon's cave. Give me a second to set up my easel."

 

[Reynard]

Turn 1 - I activate bardic music, that lasts for the encounter.
Turn 2 - I spin an illusion around the enemy wizard, causing him to fireball his friends instead of us
Turn 3 - I provide encouragement to the fighter who just got dropped, getting him back on his feet
Turn 4 - I move up to flank the enemy fighter, getting in a light hit and setting him up for the rogue to finish him.
etc etc.

The bard performing things like Blur, Displacement, Blink, etc - would be real great, I think.

Every one of these things is possible with the current (3E) bard.

 

[Rechan]

My money is on the Bard popping up in the Arcane book in late 08.

Every one of these things is possible with the current (3E) bard.

But none of them well.