Where's the Bard?

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I don't really think of the bard as the "master" of social encounters. I think of him as the jack-of-all-trades of social encounters.

The wizard has more background knowledge. The warlord/cleric/paladin can be just as inspiring. The rogue is a better liar. But the bard brings it all together - he has "bardic knowledge" of a little bit of just about everything, with enough persuasiveness, "pull," bluffing, and charisma to put it all into play.

Reynard, I think the central premise here is that "level = combat effectiveness." Any level X character should be about as effective in combat as any other of the same level, although this obviously varies with build optimization and situation.

Non-combat situations are trickier. I think that ideally "social" classes like bards and warlords will have a ton of options, whereas less socially-focused classes might have one or two big areas of social expertise. For example, a wizard gets to be the expert on arcana and ancient history, while the fighter can be just flat-out intimidating in a way it's tough for the sneakiest rogue to match. That way, everybody gets to participate in social encounters, but the bard still gets his time to shine.

 

[Reynard]

Reynard, I think the central premise here is that "level = combat effectiveness." Any level X character should be about as effective in combat as any other of the same level, although this obviously varies with build optimization and situation.

My point is that this is both an unneccesary design goal, and general bad.

 

[LightPhoenix]

The idea that every character archetype needs to be able to kick ass and take names is a function of the idea that D&D is about kicking ass and taking names. It isn't, unless you -- the individual group -- say it is. But if the PHB is full of classes that focus primarily on that aspect of play, to the detriment of other aspects of play (ex: blaster wizard overtaking versatile wizard as the core archetype), the game ceases to be as variable and dynamic and a whole lot less fun.

Well, D&D pretty much is about kicking ass and taking names. You don't need a game system to roleplay. You do need a game system to... er, play a game. Unless you're playing Calvinball, obviously.

The problem that existed, and that 4E has as one of its design goals to rectify, is that not every class was fun to play in combat, where the meat of the game is. One approach in 2E/3E was to take a class like that (Cleric) and make it rediculously powerful. Another approach (Bard) was to ignore the problem altogether and call it "roleplaying." This, of course, was a fallacy, because rolelaying and playing the game are two seperate, albeit complementary, things.

Saying that the Bard is the king of roleplaying is also a fallacy, because roleplaying is not part of playing the game. Therefore, it shouldn't be a feature of the class. Or in simpler terms, mechanics should not dictate roleplaying, and vice versa. Claiming that as balance is short-changing the Bard.

It is possible to design a class to be versatile and still useful in combat, where the game is. You cited the prime example - the Wizard. I dare say that every class is going to be a little more versatile in 4E. The problem with the Bard is that, within the context of the game system - ie kicking ass and taking names - the Bard is technically versatile but exceedingly weak within the system. The intent is to change that.

 

[Raith5]

From the 4E info page...

Bard - From Wizards Presents: Races & Classes: Gets power from otherwordly patrons (?). Its powers focuses on illusions and confusions, so that enemies hinder themselves. They can also inspire their allies.

* Drawing their powers from “otherworldly patrons,” Bards will possess many abilities related to illusion and mental trickery. They will retain their inspirational and lore knowledge abilities.

This sounds very very similar to Paedur the Bard in the fantastic trilogy by Michael Scott <http://www.dillonscott.com/adult_bibl/culai.htm>.

In this trilogy, the bard is light years away from singing songs, playing the lute, etc.

 

[Khairn]

My vote is that the Bard will likely be a DDI release for the PHB. They will need some really heavy hitting material to draw people to the DDI expansion content, and bringing in some of the dropped classes makes a lot of sense with Bard (arcane leader) and Monk (martial striker or controller) coming back for classes and possibly Gnome for races.

I certainly hope that is not the case. WotC has committed to the DDI not being required to play the game. And as the Bard is an iconic part of D&D (IMHO) forcing players to pay for a DDI subscription in order to get any information about this core class would seem to go against their commitment.

Sorry about going off on that tangent, but the Bard has always been one of my favorite classes, both in AD&D and 3E, and I'd hate to see it segregated to DDI players only.

 

[Rechan]

I certainly hope that is not the case. WotC has committed to the DDI not being required to play the game. And as the Bard is an iconic part of D&D (IMHO) forcing players to pay for a DDI subscription in order to get any information about this core class would seem to go against their commitment.

I predict the DDI will give that sort of information first. Example being you get the Half-Orc or Gnome fleshed out on the DDI before you get them in the PHBII or Eberron book or where-ever they pop up.

In other words, it's a place where people who use the DDI get something before anyone else, but that it will show up in print soon enough.

 

[jeff37923]

Out of curiosity, and this is meant with no maliciousness, but what is it about the bard you so enjoy? Personally its always been a class I never really understood since its 2E incarnation. The 1E version made a little sense being basically the first real prestige class based on druid (though all the other additions didn't make a lot of sense). In 3E the class is simply, IMHO, one of the weakest and least useful classes for adventuring.

I'm just honestly curious what people enjoy about the class.

That it is a jack-of-all-trades and is designed to achieve goals primarily through role-playing and not combat. A bard has got answers to questions the characters puzzle over because he has heard of the answer in stories and poems that not even mages have paid attention to, and that knowledge is power.

Being jack-of-all-trades, they are great for solo adventuring when you only have the one player and a DM.

Where the other classes specialize in dealing hit point damage, the bard specializes in role-playing damage. Why get your character's hands dirty in melee when you can thrash an opponent's reputation or standing with his own followers through some stories and poems?

I like the bard for the above reasons, plus what good are the heroic deeds of adventurers if there isn't somebody along to tell people about them?

I like bards. I've been playing D&D for 26 years now. I've played it all so far and Bards are my favorite schtick for a PC.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I reject the premise that characters need to be "balanced" with one another in all potential situations.

But being balanced for combat is not all potential situations. Combat is one of the most combat oriented games out there. You should be dropping D&D and playing Ars Magica.

 

[Mr. Patient]

But none of them well.

I'd argue that even if the 4e bard does those things well, it would still suck. IMO, it's not so much that the 3e bard is inept at being a support character, it's that being a support character in 3e is inherently lame. Playing a 3e bard is like being called upon to sacrifice bunt every single at-bat. Of the list of actions given in Vayden's example, only the 2nd is one where I'd feel like I was doing something really interesting and fun in combat.

To address Reynard's general point about not all classes needing to be balanced in terms of combat ability, I'd argue that it's not about balancing the raw power or damage-dealing ability, but balancing the fun. Getting a chance to shine on your own terms, not just adding a +2 to someone else's roll. The 3e bard is basically incapable of that, given the nature of his abilities, the fact that his spell progression is so slow (a real killer when it comes to save DCs), and the fact that half the freaking Monster Manual is immune to mind-affecting effects.

Where 4e seems to hold a lot of promise is that support-type characters get to do the support thing without it interfering with them doing other more interesting stuff. Based on what I've read about the warlord and cleric, I'd guess that a 4e bard will be able to trick, hinder or charm the enemy AND assist his own guys in the same round. And I'm hoping and praying that mind-affecting immunities are severely curtailed.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Painting? Huh.

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

lol!

I think that the Bard won't need to do his art in order to use the gifts his otherworldly patrons give him. So he may not necessarily need to paint right away in order to assist his allies ("If we make it through this, lads, I'll make sure you're on the cover of the next PHB!")