Which class is the most useless?

[Firebeetle]

So, shall we just drop the pretense and start nailing up the bard cross, then?

Now, now, I didn't say a thing yet. Many, many others brought it up first.

I did vote bard. My position on bard has been quite clear on other threads.

Bard problems:
1.) Bards are not the best "face" characters. If you want a face man, you are better off with Rogue or Sorcerer. (Rogues get more skill points, Sorcerers get familiar bonuses)
2.) Bard have no bonuses or special abilities regarding Bluff or Diplomacy. No bonus to those skills, no special uses. Bards should the best at these skills, period. I suggest a double CHA bonus to these skills, or a +2 to both, or special bard-only benefits like lessening or removing the rushed Diplomacy penalty. These would make bards more bardy.
3.) Bards have crappy hit dice and BAB. One or the other needs to be improved. I suggest a d8 myself.
4.) Not enough bardic music abilities and they are too dull. I recommend adding more abilities and making them Perform DC based. This opens a lot of options for the bard and would go a long way to making them better. In one of my home campaigns, we play Inspire Courage like this.
Perform DC 15= +1
Perform DC 20= +2
Perform DC 25= +3
Perform DC 30= +4

You could also make abilities for specific Perform abilities (Dancing Distraction for Dance, etc.)
5.) Second-hand spell list. Bards need and deserve their own spell list. Yes, the Spell Compendium helps. That and $150 of other books may make my class somewhat more agreeable, it's the base class that needs fixing. More bard only spells, bardy spells (say, Charm Person) need to be lower level for bards.
6.) Bardic Knowledge is entirely too vague. Another poster is obviously using it as Knowledge (everything), but it's not intended that way. Bardic knowledge needs a better definition.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

No free book for me?

Me neither ... And Unorthodox Bards looks really cool, too. I might even be convinced to write a Story Hour with some of the concepts ... ... that could be fun. A Story Hour involving a party of bards.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Clerics are useless. Come on, who needs a class with full spellcasting, armor, healing and fighting? Plus Turn Undead.

Well, that last bit seems useless, or at least poorly written... okay, lots of people want that. If healing didn't take up actions and/or spell slots... *sigh*

 

[awayfarer]

I thought the poll was about which class was most useless? Not Which class is the most usless in combat or as a fighter? :\

Um...it's not. My point here is that...

1: Bard = not useless
2: Monk = useless

By all appearances the monk seems to have been designed to fight, and yet, is bad at it. A character that is bad at what they're made to do is useless. The monk appears to be barely above the bard in this regard. The bard comes with a bunch of stuff that helps the group and is not useless.

Secondly, You'll also note that I brought up skills. The bard gets a more varied skill set and more skill points. They're useful out of combat.

Thirdly, I also mentioned abilities. The bards can affect others in the group, the monks cannot.

Lastly, how useful a character is in a fight is a huge deal in most games. I seriously doubt that it didn't cross anyones mind when they voted.

 

[Gort]

I love all the replies saying, "Well, in a game where there is no combat at all, bards are great!" - why are you playing D&D if there's not going to be any combat? Did you miss the fact that 99% of the rules pertain to combat, all the classes are balanced with combat effectiveness in mind, one of the books is full of monsters to fight and so forth? Did you also miss that the main interaction skill (diplomacy) is very poorly written?

Surely there's a better rules system for your purely non-combat game to take place under?

In any case, I voted monk. It doesn't do what it's meant to do. The bread and butter of the class is meant to be unarmed melee, and it doesn't do that very well. The class is very under-powered as it is, so much so that I'd advise simply giving it full BAB. Although full BAB, full saves, decent HP, good skills and a variety of spell-like abilities seems overly powerful to begin with, the fact that the class requires every stat except charisma to be high brings it down significantly. Also, adding your wisdom to your AC is not, in my opinion, as good as being able to wear armour.

If I was able to make a second vote, I'd go with bard. The trouble with bard is that parties in my experience are rarely large enough to have niches that aren't already full. A D&D party requires GOOD healing (by high levels you'll wish you had access to the heal spell), trap disposal (only the rogue and the beguiler can do this), the ability to absorb melee attacks (usually a fighter-types job), and the ability to reliably do damage (the fighters job, again). That's at least three characters right there, and an arcane spellcaster, while not NECESSARY per se is very handy to have around. Spells like fireball and wall of force can make difficult fights trivial - though clerics can do that stuff quite easily at the higher levels.

I just don't tend to play in groups large enough that I can afford to have a party member who doesn't perform any critical function. They feel hangers-on, rather than useful party members.

I think bards need to be made into true jacks of all trades. Make them into a rogue/wizard/cleric cross-class. Give them a little sneak attack so they can contribute to melee fighting - half as much as a rogue, say. Give them trapfinding so they can fill the trap disposal niche if they should choose to. Give them spellcasting, but keep them a few levels behind full casters, maybe three or so. Penalise their caster level in the same way. However, don't limit their spell list - let them pick from the entire wizard/druid/cleric list.

Like my suggestion for the monk (full BAB) it looks overpowered on the surface, but keep in mind that the bard is also highly dependent on high stats. They need almost every stat to be high to excel in every field, which shouldn't really be achievable. Also, remember how much people complained about the mystic theurge being overpowered because they got both arcane and divine casting? Nobody complains now, because it simply isn't as powerful as a single classed caster. The bard would be like that.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hey look! Firebeetle posted an anti-bard thread! I think that I shall die of not-surprise.

I love all the replies saying, "Well, in a game where there is no combat at all, bards are great!" - why are you playing D&D if there's not going to be any combat? Did you miss the fact that 99% of the rules pertain to combat, all the classes are balanced with combat effectiveness in mind, one of the books is full of monsters to fight and so forth? Did you also miss that the main interaction skill (diplomacy) is very poorly written?

Surely there's a better rules system for your purely non-combat game to take place under?

Because D&D can handle things besides combat? Or do you limit D&D to kill the monster, grab the treasure, run out the door, rinse and repeat? A goodly number of folks have run non-combat games with D&D, and have since first edition.

The Auld Grump

 

[Scraht]

I love all the replies saying, "Well, in a game where there is no combat at all, bards are great!" - why are you playing D&D if there's not going to be any combat? Did you miss the fact that 99% of the rules pertain to combat, all the classes are balanced with combat effectiveness in mind, one of the books is full of monsters to fight and so forth? Did you also miss that the main interaction skill (diplomacy) is very poorly written?

Surely there's a better rules system for your purely non-combat game to take place under?

I love people who take a rather benign post stating something overlooked and immediately claim that since it's not pertaining to combat it's wrong, and this is the wrong game for them.

 

[Sejs]

A rebuttal.

1.) Bards are not the best "face" characters. If you want a face man, you are better off with Rogue or Sorcerer. (Rogues get more skill points, Sorcerers get familiar bonuses)

The 'King Talker' debate. A sorcerer can get 3 points ahead on one skill via a familiar. A bard can match that via a feat (Acquire Familiar) if they so desire, but frankly feats are precious. A social rogue can match the bard point for point, but has to go out of their way to pump charisma (whereas bards do it naturally) and misses out on other rogue-speciffic areas for doing so. Essentially a rogue can try to be a bard, but risks missing out on being a rogue for doing so. Plus Bardic Knowledge can be a big help in the King Talker role.

2.) Bard have no bonuses or special abilities regarding Bluff or Diplomacy. No bonus to those skills, no special uses. Bards should the best at these skills, period. I suggest a double CHA bonus to these skills, or a +2 to both, or special bard-only benefits like lessening or removing the rushed Diplomacy penalty. These would make bards more bardy.

The Glibness spell is bard only, and bards are the only class that has the skill list to easily rack up all synergy bonii for Diplomacy.

As regards your ideas for a fix: how about giving the bard one of those +2/+2 skill feats every so often? Helps the bard, doesn't pidgeonhole 'em too badly, and maybe those feats will finally see some use.

3.) Bards have crappy hit dice and BAB. One or the other needs to be improved. I suggest a d8 myself.

Medium BAB and hit dice. Giving them full BAB would be too much. Hit dice I'm on the fence about. If you bump the bard to a d8, what about the rogue? Or for that matter, the sorcerer and wizard? Breaking it down some:

Medium BAB classes: (core) Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Rogue. (non-core) Warlock, Favored Soul, Spirit Shaman, Marshall, Dragon Shaman, Psychic Warrior, Soulknife, Wilder, Ninja, Scout, Spellthief, Binder, Truenamer.

d6 HD classes: (core) Bard, Rogue. (non-core) Warlock, Warmage, Ninja, Spellthief, Shugenja, Beguiler, Wilder, Shadowcaster, Truenamer.

Looking at it, there would be a better argument for a d8 hd size than upping it to full BAB. But again, that'd leave the rogue as the only core d6 class.

4.) Not enough bardic music abilities and they are too dull. I recommend adding more abilities and making them Perform DC based. This opens a lot of options for the bard and would go a long way to making them better. In one of my home campaigns, we play Inspire Courage like this.
Perform DC 15= +1
Perform DC 20= +2
Perform DC 25= +3
Perform DC 30= +4

You could also make abilities for specific Perform abilities (Dancing Distraction for Dance, etc.)

They've done some of this via feats, mostly expanding what bardic music can do. What I'd personally like to see would be bardic music being a pool of abilities (some with pre-reqs) that you can learn from once per X levels. So Bard A might know Inspire Courage, Inspire Greatness, Inspire Heroics, Ironskin Chant, and Endless March making him a sort of military drummer and Bard B might have Cursed Dance, Requiem, Fascinate, Suggestion, Whirling Steel Waltz, and Ballroom Blitz, instead being a magical dancer that dooms her opponents.

Making effects solely Perform DC dependent can be dangerous: it's really easy to make high DC checks after a certain point, as long as you're focused. I would like to see some sort of complimentary skills rule for the various performs, though. In my game, for instance, 5 ranks in Balance or Tumble give you a +2 synergy bonus to Perform (Dance) and vice-versa.

5.) Second-hand spell list. Bards need and deserve their own spell list. Yes, the Spell Compendium helps. That and $150 of other books may make my class somewhat more agreeable, it's the base class that needs fixing. More bard only spells, bardy spells (say, Charm Person) need to be lower level for bards.

They are lower level for the bard, but with the caveat that they arrive at approximately the same level that a straight caster would get them. Bard and Wizard both get access to Confusion at 7th level, Bards and Sorcerers can both get Dominate Person at 10th.

6.) Bardic Knowledge is entirely too vague. Another poster is obviously using it as Knowledge (everything), but it's not intended that way. Bardic knowledge needs a better definition.

As in the past, this is one of the points we agree on. It's vague and too often forgotten.

 

[Storyteller01]

[imager]http://www.thele.com/TheLeGames/images/tn/UnorthodoxBards_tn200w.jpg[/imager]Hey folks,

Lots of interesting discussions here. I sent nearly everyone a free book, based on their vote. You all should find one of the followings for free in your emails:
NEO Monks: The Dragonlord
NEO PALADINS: The Martyr
NEO RANGERS: The Spider King
Unorthodox Bards

-The Le Games (pronounced Tay Lee Games)
on the web at www.TheLeGames.com

.

Anyway we can get these in paperback?

 

[der_kluge]

I don't think bards are useless. Their social skills can be powerful in a city-based game. But, the execution is awful, and unless you're into the bard's social skills, the class has little else to offer.

The monk, however, is completely pointless, and is made entirely irrelevant with any other tank in the party.


But whoever voted for rogue, wizard and cleric - you've got some 'splaining to do.