Negative Zero
First Post
so, that's the point. with the large range of class skills, the bard should get more skill points.
~NegZ
~NegZ
why on earth does the bard only get 4 skill points/lvl???
- Thread starter Negative Zero
- Start date
Negative Zero said:
Not at all. As said before, the wide range of class skills just means that the bard has the potential to excel in many areas. Individual bards, however, will pick different areas in which to excel.
The bard is a bit like like the expert class, in that it can choose from a wide range of areas to specialise in. However, that still means a bard, like an expert, must have a specialty.
Trousers
First Post
For the record, I really appreciate the quality of well-tempered responses on this thread. It's a breath of fresh air.
Neg Zero: Thanks! I'll send over some of what I have.
Staffan/Hong: You must have some very lucky spellcasters in your campaign! At least once a battle, someone is making a concentration check in our party. the skill is vital to spellcasting.
Hong: You are correct about the PErform skill only being tied to bardic music (I mislead everyone again!) but I disagree about the assumption on high INT. If you want to play someone who will jump into the fray, while singing a epic to boost morale will be focussing on other skills. This brings us to your bard "specialization" argument.
I like the idea of bard "specialization" (performers OR loremasters OR spellweavers) for prestige classes. But for a core class, if you're going to specialize in a set of skills, another class can do it better. It defeats the purpose of being a bard.
Rogues will be better at skills (and they can Perform). Clerics will be better healers. Wiz/Sor will be better spellcasters. The only unique identifier for a bard then is bardic music, and after 12 ranks there's nothing more to aspire to! So why be a bard?
To be a jack of all trades/master of none! But at 1-2 sp (or even 3 sp if you disagree with my argument) other classes can out-bard the bard.
The conversion to the 3E bard shafted the class while making other classes better (ranger excluded). That's my biggest gripe with the way the Bard is now.
Neg Zero: Thanks! I'll send over some of what I have.
Staffan/Hong: You must have some very lucky spellcasters in your campaign! At least once a battle, someone is making a concentration check in our party. the skill is vital to spellcasting.
Hong: You are correct about the PErform skill only being tied to bardic music (I mislead everyone again!) but I disagree about the assumption on high INT. If you want to play someone who will jump into the fray, while singing a epic to boost morale will be focussing on other skills. This brings us to your bard "specialization" argument.
I like the idea of bard "specialization" (performers OR loremasters OR spellweavers) for prestige classes. But for a core class, if you're going to specialize in a set of skills, another class can do it better. It defeats the purpose of being a bard.
Rogues will be better at skills (and they can Perform). Clerics will be better healers. Wiz/Sor will be better spellcasters. The only unique identifier for a bard then is bardic music, and after 12 ranks there's nothing more to aspire to! So why be a bard?
To be a jack of all trades/master of none! But at 1-2 sp (or even 3 sp if you disagree with my argument) other classes can out-bard the bard.
The conversion to the 3E bard shafted the class while making other classes better (ranger excluded). That's my biggest gripe with the way the Bard is now.
If you don't like the core D&D Bard, you might consider making most "bards" variant Rogues with the Bard's Skill list and Bardic Music (rather than Sneak Attack, etc.). Then you can let higher-level "bards" multiclass into a variant Sorcerer class (call it the "Spellsinger") with the Bard's Spell list and Skill list -- as a Prestige Class.
mmadsen said:
The real problem with the bard -- well, ONE OF the real problems with the bard
-- is that a "jack-of-all-trades" class inherently contradicts the basic point of a class system. A class, meaning a skillset, is basically supposed to be a specialist at a particular niche. A "specialist JOAT" is a contradiction in terms. Furthermore, it implies that any class is going to be better at what it does than a bard trying to imitate that class.
Negative Zero
First Post
an expert get 8 SPs doesn't she? 
seriously tho, i'm not suggesting that a bard should be able to excell at ALL her skills, just that nore SPs are needed. currently it's arguable the most skill dependent class, and they can either specialize in 5-7 of over 30 class skills or get 1 rank in all of them. that doesn't seem right for a class that's dependent on their skills.
~NegZ
seriously tho, i'm not suggesting that a bard should be able to excell at ALL her skills, just that nore SPs are needed. currently it's arguable the most skill dependent class, and they can either specialize in 5-7 of over 30 class skills or get 1 rank in all of them. that doesn't seem right for a class that's dependent on their skills. ~NegZ
der_kluge
Adventurer
What's wrong with the bard? Jesus, where do I start?
First off, I agree that the Bard should get more than 4 sp per level, but it really goes beyond that. For starters, some of the skills don't make sense. The description mentions that Bards can act as spies, yet Spot is not a class skill. Also, they get Scry as a class skill. For all those Bards that like to spend their days sitting behind crystal balls. Yea, that makes sense.
Solution - Add Spot as a class skill, remove Scry; Increase SPs to 6 per level.
Secondly, the songs just suck. Fascinate is somewhat useful, but it lasts a round per level, which means that it doesn't become really useful until higher level. Inspire courage is the only really useful song Bards have. Countersong is likely never to be used, and the suggestion song only works on fascinated creatures. The inspire competence song is equally worthless.
Lastly, Sorcerer-based spellcasting makes absolutely no sense for the bard. For a class that's supposed to learn spells from their travels, they have severe limitations. Here's the scenario, a Bard is at a bar, and a wizard is sitting there, and the wizard likes the Bard and agrees to teach him a new spell. But, the Bard has already reached his maximum spells for that level. So, the Bard says, "Sorry, I'd love to learn it, but I've already reached my maximum spells for this level. Find me again in a week or two."
That makes absolutely no sense. To be done right, the Bard needs Wizard-like spellcasting, and a spellbook, but obviously need a new spell progression chart to match a weak spellcasting ability. But, there shouldn't be any limit to the number of spells a Bard can learn.
The bottom line is, a Bard is NOT a jack-of-all-trades class like it used to be. It has been designed to be ONE thing - a manipulator. Consider the skills, the spell selection, and the songs, and the fact that it is a charisma-based class. If you play the Bard as anything other than someone who takes spells like 'charm person', 'suggestion', and 'hypnotism', along with lots of ranks in Bluff and Diplomacy you're really shooting yourself in the foot. I'm playing a 2nd level Bard in a game now. She just reached 2nd level. I went round and round with my DM about these problems, and I started working up a new Bard class, but decided that I should at least play the Bard as is before trying to play a new class. It seemed only fair. I still have my reservations that the Bard is an extremely weak class. I also made darn sure that the game was going to be HEAVILY focused on social-interaction and role-playing. I was not going to play a Bard in a dungeon crawl, or a forest-based game, just as I would not play a druid in a city-based game. The only change we made to the Bard was to give it Spot as a class skill. That's it. I'm going to play it, and have fun with it, as I really like the character concept I've come up with. I think the Bard class is extremely limited, and really weak. But, I'm playing it, more or less as is, and I'll post at a later date once I get to a higher level to see what I think about the class after I've played it some more.
First off, I agree that the Bard should get more than 4 sp per level, but it really goes beyond that. For starters, some of the skills don't make sense. The description mentions that Bards can act as spies, yet Spot is not a class skill. Also, they get Scry as a class skill. For all those Bards that like to spend their days sitting behind crystal balls. Yea, that makes sense.
Solution - Add Spot as a class skill, remove Scry; Increase SPs to 6 per level.
Secondly, the songs just suck. Fascinate is somewhat useful, but it lasts a round per level, which means that it doesn't become really useful until higher level. Inspire courage is the only really useful song Bards have. Countersong is likely never to be used, and the suggestion song only works on fascinated creatures. The inspire competence song is equally worthless.
Lastly, Sorcerer-based spellcasting makes absolutely no sense for the bard. For a class that's supposed to learn spells from their travels, they have severe limitations. Here's the scenario, a Bard is at a bar, and a wizard is sitting there, and the wizard likes the Bard and agrees to teach him a new spell. But, the Bard has already reached his maximum spells for that level. So, the Bard says, "Sorry, I'd love to learn it, but I've already reached my maximum spells for this level. Find me again in a week or two."
That makes absolutely no sense. To be done right, the Bard needs Wizard-like spellcasting, and a spellbook, but obviously need a new spell progression chart to match a weak spellcasting ability. But, there shouldn't be any limit to the number of spells a Bard can learn.
The bottom line is, a Bard is NOT a jack-of-all-trades class like it used to be. It has been designed to be ONE thing - a manipulator. Consider the skills, the spell selection, and the songs, and the fact that it is a charisma-based class. If you play the Bard as anything other than someone who takes spells like 'charm person', 'suggestion', and 'hypnotism', along with lots of ranks in Bluff and Diplomacy you're really shooting yourself in the foot. I'm playing a 2nd level Bard in a game now. She just reached 2nd level. I went round and round with my DM about these problems, and I started working up a new Bard class, but decided that I should at least play the Bard as is before trying to play a new class. It seemed only fair. I still have my reservations that the Bard is an extremely weak class. I also made darn sure that the game was going to be HEAVILY focused on social-interaction and role-playing. I was not going to play a Bard in a dungeon crawl, or a forest-based game, just as I would not play a druid in a city-based game. The only change we made to the Bard was to give it Spot as a class skill. That's it. I'm going to play it, and have fun with it, as I really like the character concept I've come up with. I think the Bard class is extremely limited, and really weak. But, I'm playing it, more or less as is, and I'll post at a later date once I get to a higher level to see what I think about the class after I've played it some more.
Negative Zero said:an expert get 8 SPs doesn't she?
4 skill points per level, ten class skills.
You're right that it's arguable, because I'd certainly argue that assertion. The bard's core abilities don't depend on skills to any great extent, except for Perform. The rogue's niche, however, is almost entirely skill-dependent (opening locks, disabling traps, searching, hiding, spotting, etc).
Similar Threads
