Wizards: Bard to no longer suck

[Aeolius]

I think Music as a power source sounds like a good bet for a later PHB.

I was considering rebuilding the bard to be similar to the warlock, inspired by Loom . The bard would channel a "universal song" of sorts.

 

[med stud]

I hope they will balance all classes in combat and partly outside of combat... I really like fighters and it bothers me that in 3.x they have few class skills and skill ranks, making it hard to make a fighter viable for anything else than fighting. If they do that they don't need to create a class for facemen, then anyone that wants to can be the faceman of the party. This way also you don't have to feel screwed when you play a faceman character and 75% of all time playing is playing out combats.

 

[Firebeetle]

There are multiple things wrong with the Bard class in 3e. If they fix some of them in 4e, I"ll be sold. I love the Bard concept, but the current implementation is flawed.

1. The Bard has the most dead levels of just about any class. Dead levels = Not Fun.
2. The Bard is supposed to be a generalist. Generalist implies that you can do things, but perhaps not as good as a specialist. The Bard is actually worse than a Generalist. Most Generalists gain some kind of synergy from having access to a little bit of everything. Instead, the Bard just "generally" sucks at everything.
3. The Bard is supposed to be good at one thing... Social Interaction, but he is largely overshadowed by the Rogue. Sure, he can fascinate, but that requires the DM to basically give the Bard the opportunity to showcase that ability. Trust me, it doesn't come up that often.
4. Yes, there are ways to make the Bard better, but they're not in the core rules... you have to go out and cherry pick a feat here and cherry pick a spell there. That shouldn't be required to make a class playable. It should only be useful to provide interesting options.

In conclusion... The Bard needs an overhaul. I'm glad he's getting one. Like I said, I love the concept, but the 3e version just ain't that great.

--sam

Testify brother! Testify! I've been saying this stuff FOREVER and all I get is attacked for it. Bard is my favorite class, I'm so happy it won't suck any more!

 

[D.Shaffer]

I will further clarify my stance in saying a Bard is definitely not a good choice for 1-4 slots on a adventuring party. Backup implies you have the basics down first. We knew it going in. 4E should chuck bards altogether or just use that Warlord-leader idea.

Here's the thing. Why shouldnt the bard be an good '4 slot' choice in the game? If they can make it a valid choice for a party of 4 and still be optimal WITHOUT taking away its RP niche, why is this considered such a bad thing? Sure, you can have fun playing a 'suboptimal' choice, but if they can design it from the ground up to be fun for more then just a certain niche of gamer, would that really be that bad?

 

[Brother MacLaren]

There are multiple things wrong with the Bard class in 3e. If they fix some of them in 4e, I"ll be sold. I love the Bard concept, but the current implementation is flawed.

1. The Bard has the most dead levels of just about any class. Dead levels = Not Fun.

As a Basic/Expert grognard, I have *never* understood what this "Dead Level" fuss is about. In B/X, you got ONLY hit points if you were a fighter, dwarf, or halfling for levels 1-3 (spellcasters got new spells, and thieves got increased skill chances). Now people are saying that BAB, skills, and save bonuses aren't enough, and that even getting new spells is a "dead level"?

The bard:
Gets new spells known at 15 out of 20 levels (all but 6, 9, 12, 15, 18) -- at the levels where he isn't getting new spells, he gets new bardic music abilities AND a new feat AND (for three of those levels) improvement in an outstanding bardic music effect (Inspire Greatness). At many of the leves where he does get new spells he also gets other benefits.

So at every level he gets more spells per day, EITHER new spells or new bardic music abilities, BAB of +.75, saves of +1.33, and typically 8 or so skill points. Not to mention the +.33 feats and +.25 ability points that everybody gets.

That sounds to me like NO "dead levels."

 

[Zaruthustran]

Because a bard's "role" isn't combat - it's support.

IMHO, every class should be able to have an effective (and fun!) combat role. And combat roles/abilities should not be "balanced" with noncombat roles/abilities.

Combat abilities and noncombat abilities should be entirely separated. Balancing the 3E Bard's skills by giving him poor combat abilities (low hp, poor armor, few weapons, mediocre BAB) just doesn't make sense. Telling the Bard, "You stink at combat, but at least you can do cool stuff out of combat" or telling the Fighter "You rule in combat, but are almost useless out of combat" is like telling both players "your character is fun only 50% of the time".

 

[kerbarian]

Exactly so.

And, the more the classes become equally able to deal with all things, the less they become actual roles, and the more the game points towards the things that all classes do equally well. In D&D, this means combat. The presence of characters who have a reason to be in the wilderness, or in the city, and who have good reason to deal with problems using methods other than sword and spell, the more variety of location and action a game is liable to have.

I'd say that the more classes become equally useful in all situations, the more players will feel like they have something useful and interesting to do. If each character is only useful in one environment or type of situation, then there will be a lot of time spent when those characters are sitting around useless, which is no fun.

Further, I'd say that combat is the one situation where it's most important that all classes are balanced. A lot of the non-combat situations in D&D don't need much in the way of rules -- it's role-playing. The cases when you really need rules are direct conflict or competition. It's important for players to feel that they're operating in a consistent and fair environment, so that they can feel like they have control over their characters' fates, and rules are a way to provide that.

So, if it's important that all classes can contribute equally (not in the same way -- just so that everyone can feel equally useful) and combat is the place where the rules are most important and must be the most carefully crafted, it makes sense to put a lot of effort into balancing the classes in combat.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'd say that the more classes become equally useful in all situations, the more players will feel like they have something useful and interesting to do. If each character is only useful in one environment or type of situation, then there will be a lot of time spent when those characters are sitting around useless, which is no fun.

Well, I'd not make the claim that I can say what is, or is not, fun for others. It is certainly true that if combat continues to be the out-of-control time hog that it has become in third edition, then you need to make sure that everyone has something to do during combat.

In older editions, IME, more time was spent in things like exploration and investigation, and there was a large amount of time for social interactions as well. However, in those days we could run a huge fight in a matter of minutes, meaning that the "hang time" wasn't that important.

What I can say, is that the more the classes become equal in all situations, the less the idea of "classes" itself makes sense. In other words, I agree that each character will have something "useful" to do, but it seems to me that what they do will be far less "interesting".

IMHO, of course.

Time will tell. It always does.


RC

 

[herald]

There is a reason why bards, minstrels, skalds, etc sing and write about heroic exploits, it's because they are on the sideline observing. It sounds unglorious and boring but that's a roleplaying reality unfortunately not a gaming reality. I stand firm, bards are inherently not for combat besides support, but are invaluable outside it.

And that's why Henry the VIII sucked at jousting. Oh wait, he didn't he was one of the best in Europe. Well he must have sucked at music,... no he wrote one of the most enduring songs in history. "Greensleaves".

Bards, skalds and minstrals have been sluggin it out through out history. Try to remember that musical tallent was a sign that you were a well rounded individual in the past. Many people who trained for war also trained for sing and playing instrumnets.

 

[Merlion]

Then those players ought to play a fighter.

So if you want to take part in fighting (combat) you shouldnt play a wizard, ranger, paladin, monk, druid, warlord, sorcerer, cleric or any other class besides fighter?


Seriously why do some people have such trouble with the idea of all classes being able to contribute to an equal degree to combat?

The role name "leader" rubs me the wrong way, and I think embodying "leadership" in a class is asking for trouble. Real leadership isn't about the class you take, and simply taking class levels doesn't mean you really lead the party.

Well as near as we can tell the "leader" role doesnt have anything really to do with leading. My guess is thats the best name they could come up with since they didnt want to call it the "healer" the "supporter" or the "enhancer"