Wizards: Bard to no longer suck

[LightPhoenix]

Why not?

Seriously, I'm not being snarky here. Why shouldn't bards be equally effective as other classes both in and out of combat?

I agree with you, they should be effective.

Under the paradigm of 2E, which was largely carried over into 3E, bards were supposed to be generalists. Unfortunately neither system really did "generalist" very well - especially 3E. Hopefully this will be something changed in 4E.

I like what NWN2 did with Bards - they basically get an active aura (called, IIRC, inspirations), as well as uses of their Bard Song. This makes sense to carry over to 4E, given what was said about the Cleric (healing always going on) and the Bard's classification as a Leader.

 

[Cadfan]

I'm against aura bonuses. I want leader characters to be active leaders.

An example of the sort of thing I don't like: an always active aura that gives bonuses on reflex saves.

An example of the sort of thing I do like: a once per encounter ability to give an ally an immediate, out of turn charge that doesn't provoke AROs, if the character charges the target the bard designates.

The first doesn't really involve leading, you know? You just kind of exist and radiate bonuses. You're useful in the same way a torch is useful.

The second gives the bard the ability to help the character of his choice maneuver on the bard's terms. That's leading. Its also cinematic, which aura effects are not. In the second ability, you can imagine the bard distracting the summoned zombie worm creature and yelling to the fighter, "NOW! GO!" so that the fighter can charge past the worm and turn the necromancer into paste.

 

[Mercule]

I'm against aura bonuses. I want leader characters to be active leaders.

An example of the sort of thing I don't like: an always active aura that gives bonuses on reflex saves.

An example of the sort of thing I do like: a once per encounter ability to give an ally an immediate, out of turn charge that doesn't provoke AROs, if the character charges the target the bard designates.

The first doesn't really involve leading, you know? You just kind of exist and radiate bonuses. You're useful in the same way a torch is useful.

The second gives the bard the ability to help the character of his choice maneuver on the bard's terms. That's leading. Its also cinematic, which aura effects are not. In the second ability, you can imagine the bard distracting the summoned zombie worm creature and yelling to the fighter, "NOW! GO!" so that the fighter can charge past the worm and turn the necromancer into paste.

Agreed. That's one reason the Marshal never say the light of day, IMC.

 

[Mortellan]

Why not?

Seriously, I'm not being snarky here. Why shouldn't bards be equally effective as other classes both in and out of combat?

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.

 

[Agamon]

Considering that they've been saying that the current edition of their own game sucks, left and right (in order to pre-sell the next one, obviously) I would take that claim with a whole planet's worth of salt. Or so.

You'd need that much salt to make a Bard taste good, though. "Sucks" is a strong word. Merric's got the right idea. They aren't the funnest class to play, crunchwise (lots of fun, RP-wise, though).

 

[Wormwood]

It sounds unglorious and boring but that's a roleplaying reality unfortunately not a gaming reality.

In that case, I'm *thrilled* that they are looking at the bard from a gaming perspective.

 

[jasin]

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.

Inconveniently enough, D&D is as much a of a roleplaying game as it is a roleplaying game, so some compromise must be reached.

I stand firm, bards are inherently not for combat besides support, but are invaluable outside it.

"NOW! GO!" is a support ability, even though it's an active one.

But I'm more interested in the other part: in D&D as it is now, how do you think bards are invaluable outside combat? What non-combat role do they play that couldn't be filled just as well by some other character?

 

[Henry]

I actually liked the way factotums (from Dungeonscape) imitated bards as the "generalist." They were great at info gathering, etc. yet had abilities that were very useful in the midst of combat. If the 4E bard followed similar suit, I could learn to love it.

 

[krissbeth]

I dunno... My bard is pretty awesome. You just have to know how to play them properly. Finesse and social manipulation on and off the battlefield is kind of fun.

 

[Aus_Snow]

You'd need that much salt to make a Bard taste good, though.

Heh. I agree, as it happens - though quite that much salt would be ill-advised. But for different reasons (i.e., I prefer the Bard to be a PrC-type arrangement, or not at all.) For the record though, I've *seen* the PHB Bard kick ass. No, really. Just wasn't playing the accursed thing.