Wizards: Bard to no longer suck

[Agamon]

I'm beginning to think the D&D RPG line ought to be scrapped so everyone can play DDM where all the playing pieces are designed for combat.

Some people are okay with sitting back and let others take care of the fighting. But I'll go out on a limb and say that isn't the majority of D&D players.

 

[Jer]

Unless Bard is going to be in a future supplement, then the Druid and Monk are the ones that aren't going to be in the PHB, right? We were told we'd have LESS classes than 3E, and they've added at least one new one. So in order to have LESS, we'd have to drop TWO...

But yeah, I know this will make one of my players very happy..

Actually, the exact quote starts with:

"When the bard enters the 4th Edition stage..."

That doesn't necessarily mean that the bard will be in the PHB, just that when the bard DOES show up, they have some mechanics in place to make the bard the type of class that you want to have in your party. And not the type of class where the other players make faces and ask "why would you want to be a bard - we really need another cleric."

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

I'll be snarky - "Because you can only do 'real roleplaying' if your character is an ineffective wuss in combat. Anything more than that is 'powergaming'."

Ahem - snark aside, the bard should be a kickass class and I've always been disappointed in the 3rd edition version. I'd kind of like to see them get away from the "character who creates effects with the power of his music" and more to the "jack of all trades who adventures to find knowledge" type. I guess the proposed "inspiring Leader" type fits that fairly well, but if he's going to have to be humming a tune while beating on baddies to make his powers work, I'm going to be a little annoyed.

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

The bard is (or was) all that is great about roleplaying D&D, they are chroniclers, information gatherers and morale support. Make it another combat class and they should just rename it. Bards aren't supposed to be effective as everyone else.

I think you just got your wish. Mortellan, meet the Warlord

 

[Gentlegamer]

Some people are okay with sitting back and let others take care of the fighting. But I'll go out on a limb and say that isn't the majority of D&D players.

Then those players ought to play a fighter.

 

[Greg K]

I actually really disliked the Factotum. It seemed too much of a kitchen-sink class.

That was my reaction as well. As an aside, I disliked every new base class designed by the WOTC staff for 3.x supplements- I just disliked some a lot more than others and the Factotum was among my least favorite.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Because a bard's "role" isn't combat - it's support. They shine in RP situations, as everyone's already noted, and in combat, they're designed to support others with their songs. A multiclass bard (bard/fighter, bard/ranger, bard/barbarian) can be really badass, though, properly done. Greatswords aren't too conducive to making a good bard, though.

A bit off topic: Bards don't shine in RP situations. Or more correctly, they don't hold the monopoly on shining. To borrow what seems to be some of the language in 4E, they shine in "noncombat encounters". That is to say, everyone who enjoys roleplaying shines in RP situations, which may or may not involve noncombat encounters. Bards, however, are good at manipulating NPCs using the mechanics for noncombat encounters (i.e. Charisma-based skills), as well as some of their own bardic music effects. I look forward to a time at which the words "roleplaying" and "noncombat encounter" are generally seen as distinct from one another.

 

[Agamon]

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.

Yeah, a bit of misnomer. Our party leaders are usually paladins and bards, but right now it's being co-led by a fighter and mystic theruge (the 20 CHR half-dragon sorcerer leads by example more often than not).

 

[Jer]

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.

Yes, but a sure-fire way to get people to turn up their noses at a class is to call it a "support" class.

Most of the folks sitting around the table wants to be the "main character" in the drama going on for the night. Only a few people are really happy being the "support" guy.

(I'll admit - when I play instead of DM I kinda like being the "support" guy, and I tend to play Clerics. But that's because when I play I want to kind of step out of the "director" role and I'm more than happy to let other folks take the spotlight.)

That said, I agree that calling the class "Leader" means that there's a good chance some problems may come up at the table. I can just see one of my players insisting that he MUST be the Leader because he has the Leader role.

Even worse, I can see the other players agreeing with him and letting him do it

 

[Mercule]

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.

I'm glad I'm not the only one. I can't say I like any of the terms, but that one stands out most. Hopefully, they'll refine their terms before formal release.

 

[Gargoyle]

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?

The logical reason would be that they are more effective than other characters outside of combat...but I don't agree with this particular conclusion. Even if it seems logical, it has proven to me to be less fun.

I believe they should be equally effective...not in the way that they should necessarily do as much damage as a wizard or that they should be able to take as much punishment as fighters, but overall they should feel like an equally useful class in combat.

There are a lot of players who are happy with their 3E bards...they don't mind that they aren't as useful in combat; they feel that their abilities are fun because they are so useful outside of combat, and because they can fill any niche. But I think they could be happier, and that the class could be more made more appealing to everyone.

I believe the game would be more fun for everyone if every class was considered to be effective (though not necessarily equal) in combat. If a 4e bard (if there is even such a thing) can kick butt in a way without stepping on the toes of the classes in other roles then I think it would be a good thing. The leader role that WotC has defined might be just the ticket.