Wizards: Bard to no longer suck

[frankthedm]

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?

Because the bard shtick of Tale, Music and Song is not what it takes to bust heads in a dungeon. His skills make for a fine magical troubadour / carnie / con artist. He’s tough enough to travel in a hostile land, but he is not bringing the fight to a foe unless he is bringing a lot of troops / red shirts with him.

He does not study magic enough to be a professional in that field nor does he study combat to be a professional in that field. That means he is half and half, something that goes unrewarded in Extreme Dungeon Crawling.

 

[Umbran]

Come on people, we don't know if the words "leader", "defender", "striker" and "controller" will even see print in the rulebooks. Heck, I'm guessing not. They're just descriptive labels used for concepts that came up in the design process. This is a world away from terms of art like "feat", "skill rank", etc.

Well, my problem with it only grows when you say that. If it really is descriptive, I have a heck of a lot of a problem with it. I really, really don't want "leadership" tied to class choice. I have no problem with support powers like the bard's being class-choice.

"Defender" and "striker" are about physical activities, and don't suggest anything like status, rank or social position in the party. "Leader" (and "warlord", btw) is about decision-making and giving orders, and does strongly suggests who is actually running the show.

 

[alaric]

I mostly like what I'm hearing, but the emphasis on healing seems strange. It's never really struck me as the bard's main shtick.

It's my working theory that 4E will treat HP like D&D has always said HP is, but hasn't actually treated it that way. What I mean is that HP isn't just physical damage, but it also includes out of breath/tired, lack of concentration, and "injured" morale. From the latest playtest report we see a party with one character from each role, but no cleric. The warlord is looking very much like the nobel from SWSE. I presume both the warlord and the bard will "heal" not by magically binding of wounds, but by being the one that jumps up, gives the "Once more into the breach" speach, and causes people to dig deep and decide they can, in fact, hold the line for just a little bit longer.

 

[Agamon]

Bard = Minstrel should not be a class. A great character concept, yes, but not a class. It can be an interseting class to play once you've wrapped your head around it and play a certain way to allow for it, but, like I said before, it's niche. If they can change him into a sort of jack-of-all-trades/storyteller that functions as other classes function, then that's cool. Otherwise, get rid of him and let people take Perform and Knowledge.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

Shouldn't a good player be able to take a character and make it exceptional, instead of merely comparable?

I'm playing an illusionist/bard, and the bard stuff is really only good for filling in when I'm saving my illusionist spells.

I WANT to love the bard, and intend to convert my gnome over to 4E, but I will be very happy if, on the other side, he's a little more robust than he's been in the past. So far, his thrush familiar's been more important to the character than the bard class.

 

[KingCrab]

I got the impression from his phrasing that bards will NOT be making the 4e PHB. He didn't say it directly, but I think his choice of words is due to the fact that he knows they're not in.

I'm hoping at least that Druids are gonna make it in.

Plus I'm still hoping they change their minds and dump paladin, making it into a prestige class, though I know that's extremely unlikely at this point.

 

[frankthedm]

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

"Grant move action' was what got me to say no to the marshal. None too keen on letting one PC give Full attacks to others like that.

 

[Samnell]

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.

I'd say plenty D&D players probably don't suffer a character that does that with good humor either. If you're not in melee, a lot of players I've met over the years think you'd better be fireballing or healing.

 

[Samnell]

/beats Piratecat with a pee-pee

Dude, I love you. *pokes Hong with a stick*

 

[hong]

Well, my problem with it only grows when you say that. If it really is descriptive, I have a heck of a lot of a problem with it. I really, really don't want "leadership" tied to class choice. I have no problem with support powers like the bard's being class-choice.

"Defender" and "striker" are about physical activities, and don't suggest anything like status, rank or social position in the party. "Leader" (and "warlord", btw) is about decision-making and giving orders, and does strongly suggests who is actually running the show.

Again, it seems you're getting too caught up in the labels here. Look at what the "leader" role actually entails. It's basically the party's force multiplier: giving bonuses here, free actions there, healing, etc. That's the basic concept, and it doesn't change whether they call it leader, support, or whatever.