D&D 4E Your thoughts on the 4E bard and other classes?

[Haltherrion]

My game group is about to start its first 4E campaign. In preparation for 4E, we have played several one-shot sessions trying out most of the classes at low level while our in-house painter works up some wonderful figures for our next campaign.

The bard gets tried out next weekend but based on a read of it, it seems to be a weak healer for a leader and others don't seem to find it very colorful although I like what I've read so far (sure beats bards in older systems as far as I can tell.)

Any thoughts on how the bard stacks up in general? And as a main healer?

What follows are our thoughts on the other classes so far. We obviously are new to 4E and these are really just first impressions. I'm curious to see if you think we are off-base on our impressions so far.




In case you care to comment, our consensus on a single play of some of the other classes:

• Warden: the favored defender for now. Folks like the color and durability.
• Ranger: solid striker class. Didn't wow anyone on color but seemed attractive to folks.
• Sorcerer: people didn't seem to care for it; not sure why. I think it is interesting enough.
• Invoker: folks found it ineffective although the player's string of abysmal luck may have had something to do with it.
• Shaman: seemed to be a strong healer with lots of interesting utility. Grouped liked it.
• Warlock: seemed to be good dps. Player who tried it really liked it.
• Paladin: seemed to be a great defender with strong healer ability.
• Warlord: didnt wow anyone. Healing seemed weak to us.
• Rogue: okay striker but no one was too impressed.
• Barbarian: same as rogue

We haven't tried wizard, avenger, druid, bard, fighter or cleric yet. All but the last two seem interesting to the group but the thoughts are:

• Wizard: looks like a good controller or striker depending on build
• Avenger: looks like a good controller [edit: meant striker]
• Druid: we aren't sure. Doesn't seem like a great controller but seems like a reasonable striker/controller.
• Fighter: think the group is still wrapping its head around the changes from 3.5 but not favorably viewed.
• Cleric: seems to be the best healer in the bunch but is it good for anything else?

Obviously, a single play is only so good a take on that class so was curious to hear folks thoughts to see if any more seasoned 4E players think our assessments are wrong.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Destil]

The fighter is good. It's easily the strongest defender, and very possibly the strongest class in the game (in general all-around effectiveness). Especially in heroic tier, where they have some amazing powers and no paragon-paths have come into play yet. If your group thinks the class is weak you most likely haven't really tried it yet.

As far as bards, they're pretty middle of the road leaders. Very versatile, lots of options for healing/buffing/debuffing. We have a bard as the only healer (well, that and a Cha/Wis Paladin) in my Sunday game, and he does just fine. The attack bonuses often would put him in as the top damage dealer in a group with a well-build avenger, sorcerer and rogue. Bards have lots of little things that add up to a big bonus for the entire group and a good amount of utility.

 

[Turtlejay]

Wow, well. . .Fighter is probably one of the favored classes of 4e so far. Your opinions are *yours* though, and nobody should try and tell you they are wrong. Some of us may have differing ones, but . . .well, let me just give you mine, based on play experience:

Warden: Good defender in a different way than the fighter. Lots of fun ways to build these guys. Tough to kill.

Ranger: Two classes in one, the Archer Rangers are like artillery, they part and shoot at whatever needs it. Melee rangers can be fragile, but are able to pile on serious damage where it's needed. Great at DPS and pretty good skill-wise.

Sorcerer: Lots of ways to go with this one, the different builds play differently. Give it another go, they can be strikery, and a minion's worst nightmare.

Invoker: Great in their role as Controller, and our Invoker also had some wonderful buffs, making his Leader secondary very nice, too.

Shaman: My one experience playing with one was good, he kept the party healed and managed the most battlefield control. I don't like their at-wills. . .

Warlock: With the new feats their DPS approaches the rest of their striker kin, and their curse is a dual purpose damage/effect ability. Teleport, buff, etc, Warlocks can be a lot of fun to play.

Paladin: With DP they can be very effective Defenders with tendencies towards Striker or Leader. Tough to kill.

Warlord: Can be built to be support/buffing leaders, and can get decent healing, too. They work best when you are in a party with some great melee basic attacks.

Rogue: Take some skill to get Combat Advantage consistently. If they can do that, they are the most accurate class, with high (especially brutal rogues) DPS, good mobility, and important class skills.

Barbarian: A blast to play, you turn off your head and turn on your muscles.

Wizard: Will never be the striker you want it to be, instead they are awesome (if built this way) at Crowd Control and Minion duty. Take advantage of their free rituals and Cantrips.

Avenger: Like the Rogue, tricky to play, since your Censure target has requirements in order to work right. Rarely get their bonus damage, but often roll twice to hit, which makes them very accurate. Good DPS.

Druid: Like the wizard, they have cool class abilities and skills, but they have hands down better at-wills, and more of them. Possibly better at controlling than wizards.

Fighter: The favorite of 4e, their mark is awesome, their powers are great, and there are dozens of good ways to build these guys. If you don't know what you want to play, play a fighter.

Cleric: *can* be the best healers, but melee clerics get one of the best buffs in the game, and they have a good selection of powers that help remove conditions and basically make their team better.

Swordmage: Different builds work differently, but in our highly mobile group, the highly mobile swordmage is the leader. His mark doesn't trigger often, but he manages to direct the flow of battle and take most of the hits for the team. Shielding Swordmages auto-DR is very nice, if a little less exciting.

Assassin: Like the Rogue and the Warlock had a twisted baby, the Assassin is mobile like the Rogue and shady like the Warlock. Can be fun, but won't win any DPS awards.

There are my opinions. I'd advise being a little more flexible with retraining as you learn the rules. People might be surprised by how things play compared to how they look on paper.

Jay

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'd pretty much agree with Turtlejay's assessment.

Warlocks are often considered sub-par strikers by many groups, but we like ours well and if built right and given the right equipment they are a fun class to play and can both do decent damage and provide a good amount of single target control.

As TJ says, playing a wizard as a striker will almost always lead to disappointment. The sorcerer is a LOT better at that, being dedicated to that role. If built right wizards are awesome but getting a good build can take some experimentation. Definitely an asset to any party though purely for the utility.

Invokers are what wizards would like to be in the absolute control department. Weaker daily powers but they have probably the best at-wills in the game and if you take the right feats and PP you can do really serious amounts of wide area auto-damage all over the board. Minions might as well not exist.

Barbarian is scary when he can get all ragey and charging left and right. Otherwise he's solid but not outstanding. With the right build can take a lot of punishment for a striker and can have some outrageously high defenses. If it moves, run up to it, run over it, bash it to death, watch the damage pile up. If it flies, drops conditions on you, or is where you can't charge then cry.

Warlords can actually be quite amazing. It may take a bit to get used to the high value of their tactical movement abilities. Healing isn't their main emphasis but they can be built to do it well enough to carry that function alone. It does help to have good MBAs and RBAs. Its a class that will grow on you if you play it and a lot of experienced groups will swear by this class.

 

[Haltherrion]

Thanks, guys, some really good feedback I'll share with my group. Good point on the retraining flexibility early on; perhaps I will allow a complete rebuild at level 3 or some such.

I had the feeling some of the gut-check was off but as I said we are new to the whole thing as you all note, you can only get so much from reading the rules. It's one reason we are doing our "4E test runs"- 3 down, one more to go.

We've got an awesome painter in our group (he has been top 50 on CMON at times) and we generally start a new campaign with a new pool of PC figures and a "draft" to select them and add a few perks in the process. Anyway, he was ref last campaign and just started on the figures, so while he paints, I've been running test sessions.

Thanks for the help, much appreciated. Makes me look at several (mostly fighter and cleric) classes in a new light. I do already find the druid and wizard as controllers quite intreresting.

 

[Chimera]

I play a Human Valorous Voice of Thunder Bard in a WotBS campaign.

I've got skills that'll make anyone else weep for envy.
I'm ok with my healing output. I give a save and a shift along with it.
Bloody or kill something? That's 9 temp HP for you. Why heal when I can effectively reduce the amount of real damage you take?
Fair amount of forced movement powers; pushing, pulling, knocking prone.
Bursts and Blasts that only hit enemies.
Really good to hit bonus and pretty reasonable weapon damage.
My defenses are across the board good.
Do not underestimate the coolness of my rituals.
Or the fact that I get to do two of them FOR FREE every day.

My ranged at-wills don't do huge damage, but they're ranged, reliable, and do other neat things. Pulling someone into position or dropping an attack penalty on them with an at-will is nothing to sneeze at.

Besides, I love the very idea of viciously mocking people to death, or killing with a cutting word.

Beyond that, I have several other Bard builds that I'd love to play but may never get the chance. A Gnome Summer Rhymer. A Half-Elf Student of the Seven. Various multiclass combinations...

 

[Artoomis]

Bard:

The cunning bard if just plain fun to run as a multi-classing
skill monkey. I have one now at 22nd level and he is so much fun; very effective in combat, lots of minor actions to use including lots of healing - more healing than any other character because of the multi-classing.

One of the very fun things about the bard is that he always has something to do. Attacking, healing, immediate interrupts, etc. He's got it all.

 

[mkill]

Never judge a leader class by its healing ability alone. A good leader does 4 things:
- own damage
- buffs to allies
- tactical positioning
- healing
There is a reason why the role is called "leader", not "healer"

It's easy to miss the complete picture when you only know 4th edition from a few sessions. In a similar fashion, don't judge a striker by his nova damage output only, a defender by his AC or a controller by his area damage. Well, don't judge any class after just one build in just one session.

I suggest you play 4th edition for a few month to pick up some advanced techniques, and then we'll talk about which class is good or bad again.

 

[babinro]

Having played early level Bow Cunning Bard I must say I'm surprised by the class.
The multiclass options aside, I wasn't too crazy about the class in and of itself until I tried it out. As Artoomis said, you pretty much always have something to do.

Firemetal Shot makes my bard a psudo striker for one round as the party focus fires for big damage. The at-wills are very fun and highly flexible. Jinx Shot is funny with high AC defenders and setup the Rogue nicely.

The healing option to slide 1 doesn't seem good on paper, but proves to have a lot of potential combo's based on party composition. Use the heal/slide to move melee PC's away from prone/immobile/restrained enemies. Or simply use it setup a flank. It's become my second favorite heal next to cleric despite the lack of healing it provides.

As for the other classes you've not yet tried. I highly encourage you to try the Wizard as a controller rather than striker. It really excels at controlling the battlefield more than any other class I've played. The wizard controller has the ability to turn things around quickly and is great for tactical players.

The Avenger is very fun to play because it almost never misses. It has a unique style of play making it very different from other strikers. This is a good thing, though I could easily see players who like 'strikers' to find this particular take on it to be lacking.

 

[mkill]

[*]Warlock: seemed to be good dps. Player who tried it really liked it.

Are you sure? It's possible, but very difficult to pull off a good damage per round with a warlock. I guess you haven't seen a really good dpr yet.

[*]Avenger: looks like a good controller

Avenger is a pure-blood striker. There is nothing controllery about the class.

[*]Fighter: think the group is still wrapping its head around the changes from 3.5 but not favorably viewed.

Once you understand the fighter, you understand what 4th edition is about. But don't worry, you'll wrap your head around it sooner or later. Just don't expect anything to work like 3rd edition, because it won't.