Do Bards Suck?

Ishmayl-Retired · April 17, 2007, 08:02:12 AM

In response to the current poll, the_taken has posted a link to a bard that looks pretty neat to me, but I'm not a rules lawyer or crunchspert by any means, so I'll let you guys take a look at this and tell me what you think.

Go Here For a New Kind of Bard

RedBullBear · April 17, 2007, 11:52:51 AM

IMHO Bards served a purpose back in the day that was in many ways very foreign to us now. People seem to take their listed abilities and try to make something out of them which isn't really true to their spirit.
Also, in my experience youngish (ego challenged) male players tend to project a little homophobia/gheyness onto them since the Bard frequently is associated with enterainment/peformance. Short of American Idol and Karaoke we don't have strong traditions of that in our current society.

I don't think Bard's suck.

<edit> I mean the question itself 'Do Bard's suck?' has a bit of homophobic twang to it. Do Bards suck what? and why is sucking that bad? ;)

that's my word :cool:

Epic Meepo · April 17, 2007, 03:17:07 PM

In my experience, bards are maligned because they can't do anything particularly cool in combat. They don't hit really hard and they don't have very many combat spells. But that's not what bards are supposed to do. Bards are supposed to amplify other characters existing abilities. They allow the other warriors hit harder and provide a bit of healing to the other spellcasters with low hit points.

At higher levels, bards also prevent bad guys from incapacitating their comrades by breaking enchantments left and right. Considering the number of times I've seen high-level villains dominate the party barbarian and feeblemind the party wizard, I'd have to say that the song of freedom is one of the most useful high-level abilities in the game. In a fair number of encounters, the bard can actually keep more characters in the fight than a cleric of equal level.

If you want to play the guy who single-handedly deals more damage or casts more effective spells, the bard isn't for you. But if you want to see your party succeed as a group (and your party already has at least one primary spellcaster and one primary warrior) the bard class is a very reasonable choice. Case in point, construct any front-line fighter you want, then imagine how much more effective that fighter would be with the help of a bard cohort for buffing, healing, and quickly breaking enchantments.

That being said, the bard could use a few more options for specialization, since currently, almost all bards are identical. The option to forfeit a bit of singing ability for a small amount of sneak attack dice or trapfinding would be nice. (Arguably, bards should already have both of these, since 2nd edition bards had similar abilities.) Also, it wouldn't hurt for bards to have evasion, wild empathy, and/or other minor but situationally-useful talents.

As for that variant bard linked above, I think its probably a bit of an overcompensation. If you want a character with that much spell power, just play a cleric or wizard and pick spells that emulate the benefits of bard songs. A bard isn't supposed to compete with clerics and wizards in raw spell power the way that variant bard wants to do. That bard class doesn't seem too unbalanced, but neither does it seem particularly bard-like.

brainface · April 17, 2007, 05:42:13 PM

Quote from: srdA bard of 12th level or higher with 15 or more ranks in a Perform skill can use music or poetics to create an effect equivalent to the break enchantment spell (caster level equals the characterÃ¢,¬,,¢s bard level). Using this ability requires 1 minute of uninterrupted concentration and music, and it functions on a single target within 30 feet

Case in point, construct any front-line fighter you want, then imagine how much more effective that fighter would be with the help of a bard cohort for buffing, healing, and quickly breaking enchantments.[/quote]
I don't think song of freedom works the way you think, and a cleric can heal much, much better. Inspire courage probably comes out ahead of everyone else though, since they can use it pretty much every encounter and it's a fairly high bonus that probably stacks with everyone else's buffs.

RedBullBear · April 17, 2007, 05:57:06 PM

So...

is this a discussion about whether the concept of a bard as a character sucks?

or...

the abilities/powers/feats/magic that some game designers assigned to the bard as a whole vs. other characters suck?

brainface · April 17, 2007, 06:03:51 PM

QuoteSo...

is this a discussion about whether the concept of a bard as a character sucks?

or...

the abilities/powers/feats/magic that some game designers assigned to the bard as a whole vs. other characters suck?

I think the concept is awesome and the mechanics questionable. I don't think their can be that much debate over the concept--that's pretty much an opinion. If someone has no fun playing a bard, then the concept sucks for them i guess?

RedBullBear · April 17, 2007, 06:10:29 PM

Quote from: brainfaceI think the concept is awesome and the mechanics questionable. I don't think their can be that much debate over the concept--that's pretty much an opinion. If someone has no fun playing a bard, then the concept sucks for them i guess?

I think the concept is based on the historic bard: (from Dictionary.com) - a person who composed and recited epic or heroic poems, often while playing the harp, lyre, or the like.

I assume the stuff they were given in RPGs was to make them somehow useful in a dungeon crawl. Cause if all they did in the dungeon was stroke that lyre and talk in iambic pentameter then they would definately suck the big suck.

Ã¢,,¢Â« sneak, sneak, sneak past the sleeping black dragon Ã¢,,¢Â«

Bill Volk · April 17, 2007, 06:50:19 PM

I think the kind of players who play bards are happy to do so even if the class isn't the most powerful. They tend to be "Johnnies," players who want to express something rather than prove something. They enjoy roleplaying and such. Even in combat, they get a kick out of coming out on top when they're at a disadvantage.

I do agree that the Perform skill is too narrow in 3.5 and is crampin' the style of bards everywhere.

brainface · April 17, 2007, 06:55:23 PM

Well, i don't know what the historic druid would have done in a dungeon crawl, exactly. Or the historic cleric, for that matter. O:)

Of course, fairy tales and myths have singers doing all sorts of things--Orpheus, the Pied Piper, etc. That's probably a large part of the basis as well.

Quote from: googleGoogleOrpheus was the son of Calliope and either Oeagrus or Apollo. He was the greatest musician and poet of Greek myth, whose songs could charm wild beasts and coax even rocks and trees into movement. He was one of the Argonauts, and when the Argo had to pass the island of the Sirens, it was Orpheus' music which prevented the crew from being lured to destruction.

There we go, charm monster, animate objects, and countersong. :)

Stargate525 · April 17, 2007, 07:55:34 PM

Quote from: Epic MeepoThat being said, the bard could use a few more options for specialization, since currently, almost all bards are identical. The option to forfeit a bit of singing ability for a small amount of sneak attack dice or trapfinding would be nice. (Arguably, bards should already have both of these, since 2nd edition bards had similar abilities.) Also, it wouldn't hurt for bards to have evasion, wild empathy, and/or other minor but situationally-useful talents.

I've always pictured bards having a familiar. I wouldn't mind seeing the Bard get some nice goodies with a familiar that other arcane casters can't. What those are is beyond me, so don't ask.

Hibou · April 17, 2007, 10:22:43 PM

Quote from: RedBullBearIMHO Bards served a purpose back in the day that was in many ways very foreign to us now. People seem to take their listed abilities and try to make something out of them which isn't really true to their spirit.
Also, in my experience youngish (ego challenged) male players tend to project a little homophobia/gheyness onto them since the Bard frequently is associated with enterainment/peformance. Short of American Idol and Karaoke we don't have strong traditions of that in our current society.

I don't think Bard's suck.

<edit> I mean the question itself 'Do Bard's suck?' has a bit of homophobic twang to it. Do Bards suck what? and why is sucking that bad? ;)

that's my word :cool:

No other representations... except rockstars. Who doesn't want to wear leather pants, no shirt, long hair, and scream into a microphone?

Epic Meepo · April 18, 2007, 12:12:51 AM

Quote from: srdUsing this ability requires 1 minute of uninterrupted concentration and music, and it functions on a single target within 30 feet

:-| Um. That was a test of your knowledge about the bard. Yeah. ;)

On the other hand, in an ironic twist of fate, a cleric of mine died just about an hour ago because there was no bard in the party. If a countersong had stymied the sonic effects that were repeatedly stunning our rogue, we'd have dropped our opponent long before any of our characters were even at risk. So a 1st-level bard could literally have saved my 12th-level cleric's life in that last encounter.

(Coutersong: :band: )

Matt Larkin (author) · April 18, 2007, 09:53:06 AM

While countersong would give a second roll, at the level 1, the check would hardly be much better than a 12th levelers saving throw. But a bard of the same level would almost have guaranteed success, so it's still a cool ability.

snakefing · April 18, 2007, 12:35:24 PM

The bard concept is an interesting one. I think it is a ridiculously powerful class in certain ways, but rather weak in the kind of adventure that we usually think of in D&D.

A single, low level bard could fairly easily sway the opinion of a whole village of low level commoners, using little more than his silver tongue (bluff and diplomacy type skills) and some strategic use of magical enhancements (like charm, fascinate). Not a lot of use for killing monsters, or defeating high level opponents, but in everyday life that is a really, really powerful ability. What king wouldn't like to have a small army of bards roaming the kingdom, helping to ensure that his folk are loyal and hard-working? What better way to put down a rebellion (or foment one as the case may be)? Commoners are the lifeblood of any kingdom, and the ability to sway and control them is huge.

But a lot of D&D is motivated by the idea of personal glory. Every character likes the chance to shine - to put it all on the line and come out victorious over their foe. Neither the basic concept of the bard, nor the mechanical implementation, really supports that kind of role very well. I suppose with some thought one could contrive a scenario or two. But that tends to leave the bard in a useful supporting role most of the time - and many people feel that sucks (for them, anyway).

Quote from: Epic MeepoThat being said, the bard could use a few more options for specialization, since currently, almost all bards are identical. The option to forfeit a bit of singing ability for a small amount of sneak attack dice or trapfinding would be nice. (Arguably, bards should already have both of these, since 2nd edition bards had similar abilities.) Also, it wouldn't hurt for bards to have evasion, wild empathy, and/or other minor but situationally-useful talents.

This is a generic weakness of the D&D structures for most classes. You have a fixed set of abilities gained in a fixed sequence, with comparatively little in the way of options. (Only fighter really breaks the mold, having a wide selection of bonus feat options and few restrictions on the order in which they are taken.) Most classes are built around a single central archetype and are given abilities to implement that archetype.

If you want a different bard archetype, then you need a prestige class, or some variant base class. They'll be glad to sell you a source book with other options.

Epic Meepo · April 18, 2007, 12:36:38 PM

Quote from: Phoenix KnightWhile countersong would give a second roll, at the level 1, the check would hardly be much better than a 12th levelers saving throw. But a bard of the same level would almost have guaranteed success, so it's still a cool ability.

By "1st level bard," I meant any character of the party's level (12th) who had taken even a single bard level in addition to anything else. Since countersong is based on a Perform check instead of bard level, their song would have been good enough to give the rogue an awesome second chance on her save.

(If you don't mind having only a few of the more basic songs, bard levels actually scale pretty well when multiclassing. I wouldn't recommend taking bard levels just for the sake of having bard levels, but if you need to multiclass into a skill-intensive class to qualify for a prestige class, bard isn't as bad a choice as some folks make it out to be. It's less useful than, say, a beguiler, but as far as Core classes go, it isn't bad.)

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

Do Bards Suck?

Ishmayl-Retired

RedBullBear

Epic Meepo

brainface

RedBullBear

brainface

RedBullBear

Bill Volk

brainface

Stargate525

Hibou

Epic Meepo

Matt Larkin (author)

snakefing

Epic Meepo