Bard controversy

[ramza]

I have been thinking a lot about the usefulness of the bard class in d&d. As everyone knows, they are jack-of-all-trades but master of none. They have a good skill selection, a few exclusive abilities and can cast up to lv6 spells. It's nice playing a bard in low level campaigns or when being in a group.

 

My problem is what happens when one decides to solo a bard or to play a high level campaign (approximately level 15-20).

I tend to think that bards are a very good class for solo players (along with rangers and druids) since they can do almost anything and offer a big choice of roleplaying opportunities (due to their many skills). In low level campaigns, they should normally be fine and shouldn't have many problems in combat. However, I am wondering how would a bard fare against a high level wizard, fighter or even a dragon. Wizards have very powerful spells and warrior classes have a devastating BAB. Bards have none of these... just some average spells and fighting abilities... Is it even possible for a bard to beat such foes?

 

PS: In order to make them more efficient, I have given to the bard class a bonus metamagic or song feat every 5 levels, starting from level 5. What do you think of that change?

Edited November 12, 2007 by ramza

[Gorgon]

I think the concept of some tosser standing around playing a lute while the rest of the party fights the monster is ludicrous.

 

Other than that they have some interesting skills. Their advantage is versatility, unique spells and a wide range of skills.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Gorgon

[Enoch]

I think the concept of some tosser standing around playing a lute while the rest of the party fights the monster is ludicrous.

 

Other than that they have some interesting skills. Their advantage is versatility, unique spells and a wide range of skills.

I've been toying with the idea of creating a campaign world without divine spellcasting, where bards (most of whom are church cantors) are the only source of supernatural healing, besides some rare alchemy-related stuff. It'd be a spec project at this point, as I don't have a regular group to play with, but it's intruiging enough to spend a few subway rides thinking about. It'd require a pretty thorough re-working of the core rules, though, and I don't even own any of the 3rd ed. rulebooks.

 

Generally, though, I agree that the image of a bard in battle is pretty laughable.

[ramza]

Monte Cook's alternate bard class in Book of Eldritch Might II seems the best way to go... However, I haven't bought the book yet to get all the details... I like however the idea of having a completely different spellcasting system (spellsongs).

 

http://www.montecook.com/mpress_BOEM2.html

Edited November 12, 2007 by ramza

[Tale]

DnD Bards aren't literal Bards. They're not just "some tosser standing around playing a lute." They're supernatural beings, akin to Sorcerers, who express their magic through music. I think the concept of some tosser standing around yelling "OH GOD HELP US" while the party fights a monster to be pretty ludicrous too. Until the god comes in and decides Mass Heal is appropriate.

 

The class is flawed. But only because the class is Rogue/Sorcerer with music being thrown in just to justify him being his own class, and if DnD treated such combinations better he'd be redundant. I'd like to see a Rogue/Wizard turn out as well.

 

If you're having trouble with a Bard being viable, talk to your DM. If you are the DM, talk to the player of the Bard. See what the precise problem the Bard is having is. A Bard always seems to me to be a highly social class. I personally can't justify putting a Bard into a position where he has to fight a Wizard or Warrior alone. That's the kind of situation a Bard should talk his way out of.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Tale

[Gorgon]

Well, yeah, I can\t help thinking thats just a way to explain away some tosser standing around playing a lute. Lutes and combat don\t mix, not with a deity thrown in the mix either.

 

It\s just not very high いｎ the coolness factor.

 

There are already several prestige classes and class combos that enable a ￥jack of all trades ￥class, so all thats left are some spells and the rather silly bard songs, just my opinion.

 

PS> currently stuck with Japanese text formatting and unable to switch back.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

I'd have thought in pen and paper bards could be very efffective and lots more fun than other classes, because you can be much more creative than in a CRPG. As for some dude singing, I agree that a lute seems odd, but think of that scene in Apocalypse Now with the Wagner playing. I bet that was the aircav's bard platoon at work.

[ramza]

The class is flawed. But only because the class is Rogue/Sorcerer with music being thrown in just to justify him being his own class, and if DnD treated such combinations better he'd be redundant. I'd like to see a Rogue/Wizard turn out as well.

 

If you're having trouble with a Bard being viable, talk to your DM. If you are the DM, talk to the player of the Bard. See what the precise problem the Bard is having is. A Bard always seems to me to be a highly social class. I personally can't justify putting a Bard into a position where he has to fight a Wizard or Warrior alone. That's the kind of situation a Bard should talk his way out of.

 

 

The point of that thread is to see how we can improve the bard class. One of my suggestions is to give him bonus feats every 5 levels. I also think it would be interesting to use the Monte Cook's spellsong casting system (while it doesn't seem very innovative, it does have the merit of making the bard something unique, instead of a simple rogue/sorcerer).

 

Another interesting thing is how we can trink with the bardic song. Obsidian went in the right directions in the way it implemented that feature. I have a couple of ideas about that but I will post them some other time.

 

For the time being, my main problem is that I don't know how viable a bard is. No matter if he faces alone or not one powerful enemy, I still have doubts that a bard can survive such a battle. A warrior will cut him in pieces, a wizard will dispel his magical defenses and then cast finger of death or something like that... You cannot deny that bards are ill-equipped for high-level combat... Should they be dropped altogether, or should they be improved?

[Tale]

For the time being, my main problem is that I don't know how viable a bard is. No matter if he faces alone or not one powerful enemy, I still have doubts that a bard can survive such a battle. A warrior will cut him in pieces, a wizard will dispel his magical defenses and then cast finger of death or something like that... You cannot deny that bards are ill-equipped for high-level combat... Should they be dropped altogether, or should they be improved?

Is this something you're experiencing or just theorycrafting? All of this should be more a testament to the viability of your GM over anything. A don't see how a Rogue is any more viable in this theorycrafting. The Wizard won't even need to dispel a Rogue's magical defenses before it's finger o' death time. And a Warrior shouldn't have problems with the Rogue once the Rogue is his target.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Tale

[ramza]

It's just theorycrafting... Indeed, a rogue may experience the same problems as a bard... however, rogues get some special abilities starting from level 10 which allow them to reduce or negate the effects of magical attacks... They can also hide and sneak attack when they face fighters... In a sense, they are more viable than bards...

 

The problem is that Bards are too much average... they should really get some nice song abilities to balance things... that is why I am thinking of improving those...

[Musopticon?]

The problem is that along the way WotC decided they should merge minnesingers and skalds and never worked out how that actually plays out in a rpg that's so combat oriented.

[ramza]

I just remembered that Rogues and Bards get the use magic device skill... Do you believe that can make the difference in a high level campaign? They can potentially use any 8th or 9th level spell scroll... Time Stop, Finger of Death anyone?

 

I don't know though how much that skill may raise their chances of survival...

[J.E. Sawyer]

Bards can be very useful unless you're Count N00bingt0n of Nub Manor.

[Aram]

Bards can be very useful unless you're Count N00bingt0n of Nub Manor.

 

That's totally what I named my bard character in NWN2.

[Musopticon?]

Bards have one big pro, in a setting so "multiversed", they're the only class who can go to battle "armed" with a Stratocaster.

[Joseph Bulock]

I'm hoping the hype their putting into 4 ED will live up, and the classes will actually have more define roles to take care of that are actually fun to do as well. The bard is good enough at what he does, which is buffing groups and secondary healing, but it's not fun in most tabletop games, so few people play the bard as intended, and he instead becomes a rouge lite without a back stab.

[Gromnir]

skillz is extra important in Gromnir d&d campaigns... not too many players voluntarily play low int fighters or clerics in our game sessions. all you got is concentration or climb? too bad, 'cause Gromnir warned you 'least a half dozen times that such a route were gonna lead to frustration.

 

bards is buffers and skillz monkeys that if built right can also be very effective in a combat support role. personally, the concept o' the bard offends Gromnir sensibilities. the "minstrels" we has known is typically hygienically challenged dreamers who stink o' failure and mj, so we got 0 urge to rp such a character save as some sorta comedic bit o' buffonery. nevertheless, the d&d bard is often the most useful member of gaming sessions in which Gomnir is dm... which is kinda ironic given our overt loathing for the bard.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Cantousent]

That's the way I prefer my campaigns. I make players recite poetry or sing or hum or some such in order to simulate music. It's usually good for some laughs during the game. Skills add a whole new facet to the game, and it's a shame to think some folks shun them. I don't mind 4th edition trying to get a handle on skills, because it's a tough concept to teach a lot of players. ...But if skills are important, skill based classes get a huge bump. Not that it overpowers them. It just evens the playing field.

[ramza]

Is this something you're experiencing or just theorycrafting? All of this should be more a testament to the viability of your GM over anything.

 

Do you mean that only a bad GM would make a bard player face a high level opponent?

 

I know that a bard should not try to compare with a pure fighter or wizard. However, I am still wondering why the latter classes can survive a solo high level campaign/combat and why the former cannot. That means that the Bard is flawed more or less... Any of the base class proposed by the PhB should be able to live up to the challenge...

 

I may be underestimating the bard nevertheless... They have the Use magic device skill and this may turn the odds in his favor...

[Tale]

Is this something you're experiencing or just theorycrafting? All of this should be more a testament to the viability of your GM over anything.

 

Do you mean that only a bad GM would make a bard player face a high level opponent?

I mean only a bad GM would make an encounter without accounting for if the player can beat it.

 

I am still wondering why the latter classes can survive a solo high level campaign/combat and why the former cannot.

Because they both can only if the GM isn't an **** or horrible.

 

Any of the base class proposed by the PhB should be able to live up to the challenge...

WHAT CHALLENGE?! You haven't even spoken of a challenge other than some theorized "high level campaign." If it's not designed to be beaten by the class facing it, chances are that the class may not be able to beat it. Doesn't matter if it's a Fighter, Wizard, or a Bard. You throw a Fighter into a high-level challenge that consists of tons of traps, he's going to have a problem with it. If your Wizard has to fight in a Wild Magic area, he might have some troubles. Same as if you throw a Bard into a ring with a raging berserker, he may theoretically also have trouble. However, at the same time, he does have spells that if chosen appropriately can help him overcome it.

[Musopticon?]

Ramza seems to think that "high level campaign"=lol, pure nonstop vampire ancient action!, which I for one think is a bit of an overstatement. It's true that bards are not a class for stacking damage values or generally tanking everything, but they are a skillsmachine and a good dm makes the a party use those as well. Not to mention, in an enviroment that's oriented for lore, infiltration, etc a bard performs excellently, but throw your regular fighter(16)-weaponsmaster(21) there and he'll be completely lost.

[ramza]

Both of you are right, I have a misconception of "high level campaigns". They are not just hack and slash games... Only bad GMs would create challenges that cannot be beaten by the players. Moreover, Bards offer a lot of flexibility with their numerous skills. Thus, there are many rp opportunities... They have more chances of finding a way out of problems than other classes...

 

My whole theorycrafting crumbles to dust. However, thinking in terms of one-on-one combat (ie: Contest of Champions module for NWN1) or pure hack and slash campaigns, what would be the odds of survival for a Bard? As I have said, Bards are ill-suited for combat, thus the need for me to improve them... I try to achieve some balance in which every class should have approximately the same chances to win against a character of another class. As stated earlier, I tend to think that fighters and wizards would have no problems dealing with a single bard. On the other hand, bards wouldn't be able to stand against a high BAB or a 9th level spell. Am I wrong? What can we do to fix this? Add more feats like I have done?

[Tale]

I don't see how feats could do what you want. You'd probably need to shift them closer to an existing class. Give them some sneak attack or higher level spells.

Edited November 16, 2007 by Tale

[Walsingham]

Or they could use some roleplaying to come up with new ways to approach the problem. Do they REALLY have to kill the guuy? If they do, can't they poison him? Or dig a heffalump trap? Or play really bad music outside his castle until he goes crazy and surrenders?

[steelfiredragon]

their useful, but after the lvl 6 spells id consider mc with something else, i still wont excell at anything, but i will survive longer.

 

 

past that, i can not really play one