[PF] Bards with Greatswords

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I'm currently interested in playing a melee-based bard. I was curious as to how spellcasting works if the bard uses a two-handed weapon like a greatsword or falchion. I know you have to have at least one hand free to cast a spell. If you wield a greatsword and then try to cast a spell, can you cast the spell and still "hold on" to the greatsword with the other hand but can't do stuff like attack with it until you're done with the spell, at which point you put your hand back on the weapon, or do you basically drop the weapon and have to pick it up after you're done?

Am I just better off using a one-handed weapon like a longsword in two hands so I ignore this issue?

[deuxhero]

You can hold, but not wield, a 2 handed weapon in one hand. It is a free action to switch between holding a weapon 1 handed and 2 handed.

Remove hand>Cast Spell>Return hand is pretty standard.

[Popertop]

Also, I think I remember seeing a sonic type of weapon that bards can play their music through, maybe complete adventurer or complete scoundrel?

[Keneth]

You can hold on to the weapon if you cast the spell with one hand, as mentioned above. You can even cast a swift-action spell and then grip the weapon again and attack with it. Still, most bards aren't very proficient at casting and fighting at the same time anyway, and making a melee bard, while fun, is generally a good way to get pommeled. :smallbiggrin:

[Engine]

You could take the Arcane Duelist archetype: the hand holding the bonded weapon you get at 5th level could be used for somatic components when you cast spells.

[Psyren]

You can hold on to the weapon if you cast the spell with one hand, as mentioned above. You can even cast a swift-action spell and then grip the weapon again and attack with it. Still, most bards aren't very proficient at casting and fighting at the same time anyway, and making a melee bard, while fun, is generally a good way to get pommeled. :smallbiggrin:

Making a bard deadly in melee is actually easy, particularly if 3.5 material is allowed. But even with PF-only, archetypes like Dervish Dancer, Savage Skald and Daredevil can boost their ability in this regard.

[Engine]

You can hold on to the weapon if you cast the spell with one hand, as mentioned above. You can even cast a swift-action spell and then grip the weapon again and attack with it. Still, most bards aren't very proficient at casting and fighting at the same time anyway, and making a melee bard, while fun, is generally a good way to get pommeled. :smallbiggrin:

That's entirely not true. I played a PF-only Bard with the Arcane Duelist archetype and it was deadly: the Bard spell list is nice, and the Bard is a great buffer. And most buffing spells apply to the Bard, too.

[Marlowe]

You'd be better off with a Glaive or Guisarme. You have d6 hit dice. You want reach. A longspear would be fine and wouldn't require a feat tax.

[Engine]

You'd be better off with a Glaive or Guisarme. You have d6 hit dice. You want reach. A longspear would be fine and wouldn't require a feat tax.

In PF the Bard has a D8 for HD.

[Keneth]

Making a bard deadly in melee is actually easy, particularly if 3.5 material is allowed. But even with PF-only, archetypes like Dervish Dancer, Savage Skald and Daredevil can boost their ability in this regard.

That's entirely not true. I played a PF-only Bard with the Arcane Duelist archetype and it was deadly: the Bard spell list is nice, and the Bard is a great buffer. And most buffing spells apply to the Bard, too.

I was not arguing the "deadliness" of such a build (it can be very effective and quite fun actually), just the squishiness of one. In our campaigns, most of the time, you don't have any time to pre-buff yourself (or your allies), which means you either have to attack and risk getting clobbered or spend most of the encounter buffing, which kind of defeats the purpose of a melee build. A magus generally fills this role much better.

[Engine]

I was not arguing the "deadliness" of such a build (it can be very effective and quite fun actually), just the squishiness of one. In our campaigns, most of the time, you don't have any time to pre-buff yourself (or your allies), which means you either have to attack and risk getting clobbered or spend most of the encounter buffing, which kind of defeats the purpose of a melee build. A magus generally fills this role much better.

The Magus is as squishy as a Bard without spells. Yes, the spells you should cast before combat. By the way if you're talking about damage dealing, yes, the Magus is better. But the Bard isn't out there trying to outdamage it, anyway.

[deuxhero]

Magus is slightly less squishy on account of eventually getting better armor.

[Engine]

Magus is slightly less squishy on account of eventually getting better armor.

An Arcane Duelist (which is, IMHO, the best archetype for a melee Bard) could get better armor, too. Anyway, at higher levels (the levels when you get the proficiencies) AC isn't the best form of protection.

[Chained Birds]

I've enjoyed Savage Skald/Devish and using a Goblin with the "Roll With It" Feat. So even if my Inspire only works on me (at x2), on a Crit, I at least can grant a Morale Bonus to my buddies that can see how awesome I am. And if the enemy Charges me or strikes me for good damage, I can do a skill check to potentially avoid all damage and avoid Full-Attacks... Though I've yet to find something to grant immunity to the Staggered Condition.

Oh, and don't forget that Bardic Spell goodness for illusory support and other fun utility stuff.

[Keneth]

The Magus is as squishy as a Bard without spells. Yes, the spells you should cast before combat. By the way if you're talking about damage dealing, yes, the Magus is better. But the Bard isn't out there trying to outdamage it, anyway.
I'm talking about the fact that a magus can cast and attack in the same round, therefore largely eliminating the need to buff beforehand. The damage factor isn't really that much of a factor here and as far as spells go, both magi and bards have a pretty decent arcane selection.


Magus is slightly less squishy on account of eventually getting better armor.
Actually, most magi don't wear heavy armor and even if they did, Armor Class becomes less relevant at higher levels, so getting better proficiency doesn't make a difference.

[Psyren]

I'm talking about the fact that a magus can cast and attack in the same round, therefore largely eliminating the need to buff beforehand.

Bards can too (later), and at early levels can sing and attack in the same round instead (BP is a swift in Pathfinder.)



Actually, most magi don't wear heavy armor and even if they did, Armor Class becomes less relevant at higher levels, so getting better proficiency doesn't make a difference.

Here again archetypes are a factor. AD Bards get HAP (and casting in heavy armor) at 10th level, compared to a Magus' 13.

Not saying that a Bard is necessarily as good at gishing as a Magus, but with the right archetypes, it's not far behind either.

[Keneth]

Bards can too (later), and at early levels can sing and attack in the same round instead (BP is a swift in Pathfinder.) Bardic performance is standard action from the get go, move action at 7th, and swift action only at 13th level. Also last I checked a bard can't cast and attack in the same round (not counting quickened spells). What am I missing? :smallconfused:


Here again archetypes are a factor. AD Bards get HAP (and casting in heavy armor) at 10th level, compared to a Magus' 13. Like I said, AC quickly loses relevance at higher levels. Both a magus and a bard should be able to do just fine with a celestial or elven chain.

[Engine]

I'm talking about the fact that a magus can cast and attack in the same round, therefore largely eliminating the need to buff beforehand. The damage factor isn't really that much of a factor here and as far as spells go, both magi and bards have a pretty decent arcane selection.

I partly disagree. Of course it's true that a Magus could cast while attacking, but I feel that you're forgetting something. Spells like Haste should be cast during the first round of combat, and most of the times during the first round of combat you're not in melee range. That means that as a Magus you could charge to close with the enemy, or cast a spell.
The same is true for defensive spells like Mirror Image or Blur: you could cast them before combat, or during combat using actions or going in melee without them.

So: it's true that as a Magus you could cast your buffs while attacking, but then you're partly wasting the power of Spell Combat (the chance to use it with Spellstrike) and risking, at least during the first rounds of combat, because you're not buffed and relying only on your AC and HP.

Of course I'm not saying that Spell Combat is useless or that the Magus is a sub-par class compared to the Bard. What I'm saying is that both classes are fragile and should enter melee with defensive spells on them to be able to survive, and that using Spell Combat for that isn't so useful because you need to be close to the enemy so I don't think that the Magus is tougher than the Bard.

[Psyren]

Bardic performance is standard action from the get go, move action at 7th, and swift action only at 13th level. Also last I checked a bard can't cast and attack in the same round (not counting quickened spells). What am I missing? :smallconfused:

Quickened spells are what I was referring to.
Messed up on Bardic Performance.



Like I said, AC quickly loses relevance at higher levels. Both a magus and a bard should be able to do just fine with a celestial or elven chain.

Perhaps, but casting in adamantine full-plate is nice at level 10.

[Keneth]

What I'm saying is that both classes are fragile and should enter melee with defensive spells on them to be able to survive, and that using Spell Combat for that isn't so useful because you need to be close to the enemy so I don't think that the Magus is tougher than the Bard.
Yeah, it'd be nice if you had time to buff beforehand. But how often does that happen for you? Because cases like that are far and few in any of our campaigns. In an ideal case where you didn't have to buff during actual combat, a bard comes close to a magus, especially as they become high-level characters, but in a more likely case where you're thrown in the thick of things before you have time to prepare, a magus shines.

It is true that if you roll good on your initiative, you're likely not gonna be using spell combat on your first round (or you may at great risk to yourself). But that's just one round out of maybe 5-10 where you'll be using it every time.

In my experience that puts them miles apart at lower levels when the battlefield can't be so easily controlled. I've played both a magus and a melee bard (arcane duelist), and the magus fared far better until after 7th level when 3rd level spells become available and there's enough gold to buy some solid equipment.

[Engine]

Yeah, it'd be nice if you had time to buff beforehand. But how often does that happen for you? Because cases like that are far and few in any of our campaigns. In an ideal case where you didn't have to buff during actual combat, a bard comes close to a magus, especially as they become high-level characters, but in a more likely case where you're thrown in the thick of things before you have time to prepare, a magus shines.

Most of the times: at low levels, use of scouting skills (Stealth & Perception, mostly) could let you prepare before a combat starts. At higher levels, judicious use of the Divination school is invaluable. Of course this is just anecdotal evidence, because if you have a railroading-type of DM trying to anticipate the enemy could prove difficult. Anyway, there are a lot of times when you could buff your character without knowing beforehand you will face enemies: if you're in a dungeon, about to open a door, well...maybe there is nothing behind it, but most of the times you'll find something.


It is true that if you roll good on your initiative, you're likely not gonna be using spell combat on your first round (or you may at great risk to yourself). But that's just one round out of maybe 5-10 where you'll be using it every time.

Spell Combat is great. What I'm trying to say is that I think it would be wasted to cast buffing and defensive spells.


In my experience that puts them miles apart at lower levels when the battlefield can't be so easily controlled. I've played both a magus and a melee bard (arcane duelist), and the magus fared far better until after 7th level when 3rd level spells become available and there's enough gold to buy some solid equipment.

Battlefield could be controlled at every level, but at low levels both classes have few options to protect themselves (maybe the Magus is better because she has Shield). At higher levels, when Divination magic become accessible and you have a lot of defensive options with both classes your character could more easily prepare herself beforehand.

By the way, of course the Magus will fare better in regard to damage dealing, but I'm not talking about that: I'm talking about the squishyness of both classes, and I feel that both of them share similar defensive capabilities.

[deuxhero]

Actually, most magi don't wear heavy armor and even if they did, Armor Class becomes less relevant at higher levels, so getting better proficiency doesn't make a difference.

Hence "slightly".

[Keneth]

Most of the times: at low levels, use of scouting skills (Stealth & Perception, mostly) could let you prepare before a combat starts.

If you're in a dungeon, about to open a door, well...maybe there is nothing behind it, but most of the times you'll find something.

At higher levels, when Divination magic become accessible, your character could more easily prepare herself beforehand.
Your adventures must be horribly simple and straightforward if that actually works for you. If you were playing in our games, you will have just wasted a bunch of spells that you're gonna desperately need later on. :smallbiggrin:

Then again, that's how a lot of the groups seem to play D&D. A bunch of power-mongering adventurers and monsters lurking behind every corner. But now I'm just stereotyping...


Spell Combat is great. What I'm trying to say is that I think it would be wasted to cast buffing and defensive spells.
That's oversimplifying matters, you cast the spell that serves you best at any given moment. If the number of enemies is small and the battle bound to be short, then it might be wasteful. Otherwise, a defensive spell can serve you much better than killing the closest mook.


I feel that both of them share similar defensive capabilities. They do share them, and are potentially just as tough, but they are far from equally adept at them.

[Engine]

Your adventures must be horribly simple and straightforward if that actually works for you. If you were playing in our games, you will have just wasted a bunch of spells that you're gonna desperately need later on. :smallbiggrin:

Then again, that's how a lot of the groups seem to play D&D. A bunch of power-mongering adventurers and monsters lurking behind every corner. But now I'm just stereotyping...

I truly do not know what you're trying to imply here, pal. Intelligence-gathering makes sense when you're out there risking your life.

[Spuddles]

Spending a round or two to put up mirror image and blur is a great way to save your skin. Glitterdust and slow are also great ways to reduce your squishiness, by hosing the enemy.

Nothing wrong with opening a combat up with a mass debuff.