Why do so many think bards are bad?

[CyberThread]

Where did the bard get a reputation for being a bad class?

[Tulya]

I don't think it's so much that people think bards are inherently bad as that the original concept and implementation are disadvantageous given the way the metagame took shape. Bards are versatile characters in a game that rewards specialization. Particularly specialization in spellcasting, which by itself is incredibly versatile and powerful. But even from an optimization standpoint, there's still room for classes that don't do everything. The handbooks for every class in every tier attest to that.

Edit: Erm, where "do everything" generally refers to having full spellcasting from one of the expansive core class lists, especially with splatbook support.

[SowZ]

Probably because people compare the fighting aspect of bards to a Fighter or Barbarian, the spellcasting to a Wizard or Cleric, the skill monkeyness to a rogue, etc. etc. without looking at the class as a whole and how the Bard's various skills can synergize with each other.

[Devronq]

Kinda along the same line as Tuyla said, bards are a jack of all trades but master of none. The can heal but not as nearly as well as other people they can arcane magic but cant even be blaster type, they cant fight as well as a melee type. They were made to be a substitute for any other class but they are soo poor at those things they fail to function as what they were meant to do. Not that an optimised bard cant be great because it certainly can it just not good to spread your self so thin.

Also note there are other classes that do this job (jack of all trades) way better like the chameleon for instance.

[nedz]

In core, and even more in 3.0, they are quite dull. Out of the box they are just a support character. With optimisation, or even just creative play, and with splat book support; they become awesome.

[Spuddles]

Bards from older editions required high stats but didnt give you a whole lot in return. Wasnt a whole lot of optimization you could wring out of a foppish, singing class.

[Raendyn]

Where did the bard get a reputation for being a bad class?

I didn't even know bards had such a reputation....

The worst thing I can think about them is that they are worse than the top tiers, and thats it.

[Gwendol]

I have no idea. Bards are awesome! In core they are a bit lackluster, but still far from bad. Outside of core they become one of the most versatile and fun classes to play in the entire game. PrC's are great, spells and songs varied, meaningful ACF's, etc.

[Komatik]

I don't think it's so much that people think bards are inherently bad as that the original concept and implementation are disadvantageous given the way the metagame took shape. Bards are versatile characters in a game that rewards specialization.


In core, and even more in 3.0, they are quite dull. Out of the box they are just a support character. With optimisation, or even just creative play, and with splat book support; they become awesome.

This is pretty much on point, I think. They used to be bad, but with the new edition and all the delicious splats with Dragonfire Inspiration, new spells and other fun stuff they become more solid. Still what they are, just solid instead of kinda lackluster.

[SowZ]

Kinda along the same line as Tuyla said, bards are a jack of all trades but master of none. The can heal but not as nearly as well as other people they can arcane magic but cant even be blaster type, they cant fight as well as a melee type. They were made to be a substitute for any other class but they are soo poor at those things they fail to function as what they were meant to do. Not that an optimised bard cant be great because it certainly can it just not good to spread your self so thin.

Also note there are other classes that do this job (jack of all trades) way better like the chameleon for instance.

On the contrary, they do exactly what they were meant to do. Be good support characters. They buff the party, can do a modicum of healing, can fill any roll as it becomes needed, and be good skillmonkeys.

[Gwendol]

They were made to be a substitute for any other class but they are soo poor at those things they fail to function as what they were meant to do.
Also note there are other classes that do this job (jack of all trades) way better like the chameleon for instance.

I just don't think you've seen a competent bard in action. They are great at buffing, outstanding at bluffing and diplomancing. They make decent gishes and as such function reasonable well in combat.

[SowZ]

I just don't think you've seen a competent bard in action. They are great at buffing, outstanding at bluffing and diplomancing. They make decent gishes and as such function reasonable well in combat.

Not to mention their primary stat is the single most flexible stat in the game.

[Gwendol]

And that they are not that stat dependent!

[Gemini476]

If you want to see why the Bard is considered bad, you need to look at the AD&D Bard. It was pretty bad, but not as bad as some of the Kits that were released. It was a master of none even more so than the 3.5 Bard.
Of course, it seems like most gamers these days grew up with later editions, so the dislike is mostly inherited without understanding these days.

[AuraTwilight]

Because people don't seem to realize that the strength of a bard comes from filling in the holes in a group and freeing everyone else up to excel.

[Equilibria]

I think it´s Elan WHO said it best: we go down and sing at monsters, it´s a bit silly.

While I know that the bard can function well in a variety of situations I for one can´t get past the fluff.

This is an opinion shared by my Group and i´ve never seen one of them play a bard.

[SowZ]

Also, when your Bard 8 is giving everyone around you +12d6 damage to all their attacks, you will see what Bards are capable of doing better than everyone else. They are a master of one thing and that thing is buffing.

[Alleran]

Bards are obviously underpowered. With their mastery of narrative structure, they should be ruling the entire cosmos by now. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0821.html)

[Gwendol]

Also, when your Bard 8 is giving everyone around you +12d6 damage to all their attacks, you will see what Bards are capable of doing better than everyone else. They are a master of one thing and that thing is buffing.

SowZ, you are much too modest. A competent Bard 8 gives +12 to hit, and +12+12d6 damage to all attacks of his hasted band of adventurers.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

They sing against monsters... :smallsigh:

[Psyren]

I think Tulya, SowZ and nedz summed up the bard's PR problems admirably. (It's a bit ironic that the class that should be best at marketing anything gets such a bad rap.)

Anyway, I really like what Pathfinder did with them. You can, right out of the box and without multiclassing even once, build Bards of all stripes - the classic buffer, a deadly dance-battler, a primary caster/blaster/debuffer, a supporting healer, a sneaky trapfinder, or some combination of the above. In Pathfinder, you can have a whole party of Bard 20s where each one has a different combat role (a traveling band/troupe?)

[Segev]

SowZ, you are much too modest. A competent Bard 8 gives +12 to hit, and +12+12d6 damage to all attacks of his hasted band of adventurers.

How are you stacking Inspire Courage with Dragonfire Inspiration on a single Bard?

[Gwendol]

You have to songs running at once (or rather, start one, then the other and either use a weapon that keeps the song going or chance it and rely on the lingering effect).

[Dusk Eclipse]

Don't bard songs linger for 5 rounds or so after the bard stops it? If not I am sure there is a feat (lingering song IIRC) and proably a few magic items that help.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I think the biggest issue is that bards need splatbooks to be effective. In a core-only environment, the bonus from Inspire Courage is tiny. There's only one way to take actions while keeping up your music, and that's to be a singer. If you try to be a gish, you don't have great support for it. If you try to be a caster... well, you're like a sorcerer, but less so.

Bards need stuff like Words of Creation and Song of the Heart, Melodic Casting and Snowflake Wardance to do their job properly. (To say nothing of Dragonfire Inspiration, one of the greatest "wait, I get to do WHAT?" feats in the game).

[Tulya]

How are you stacking Inspire Courage with Dragonfire Inspiration on a single Bard?

As noted above, Dragonfire Inspiration is an optional substitution effect, and the effects of both sings persist for 5 rounds after cessation (10 with Lingering Song). Both effects can be active simultaneously under any RAW interpretation.

However, there are some arguments over its rules legality. Some interpret the general rule under Modifier stacking to forbid gaining both the +x morale damage bonus and the +xd6 elemental morale damage bonus. They view both effects as bonuses of the same type (morale), from the same source (inspire courage), that modify the same roll (attack damage roll), which would require that only the largest bonus be used. Under this interpretation, the +x to attack roll (to-hit) bonus still stacks, though.

There's also the much rarer view that the Same Effect with Different Results rule applies broadly, such that only one of any given source of effects can act at a time. This interpretation means that, for instance, if Resist Energy (acid) and Resist Energy (fire) are both cast on a target, only the most recently cast spell will confer energy resistance. If you accept this reading of the rules, then since Dragonfire Inspiration merely alters the effect of Inspire Courage while Inspire Courage remains the ability being used, only one could ever take effect at any given time.

I might spend too much time reading such arguments.

[Segev]

Ah, I somehow missed the part where you were relying on the song's finite residual duration so you could sing a second time. As long as DFI is an option you choose whether to apply or not each time you start singing, that should work...except I do think that the +1d6 morale would overlap with the +1 morale (both to damage), as they're both morale. It doesn't matter that they're from the same source; they're both "morale." (Unless DFI actually strips the "morale" type from it?)

[Dusk Eclipse]

Depends on the wording I guess, but even if you only get the to-hit bonus from Inspire Courage and the damage bonus from Dragonfire Inspiration it is still worth it.

[Feytalist]

I'm almost entirely certain there's a feat or ability that allows a bard to start a second bardic music use even while maintaining the first one. Combine Song?

Edit: Okay, that's Seeker of the Song, and only at 12th level or higher. But still.

[strider24seven]

As others have said so far, the Bard was pretty terrible in AD&D, requiring high stats and giving next to nothing in return - with the notable exception of Baldur's Gate II's implementation of the Blade. Haer'Daelis was a beast. But that is neither here nor there.

In 3.5, in Core, Bards are on the fairly low end of the spectrum. They are weak fighters, weak spellcasters (albeit with a good spell list), have a fairly acceptable skill list, and, with the exception of Inspire Courage, have weak class features. More or less, they were a rogue that traded 2 skill points per level, trapfinding, and sneak attack for a weak casting progression and Inspire Courage.

Once you start piling on splatbooks, though, bards are much more acceptable (imo, of course). Snowflake Wardance and Slippers of Battledancing, coupled with Song of the White Raven make them excellent melee fighters, while still being able to sing. Dragonfire Inspiration lets them pile on damage, and helps party members to boot. They also get an easy entry into Sublime Chord, which makes them terrific spellcasters as well. Bardic Knack makes them good skillmonkeys.

Inspire Greatness has some interesting TO applications, but most of those don't see much play at the table - with the possible exception of Inspire Greatness+Practiced Spellcaster for a +2 CL boost (really good, but not overpowering).

[Dusk Eclipse]

Easy entry? Dude Sublime Chord was designed with Bards in mind, all those othet shenanigans to enter without bard levels came AFTER the class.

[strider24seven]

Easy entry? Dude Sublime Chord was designed with Bards in mind, all those othet shenanigans to enter without bard levels came AFTER the class.

Hence why they have easy entry? :smallconfused:

[Roguenewb]

Ugh, the core bard. Just ugh. The core bard is so close to useless it makes my teeth hurt. All the numbers on a core bard are just too small. Not enough spells, HP, damage, skill points, anything. Just not enough of itself.

Once splat are online, well, bard becomes solid teir 3. Plus, with Sublime Chord, they are one of the best multiclassing base classes (along with the ToB guys and Ardent.)

[Amphetryon]

Given equal skill at Character building across your party, Bards are unlikely to be the "best" at anything unless they are the only example of that ability. Another party member will be a better melee combatant, or a better ranged combatant, or a better arcanist, or a better healer. Couple this with the fact that the most common Bard archetype is that of a party buffer, whose contributions are often measured by how much more effective others are while the Bard is around, and the Bard can feel very passive to play.

I've even had to argue with a couple of DMs, while playing Bards, that my contributions as a party buffer were equal to the others in the group and didn't warrant a reduction in my XP rewards because my contributions weren't as directly observable.

[Talionis]

Bards aren't tier 1 or tier 2, but that's okay, not too many classes are.

They are good buffers, but Wizards are probably still better.

They fit my playstyle. I like to buff. I like to fill holes and I like to optimize without breaking games. I seeing being a higher tier a great thing since they are harder for me to completely break into bonkers-ness.

So they might not be all powerful, but they are really fun to play and role play.

Plus singing isn't the only way to perform, you can be really creative on it and you should.

[Chronos]

Bards are not "master of none". Even in a core-only environment, they are the best at something: They're the best at the party face role. They have all of the social skills as class skills, plus plenty of points to spend on them; they have synergy with high Charisma; they have a bunch of spells that are good for interpersonal interactions; and they have several non-spell abilities that also help out.

Now, a lot of players don't like bothering with that aspect of the game, but in a way, that just makes bards even better: If there's a player in the party who wants to play a bard, that takes that burden off of everyone else, and all they have to do is keep quiet while the bard tries to persuade the duke to lend aid, or whatever.

[strider24seven]

Bards are not "master of none". Even in a core-only environment, they are the best at something: They're the best at the party face role. .

They are moderately acceptable as party faces.

Unfortunately, as with everything else... full casters do it better. Charm Person, Detect Thoughts, Dominate Person, Mindrape, and so on.

[Roguenewb]

Party Face is a dubious honor at best. In maybe 50% of campaigns it literally never, ever, matters, because it can't help you kill a dragon. In most of the rest, a DM won't let some ranks in diplomacy change the course of the campaign, so essentially you can give minor margincal benefits, slightly cheaper equiipment, a hireling for free. Still not terrible relevant. MAybe 5% of games are sandboxy enough with a rules-lawyery enough DM that being a party face is a truly relevant, powerfully helpful member of the party along the same level as "arcane caster" or "melee damage out put".

[Segev]

I know it's useful in Planescape! My paladin enjoys the role greatly.

[georgie_leech]

They are moderately acceptable as party faces.

Unfortunately, as with everything else... full casters do it better. Charm Person, Detect Thoughts, Dominate Person, Mindrape, and so on.

Uh... with the exception of Mind Rape (and if you're using that I think it's no longer about being the Face) Bards get all of those.

[strider24seven]

Uh... with the exception of Mind Rape (and if you're using that I think it's no longer about being the Face) Bards get all of those.

And how much later do bards get them?

[georgie_leech]

And how much later do bards get them?

Charm Person, one level; Detect thoughts, one level; Dominate Person, one level. Bards also get a number of Bard-specific Face spells, like Glibness, that other casters don't have access to at all. Meanwhile, his points in Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sense Motive can be used all day without worrying about them being dispelled or running out of uses, and between synergy bonuses and incentives to put points into CHA, are quite potent without needing to worry about the target being immune to Mind-affecting. The Face is a role the Bard does quite well.

[Gwendol]

And how much later do bards get them?

Bards can serve the role without the spells (that can be resisted). Diplomancing is what they do, reliably, without having to prepare spells and expend them. Also, performing can be used to gain access to a noble or other person of importance. Bards do that.

[Psyren]

Party Face is a dubious honor at best. In maybe 50% of campaigns it literally never, ever, matters, because it can't help you kill a dragon.

Kill a dragon?

Maybe not.

But you get exp for defeating the dragon, not necessarily killing him. Think outside the box:

- Get capable help to beat the dragon (including another dragon.)
- Convince the dragon to leave.
- Convince the dragon to stop.
- Convince the dragon to go with you.
- Track down an artifact that lets you to take on the dragon.
- Trick something of equal or greater power that the dragon is an immediate threat (including, again, another dragon.)

Those are all tactics the face can accomplish. If all your DM cares about is combat, there are MMOs for that.

[strider24seven]

Charm Person, one level; Detect thoughts, one level; Dominate Person, one level.

And this is why Bards make only moderately good faces. Anyone can sink ranks into skills. Glibness is one of the only things a Bard has in his favor. And of course, a spell, there are a myriad of ways for a full-caster to get it on his list (though the opportunity cost is generally not worth it... Dominate usually works better)

Binders have Naberius, Marshals have their CHA aura, Warlocks have Beguiling Influence, and Beguilers have... well... beguiling.

There's a reason that you don't see many Bards as dedicated diplomancers... they're not bad at it, but they're not that great at it. They do have the advantage of not having to invest all that much into it, though - some skill ranks and maybe a 2nd level spell slot or two.

[SowZ]

Ugh, the core bard. Just ugh. The core bard is so close to useless it makes my teeth hurt. All the numbers on a core bard are just too small. Not enough spells, HP, damage, skill points, anything. Just not enough of itself.

Once splat are online, well, bard becomes solid teir 3. Plus, with Sublime Chord, they are one of the best multiclassing base classes (along with the ToB guys and Ardent.)

Even in a PvP environment, so tiers not even considered, a core bard should still kill a core Fighter/Barbarian 4 out of 5 times. Not to mention they will have ten times the utility out of combat. All around, a bard is more useful addition to the party than a tank.


And this is why Bards make only moderately good faces. Anyone can sink ranks into skills. Glibness is one of the only things a Bard has in his favor. And of course, a spell, there are a myriad of ways for a full-caster to get it on his list (though the opportunity cost is generally not worth it... Dominate usually works better)

Binders have Naberius, Marshals have their CHA aura, Warlocks have Beguiling Influence, and Beguilers have... well... beguiling.

There's a reason that you don't see many Bards as dedicated diplomancers... they're not bad at it, but they're not that great at it. They do have the advantage of not having to invest all that much into it, though - some skill ranks and maybe a 2nd level spell slot or two.

It's easy to be a bard/marshal because no one in their right mind takes more than 2 levels of marshal.

[Optimator]

Core Bards are a little underpowered but still better than a looot of classes out there. With splat support Bards are a phenomenal class. My favorite by far.

[Gwendol]

Ugh, the core bard. Just ugh. The core bard is so close to useless it makes my teeth hurt. All the numbers on a core bard are just too small. Not enough spells, HP, damage, skill points, anything. Just not enough of itself.


Useless? Compared to what core class exactly? Paladin? Ranger? Fighter? Monk?

[georgie_leech]

And this is why Bards make only moderately good faces. Anyone can sink ranks into skills. Glibness is one of the only things a Bard has in his favor. And of course, a spell, there are a myriad of ways for a full-caster to get it on his list (though the opportunity cost is generally not worth it... Dominate usually works better)

Binders have Naberius, Marshals have their CHA aura, Warlocks have Beguiling Influence, and Beguilers have... well... beguiling.

There's a reason that you don't see many Bards as dedicated diplomancers... they're not bad at it, but they're not that great at it. They do have the advantage of not having to invest all that much into it, though - some skill ranks and maybe a 2nd level spell slot or two.

Binders also lack the skill points to take on the Face role, unless they feel like being unable to contribute to other skills, and I'm not seeing how a Command once every 5 rounds makes them great for that; there's more to being a face than rushing Diplomacy checks. I also find it a bit questionable to claim Bards don't make good faces because they have a slightly slower spell progression and then hold up Marshal when they don't get spells at all. Warlocks and Beguilers also make good faces; being one of 3 classes that make good Faces (having the skill points to put in the ranks, features that support the role, and a reason to put an emphasis on CHA) seems pretty good for a supposed Master of None.

[GnomeGninjas]

In a low-level, combat focused, core only, low OP game bards are practically useless. Many players get their first D&D experience in a low-level, combat focused, core only, low OP game so their first impression is that bards are bad. First impressions stick.

[Roguenewb]

Useless? Compared to what core class exactly? Paladin? Ranger? Fighter? Monk?

In core, a single classed bard hit much less than even a paladin, for lower damage. They can't do a lot of the skill tasks a rogue does (notable traps). They don't have enough skill points to be a good face, and a decent sneak, and an agile combatant, and a knowledgeable planner. If they spend on a high INT (which does nothing else for them), they can maybe afford two of those roles. Their buffs are less good than a transmuter/druid, and their are much less of them. UnOped inspire courage is good at what level? Its almost worth a standard action at level 1. It's definetely not worth the second to continue it. Their save based effects trail off dramatically compared to Wizard/Cleric/Druid both due to lower level spells, and being more MAD. They heal even less than a druid. Some paladins heal as well as they do until like level 6, unless the Bard spends a ton of limited spells known on healing. Their list doesn't have enough spell level discounts as well.

A core bard and a core monk are probably not all that far off in overall utility. Flurry of Misses is a lot like Flurry of Made Saves. The core bard consists of a lot of "standard action-all your Xs are 5% better under certain circumstances" with a couple of limited exceptions, (Heroism, et al). They are way more flexible than core monk, and have a higher optimzation ceiling, but average is pretty low for both. Bards are mediocre at the 7 or 8 real roles in 3.5, and great at 1 or 2 roles that don't actually exist.

However, splats fixed essentially every problem I mentioned.

[DR27]

It's mostly been said already. Just considering 3.0 -> end of 3.5, bards underwent a pretty dramatic transformation.

In original 3.0 core, bards weren't able to do their intended jack of all trades job, and music wasn't that great. Song and Silence came along, and didn't fix any underlying problems. So here we are, with a couple of years of a new edition completely hosing bards. Of course people didn't have much love for them, as the class itself wasn't that good.

At the start of 3.5, as people said - Bards were still lacking a good, defining feature. As time and supplements went along, they gained more and more until they were finally good. The damage to reputation among the casual gamer was done though.

[137beth]

They are moderately acceptable as party faces.

Unfortunately, as with everything else... full casters do it better. Charm Person, Detect Thoughts, Dominate Person, Mindrape, and so on.


Oh, didn't you hear? There is a secret clause hidden in the PHB that allows Bards to cast Wish at-will, with no cost. Think I'm lying? Well, maybe you should cast Discern Lies to see...*

*The bard who said that cast Glibness before saying it.
Also, Modify Memory is fun.

[Optimator]

I'm particularly fond of Control Sound.

[Psyren]

Note that, if ToM is in play anyway, Bards can get Naberius' tongue too.

The spells are extremely useful at all levels, moreso than most vestiges.

[Tengu_temp]

AD&D bards weren't useless - their music sucked but you didn't play one for the music. Instead, they were great spellcasters. Sure, level by level they had worse spell progression than wizards, but they used the much faster rogue XP table - a lot of the time a bard was several levels above a wizard withthe same amount of XP, which usually resulted not just in evening out the spell progression curve, but even going ahead of it. And they had better utility and combat abilities on top of that.

[Hyena]

Personally? I don't like bards because by they are, by their definition, goofy and light-hearted, which clashes with my personal playstyle. And even if someone here will object with claims like "No, they can be serious! Think of scottish warriors, who played bagpipes!", I'll say... No, they can't. And even if they can, I've never seen it in my entire life, and I've seen plenty of bards. I doubt I will ever see any non-zany ones.

[Gwendol]

A core bard and a core monk are probably not all that far off in overall utility.
However, splats fixed essentially every problem I mentioned.

I think you are off on a hyperbole there... good to see you managed to stay in orbit though :smallwink:

[Karoht]

Most players of Bards I saw all had the same patterns.
In Combat: Stand in the back, play music, buff everyone, not really focus on combat. Occasionally cast spells to support.
Out of Combat: ROLEPLAY!!!!!!! And be godlike at it.

Then I saw this one Bard. A combo of Pathfinder and 3.5, he had Dragonsfire Inspiration and Weird Words.
And caused an entire table to have their jaws hit the ground when he rolled 60d6 of damage on someone. At level 12. He nearly solo'd a group of 4 CR14 creatures.
*Disclaimer* There were some mistakes made in arriving at that number which were rectified later. However, with 2 feat changes, that number was possible again, but up to DM's interpretation. Without Dragonsfire Inspiration we found a way to get it back up to insanity levels again using just pure Pathfinder, albeit we had to involve more hoops to jump through.

It totally changed how I looked at Bards and their features. And Charisma based characters in general.

[Chronos]

One other thing to say in defense of bards: When was the last time you got to say "Roll a DC 35 save", at level 6?

(OK, yeah, that's just one specific ability which very often isn't usable or relevant, but still.)

[Quorothorn]

And this is why Bards make only moderately good faces. Anyone can sink ranks into skills. Glibness is one of the only things a Bard has in his favor. And of course, a spell, there are a myriad of ways for a full-caster to get it on his list (though the opportunity cost is generally not worth it... Dominate usually works better)

I don't think throwing around Dominate really classifies one as "party face" in most groups--definitely not mine.

[georgie_leech]

I don't think throwing around Dominate really classifies one as "party face" in most groups--definitely not mine.

From a results stand point, they're equivalent--get other NPC's to do what you want. The difference is in execution; my version of Face is that they convince the NPC it is genuinely in their best interest to help, either by being right, convincing, lying, or threatening.

[137beth]

From a results stand point, they're equivalent--get other NPC's to do what you want. The difference is in execution; my version of Face is that they convince the NPC it is genuinely in their best interest to help, either by being right, convincing, lying, or threatening.

They are most certainly not equivalent in results. Dominate is likely to have repercussions later, after it wears off. Diplomacy and Bluff can both be used on creatures who are immune to mind-affecting effects, and are overall much harder to resist.

[Quorothorn]

From a results stand point, they're equivalent--get other NPC's to do what you want. The difference is in execution; my version of Face is that they convince the NPC it is genuinely in their best interest to help, either by being right, convincing, lying, or threatening.

From my perspective the point is that Diplomacy (or similar) is not an attack except in cases of "cheese". Dominate and similar spells are inherently an attack, which means that relying on them is going to cause serious problems down the road unless you have a certain group/DM approach. Hypothetical question: what is the likely reaction of an NPC who makes a saving throw against Dominate or Suggestion and realizes through a Spellcraft check or similar what that spell was? Probably the same as if you tried to Cloudkill or Lightning Bolt them, or even worse, right? At least, that's certainly my take on the matter.

Really, I think we're in agreement on the spirit of this point: if a PCs' method of "face" is to just attempt to Dominate or Charm or Mind Rape (seriously?) every NPC, they are Not Exactly Doing It Right. An 'actual' Face legitimately attempts to convince NPCs rather than just trying to override their free will with brute magical force. Fair to say?

[georgie_leech]

They are most certainly not equivalent in results. Dominate is likely to have repercussions later, after it wears off. Diplomacy and Bluff can both be used on creatures who are immune to mind-affecting effects, and are overall much harder to resist.

Yeah, I misspoke. I'm in favour of the Face being able to do so without resorting to inelegant solutions like just imposing your will, for those reasons you just listed. But really, while it's working, they achieve the same objective.


From my perspective the point is that Diplomacy (or similar) is not an attack except in cases of "cheese". Dominate and similar spells are inherently an attack, which means that relying on them is going to cause serious problems down the road unless you have a certain group/DM approach. Hypothetical question: what is the likely reaction of an NPC who makes a saving throw against Dominate or Suggestion and realizes through a Spellcraft check or similar what that spell was? Probably the same as if you tried to Cloudkill or Lightning Bolt them, or even worse, right? At least, that's certainly my take on the matter.

Really, I think we're in agreement on the spirit of this point: if a PCs' method of "face" is to just attempt to Dominate or Charm or Mind Rape (seriously?) every NPC, they are Not Exactly Doing It Right. An 'actual' Face legitimately attempts to convince NPCs rather than just trying to override their free will with brute magical force. Fair to say?

Yeah, basically that. If anything, my NPC's tend to freak out more when someone attempts to mentally enslave them, what with the whole robbing of free will aspect. "They'll never take our freedom!" and such.

[Quorothorn]

Yeah, basically that. If anything, my NPC's tend to freak out more when someone attempts to mentally enslave them, what with the whole robbing of free will aspect. "They'll never take our freedom!" and such.

I can certainly see why. It's a more subtle form of attack, which makes it more dangerous/more likely to be met with the strongest reprisals possible.

(I am currently somewhat concerned about one of my players potentially eventually wanting to overuse Silent Charm Person/other Silent spells with a similar purpose in the future, so...yeah.)

[angry_bear]

From a results stand point, they're equivalent--get other NPC's to do what you want. The difference is in execution; my version of Face is that they convince the NPC it is genuinely in their best interest to help, either by being right, convincing, lying, or threatening.

What alignment is your typical party? Because throwing around spells like dominate doesn't seem like the actions of a good aligned caster. And honestly, all it takes is a semi passable will save, or if the person is important enough, a mind blank cast on them. And not to mention that if you're caught doing that; you'll be facing some serious consequences.

[Chronos]

Heck, even if they fail their save, all of those spells (except for Mindrape) have finite durations. Either you go around re-dominating everyone you've ever had to "face" every few days, or eventually they're going to recover and remember what you put them through. Now, sometimes that won't matter (the orc you took prisoner and charmed so he'd give up information more easily), but sometimes it does (the king whom you convinced to fund your expedition).

[Amphetryon]

Heck, even if they fail their save, all of those spells (except for Mindrape) have finite durations. Either you go around re-dominating everyone you've ever had to "face" every few days, or eventually they're going to recover and remember what you put them through. Now, sometimes that won't matter (the orc you took prisoner and charmed so he'd give up information more easily), but sometimes it does (the king whom you convinced to fund your expedition).

Or you follow most of the Charm/Dominate things up later with Modify Memory

[georgie_leech]

Heck, even if they fail their save, all of those spells (except for Mindrape) have finite durations. Either you go around re-dominating everyone you've ever had to "face" every few days, or eventually they're going to recover and remember what you put them through. Now, sometimes that won't matter (the orc you took prisoner and charmed so he'd give up information more easily), but sometimes it does (the king whom you convinced to fund your expedition).

Thus the point, that a Bard is one of the few classes with both the skill points and CHA focus to Face properly without needing the spells. I fully agree that's being a better face than the Wizard Dominating everyone. I was commenting originally on the idea that Bards make poor faces because they lack access to those spells as quickly as a Wizard, when there's actually barely any delay at all.

[Chronos]

Or you follow most of the Charm/Dominate things up later with Modify Memory
"You" meaning the bard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/modifyMemory.htm), right?

[Karoht]

One other thing to say in defense of bards: When was the last time you got to say "Roll a DC 35 save", at level 6?

Bewildering Koan, on my Ninja/Bard, every session. Good times. 80% of the time it's 100% effective.

[Amphetryon]

"You" meaning the bard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/modifyMemory.htm), right?

What did I say to indicate I meant anything else? I mean, it reads from here as if your post were intended to correct some aspect of my post, and I don't understand what aspect of it is being corrected.

[Dungeon_Crawler]

We have a dragonborn bard in our party. Hes a clueless player, but a secondary melee and skill monkey. Through some sort of optimizing he adds half his class level to all skill checks. He also has weird magic items. He's not as optimized as my character, but he's dang good.

[Aharon]

If you want to see why the Bard is considered bad, you need to look at the AD&D Bard. It was pretty bad, but not as bad as some of the Kits that were released. It was a master of none even more so than the 3.5 Bard.
Of course, it seems like most gamers these days grew up with later editions, so the dislike is mostly inherited without understanding these days.


Huh? AD&D bard was awesome - different experience point tables usually meant he was casting fireballs (actually useful in that edition) while the wizard still did boring stuff.

[Segev]

To be fair, if you use Charm effects rather than Dominate, and you take pains to ALSO be pleasant, as long as they don't know you cast a spell on them (or you really worked hard to not be a jerk other than that), they probably will not hate you. It might not win you points if they know you did it, but I don't think it's inherently obvious after the fact unless you got them to do some really wonky things that can't be easily explained away (or your magic was the only thing keeping them from being actively hostile in the first place).

[danzibr]

It probably all stemmed from this:
http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/0/4127/408471-194933_spoony_bard_super.jpg

[Psyren]

It probably all stemmed from this:
http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/0/4127/408471-194933_spoony_bard_super.jpg

You know FF was based on D&D right? :smalltongue:

[danzibr]

You know FF was based on D&D right? :smalltongue:
Hmm ya know, I heard that but now I have to wonder...

When did bards appear in D&D?

[Psyren]

The Proto-bard from AD&D was perhaps the game's first prestige class - a character who wanted to be one had to meet several very difficult requirements. Eventually they streamlined these a bit and created the Fochlucan Lyrist in 3.5 as a nod to it.

But coming in at 1978-ish it definitely predates FF4.

[nedz]

They were quite early — OD&D, though I couldn't tell you which supplement.

In AD&D 1E you had to be a level 5-8 Fighting Man and a level 5-8 Thief before you could enter Bard (the numbers may be slightly out here). I never saw anyone play one.

In AD&D 2E, which is the one Aharon is talking about, they were a subclass of Rogue who got 2/3 spellcasting.

[Amphetryon]

They were quite early — OD&D, though I couldn't tell you which supplement.

In AD&D 1E you had to be a level 5-8 Fighting Man and a level 5-8 Thief before you could enter Bard (the numbers may be slightly out here). I never saw anyone play one.

In AD&D 2E, which is the one Aharon is talking about, they were a subclass of Rogue who got 2/3 spellcasting.

In 1e, you also needed to be able to cast Druid spells, IIRC. This contributes to many of us pointing to the Fochlucan Lyrist as a rebooted 1e Bard.

[TrollCapAmerica]

The Proto-bard from AD&D was perhaps the game's first prestige class - a character who wanted to be one had to meet several very difficult requirements. Eventually they streamlined these a bit and created the Fochlucan Lyrist in 3.5 as a nod to it.

But coming in at 1978-ish it definitely predates FF4.

Ah the classic history of our hobby.Right in the back of the original PHB along with Psionics IIRC.They both had another feature in common to.Nobody used them

2nd edition came out and the bard was a regular class just a bit of a questionably built one.In reality they arent all that bad.Their weapon choice and combat ability was passable but not spectacular.The classes special abilities were extremely situational and hard to make use of.The thief abilities were extra-situational didnt have the good ones and still was usually saddled with sub 50% chance skills for most of your career.It was the spell list and quick advancement that made Bards alot more worth while that made them more like an alternate version of a wizard with a few neat abilities tacked on

The reason people didnt take them seriously was

1] Its easy to look at all they can do and say "I could just play X instead" while ignoring that they are great spellcasters that get a good range of other abilities.This is especially bad when you look at the high Stat spread they needed back then and how Charisma was a useless universal dump stat they needed a 15 in

2] Monty Python/Holy Grail and FF4 made the concept of the Bard seem even dumber.Early OOTS also shows Elan as the stereotypical spony bard sitting in the background singing giving minor benefits that are hhard to even believe exist from a RPing standpoint

3] The aforementioned RPing standpoint.Its kind of hard to justify a fight going on while another guy sits in the background giving a USO show for your morale

When we got 3rd ed the Bard was initially bad but got better by 3rd ed.The thing is the stereotypes still havent gone anywhere and its easy to make a character that doent do anything all that well.I think arguably Bards are alot worse in the physical combat department than they were in 2nd ed but they have vastly improved as a spellcaster and now there is an actual system for social interaction they can accel at beyond the gimmicky "Improve reaction adjustment" 2nd ability that could backfire if the opponent made a saving throw

Glibness is also evil and I love it

"Dont you realize your just an obedient slave-girl from my Harem who spends all her time worshiping my awesome 20+ Charisma?I obviously let you roleplay as a head of state as a way to spice up our sex lives but now its time to go back home.....also your name is Princess Moofy not King Mordred the terrible"

[Chronos]

Quoth Amphetryon:

What did I say to indicate I meant anything else? I mean, it reads from here as if your post were intended to correct some aspect of my post, and I don't understand what aspect of it is being corrected.
Ah, my apologies. You were suggesting using Modify Memory on Dominated subjects, and I thought you were intending it as a way to patch up Dominate for purposes of using a wizard as a face. I wanted to make sure you weren't falling into the mistake of "Well, it's a spell, so obviously wizards have it".

[strider24seven]

the king whom you convinced to fund your expedition

Or you Dominate him, kill him, and replace him with your Simulacrum.

I'm not saying that Bards are not effective party faces. Just that they are not the best. Like everything else, wizards do it better.



Frankly, a Wizard can suck even more than a Fighter could ever dream of sucking. A Fighter can stab himself to death, but only a Wizard could Plane Shift to some horrible far realm to be tortured for an eternity of insanity.

[georgie_leech]

Or you Dominate him, kill him, and replace him with your Simulacrum.

I'm not saying that Bards are not effective party faces. Just that they are not the best. Like everything else, wizards do it better.

...Okay, even with the equivalence thing up there, how is killing and replacing someone what a Face does?

[strider24seven]

...Okay, even with the equivalence thing up there, how is killing and replacing someone what a Face does?

Final result: Get a creature to perform a desired action.
Bard's method: Ask nicely. Possibly through song and dance.
Wizard's method: Force him to perform the action through magic. Options include: Enchantment magic, substitution via Simulacrum, or use magic as indirect leverage (e.g. Love's Pain).

I prefer the latter method. It doesn't work very well for Exalted or Good characters. But I tend not to like playing Exalted or Good.

[Gwendol]

It's still not being the face, and depending on the setting it's a way to get killed.

[georgie_leech]

Final result: Get a creature to perform a desired action.
Bard's method: Ask nicely. Possibly through song and dance.
Wizard's method: Force him to perform the action through magic. Options include: Enchantment magic, substitution via Simulacrum, or use magic as indirect leverage (e.g. Love's Pain).

I prefer the latter method. It doesn't work very well for Exalted or Good characters. But I tend not to like playing Exalted or Good.

No, that's summoning a minion to do what you want, distinct from having an existing creature change behavior.

[Grayson01]

I agree that a face should not be throwing around Dominate person as it's way of being the face. However the alignment can still be LG seeing as I thought Qui-Gon was going to give some one Brain Damage in Episode 1 throwing aroung Force Persuade. lol


What alignment is your typical party? Because throwing around spells like dominate doesn't seem like the actions of a good aligned caster. And honestly, all it takes is a semi passable will save, or if the person is important enough, a mind blank cast on them. And not to mention that if you're caught doing that; you'll be facing some serious consequences.

[137beth]

Final result: Get a creature to perform a desired action.
Bard's method: Ask nicely. Possibly through song and dance.
Wizard's method: Force him to perform the action through magic. Options include: Enchantment magic, substitution via Simulacrum, or use magic as indirect leverage (e.g. Love's Pain).

I prefer the latter method. It doesn't work very well for Exalted or Good characters. But I tend not to like playing Exalted or Good.
The Wizard's method doesn't work as well. Without regards to alignments or anything. The wizard runs into immunity to mind affecting effects and then their "magic face" is screwed.
Or, one important NPC makes their saving throw, and you now have an enemy. Or you get lucky, no one ever makes their saving throw, no one is immune to mind effects, but the duration wears off and now you have a bunch of permanent enemies. The end results are not the same at all, the bard's end result is substantially better.

[Psyren]

The Wizard's method doesn't work as well. Without regards to alignments or anything. The wizard runs into immunity to mind affecting effects and then their "magic face" is screwed.
Or, one important NPC makes their saving throw, and you now have an enemy. Or you get lucky, no one ever makes their saving throw, no one is immune to mind effects, but the duration wears off and now you have a bunch of permanent enemies. The end results are not the same at all, the bard's end result is substantially better.

Also, the "face" method of control can't be dispelled or even detected.

If a DM doesn't know how to challenge a wizard he should just ban them completely.