Why do Bards "suck"?

[Azernak0]

This is not about the power level of a Bard but about the average perception of a Bard.

When I first started playing, I thought the Bard was terrible. Every person I have played with also held this opinion. I thought this until I was like 15 or so when I started to think on the power level of classes and came across these type of forums. Now, I see that the Bard definitely has a lot of power even in just the core book. They can fight almost as well as the Fighter since their song gives them basically the same pluses to attack, they have an incredibly great skill list, they fit very well thematically in any setting, some great class features, and some fairly nice spells to boot.

But everywhere else I look, there is the joke about the useless Bard that either dies or gets the crap kicked out of them like they are a stinky pinata. Why is there this perception of the Bard 'sucking' when it it is the 5th most powerful in PH1 and gets so much free love in splatbooks that it might as well be a hippie commune?

[Yuki Akuma]

The perception probably stems mostly from the idea that Bards are "second best" at everything.

Which actually makes them absolutely awesome, but that's not exactly intuitive to most people.

[Boci]

When singing or playing a musical instrument are your most visible class features....

[Tvtyrant]

Probably because they sound silly on paper and are never the best in practice. Never being the best at anything makes you feel underpowered even if you are actually carrying the party.

[Gwazi Magnum]

When singing or playing a musical instrument are your most visible class features....

This actually reminds of me something.

Is it possible to swap the Bard's Bardic music ability for something else?

[Draz74]

Lots of reasons that all add up.

Core-only is a good start. Bards aren't terrible in Core-only, but they're tricky to play well and are really missing out on a LOT of their power that comes in splatbooks.

Starting campaigns at Level 1 also gives a poor impression of the Bard. 1 music use per day and a few cantrips means that the Bard is rather sad at Level 1 unless it has great ability scores or the campaign makes Skills particularly germane.

Lots of playgroups and DMs have a misconception that bardic music requires a standard action every round in order to keep it going (although at least there's the default 5 rounds of effect after the bard stops performing). In truth, other than bardic music uses that state they require concentration, the bard only needs to spend 1 standard action, then can keep Inspiring Courage as long as he wants, with no action cost, as long as he doesn't cast spells or use wands/scrolls.

The books tote Bards as being jacks of all trades, and that makes a lot of players want to use them as melee combatants some of the time. But Core Bards are really not any good as melee combatants. And they're pretty mediocre even as archers. These are areas where splatbook support can really add a lot.

Lots of playgroups aren't very good at incorporating illusion and enchantment effects into their games at all. Other playgroups have similar struggles with social and knowledge Skills.

Finally, low-op playgroups often have no idea how much power and flexibility Use Magic Device really represents (assuming the campaign makes magic items as common as Wealth By Level implies, which is not a given).

EDIT: Oh yeah, one more reason: their bonuses can be easy to forget (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0034.html).

[johnbragg]

What they said.

1. It sounds silly on paper. "I shall confront the fearsome ogre with--a banjo!" "No, I'm not going to hit the ogre with the banjo, I'm going to play the banjo!"

2. Because they're pretty-good at everything, and not great at anything, they don't have their encounter-ending moments like the fighter-type does rolling a crit for a ton of damage, or the wizard does when he wipes out the mooks with a fireball, or the rogue does when he makes a key skill check or when he Sneak Attacks for a ton of damage.

"Healbot/buffbot" clerics have this problem too--even when their contribution is crucial, and if you totalled it up on a spreadsheet, they're carrying way more than their share of the load (HP restored, damage from attacks made due to buffs, damage increases from buffs). Bardsong has that perception problem--it's helping other people to be awesome, so it doesn't highlight your PC's awesomeness.

[Optimator]

Core-only Bards are quite lacking indeed, but with splat help they own. Hard..

[Boci]

This actually reminds of me something.

Is it possible to swap the Bard's Bardic music ability for something else?

What are you interested in with the bard class? The factotum is also a jack of all trades.

[Kristinn]

I think the real reason for some thinking Bards are underpowered is the common perception of spells. A lot of people see spells are things of direct power, rather than indirect. A wizard is not good at melee, and has a crap Hit Die, but can roast enemies with lightning (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0921.html) and fire (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0919.html). As most people on this forum know, in DnD game mechanics, these are far from his most powerful spells.

Bards suffer from this misunderstanding a lot, because his best spells are these somewhat "subtle" spells, such as Grease, Glitterdust and Haste. Then on top of this stuff the Bards has a decent party-wide buff (which players, as noted above, tend to forget), and the second best skill list in core (which is much more important than many players realize).

[elonin]

I've seen bards in play in a group with a god wizard. The wizard had to be careful from casting spells that would make bard spells irrelevant.

[danzibr]

<insert dirty reference here>

Bards do suck pretty hard in at least a couple other games... maybe it comes from there.

Furthermore, when you were younger and had that point of view, it may have been the case. I mean, the mindset when you start playing D&D is all about damage, and in core Bards are easily out-damaged by blasty Sorcerers, and people don't think of Bards as frontlining at all.

[Kaveman26]

This is not about the power level of a Bard but about the average perception of a Bard.

Because Robin's Minstrels bravely running away endured through pop culture much more than Bard's Tale and MAMA (Malamars Mighty Hammer i think...memory evades me, just the four letter command is remembered)

[ArcturusV]

Here's the reason as it popped up in most groups that I played third edition with (2nd Edition bards being their own thing and due to limitations on multiclassing, etc, saw more play as it was really your only option if you wanted a rogue-ish spellcaster):

The lacked clear crunch, and what they didn't lack was too much up to DM fiat. And this is because a good Bard is "The Face". They hypnochant people with their bardic music powers, they use illusions and charms to trick people, they have social skills...

And all of those are the things most likely to be screwed with by DMs. Because it's plot derailment most of them don't think about and haven't figured out how to deal with. What do you do when a bard Fascinates a group that is supposed to kill you, then mass suggests them to go get drunk at a bar 10 miles away instead? The DM gets kinda pissy and "nopes" it, often blatantly cheating on it. I mean he might get pissy if the wizard said something like "I drop a fireball in them right away" and nukes the encounter with it... but a Fireball is a fireball and it's hard to "cheat" it as everyone knows and expects what it can do, the dice are openly rolled, etc. Same applies to Illusions that they don't want to work, or charm spells, or using Bluff and Diplomacy and it's vague "People like you" or "They believe something for a round" results that DMs will twist because they're ticked at plot derailment.

So you're left not being able to do those things, because they "never work"... meaning your bard is either a healer who's worse than a cleric, or a blaster who's worse than a Sorcerer, or you provide small little +Xs that no one really notices the effect of.

Side note: No, I've never seen anyone play DFI or the Op Like on the table.

So yeah. As a bard you feel like you "Suck" at that point. Basically you're a lame version of other things. Because your primary function, being the guy naturally is best at Illusions, Charms, and Mindjacking (Social skills, check, enough points to actually have them, check, spell list which emphasizes that, often with early access, check, solely Charisma dependent, check).

Note that if you get a DM who isn't really a bastard about it, and you're not playing "Night of the Living Dead" as your campaign theme, the bard shoots up in power quite well.

But I've known more DMs who are going to "nope" illusions and enchantments, Bardic bread and butter, than are willing to play ball with them.

[Coidzor]

When singing or playing a musical instrument are your most visible class features....

Indeed, it falls outside the gender norms of he-man facesplitter rage-kill or cackling mage gone mad with absolute power.

[Psyren]

Usually when people say "bards suck" they are thinking of core-only. (This is the case for both 3.5 and PF.)

I find that a core-only bard is one of the better choices for a DMPC. They can fill the healer role if nobody picked that, they sit firmly in the background, they make the PCs more awesome just by being there, they can aid the PCs with a wide variety of skill checks, use their bardic lore to deliver any plot exposition the DM needs the party to know without being subject-matter experts, and their magic is generally too weak to really help in combat.

[Grod_The_Giant]

But I've known more DMs who are going to "nope" illusions and enchantments, Bardic bread and butter, than are willing to play ball with them.
That's a pretty good point.

Besides that, as has already been mentioned:

No flashy effects
Most music bonuses are pretty crappy without optimization
The "need" to keep playing to keep your music up (which might require you to keep both hands on your lute, even if it's not wasting actions)
All the best bard stuff is out-of-core
You walk into a dungeon and SING at people. Who could take that seriously? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0128.html)
It's generally not the most newbie-friendly class. You need to optimize to make bardic music worth it, know that things like Glitterdust and Alter Self are better spells than Shout, dig out things like DFI, stuff like that.

[Spuddles]

They're pretty MAD, and inside core, they're kind of hard to optimize. They wont have the DPS of anything with full BAB, they dont have the AC or HD to stand in the front lines, and they lack the spells that cleric and wizards have. It's also harder to make glitterdust relevent when you cant afford as high a casting stat is a sorcerer and get the spell even later. Save-or-lose just isnt that good when you cant pump the DC.

[inuyasha]

DM: You're in the large cavern, and you see the mighty dragon roaring! What do you do
Fighter: I use my axe to slash it to bits
Rogue: I sneak behind it to set up a flank with the fighter
Wizard: I invoke the eldritch energies of the universe, twisting the dragons mind to make it do as I please
Cleric: This beast shall be slain in the name of Pelor!! ALL GLORY TO PELOR!!!
Bard: I sing at it and tell stories about other famous half forgotten dragonslayers that no one cares about.

Here you go :)

[ArcturusV]

Course it can also go:

DM: You're in the large cavern, and you see the mighty dragon roaring! What do you do?
Barbarian: Rage and Hulk Smash.
Fighter: I can trip it right?
Ranger: ... I have favored enemy: Draggers, so I'll shoot it with a damage buff, whoo!
Paladin: SMITE EVIL!
Cleric: Invoke my god to buff me out into Clericzilla!/Buff someone else/Buff all of us!
Wizard: Summon 1d3 demons to bum rush him and keep him busy while we whittle him down.
Rogue: What do you mean my halfling can't reach a vital spot on a giant dragon? Clearly their ankle is the weak point you attack for massive damage! Oh fine... I'll go steal some of the treasure before we all split it...
Bard: I cast some illusions before hand, and make him think that some might Silver Dragon (An appropriate one due to Bardic Knowledge and picking up on the dragon's nemesis) is invading his domain with us as his thralls. I roll a bluff check to sell the illusion and have the dragon waste attacks on the illusion while the rest of the team just murders him.
DM: Nope, Dragon has True Seeing... and umm... the entire cave is a Zone of Truth so you can't bluff... yeah.
Bard: ... sigh... so I'll sing for a +3 bonus to everyone...

That's the sort of thing that usually happens to Bards. :smallwink:

[navar100]

They "suck" for players who believe your character isn't worth anything if you don't "get the kill". If your character is never the one to get the bad guy to 0 hit points or fail a saving throw and lose, you are useless. It is possible for a bard to do such, but often and stereotypically perceived bards are support and another character gets the killing blow or otherwise only useful for out of combat situations. The players aren't realizing that every +# the bard provides or some other assist helps their own characters achieve the victory. It is this same attitude that has players not wanting to play a cleric or feel someone must be "stuck" playing one because all they're good for is healing.

[holywhippet]

The point of the bard is not to be the best at anything so much as being good at everything. Ok, talking to people tends to be something they are the best at due to their high charisma and class skills. Knowledge skills are also class skills for them and when that fails, there is always bardic knowledge to fall back on.

The bard song ability can be very strong because many of them effect everyone ally who can hear it. As such, they get more useful the more allies they are with. If you are working with NPC troops you can give all of them a boost.

The bards spell list mean they can help in a variety of situations. Backup healing, buffing, disabling enemies etc.

[karkus]

When I first started playing, I thought the Bard was terrible. Every person I have played with also held this opinion. I thought this until I was like 15 or so when I started to think on the power level of classes and came across these type of forums

...Are you me? This is 100% what I was like many years ago until I was ~15 :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, I eventually just realized that it's probably because they're the most iconic support-based characters; their primary abilities are giving teammates bonuses to random rolls.

[Coidzor]

The point of the bard is not to be the best at anything so much as being good at everything.

And what's worse, they don't really get the resources necessary to do that. So there's the trap of actually trying to do a little bit of everything.

[Raven777]

If you want an exemple of a Bard who most definitely does not suck, look up Thom Merrilin (http://wot.wikia.com/wiki/Thomdril_Merrilin) from the Wheel of Time books.

[Rubik]

If you want an exemple of a Bard who most definitely does not suck, look up Thom Merrilin (http://wot.wikia.com/wiki/Thomdril_Merrilin) from the Wheel of Time books.I'm pretty sure he's a rogue/spell-less bard with levels in assassin.

[Vaz]

What are you interested in with the bard class? The factotum is also a jack of all trades.

While a Factotum can do pretty much anything (ask Tippy for schooling in breaking it); a Bard is fairly unique in that it can make all allies within 10 miles do I think it was around +16d6 Sonic Damage on every attack.

[Rubik]

While a Factotum can do pretty much anything (ask Tippy for schooling in breaking it); a Bard is fairly unique in that it can make all allies within 10 miles do I think it was around +16d6 Sonic Damage on every attack.Lambeg drum for the win. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambeg_drum)

[Psyren]

I'm pretty sure he's a rogue/spell-less bard with levels in assassin.

Plus Invisible Blade/Master Thrower.

[MeeposFire]

People think bards suck for several reasons

1) They have no set role. They are a skill monkey but lack trapfinding so they lack the one aspect of skills that really is necessary for a true skill monkey. They are not a warrior type by default and are not great healers. They get good spell access but it is not the highest level or flashier spells.

2) They are good at many things but are best in things thatare not really considered. Bards might be the best overall party buffer but that is not a common thing to talk about but everybody knows if you deal the most damge or heal.

3) Their best features help all your allies but your allies get all the glory. It is easy to see when your warrior walks up and splatters something. It is a lot harder to notice that he would not have splattered it without the bard's buffs.

4) bards require careful planning to ensure that you are picking up quality abilities. It is easy to make a bad bard and then you feel useless and may lack a role a double whammy.

Seriously bards are nasty if you know what you are doing and can wreck campaigns as you can easily make everybody in your party never miss while doing insane damage (including yourself) but even if you you and your players may not directly realize it. In my campaign everybody noticed the melee druid over the bard but what I realized as the DM was that it was the bard that made the druid (and the other characters) so nasty. I had to build encounters specifically keeping the bard in mind just to make them challenging (only once did I use silence so it would not get too old).

Bards have been a quality class in essentially every edition.

[Talya]

And what's worse, they don't really get the resources necessary to do that. So there's the trap of actually trying to do a little bit of everything.

This is most assuredly not true. I firmly believe the bard (with splatbook support) is a better jack-of-all-trades than the Factotum, by virtue of not only being able to do everything well, but by being able to do certain things EXTREMELY well.

It's feat-intensive, so it takes a while to really set up, but by mid-levels, there's not a group that wouldn't want you. Primary ability: Charisma. Secondary: Constitution. Prioritize the others as you see fit. I like using the Savage Bard variant in UA, but it's just for the fortitude save and the Viking Skald image, and is unnecessary. Also, add the +0 template "Spark: Magic Blooded" if allowed.

My level 6 bard build includes:
Bardic Knack (ACF replaces Bardic Knowledge)
Spellbreaker Song (ACF replaces Countersong)
Hymn of Healing (ACF replaces Fascinate)
Song of the Heart (ACF feat taken in place of bardic suggestion)

Feats:
Melodic Casting (L1)
Jack of All Trades (Silverbrow Human bonus)
Snowflake Wardance (L3)
Dragonfire Inspiration (L6)

With flaws you can venture into more fun territory, and of course as you level. A personal favorite alternate suggestion is to take Martial Study (Foehammer) - which, while nice for combat, isn't the main point. As a devoted spirit maneuver, it adds Intimidate as a class skill, opening up Doomspeak - a devastating debuff feat that has intimidate ranks as a prerequisite.

Also, nothing against the Sublime Chord, but never multiclass this build. The Sublime Chord is a way to play a bardly flavored sorcerer. If you want to play a bard, stay bard.

[johnbragg]

This is most assuredly not true. I firmly believe the bard (with splatbook support) is a better jack-of-all-trades than the Factotum, by virtue of not only being able to do everything well, but by being able to do certain things EXTREMELY well.

It's feat-intensive, so it takes a while to really set up, but by mid-levels, there's not a group that wouldn't want you. Primary ability: Charisma. Secondary: Constitution. Prioritize the others as you see fit. I like using the Savage Bard variant in UA, but it's just for the fortitude save and the Viking Skald image, and is unnecessary.

My level 6 bard build includes:
Bardic Knack (ACF replaces Bardic Knowledge)
Spellbreaker Song (ACF replaces Countersong)
Hymn of Healing (ACF replaces Fascinate)
Song of the Heart (ACF feat taken in place of bardic suggestion)

Feats:
Melodic Casting
Jack of All Trades
Snowflake Wardance
Dragonfire Inspiration

Or, to put that another way, almost nothing in the PHB Bard is worth having.

[Talya]

Or, to put that another way, almost nothing in the PHB Bard is worth having.

More that there's better elsewhere. Most campaigns I've played in actually saw me rolling bardic knowledge a lot when I played a core bard in them, so I was reluctant to swap it out, but Bardic Knack is too awesome.

But kept from the PHB bard is:
Inspire Courage
Spells
6 skills/level
Inspire Competence
Later bardic performances (except Mass Suggestion)

--which is really most of a bard.

[Just to Browse]

The bard is bad because he doesn't do anything particularly well unless you dive through hella books.

Attacks: Either you deal damage (he's got none of that--no str bonus, no good weapons, no rogue bonus dice) or you cast spells (his spell DCs fall off annoyingly, he doesn't get enough non-mind-affecting stuff)

Defenses: He has a sad hit die and can't prioritize Con, he can't be in melee if he wants to cast, and he gets few good buffs.

Support: His core class feature is incredibly weak (Yay weapon focus -_______-) and he comes (again) with very few good buffs.

So he does a little bit of everything, but it is a little bit. Just like most core classes, he gets a lot of splatbook love so you can bring him up to powerhouse levels, but from the outset he's MAD with no good focus and few engaging abilities. The concept of a 2/3 attack caster that's good in a fight is glorious though, but I wouldn't play a bard unless I knew I could pump juice into the build.

[Talya]

unless you dive through hella books.



Who doesn't?

I mean, for EVERY character -- by now everyone has access to every single 3.5 book ever published with the click of a button. There's no excuse not to, and I don't like core-games. Options are everything.

[Boci]

Who doesn't?

I mean, for EVERY character -- by now everyone has access to every single 3.5 book ever published with the click of a button.

Illegally, unless I've missed something.

[Talya]

Illegally, unless I've missed something.

Those nitpicky little details can not be discussed here.

[Ortesk]

Bards let you be a rockstar, but so does any charisma class and some CC skill points. You can get down in the front lines, but not as good as most can. You will never be the star in combat, only in roleplay if you throw dice around. Every class can suck. If you fight 10 fights a day, any non damaging class will suck. If you fightAMF users constantly, a wizard will leave a sour taste in your mouth. It comes to a group/dm playing to each strength and not stepping on toes, every class can suck or rock

[Rubik]

Illegally, unless I've missed something.Actually, I do believe it's possible to buy .pdfs. Or it was at one point.

[ArqArturo]

It's because the bard has been stuck with such a terrible comedic value and /or full support, it's kind of hard to lift it (unlike in the paladin, where the seeming stick up their full plate is sort of a class feature) from the player's minds.

However, a good bard can range from this (http://youtu.be/ZaivDX4uxbU), to this (http://youtu.be/lEOOZDbMrgE).

[Boci]

Actually, I do believe it's possible to buy .pdfs. Or it was at one point.

That's not a click though. That's a click and an expenditure of money. And for every source book under the sun in 3.5, that's a non-negligible expenditure of money.

[Vaz]

Illegal downloading is bad.

In breaking news, the Sky is blue and grass is green.

Regardless of legality, which is not being discussed here, the ease of access to the material renders many questions moot, unless you're stuck in a core only game.

[Rubik]

In breaking news, the Sky is blue and grass is green.Actually, there IS "bluegrass," and the sky turns green when there's hail, so...

[Talya]

bad


I'd say [Chaotic]. :smallwink:

Anyway, nobody mentioned downloading. There was just clicking!

not the point. For some reason it's considered a negative to post a bard build with 4 or 5 different sources used, yet when people compile their builds and spell lists, they use everything.


By default, if nothing else is stated, every official D&D 3.5 source (including Dragon -- which I didn't use here) is on the table and available in any given discussion. Any restrictions on available material need to be stated.

[johnbragg]

not the point. For some reason it's considered a negative to post a bard build with 4 or 5 different sources used, yet when people compile their builds and spell lists, they use everything.


This is a thread on why Bards are perceived to suck. Most people play Core, or Core-plus-a-smattering. And starting players are more likely to play Core or mostly-Core. And that's when they learn that a Bard is a backup healer/rogue/enchanter/illusionist, and not a Big Damn Hero. Thus, bards suck.

[Just to Browse]

Who doesn't?

I mean, for EVERY character -- by now everyone has access to every single 3.5 book ever published with the click of a button. There's no excuse not to, and I don't like core-games. Options are everything.

"I don't like it" and "It's possible to do this illegally" are not good reasons to make all games involving bards non-core.

[Coidzor]

"I don't like it" and "It's possible to do this illegally" are not good reasons to make all games involving bards non-core.

Restricting one's self to core-only as a matter of anything other than lack of access doesn't have a leg to stand on is more the point, really.

And it's been hashed and rehashed ad nauseum to the point where it's barely worth discussing the arguments involved.

[OverdrivePrime]

This is a thread on why Bards are perceived to suck. Most people play Core, or Core-plus-a-smattering. And starting players are more likely to play Core or mostly-Core. And that's when they learn that a Bard is a backup healer/rogue/enchanter/illusionist, and not a Big Damn Hero. Thus, bards suck.

:smallconfused: We're in the tail end of 2013. Splat books for 3.5 have been out for just shy of 10 years now, and you can pick up a full set at Half Price Books for stupidly cheap. Why on earth does anyone still play core only? I've only heard of such tribes online - never encountered such an animal in person.

That said, I play bards a lot - my second character in 3rd edition was a bard, and I've yet to play one who didn't wind up being the biggest damned hero in the whole party. It's easy when you get to make your own legends!

But yeah, despite that, I still take crap from the guys who usually play paladins and fighters about my 'wimpy' bards. Whatever jokers, if it wasn't for inspire courage, you guys would have been wyrm food 6 levels ago. :smalltongue:

[Just to Browse]

Restricting one's self to core-only as a matter of anything other than lack of access doesn't have a leg to stand on is more the point, really.

And it's been hashed and rehashed ad nauseum to the point where it's barely worth discussing the arguments involved.

No, the discussion boils down to "Sometimes people want to play core because [reasons], if you play with them you get to deal with that." You cannot go up to a DM playing a core game and tell him you're going to play a core bard except with your favorite not-core ACFs because that's not core. So if you're playing a core game because [reasons], then you should up and accept bards are bad in that core game.

There is no validity in saying that bards are actually OK if you use X splatbooks because you should always be allowed to use X splatbooks because that is the one true way to play D&D. I hate to use anecdotal in support of my argument, but I know more than one guy that does this, which means it exists and people have to deal with that.

[nedz]

I did play a Bard and found it quite dull, but that was probably the campaign.

Combats were always: Roll spot, oh dear you've been ambushed. which meant that I always did the same sequence of music or spells. I love Illusions, but they were being ruled in a strange way I never did get my head around so I gave up on trying. Face stuff was always with honourable samurai types so not much room for shenanigans. Just not the right game to play one in I suppose.

[johnbragg]

No, the discussion boils down to "Sometimes people want to play core because [reasons], if you play with them you get to deal with that." You cannot go up to a DM playing a core game and tell him you're going to play a core bard except with your favorite not-core ACFs because that's not core. So if you're playing a core game because [reasons], then you should up and accept bards are bad in that core game.

There is no validity in saying that bards are actually OK if you use X splatbooks because you should always be allowed to use X splatbooks because that is the one true way to play D&D.

Well, I actually think many Core-only DMs would be open to allowing some splatbook stuff to make a bard more viable. But you'd have to convince them that they weren't opening the vault to Pun Pun the Musical.

You'd have to take into account [reasons], and tailor your arguments to those reasons.

[TheDarkblade]

Course it can also go:

DM: You're in the large cavern, and you see the mighty dragon roaring! What do you do?
Barbarian: Rage and Hulk Smash.
Fighter: I can trip it right?
Ranger: ... I have favored enemy: Draggers, so I'll shoot it with a damage buff, whoo!
Paladin: SMITE EVIL!
Cleric: Invoke my god to buff me out into Clericzilla!/Buff someone else/Buff all of us!
Wizard: Summon 1d3 demons to bum rush him and keep him busy while we whittle him down.
Rogue: What do you mean my halfling can't reach a vital spot on a giant dragon? Clearly their ankle is the weak point you attack for massive damage! Oh fine... I'll go steal some of the treasure before we all split it...
Bard: I cast some illusions before hand, and make him think that some might Silver Dragon (An appropriate one due to Bardic Knowledge and picking up on the dragon's nemesis) is invading his domain with us as his thralls. I roll a bluff check to sell the illusion and have the dragon waste attacks on the illusion while the rest of the team just murders him.
DM: Nope, Dragon has True Seeing... and umm... the entire cave is a Zone of Truth so you can't bluff... yeah.
Bard: ... sigh... so I'll sing for a +3 bonus to everyone...

That's the sort of thing that usually happens to Bards. :smallwink:

With team work it can be altered into:


Bard: I cast some illusions before hand, and make him think that some might Silver Dragon (An appropriate one due to Bardic Knowledge and picking up on the dragon's nemesis) is invading his domain with us as his thralls. I roll a bluff check to sell the illusion and have the dragon waste attacks on the illusion while the rest of the team just murders him.
DM: Nope, Dragon has True Seeing... and umm... the entire cave is a Zone of Truth so you can't bluff... yeah.
Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Sorcerer: I cast invisible spell obscuring mist/fog cloud/ solid fog (whichever they have prepared), now the dragon alone has a 20% concealment miss chance if the enemy is 5 ft away, and 50% if it is any further. No save or spell resistance

The DM will quickly learn that invalidating illusions all the time with things like true seeing is more destructive than allowing them :smalltongue:

The DM will either react very badly to this or become better at DMing, by learning how to let everyone shine, and how to incorporate illusions in the game. That said, only use this tactic as a last resort, as I have no idea how a ill tempered DM would react :smalltongue:

Edit: When I mentioned invisible spell, it is Invisible spell metamagic from the cityscape source book

[Big Fau]

That's the sort of thing that usually happens to Bards. :smallwink:

Every class sucks when the DM goes out of his way to nerf their toys.

[ahenobarbi]

IMHO mostly bcause they're not macho enough. Fighter hits things with poini stick, barbarian smashes things with mighty axe, wizard roasts them with arcane power while bard ... sings?

Similar mis-perception happenes to druids ("hippie with a pet :lol:") and cleric ("boring healbot"). Yet it's easier for them to prove their worth (begin T1) than it is for bard (T3).

Also many people just don't like the fluff (I hated it until recently I realized how great crunch was fo some build and decided to mak fluff bearable for me).

[Psyren]

Why on earth does anyone still play core only?

Legal issues aside, there are still folks new to D&D who feel intimidated by splat.



The DM will quickly learn that invalidating illusions all the time with things like true seeing is more destructive than allowing them :smalltongue:


Dragons also have blindsense (smell, hearing), and getting conflicting readings entitles them to a will save to disbelieve.

[137beth]

That's not a click though. That's a click and an expenditure of money. And for every source book under the sun in 3.5, that's a non-negligible expenditure of money.

Ah, but every PF sourcebook is actually available with a click and no money or downloads legally:smallbiggrin:
And almost all of it works perfectly fine in 3.5.
Although a lot of it isn't as good as bard-focused prestige classes...

[erikun]

:smallconfused: We're in the tail end of 2013. Splat books for 3.5 have been out for just shy of 10 years now, and you can pick up a full set at Half Price Books for stupidly cheap. Why on earth does anyone still play core only? I've only heard of such tribes online - never encountered such an animal in person.
$7-$10 per book is most certainly not "stupidly cheap". Actually, it's rather expensive if you want to pick up a large number of them. :smalleek:


As for the topic, why do people think that Bards suck? Because they have worse attack rolls than Fighters, worse armor than Fighters, worse HP than Fighters, (supposedly) worse skills than Rogues, worse healing than Clerics, worse blasting than Wizards, and worse utility spells than Wizards. Also, their main class ability involved boosting others.

Of course, this ignores that the Bard is only a couple of attack points below the Fighter, only a couple of HP below the Fighter, and just two skill points than the Rogue. And most of these are rather invalidated by other factors: CON has a bigger factor in HP than class, pretty much anyone can pick up a two-handed weapon and work almost as well as a Fighter, and the Bard actually gets better choices in skills than the Rogue. The best healing a Cleric can provide generally involves a Wand of CLW, which the Bard uses just as well. Fireballs are notoriously poor choices against anything but crowds of weaker enemies. Overall, while the Bard isn't as good as a Cleric or Wizard, their being "weak" assumes that melee combat damage is somehow equal, rather than being one of the poorest options you have available.

There's also the previous edition holdover. In AD&D2e, Fighters were significantly better in combat than Bards. Rogues did have a distinct advantage in skills of Bards. And healing from spells (to say nothing of other spells) did make the Cleric better. To say nothing about Wizard superiority.

I see much the same attitude towards Druids as I do towards Bards. "They don't have as good armor as Clerics." "They don't have as good damage spells as Wizards." "They have to protect their animal companion." Of course, in actual play, you tend to find that these drawbacks, while sometimes relevant, generally don't stop a Druid from doing much. :smallbiggrin:

[Milo v3]

I personally dislike bards because I can never fit them into a setting. They're flavor never fits the tone or magic of any game I've ever participanted in.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I think the real reason for some thinking Bards are underpowered is the common perception of spells. A lot of people see spells are things of direct power, rather than indirect. A wizard is not good at melee, and has a crap Hit Die, but can roast enemies with lightning (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0921.html) and fire (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0919.html). As most people on this forum know, in DnD game mechanics, these are far from his most powerful spells.

Bards suffer from this misunderstanding a lot, because his best spells are these somewhat "subtle" spells, such as Grease, Glitterdust and Haste. Then on top of this stuff the Bards has a decent party-wide buff (which players, as noted above, tend to forget), and the second best skill list in core (which is much more important than many players realize).I can attest to this. I have had an experienced player tell me, verbatum, "The bard spells list just isn't very good. It doesn't have any damage spells."


Illegally, unless I've missed something.Is DnD tools illegal and just not taken down yet, or are we talking about when people download book .pdfs. The latter I understand.

[TheDarkblade]

Legal issues aside, there are still folks new to D&D who feel intimidated by splat.



Dragons also have blindsense (smell, hearing), and getting conflicting readings entitles them to a will save to disbelieve.

:smallconfused: Major image spell description



This spell functions like silent image, except that sound, smell, and thermal illusions are included in the spell effect. While concentrating, you can move the image within the range.

The image disappears when struck by an opponent unless you cause the illusion to react appropriately.

emphasis mine.
Blind sense description


Blindsense is a lesser ability that lets the creature notice things it cannot see, but without the precision of blindsight, using nonvisual senses, such as acute smell or hearing. The creature usually does not need to make Spot or Listen checks to pinpoint the location of a creature within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature. Any opponent the creature cannot see still has total concealment (50% miss chance) against the creature with blindsense, and the creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment. Visibility still affects the movement of a creature with blindsense. A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.


I don't see anything there that beats an illusion spell that creates smells and sounds when you have blindsense (hearing, smell) so no conflicting readings, hence no reason to will save to disbelieve any more than an illusion normally has to be save against disbelief, and blindsense doesn't alter the total concealment that the invisible fog cloud gives since if the dragon can't see you (aka total concealment) you still have total concealment, so invisible spell fog cloud isn't negated by that.

Am I missing something?

[icefractal]

Besides "core only", a lot of DMs have an unofficial "threshold of splatbooks". That is, if you're using one or two splatbooks, you're cool. If you're using a few more, they might scrutinize it a lot and be wary. If you're using 10 different books, they have already mentally labeled the character a scary cheese-fest. Based on any kind of actual balance? No. But it's not an uncommon situation, and some classes do better with that than others.

[Coidzor]

Legal issues aside, there are still folks new to D&D who feel intimidated by splat.

Which should be a temporary condition intertwined with access issues anyway.

[ericgrau]

High learning curve mainly. They do suck in the hands of a new or even moderately good player.

Pick the right spells that special buff and trick, UMD a gajlllion scrolls and wands, buff only before fights or otherwise preserve buff actions with an optimization trick, and supplemental skillmonkey on the side. Then your'e good to go.

New players often try to use direct attack spells. Sing in the middle of a fight. Swing a sword themselves. And then expect to be the guy who's mainly good at social skills and suck in a fight, except everyone with the right class skills can do that without sucking in a fight.

[ArcturusV]

Every class sucks when the DM goes out of his way to nerf their toys.

Maybe. But the point I was kinda getting at is the Bard's Toys, are the things the DM wants to nerf more than anything else. Social Skills/Mind Magic/Illusions are typically the top three genres of things I see DMs say "Nope" to. Which are all the bard's toys. Other things? Not so much. I mean they might say "nope" if you try to infinite gate Solars off a single binding or the like... but they aren't going to say "nope" to summoning, period. Or say "nope" to throwing damage spells, or buffs, or battlefield control spells, etc.

[Psyren]

Which should be a temporary condition intertwined with access issues anyway.

"Temporary" is relative. A lone campaign can last for months if not years, with the characters constructed for it (and therefore the allowed sources) locked in at the beginning.

[Gwendol]

High learning curve mainly. They do suck in the hands of a new or even moderately good player.

Pick the right spells that special buff and trick, UMD a gajlllion scrolls and wands, buff only before fights or otherwise preserve buff actions with an optimization trick, and supplemental skillmonkey on the side. Then your'e good to go.


This. Bards are awesome, if you know what you're doing. System mastery required though.

[Feytalist]

If you want an exemple of a Bard who most definitely does not suck, look up Thom Merrilin (http://wot.wikia.com/wiki/Thomdril_Merrilin) from the Wheel of Time books.


I'm pretty sure he's a rogue/spell-less bard with levels in assassin.


Plus Invisible Blade/Master Thrower.

Actually, according to the official Wheel of Time D20 RPG, he's a Wanderer/Gleeman.


And Now You Know :smallbiggrin:

[CombatOwl]

This is not about the power level of a Bard but about the average perception of a Bard.

Bards are perceived as weak by players because, in the not-so-distant past they WERE weak mechanically. There are some cheesy ways to power up the bard in 3.5, and Pathfinder actually fixes the class and makes it (amazingly) useful. But people haven't really caught on to that--a lot of the people I know who are hard core d&d players didn't even bother to read the Bard class in Pathfinder, assuming it would be weak too.


When I first started playing, I thought the Bard was terrible. Every person I have played with also held this opinion. I thought this until I was like 15 or so when I started to think on the power level of classes and came across these type of forums. Now, I see that the Bard definitely has a lot of power even in just the core book. They can fight almost as well as the Fighter since their song gives them basically the same pluses to attack,

If we're talking core 3.5, then no they can't because you can't maintain a performance and get a full attack at the same time. You have to start-stop-start your performances and rely on lingering performance to get you through. It's bad action economy. Even were the two characters to somehow have the same feats, the fighter would be better on action economy alone after 6th. They don't fight as well as a fighter in 3.5.

Neither do they fight that well at low levels in Pathfinder, but at least that resolves itself at later levels.


they have an incredibly great skill list,

Yes.


they fit very well thematically in any setting, some great class features, and some fairly nice spells to boot.

Sort of. Not so great in an undead hunting game.

[johnbragg]

Would it help the perception of Bards to rewrite them with a shorter, more music-focused list of tricks?

Songs affect all hostiles within earshot. Each round adds an effect, each round gets a separate will save.
Song of Bravery: each round of song functions as a Bless spell, stackable
Song of Fear: each round functions as a Bane spell, stackable
Song of Sleep: Lullaby, daze, bane, daze, bane, Sleep
Song of Suggestion: ????

[Talya]

This is a thread on why Bards are perceived to suck. Most people play Core, or Core-plus-a-smattering. And starting players are more likely to play Core or mostly-Core. And that's when they learn that a Bard is a backup healer/rogue/enchanter/illusionist, and not a Big Damn Hero. Thus, bards suck.


"I don't like it" and "It's possible to do this illegally" are not good reasons to make all games involving bards non-core.


Apart from ubiquitous unspecific torrent sources, there are several websites (which I'll do the mods a favor and not mention directly by name) that have everything integrated with the touch of a button. With how long they've been up, and the public knowledge of their existence, I have to think they've already been legally challenged and stood up to it. (By contrast, Crystal Keep's compilations were taken down, even if they later came up again under another name.)

From what I've seen, core-only games are the minority. The vast majority of games are "Everything goes." Furthermore, that's what this portion of this website is about. Ever notice everything goes by default here, unless you specify core only? All the builds, all the balance discussions, they all go on the presumption that all published material is in play unless otherwise stated. This game has been out of print for over half a decade, in an age where nearly all information on any subject is available freely to anyone with the barest modicum of Internet Search-Fu. This is so common that the folks at Paizo were at least intelligent enough to realize, "Hey, everything is going to be available to anyone who wants it whether we want it to be or not, so we might as well take advantage of the fact and worth with it, rather than against it."

Core only, the bard is still better than all classes except the primary spellcasters. Without splat, everything sucks, except wizard/cleric/druid/sorcerer. Remove those three, however, and bards reign supreme. Paladins and Rangers don't get enough spellcasting to save them (though the ranger's skill points give it a utility that comes close to the bard). There aren't enough feats or tricks to make things like dungeoncrasher ubercharging fighters, there are no swift-hunting mystic rangers. In that scenario, the bard casting Alter Self, Glitterdust, Grease, and Glibness is still better than anything the poor monk/fighter/barbarian can do in any situation. Splatbooks do help the bard out a lot, raising it to the very very tip-top of tier 3, but Splatbook diving does far more for most classes below the bard. Splatbook diving narrows the gap between tier 5 and tier 1, the more you add, the close it gets. It never does so completely, not even with the Tome of Battle, but it gives everyone a role to play in a party, regardless of their character concept. Limiting to core or core+x other sources is shortsighted and detrimental to any game. Fortunately, hardly anyone does it.

[Psyren]

@ Talya: Yeah, we get it, there's alternate ways to access all that info. Continuing to talk about them is really unwise and doesn't change the fact that some DMs may simply not like it due to principles, not wanting computers/tablets at the game table etc.


Actually, according to the official Wheel of Time D20 RPG, he's a Wanderer/Gleeman.


And Now You Know :smallbiggrin:

Well yeah, but we were trying to approximate his abilities using 3.5 :smalltongue:

[Boci]

From what I've seen, core-only games are the minority. The vast majority of games are "Everything goes."

Not in my experience. In mine the majority is "core + a large but not limitless list of splat". With "core only" and "everything goes" being about as common as each other and also very rare. I do everything goes, because why not, but plenty of DMs don't.

[Talya]

@ Talya: Yeah, we get it, there's alternate ways to access all that info. Continuing to talk about them is really unwise and doesn't change the fact that some DMs may simply not like it due to principles, not wanting computers/tablets at the game table etc.

Physical game tables?

How quaint!


Not in my experience. In mine the majority is "core + a large but not limitless list of splat". With "core only" and "everything goes" being about as common as each other and also very rare. I do everything goes, because why not, but plenty of DMs don't.

Well then, to be fair, I'm pretty sure my bard build is SRD + complete champion, dragon magic or races of the dragon, and frostburn. Possibly Complete Adventurer, too. I'm too lazy to look it up right now.

[Psyren]

What I tend to see is Core + Completes + SpC + {setting books} + PHB2. Plenty there to build a good bard of course. Unfortunately, some of Bard's nicest tricks are in books that are less frequently allowed, like Words of Creation (BoED) and Dragonfire Inspiration (DrM).


Physical game tables?

How quaint!

I know! It's almost like we're real people and want to socialize, possibly even do other things together that day than roll dice. Weird, I know.

[Talya]

I know! It's almost like we're real people and want to socialize, possibly even do other things together that day than roll dice. Weird, I know.

It's such a niche hobby, I physically hang out with a lot of people, but none of them game. My gaming friends are therefore from all over the world. I suspect if I did game with people I knew in person, it'd still be online, because we tend to all have children and responsibilities and it's easier to schedule and get people together when they don't have to actually be, you know, together.

[Psyren]

It's such a niche hobby, I physically hang out with a lot of people, but none of them game. My gaming friends are therefore from all over the world.

Well, in response to a physical table being labelled "quaint," I could be condescending right back and pity the folks that can only play this wonderful game digitally. Platforms like roll20 have come a long way, but they are a poor substitute for in-person interaction at best.

If it works for you that is what matters - for you. If it doesn't work for others, including their desire to have X or Y source in print, that is their decision and should be respected.

[Boci]

Well then, to be fair, I'm pretty sure my bard build is SRD + complete champion, dragon magic or races of the dragon, and frostburn. Possibly Complete Adventurer, too. I'm too lazy to look it up right now.

I was just surprised you'd gotten the impression everything goes to be the vast majority. It certainly isn't on rpol, and I think that's the biggest online roleplaying sites (and it is certainly one of the biggest).

[Talya]

Well, in response to a physical table being labelled "quaint,"

Quaint does not have negative connotations. It tends to mean "Charmingly old-fashioned" or similar. For instance, I still have several dozen "quaint" dead-tree copies of certain books with sentimental value. (Of course, at this stage, they're ornamental. I'd pull up Shakespeare online before I'd grab the big complete works hardcover off my shelf.)

[Boci]

Quaint does not have negative connotations. It tends to mean "Charmingly old-fashioned" or similar.

A listed definition: "odd, peculiar, or inappropriate". Not to mention "charmingly old-fashioned" sounds pretty condescending as well.

[Twilightwyrm]

I'd say a considerable contributor to the perception of bards being rather mediocre, and therefore "useless", is the books themselves. The PHB repeatedly stresses that the bard should be thought of as a jack-of-all trades and a master of none (with a rather disturbing amount of emphasis on this second part), that bards normally wander the land chronicling the adventures of other heroes, and that they make a good "fifth man" (which to some effectively says they are nice, but unnecessary). The PHB II continues this trend, as does to a lesser extent the DMG, as well as Complete Adventurer, Complete Arcane, and Complete Mage. The fact that the writers of these books already start off players with this perception of the bard, combined with the lack of any class features that immediately standout as powerful, means that many players simply decide to play something else, and therefore don't end up looking into the bard enough to know any different. Indeed, the very imagine of a bard implies someone that is just singing, acting, or playing an instrument, an image that doesn't exactly scream crusading hero of justice, and had the class been named something else, you likely wouldn't have the same perception (see: 4e Warlord). Even after I learned they were pretty good, I didn't have an appreciation of just how powerful bards were until I actually started playing one.

[Psyren]

Quaint does not have negative connotations

"How quaint" does, whether you intended it to be or not. Not that I care, since there's no possible way anyone can convince me that online D&D beats in-person D&D when both are options.

[Kaerou]

I would say its a remnant from 2nd edition where they were pretty poor, they had spells but couldn't cast them in armor iirc.

In 3rd edition they're pretty awesome as they're a level 6 spellcaster and have some bard only spells that can simply be gamebreaking (glibness anyone?)

Sure, their concept sounds silly (I sing at the bad guy!) but they're actually relatively powerful and very versatile.

[Talya]

Not to mention "charmingly old-fashioned" sounds pretty condescending as well.


Depends how you take it.

There's nothing wrong with old fashioned, but it IS old fashioned. In fact, almost anything that ever uses paper and writing implements is old fashioned. That doesn't mean there isn't a place for them. Antiques are valuable for a reason. "Retro" appeal is a thing. But time moves on. Just like physical letter writing (which was actually a thing when I was a kid! People even had overseas "penpals") disappeared with the advent of email, and physical pictures and film have gone away in favor of the digital, everything slowly gets replaced, whether we like it or not. I'm downright luddite in my reaction to "social media," but I don't pretend for even a moment that it's going away. The very image of a group of people sitting around a table rolling dice has that 70's - 80's appeal to it, certainly, although I was too young to be gaming until the late-80's, and with my social circles in high-school barely even heard of it, I didn't really discover it at all until I found it online with the Hypertext d20 SRD just over a decade ago.

[Socratov]

No! someone is invalidating (one of) my class(es)! To the rage machine!

but serioulsy, the bard is great though almost never the focus of a good story. Think about it: princess held in a castle iwth a dragon? Knighty fighter type to the rescue!

Evil Necromancer? Paladin saves the day!

Eldritch monsters? Thank you wise and noble wizard for banishing it!

but the question is, where do these tales come from? Who writes them? The fighter? Too busy [MONOTONOUS TONE] the princess. The paladin? Ever heard of a paladin with hubris? thought so. The wizard? He's in his tower, you go ahead and disturb him in his studies. Make my day!


It's the bard.

People forget that the bard is the one who (along with the quintessential hero) braves any obstacle (apart from the final one), beats any foe, solves every riddle en whatnot jsut to get his story/song/epic/act/dance. and he always survives (or you wouldn't have heard the story).

One problem: they don't feature themselves. the bard is the emobdiment of the virtue himility: he does not blow his own horn (though to be fair, that's what bar wenches are for), his sotry will only be told by another bard, he will always tell of the hero's exploits and educate the people. Any other person woudl be sainted and showered in gifts, not the bard.

And then there is the silly notion that you can earn a living singing and reciting peotry. If you had a daughter and she would date a boy whose careerpath is set in making music, traveling around and expose himself to unknown amounts of dangers, would you not declare him mad and ripe for a mental institution? (he will still get your daughter, but you just won't know it until he's weeks gone)

But everybody forgets that nothing gets bewteen the bard and his story. For the bard will find his fame and write epic ballads telling sotry throughout the ages. He will be remembered for his performance of interpretive dance in front of the campfire telling the epic story of the epicly hot Étain, or twisted conflict between Beowulf and Grendel.

Every hero needs a bard. Fortunately some heroes remember this and honor those whom they depend on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Hero).

So, now we have the Bard's image cleaned up some notes about his powerlevel in DnD.

Talya, I disagree, multiclassing into Sublime chord is fine, jsut make sure you don't get more then 2 levels and afterwards progress into a prim and prober bard PrC: Virtuoso. Good spells i s a great thing to have since it will allow you to be more awesome in your performance: you can summon others to come mirrisdance with you, or use the orb of [X] line for some great pyrotechnics. You should try it. :smallamused:

And indeed in core they are not so strong out of the box. And even if you limit splat support, in most groups you can find a copy of the complete series which does immensely well on pushing the bard to insane heights. The bard starts out of the box in Tier 3, which is none too shabby, but with splat support can easily achieve tier 2. Add Dragon magic, Frostburn and Eberron Campaign setting you can pretty much build Talya's uber bard (not even obscure references tbh)

[Talya]

but the question is, where do these tales come from? Who writes them? The fighter? Too busy [MONOTONOUS TONE] the princess. The paladin? Ever heard of a paladin with hubris? thought so. The wizard? He's in his tower, you go ahead and disturb him in his studies. Make my day!


It's the bard.

One problem: they don't feature themselves. the bard is the emobdiment of the virtue himility: he does not blow his own horn (though to be fair, that's what bar wenches are for)

I love you.


Talya, I disagree, multiclassing into Sublime chord is fine, jsut make sure you don't get more then 2 levels and afterwards progress into a prim and prober bard PrC: Virtuoso. Good spells i s a great thing to have since it will allow you to be more awesome in your performance: you can summon others to come mirrisdance with you, or use the orb of [X] line for some great pyrotechnics. You should try it. :smallamused:

I'm quite aware of the sublime chord/virtuoso trick. I like it just fine, but again, you're diluting your focus. You're no longer a bard, you're a bardly-flavored sorcerer. Your primary focus is your spellcasting at that point.

The main problem is it kills two of my favorite tricks, Bardic Knack and the Crystal Echoblade, which rely on Bard levels. I can make the bard into a melee monster with good spellcasting, and skill-monkey supreme, but it requires bard levels.

Do you get more from the spellcasting? Sure. But if that's what I wanted, I'd play a primary spellcaster. I don't want to sacrifice the bardly jack-of-all-trades wonder for it. Plus, I kinda see Tier 3 as the ideal balance-point in most games. Why break it?

(Note that my "Vow of Nudity" linked in my signature relies on the Sublime Chord. It's a great PrC.)



If we're talking core 3.5, then no they can't because you can't maintain a performance and get a full attack at the same time. You have to start-stop-start your performances and rely on lingering performance to get you through.

I somehow missed this. It is not true, and has never been true. Maintaining bardic music is a free action -- actually that's not true, it's not an action at all, not even a free one -- unless the song requires concentration (Inspire Courage, as an example, does not.) Only starting a bardic performance used an action. However, you cannot cast a spell while maintaining any bardic music, not without common splatbook support.


Starting a bardic music effect is a standard action. Some bardic music abilities require concentration, which means the bard must take a standard action each round to maintain the ability.

[Azernak0]

If we're talking core 3.5, then no they can't because you can't maintain a performance and get a full attack at the same time. You have to start-stop-start your performances and rely on lingering performance to get you through. It's bad action economy. Even were the two characters to somehow have the same feats, the fighter would be better on action economy alone after 6th. They don't fight as well as a fighter in 3.5.


Actually, since we are talking about Core 3.5, they can.



Starting a bardic music effect is a standard action. Some bardic music abilities require concentration, which means the bard must take a standard action each round to maintain the ability. Even while using bardic music that doesn’t require concentration, a bard cannot cast spells, activate magic items by spell completion (such as scrolls), spell trigger (such as wands), or command word. Just as for casting a spell with a verbal component, a deaf bard has a 20% chance to fail when attempting to use bardic music. If he fails, the attempt still counts against his daily limit.


Fascinate, Inspire Competence, Suggestion, and Song of Freedom state they require Concentration. Inspire Courage doesn't. Why would they state Concentration for those four but not Inspire Courage if they did not mean that it doesn't require Concentration to do so?

[Socratov]

I love you.

I love you too honey


I'm quite aware of the sublime chord/virtuoso trick. I like it just fine, but again, you're diluting your focus. You're no longer a bard, you're a bardly-flavored sorcerer. Your primary focus is your spellcasting at that point.
Im my eyes, you are just a bard who has upgraded his aresenal of tricks into a bag of WMDs. It's all spell selection and playstyle from that point on, but let's agree to disagree on the barness of SC shall we? :smallamused:

The main problem is it kills two of my favorite tricks, Bardic Knack and the Crystal Echoblade, which rely on Bard levels. I can make the bard into a melee monster with good spellcasting, and skill-monkey supreme, but it requires bard levels.
step 1 get chotic alignment, step 2 get 16k gold step 3 get chaos music for a feat step 4 buy vest of legends step 5 wear vest of legends step 6 enjoy your bardness turned up to eleven

Do you get more from the spellcasting? Sure. But if that's what I wanted, I'd play a primary spellcaster. I don't want to sacrifice the bardly jack-of-all-trades wonder for it. Plus, I kinda see Tier 3 as the ideal balance-point in most games. Why break it?
well, that's fine by me ( I like T2-4 as well). It's just a good option...

(Note that my "Vow of Nudity" linked in my signature relies on the Sublime Chord. It's a great PrC.)
Yeah, I read it, it's magnificently funny and one day I will use it (once I find a DM with the absent mindedness to allow it)


snip.

[Just to Browse]

words

Your argument appears to be:

1. Most games I play in involve many splatbooks for the bard. These splatbooks are not illegal because they haven't been taken down yet.

2. Most games I play in are online.

3. My games are reflective of the majority of people who post on the internet.

4. Because a majority of people who post on the internet share my environment, they must also share my known list of build choices.

5. My build choices make the bard good, therefore the bard is good for all players and everything else it outliers.

That is four distinct fallacies. You can have people without those options or people who don't want to use them because yes they are illegal in all cases, and you can have people who want to play at a table and not use computers or tablets or not use the internet. You can have people who have those options but don't want to build bards strong or don't know about that 1 esoteric feat in Frostburn.

Because you have no (and cannot bring any) numbers, your responses are based on faith, which is why people discount it. Having a bard that doesn't use the 5-10 unique multi-book builds that make them good is totally a possibility for a variety of reasons, and that's why bards "suck".

[ArcturusV]

Socratov: Those are actually reasons that I like to use Bards as villains.

1) As an NPC, I'm DMing, and it means that it won't get DM screwed on DM Fiat sort of powers like Diplomacy, Bluff, Illusions, Enchantment, etc.

2) No on suspects the Bard (Unless you've played in one of my games where the bard ended up cutting off your head after you were no longer useful... >.>) because they're 'useless' at worst or 'only good at support' at best. And their powers aren't the sort of thing that people tend to think of as Villain Fodder.

3) They are excellent at being the Manipulator type villain. The one who is always behind the curtain, pulling at strings, working through pawns (Who's reputation and status they help to build).

4) They specialize in Mindscrew, between social skills, being a charismatic bastard, mindjacking, and able to warp your senses, a pissed off Bard can make a party of adventurers into gibbering madmen who are never truly certain what they are doing.

[nedz]

You can do the same things with a Beguiler or even a Sorcerer.

[Sam K]

Why are bards PERCEIVED to “suck”? Bad marketing! Which is funny seeing as how bards should be the best marketing people you could get (maybe they just use it to make you under estimate them?). There just aren't many bards to inspire new players to explore the class and give them something to strive towards. They also lack easily visualized powers that define the class.

When you're new to RPGs, you're usually pretty young and playing in a core or mostly-core game. Your knowledge of fantasy sometimes goes no further than pop culture and some history. Lets see what role models are available for the core classes from those sources:

Barbarian: Conan! Vikings! Thor (if you watched the avengers).
Ranger: Aragon and Legolas? Drizzt (if you know something about pop-fantasy). And dont forget Robin Hood.
Fighter: From knights to duelists to samurai to just about every Game of Thrones character with a sword...
Paladin: The knights of the round table. With some imagination, samurai could fit here too.
Wizard/Sorcerer: Gandalf, Merlin, Larry Garden... eh, Harry Potter (and everyone in the HP books).
Rogue: Most characters from Pirates of the Caribbean could be rogues. And hey, NINJAS!
Monk: If you're too young to have seen many kung fu movies (they just don't make them like they use to!), there's always the UFC.
Cleric: Kinda tricky since even Hollywood seem to think magicing deadly wounds away is a bit too cheesy, but their heavy armor and weapons lets you make comparisons to crusaders, and I hear there are some popular holy books that feature healing and miracles.
Druids: They have it pretty bad, I admit. Damn hippies. But atleast they get some pretty cool powers, like shapeshifting.
Bards: So lets see, there's... Brave Sir Robbins minstrels from “Monty Python and the holy grail”, and Tenacious D in the video to “Tribute” (in all fairness, any bard who beats a Pit Fiend that way is cool in my book!)

When you're a new player and know nothing about optimizing (and only a little about role playing), you're pretty dependent on outside influences for your character concepts. It's easy enough to imagine your barbarian wielding a greataxe and wearing a bear skin and a horny helm (hey, helms need love too!) in the image of a viking warrior. Spells like meteor swarm can conjure up mental images of how your wizard will blast his enemies. Bards will... will sing at the enemy REALLY REALLY WELL!

Personally, I just dislike bards because the playstyle seems pretty passive, atleast in core. “Sing sing sing sing the bardic song I started singing 5 rounds ago” just doesn't seem that much fun. And because the core class doesn't interest me, and because I lack any real inspiration for how cool a bard could be, I've never explored the options for making a powerful bard, no matter how many books I have.

[ArcturusV]

I've never rolled a Beguiler. I mean I know they exist... just never really looked over them. And... not REALLY with the Sorcerer. I mean yes, magic, yes, good Charisma. No, people expect the sorcerer once they see the sorcerer. "Naturally gifted prodigy who goes evil" is a standard in fantasy. "Evil Bard" is practically unheard of. Your "Manipulator" is effectively thrown center stage the moment someone learns they're a Sorcerer. They can see a Bard do the Bard thing over and over and never really suspect them because... you're preying on "Bard's suck".

Plus Sorcerers lack of skill points means they're not really all that great at being a bull**** artist like a Bard is. I mean just to function they really need Spellcraft, there's half their skill points. Yes, yes, Magic > Skill in most cases. But when you're dealing with Illusions and Enchantments you really need the skills to back it up. At least it makes things sound and hang better when you use the skills to back it up.

[nedz]

Beguilers are int based rather than cha based but do all of the Diplomacy, Bluff, Illusions and Enchantment stuff. They have plenty of skill points.

Sorcerer can do the Diplomacy, Bluff, Illusions and Enchantment stuff also.
Sorcerers do lack skill points, but they have sufficient. They don't need Spellcraft BTW — that's Wizards.

[Deophaun]

I blame Final Fantasy IV/II US, which gave us the useless Edward and coined the term "spoony bard."

[johnbragg]

Why are bards PERCEIVED to “suck”? Bad marketing! Which is funny seeing as how bards should be the best marketing people you could get (maybe they just use it to make you under estimate them?). There just aren't many bards to inspire new players to explore the class and give them something to strive towards. They also lack easily visualized powers that define the class.


I'm going to repeat myself, because I kind of like the idea I had this morning.

Call it a Spellsinger. He's not the jack-of-all-trades that the bard is, necessarily, although if you write it as a Prestige Class then he could be.

The Spellsinger's music is magic. If you're old enough to remember the Devil Went Down to Georgia, with the devil's fiddle being accompanied by an electric guitar and a full band--something like that.

But the Spellsinger's effect all should be something that it makes sense that magical music could do. So the Spellsinger has a limited set of effects he can create, which start slowly and build up. (Spellsinger effects always target all enemies within earshot, partially to make them different from the arcane/divine caster versions of the same spells)

Song of Bravery (think Eye of the Tiger). Functions as Bless spell, stackable up to Spellsinger level.

Song of Doom (think Imperial Death March). Functions as Bane spell, stackable up to Spellsinger level.

Song of Distraction. (Enya?) Round 1, save vs Lullaby cantrip, round 2, dazzled, round 3 dazed, round 4 fatigued, round 5 exhausted, round 6 sleep.

So yeah, if you can keep the song going long enough for the dragon to blow 6 will saves, the dragon is asleep.

Other possibilities:

Song of Suggestion
Song of Lesser Dispel Magic (think The Who style power chords from CSI to break an enchantment spell, or give a new Will save vs an illusion)
Song of Lesser Vigor (Destiny's Child I'm a Survivor?)

[Socratov]

Oh dear, so many points to adress, is it Christmas allready?


Socratov: Those are actually reasons that I like to use Bards as villains.

1) As an NPC, I'm DMing, and it means that it won't get DM screwed on DM Fiat sort of powers like Diplomacy, Bluff, Illusions, Enchantment, etc.

2) No on suspects the Bard (Unless you've played in one of my games where the bard ended up cutting off your head after you were no longer useful... >.>) because they're 'useless' at worst or 'only good at support' at best. And their powers aren't the sort of thing that people tend to think of as Villain Fodder.

3) They are excellent at being the Manipulator type villain. The one who is always behind the curtain, pulling at strings, working through pawns (Who's reputation and status they help to build).

4) They specialize in Mindscrew, between social skills, being a charismatic bastard, mindjacking, and able to warp your senses, a pissed off Bard can make a party of adventurers into gibbering madmen who are never truly certain what they are doing.
Hammer, meet Nail's head.

You can do the same things with a Beguiler or even a Sorcerer.
possibly, but:


I've never rolled a Beguiler. I mean I know they exist... just never really looked over them. And... not REALLY with the Sorcerer. I mean yes, magic, yes, good Charisma. No, people expect the sorcerer once they see the sorcerer. "Naturally gifted prodigy who goes evil" is a standard in fantasy. "Evil Bard" is practically unheard of. Your "Manipulator" is effectively thrown center stage the moment someone learns they're a Sorcerer. They can see a Bard do the Bard thing over and over and never really suspect them because... you're preying on "Bard's suck".

Plus Sorcerers lack of skill points means they're not really all that great at being a bull**** artist like a Bard is. I mean just to function they really need Spellcraft, there's half their skill points. Yes, yes, Magic > Skill in most cases. But when you're dealing with Illusions and Enchantments you really need the skills to back it up. At least it makes things sound and hang better when you use the skills to back it up.
(emphasis mine), to sum up the counter to your point: yes they could, but a bard will do mindscrew better (mainly at earlier levels, but if they build right evne at later levels) and have skillpoints to spare. Sure he won't be making reality a bitch like the sorc or wizard can, but with complete arcane he can get close, and that's in addition to being a rock star!

Your argument appears to be:

1. Most games I play in involve many splatbooks for the bard. These splatbooks are not illegal because they haven't been taken down yet.

2. Most games I play in are online.

3. My games are reflective of the majority of people who post on the internet.

4. Because a majority of people who post on the internet share my environment, they must also share my known list of build choices.

5. My build choices make the bard good, therefore the bard is good for all players and everything else it outliers.

That is four distinct fallacies. You can have people without those options or people who don't want to use them because yes they are illegal in all cases, and you can have people who want to play at a table and not use computers or tablets or not use the internet. You can have people who have those options but don't want to build bards strong or don't know about that 1 esoteric feat in Frostburn.

Because you have no (and cannot bring any) numbers, your responses are based on faith, which is why people discount it. Having a bard that doesn't use the 5-10 unique multi-book builds that make them good is totally a possibility for a variety of reasons, and that's why bards "suck".
even in core they are quite good if you play them well, so you have a couple of fallacies of your own (substituting personal experience/opnion for fact comes to mind, as does reading a statement being an argument when it's really non-sequitur, and to top it off to duplicate fallacies and counting htem as separate, but I digress). Not that I want to take away Talya's chance to prove her own rebuttal, but I couldn't really stop myself. You know what? before this turns into a rapidly oxidizing fecal storm, can we agree that we all play the game differently and have different expeiences and work from there, discussing how you experienced the positive enforcement of the trope we are discussing at the emoment (being that bards seem to have bad PR and seem not all powerful)?

Beguilers are int based rather than cha based but do all of the Diplomacy, Bluff, Illusions and Enchantment stuff. They have plenty of skill points.

Sorcerer can do the Diplomacy, Bluff, Illusions and Enchantment stuff also.
Sorcerers do lack skill points, but they have sufficient. They don't need Spellcraft BTW — that's Wizards.
but are beguilers rock stars? :smallcool: anyway, yes it can, and yes they do, and yes sorcerers are arcane casters and thus need spellcraft when they want to investigate amgic, counterspell, identify or read magic. True, wizards need it more (or rather have more uses for it), but sorcerers need it all the same.

as for Sam K, turn to the previous page and read my post on why bards have bad PR. Also, ironically marketing firms often have a not so great marketing policy for themselves, especially if you compare it to what they create for their clients. :smallamused:

[Treblain]

I'll say it: bards are poorly designed. It's not just that they're jack-of-all-trades that can be outclassed by focused classes, it's that they're incredibly inflexible jacks.
They're weakest in core, but note that virtually all added bard prestige classes end up specializing in some way. It's one thing to be a sub-par combatant, but the bard is also MAD, often spends its first round on casting or music, and lacks any effective way to up its damage. It's one thing for a jack to get a small amount of spells, but the spell system is not designed for classes that get weaker spells late, and there is no attempt to compensate for that and it isn't good enough to spend feats on. They're spontaneous casters, so giving them access to more spells doesn't increase their versatility. The bardic music scaling is idiotic; why would you give an ability only one use per day at first level and 20 at 20th, when the encounter structure does not multiply twenty-fold in that space? Bardic music preventing you from casting spells is pointlessly limiting and ambiguously worded in the first place, and you have to take a feat to fix that. The bardic music abilities are bizarrely weak and most don't scale sensibly. Suggestion in particular creates a weird catch-22... you shouldn't take the spell Suggestion because you already have it, but the bardic version only works in very limited circumstances and grants two saves, and you're stuck without a very useful spell.


Saying bards are maligned because people don't like jacks of all trades is like saying that people think hexblades are weak because arcane warriors suck. The beguiler, factotum, incarnate, binder, etc. are jacks that are actually flexible, because the designers had a better idea of what they were doing. The bard has multiple distinct elements that don't add up or build on themselves, while all of those classes have a central element that branches out when the time comes to address individual challenges. That's a flaw in the bard design, and the out-of-core stuff doesn't really fix it so much as overcompensate.

[Just to Browse]

even in core they are quite good if you play them well, so you have a couple of fallacies of your own (substituting personal experience/opnion for fact comes to mind, as does reading a statement being an argument when it's really non-sequitur, and to top it off to duplicate fallacies and counting htem as separate, but I digress). Not that I want to take away Talya's chance to prove her own rebuttal, but I couldn't really stop myself. You know what? before this turns into a rapidly oxidizing fecal storm, can we agree that we all play the game differently and have different expeiences and work from there, discussing how you experienced the positive enforcement of the trope we are discussing at the emoment (being that bards seem to have bad PR and seem not all powerful)?

I'd say your basis of accusations are incorrect, but I won't take that further unless you back them up with quotes. Bards without splatbooks is a thing that can (and does) happen, and if bards are definitely worse without the many options in those splatbooks, it is likely a reason that bards are considered to "suck". A lot of the bard's cool abilities come from single feats/options in a wide variety of not-well-known books -- Dragonfire Inspiration (Dragons Something), Words of Creation (BoED), Song of the Heart (I only look this up online), and Snowflake Wardance (Frostburn) all come to mind.

And "quite good if you play them well" is pretty darn subjective. So is the squishball rogue, or the PA barbarian of axing everything, or a standstill fighter. The bard plants itself solidly around the rogue or barbarian in core, and I would call that "suck" since the things that are "not suck" are generally beguilers, splatbook-bards, and warblades.

[nedz]

... yes sorcerers are arcane casters and thus need spellcraft when they want to investigate amgic, counterspell, identify or read magic. True, wizards need it more (or rather have more uses for it), but sorcerers need it all the same.


It's a tangent off a tangent but this is not true.

investigate magic — Knowledge Arcana, but it's not in the job description of the character anyway.
counterspell — Dispel Magic, no spellcraft required
identify — no spellcraft required
read magic — a few uses for spellcraft but only for Glyphs/Symbols and even then the DCs are low.

Wizards need spellcraft to learn spells, Sorcerers can dump it.

You need Ranks in Concentration perhaps, but Int 12 or Int 10 and human allows you to max this, Diplomacy and Bluff.

[ArcturusV]

Ah, but a good Bull**** Artist wants more than just that. You want: Bluff, Intimidate, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Sense Motive, Knowledge (Local), Knowledge (religion), Knowledge (Nobility), etc. Because you need to not only know how to Lie, but also how to find things out, to know the facts that allow your lies to be most effective, etc. Sure your Sorcerer can pop off a "Hey, look over there!" lie with his bluff and charisma. The Bard is going to be the guy who has the knowledge skills and tidbits of information to be able to really get a good handle on you, know how to properly prey on your mind with illusions and enchantments, and what lies, tricks, deceits, etc, will work best on you.

And even with the bard having more generous skill points you're looking at needing Human and 12-14 Int anyway. Which kind of puts it out of the realm of any 2+ class.

Granted you can just have your DM handwave stuff and play it easy with you. But it's not my experience. Most DMs I've seen at the table HAAAAATE the "Social" character and the use of Illusions and Enchantments for their bypassing nature (Though they tend to appreciate Gather Information as Summon: Plot Hook... so there's that going for you). So the more that you can make your plan airtight, the less "Well... you don't have any ranks in Knowledge (Local) so you don't actually know **** about the Elves of the Picturesque Forest of Trees, so you flubbed your assumptions and they're not fooled" sort of gaps in your plan, the better.

[Socratov]

I'll say it: bards are poorly designed. It's not just that they're jack-of-all-trades that can be outclassed by focused classes, it's that they're incredibly inflexible jacks.
They're weakest in core, but note that virtually all added bard prestige classes end up specializing in some way. It's one thing to be a sub-par combatant, but the bard is also MAD, often spends its first round on casting or music, and lacks any effective way to up its damage. It's one thing for a jack to get a small amount of spells, but the spell system is not designed for classes that get weaker spells late, and there is no attempt to compensate for that and it isn't good enough to spend feats on. They're spontaneous casters, so giving them access to more spells doesn't increase their versatility. The bardic music scaling is idiotic; why would you give an ability only one use per day at first level and 20 at 20th, when the encounter structure does not multiply twenty-fold in that space? Bardic music preventing you from casting spells is pointlessly limiting and ambiguously worded in the first place, and you have to take a feat to fix that. The bardic music abilities are bizarrely weak and most don't scale sensibly. Suggestion in particular creates a weird catch-22... you shouldn't take the spell Suggestion because you already have it, but the bardic version only works in very limited circumstances and grants two saves, and you're stuck without a very useful spell.


Saying bards are maligned because people don't like jacks of all trades is like saying that people think hexblades are weak because arcane warriors suck. The beguiler, factotum, incarnate, binder, etc. are jacks that are actually flexible, because the designers had a better idea of what they were doing. The bard has multiple distinct elements that don't add up or build on themselves, while all of those classes have a central element that branches out when the time comes to address individual challenges. That's a flaw in the bard design, and the out-of-core stuff doesn't really fix it so much as overcompensate.

If you put it that way you could say that no class whatsoever in core is designed well: the fighter gets outdone by any primary caster after lvl 11, let alone the druid's pet, special mention for the druid who gets all the toys (minion, wildshape and spells!) resulting in a one man perty, a monk who gets a classfeature which makes him perform worse, the ranger gets a classfeature that makes them even more of a pawn of the DM then players actually are, the wizard, sorc and cleric get to break reality to a level where when used correctly nothing else can be done at that point, the paladin is designed to have them wear a guillotine (power wise) to severely restrict their freedoms and the rogue is foiled by the most common sort of enemy in the MM (hint: they are imune to precision damage by no discerinble anatomy and/or being undead). The barbarian can do one thing and for the rest is benched on account of not being able to behave himself, also, see fighter's problems. YUou can extend this line of reasoning to the rest of 3.5 since about 80% of the classes, equipment and monsters seem to give pause because of mis design. And let's not even talk about the truenamer.

To adress your points:

MAD: depends, cha is very good to you, Con is always useful, STR only if you want to melee, Dex only if you want to shoot arrows, Wis you won't use anyway and Int is nice if the party has no rogue (though with certain ACF's not even that neccessary).

Weakest in core: yes. But then again, every class in core is weakest in core since more options equals more (potential) power. So that'snot a real caveat. They are especially not the weakest class in core (we have the monk for that)

weak damage: in core yes, out of core, have you heard of DFI? Second, damage is not the only solution to an encounter (it's the main murder hobo way). The bard has instead of damage: Illusions, social skills (revruiting enemies to follow you and act on your whim is really funny and effective), intimidation, bluff, sneaky skills, grease, glitterdust, Tasha's hideous laughter, Otto's Irresistable Dance. Want me to continue?

low level spells late: true, but the bard can pump DC's just fine, apart from that it's not only offensive spells he sports but some party buffing spells as well. They help and by that time the wizard/sorceror will be busy doing other stuff then to buff the party, so it still works.

more spell choices: they actually do help since the splat spells not only get stronger (a bit), but more choice means they get more other stuff as well. Oh, and while we go for added support, read the Sublime Chord class. Now you are a bard and a sorc light...

music scaling: yeah, it seem sodd right? however with classfeatures and new songs and whatnot you will be (linearly) needing more uses anyway so that's actually a reason to take Extra music

weak music: in core, yes. The music is weak, except for, you know, allowing the martial classes to PA for more (and more, and more, etc.)

Suggestion: actually it scales quite well in my opinion, and later on it's for the masses with the same action expediture and longer lasting (and it's something you trade away anyway usually)

and the jack of all trades thing is what people don't like since specialization means being more competent at what you do. Do note that the bard can specialize (while still being semi competent at the other stuff) to meet high standards. And I would advocate that the stuff out of Core helps the bard specialize while still maintaining competence in other fields. Some time ago I read somehwere that the bard has 4 things he can do well at, pick 3 to be good at and 1 to be not so great at. That's quite a strong design if you ask me (and thats apart from the whole T3 is best tier discussion)

[Talya]

I'm going to repeat myself, because I kind of like the idea I had this morning.

Call it a Spellsinger. He's not the jack-of-all-trades that the bard is, necessarily, although if you write it as a Prestige Class then he could be.


That's never as cool as the name bard.

Seriously, bardic history is AWESOME. (However, when one starts looking at historical use of the word, Druids were also Bards.)


Your argument appears to be:

5. My build choices make the bard good, therefore the bard is good for all players and everything else it outliers.


1-4 Seem entirely irrelevant to this discussion. 5 is the issue. You don't get it.

My argument is correct not if all bards are awesome. You only need one bard to be awesome for my argument to be correct. You can actually make a druid suck with effort, that doesn't make the class weak. A wizard will likely suck without effort, for the average player, and yet they're the strongest class in the game, they just require a high degree of system mastery to play well.

Bards do not require quite that high a degree of system mastery. Out of the box, in a core game the bard is still ranked 5th out of 11 core classes for both power and utility. (The moment you start allowing classes not in core, you've opened the door to bard splatbook fun, and then the bard continues to rock right behind the tier 1/2s). Yes, with a player who doesn't know how to use them, they're going to seem to have no niche, but that's ultimately true for all spellcasters. (We've even had people post here how they were having a hard time being effective as a druid... a class that comes with a built in fighter as a class feature.) And yes, with splatbooks, the bard's options expand greatly, and yes, I believe the majority of games I ever see played would allow pretty much everything I used on that bard. But...


You can have people without those options or people who don't want to use them because yes they are illegal in all cases, and you can have people who want to play at a table and not use computers or tablets or not use the internet. You can have people who have those options but don't want to build bards strong or don't know about that 1 esoteric feat in Frostburn.

...you are posting this on a d20 Internet optimization forum. Everyone here knows these feats exist and posts about them on a regular basis. Snowflake wardance isn't esoteric, it's considered a bard staple in places like this. You'd have a leg to stand on if you were making this statement at a gaming table where players didn't all check the various handbooks online before ever making a character, and where Monk and Fighter were still considered good options. Consider your audience. Physics explanations involving special relativity may by esoteric and obscure if you're speaking at a janitorial conference, but if you're speaking at the American Astronomical Society conference, it's child's play and common knowledge.


Having a bard that doesn't use the 5-10 unique multi-book builds that make them good is totally a possibility for a variety of reasons, and that's why bards "suck".

I'm sorry, there seems to be something missing there. Because making a good bard without "5-10 unique multi-book builds" is totally a possibility, they suck? Why does that suck?

[Gwendol]

"Weakest in Core"? They're still ahead of every class in core save the full casters, so not sure what is meant by that.
Bards make the best diplomancers, even more so in Core.

[Socratov]

Damn I need to type quicker to keep up :smallwink:


I'd say your basis of accusations are incorrect, but I won't take that further unless you back them up with quotes. Bards without splatbooks is a thing that can (and does) happen, and if bards are definitely worse without the many options in those splatbooks, it is likely a reason that bards are considered to "suck". A lot of the bard's cool abilities come from single feats/options in a wide variety of not-well-known books -- Dragonfire Inspiration (Dragons Something), Words of Creation (BoED), Song of the Heart (I only look this up online), and Snowflake Wardance (Frostburn) all come to mind.

And "quite good if you play them well" is pretty darn subjective. So is the squishball rogue, or the PA barbarian of axing everything, or a standstill fighter. The bard plants itself solidly around the rogue or barbarian in core, and I would call that "suck" since the things that are "not suck" are generally beguilers, splatbook-bards, and warblades.
It's funny how you compare a core only bard to splat classes. Also the only classes in Core that seem to meet your requirements are the full casters which are indeed more powerful, but at the same time comparing oranges to apples. And there is a reason why the bard is a full (and sometimes 3) tiers higher then rogue, fighter and barbarian... Just saying

It's a tangent off a tangent but this is not true.

investigate magic — Knowledge Arcana, but it's not in the job description of the character anyway.
counterspell — Dispel Magic, no spellcraft required
identify — no spellcraft required
read magic — a few uses for spellcraft but only for Glyphs/Symbols and even then the DCs are low.

Wizards need spellcraft to learn spells, Sorcerers can dump it.

You need Ranks in Concentration perhaps, but Int 12 or Int 10 and human allows you to max this, Diplomacy and Bluff.
ok, form the SRD:


Spellcraft (Int; Trained Only)
Use this skill to identify spells as they are cast or spells already in place.

Check
You can identify spells and magic effects. The DCs for Spellcraft checks relating to various tasks are summarized on the table below.

Spellcraft DC Task
13 When using read magic, identify a glyph of warding. No action required.
15 + spell level Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.
15 + spell level Learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll (wizard only). No retry for that spell until you gain at least 1 rank in Spellcraft (even if you find another source to try to learn the spell from). Requires 8 hours.
15 + spell level Prepare a spell from a borrowed spellbook (wizard only). One try per day. No extra time required.
15 + spell level When casting detect magic, determine the school of magic involved in the aura of a single item or creature you can see. (If the aura is not a spell effect, the DC is 15 + one-half caster level.) No action required.
19 When using read magic, identify a symbol. No action required.
20 + spell level Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.
20 + spell level Identify materials created or shaped by magic, such as noting that an iron wall is the result of a wall of iron spell. No action required. No retry.
20 + spell level Decipher a written spell (such as a scroll) without using read magic. One try per day. Requires a full-round action.
25 + spell level After rolling a saving throw against a spell targeted on you, determine what that spell was. No action required. No retry.
25 Identify a potion. Requires 1 minute. No retry.
20 Draw a diagram to allow dimensional anchor to be cast on a magic circle spell. Requires 10 minutes. No retry. This check is made secretly so you do not know the result.
30 or higher Understand a strange or unique magical effect, such as the effects of a magic stream. Time required varies. No retry.
See also: epic usages of Spellcraft.

Action
Varies, as noted above.

Try Again
See above.

Special
If you are a specialist wizard, you get a +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks when dealing with a spell or effect from your specialty school. You take a -5 penalty when dealing with a spell or effect from a prohibited school (and some tasks, such as learning a prohibited spell, are just impossible).

If you have the Magical Aptitude feat, you get a +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks.

Synergy
If you have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (arcana), you get a +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks.
If you have 5 or more ranks in Use Magic Device, you get a +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks to decipher spells on scrolls.
If you have 5 or more ranks in Spellcraft, you get a +2 bonus on Use Magic Device checks related to scrolls.
Additionally, certain spells allow you to gain information about magic, provided that you make a successful Spellcraft check as detailed in the spell description.
and

Knowledge (Int; Trained Only)
Like the Craft and Profession skills, Knowledge actually encompasses a number of unrelated skills. Knowledge represents a study of some body of lore, possibly an academic or even scientific discipline.

Below are listed typical fields of study.

Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, cryptic phrases, constructs, dragons, magical beasts)
Architecture and engineering (buildings, aqueducts, bridges, fortifications)
Dungeoneering (aberrations, caverns, oozes, spelunking)
Geography (lands, terrain, climate, people)
History (royalty, wars, colonies, migrations, founding of cities)
Local (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids)
Nature (animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin)
Nobility and royalty (lineages, heraldry, family trees, mottoes, personalities)
Religion (gods and goddesses, mythic history, ecclesiastic tradition, holy symbols, undead)
The planes (the Inner Planes, the Outer Planes, the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, outsiders, elementals, magic related to the planes)
Check
Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).

In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.

For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.

Action
Usually none. In most cases, making a Knowledge check doesn’t take an action—you simply know the answer or you don’t.

Try Again
No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know something that you never learned in the first place.

Synergy
If you have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (arcana), you get a +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks.
If you have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (architecture and engineering), you get a +2 bonus on Search checks made to find secret doors or hidden compartments.
If you have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (geography), you get a +2 bonus on Survival checks made to keep from getting lost or to avoid natural hazards.
If you have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (history), you get a +2 bonus on bardic knowledge checks.
If you have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (local), you get a +2 bonus on Gather Information checks.
If you have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (nature), you get a +2 bonus on Survival checks made in aboveground natural environments (aquatic, desert, forest, hill, marsh, mountains, or plains).
If you have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (nobility and royalty), you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks.
If you have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (religion), you get a +2 bonus on turning checks against undead.
If you have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (the planes), you get a +2 bonus on Survival checks made while on other planes.
If you have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (dungeoneering), you get a +2 bonus on Survival checks made while underground.
If you have 5 or more ranks in Survival, you get a +2 bonus on Knowledge (nature) checks.
Untrained
An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower).

and

Counterspells
It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell. By doing so, you are using the spell’s energy to disrupt the casting of the same spell by another character. Counterspelling works even if one spell is divine and the other arcane.

How Counterspells Work
To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by choosing the ready action. In doing so, you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell. (You may still move your speed, since ready is a standard action.)

If the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell’s level). This check is a free action. If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent’s spell and can attempt to counter it. If the check fails, you can’t do either of these things.

To complete the action, you must then cast the correct spell. As a general rule, a spell can only counter itself. If you are able to cast the same spell and you have it prepared (if you prepare spells), you cast it, altering it slightly to create a counterspell effect. If the target is within range, both spells automatically negate each other with no other results.

Counterspelling Metamagic Spells
Metamagic feats are not taken into account when determining whether a spell can be countered

Specific Exceptions
Some spells specifically counter each other, especially when they have diametrically opposed effects.

Dispel Magic as a Counterspell
You can use dispel magic to counterspell another spellcaster, and you don’t need to identify the spell he or she is casting. However, dispel magic doesn’t always work as a counterspell.
(emphasis mine)

To me it seems that buidling an arcane caster without ranks in spellcraft is like a barbarian without pounce, sure it can be done and even work well, but it's going to miss some stuff...

[Talya]

To me it seems that buidling an arcane caster without ranks in spellcraft is like a barbarian without pounce, sure it can be done and even work well, but it's going to miss some stuff...

But... giving a barbarian pounce requires obscure splatbook ACF diving, therefore nobody does it.

Or something.

[nedz]

Ah, but a good Bull**** Artist wants more than just that. You want: Bluff, Intimidate, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Sense Motive, Knowledge (Local), Knowledge (religion), Knowledge (Nobility), etc. Because you need to not only know how to Lie, but also how to find things out, to know the facts that allow your lies to be most effective, etc. Sure your Sorcerer can pop off a "Hey, look over there!" lie with his bluff and charisma. The Bard is going to be the guy who has the knowledge skills and tidbits of information to be able to really get a good handle on you, know how to properly prey on your mind with illusions and enchantments, and what lies, tricks, deceits, etc, will work best on you.

And even with the bard having more generous skill points you're looking at needing Human and 12-14 Int anyway. Which kind of puts it out of the realm of any 2+ class.

Granted you can just have your DM handwave stuff and play it easy with you. But it's not my experience. Most DMs I've seen at the table HAAAAATE the "Social" character and the use of Illusions and Enchantments for their bypassing nature (Though they tend to appreciate Gather Information as Summon: Plot Hook... so there's that going for you). So the more that you can make your plan airtight, the less "Well... you don't have any ranks in Knowledge (Local) so you don't actually know **** about the Elves of the Picturesque Forest of Trees, so you flubbed your assumptions and they're not fooled" sort of gaps in your plan, the better.

Well you're moving the goal posts a little since we were talking about an NPC; However you really need to look at the Beguiler, who would need the Educated feat to grab all of those skills, but makes a much better character of this type. Faster spell progression, and most likely more skill points.

[Socratov]

Well you're moving the goal posts a little since we were talking about an NPC; However you really need to look at the Beguiler, who would need the Educated feat to grab all of those skills, but makes a much better character of this type. Faster spell progression, and most likely more skill points.

Bardic Knack (PHB2)
Jack of all Trades (CAdv)

who needs skillpoints again?

[ArcturusV]

Maybe Nedz. As I said, haven't rolled one before. Though I will say the NPC thing isn't really any different (To me). Well, kinda in so far as you won't go out of your way to screw your own NPC when you need it. But I'm not really the sort of DM who handwaves things necessarily, at least as far as NPC capabilities exist. Having clear abilities and clear limitations keeps you on an even keel. Thus when the players win, they feel like they earned the victory. At least that was always my theory about it. So I hold my NPCs to the same sort of rules standards. Instead of just "knowing" whatever they need, they have knowledge ranks, and work within the limits of what they can "know" instead.

It's kind of a clunky difference, I know. And it may not make sense to anyone but me. But it's just how I roll my NPCs. Sort of a continuation of that MAD theory of "Anything my players can do, my villains can do" sort of escalation. In that my villainous NPCs are still limited to PC rules. I hold them to the same standards I'd hold my players. I think it makes for better villains. But it's just how I DM, typically.

[nedz]

Spellcraft DC Task
13 When using read magic, identify a glyph of warding. No action required.
Just cast Dispel Magic. Glyphs and Symbols can be dispelled.
15 + spell level Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.
Irrelevant see below
15 + spell level Learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll (wizard only). No retry for that spell until you gain at least 1 rank in Spellcraft (even if you find another source to try to learn the spell from). Requires 8 hours.
Wizard only
15 + spell level Prepare a spell from a borrowed spellbook (wizard only). One try per day. No extra time required.
Wizard only
15 + spell level When casting detect magic, determine the school of magic involved in the aura of a single item or creature you can see. (If the aura is not a spell effect, the DC is 15 + one-half caster level.) No action required.
19 When using read magic, identify a symbol. No action required.
Just cast Dispel Magic. Glyphs and Symbols can be dispelled.
20 + spell level Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.
20 + spell level Identify materials created or shaped by magic, such as noting that an iron wall is the result of a wall of iron spell. No action required. No retry.
20 + spell level Decipher a written spell (such as a scroll) without using read magic. One try per day. Requires a full-round action.
Cast Read Magic
25 + spell level After rolling a saving throw against a spell targeted on you, determine what that spell was. No action required. No retry.
25 Identify a potion. Requires 1 minute. No retry.
20 Draw a diagram to allow dimensional anchor to be cast on a magic circle spell. Requires 10 minutes. No retry. This check is made secretly so you do not know the result.
30 or higher Understand a strange or unique magical effect, such as the effects of a magic stream. Time required varies. No retry.
See also: epic usages of Spellcraft.

To me it seems that building an arcane caster without ranks in spellcraft is like a barbarian without pounce, sure it can be done and even work well, but it's going to miss some stuff...
You do miss some things here, but many of them are situational.

As to Counterspelling.
In order to counter spell using Spellcraft you need to make the Spellcraft check and have the same spell available to cast. The first is not guaranteed, but the second is very unlikely for a Bard, and not even that likely for a Wizard.

The Dispel Magic approach may not work for some spells, but it is much more reliable otherwise.

[nedz]

Maybe Nedz. As I said, haven't rolled one before. Though I will say the NPC thing isn't really any different (To me). Well, kinda in so far as you won't go out of your way to screw your own NPC when you need it. But I'm not really the sort of DM who handwaves things necessarily, at least as far as NPC capabilities exist. Having clear abilities and clear limitations keeps you on an even keel. Thus when the players win, they feel like they earned the victory. At least that was always my theory about it. So I hold my NPCs to the same sort of rules standards. Instead of just "knowing" whatever they need, they have knowledge ranks, and work within the limits of what they can "know" instead.

It's kind of a clunky difference, I know. And it may not make sense to anyone but me. But it's just how I roll my NPCs. Sort of a continuation of that MAD theory of "Anything my players can do, my villains can do" sort of escalation. In that my villainous NPCs are still limited to PC rules. I hold them to the same standards I'd hold my players. I think it makes for better villains. But it's just how I DM, typically.

No sure, but NPCs can have minions to do the information gathering.

[Talya]

I'll say it: bards are poorly designed. It's not just that they're jack-of-all-trades that can be outclassed by focused classes, it's that they're incredibly inflexible jacks.

Not true, we'll deconstruct it.


They're weakest in core, but note that virtually all added bard prestige classes end up specializing in some way.

And yet in core, they're still stronger than 6 out of 11 classes, being behind only the Tier 1&2 primary spellcasters. And as I demonstrated above, a bard does not need a PrC to be effective.


It's one thing to be a sub-par combatant, but the bard is also MAD, often spends its first round on casting or music, and lacks any effective way to up its damage.

In core, the bard is only a mediocre melee combatant, relying on magic and songs to improve this. Which is fine, because their songs improve everyone else even more than they improve the bard, which means the bard is doing their job. MAD? The bard doesn't need more than charisma. I'd add constitution, but ALL classes need constitution, and the bard is no different there. Dexterity is certainly helpful, but it is tertiary behind charisma and constitution.

Now, a bard can benefit from all ability scores, sure. But that's different from needing them. It's the difference from the Monk, who requires extremely high strength, dexterity, constitution, and wisdom just to do a mediocre job of its role, and the Rogue, who can make use of all ability scores, but can really do its role well if only 2 or 3 are decent. (The latter is superior to the fighter, who requires 2 ability scores to do its job, and barely benefits at all from the others.)


It's one thing for a jack to get a small amount of spells, but the spell system is not designed for classes that get weaker spells late, and there is no attempt to compensate for that and it isn't good enough to spend feats on.

Actually, bards don't tend to get weaker spells later. They get some incredible great spells exclusives. Glibness is bard only, for example. Many shared bard spells are actually at a lower spell level than their sorcerer equivalents, to account for the bard's different spell progression. For example, take Irresistable Dance. Both Bards and Sorcerers first get it at level 16, on account of it being a 6th level bard spell and an 8th level sorcerer spell. Regardless, the bard gets spells, good spells, and lots of them. This puts them ahead of the majority of core classes with that alone.


They're spontaneous casters, so giving them access to more spells doesn't increase their versatility.

Unlike with the sorcerer, I've never had a problem not knowing enough spells as a bard. Bards don't rely on them nearly as much. Bards take spells for different purposes than other spellcasters, and don't attempt to fill multiple niches with them. A bard's not going to blast, raise the undead, or turn you into a toad. The bard's spell list is actually fairly limited, even with splatbook diving allowed. They sit firmly in tier 3 for a reason. They can have a spell for every occasion, but they aren't "I win" buttons. Usually. I don't see this as a problem.


The bardic music scaling is idiotic; why would you give an ability only one use per day at first level and 20 at 20th, when the encounter structure does not multiply twenty-fold in that space?

If you're starting at level 1 (and I've played exactly 2 games that did that), Artist or Extra Music are a decent choice. If you're level 12-20 with splatbooks, you are potentially using 3 or more bardic music uses in a single fight, and potentially some out of combat.


Bardic music preventing you from casting spells is pointlessly limiting and ambiguously worded in the first place, and you have to take a feat to fix that.

In core, it's a pain. It is not, however, a big deal. Few fights last longer than 5 rounds anyway, and the benefits of your song last for 6 even if you don't continue it. (the round you start it, plus 5 after you quit). The feat is awesome, just the same.


The bardic music abilities are bizarrely weak and most don't scale sensibly.

In core, you're talking about +6 to hit, +4 to damage, +2 temporary hit dice, +1 to fortitude saves, and +4 to certain will saves by level 17. (Yes, you'll be stacking Courage and Greatness.) Core is a game where weapon focus and weapon specialization have traditionally been considered good feats for a fighter to take. Outside of core, you're talking about trivially adding +12 to hit/damage, and +12d6 elemental damage on top of that. (although if you have a power-attacking melee type in your party, the +12 to hit is the biggest advantage...bonuses to hit translate directly into giant piles of damage for them.)

I get the impression you're comparing a bard against overpowered tier 1 classes, rather than the majority tier 4 and 5 classes. Are you one of those people who say sorcerers suck?



Suggestion in particular creates a weird catch-22... you shouldn't take the spell Suggestion because you already have it, but the bardic version only works in very limited circumstances and grants two saves, and you're stuck without a very useful spell.

I actually don't disagree here. I always trade away bardic suggestion and fascinate, and always take the spell.


Saying bards are maligned because people don't like jacks of all trades is like saying that people think hexblades are weak because arcane warriors suck. The beguiler, factotum, incarnate, binder, etc. are jacks that are actually flexible, because the designers had a better idea of what they were doing. The bard has multiple distinct elements that don't add up or build on themselves, while all of those classes have a central element that branches out when the time comes to address individual challenges. That's a flaw in the bard design, and the out-of-core stuff doesn't really fix it so much as overcompensate.

If you're comparing against beguiler, factotum, incarnate, binder, you're outside of core. Once you leave core, single-classed bards completely blow those classes away for flexibility. Using only four or five sources the bard is the strongest tier 3 in the game. Core only, it's the only tier 3 in the game. Not only that, they do so with style. I don't care how much ass you kick, if you do so with the personality of a slug, you're a useless slug. To be a real movie-style hero, you need that larger than life personality to go with it. For that reason, charisma can never be a dump stat for me, and anything that gives me a reason to make it a primary stat that is pumped sky-high automatically wins. (Okay, Binders probably have the high charisma, too.)

[TuggyNE]

If you put it that way you could say that no class whatsoever in core is designed well

That's probably correct. Bard, Ranger, and Barbarian are likely the closest to good design, but each has significant glitches and blemishes.

[Coidzor]

That's probably correct. Bard, Ranger, and Barbarian are likely the closest to good design, but each has significant glitches and blemishes.

It could all do with a bit of polish, aye. The Bard class was certainly better designed than the Fighter, which only exists as a 2-level class unless one adds in Dungeoncrasher and/or Zhentarim Fighter substitution levels, mainly because they're an actual class.

They're also better designed, in that they're not universally incompetent at all of their intended roles right out of the box(even without knowing what you're doing, it's a bit hard to mess up their skill and especially knowledge aspect, than Monks. Also, they have some ability to live up to what they're intended to be, whereas Monks fail at all of their intended roles and their intended roles are at cross-purposes(stationary flurry and fast movement, for starters, follow up with MAD, poor chassis for melee, and a plethora of abilities that are ultimately useless or weaker than a low level spellcaster's basic spell when they first get it). But, well, Monks. :/ Fish, barrel, dynamite, you get the picture.

Even the devs learned a thing or two as they were Dungeons and Dragonsing it up.

[holywhippet]

In core, you're talking about +6 to hit, +4 to damage, +2 temporary hit dice, +1 to fortitude saves, and +4 to certain will saves by level 17. (Yes, you'll be stacking Courage and Greatness.) Core is a game where weapon focus and weapon specialization have traditionally been considered good feats for a fighter to take. Outside of core, you're talking about trivially adding +12 to hit/damage, and +12d6 elemental damage on top of that. (although if you have a power-attacking melee type in your party, the +12 to hit is the biggest advantage...bonuses to hit translate directly into giant piles of damage for them.)


Even with just inspire courage, I still don't see how it can be considered weak. At level 14 you give +3 to attack and damage for all allies who can hear your song. Emphasis on all allies. If you are fighting alongside an army with 1000 troops then all 1000 are going to get those bonuses - you can make sure of this by using a musical instrument that can be heard from a long distance. I can't think of any spells that can pull that off. Even the bless spell doesn't scale past +1 and only works on allies within 50 feet.

The 20 uses per day at level 20 when you won't get into combat 20 times a day issue ignores the fact that you can use your bard song for things outside of combat. Song of freedom, fascinate and suggestion have some decent use potential.

[johnbragg]

Consider your audience. Physics explanations involving special relativity may by esoteric and obscure if you're speaking at a janitorial conference, but if you're speaking at the American Astronomical Society conference, it's child's play and common knowledge.

I think the more exact analogy is discussing special relativity at a meeting of AP Physics high school teachers. Yes, the teachers all know the esoteric and obscure material, but the students less so.

Talya, no one is arguing that your optimized Bard sucks. Or that a reasonably well-optimized Bard sucks. The OP was posing the question of why the Bard is widely *percieved* and *believed* to suck. And one major reason is that the Core Bard lacks impressive abilities. He doesn't have the spellcasting power of the Tier 1-2 classes, and he doesn't have a mechanism in Core for doing a lot of damage or making a lot of attacks. (Rage, Sneak Attack, Power Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting, Flurry of Blows). So unless your starting player immediately realizes the potential of Diiplomancy, the Bard looks weak.

And nothing in a splatbook changes the fact that most players start with teh Core Bard, and the Core Bard looks weak.

[Treblain]

First of all, don't get me wrong. I'm not a core-only believer and I'm familiar with non-core bard options, though I have the most practical experience playing a bard in a mostly core game. I love bards, I really do, but they're not a well-designed class- nothing fits together and their unique abilities aren't well-thought-out. Lots of unique non-spell abilities in core are underpowered or limited in the same way as bardic music... see barbarian rages and monk special abilities.



In core, it's a pain. It is not, however, a big deal. Few fights last longer than 5 rounds anyway, and the benefits of your song last for 6 even if you don't continue it. (the round you start it, plus 5 after you quit). The feat is awesome, just the same.

Yeah, so here's where what I said about the rules being ambiguous comes in. I take Melodic Casting on my bard so I don't have to worry about it, but I was under the impression that the rule saying that bards can't cast while using bardic music applies to those five rounds. What else would it mean, when it comes to music that doesn't take concentration? You've spent your standard for that round making the music, and bards had no way of casting quickened spells when the PHB came out. And the Concentration part of Melodic Casting has its own problem, in that you might need ranks in Concentration for prereqs so you can't dump it anyway.


In core, you're talking about +6 to hit, +4 to damage, +2 temporary hit dice, +1 to fortitude saves, and +4 to certain will saves by level 17. (Yes, you'll be stacking Courage and Greatness.) Core is a game where weapon focus and weapon specialization have traditionally been considered good feats for a fighter to take. Outside of core, you're talking about trivially adding +12 to hit/damage, and +12d6 elemental damage on top of that. (although if you have a power-attacking melee type in your party, the +12 to hit is the biggest advantage...bonuses to hit translate directly into giant piles of damage for them.)

If you do them all at once? Inspire Courage is probably worth spending a round once you're at +3, but few of the others are worth the action. They're only good because the bard might not have anything better to do in combat. And adding +12 and +12d6 elemental damage means Words of Creation and Dragonfire Inspiration and some items from your generous DM, plus Dragonic Heritage if you want that elemental damage to not be fire, and possibly War Chanter or Seeker of the Song if you mean doing both in one round. How is being Exalted Good (a severe RP handicap for your 'stylish' bard) and dragonblooded (which costs a feat or drastically limits your choice of race) done "trivially"?


I get the impression you're comparing a bard against overpowered tier 1 classes, rather than the majority tier 4 and 5 classes. Are you one of those people who say sorcerers suck?

Tiers assume equal optimization. So the low-op group experiences the "useless bard" trope and the high-op group has maxed Power Attacking chargers for melee and smart casters so all the fights end before the bard gets his second song in. I don't contest the bard's tier placement, but it's there on the strength of its spells, skills, and item use, which the tier system values highly to the point that its shortcomings can be ignored.


If you're comparing against beguiler, factotum, incarnate, binder, you're outside of core. Once you leave core, single-classed bards completely blow those classes away for flexibility. Using only four or five sources the bard is the strongest tier 3 in the game. Core only, it's the only tier 3 in the game.

I'm talking about how the bard is badly designed as a do-it-all class. It has nothing to do with core or non-core, I just meant that those non-core classes came from a better understanding of how to make a versatile class that wasn't just a bunch of scraps thrown together. I'm saying that because of the bard's clumsy design, there wasn't a good way for non-core options to enhance it organically. Giving it new options for powerful feats and spells can't change the fact that it gets too few of those already and those are fixed, inflexible options.

As for prestige classes, it looks perfectly normal when wizards get a prestige class that grants them 10 levels of spellcasting, or even meleers getting a PrC that kept full BAB and makes them stronger, but the designers balked at making a bard PrC that would boost them in the same way. The strongest 'bard' builds I've seen- Bardsader or Bardblade and Sublime Chord/Virtuoso are basically bardic Frankensteins that graft Inspire Courage onto a different role. That's not splats used creatively to power up a class; that's finding a way to take its few viable unique abilities and add them to a more reliable build.

[Deophaun]

Tiers assume equal optimization. So the low-op group experiences the "useless bard" trope and the high-op group has maxed Power Attacking chargers for melee and smart casters so all the fights end before the bard gets his second song in.
Not quite. The tier system assumes "general averaging" for the placement of classes into tiers. Beyond that, no other assumptions are made, including the optimization level of the other players or the campaign.

Plus, those Power Attacking chargers need splats to get pounce (unless it's a Druid), Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, and such. Once those are in, the Bard can use swift actions for his bardic music abilities.

[Aliek]

Using only four or five sources the bard is the strongest tier 3 in the game.

Now this I can't agree with. They're still behind psychic warriors, and perhaps warlocks. Binders are a 'maybe', but they'd be better only if using that summon monster vestige, and that should pump them onto T2, so nevermind.

A well-optimized bard is better than ToB classes tough.


All said and done, the thing about bards is, as much as they're rock stars, they don't get much spotlight. Kinda like a bass player or somesuch.

[Milo v3]

perhaps warlocks.

Just saying, Warlocks are 4th tier.

[Gwendol]

Now this I can't agree with. They're still behind psychic warriors, and perhaps warlocks. Binders are a 'maybe', but they'd be better only if using that summon monster vestige, and that should pump them onto T2, so nevermind.


I doubt that is true, but it doesn't change the basic fact that the bard certainly does not "suck". It's a versatile, well rounded class with unique features. Less focused than, say, a beguiler, but not in a bad way.

[Just to Browse]

It's funny how you compare a core only bard to splat classes. Also the only classes in Core that seem to meet your requirements are the full casters which are indeed more powerful, but at the same time comparing oranges to apples. And there is a reason why the bard is a full (and sometimes 3) tiers higher then rogue, fighter and barbarian... Just saying
Err... what? No. What I am saying is in keeping with the whole point of the thread--bards get a lot more out of more splatbooks. So if you remove all the splatbooks, bards fall down a lot harder. And that falling makes them hit the levels of the (also fallen) barbarian and rogue. It's literally a demonstration of my point. Just saying.


1-4 Seem entirely irrelevant to this discussion. 5 is the issue. You don't get it. 1-4 were highlighting a set of fallacies. 5 is one of those too.


My argument is correct not if all bards are awesome. You only need one bard to be awesome for my argument to be correct. You can actually make a druid suck with effort, that doesn't make the class weak. A wizard will likely suck without effort, for the average player, and yet they're the strongest class in the game, they just require a high degree of system mastery to play well.That's incorrect. A warlock has a possible build that gets them awesome damage, and some invocations that absolutely rock and can destroy objects and force massive SoLs at long range. But they are Tier 4.

Wizards can do all sorts of terrible builds if you actually pick up the spell compendium and just leaf through for the cool things. But they are Tier 1. They can also access infinite wealth and infinite stats a la Pun-Pun but are not considered "Tier 0" or whatever that implies.

A class is not good based on whether this one trick can make it good, but whether a variety of options are available to make it good. Warblades don't need to always go IHS and be tanky and PsyWars can build something other than metamorphosis and deal OK damage, but bards need to go to a bard-only prestige class for good casting and need one of two unique magic weapons or a special environment book feat in order to get damage.


Bards do not require quite that high a degree of system mastery. Out of the box, in a core game the bard is still ranked 5th out of 11 core classes for both power and utility. (The moment you start allowing classes not in core, you've opened the door to bard splatbook fun, and then the bard continues to rock right behind the tier 1/2s). Yes, with a player who doesn't know how to use them, they're going to seem to have no niche, but that's ultimately true for all spellcasters. (We've even had people post here how they were having a hard time being effective as a druid... a class that comes with a built in fighter as a class feature.) And yes, with splatbooks, the bard's options expand greatly, and yes, I believe the majority of games I ever see played would allow pretty much everything I used on that bard. But...The bard is good like a rogue or barbarian. Which is OK, but it's not "rocking" anything with low-scaling save DCs, no buffs, and limited casting selection.


...you are posting this on a d20 Internet optimization forum. Everyone here knows these feats exist and posts about them on a regular basis. Snowflake wardance isn't esoteric, it's considered a bard staple in places like this. You'd have a leg to stand on if you were making this statement at a gaming table where players didn't all check the various handbooks online before ever making a character, and where Monk and Fighter were still considered good options. Consider your audience. Physics explanations involving special relativity may by esoteric and obscure if you're speaking at a janitorial conference, but if you're speaking at the American Astronomical Society conference, it's child's play and common knowledge.:smallsigh: No, you are posting in a thread where people ask why other people think the bard sucks. Everyone here knows that's based on public opinion, which comes in from everyone who goes on the internet and not just optimizers. Snowflake Wardance isn't just considered esoteric in circles that don't own Frostburn, people don't even know that it exists. You'd have a leg to stand on if you were making this statement in a CharOp section where people insisted the bard sucked despite optimization. Consider your audience. Saying that you know physics and thus every janitor must also know it makes no sense because not everyone is from the American Astronomical Society. It's not child's play and it's hardly common knowledge. Heck, I had to look up half the feats (and all the items here) before contributing, and I've been doing this for 5 or 6 years.


I'm sorry, there seems to be something missing there. Because making a good bard without "5-10 unique multi-book builds" is totally a possibility, they suck? Why does that suck?Please read my posts, I've repeated this already.

The bard requires many things to be good. If he does not have those things he is not good. Thus, when people do not use those things, they notice he is not good. This isn't an argument you can make--those people do exist, everyone was at one point not on the internet reading CharOp handbooks, and the people on MinMax/BG + GitP + ENWorld + RPGnet + TGD + D&D Wiki are by no means a demographic representative of the D&D 3.x world. That world has opinions, which make it to the internet without the people who say them going there explicitly.

[Talya]

lot's of stuff ignoring the point.

Bards, however, without any splat at all, are tier 3.

They are the only tier 3 in a core only game. They don't need any of that stuff. That stuff is great! But without it, the bard still is what it is. That stuff just makes it easier.




Wizards can do all sorts of terrible builds if you actually pick up the spell compendium and just leaf through for the cool things. But they are Tier 1. They can also access infinite wealth and infinite stats a la Pun-Pun but are not considered "Tier 0" or whatever that implies.

"Pun-pun" isn't something that factors into tier ratings, and is actually accessible through paladin, so let's ignore all that. It's again not relevant here. The wizard has a lower floor than most classes. In the average person's hands who has never played a wizard or read anything here, they're going to be less effective than a fighter. They require a high degree of system mastery to play well. If you have that system mastery, they start to show why they're tier 1, but without it, they're useless.

The bard doesn't have that low floor, and doesn't require that same degree of system mastery. They are going to show their tier 3 potential without it. Oh, it's possible to play them badly, but it's far less likely. Out of the box, in core, they're still going to outshine all the primary melee types.



A class is not good based on whether this one trick can make it good, but whether a variety of options are available to make it good.

Exactly, and that's why bards are in the tier 3 sweet spot. EVERYTHING they do makes them good.


but bards need to go to a bard-only prestige class for good casting and need one of two unique magic weapons or a special environment book feat in order to get damage.

Bards don't "need" to get massive melee damage. They sit at tier 3 without it.


The bard is good like a rogue or barbarian. Which is OK, but it's not "rocking" anything with low-scaling save DCs, no buffs, and limited casting selection.

Bard - Tier 3
Barbarian - Tier 4
Rogue - Tier 4
Paladin - Tier 5
Fighter - Tier 5
Monk - Tier 5

Note that Tier 1-2 are often considered broken and overpowered. Wizards/Druids/Clerics (and sorcerers) are not "good." They are imbalanced. In a large number of games, they get banned. Without them, the bard is the strongest class in the game by a wide margin. Now, unlike the tier 1s, the bard can't carry the entire party. In core, at any rate, you can't make an entire party out of bards filling every role (it's easy once you leave core, but you are only talking about core, since you are discounting my bard builds), but once you remove the tier 1/2 classes, your ideal party is likely two bards, a barbarian and a rogue.

Now, how does that "suck?"

(Also, "no buffs?" Have you looked at the bard class? Buffing is one of their stronger areas.)


:smallsigh: No, you are posting in a thread where people ask why other people think the bard sucks. Everyone here knows that's based on public opinion, which comes in from everyone who goes on the internet and not just optimizers. Snowflake Wardance isn't just considered esoteric in circles that don't own Frostburn, people don't even know that it exists. You'd have a leg to stand on if you were making this statement in a CharOp section where people insisted the bard sucked despite optimization. Consider your audience. Saying that you know physics and thus every janitor must also know it makes no sense because not everyone is from the American Astronomical Society. It's not child's play and it's hardly common knowledge. Heck, I had to look up half the feats (and all the items here) before contributing, and I've been doing this for 5 or 6 years.

This is a d20 optimization forum. This is where builds get made, tests of spite are run, the guy who created the tier system for evaluating class potential posts, and handbooks are posted. Yes, people with less system mastery post here (reading this forum is a good way to gain that system mastery.) But when they do, and someone answers, and someone else replies "They can't know that. That's obscure. They'd never get to use that..." it's missing the point. If the janitors visit the American Astronomical Society and demand that they not use Special Relativity in their explanations because it's too hard and nobody understands it, they are, perhaps, not getting the point.


Please read my posts, I've repeated this already.


The bard requires many things to be good. If he does not have those things he is not good.

Again, no she doesn't. The bard is good in core. Therefore, she always has "those things." Add those other many things, and she becomes great.


Thus, when people do not use those things, they notice he is not good. This isn't an argument you can make--those people do exist, everyone was at one point not on the internet reading CharOp handbooks, and the people on MinMax/BG + GitP + ENWorld + RPGnet + TGD + D&D Wiki are by no means a demographic representative of the D&D 3.x world. That world has opinions, which make it to the internet without the people who say them going there explicitly.

Then those same people would definitely think wizards suck. It is easier to screw up a wizard than it is to screw up a bard. The wizard is more likely to suck in core than the bard is. Yet people don't think wizards suck. Most people intuitively understand the potential upside, even if most people play the class ineffectively.

The perception problem bards have has nothing to do with mechanics, because mechanically, a bard has no problems. The perception is with the concept.

[johnbragg]

Then those same people would definitely think wizards suck. It is easier to screw up a wizard than it is to screw up a bard. The wizard is more likely to suck in core than the bard is. Yet people don't think wizards suck. Most people intuitively understand the potential upside, even if most people play the class ineffectively.

It takes effort to screw up a wizard to the point where they're not contributing. I'm going to use a sorcerer so I can put even less thought into it. Let's build him up to level 10, picking spells from the SRD on a "Could I join the Justice LEague with this spell?" basis.

1st level--Sleep, Shocking Grasp (5d6 is more than Burning Hands at 5d4)
3rd level--Shield
4th level--Invisibility!
5th level--Web, True Strike (+20? I'll be unstoppable!)
6th level--Fly!
7th level--Haste, Detect Thoughts, Unseen Servant (sounds pretty awesome, low-op player won't use it well)
8th level--let's say Polymorph is banned, so you take Stoneskin!
9th level--Ice Storm! Fireball! Oh, Command Undead (BWAA HA HA HA HA)!
10th level--Teleport. If Teleport is banned, maybe Baleful Polymorph, maybe Telekinesis. Or maybe just Cone of Cold.

Not a well-optimized or well-organized PC. But can do plenty of useful stuff. Certainly doesn't suck.

MAybe the definition of Tier 1 or 2 should be "a brand-new player with minimal knowledge could build a reasonably effective mid-to high-level character."


The perception problem bards have has nothing to do with mechanics, because mechanically, a bard has no problems. The perception is with the concept.

If the concept is, "jack of all trades but master of none", then yes, it's the concept not the mechanics. The utility infielder is always going to be undervalued in a heroic fantasy game.

If the concept is "magic through music/poetry", then no, it's the mechanics. You could write mechanics that deliver awesome effects that make sense as music-driven magical effects. But TSR didn't, they just copied stuff from the cleric and wizard spell lists as-is.

[Socratov]

Not true, we'll deconstruct it.



And yet in core, they're still stronger than 6 out of 11 classes, being behind only the Tier 1&2 primary spellcasters. And as I demonstrated above, a bard does not need a PrC to be effective.



In core, the bard is only a mediocre melee combatant, relying on magic and songs to improve this. Which is fine, because their songs improve everyone else even more than they improve the bard, which means the bard is doing their job. MAD? The bard doesn't need more than charisma. I'd add constitution, but ALL classes need constitution, and the bard is no different there. Dexterity is certainly helpful, but it is tertiary behind charisma and constitution.

Now, a bard can benefit from all ability scores, sure. But that's different from needing them. It's the difference from the Monk, who requires extremely high strength, dexterity, constitution, and wisdom just to do a mediocre job of its role, and the Rogue, who can make use of all ability scores, but can really do its role well if only 2 or 3 are decent. (The latter is superior to the fighter, who requires 2 ability scores to do its job, and barely benefits at all from the others.)



Actually, bards don't tend to get weaker spells later. They get some incredible great spells exclusives. Glibness is bard only, for example. Many shared bard spells are actually at a lower spell level than their sorcerer equivalents, to account for the bard's different spell progression. For example, take Irresistable Dance. Both Bards and Sorcerers first get it at level 16, on account of it being a 6th level bard spell and an 8th level sorcerer spell. Regardless, the bard gets spells, good spells, and lots of them. This puts them ahead of the majority of core classes with that alone.



Unlike with the sorcerer, I've never had a problem not knowing enough spells as a bard. Bards don't rely on them nearly as much. Bards take spells for different purposes than other spellcasters, and don't attempt to fill multiple niches with them. A bard's not going to blast, raise the undead, or turn you into a toad. The bard's spell list is actually fairly limited, even with splatbook diving allowed. They sit firmly in tier 3 for a reason. They can have a spell for every occasion, but they aren't "I win" buttons. Usually. I don't see this as a problem.



If you're starting at level 1 (and I've played exactly 2 games that did that), Artist or Extra Music are a decent choice. If you're level 12-20 with splatbooks, you are potentially using 3 or more bardic music uses in a single fight, and potentially some out of combat.



In core, it's a pain. It is not, however, a big deal. Few fights last longer than 5 rounds anyway, and the benefits of your song last for 6 even if you don't continue it. (the round you start it, plus 5 after you quit). The feat is awesome, just the same.



In core, you're talking about +6 to hit, +4 to damage, +2 temporary hit dice, +1 to fortitude saves, and +4 to certain will saves by level 17. (Yes, you'll be stacking Courage and Greatness.) Core is a game where weapon focus and weapon specialization have traditionally been considered good feats for a fighter to take. Outside of core, you're talking about trivially adding +12 to hit/damage, and +12d6 elemental damage on top of that. (although if you have a power-attacking melee type in your party, the +12 to hit is the biggest advantage...bonuses to hit translate directly into giant piles of damage for them.)

I get the impression you're comparing a bard against overpowered tier 1 classes, rather than the majority tier 4 and 5 classes. Are you one of those people who say sorcerers suck?




I actually don't disagree here. I always trade away bardic suggestion and fascinate, and always take the spell.



If you're comparing against beguiler, factotum, incarnate, binder, you're outside of core. Once you leave core, single-classed bards completely blow those classes away for flexibility. Using only four or five sources the bard is the strongest tier 3 in the game. Core only, it's the only tier 3 in the game. Not only that, they do so with style. I don't care how much ass you kick, if you do so with the personality of a slug, you're a useless slug. To be a real movie-style hero, you need that larger than life personality to go with it. For that reason, charisma can never be a dump stat for me, and anything that gives me a reason to make it a primary stat that is pumped sky-high automatically wins. (Okay, Binders probably have the high charisma, too.)
Darling, keep on praising the bard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdnKND8qMDE)

Just saying, Warlocks are 4th tier.
yes they are, though they get really close to tier 3 and this is up for discussion among some company. The warlock mainly dances between low tier 3 and high tier 4 depending on who you ask...

Now this I can't agree with. They're still behind psychic warriors, and perhaps warlocks. Binders are a 'maybe', but they'd be better only if using that summon monster vestige, and that should pump them onto T2, so nevermind.

A well-optimized bard is better than ToB classes tough.


All said and done, the thing about bards is, as much as they're rock stars, they don't get much spotlight. Kinda like a bass player or somesuch.
no, nope, nada, correct. The bard only needs 1 PrC to get to a solid T2 (hint: it's called Sublime chord and it was designed for them). And you get spotlight however you want: if you play guitar, get perform strings and play during the session. Hell, I've held speeches as a bard which made people forget were playing only a game. You can be as awesome as you wish. People just forget that the bard is the most roleplay inciting class in the whole of frikkin' DnD.

[Talya]

I doubt that is true, but it doesn't change the basic fact that the bard certainly does not "suck". It's a versatile, well rounded class with unique features. Less focused than, say, a beguiler, but not in a bad way.

Yeah. Problem with the beguiler is their entire focus is utterly crippled by Mind Effecting immunity and True Seeing. Beguiler's interesting because in a world without those two things, they could easily be Tier 2. Their sheer power is potentially high enough, but they've only got two tricks, and those tricks can be nullified.

The bard always has something useful to do. I don't really think that the Beguiler is good class design. Ideally, every class should always have something useful to do that cannot win the encounter on its own. Tier 1s (and usually tier 2s) can win the encounters with one or two spells without party support. Tier 5s (and sometimes 4s) frequently find themselves with nothing useful to contribute at all (although the tier 4s might win an encounter by themselves if it's in their specialty.) This leaves the ranking of Beguiler a bit problematic to me. It's too strong to drop down to tier 4, but it barely has the versatility to sit in tier 3. (It's probably saved by its skill ranks, I suppose.)

[nedz]

Yeah. Problem with the beguiler is their entire focus is utterly crippled by Mind Effecting immunity and True Seeing. Beguiler's interesting because in a world without those two things, they could easily be Tier 2. Their sheer power is potentially high enough, but they've only got two tricks, and those tricks can be nullified.

Well Beguilers have some utility spells, and they are quite easy to optimise for more options. Shadow magic is a thing too, though I note that they are given an Advanced Learning just one level before they could grab Shadow Conjuration, and the next three levels after; now this is very easy to sidestep but it does look like a deliberate nerf.

Bards can be shutdown hard by a single second level spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/silence.htm) though. I remember one incident when the party decided to use this in a raid on a safe house fully accepting that my bard would be useless. It didn't go well; the next raid on a very similar safe house, when this precaution wasn't taken, went much better :smallsigh:

[Talya]

Well Beguilers have some utility spells, and they are quite easy to optimise for more options. Shadow magic is a thing too, though I note that they are given an Advanced Learning just one level before they could grab Shadow Conjuration, and the next three levels after; now this is very easy to sidestep but it does look like a deliberate nerf.

Bards can be shutdown hard by a single second level spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/silence.htm) though. I remember one incident when the party decided to use this in a raid on a safe house fully accepting that my bard would be useless. It didn't go well; the next raid on a very similar safe house, when this precaution wasn't taken, went much better :smallsigh:

Silence is a will save. Good luck landing it. True seeing and protection from morality do not allow the attacker they protect against to save. Silence is just another save or suck against a bard.

[Felyndiira]

Yeah. Problem with the beguiler is their entire focus is utterly crippled by Mind Effecting immunity and True Seeing. Beguiler's interesting because in a world without those two things, they could easily be Tier 2. Their sheer power is potentially high enough, but they've only got two tricks, and those tricks can be nullified.

That's only counting their iconic spells. A huge skill list, 6+int on a class with int as the primary casting stat, trapfinding, and shadow conjuration with advanced learning adds to their versatility. A class does not need to be able to fight every monster with just their class features to be tier 3 versatile. It also takes both mind immunity and true seeing to really affect the beguiler.

Besides, the beguiler can still contribute in those fights by burning his arcane slots on runestaves, using arcane disciple to turn into a bear, or just leave and come back with a dominated bear in tow.

[nedz]

Silence is a will save. Good luck landing it. True seeing and protection from morality do not allow the attacker they protect against to save. Silence is just another save or suck against a bard.

Only if you cast it on the Bard on an object 5' away and it's no save.

[Talya]

Only if you cast it on the Bard on an object 5' away and it's no save.


No save then. Then the bard is fine with only a single move action.

[Boci]

No save then. Then the bard is fine with only a single move action.

Terrain, enemies and obstacles permitting . Its not going to shut down the bard (at least not automatically), but it is worth noting.

[Talya]

Tumble is a class skill. Just sayin'.

Also, it screws over the wizard just as badly. I've never actually seen someone prepare a silent spell, "just in case", and the wizard doesn't have tumble to rely on. Even if they did prepare one, it's not going to be one of their best spells, and it's going to be using one of their best spell slots. Furthermore, it's actually taking up their action this round to use it. The bard is still going to get to act.

(Sorcerer doesn't have nearly as much trouble, since they can use Silent Spell spontaneously.)

[Boci]

Tumble is a class skill. Just sayin'.

Unless you can tumble at full speed you'll need a double move to get out of the spell's range (Assuming the source was adjacent). Plus tumble won't help if you were grappled by a silenced enemy. Its not an auto shut down, but its a low level spell that can be problematic.


Also, it screws over the wizard just as badly. I've never actually seen someone prepare a silent spell, "just in case", and the wizard doesn't have tumble to rely on. Even if they did prepare one, it's not going to be one of their best spells, and it's going to be using one of their best spell slots. Furthermore, it's actually taking up their action this round to use it. The bard is still going to get to act.

That is a fair point, but wizards have more silence spells on their list, and at higher levels a better chance of avoiding such a situation to begin with. Although both can use MM silent rods.

[Talya]

Unless you can tumble at full speed you'll need a double move to get out of the spell's range (Assuming the source was adjacent). Plus tumble won't help if you were grappled by a silenced enemy. Its not an auto shut down, but its a low level spell that can be problematic.

The maximum distance you need to travel to get out of the silent spell is 20'. (15' if you know the exact placement of the spell and don't move in a straight line.) Most people have at least 30' movement. Tumbling 5' will use 10' of that, you still get to move 25' that round. If you have to tumble 10', you're still going to move 20' that round, and get out. The deck would need to be pretty badly stacked against the bard to prevent it. And if the enemy is focusing that heavily on the bard, then the bard is already doing more than everyone else on the battlefield, since it's leaving all the other characters in the party free to do whatever they want.


If you're grappled, you're not likely to be casting any spells, silent or not. Somatic components are nearly ubiquitous. The silence spell wasted someone's spell slot, since the grapple is already doing their job for them. Finding a non-casting grapple defense is something every caster does as soon as possible.

[Boci]

The maximum distance you need to travel to get out of the silent spell is 20'. Most people have at least 30' movement. Tumbling 5' will use 10' of that, you still get to move 25' that round. If you have to tumble 10', you're still going to move 20' that round, and get out. The deck would need to be pretty badly stacked against the bard to prevent it.

Fair enough, I've been misreading tumble all these years.


And if the enemy is focusing that heavily on the bard, then the bard is already doing more than everyone else on the battlefield, since it's leaving all the other characters in the party free to do whatever they want.

The problem is none of these monsters need to be that competent. Even for the grappler a second level orc barbarian could suffice. PCs often forget that after a certain level I can neatly increase a enemy casters (or UMDers) options without much consequence on the CR by having a couple of disposable mooks on the battlefield (provided it makes sense that they have them there).


If you're grappled, you're not likely to be casting any spells, silent or not. Somatic components are nearly ubiquitous. The silence spell wasted someone's spell slot, since the grapple is already doing their job for them.

Its mainly to ensure that even if the caster escapes, they cannot just 5ft step away and cast immediately. Plus it protects from language dependent spells.

[nedz]

Tumble is a class skill. Just sayin'.

Also, it screws over the wizard just as badly. I've never actually seen someone prepare a silent spell, "just in case", and the wizard doesn't have tumble to rely on. Even if they did prepare one, it's not going to be one of their best spells, and it's going to be using one of their best spell slots. Furthermore, it's actually taking up their action this round to use it. The bard is still going to get to act.

(Sorcerer doesn't have nearly as much trouble, since they can use Silent Spell spontaneously.)
The standard trick I see quite often is to cast Silence on a pebble and then throw that.

That is a fair point, but wizards have more silence spells on their list, and at higher levels a better chance of avoiding such a situation to begin with. Although both can use MM silent rods.
Bards cannot use Silent Spell, even with a rod.

[Boci]

The standard trick I see quite often is to cast Silence on a pebble and then throw that.

The bard will just run away. That's why it can be better to enchant it on an ally who is capable of moving.


Bards cannot use Silent Spell, even with a rod.

Well one point for the non-bard casters then.

[Just to Browse]

Bards, however, without any splat at all, are tier 3.

They are the only tier 3 in a core only game. They don't need any of that stuff. That stuff is great! But without it, the bard still is what it is. That stuff just makes it easier.Bards are not Tier 3 in core. This is incredibly easy to prove because they have 1 good shtick (attack casting) which falls off really hard at high levels and get very few things besides.


"Pun-pun" isn't something that factors into tier ratings, and is actually accessible through paladin, so let's ignore all that. It's again not relevant here. The wizard has a lower floor than most classes. In the average person's hands who has never played a wizard or read anything here, they're going to be less effective than a fighter. They require a high degree of system mastery to play well. If you have that system mastery, they start to show why they're tier 1, but without it, they're useless.

The bard doesn't have that low floor, and doesn't require that same degree of system mastery. They are going to show their tier 3 potential without it. Oh, it's possible to play them badly, but it's far less likely. Out of the box, in core, they're still going to outshine all the primary melee types.This is incredibly wrong. As a bard from day 1 you are incentivized to use your Inspire Courage, but that +1 to hit is actually worse than using a standard action to cast an SoD or even make a ranged attack roll. From the get-go you need to cast spells and balance those with your singing, and you need to know that you must be ranged (and not be Devis with a longsword) so you don't get squished. There are so many "You must be this tall" benchmarks that bards can totally get squished hard, especially without all their strong feats and items.

And even if that wasn't true, your argument was that bards are tier 3 because they just need 1 trick in core to be tier 3. My argument was designed to refute that, and right now it flows.


Exactly, and that's why bards are in the tier 3 sweet spot. EVERYTHING they do makes them good.

Bards don't "need" to get massive melee damage. They sit at tier 3 without it.You keep saying this. It continues to be incorrect. Bards in core get 1 shtick--good attack spells. That shtick falls off the higher the bard goes in level. Thus the bard is bad at their best thing and isn't very good at much else, so they are not Tier 3 in core.


Tiers You're just assigning a number to the bard and saying "Tier 3 is what the bard is, therefore the bard is good because Tier 3 is good". What I'm saying is that the bard is not Tier 3, and it is not Tier 3 because it is not good in core. That's what I've been saying all along, please do not beg the question to prove your point.


(Also, "no buffs?" Have you looked at the bard class? Buffing is one of their stronger areas.)What, heroism? Haste? They don't even get magic circle or bear's endurance, my friend.


This is a d20 optimization forum.Yes, this is a d20 optimization forum. But this thread is explicitly not "Why Do Bards Suck Even When You Dive Through Splatbooks To Make Them Good?", it's "Why Do Bards 'Suck'?" So when analyzing whether or not bards "suck", you look at the reasons bards "suck". The reason is because of public opinion. Public opinion is based on public experience. Public experience does not involve diving through splatbooks. Not diving through splatbooks puts the bard at a lower level of performance. If the bard is at a low level of performance people tend to think it "sucks" because that's how sucking works.

Please read my posts, I've repeated this already.


Again, no she doesn't. The bard is good in core. Therefore, she always has "those things." Add those other many things, and she becomes great.

Then those same people would definitely think wizards suck. It is easier to screw up a wizard than it is to screw up a bard. The wizard is more likely to suck in core than the bard is. Yet people don't think wizards suck. Most people intuitively understand the potential upside, even if most people play the class ineffectively.
OK, repeat after me.

On.

Average.

On average. On average, the way the bard class is structured, players are encouraged to pick up casting for utility and sing to help their friends. That makes a very very weak bard. ON average, the way the wizard is structured, players are encouraged to pick up all the spells and prepare whatever will hel them win that day. That makes a very strong wizard. Just like the leap attack barbarian OTKing a great wyrm does not make him Tier 3, neither does the bard's couple of attack spells make it Tier 3. People are smart enough to tell the difference between an outlier and a commonality, and they base their decisions on that which is why the wizard is Tier 1.


The perception problem bards have has nothing to do with mechanics, because mechanically, a bard has no problems. The perception is with the concept.This just feels like delusion. You are adamantly saying without any sort of proof, that the bard "has no problems". Our argument could be equally as ridiculous if we talked about fighters, because your constant appeal is "The fighter is balanced according to my chart, therefore it is balanced".

Let me tell you why the bard is weak:
He cannot go into melee. Low HP, low hit-bonuses (even with inspire courage), no good armor, and low damage output.
He cannot support. His buffs are almost all touch buffs (except Heroism and Haste) which means he'd have to be in melee, and without any boosting his Inspire Courage is weak until around level 10, at which point to-hit numbers start to matter less
He uses attack spells decently. His spell DCs do not scale well, his attack spells are basically all mind-affecting, and he has a harshly limited selection because of spells known.

Attack casting is pretty good for the bard, whereas his support is about fighter-level, and his damage contribution is minute. But none of those things can do a lot for the bard, so he's weak in core.

[amalcon]

Honestly, I think Bards are T2 if simply played well. A core Bard has all of the following, and they are all Bard-exclusive:
- Fascinate song: It's a Will save DC=your Perform *check*. For a level 1 bard, this can easily average DC 17.5 (4 ranks, 16 Cha) even dedicating zero resources to Perform optimization. It's not a spell, so it can't be Spellcrafted. At high (8+) levels, it's basically at-will out-of-combat no-save-just-lose. Fascinate, and just walk past the guards. Fascinate, pick the guard's pocket, and just let your friend out of the cell. This solves so many situations at lower levels than anything else. Save for "Spellcasting", it's easily the most powerful single ability in the game.
- Suggestion song: The key to this one is, it doesn't break Fascinate or use up music uses. Once they fail that save (and by level six, that should be about 95% of the time), you can just keep using this for one round per level or until the target fails the save. Again, it's not a spell, so it can't be Spellcrafted.
- Glibness spell: If you can't figure out a way to break a game wide open with a +30 to Bluff checks to lie at level 7, you aren't even trying.
- Sculpt Sound spell: A level 3, hours/level spell that is basically "I own sound". This spell is the auditory complement to invisibility, a voice changer, ventriloquism, single-target Silence (though only the Save-inducing version), a silencer for various objects, it's really just one of the most versatile spells for its level.
- Modify Memory: This is basically Mindrape-lite, but not evil. Like with Glibness, if you can't break a game with this, you're not even trying.

To top that off, you have access to most of the best defensive Sorc/Wiz tricks (Alter Self, Mirror Image, Invisibility, etc) and two good saves. This makes you actually hold up better in combat than mundane characters.

As for the "drawbacks" Bards have:
- MAD: No more than most classes. A Paladin needs the exact same stats; a Cleric actually needs one more. A Rogue needs one fewer stat, but they all need to be higher due to lacking defensive buffs. The only classes that need lower stats are Sorc/Wiz (only because they forego melee combat entirely) and Druid (because Wildshape comes on line fairly early).
- Low hit die: Hit dice don't matter. A Fighter gets a whole two more HP per level, and four at first level. I'll go out on a limb here and say that surviving one additional attack at high levels (and probably zero at low levels) isn't really a big deal compared to spellcasting. A Cleric (decidedly tier 1) is one more HP per level, two at first.
- Capped at level six spells: This isn't a real drawback; level six spells are perfectly capable of breaking a game. There's no need to win harder, though it helps to win differently sometimes (which is why T2 != T1). The real drawback here is that Bards get those level six spells five levels later than prepared casters (four later than most spontaneous casters). Yes, that is a drawback, but I contend that the Bard exclusives above are powerful enough to make up for that.
- Light armor only: Light armor is the type you want anyway after level 3-4. 50% better base move speed will help you more than 3-4 points of AC. Heavy is good early on, yes, but it's also very expensive. Better to spend the gold I'd have used buying fullplate on a CLW wand; that gives a lot more low-level survivability than the armor.
- Medium BAB only: Full BAB just isn't a big deal. There are a whole six levels in the whole game where this matters: 6-7 (missing the second attack) and 11-14 (missing the third). At 16+ you have sixth-level spells, so no complaining about missing one attack. You're only full-attacking when you happen to be next to an enemy and have nothing better to do. As for the actual attack bonus, an unoptimized Inspire Courage easily makes up for it. Remember that IC helps the whole party.
- Inspire Courage takes an action to start: Sure, but you can maintain it indefinitely, which means you can start pre-combat. Inspire Courage is for no-surprise scenarios; if there's surprise happening, you have better uses for actions. Even if you never use Inspire Courage, your Bard can still be at least T3 (I suspect T2).
- Singing in combat is silly: Yes, it is. So don't do that. Bardic Music doesn't need to be actual music; it can be any type of performance. Perform (Oratory) and inspire with speeches. Perform (Insult Comedy) and inspire by ... well, by insulting your foes. Perform (Dance) and flow through combat, inspiring your allies with your impressive display.
- Feat-starved: Finally we get to a real problem. Yes, Bards are feat-starved. I don't think this is different from (e.g.) Favored Soul, but it's still a problem. I just find it to be one I can live with.

[Talya]

- Singing in combat is silly: Yes, it is. So don't do that. Bardic Music doesn't need to be actual music; it can be any type of performance. Perform (Oratory) and inspire with speeches. Perform (Insult Comedy) and inspire by ... well, by insulting your foes. Perform (Dance) and flow through combat, inspiring your allies with your impressive display.


Battlesong has long history, even until recent centuries, in various cultures. What you consider silly, I find badass.

Other than that, I mostly agree with you, except I'd never put the bard into tier 2. Tier 2 is about raw power, not versatility, and the bard never comes close to the sorcerer's level of power.

[Stux]

Fluff is the main reason I don't like bards.

Not power level, which is probably fine (below full-casters, above most mundanes. That is basically the sweet spot). But what are they actually supposed to be doing? The music causes magic? Huh?

I know you can re-fluff these things, but what's the point really? Just play a sorcerer/beguiler or something... Take away that and what are they? A charisma character with some knowledge, basically a rogue who knows things. The whole concept just seems pretty dumb to me. A bit of a mess conceptually.

Not to mention the concept it is trying to cover is a relatively niche fantasy trope, not deserving in my opinion of a core class. I play Pathfinder now, I would be perfectly happy doing away with the bard and simply making a Sorcerer archetype that combines performance with their magic.

[Boci]

Battlesong has long history, even until recent centuries, in various cultures. What you consider silly, I find badass.

Are there actual examples of songs, with words to them, sung during battle (as oppose to during marches, before battle and afterwards to commemorate a heroic victory or the numerous dead)? I'm not an expert, but when it comes to noise made during battle (other than screams) I think more trumpets, horns and drums (plus bagpipes, since I lived in Scotland for a while). I could be wrong though.

[Talya]

Are there actual examples of songs, with words to them, sung during battle (as oppose to during marches, before battle and afterwards to commemorate a heroic victory or the numerous dead)? I'm not an expert, but when it comes to noise made during battle (other than screams) I think more trumpets, horns and drums (plus bagpipes, since I lived in Scotland for a while). I could be wrong though.

I believe there were several. As a fairly modern example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_the_American_Civil_War

Having people dedicated to music during battle, however, is one thing. Singing while fighting? Even being able to do so would take such focus and constitution that it screams badass if you can pull it off. Most pop artists can't even sing while dancing and lip sync it all. :smallwink:

The history of real bards is quite a bit different, however. The actual historical Celtic bard was a noncombatant. They were aligned with one of two armies in a battle (neither army would ever consider starting battle without their bard), but the bard did not participate in the fighting. They wore distinctive clothing from their associated armies and were considered off limits, neither side would dare strike at the enemy bard. The bard was the source of their immortality. The bard would make the standouts of both battles look like big-damn heroes, one the glorious victor, the other the honored dead, and ensure tales were sung in their honor for years afterward.

In old gaelic social structure, the Bard, Druid, and the Seer were all different specialties of the same group. (In fact, they were all often called Druids.) They had different responsibilities and training. However, calling attention to the differences in the fantasy bard from the historical one is a bit silly. Magical song is no sillier than magic of any other kind. In ancient Scotland and Ireland, the Druids couldn't wildshape or cast spells, either. :smallbiggrin:

[Boci]

Magical song is no sillier than magic of any other kind.

A lot of people think or feel otherwise. Presumably because we have been exposed to handwavy ancient incantation magic a lot more than song magic.

[Stux]

Yeah, I think its a lot sillier...

But hey, different strokes for different folks!

[Talya]

A lot of people think or feel otherwise. Presumably because we have been exposed to handwavy ancient incantation magic a lot more than song magic.


Interesting choice of word. An "incantation" is often (usually?) something that was sung (though it can also take the form of a prayer or verse without melody.)

[Boci]

Interesting choice of word. An "incantation" is often (usually?) something that was sung (though it can also take the form of a prayer or verse without melody.)

I think its more prayer or verse, which arcane magic can often sound like. I guess its to reinforce the idea of it being salvaged, ancient knowledge (often from a past civilization far more advanced and powerful than the current one) or just became a good way to acknowledge the power behind the words. I don't know, I just know that incant is a common way I refer to the speaking of a spell's verbal components.

[Talya]

I think its more prayer or verse, which arcane magic can often sound like. I guess its to reinforce the idea of it being salvaged, ancient knowledge (often from a past civilization far more advanced and powerful than the current one) or just became a good way to acknowledge the power behind the words. I don't know, I just know that incant is a common way I refer to the speaking of a spell's verbal components.

Which is correct. However the incantation is often chanted or sung. Which actually goes along with it being verse. I suppose prayers are often sung as well (most hymns are simply prayers in song.)

[Boci]

Which is correct. However the incantation is often chanted or sung. Which actually goes along with it being verse. I suppose prayers are often sung as well (most hymns are simply prayers in song.)

In my mind, the difference is between poetry reading and song. Both have rhythm, but a wizard when casting a spell is reading poetry, whilst a bard is singing. That is how I imagine it, but I guess I could always refluff it. That's just the default mode.

[Stux]

There is a more intrinsic difference to me.

When a wizard uses words it is to focus their mind in a particular way, it is not an actual part of the resultant magic. To reinforce this there are those who are able to bypass this jumping through hoops entirely: the silent spell metamagic being a prime example.

With a bard the music itself is the magic. Which is what I find silly.

EDIT: The difference is probably even more clear with divine casters. Here you use your words to draw the attention of your deity that they will empower you to perform the miracle you want. The words themselves do not heal your wounds.

[Talya]

With a bard the music itself is the magic. Which is what I find silly.


I'm pretty sure I don't understand this viewpoint.

Magic - the "supernatural" is an invention of humans. It's a fiction we create through art and stories. In the real universe, there is no evidence of anything supernatural ever existing, but we make it up. Magic is, therefore, a human artistic endeavor. There are very few things that can evoke such feelings of magic... of the supernatural... in me, as I'm exceedingly rational minded. The right kinds of music are among the few things* that can do so, and I think can in most people. Music is already one of the closest things to real magic I can think of, so the idea of supernatural magic in a fantasy setting is certainly something that resonates with me.

* - right up there with really good sex, a moonlit night on the ocean, and watching the stars when I'm far enough away from city lights to actually see them.

But to each their own...

[johnbragg]

Magical song is no sillier than magic of any other kind.

This is something that the D&D bard actually makes look worse.
IRL music can affect emotional states. People put together different playlists for working out, for relaxing, for romance. So in a setting where magic exists, it makes sense that music would be another way to create magic. There's even a Cracked.com article about how haunted houses are caused by funky infrasonic vibrations that freak out parts of our brains.

In a world where magic existed, and magic could make you fight better, would it be surprising if Eye Of The Tiger gave you combat bonuses? That creepy music would make you more vulnerable to fear? That a tune you couldn't get out of your head would also carry some instructions?

The problem with the D&D Bard is that TSR didn't work up a separate mechanic for musical magic--they just assembled some spells from the cleric and wizard lists and called it done. So the 2nd edition Bard was a half-assed fighter, a half-assed thief and a half-assed wizard with high Charisma and a musical instrument. 3rd edition tweaked the spell list and gave the Bard skills, but didn't to a wholesale teardown and rebuild.

TLDR: Bardic magic should be as distinct from divine or arcane magic as psionics is.

[tonberrian]

Bards are not Tier 3 in core. This is incredibly easy to prove because they have 1 good shtick (attack casting) which falls off really hard at high levels and get very few things besides.

No, they're quite good at socializing, too. And the alternate definition of tier 3, "capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area" is quite an apt description of the bard. They are probably better in melee than a rogue, which makes them passable at that. They can cast, but not tier 1-2 like (and supplement it with UMD). They can be decent at stealth.


What, heroism? Haste? They don't even get magic circle or bear's endurance, my friend.

Blur, Cat's Grace, Invisibility, Mirror Image, Rage, Blink, Displacement, Glibness, Freedom of Movement, Greater Invisibility. Not to mention UMD opens up the possibility of any spell in the game if you're willing to pay for it.

[Stux]

I see what you are saying. But being irrationally filled with emotion and labelling that magic is by no means the same thing as what is termed magic in the context of fantasy. There is no overlap in those definitions in my mind, they are entirely separate things. I am musician myself, it is my major passion, and I know what it means to be caught up in passion, but I would not describe that as a form of magic. As you say, each to their own.

[Forrestfire]

With a bard the music itself is the magic. Which is what I find silly.


I always thought it was very fitting, but then, it reminds me of Lord of the Rings, in which Arda was literally sung into existence. I see it as the bard tapping into magic more primeval than the stuff wizards and clerics do.

A wizard can use words to focus and channel magic to tell the world what to do. A bard can sing or play music that tells the world what it is.

Or at least that's how I like to interpret it. *shrug*

[Stux]

I always thought it was very fitting, but then, it reminds me of Lord of the Rings, in which Arda was literally sung into existence.

You see I always interpreted that as a metaphor. A way to try and help lesser beings understand the wonder of creation, and not the way the world was literally created.

[johnbragg]

With a bard the music itself is the magic. Which is what I find silly.

I'm pretty sure I don't understand this viewpoint.
..

Because the music typical of a Renaissance Faire isn't the kind of music that stirs deep emotion. Couple that with the fact that the bard's spell list doesn't always line up with the sort of effects music has in the real world (Grease? Silent Image?) and it just seems stupid, collapsing into the caricature of waving your lute at the ogre, instead of playing bagpipes to signal your enemies' doom or leading your army in their war cry, or gradually hypnotizing people with your uneartly melodies.

[Talya]

Because the music typical of a Renaissance Faire isn't the kind of music that stirs deep emotion.

really? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEqpdSKdpxs)

Here's another of hers I often use. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chU3ZZ67-VI)

If you want purely instrumental, I personally believe this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dsz4zNtHQ9k) is the most beautiful piece of music ever written. Normally it's on piano, but a bard can't carry one of those around with them so I found it on guitar.

[sabelo2000]

I am much in agreement with the argument of "Bards don't suck; people suck at playing Bards."

Here's two counterpoint examples from my experiences:

Bard done Wrong

Bard: "I'm going to cast Invisibility and Phantom Steed and chase after the enemy squad, alone, leaving my allies in my invisible dust."

DM: "I say your Phantom Steed doesn't get a Move Silently check, so after 1/2 a mile they hear you and turn to fight. Oh, look! You die, not because you're a dumb player who charged alone into melee against superior numbers, but because you're a sucky bard and bards suck. Now wait for the Fighter to rescue your corpse so the Cleric can raise you."


Bard done Right

Bards 1&2: "We put on enemy uniforms and walk into their camp. BLUFF CHECK! I roll a 2, for a total skill check of... hmm, 35."

DM: "You meet their General."

Bards 1&2: "General, Sir, our entire scouting squad was wiped out by the enemy. We alone returned to report the enemy position."

General: "How did you escape, and why are your uniforms ripped to shreds but you don't appear injured?"

Bards 1&2: "We defeated the last of the enemy, and took some healing potions from their dead bodies. Then we snuck into the enemy camp and drew this [detailed map] of the layout. Oh, BLUFF CHECK! I get a 30."

General: "I'm amazed you penetrated so deeply into enemy territory!"

Bards 1&2: "Yeah, we're pretty awesome. Hey, I see the [ultimate superweapon] has arrived. I've heard so much about it, but never believed any of it! By the way, DIPLOMACY CHECK! Got a 50."

General: "Yes, it's the pride of our army. It does [this]. Now, you boys see the camp Cleric for some healing before you head off to the mess tents, okay? You've earned some rest."

Bards 1&2: "THANK YOU, SIR!"

Bards 1&2: "After using their Cleric and eating their food, we sabotage the [ultimate superweapon] before walking right out of the camp to 'go on patrol' again."


TLDR: Bards played wrong suck. Bards played right own everything.

[squarecircle]

A bunch of awesome music


Now I know what I'll be listening to at work for that +3 competence bonus...

Back on topic, I like to think that the magic bards cast is actually the bard just making bluff checks with a DC so high that the Universe fails its save.

[MeeposFire]

I would say its a remnant from 2nd edition where they were pretty poor, they had spells but couldn't cast them in armor iirc.

In 3rd edition they're pretty awesome as they're a level 6 spellcaster and have some bard only spells that can simply be gamebreaking (glibness anyone?)

Sure, their concept sounds silly (I sing at the bad guy!) but they're actually relatively powerful and very versatile.

Actually bards were pretty good in 2e (and were very nasty in 1e). 2e bards often had the best caster level in the party since they would be several levels ahead due to their fast XP progression. They could cast direct offensive spells in 2e so you could leverage that caster level into excellent damage which in 2e is actually a good way to kill enemies (unlike in 3e).

Yes casting in most types of armor was not possible (exceptions being Elvin chain and similar armor or if you had players option books and used them) but that was not much of an issue. At low levels you would rely on your armor since spell casting would be rare. At higher levels you would want to find bracers of armor. It would give you a bonus to your thief skills (due to wearing no armor) and allows for spellcasting. It also can be made better than any armor that a bard can wear (best armor for a bard is base AC 5 while the best bracers are AC 2). Yes you can find magic armor but rings of protection are at least as common as magic armor and give a bonus to saves so you come out ahead again (rings or protection do not stack with magic armor so it is one or the other for the armor bonus). If you want a non-magical armor kill an arrumvorax as their pelt can be made into a robe (not armor) that gives you AC 2 protection as well (though it is heavy).

The problem with bards in 2e is the same as the bard in 3e which is that it lacks a role (it also lacks being the best at something since the 3e bard can claim to be among the very best at party buffing). A bard cannot replace any type of character for real. A paladin, ranger, barbarian, gladiator, etc can be swapped for each other as a warrior and it is fine but a bard lacks the toughness and offensive melee prowess to take that role. He can't heal in 2e so you cannot replace the priest role. You lack trapfinding and opening locks which I find to be indispensable as the skill monkey in 2e so oddly you cannot replace the thief (at least as a standard bard since bards in Dark Sun do get all the thief skills though they lack spells). The best class they can cover is the wizard and they can do that for a while but eventually at higher levels you want a true wizard (though then the bard is a very effective second caster).

IF I was allowed to go back and change something one thing I would change is giving bards access to all thief skills. This would not be as powerful as you may think because even if they have access they still lack the points to do much outside of one or two skills but you would be able to choose the skills most needed by the party so you could choose between having a thief and some other class.

Seriously though guys this conversation is getting silly. Core only? That is barely more common than allowing all splats. Even if we go core only look at what we are comparing. Is a bard better than a core fighter? Long term I say yes at the very least the bard is probably more useful. Better than a barbarian or a ranger? Once again I would say yes core barbarians, paladins, and rangers are not much better than core fighters and core fighters are bad. We know it is better than the monk. So that leaves us the competent but not remarkable rogue and of course the tier 1 and 2 spell casters.

So essentially in core it is better than all of the classes that are not full spellcasters except if you want to debate perhaps the rogue. The bard trades conditional bonus damage, trapfinding, and special defenses for spell casting, special knowledge, and party buffing. That isn't suck and if you are of the group that thinks that in a discussion of power that full spellcasters are in the overpowered group then that means the bard is one of the two most powerful classes that are not overpowered in core. Once again how is that sucking?

Now even though they don't suck the other players may seem to be more powerful due to phenomenon of big numbers. A fighter will feel really good when it crits with his glaive for a ton of damage and kills an important enemy in a fight. Your friends will likely remember it due to the large number rolled and the exciting results that occur. The bard player will not get that luxury. Their accomplishments will many times be social and being hlepful in combat. In my games a bard player was sad because many of the other players had done such great things and she could not point out any one big moment that showed her awesomeness. In the next big fight I kept track of all the damage, effects, and anything else that the bard contributed or caused (including getting the value of the damage of an attack that only hit due to the bard being there) and compared it to each individual party members contribution. The bard owned the numbers game and my players at first did not believe me until I showed the results. After that they kept track of it themselves and the bard player became a lot more cognizant of what she was actually doing in the game. Bards are now her favorite 3e class(though I should never build her bard again I made hers way too nasty by the end).

A bards contribution is not always easy to see but they are often more powerful than you expected.

[Socratov]

Now I know what I'll be listening to at work for that +3 competence bonus...

Back on topic, I like to think that the magic bards cast is actually the bard just making bluff checks with a DC so high that the Universe fails its save.

(emphasis mine)

those are a great way to sum up bardic magic

[Gwendol]

Bards are not Tier 3 in core. This is incredibly easy to prove because they have 1 good shtick (attack casting) which falls off really hard at high levels and get very few things besides.


I have a hard time believing this to be true, at all. Other than being your personal opinion that is. What exactly is "attack casting" to start with?
Bards have a decent spell list combining elements of druid, cleric and wizard spellcasting. They have buffs, debuffs, healing, utility, etc.

As was noted above, fascinate and suggestion are for the most part impossible to save against.

[johnbragg]

Originally Posted by johnbragg View Post
Because the music typical of a Renaissance Faire isn't the kind of music that stirs deep emotion.

Really?[quote]

OK, I didn't phrase that especially well. Those are beautiful pieces, but they don't do a great job of explaining to a skeptic why music is going to make a beatstick fighter better at smashing orcs.

Jock Jams is actually a more persuasive example. I think most music-magic-is-stupid folks could be persuaded if led into it gradually.

Do you think blasting Jock Jams could make your fighter 5% better at fighting? Get your adrenaline up, get you pumped, get you psyched? +1 to attack and damage.

Do you think that terrifying, foreboding music could make your fighter 5% worse? -1 to attack and damage.

Is there music that makes you a little bit sleepier? Boom, -1 to Will saves.

OK, so you've now conceded that, in real life, music can have actual combat effects. Now think of D&D where magic is a real thing. Why can't magic music have those effects, except at 10% or 25%? In mythology, Orpheus got by the hundred-eyed monster by playing until all the eyes fell asleep. So why not a bardsong that keeps making you drowsier and drowsier (stackable -1s to everything) until you fall asleep (after failing N will saves)?

Okay, now that we've established that magic music has an internal logic, we can talk about what spell-like effects something like the Moonlight Sonata should have.

Instead, D&D just says "a bard is basically a fighter-rogue-sorcerer with a musical instrument" and then wonders why the class gets no respect. (OK, gets less respect than it should.)

"Oh no, run! They have a bard!" is something that humanoids almost never say.

[quote]
If you want purely instrumental, I personally believe this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dsz4zNtHQ9k) is the most beautiful piece of music ever written. Normally it's on piano, but a bard can't carry one of those around with them so I found it on guitar.

I don't think that's an issue. In a magical fantasy RPG world, the bard casting Summon Instrument is not a conceptual problem. So I think the Bard being accompanied by an invisible orchestra or marching band like the devil from Devil Went Down To Georgia is not a problem.

"The bard's playing a lute in the middle of the woods, where is the piano music coming from?" "It's magic, now shut up and listen to the song."

[Stux]

I can understand the idea of a war chant making you better at fighting. But it doesn't do because the words are magic, it does it because it gets the adrenaline going. As I say totally different things.

I think one of the reasons that I totally disassociate the idea of music giving you a sense of wonder from the idea of music being intrinsically magic is that it takes something away from the artistry of it, and from the perfectly natural ability of an individual to weave such artistry. Compare a song that makes you cry because it is beautiful with a song that makes you cry because it has magic in it that forces you to cry. Its not the same.

[johnbragg]

I can understand the idea of a war chant making you better at fighting. But it doesn't do because the words are magic, it does it because it gets the adrenaline going. As I say totally different things.

In a world where magic exists, pretty much any effect can be enhanced by magic, right? So more bard levels = more adrenaline = stackable +1's. After 4 rounds of Song of Bravery in combat, the party with a veteran Bard is rolling at +4 to hit, +4 damage. If you really want to lobby for it to be an Extraordinary instead of a Supernatural, I don't really care.

The point is, there is a way to explain bardic music effects that makes sense, and D&D never really has.


I think one of the reasons that I totally disassociate the idea of music giving you a sense of wonder from the idea of music being intrinsically magic is that it takes something away from the artistry of it, and from the perfectly natural ability of an individual to weave such artistry. Compare a song that makes you cry because it is beautiful with a song that makes you cry because it has magic in it that forces you to cry. Its not the same.

I think another way to say that is "magic is cheating." In a fantasy RPG, I don't think people would think that way. In other words, I don't think your PC would understand what you're saying here.

[The Insanity]

Those are beautiful pieces, but they don't do a great job of explaining to a skeptic why music is going to make a beatstick fighter better at smashing orcs.
Magic.


"Oh no, run! They have a bard!" is something that humanoids almost never say.
In your games maybe.

[Talya]

I actually find that the bard spell list is good wizard/sorcerer training.

Bards lack the flashy trap spells that aren't very good to rely on. So instead of fireballing and shooting lightning bolts out your butt, you're learning to use haste, sculpt sound, and glibness. Bard forces you to think outside the little box of "damage!" and get creative. They have all the tools needed to do that, but it's not apparent to the person who thinks blasting is a great tactic.

[johnbragg]

Magic. 110100011101111

See, I think that's the fallacy that TSR used in creating the D&D bard in the first place, that has led to the Bard getting no respect, and people thinking that magical music is stupid.

MAgic shouldn't be an excuse to blow off internal consistency and just throw spells and abilities together, add and subtract until you think it's balanced, and call it a character class.

[Talya]

I don't think that's an issue. In a magical fantasy RPG world, the bard casting Summon Instrument is not a conceptual problem. So I think the Bard being accompanied by an invisible orchestra or marching band like the devil from Devil Went Down To Georgia is not a problem.

"The bard's playing a lute in the middle of the woods, where is the piano music coming from?" "It's magic, now shut up and listen to the song."

Ah, but Summon Instrument is handheld only. ;)

Music has been magical in fantasy forever. Orpheus, Dagda's Harp, the Pied Piper of Hamelin, Sirens, Tom Bombadil (okay, this one is modern)... oh heck, nevermind.

Warning: TVTropes link - I refuse to be held accountable for lost productivity. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicMusic)

[nedz]

Military Bands are well established and were used extensively until modern times to raise morale, which is exactly what the Bard's music does.

[johnbragg]

Ah, but Summon Instrument is handheld only. ;)

Music has been magical in fantasy forever. Orpheus, Dagda's Harp, the Pied Piper of Hamelin, Sirens, Tom Bombadil (okay, this one is modern)... oh heck, nevermind.

Warning: TVTropes link - I refuse to be held accountable for lost productivity. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicMusic)

And how many of those look and feel anything like the "D&D Bard"? If you ran the "evil opposite" trope for any of those figures, would you get Nale?

[Talya]

And how many of those look and feel anything like the "D&D Bard"? If you ran the "evil opposite" trope for any of those figures, would you get Nale?

Actually, The Dagda is pretty much a deific version of a D&D bard. Which makes sense. The bard is of Irish origins, and The Dagda's an Irish legend. Likewise with the Filidh.

[Boci]

And how many of those look and feel anything like the "D&D Bard"? If you ran the "evil opposite" trope for any of those figures, would you get Nale?

But Nale isn't a bard...

[Stux]

I think another way to say that is "magic is cheating." In a fantasy RPG, I don't think people would think that way. In other words, I don't think your PC would understand what you're saying here.

My point is more that the song is irrelevant. Its the magic that is doing the work. Its not that magic is cheating, its more why bother with the music at all and not just do straight magic? To me the music is pointless showboating. I think that is how my PC (who would probably be a wizard or something) would view bards.

EDIT:
In a different setting, maybe it would work. In an Irish folklore setting a bard could be really cool. But in the 3.5 world, not so much. In the general setting magic is something almost scientific and quantifiable, that can be studied and measured. In that context all the prancing around is just going to baffle the other arcane casters.

[johnbragg]

My point is more that the song is irrelevant. Its the magic that is doing the work. Its not that magic is cheating, its more why bother with the music at all and not just do straight magic? To me the music is pointless showboating. I think that is how my PC (who would probably be a wizard or something) would view bards.

Would you feel the same way if bardsong didn't use the same mechanics and spell descriptions as the full spellcasters? A D&D bard is a second-rate wizard who sings, so why not drop the singing and be a first rate wizard?

If bardsong could do stuff that wizards or clerics just couldn't, or in a way that wizards or clerics just couldn't? A wizard or a cleric or a bard could cast a spell like bless. But only a bardsong could create a [i]bless[i]-like effect on an army of 1000 men. Only a veteran bard could sing for five rounds and stack 5 bless effects for a cumulative +5. What if only bards had access to Lesser Vigor and the Vigor line, slower but more powerful than Cure Light Wounds.

[Stux]

Its not the mechanics I have an issue with, its the whole concept within a standard D&D 3.5 setting.

[Talya]

EDIT:
In a different setting, maybe it would work. In an Irish folklore setting a bard could be really cool. But in the 3.5 world, not so much. In the general setting magic is something almost scientific and quantifiable, that can be studied and measured. In that context all the prancing around is just going to baffle the other arcane casters.

3.5 is based as much on irish folklore as anything else, being the melting pot of fantasy legends from all of human history. Off the top of my head: Banshees (Bansidhe), Druids, Ettins, Fey creatures... and that's without combing the monster manual. heck, the single biggest source for D&D material is Tolkien, and in Tolkien, music was far more magical than wizardry.

Bards fit in just fine.

[Stux]

3.5 is based as much on irish folklore as anything else, being the melting pot of fantasy legends from all of human history. Off the top of my head: Banshees (Bansidhe), Druids, Ettins, Fey creatures... and that's without combing the monster manual. heck, the single biggest source for D&D material is Tolkien, and in Tolkien, music was far more magical than wizardry.

Bards fit in just fine.

I'm not saying they didn't take influence from Irish folklore in many areas, I'm talking about comparing standard D&D to a PURELY Irish folklore setting - one where amongst other things magic is much rarer, lower powered, and something most people only hear about through tales past on a hundred times which twist what actually happened. That could be a cool setting.

As for Tolkien, as I said before I always took the creation myth for a metaphor, not that the world was literally created by music. And the elvish magic music, eh I was never really a fan of that. But more importantly, magic was still much rarer and more sacred in Middle Earth than in standard D&D. Wizardry is something anyone can learn in D&D if they take the time and are of above average intelligence. In Tolkien it was a gift from the gods given to only a scant few in the entire world.

This whole bard thing is all ultimately subjective though. I just don't like it haha.

[Talya]

In Tolkien it was a gift from the gods given to only a scant few in the entire world.


Irrelevant Tangent:
Technically, even those few who had it weren't given it. They were always magic. Arda's wizards were Maiar, angellic beings given flesh and sent to help middlearth. Mortal men had little-to-no magic. Elves seemed to have much more access to it.

[johnbragg]

Its not the mechanics I have an issue with, its the whole concept within a standard D&D 3.5 setting.

Ok. That's your prerogative. But I still say what you're saying is algebraically equivalent to "D&D(TSR) created the jack-of-all-trades class and called it Bard, and thereby made music-magic look bad."

[Stux]

I would have preferred an explicitly non-magical bard to be honest. I believe there is plenty of design space for that. The focus wouldn't be on music and poetry, though that would be a perfectly acceptable way to play it. The focus would be on inspiration, morale boosting, leadership, and dealing with social situations in a positive manner using bartering and diplomacy. Almost an antithesis to the rogue, who steals, sneaks and cheats. This way the class covers every concept from the current bard, through the diplomat, to the marshal, and much ground between. It wouldn't be called a bard obviously, though a name doesn't immediately jump to mind.

In that system magical music would probably be some kind of theurge prestige between this class and Sorcerer.

[The Insanity]

I would have preferred an explicitly non-magical bard to be honest. I believe there is plenty of design space for that. The focus wouldn't be on music and poetry, though that would be a perfectly acceptable way to play it. The focus would be on inspiration, morale boosting, leadership, and dealing with social situations in a positive manner using bartering and diplomacy. Almost an antithesis to the rogue, who steals, sneaks and cheats. This way the class covers every concept from the current bard, through the diplomat, to the marshal, and much ground between. It wouldn't be called a bard obviously, though a name doesn't immediately jump to mind.
That's the Bard to the t.

[Stux]

That's the Bard to the t.

It's what the bard should be, yes. I firmly believe it is not what the bard is.

[The Insanity]

And I know that's what the Bard is.

[Stux]

Its not though is it... I mean it fulfils essentially the same roles. Which is the point. But a bard has spells and a much more specific fluff than what I proposed. There would be other mechanical changes too.

[DigoDragon]

TLDR: Bards played wrong suck. Bards played right own everything.

This is pretty true of any class in my opinion.
I've seen a fighter own a wizard (both were at level 12)


I played a bard once. The party was around 10th level and were were thrown into Expedition to Castle Ravenloft with a twist-- the DM refluffed and restatted 95% of the encounters. He even designed a few new creatures from scratch to challenge would-be metagamers.

My bard did three things for the party that helped out a lot-- Bardic Knowledge checks to figure out weaknesses and abilities of several difficult encounters (Helped the melees know what weapons to pull out), Bardic Music to keep the party from getting charmed/suggested from some of the enemy spellcasters (this freed up actions for the cleric to be on the offensive), and UMD to activate useful wands that buffed the party and added some field control so the other spellcasters can use their slots for others things.

Essentially I had a supportive role, but it was an important role. A lot of my success did depend on designing a good bard (I used two splat books) and that our DM was open-minded to let the bard illusions have a chance of working (True seeing laughs at visual illusions, but I can assault their other four senses). We only lost one PC in that adventure (the rogue/monk/sorcerer multiclasser).

tl;dr - The bard can be good if built well and the DM is supportive to let you use their abilities creatively.

[ArcturusV]

Yep. That's very true DigoDragon. Just that bards are also really vulnerable to DM screw, as their wheelhouse of abilities is all in the realm of things that bad DMs/inexperienced DMs will "nope" because they don't really know how to handle it. Or even good DMs will "nope" because they are tired of derailment or think you're trying to be That Guy who ruins the session. Or even just because they were worried about something else entirely and gave all the NPCs various "No, I win" buttons against you like True Seeing, Mind Blanking, not being interested in talking, insanely high sense motive to counter your bluff, etc.

At which point you basically only have as your schtick "Guy who knows things". Which a cleric can typically do just as well/better. It does have it's strengths, as you mentioned, as if you're doing the "Knows stuff" bit they aren't burning slots on spells like Augury and Divination, etc. But it's pretty minimal impact.

[Razgriez]

The reason why Bards "suck" is overall, similar to why Paladins "Suck". Various parts of the gaming community has something or another about the class they can pick apart. And even though they may not agree on what part of the Bard "sucks" they can, combined, pick apart the whole class.

Optimizers don't like that in order to optimize the class, you have to sacrifice some portion of the class's "Jack of all trade" advertisement, and that it's built in buffs can be rather underwhelming.

Munchkins hate it because it doesn't have enough "I Win" buttons

Role Players playing for the story, might have many a bad tale of a chaotic rogue who ruins the plot, for the sake of always trying to be in the spot light, or turn each session into a challenge of how many NPCs/PCs they can seduce.

Average gamers, don't like being in the back seat of buffing, and rather be on the front lines doing the "Flashy" attacks.

Veterans don't like it, because they've dealt with that one DM who's said "No, you can't use your powers, it wasn't meant to ever work that way" when, it was.

And DMs don't like it, because half the time the Bards are forgetting they have wonderful plot advancement tools!

It doesn't matter there's plenty of redeeming features or that it can be quite good at what it does. The fact is, enough people in the overall community have said "We don't like it, we think it sucks" there for, it does. Sure, people can, and have managed to turn them into completely awesome characters, but again, it's like the Paladin... It can be awesome, and well regarded in a gaming group, but it's a steep, uphill battle.

[Talya]

@Arcturus: That's a DM problem, not a Bard problem.

With that said...I do think you're discounting the value of Inspire Courage. It's still the bread and butter simple tactic that will greatly help any melee party.

In most campaigns, the bard should still be adding a lot to the melee damage of everyone in the party. (And if they went Snowflake Wardance, they're likely hitting with every one of their own attacks, too.) And by a lot, let's look first at the party fighter/barbarian. At level 1, the unoptimized bard is adding at least +3 to his damage per hit (+1 bardsong, +2 power attack). The moderately optimized bard at level 7 is adding 5d6+15 damage per hit. (The extremely optimized bard can double that with a single feat, and get more elsewhere but we won't go there.)



Optimizers don't like that in order to optimize the class, you have to sacrifice some portion of the class's "Jack of all trade" advertisement, and that it's built in buffs can be rather underwhelming.

Optimizers tend to love, the bard, mechanically. It has more options for optimizing than just about anybody else, and sits firmly in the sweet spot for balance in 3.5, at the top of Tier 3.