Trade Bardic spells for full BAB?

[Stoneback]

I can't find a non-spellcastig bard ACF. What do you think of a bard giving up casting in exchange for full BAB progression? Fair?

[Zytil]

Rather than fair, it sounds like you're losing out with that.

[Grod_The_Giant]

As Zytil said, that's such a downgrade it's physically painful. If you wanted a spell-less bard, I'm not sure what I'd put in its place... maneuvers, perhaps? Meldshaping?

What do you want out of a spell-less bard? It might be easier to take, say, a Factotum and trade Arcane Dilettante (and maybe also Opportunistic Piety) for Bardic Music.

[Zytil]

Oooooh, meldshaping bard! That sounds like a lot of fun!

[Piggy Knowles]

You can already more or less get a full-BAB bard thanks to Song of the White Raven, and get maneuvers to boot. Bard 4/Warblade 16 with Song of the White Raven gives you +19 BAB, 9th-level maneuvers and the inspire courage of a 20th level bard. If you're worried about skills, nab Able Learner at first level.

[Dread_Head]

The prestige class Warchanter also pretty much lets you do this. The spells are the bards best feature though and you are going to lose out A LOT by trading them away.

[Stoneback]

Thanks for the advice. That's my take on things, too: spells >> BAB.

I think I have to start from scratch. Have to read ToB again and research PrCs.

[shortround]

Paladins have an ACF from Heroes of Valor that gives them an Inspire Courage ability and they also have an ACF from Complete Warrior (I think?) that takes away their spells. Use Paladin of Freedom/Slaughter to get your alignment right and I think you're good to go? I don't know if all of these work properly together.

[Firechanter]

You can always be a pure Paladin and take From Smite To Song.
If you also want all the other Bard Songs, take Initiate of Milil on top.

But Song of White Raven Bardsader will also work just fine.

[Stoneback]

My team is 6th level and they just blew through their third DMPC, so maybe Bard 1/Warblade 4/Bard is what I'll roll.

Their characters are ranger 6 archer style, beguiler 6, and a homebrew fighter/crafter 6. They've been using meat shied style fighters and clerics this far and I want to try something a little different.

[Deophaun]

Only thing that might "make up" for spell casting is probably accelerated Inspire Courage progression. That's not to say that it's an even trade, but it is a trade that some builds would make.

[Stoneback]

Hm. Bard 3/Warblade 3 seems right. I can keep the spellcasting, it wouldn't be completely out of character.

But then I'm looking at managing martial adept stuff as well as spells. Lot of upkeep there.

Still unsure. May just stick with my original idea for simplicity's sake.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Give up your casting for a crusader's maneuvers known progression/recovery mechanic, with access to... let's say Desert Wind, Devoted Spirit, Stone Dragon and White Raven. That ought to be about fair.

[Nihilarian]

How about Warblade/Warrior Skald (Races of Faerun)

[Big Fau]

My team is 6th level and they just blew through their third DMPC, so maybe Bard 1/Warblade 4/Bard is what I'll roll.

Their characters are ranger 6 archer style, beguiler 6, and a homebrew fighter/crafter 6. They've been using meat shied style fighters and clerics this far and I want to try something a little different.

If you can wrangle it, see if your DM will allow Song of the White Raven to count PrCs towards it's benefits and go Bard X/Crusader Y/Jade Phoenix Mage 10. The Warblade is a good class, but the Crusader has more synergy with Bard.

[The Insaniac]

The level progression that I've seen recommended is Bard 4/Warblade or Crusader 16. That gets you IL 3 and second level maneuvers on your first level of martial adept. Take a look at this thread http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=238412.

[Piggy Knowles]

The Warblade is a good class, but the Crusader has more synergy with Bard.

Eh, sort of, but I don't necessarily agree. The main reason this is mentioned is because of potential Charisma synergy, but without spells, bards don't actually need stellar Charisma. Warblades also get access to White Raven maneuvers, and unlike crusaders, they can actually consistently have their best maneuvers ready to use.

[Thurbane]

I can't find a non-spellcastig bard ACF. What do you think of a bard giving up casting in exchange for full BAB progression? Fair?
You'd be losing out on a lot here.

Maybe trade spells for full BAB, good Fort save (i.e. all good saves) and a bonus Fighter feat every 4 or 5 levels.

You'd still be worse off than a casting Bard though.

[Diovid]

You could take a look at this homebrew class of mine: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=301897.

It's similar to a base class version of the Warchanter. It's not perfect or anything but at least it's a bit better than a bard with full bab and no spellcasting.

[Invader]

You'd be losing out on a lot here.

Maybe trade spells for full BAB, good Fort save (i.e. all good saves) and a bonus Fighter feat every 4 or 5 levels.

You'd still be worse off than a casting Bard though.

And increased inspire courage and Bardic music progression as well.

[Waker]

Since you seem willing to allow homebrew, why not take a look at the Dancer (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134667) here. It's a Sublime Way Bard with maneuvers in place of songs.
I think there are others scattered here and there in homebrew that might also work, but that would require a bit more digging on my part.

[drack]

Thanks for the advice. That's my take on things, too: spells >> BAB.
Well, not always... :smallwink:

[Nihilarian]

Well, not always... :smallwink:Yes, always.

[drack]

You're one of those silly people that thinks wizards always beat fighters in fights aren't you?

[Nihilarian]

You're one of those silly people that thinks wizards always beat fighters in fights aren't you?BAB alone isn't worth that much. The difference between medium and full BAB is +5 Attack Bonus (useful) and 1 additional attack in a full attack action at a -15 penalty (rarely useful). Even if it was worth more, there are spells that literally grant full BAB. Even if there weren't, the benefits from spellcasting are vastly superior to the benefits of full BAB anyway. Compare to haste, which grants you AND all your friends an extra attack at no penalty as well as bonuses to attack and movement speed.

[drack]

Yes and there are non-spells that nullify the benefits of spells, does that make son-spells "strictly better" too? It's a silly way to compare the two. In general spells give more utility, and fighters tend to give more clobbering. in the case of this bard I'd say if it's a campaign where they've got time to rest between encounters, average D&D game level, and they don't have to survive several waves of enemies consistently, then yes spells would be more handy, though it'd really depend on the campaign, the bard, and the party, so I'd stand by "no, they're not strictly better". :smallsmile:

[BrokenChord]

BAB alone isn't worth that much. The difference between medium and full BAB is +5 Attack Bonus (useful) and 1 additional attack in a full attack action at a -15 penalty (rarely useful). Even if it was worth more, there are spells that literally grant full BAB. Even if there weren't, the benefits from spellcasting are vastly superior to the benefits of full BAB anyway. Compare to haste, which grants you AND all your friends an extra attack at no penalty as well as bonuses to attack and movement speed.

Yeah, and that's the nerfed version of the spell! You should see it in 3.0... It is ALL of the win.

As a general rule, yes, casting is vastly superior to mundane melee. That doesn't mean wizards always beat fighters or casters don't need mundanes; truly, non-casters are important. But in 99/100 situations I'd personally rather be the caster, and those 1/100 situations usually involve clever use of anti/dead magic or somebody else using their own magic to infiltrate my sleeping quarters. So magic.

[Nihilarian]

Yes and there are non-spells that nullify the benefits of spells, does that make son-spells "strictly better" too? It's a silly way to compare the two. In general spells give more utility, and fighters tend to give more clobbering. in the case of this bard I'd say if it's a campaign where they've got time to rest between encounters, average D&D game level, and they don't have to survive several waves of enemies consistently, then yes spells would be more handy, though it'd really depend on the campaign, the bard, and the party, so I'd stand by "no, they're not strictly better". :smallsmile:You would be wrong. Unless the entire campaign will be run in an Antimagic Field, spells will always be more valuable than full BAB to a bard. Bards can do plenty of damage through Inspire Courage anyway.

The poster doesn't want to play a bard with casting and that's fine, but we should help him understand that spellcasting for full BAB is not an even trade and hopefully convince him to negotiate with his DM for something else that would be.

[Stoneback]

Thanks for the advice.

Let's come at this from another angle:

What I want is a lightly-armored fighter who uses sword and board; has some facility with ranged attacks when necessary; has ranks with perform, open lock, and UMD.

Is there a sword and board style for Rangers? Then we go half-elf and take Able Learner. Or, again, Elf and a level of Bard.

[drack]

I hear what you're saying, and I don't funny agree. (that is what we're being asked right, our opinions?) In for instance a survival game with minimal rest time to recover spells for instance I would say that the BAB would be more useful, if on the other hand it's a campaign where they players only fight when and where they want to (always with full spells&HP, a good meal and rest), then bardic casting could probably be more useful with spells such as inspiration boosting attack bonus higher. If it's a game where more enemies have antimagic you'll want more nonmangical BAB more, if you're in a game where your enemies have DR/magic, then you'll want magic. If in a game where casters get burned at the stake BAB may be more handy, if one where casters are a higher class citizen with more access to certain sectors, the casting might be nice. It's vary situational. :smallcool:

Edit: don't really know of sword and board styles for rangers. :smallconfused:

Edit 2: whoops, I forgot to begin with "You are wrong" or "your opinion is invalid"... Oh man, now people will think I'm being respectful and not following the proper tradition of disrespecting your views while disagreeing! :smallfrown:

[Nihilarian]

There's a handbook (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=8688.0) if you want to check it out.

My preference would be to make a two weapon fighter with bonus damage. A Daring Outlaw Rogue/Swashbuckler with a sword and shield instead of the usual two weapons would be solid.

[Stoneback]

There's a handbook (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=8688.0) if you want to check it out.

That's awesome, thanks.

Still unsure. Not worried about maximizing anything in particular. Maybe I'll set with Chet Erez' base class pdf and dream a little...

[drack]

I haven't really tried it, but I hear this can be useful. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127026)

[Archaos]

For a spell less Bard, I would do the following:

Call it Skald maybe.
Full BAB.
d10 for HP. Fighters, Paladins, Knights, Hexblades etc all have d10 for health. Some exceptions are Duskblade (d8) and Barbarian (d12) as well as a few others.
Fortitude save as high. Maybe remove Reflex save but not necessary. Keep Will save.
Give them Medium Armor.

Inspire Courage and Defense get a +1 bonus every 4-5 levels. Maybe Inspire Regeneration too.

There you go. A Skald Bard that is similar to the other melee classes but instead focuses on party combat buffs instead of Rage or spells (Paladin/Hexblade/Duskblade) and has awesome skill points.

You also don't need Concentration and Spellcraft now.
Focus on STR, Power Attack, get Heavy Armor with a feat and it's all set. Probably worse than a pure Bard but less MAD (don't need CHA at all and probably not DEX either.).