Feeling redundant, how to build a better bard?

[Raine_Sage]

So I'm in a group on my college campus, we're playing with pregen characters and I'm having a little trouble with my bard. Well not trouble persay. Out of combat I'm fine, I'm the skill girl so I have plenty to do when we're not fighting.

In combat I am bored out of my skull. My AC is 13 and my health 18 at level 3, which means despite being able to do damage roughly on par with the barbarian (two weapon fighting), getting into melee range to do so is not wise. So I stick to the back and play my songs. I could take potshots with the hand crossbow. But the damage buff from the song does more cumulatively so it's really the better option. Occasionally I have useful spells but the druid, cleric and wizard make me kind of redundant unless I stick strictly to bard specific spells which don't have a lot of combat utility.

So basically my problem is every round in combat the only thing I can do is keep playing. Occasionally move out of the way or behind cover. I might as well just tell the DM "My bard plays music in the corner like always, let me know when we win."

It's not like combat's not challenging for the people on the front lines, but they're usually pretty good about keeping the heat off the guys in the rear. And with three people who know healing word health has never dipped below bloodied for too long. I'm not bothered playing a non-combatant, but fights eat up like 40% of the total playtime which is about an hour of sitting and doing nothing.

Basically I'm wondering if there's a way to give my bard more to do in a fight besides play the lute.

[Lokiare]

So I'm in a group on my college campus, we're playing with pregen characters and I'm having a little trouble with my bard. Well not trouble persay. Out of combat I'm fine, I'm the skill girl so I have plenty to do when we're not fighting.

In combat I am bored out of my skull. My AC is 13 and my health 18 at level 3, which means despite being able to do damage roughly on par with the barbarian (two weapon fighting), getting into melee range to do so is not wise. So I stick to the back and play my songs. I could take potshots with the hand crossbow. But the damage buff from the song does more cumulatively so it's really the better option. Occasionally I have useful spells but the druid, cleric and wizard make me kind of redundant unless I stick strictly to bard specific spells which don't have a lot of combat utility.

So basically my problem is every round in combat the only thing I can do is keep playing. Occasionally move out of the way or behind cover. I might as well just tell the DM "My bard plays music in the corner like always, let me know when we win."

It's not like combat's not challenging for the people on the front lines, but they're usually pretty good about keeping the heat off the guys in the rear. And with three people who know healing word health has never dipped below bloodied for too long. I'm not bothered playing a non-combatant, but fights eat up like 40% of the total playtime which is about an hour of sitting and doing nothing.

Basically I'm wondering if there's a way to give my bard more to do in a fight besides play the lute.

Don't worry, when the final game comes out, the bard will be a combat master. The college of valor will grant better armor, better weapons and the ability to cast spells as well as make attacks in the same round.

[Graustein]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't the bard fight and inspire at the same time? It takes an action to start up, and then only concentration to maintain, which just means you can't inspire and maintain a concentration spell at the same time. In the game I'm running, our bard does just that, singing and crossbow-ing at the same time. If you're a two-handed fighter maybe even dual dagger-throwing could work, depending on how charitably your DM interprets the rules for that kind of thing. Admittedly, it's not much more interesting than just pushing the on button for your song and waiting the fight out, but at least you get to roll dice every round and your cumulative damage output should be nice.

Unless the issue is that your hands are busy with your lute, in which case you could get the same effect just by singing and save the lyre for out-of-combat performances?

[mathewt]

I feel for you, in sort of the opposite direction. I've been playing as a barbarian and I'm usually bored out of my skull. At level 4, there's not a whole lot to do. Up through level 3 it was usually "I rage" followed by "I attack" over and over. Pretty much nothing to do out of combat and in combat it's just a simple attack over and over. It finally got a bit better when I hit 4 and took Great Weapon Master as a feat....at least it gives me the option to do more damage and an actual choice to make other than "should I rage or not?". I already told my group that once we finish the current adventure, I'll probably retire my character and roll a caster...

[Raine_Sage]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't the bard fight and inspire at the same time? It takes an action to start up, and then only concentration to maintain, which just means you can't inspire and maintain a concentration spell at the same time. In the game I'm running, our bard does just that, singing and crossbow-ing at the same time. If you're a two-handed fighter maybe even dual dagger-throwing could work, depending on how charitably your DM interprets the rules for that kind of thing. Admittedly, it's not much more interesting than just pushing the on button for your song and waiting the fight out, but at least you get to roll dice every round and your cumulative damage output should be nice.

Unless the issue is that your hands are busy with your lute, in which case you could get the same effect just by singing and save the lyre for out-of-combat performances?

Oh I can sing and attack, but the rules in the packet we're using say I need to roll for concentration if I'm making an attack while preforming. (That's the trouble with getting advice on a playtest I suppose, everyone's got different rules). Otherwise I would merrily sing while also stabbing people in the face but but it's really not worth risking flubbing the song cause once again cumulative damage adds up more than piddly 1d6 potshots as opposed to 5d4 per round (more if the wizard decides to get creative).

It's a real shame, out of combat is great, but it's just overshadowed by the fact that in combat I might as well not be there.

[thatSeniorGuy]

You don't roll for concentration in Next (at least as of the last packet). All concentration does is prevent you from using two spells/talents that both use concentration; you can only concentrate on one thing at a time.

[Graustein]

You don't roll for concentration in Next (at least as of the last packet). All concentration does is prevent you from using two spells/talents that both use concentration; you can only concentrate on one thing at a time.

Yeah, despite sharing a name with the 3e mechanic, Next concentration is about limiting buff-stacking, not about allowing others to interrupt your spellcasting. I'd talk with your DM about this, because I can't remember the mechanic ever requiring you to roll to maintain it in Next.

[Lokiare]

Yeah, despite sharing a name with the 3e mechanic, Next concentration is about limiting buff-stacking, not about allowing others to interrupt your spellcasting. I'd talk with your DM about this, because I can't remember the mechanic ever requiring you to roll to maintain it in Next.

Its one of those vague rules that the DM is supposed to interpret and will end up being different at each table. It goes something like this "... and things that the DM thinks might interrupt your concentration like a ship rocking back and forth." Which basically means if they DM thinks it can break concentration then it does. So I'd say buy your DM some food and be extra nice because 5E is all about manipulating the DM into doing what you want.

[Graustein]

Its one of those vague rules that the DM is supposed to interpret and will end up being different at each table. It goes something like this "... and things that the DM thinks might interrupt your concentration like a ship rocking back and forth." Which basically means if they DM thinks it can break concentration then it does. So I'd say buy your DM some food and be extra nice because 5E is all about manipulating the DM into doing what you want.

The rules are vague but they do say pretty clearly that making an attack (as well as moving, casting a spell and being hit by a normal attack) do not break concentration, so although I'd also rather the rules be a little clearer, I reckon it's safe to say that our bard here can do the singy thing and also the stabby (or shooty?) thing at the same time without any kind of penalty.

[Raine_Sage]

XD you're right, I looked up the rules before our last game and bards can sing and attack, I don't know where the DM was getting that I needed to roll concentration from but he took the correction gracefully.

It's not much of a change, considering I'm still at risk if an enemy sneases on me but it's better. A shame I like the idea of college of wit better than college of valor but if it does buff my AC it might be worth the switch.

[atanamis]

At level 4 you get to choose between increasing ability scores by two points or taking a feat. If you choose to take "tough", that will immediate increase your hitpoints by an additional 8 (plus your normal d6 + Constitution) and give you an additional two hitpoints per level for life. That might help with your fragility issue?

[Raine_Sage]

I had considered that, but I was also interested in taking the two weapon fighting for a bonus to AC and the ability to get a rapier in one hand because they are my favorite. Now I'm having trouble picking. Is +1 AC better or worse than a boost to HP?

[Lokiare]

I had considered that, but I was also interested in taking the two weapon fighting for a bonus to AC and the ability to get a rapier in one hand because they are my favorite. Now I'm having trouble picking. Is +1 AC better or worse than a boost to HP?

Since AC is a limited static resource in 5E, its always the better choice. Remember you'll be lowering the damage you take over the course of the day by around 5% for a single point of AC. This could mean 10 to 50 damage over the course of a slow or busy day for encounters.

[Kurald Galain]

Since AC is a limited static resource in 5E, its always the better choice. Remember you'll be lowering the damage you take over the course of the day by around 5% for a single point of AC. This could mean 10 to 50 damage over the course of a slow or busy day for encounters.

Wait, what? Are you telling me that taking one thousand points of damage in a single day is normal? How on earth are you surviving that?

[Envyus]

Wait, what? Are you telling me that taking one thousand points of damage in a single day is normal? How on earth are you surviving that?

He's not he is just saying things take a thousand damage and doing math.

[Lokiare]

200 * 0.5 = 10. I guesstimated and gave a range. However my point stands you would have to gain more than 10 hit points total from a feat for it to be better than 1 point of AC.

If you are a level 20 Fighter with a con mod of +5 then you end up with 300 hp, unless of course they cap hp growth at level 9 like in early editions. Then it looks different.

However you should look at it over the course of your career. There are very few ways to increase AC. So 1 point of AC might save you from 100's or 1000's of hit point loss over the course of a character from level 1 to 20.

[Kurald Galain]

200 * 0.5 = 10. I guesstimated and gave a range. However my point stands you would have to gain more than 10 hit points total from a feat for it to be better than 1 point of AC.
Taking 200 damage in a day is not even remotely realistic either, considering the OP mentions he's playing at level three. So this proves that in fact a feat that gives one point of AC is completely not worth it at all at this level, and that investing in a hit point boost is better.

[Chaosvii7]

So this proves that in fact a feat that gives one point of AC is completely not worth it at all at this level, and that investing in a hit point boost is better.

Actually that means that it would benefit one better if they can take it earlier and mitigate lifetime damage sooner rather than later. Even so, as it's already been said, AC is still the more valuable stat to get your hands on; Hit points are not only a dime a dozen, but characters can heal themselves between encounters, meaning that all one has to do is tank through hits, which is easier if they just can't beat your AC.

Either way, I don't think that's the feat one should be looking at to boost AC; The Shield Master feat is better. It does limit the Bard to singing for all of their in-combat performances and unfortunately nixes two-weapon fighting but all in all it can create a tanky bard, especially if they dip into the College of Valor and can find a way to pick up Studded Dragon Leather armor for about 15-16 AC, plus up to 2 points of their Dex modifier.

[da_chicken]

At low level, hit points are probably better. 8 HP is essentially a whole extra Hit Die to you, meaning you're likely to survive 5 hits instead of 4. +1 AC is harder to evaluate. If your AC is already pretty high, then more AC is better (until you fall off the top end of the d20, but that shouldn't happen in the playtest packet). If your AC is behind and unlikely to catch up, AC is worse.

Honestly, I think a better question is if Tough is better or worse than just +2 Con. Tough only adds a few more HP, and Con is a fairly common save.

[Kurald Galain]

Either way, I don't think that's the feat one should be looking at to boost AC; The Shield Master feat is better.

That is true. It's pretty much always the case that picking a good feat is a better boost for your character than +2 to any of your stats, except maybe your primary attack stat.

[Warskull]

I had considered that, but I was also interested in taking the two weapon fighting for a bonus to AC and the ability to get a rapier in one hand because they are my favorite. Now I'm having trouble picking. Is +1 AC better or worse than a boost to HP?

Perhaps two levels of fighter could be appropriate if you qualify (15 str.) It would give you access to heavier armor, grant you a fighting style, and give you a few bigger HP rolls. With the extra AC from heavier armor you can skip the feat for the time being. The feat gives you 1 AC and the ability to use a non-light weapon in your main hand. If you are using rapiers that is a non-issue.

[Raine_Sage]

My AC is currently 13 and my strength is 9 and I'm wearing regular leather armor (so 11 +2 from dex) and my HP is at 18 (was 13 before level up)

I'm currently in college of wit, it's a shame because I took it for rp reasons. I wish being combat effective and being socially effective weren't currently mutually exclusive. I might switch because I've used the level three college performance exactly 0 times since I took it.

[Chaosvii7]

I wish being combat effective and being socially effective weren't currently mutually exclusive..

I do miss that aspect of the old Bards of yesteryear, but you can fix this with use of your feats or multiclassing. It does mean that you'll need to wait a little before it comes online but you could easily dip Rogue with at least Dexterity 15, and still get proficiency with medium armor, as well as that precious 1d6 sneak attack die to bolster your own combat capabilities. If you take the Charger feat, your charge attacks deal an extra 5 damage on-hit. So altogether you could spend the first turn starting the Call to Battle while telling one of your tankier friends to charge into battle, and then head in yourself next turn for a fairly powerful charge attack. Your weaponry might not be the most heavy hitting, but with an extra 2d6 + 5(which is about the value of a well-optimized two weapon attack) on top of your base damage, that's nothing to sneeze at.

[Fwiffo86]

I have loved Bards since 1st. So I will say this with love and admiration. The bard is supposed to be not good at anything because they do everything. It's the tradeoff. I have played caster focused, melee focused, ranged focused, etc through several editions. My last bard i focused on defense and army building (thanks to oathbound and broken feats). In the end, my bard was so untouchable in combat, that he literally sat down and played solitaire while singing the praises of his compatriots. I had minions galore (other players were considered minions to the bard) to do my work for me.

In next, the bard is quite literally awesome. One of my players is going with the dual-wield rapier, enchantment method. Basically, drops the buffs, stabs someone, then starts singing when while stabbing more people. Generally the spells she selects remove people from combat, or superbuff the actual damage dealers.

The Bard is supposed to be out done in specifics. Better spells from the Divines and Arcanes, better blows from the Armors, and better sneakiness from the Shadows. But none of them can do all of it. Not to mention... people love bards. Or is that Bards love to manipulate people.... I get those mixed up some times.

[LtPowers]

So, wait... after all the improvements to the Bard in 4e, they went back to the 3.5 bard style where you had to take just the right feats/class features to be useful in combat?


Powers &8^]

[Chaosvii7]

So, wait... after all the improvements to the Bard in 4e, they went back to the 3.5 bard style where you had to take just the right feats/class features to be useful in combat?

The 3.5 Bard did it's job fine - It had a hand in just about every aspect of the core gameplay of 3.5. The 4e Bard was definitely suited towards it's own, but it wasn't meant to be an improvement the 3.5 Bard; It had to find a new niche to fill because 4e was a different system and bards are traditionally just that - people whose specializations make it a good everyman, but not a perfect substitute. It was someone who inspired through music, A magical minstrel whose ways with words gave empowerment to himself and allies alike, as opposed to 3.5's vision of a character who was more focused on being a versatile handyman with a large variety of different capabilities.

Either way, the D&DNext Bard is definitely my favorite one to date. They're definitely more powerful by comparison to the other two as well, which might be a bit of a problem because they still get magic and have decent combat capabilities. Wizards returned to the 3.5 philosophy of play when building this Bard up, but it either specializes in being a master of combat(basically a warlord skin) or being a wordsmith whose guile and control over magic give them strong influence and arcane knack. Bards are a lot more decisive between being combat-focused or spell-focused, but they bear the closest resemblance to the 3.5 bard for sure.

The OP's problem with a slightly underpowered Bard character was a misunderstanding of the rules of concentration, which was cleared up some time ago.

[LtPowers]

Concentration rules aside, though, it still seems like combat for the bard is "sing a song and take potshots with a crossbow". Unless I'm misunderstanding, that doesn't seem very interesting.


Powers &8^]

[Chaosvii7]

Concentration rules aside, though, it still seems like combat for the bard is "sing a song and take potshots with a crossbow". Unless I'm misunderstanding, that doesn't seem very interesting.

Oh no, far from it. Bards can take the College of Valor for medium armor proficiency to make them very tanky, and with Call to Battle they can bring a considerable damage buff to the front lines. Their spells are a lot more versatile than ever before; Bards have gotten a great overhaul in regards to magic; Their magic is a lot more expansive and they get more spells that have multiple applications across combat between allies and enemies.

Bards definitely are able to swap between frontline fighters and spellslingers from the back, and their songs are able to benefit a party regardless of their position. On their own they are a solid class, it's just that they shine best when there's a party around them. Combat for Bards can either be really tactically deep or they can play very aggressively.

[Lokiare]

Oh no, far from it. Bards can take the College of Valor for medium armor proficiency to make them very tanky, and with Call to Battle they can bring a considerable damage buff to the front lines. Their spells are a lot more versatile than ever before; Bards have gotten a great overhaul in regards to magic; Their magic is a lot more expansive and they get more spells that have multiple applications across combat between allies and enemies.

Bards definitely are able to swap between frontline fighters and spellslingers from the back, and their songs are able to benefit a party regardless of their position. On their own they are a solid class, it's just that they shine best when there's a party around them. Combat for Bards can either be really tactically deep or they can play very aggressively.

Imagine this scenario:

DM "The Orc hits you with its axe for 15 points of damage."
Player "No problem, I cast magic weapon on my longsword, swift cast healing word on myself as I make two attacks and then I begin singing to give my allies a damage boost."

[Chaosvii7]

Imagine this scenario:

DM "The Orc hits you with its axe for 15 points of damage."
Player "No problem, I cast magic weapon on my longsword, swift cast healing word on myself as I make two attacks and then I begin singing to give my allies a damage boost."

And they laughed at Bards when they were nothing more than a kitbash of fighters, rogues, and druids. :smalltongue:

Although to be fair I wasn't around in the days of the first Bard so I don't know if the multiclass nightmare Bard from the old editions was overwhelmingly powerful, but it definitely took it's fair bit of specialization to make it come online - something that the later editions eventually shied away from.

However, I will say that the idea of the newest version of the Bard will definitely be up in the air until I see the physical final version of The Bard; Best case scenario they'd eseentially become arcane clerics with parlor tricks and music instead of domains and clerical magic. They said it was going to retain a level of combat prowess similar to the College of Valor, but I do fear that they might have made a Bard that is in fact too good.

[Fwiffo86]

And they laughed at Bards when they were nothing more than a kitbash of fighters, rogues, and druids. :smalltongue:

Although to be fair I wasn't around in the days of the first Bard so I don't know if the multiclass nightmare Bard from the old editions was overwhelmingly powerful, but it definitely took it's fair bit of specialization to make it come online - something that the later editions eventually shied away from.

However, I will say that the idea of the newest version of the Bard will definitely be up in the air until I see the physical final version of The Bard; Best case scenario they'd eseentially become arcane clerics with parlor tricks and music instead of domains and clerical magic. They said it was going to retain a level of combat prowess similar to the College of Valor, but I do fear that they might have made a Bard that is in fact too good.

First Edition Bard:

Requirements:
Human (only humans could switch classes instead of maintaining 2+ classes like demihumans)
Begin as a fighter until 5th level. Between 5th and 7th level, change class to Thief. (required Dex 15)
Level as Thief until 9th level. Between 9th and 11th level, change class to druid. (required Wis 17)
Technically, you are now a bard, but still require acknowledgement from a Bard college.

Benefits:
Fighter armor proficiencies and attack bonus (including multiple attacks)
Thief skills (climb walls, move silently, pick pocket, and backstab, etc.)
Mage spells levels 1 and 2
Druid spells levels 1 - 3
Druid shapechange (1e 3/day, different animal each time)
Charm (as per spell) with music % chance.
1.5x effectiveness with all magic items that use music.
Counter all musical forms of magic.
Additional languages almost every level.
Legend Lore skill allowing identification of magic items with a % chance.

When I played mine, at the end of the campaign, I was only an 11th level Bard. The rest of the party were 18-21st level. Special Note: Only character in the campaign to escape the Tomb of Horrors with gear intact. No... did not confront the lich. Fled the Tomb after the rest of the party vanished into a mist.