[PF] Bard

[HereBeMonsters]

I want to play a Bard but I also don't want to just be the buffer or the party face. I would like to be able to go toe to toe with other arcane casters for a longer period of time (Past level 9 or so) without feeling like a lackluster B or C classed sorcerer.

Any Archetypes that stack are fine so long as they give me what I want. I don't know the bard for PF as well as I used to the Bard from 3.5 and I have never really run a bard with any form of optimizing. I love the Bard and want a good strong Bard who can really contribute to the party.

I have a 20 in Cha is that helps calculate DCs or anything. Its level 1 right now but pre-planning is what I want so I know my next note as it were.

[Prince Raven]

What sort of Bard do you want to play?
Magic focussed Bard? Go Magician.
Combat focussed Bard? Go Dawnflower Dervish or Arcane Duelist.
Best Knowledge monkey in the game? Go Archivist.

The key to not feeling like a B-class Sorcerer is to stop playing your Bard like a Sorcerer, look at what a Bard can do that a Sorcerer can't.

The biggest tips I have for optimizing a Bard is to be an Aasimar and get the Flagbearer feat with the Banner of Ancient Kings.

[avr]

If you're thinking a bard could be as good a spellcaster as a focussed sorcerer at high levels, you're wrong. A bard can fight better, talk better, can inspire courage (which sorcs can't) and in certain types of spells can match a generalist sorcerer or one operating outside their main area. A sorcerer is the very definition of a specialised spellcaster and will be better than you within that specialisation.

If there's a sorcerer in the group you probably want to pick an area or two which is not in that sorcerers specialty as your job.

[HereBeMonsters]

So what you are saying is If you actually want to play a bard who is a good caster and can effectively use their spell list well screw you Sorcerers are better. That is how that comment came off to me. Is that what you meant?

[satcharna]

It's just a simple fact. A bard relies on charisma for his spells, and strength or dexterity for his martial attacks. A sorcerer relies on charisma for his spells, period. And then the bard doesn't get as many spells and spell levels as the sorcerer. The two are simply not equals in casting. Each has their own field of expertise, though the sorcerer, with his additional spell levels and versatile spell list, has better opportunities to expand outside his expertise.

[Psyren]

So what you are saying is If you actually want to play a bard who is a good caster and can effectively use their spell list well screw you Sorcerers are better. That is how that comment came off to me. Is that what you meant?

You have to define the bolded terms. What do you consider a "good caster?" What do you consider "effectively using their spell list?"

For instance, if "9th-level spells" are your answer to both of these, then he's right, and you should be a sorcerer.

Basically, a bard is primarily a skillmonkey/knowledge-monkey with some magical backup - not a full spellcaster with some skills. (You want 5e for that.)

[Red Fel]

You have to define the bolded terms. What do you consider a "good caster?" What do you consider "effectively using their spell list?"

For instance, if "9th-level spells" are your answer to both of these, then he's right, and you should be a sorcerer.

Basically, a bard is primarily a skillmonkey/knowledge-monkey with some magical backup - not a full spellcaster with some skills. (You want 5e for that.)

Pretty much this.

Look. There are ways to play a good Bard. Ways to play an awesome Bard. Ways to play a Bard where the party looks at you and says, "Are you able to do that?" And you can just grin at them and point to a rule that says, yes, you totally can, and you just did. And make it epic. That's what it means to effectively use your class features, and it's something any class with functional class features can do. Bards have a lot of options when it comes to class features to use effectively.

But there are also things that primary casters just do better. It's by design. The same way I wouldn't come in here and say that I wanted to play a pure Fighter, but I wanted to Inspire Courage better than a Bard. The response I would get would be the same as the one you're getting - not likely to happen. Inspire Courage is a Bard's schtick. There are ways for a non-Bard to get it, but he won't do it as well as a Bard.

Now, in response to your original question, there are ways to play a Bard without being just the party face or buffbot. I happen to be a big fan of the Watersinger (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-undine/watersinger) archetype, for example, for some really unusual and fantastic utility. But the only people who can go toe-to-toe with primary casters, honestly, are other primary casters, and a Bard is not one. If your focus is on your spellcasting, you can get some interesting utility, but you will eventually feel second-rate compared to them. Everyone does.

[Psyren]

For myself, I like to either be a spin-to-win gish with Dervish of Dawn or Arcane Duelist, or a ghetto sorcerer with Magician and Soundstriker. You can also be a ghetto spellthief with Sandman or ghtetto medic with Songhealer. There are a lot of options out there and most are playable. (Probably avoid Geisha and Celebrity though.)

[Nerdtothe3rd]

This question interests me as well. Simply because we outright removed anything beyond 6th level spells.
Wizard, Sorcerers, Druids, and Clerics are all nonexistant in our games. We do allow counter parts of course like the Oracle and Bard and so forth but never the 9ths in there. As my GM put it "When you can casually duel a god one on one, why do you need a party?"
Wizards and the like feel very cheap, no real work required after a specific leveling point.

So wondering about a Bard who can be more effective then other 6th level casters would interest me.

Also so totally did not know 5e Bard was a 9th now.. thanks for the heads up Psyren.

[Psyren]

Wizards and the like feel very cheap, no real work required after a specific leveling point.

On the contrary - the higher you go, the more work you need as a full caster, because the potential threats and countermeasures to your tactics increase exponentially. More things have SR or high saves, or are capable of targeting your low save for instance.


So wondering about a Bard who can be more effective then other 6th level casters would interest me.

Just remember that none of them are going to beat Summoner, which is T2. And action-economy-wise, Magi rule the roost, with Warpriest's swift-action self-buffing via Fervor coming second, and Inquisitors are not far behind with their array of Judgments and Litanies. Damage-wise, Magi have a ton of nasty techniques with spell combat and spellstrike, and Inquisitors are hard to beat with Bane which does a lot of damage when optimized. Not to mention Hunters, who get a fighter as a class feature and therefore a whole other set of actions and another vector for dealing damage.

Does this mean Bards are at the back of the pack? Well no - of the ones above, only Inquisitors come close on the skillmonkey and knowledge front, and Bards are well-supported having spells and archetypes in nearly every book. Bards are also among the best support and controllers on the list.

The existence of Summoner is a good thing for Magician Bards, because they can steal some nice discounted spells from them as well.

[avr]

So what you are saying is If you actually want to play a bard who is a good caster and can effectively use their spell list well screw you Sorcerers are better. That is how that comment came off to me. Is that what you meant?
I didn't mean to insult you, no.

I did mean that PF bards can't rely on spells alone at the double-digit levels you mentioned in the OP, especially if there is a similar pure spellcaster who they will be compared against.

Bards can be effective characters because they get more than just spells.

The situations where they can maybe outdo a sorcerer are ones where both skills and magic (or skills alone) matter like some stealth or social situations, or where the character wants to get their own hands dirty in a fight.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I want to play a Bard but I also don't want to just be the buffer or the party face. I would like to be able to go toe to toe with other arcane casters for a longer period of time (Past level 9 or so) without feeling like a lackluster B or C classed sorcerer.

Any Archetypes that stack are fine so long as they give me what I want. I don't know the bard for PF as well as I used to the Bard from 3.5 and I have never really run a bard with any form of optimizing. I love the Bard and want a good strong Bard who can really contribute to the party.

I have a 20 in Cha is that helps calculate DCs or anything. Its level 1 right now but pre-planning is what I want so I know my next note as it were.

Bard archetypes will never really make you on par with a Sorcerer for sheer casting ability. But there are some options. My favorite archetypes for a caster bard are Chelish Diva and Thundercaller. Former lets you eventually cast in heavier armor and provides a no save single target frightening performance, and lets you burn perform rounds faster to boost the save DC of other performances, like suggestion. Latter is notable only for getting to make sound burst as a performance. The damage slowly increases with level, but the main things you care about are a) it's a great spell, area stun is sweet! and b) you'll eventually be able to use it as a swift, move, and standard all in the same turn! Still probably inferior to what a sorcerer can do with Dazing Spell feat and his spell list, but very nice regardless.

For spells, make sure to get Arcane Concordance.

[Dalebert]

I suppose you could also extend your ability and versatility some depending on your choice of magic items. For instance, pearls of power will get you some extra spells per day. Metamagic rods will let you enhance your spells. Wands and Staves will get you some extra stuph, obviously. Invest in UMD for magic items that have spells not on the bard list.

[Spore]

How about a Maestro bloodline sorcerer then? A bard just doesn't fit your requirements. I heavily dislike that you cannot bend a bard to your needs but have the class dictate where your strengths are but with class feature that all over the place you basically have to use anything at any point for the character to be effective.

And for the bard it is basically to be able to say: "I can sort of do that." every 5 minutes minimum at the table.

For the following questions:
"Roll Knowledge x."
"Roll Diplomacy."
"Heal Marc, he is nearly dead."
"If only someone could trip/disarm/steal said item."
"I need more buffs to hit that demon. Who will help me?"
"I need someone to write my epic and create a song for it."
"If only someone could abuse the low will save of those insanely strong but weak willed prison guards."

I CAN DO THAT!

[9mm]

. For instance, pearls of power will get you some extra spells per day.
Bards are spontaneous casters, and therefore must use Runestones of power (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/r-z/runestone-of-power) instead of peals of power.

[Dalebert]

Bards are spontaneous casters, and therefore must use Runestones of power (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/r-z/runestone-of-power) instead of peals of power.

My bad.

I understand why people are annoyed with your phrasing. A bard is a jack-of-all-trades. They're a skill monkey supreme but with a bunch of other perks added. They can out-skill a sorcerer, wear light armor and fight better than a sorcerer, they get a few bard-specific things on top of that like buffing with performance. And you're saying you want to be "toe-to-toe" with a sorcerer on the one thing that sorcerers do really well, and that they gave up all that other stuph for -- hit points, armor, fighting ability, skill points. If that's possible, why ever play a sorcerer instead of a bard?

The suggestion to go ahead and play a sorcerer is not a bad one. You can either go at it from the bard POV and then apply what tweaks you can toward being a better caster. Alternatively, you can go the sorcerer POV and then apply what tweaks you can to be more bard-like. What about the bard are you trying to emulate? You can get a couple of traits to fill in skill gaps on a sorcerer in PF, making those skills class skills and maybe even getting bonuses to them. You could fight a little better with certain feats. You can simulate armor reasonably well with mage armor (it's actually better) which you'll be able to cast more frequently as a sorcerer. You can even look into ways to wear some light armor with less or maybe even zero ASF (I know how to do this in 3.5 but not PF so not sure). You could even invest in a Hat of Disguise, one of the cheapest magic items, so you don't LOOK like a sorcerer, i.e. you appear to be wearing armor so people don't automatically assume you're the squishy caster whom they should attack first.

Some food for thought. You just can't have everything. That's why classes exist.

[Prince Raven]

Yeah, a Bard can't out-Sorcerer a Sorcerer, but by the same token a Sorcerer can't out-Bard a Bard.