Bard - Am I the only one who thinks this?

[atemu1234]

It reads to me like a very 'DM's little sister' class. It boils down to, "Ok, parents told me to watch you for a few hours, we're playing D&D, so you don't feel left out, here's a character. You can just sit there and watch and sing and you'll technically be helping."

At least, that's what the design reminds me of. Nothing against bards, personally. I like them, they're fun, but I hope I wasn't the first person to think this.

[Zombulian]

It reads to me like a very 'DM's little sister' class. It boils down to, "Ok, parents told me to watch you for a few hours, we're playing D&D, so you don't feel left out, here's a character. You can just sit there and watch and sing and you'll technically be helping."

At least, that's what the design reminds me of. Nothing against bards, personally. I like them, they're fun, but I hope I wasn't the first person to think this.

The core Bard fersher. On the other hand they're still skillmonkeys. Their abilities for combat are definitely a more spectator oriented setup, but they're not a combat oriented class. In core they're pretty much the best party-face there is.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Meh, the Marshal is much worse in that regard. The Bard still gets plenty of spells and some passable combat ability, even before you start bringing in splatbook materials.

[Platymus Pus]

Watch out the little sister might decide to tpk the party with a diplomacy check.
"That's them, the ones who did *blank*!"

[AvatarVecna]

Bards have a lot of potential, but the basic chassis is simple enough that it's hard to screw it up without trying. Plus, the play instructions for a basic Bard can be as simple as "you sing and dance to motivate everybody else to do better...like a Disney character".

True fact: multiple Disney Princesses are perfectly set up to become Fochlucan Lyrists. Sure, you're not optimal, but you're always helping without actually doing anything!

[Jack_Simth]

True fact: multiple Disney Princesses are perfectly set up to become Fochlucan Lyrists. Sure, you're not optimal, but you're always helping without actually doing anything!... Bard-3/Rogue-3/Druid-3/Ur-Priest-1/Sublime Chord-1/Fochlucan Lyrist-9? Sounds more like a villian.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I thought that too. Then i learnt to build a bard properly.

With a bit of optimization you're a pretty impressive spellcaster, and what you lose compared to a wizard you make up for with giving the entire massive boosts to hit and damage.

If i had to play with my little sister i'd certainly not complain if she gave everyone +12 to hit and damage and12d6 energy damage on every hit while still casting BFC, Summoning reinforcements, buffing, taking care of social encounters and acting as information source for all those little facts that no one ever takes a knowledge skill for.
It's certainly a lot more useful than yet another charger, tripper or TWF rogue (and also a lot more fun to play).

[noob]

Well bards are T3 for one good reason: They can do tons of things.
With proper optimization and the power of the spells you get better than every non spellcaster.
But a bard without casting would suddenly have a lot less interest.(singing stays good and you are also a skill-monkey)

[AvatarVecna]

... Bard-3/Rogue-3/Druid-3/Ur-Priest-1/Sublime Chord-1/Fochlucan Lyrist-9? Sounds more like a villian.

...it's only a villain because you insisted on shoehorning Ur-Priest into the build when it's not actually necessary; just use FL to improve the Druid casting. Or, if you really want fast casting, you can always go for the Apostle of Peace; there's your Disney Princess!

[Quertus]

I love this as a potential example of "being able to do lots of different things" as a good starting character.

Yes, the character is perfectly acceptable as just sitting there singing, boosting the party. But it also offers lots of cool possibilities, depending on how the "little sister" decides to play the character.

I like this idea much better than "give the noob something simple to play".

[icefractal]

I have kind of a mental block around them myself. Objectively, I'd play a Rogue, and Bard is pretty much all-around better than Rogue. So why not play one? It's just the the core Bard has a very support-oriented feel, and that leaves an impression that they're pigeon-holed into that role.

Also, there's a bit of the "If I have to do the paperwork of picking and tracking spells, I might as well be a Sorcerer and have much more oomph in my casting" going on.

[Jack_Simth]

...it's only a villain because you insisted on shoehorning Ur-Priest into the build when it's not actually necessary; just use FL to improve the Druid casting. Or, if you really want fast casting, you can always go for the Apostle of Peace; there's your Disney Princess!Just a quick double-9's build. But yes, most Disney princesses are probably something more like Bard-X/Rogue-X/Druid-X, I'll grant you. Singing, animal companions, lots of skills, and a talent for getting out of harm's way.

[Talionis]

I thought the exact opposite. It's more like the class for the person at the table that has played the most. They okay at lots of things. If you've played a lot you can optimize it more and generally as you do you make everyone in the party better or you fill holes or back people up, just enough heal to get the cleric awake again. They use the whips range because they understand how that can be useful.

I think Bards are very hard to play but interesting to play.

Warlocks tend to be my advice for young new players, few choices and no need to manage resources.

[Triskavanski]

One of the things I've wanted to do was make a bard who was Genre Savvy. They are the only class that could break the fourth wall constantly and be in character still.

Would be awesome to have one that could 'detect' evil by following a number of tropes and seeing everyone follow them.


But Since I started playing pathfinder, if I wanted to play a rogue, I'd play a bard instead. Trap Rogue = Archeologist.
Stabbity Rogue = Sandman.

Unchained might change some fo that up for me now though.

[AvatarVecna]

One of the things I've wanted to do was make a bard who was Genre Savvy. They are the only class that could break the fourth wall constantly and be in character still.

Would be awesome to have one that could 'detect' evil by following a number of tropes and seeing everyone follow them.


But Since I started playing pathfinder, if I wanted to play a rogue, I'd play a bard instead. Trap Rogue = Archeologist.
Stabbity Rogue = Sandman.

Unchained might change some fo that up for me now though.

I did that for a 5e Bard, although it can work just as well in 3.5 or PF.

"I'm not the main character, so the audience won't watch from my perspective if I'm falling; since you almost never die off-screen as a supporting and/or comic relief character, this fall can't kill me!" *Feather Fall*

"Ah, but you didn't anticipate that I would read the script for today's episode ahead of time, so I know the villain's entire backstory...including his secret weakness!" *Legend Lore*

"Time to improvise...uh...'suddenly, a, uh...a holy cow appeared out of nowhere!'...maybe?" *Summon Monster III: Celestial Bison*


I have kind of a mental block around them myself. Objectively, I'd play a Rogue, and Bard is pretty much all-around better than Rogue. So why not play one? It's just the the core Bard has a very support-oriented feel, and that leaves an impression that they're pigeon-holed into that role.

Also, there's a bit of the "If I have to do the paperwork of picking and tracking spells, I might as well be a Sorcerer and have much more oomph in my casting" going on.

Yeah, that's the basic idea of the tier system: being the best at one specified thing isn't as ultimately useful as being the second best at a bunch of things you get to pick.

[Marlowe]

Why do people keep assuming that because the Bard can do one thing (buff through Perform) that strikes people as a little silly, that one thing is all they're about and their skills list, spell list, and middleweight chassis somehow mean nothing?:smallconfused:

[AvatarVecna]

Why do people keep assuming that because the Bard can do one thing (buff through Perform) that strikes people as a little silly, that one thing is all they're about and their skills list, spell list, and middleweight chassis somehow mean nothing?:smallconfused:

While I personally don't believe so, I can see how somebody can get that impression by reading the fluff. Bards can be awesome in a lot of different characterizations.

[Marlowe]

It makes as much sense as assuming that Clerics can do nothing but heal, Wizards can do nothing but blast, Rogues can do nothing but aggravate helpful NPCs with pointless acts of petty theft and Fighters can do nothing but lie on their back in a slowly expanding pool of their own blood.

[P.F.]

Yeah I see Bard as a more advanced character type. As a DM's little-sister type, they are going to be not a lot of help to anyone, lots of people telling her what to do, all the big kids making fun of her paltry +1 bonus. I always thought that the DM's little sister had to play the Cleric. Sure, she won't be a game-breaking T1 God cleric, but she can heal the party, probably won't get killed even if she gets targeted, and when the party needs a particular spell they can just tell her to prepare it.

Bard on the other hand, while hard to screw up horribly, has a wide array of options to be mediocre. In the hands of an experienced player, however, this "DM's-little-sister" archetype takes on Mary-Sue like proportions -- both arcane power and healing and defensive magics (especially when augmented through UMD), good skills (especially social skills), passble combat ability, and a variety of situationally useful class features. If she is also "The DM's Pet," she will have the other players turning green with envy.

[Ellowryn]

It makes as much sense as assuming that Clerics can do nothing but heal, Wizards can do nothing but blast, Rogues can do nothing but aggravate helpful NPCs with pointless acts of petty theft and Fighters can do nothing but lie on their back in a slowly expanding pool of their own blood.

To be fair there are a lot of people that think that way. And to be honest fighters actually do that quite often, that or sit in a corner with the rogue playing tiddlywinks because the party wizard only prepared two castings of fly that morning and they are facing a flying foe.

Personally, i have a hard time playing just a bard. I keep trying to optimize to do something really good and i end up with something only marginally like the base class. I get the jack of all trades but master of none thing but i find always being second fiddle at doing anything (unless nobody in the party can do that role) kinda aggravating.

[Honest Tiefling]

To me, it feels like the designers couldn't figure out a better way to motivate the rest of the team with epic performances and sorta just made it simple and called it a day. I'm not big on the history of DnD, so I'm probably wrong on this.

[elonin]

I've always thought of the bard as being just a step better than the monk. Maybe that was it felt at the time like it was nerfed from adnd.

[tiercel]

When I think D&D bard, one archetype I think of is Gandalf.

Yes, yes, "wizard," whatever.

-- Knows a bit about everything.
-- Can lay about respectably in swordplay.
-- Can inspire courage and greatness in others.
-- Doesn't throw around spells all day long or solve any problem in a standard action, but his magic is potent enough to affect even powerful foes.
-- Likable, fast-talking at times, and persuasive.
-- Can undo others' enchantments.

This is not your "little sister's" bard. (That, or your little sister is kicking some butt :)

[Troacctid]

I don't know about swordplay. Bards kinda suck at swordplay.

[Jack_Simth]

I don't know about swordplay. Bards kinda suck at swordplay.
Look up Snowflake Wardance, Slippers of Battledancing, and Gauntlets of Heartfelt Blows. Then recognize that they all stack.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Look up Snowflake Wardance, Slippers of Battledancing, and Gauntlets of Heartfelt Blows. Then recognize that they all stack.

Add to that a Crystal Echoblade, optimized Inspire Courage and Dragonfire Inspiration, and your bard gets just a little bit terrifying. And he's still a pretty effective caster and skillmonkey in addition to that.

[Malroth]

Bards can get their own version of DMM Persist and can cast quickened spells, maintain a song and full attack all in the same turn so on the high end Melee bard can blow Melee Mundane class completely out of the water.

[Heliomance]

If i had to play with my little sister i'd certainly not complain if she gave everyone +12 to hit and damage and12d6 energy damage on every hit

The only way I know of to do both of those at the same time requires 10 levels of Warchanter, which doesn't advance casting.

[Troacctid]

Look up Snowflake Wardance, Slippers of Battledancing, and Gauntlets of Heartfelt Blows. Then recognize that they all stack.

I'm aware of those things. You're spending a ton of gold (over 40,000 gp!) to replace the Strength score that you dumped. You're still going into melee as a squishy mage and making one attack for roughly 20 damage or so. This is at the same level where idiot Warmages are tossing around maximized scorching rays and empowered orbs of fire for like 80 damage a pop with ranged touch attacks without even trying, and idiot Rogues are doing like 8d6 damage before spending any feats or WBL at all. Meanwhile, while you spent all those resources to replace Strength with Charisma, the actual sword-using classes just put their points into Strength to begin with and used that gold to buy a better weapon or whatever, and they're still doing more damage than you because they can wield their weapon two-handed and Power Attack with it.

It's pretty bad, because you spent a ton of resources to enable this when casting buffs and debuffs instead would still have been a more efficient use of your actions. Round one Dragonfire Inspiration, round 2 Haste, round 3 Inspire Courage, and then if there's a round 4, you might join in, but chances are the enemies are dead by then.

[Heliomance]

Or you could use Song of the White Raven to start your DFI as a swift action and jump in on the first round.

[Jack_Simth]

I'm aware of those things. You're spending a ton of gold (over 40,000 gp!) to replace the Strength score that you dumped. You're still going into melee as a squishy mage and making one attack for roughly 20 damage or so. Oh, don't get me wrong: A carefully optimized melee specialist can do it better. But there are routes you can take with a Bard so that it doesn't "suck" at swordplay.

[Spore]

Bards are just the mentality of Red Mages made into a D&D class. Aka the perfect class for players like me who want special abilities, skills, combat AND spells. And I would love them...but somehow every jack of all trades class feels the need to push additional fluff into its crunch, at least in Pathfinder.

The Alchemist has its alchemy theme, the Inquisitor has a divine background and the bard suffers when he doesn't try to subsitute some skill checks with Perform checks (and I will die before one of MY characters uses Song to Handle Animals!).

[Troacctid]

Or you could use Song of the White Raven to start your DFI as a swift action and jump in on the first round.
Yeah, but then you're doing the whole Warblade/Crusader thing and spending multiple feats to enable it, at which point you're more of a dedicated ToB-enabled multiclass gish than an archetypal jack-of-all-trades Bard.


Oh, don't get me wrong: A carefully optimized melee specialist can do it better. But there are routes you can take with a Bard so that it doesn't "suck" at swordplay.
I mean, I haven't done the math, but I'm pretty sure you get outdamaged by Power Attacking with a greatsword. That's not exactly careful optimization.

Snowflake Wardance gets you the to-hit, but you're still just dealing the weapon's base damage, and even with a crystal echoblade, 1d8+5 frankly just isn't level-appropriate. (And slippers of battledancing and gauntlets of heartfelt blows are only marginally better than spending the same cash on vanilla flaming/frost/shock weapon enhancements.) Sure, it could be a vehicle for DFI, but there's no real reason to go into melee for that when you could attack at range and deal the exact same damage more safely and accurately, and for less investment--it would be like saying Warlocks are competent in melee because of Hideous Blow.

[Florian]

Bard is one of those classes I wouldn't hand out to a new gamer or younger sibling. Like its siblings (Alchemist, Inquisitor, Mesmerist...) you're practically forced to learn every aspect of the rules to handle your options, as you need to switch from casting to bashing to skill use, and so on.

[stanprollyright]

Like any support character, it takes a lot of system mastery to play a bard. You have to really understand how the game works to be able to buff and BFC effectively. And you're also the king of out-of-combat utility. Bard is one of the last classes I'd give to a noob. They're easy to screw up and make into a squishy waste of space. I usually pick Bards when playing with others who don't know the game as well and/or don't optimize. That way I can optimize to my heart's content, making the whole party better and filling in gaps without making other players feel useless. It's pretty much the only character who can make a monk, a sword-and-board fighter, and a blaster wizard into a respectable party.

Fighter is the most noob-friendly class. "Yep, just roll your attacks every round. Yeah, stand there so the Rogue can flank. No, you're not going to die. It's OK, we'll heal you."

[Chronos]

Personally, I think that a bard has a place in any party of any size other than four. In a smaller party, you need the bard's versatility to cover multiple roles. In a larger party, the bard's support capabilities come into the fore. It's only in four-character parties, where they're forced to take on one role and doing it worse than the character that they would be replacing, that they're weak.

[stanprollyright]

Personally, I think that a bard has a place in any party of any size other than four. In a smaller party, you need the bard's versatility to cover multiple roles. In a larger party, the bard's support capabilities come into the fore. It's only in four-character parties, where they're forced to take on one role and doing it worse than the character that they would be replacing, that they're weak.

While you're right that there is no Bard in the stereotypical Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard party, I'd have to disagree that Bards can't be an effective 4th man. The Bard can do everything the Rogue can except sneak attack, and can make up for less personal damage by buffing the whole party's damage output. And in more nontraditional 4-man setups the Bard can be better than a Rogue. If, for example, you switch Druid for Cleric and Sorcerer for Wizard, the animal companion becomes a 5th party member who will benefit from the Bard's buffs as well and make up for the loss of the glass cannon. The wildshaped druid with lots of natural attacks will like those buffs too, and the Sorcerer can blast easier than a Wizard. However, the Sorcerer is less versatile than the Wizard, so the Bard can help with utility and BFC, and the Druid isn't as good a healer as the Cleric, so the Bard can lend assistance in that regard as well.

[ThinkMinty]

... Bard-3/Rogue-3/Druid-3/Ur-Priest-1/Sublime Chord-1/Fochlucan Lyrist-9? Sounds more like a villian.

...wait, how'd you get out of Sublime Chord? Doesn't it have a thing where you have to finish the PrC before leaving?

[stanprollyright]

...wait, how'd you get out of Sublime Chord? Doesn't it have a thing where you have to finish the PrC before leaving?

Not that I'm aware of. One of the most popular bard builds is dip into Sublime Chord and then progress its casting with either Virtuoso or Seeker of the Song (I forget which one advances casting).

[Kazyan]

While I personally don't believe so, I can see how somebody can get that impression by reading the fluff. Bards can be awesome in a lot of different characterizations.

Regarding fluff, I am of the opinion that, in a tabletop RPG, if the text says "This class does a thing, and here's an example character. Here's the mechanics," you should be able to trust that the class does a thing. D&D 3.5 is very strange in that it's best to automatically assume a mechanic doesn't work like it should, and to ignore fluff.


Why do people keep assuming that because the Bard can do one thing (buff through Perform) that strikes people as a little silly, that one thing is all they're about and their skills list, spell list, and middleweight chassis somehow mean nothing?:smallconfused:

Because players--of any kind of game, not just tabletop--tend to trust what the game says about how it works. If the game is wrong about its emergent properties...well, that hardly ever happens, so it takes a while to get over it with D&D 3.5 and start saving yourself time by automatically assuming every mechanic is broken until proven otherwise. See above.

[prufock]

They actually seem more like a "voice of god" character to me; easy for the DM to use as their exposition monkey. Hey, you're charismatic, you like to sing and tell stories, and you have that handy bardic knowledge ability. Need some exposition on these ancient ruins? Bardic knowledge check, sing them a tale of ruin.

[torrasque666]

...wait, how'd you get out of Sublime Chord? Doesn't it have a thing where you have to finish the PrC before leaving?


Not that I'm aware of. One of the most popular bard builds is dip into Sublime Chord and then progress its casting with either Virtuoso or Seeker of the Song (I forget which one advances casting).
There's some website out there that lists a requirement to finish it out. Dunno which exactly. But that's false information/houserules.

[stanprollyright]

They actually seem more like a "voice of god" character to me; easy for the DM to use as their exposition monkey. Hey, you're charismatic, you like to sing and tell stories, and you have that handy bardic knowledge ability. Need some exposition on these ancient ruins? Bardic knowledge check, sing them a tale of ruin.

Bards are almost the perfect DMPC, except for one tiny thing: DMPC face=talking to yourself. If there's another cha-based character in the party it can work great.

[Jay R]

It reads to me like a very 'DM's little sister' class. It boils down to, "Ok, parents told me to watch you for a few hours, we're playing D&D, so you don't feel left out, here's a character. You can just sit there and watch and sing and you'll technically be helping."

At least, that's what the design reminds me of. Nothing against bards, personally. I like them, they're fun, but I hope I wasn't the first person to think this.

You are trying to analyze its purpose from a 21st century perspective. That works for the new classes invented just for this game, but not for older classes from earlier games, when the goal was still primarily to simulate fantasy literature.

It's designed to be the bard class, so we can play characters whose harp is as important as their sword..

[prufock]

Bards are almost the perfect DMPC, except for one tiny thing: DMPC face=talking to yourself. If there's another cha-based character in the party it can work great.
They make great hirelings though. They support the party, have cool utility spells, and the DM can use it as a mouthpiece.

[Ellowryn]

You are trying to analyze its purpose from a 21st century perspective. That works for the new classes invented just for this game, but not for older classes from earlier games, when the goal was still primarily to simulate fantasy literature.

It's designed to be the bard class, so we can play characters whose harp is as important as their sword..

While this is probably true the current incarnation of the bard (or rather current as of 3.0/3.5) IS a product of 21st century perspective. Or rather its mechanics are, and its mechanics make it rather lackluster across the board while only sort of filling that fantasy literature role.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Not that I'm aware of. One of the most popular bard builds is dip into Sublime Chord and then progress its casting with either Virtuoso or Seeker of the Song (I forget which one advances casting).

Seeker of the Song is literally Sublime Chords opposite: it trades out casting for more powerful bardic music. Virtuoso is an excellent choice, but really anything that advanced full casting + gives upgrades to bardic music is a good choice. I personally I prefer Bard 5, Stormsinger 5, Sublime Chord 2, Stormsinger 5. I am sure there are better options, but this one always make me happy with what I get.

[Talionis]

Like any support character, it takes a lot of system mastery to play a bard. You have to really understand how the game works to be able to buff and BFC effectively. And you're also the king of out-of-combat utility. Bard is one of the last classes I'd give to a noob. They're easy to screw up and make into a squishy waste of space. I usually pick Bards when playing with others who don't know the game as well and/or don't optimize. That way I can optimize to my heart's content, making the whole party better and filling in gaps without making other players feel useless. It's pretty much the only character who can make a monk, a sword-and-board fighter, and a blaster wizard into a respectable party.

Fighter is the most noob-friendly class. "Yep, just roll your attacks every round. Yeah, stand there so the Rogue can flank. No, you're not going to die. It's OK, we'll heal you."

You said this better than I did. Bards take a lot of system mastery to make work well and when they work well they tend to bring the whole party up with them so the game doesn't break. So they are just perfect for the best player at the table not the worst.

[Troacctid]

...wait, how'd you get out of Sublime Chord? Doesn't it have a thing where you have to finish the PrC before leaving?
Seeker of the Song has a clause similar to that. Perhaps you're getting the two confused.


Fighter is the most noob-friendly class. "Yep, just roll your attacks every round. Yeah, stand there so the Rogue can flank. No, you're not going to die. It's OK, we'll heal you."
Have to strongly disagree with you there. You don't want to introduce a player to the game by giving them a character that's both boring and underpowered.

[LudicSavant]

The first thing that leaps to my mind when I think of bards is Dhakaani Dirge Singers from Eberron using either War Weaver or White Raven builds. Perhaps as a direct result, I am not quite so down on the concept as folks whose mind summons images of Devis sitting behind a party and playing a jaunty tune at them when everyone else is drawing weapons.

I also reject the idea of Bards as "jacks of all trades" as false advertising. Druids are jacks of all trades. Bards specialize their builds.

[Eldariel]

I more associate the class with Väinämöinen or Joukahainen or some other character from Finnish folklore, or perhaps Tom Bombadil or something of the sort. Song is magic, after all; to that end, Bards make an awful lot of sense.

[stanprollyright]

Have to strongly disagree with you there. You don't want to introduce a player to the game by giving them a character that's both boring and underpowered.

When we're talking about first-time players, "boring" means "no complexity whatsoever", which is precisely what you want. Let them get used to making attack and damage rolls while they imagine themselves as brave warriors. As far as underpowered, that's only from a standpoint of high-level, optimized characters. If you're introducing someone to the game you're probably starting at level 1 with little or no optimization, where the Fighter chassis and extra feats give them a potent numbers advantage that is always on. Any class that cast spells or has per day resources and situational modifiers (pretty much every other class) adds complexity to the game. The Fighter's complete lack of class features means a new player only has to learn about feats, which every character uses.

In short, they're the hardest to mess up and the easiest to teach.

[sleepyphoenixx]

When we're talking about first-time players, "boring" means "no complexity whatsoever", which is precisely what you want. Let them get used to making attack and damage rolls while they imagine themselves as brave warriors. As far as underpowered, that's only from a standpoint of high-level, optimized characters. If you're introducing someone to the game you're probably starting at level 1 with little or no optimization, where the Fighter chassis and extra feats give them a potent numbers advantage that is always on. Any class that cast spells or has per day resources and situational modifiers (pretty much every other class) adds complexity to the game. The Fighter's complete lack of class features means a new player only has to learn about feats, which every character uses.

In short, they're the hardest to mess up and the easiest to teach.

If your newbie wants to play something different setting him up with a fighter because it's easier is the fastest way to turn him of the game.
If a player needs more than 15 minutes to learn how to make attack rolls i'd be surprised. Chances are that after one or two sessions he's going to be bored or feel useless instead, so he'll either stop paying attention, get disruptive or just leave.

If someone wants a warrior type i generally suggest a Warblade or Crusader. They're not hugely complex, hard to mess up, tough and the player has some options and actually makes an impact on combat.
If it's a more complex class like a spellcaster they get help with build and spell selection instead. Problem solved's.

[LudicSavant]

Have to strongly disagree with you there. You don't want to introduce a player to the game by giving them a character that's both boring and underpowered.

I actually agree with Troacctid here.

You know what I like as a "tutorial class"? The Rogue. Bear with me for a second.

The Rogue starts off pretty tactically simple. Move to flank, sneak attack! Anyone can get that in a minute. But the Rogue gradually introduces a player to just about every aspect of D&D's rules. The skill system. Traps. Flat-footedness. Denying dexterity to AC. Creature types and their immunities. Ranged weapons and melee weapons and splash weapons. Good at fleeing if things get too hairy. Self-preservation / hit and run tactics when enemies start getting more dangerous. Skill tricks. And then, UMD starts getting high enough and magic loot starts getting common enough that you can regularly use wands and stuff, so it starts introducing you to magic and magic items... all at a comfortable pace the player can set for themselves (since they'll still be relevant with sneak attacking and trapfinding and such).

The Rogue isn't front-loaded. They start out simple and gradually grow more complex. They're difficult to mess up so badly that they won't perform a useful party role. Straight Rogue levels are viable all the way to level 20.

Simplified spellcasters are nice too, letting people ease into spellcasting. My first character was a Sorcerer with Color Spray and it was awesome.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I find warmage and warblade to be excellent starters. Incarnum and T1s are some of the worst to start a player with. They can be a lot of fun to play but are a nightmarish pile of rules and option overload.

[stanprollyright]

If your newbie wants to play something different setting him up with a fighter because it's easier is the fastest way to turn him of the game.
If a player needs more than 15 minutes to learn how to make attack rolls i'd be surprised. Chances are that after one or two sessions he's going to be bored or feel useless instead, so he'll either stop paying attention, get disruptive or just leave.

I'm talking about the one-shot session you play with somebody who has never played a TTRPG before, or if your little sister sits in and wants to play a character. Choose your weapon and your first two feats and learn what "2d6" means! It's not great to make someone to play a Fighter for an actual campaign unless they want to.


If someone wants a warrior type i generally suggest a Warblade or Crusader. They're not hugely complex, hard to mess up, tough and the player has some options and actually makes an impact on combat.
If it's a more complex class like a spellcaster they get help with build and spell selection instead. Problem solved's.

Eh...I find spells and maneuvers require too much knowledge and bookkeeping for a new player. They're just learning the mechanics, and now they have to learn the specific spells/maneuvers as well as managing their resources...it can be overwhelming. For someone who is familiar with RPGs that aren't this one I could see that being OK.


I actually agree with Troacctid here.

You know what I like as a "tutorial class"? The Rogue. Bear with me for a second.

The Rogue starts off pretty tactically simple. Move to flank, sneak attack! Anyone can get that in a minute. But the Rogue gradually introduces a player to just about every aspect of D&D's rules. The skill system. Traps. Flat-footedness. Denying dexterity to AC. Creature types and their immunities. Ranged weapons and melee weapons and splash weapons. Good at fleeing if things get too hairy. Self-preservation / hit and run tactics when enemies start getting more dangerous. Skill tricks. And then, UMD starts getting high enough and magic loot starts getting common enough that you can regularly use wands and stuff, so it starts introducing you to magic and magic items... all at a comfortable pace the player can set for themselves (since they'll still be relevant with sneak attacking and trapfinding and such).

The Rogue isn't front-loaded. They start out simple and gradually grow more complex. They're difficult to mess up so badly that they won't perform a useful party role. Straight Rogue levels are viable all the way to level 20.

Rogue is a great class for your first campaign. After someone masters the Fighter in the "this is a d20" tutorial, I usually suggest Rogue for their first actual character.


Simplified spellcasters are nice too, letting people ease into spellcasting. My first character was a Sorcerer with Color Spray and it was awesome.

Warlocks are pretty good for that. Sorcerers are good if you have someone who can tell you what spells to take.

[LudicSavant]

Warlocks are pretty good for that. Sorcerers are good if you have someone who can tell you what spells to take.

I didn't have anyone to tell me which spells to take (or indeed, anyone to help me learn the rules at all). Color Spray just seemed obviously awesome.

[Spore]

We have lost a player from intentionally picking a fighter. She was fun to be around but when your character can't do ANYTHING other than his token two things outside of combat (and combat doesn't even come around regularly) then you get bored.

[Arbane]

Maybe a Ranger instead of a Fighter? Slightly more competent outside combat, not too complex at level 1.

[Jack_Simth]

The Rogue isn't front-loaded. They start out simple and gradually grow more complex. They're difficult to mess up so badly that they won't perform a useful party role. Straight Rogue levels are viable all the way to level 20.Yes, but do keep in mind that the Rogue capstone (in 3.5, at least) is pretty much "You remembered to dip in a PrC somewhere, right?" - the only thing the rogue gets at 20th is another d6+con HP, +1 Reflex, +1 BAB, 8+Int skill points. For a 3.5 rogue, 20th is pretty much a dead level.

[LudicSavant]

Yes, but do keep in mind that the Rogue capstone (in 3.5, at least) is pretty much "You remembered to dip in a PrC somewhere, right?" - the only thing the rogue gets at 20th is another d6+con HP, +1 Reflex, +1 BAB, 8+Int skill points. For a 3.5 rogue, 20th is pretty much a dead level.

Great. Maybe by level 20 the player could be eased into learning about other classes and dips. :smalltongue:

[nedz]

Warmage is an interesting choice for a newbie. Blasting is fun, at first, and it will get that out of their system.

[Florian]

We have lost a player from intentionally picking a fighter. She was fun to be around but when your character can't do ANYTHING other than his token two things outside of combat (and combat doesn't even come around regularly) then you get bored.

Ok, now you've got me curious: How the heck could that happen?

[Chronos]

Bards can't quite substitute for rogues, because the reason you need a rogue in the "traditional four" party is because the adventure probably contains traps, and bards don't get trapfinding. Taking a one-level rogue dip and going the rest of the way as a straight bard is viable, though.

[TheCorsairMalac]

The core Bard fersher. On the other hand they're still skillmonkeys. Their abilities for combat are definitely a more spectator oriented setup, but they're not a combat oriented class. In core they're pretty much the best party-face there is.

I agree with the statement about core bards.

Totally gonna argue the non-combat bit though(if you can use splatbooks.) ;) I had an orc warlord who was technically a bard. Took a dip in fighter to pick up the ability to wear mithral full-plate(counts as medium, no arcane failure if you take the battle caster feat) and wield a greataxe. Used some nifty compulsion spells from Book of Vile Darkness to make my enemies literally kill each other for their clothing.

3/4 attack bonus progression wasn't too bad, and the awesomeness of being a mind-controlling warlord made up for it. Basically a magical two-handed fighter. If you pick a role, I feel that bards can excel.

[ZamielVanWeber]

If you pick a role, I feel that bards can excel.

AFAIK thus is true of bards. This big problem is core gives them nothing to specialize in. Their spell list isn't good enough to really master something; they don't have high enough spells to use the juicer metamagic on; their bardielvalen music is useful but underwhelming; they cannot adequately cover their rears in combat to wander into melee like clerics do.

Once you leave core you have the tools to do pretty much anything you want whole having other things to back you up. The difference is stark.

[stanprollyright]

Bards can't quite substitute for rogues, because the reason you need a rogue in the "traditional four" party is because the adventure probably contains traps, and bards don't get trapfinding. Taking a one-level rogue dip and going the rest of the way as a straight bard is viable, though.


There are ACFs for that too IIRC. Plus, I've always hated arbitrariness of trapfinding. If you've got the skill ranks to detect and disable traps, you should be able to detect and disable traps, magical or not. Even so, Bards have Detect Magic.

[Telok]

My problem with bards is that there's only about four ways to make them keep up with other classes; pimp out the singing with feats and DFI, pimp out the casting with feats and PrCs, pimp out the melee with feats and magic items, or dump everything to have skills like a smart rogue. And these are all pretty much exclusive because of the feat/level investments and the results all look about the same. The casters focus is a slightly different sorcerer that always uses the same two PrCs, the melee one always has the same gear and feats, the singing one is still just a passive combat buff character, and the skills one still isn't that different from any other decently built skill monkey.

And if you don't follow those paths you're pretty much stuck with a "thanks for the +3" character.

[stanprollyright]

You can be any of the other three types and still be a good skillmonkey with some combination of being human, having a decent Int, and/or taking the Bardic Knack ACF.

[Templarkommando]

I'm still a big fan of fighter, even though it gets a decent amount of hate on the forums. I used to think it was the toughest class... like several years back. Oh, how wrong I was. If you're introducing a player to the game, I personally like fighter as an introductory class. You get the basic idea of mechanics from playing it, and if the player gets bored with it, you can move the old character off to some other occupation and let them roll whatever they want to play eventually. I wouldn't give a player a T1 character, but Bard is a little complex for someone that has no experience with D&D at all. I used to have a very low opinion of bards, until I had one bring most of a party down to half health inside of a round.

[Sileniy]

Out of curiosity, how much of what has been said is applicable to the Pathfinder bard?

[Florian]

Out of curiosity, how much of what has been said is applicable to the Pathfinder bard?

Core only, expanded options or inclusding the Skald?

[Heliomance]

My problem with bards is that there's only about four ways to make them keep up with other classes; pimp out the singing with feats and DFI, pimp out the casting with feats and PrCs, pimp out the melee with feats and magic items, or dump everything to have skills like a smart rogue. And these are all pretty much exclusive because of the feat/level investments and the results all look about the same. The casters focus is a slightly different sorcerer that always uses the same two PrCs, the melee one always has the same gear and feats, the singing one is still just a passive combat buff character, and the skills one still isn't that different from any other decently built skill monkey.

And if you don't follow those paths you're pretty much stuck with a "thanks for the +3" character.

Pimping out the casting doesn't need feats, just Sublime Chord. It's really really easy to get both optimised songs and caring on the same bard, and very possible to get good songs and melee. Good casting and melee is a little harder, but not really much harder than building any other decent gish, and you'll still have room to improve the singing a reasonable amount as well.

Basically, songs are really easy to optimise. It needs one feat, DFI. If you can fit Words of Creation in as well, you're golden. Anything else you need to do with songs is achievable with wealth and spells. That means you can do it on the side, whatever direction you want to take your bard in.

[The Glyphstone]

Out of curiosity, how much of what has been said is applicable to the Pathfinder bard?



Pretty much everything, to varying degrees. PF Bards have a bit more leeway with their use of music since it's measured in rounds/day instead of uses/day, which favors more short combats, but they're still very close to the 3.5 chassis. Archetypes obviously change this, as do things like the Skald hybrid.


It can really help a bard, image-wise, when people remember Perform covers more than just singing. Countless armies through history have gone to battle to musical instruments playing - drums, bagpipes, etc.; one of my favorite characters in the past was a Dwarf Bard who dual-wielded light maces and kept his 'bardic music' going beating on his drums or nearby enemies as available. Or Oratory, considering how many war movies have big inspiring speeches before the big climactic battle.

[stanprollyright]

Out of curiosity, how much of what has been said is applicable to the Pathfinder bard?

Core Pathfinder Bards are better skillmonkeys, better casters, and better combatants than their core 3.5 counterparts, though they lose some of their buffing ability by having fewer total rounds of music and not being able to stack music effects. Outside of core, they hurt from some loss of options. Without Sublime Chord you won't ever be in the same casting league as the big boys. Without Dragonfire Inspiration, Words of Creation, Bardic Music PrCs, or being able to stack music effects, you won't be a great buffer without significant investment (Flagbearer, Banner of the Ancient Kings, Discordant Voice, Shadowbard spell). With archetypes you can be a good melee combatant (Dervish Dancer, Arcane Duelist), archer (Archaeologist, Arcane Duelist), sneak attacker (Sandman), and/or the best skillmonkey in the game (Archaeologist, others that grant trapfinding). There is an archetype that can make you a decent sonic blaster (Soundstriker), one that gives you some fire spells (Flame Dancer), one that lets you use your own CL for magic items (Magician), one that gives you necromancy (Dirge Bard), etc., but none offer the same late-game casting power as Sublime Chord, or the same buffing power as DFI+WoC.

TL;DR Core Bards are better in PF in almost every way. Out of core they are better combatants and skillmonkeys but worse casters and buffers.

EDIT: I neglected to mention that there are also a lot of good PF options for debuffer Bards, which is something 3.5 Bards couldn't really do.

[Florian]

And then there's the Skald, who's the headbanging big brother of the bard thats even more competent at kicking some butt and has the nice ability to steal from any spell list out there (bareing psionics).