Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Bard and Skald

[pabelfly]

I'm interested in starting work on a tier list for Pathfinder, in the same way that we have a tier list for 3.5 (link) (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?600635-Why-each-class-is-in-its-tier-2019-update!). This link is a collection of discussions about the power and versatility of all the base classes of 3.5 DnD, and it’s quite a useful resource. I think Pathfinder could do with a similar resource as a point of information and discussion.

There has been an informal attempt to do a tier list for Pathfinder, which I've also used as part of the reference to this thread: (link) (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?649283-%85-And-What-Is-the-*Deal*-with-Pathfinder-Tiers). But this lacks discussion on the classes and a shared consensus on how scoring works, both of which are as important as the tier number itself.

The current, work-in-progress thread for Pathfinder Tiers version of this thread is here (link) (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?650140-Why-Each-Class-is-in-its-Tier-Pathfinder-Edition-(Work-in-Progress)). This thread has links to previous tiering threads and short summaries of thread discussions for those who missed them when they were posted. Contributions and votes for older threads are still welcome.

This thread, we’ll be taking on Bard and Skald.

For reference, in the informal thread:
Bard is tiered between 2.75 and 3
Skald is tiered at 2.75 and 3

So, the questions are: what should each of these be tiered at? And are there any notable archetypes for these classes that deserve separate tiering? I guess a discussion thread is the way to find out.




What are the tiers?

The simple answer here is that tier one is the best, the home of things on the approximate problem solving scale of wizards, and tier six is the worst, land of commoners. And problem solving capacity is what's being measured here. Considering the massive range of challenges a character is liable to be presented with across the levels, how much and how often does that character's class contribute to the defeat of those challenges? This value should be considered as a rough averaging across all levels, the center of the level range somewhat more than really low and really high level characters, and across all optimization levels (considering DM restrictiveness as a plausible downward acting factor on how optimized a character is), prioritizing moderate optimization somewhat more than low or high.

A big issue with the original tier system is that, if anything, it was too specific, generating inflexible definitions for allowance into a tier which did not cover the broad spectrum of ways a class can operate. When an increase in versatility would seem to represent a decrease in tier, because tier two is supposed to be low versatility, it's obvious that we've become mired in something that'd be pointless to anyone trying to glean information from the tier system. Thus, I will be uncharacteristically word light here. The original tier system's tier descriptions are still good guidelines here, but they shouldn't be assumed to be the end all and be all for how classes get ranked.

Consistent throughout these tiers is the notion of problems and the solving thereof. For the purposes of this tier system, the problem space can be said to be inclusive of combat, social interaction, and exploration, with the heaviest emphasis placed on combat. A problem could theoretically fall outside of that space, but things inside that space are definitely problems. Another way to view the idea of problem solving is through the lens of the niche ranking system. A niche filled tends to imply the capacity to solve a type of problem, whether it's a status condition in the case of healing, or an enemy that just has too many hit points in the case of melee combat. It's not a perfect measure, both because some niches have a lot of overlap in the kinds of problems they can solve and because, again, the niches aren't necessarily all inclusive, but they can act as a good tool for class evaluation.

Tier one: Incredibly good at solving nearly all problems. This is the realm of clerics, druids, and wizards, classes that open up with strong combat spells backed up by utility, and then get massively stronger from there. If you're not keeping up with that core trio of tier one casters, then you probably don't belong here.

Tier two: We're just a step below tier one here, in the land of classes around the sorcerer level of power. Generally speaking, this means relaxing one of the two tier one assumptions, either getting us to very good at solving nearly all problems, or incredibly good at solving most problems. But, as will continue to be the case as these tiers go on, there aren't necessarily these two simple categories for this tier. You gotta lose something compared to the tier one casters, but what you lose doesn't have to be in some really specific proportions.

Tier three: Again, we gotta sacrifice something compared to tier two, here taking us to around the level of a vanilla Magus. The usual outcome is that you are very good at solving a couple of problems and competent at solving a few more. Of course, there are other possibilities, for example that you might instead be competent at solving nearly all problems.

Tier four: Here we're in Fighter and Barbarian territory. Starting from that standard tier three position, the usual sweet spots here are very good at solving a few problems, or alright at solving many problems.

Tier five: We're heading close to the dregs here. Tier five is the tier of chained Monk, classes that are as bad as you can be without being an aristocrat or a commoner. Classes here are sometimes very good at solving nearly no problems, or alright at solving a few, or some other function thereof. It's weak, is the point.

Tier six: And here we have commoner tier. Or, the bottom is commoner. The top is approximately aristocrat. You don't necessarily have nothing in this tier, but you have close enough to it.

[Thunder999]

Both are pretty clearly tier 3, probably 3.0.

Bard has a lot of skills between the excellent 6+int base and versatile performance letting you double or triple up on some of them while also changing them to charisma.
Skald has only 4+int, but still has versatile performance.

The spell list is solid, lots of good buffs, utility, some decent save or suck (albeity mostly mind affecting, though not everytihng is).

Bard has a more generally useful performance, though the gap isn't as big as some people think (you choose to recieve raging song on a round per round basis, so only Warpriests and Maguses really run into the issue of it stopping casting).

Skald does have one potentially relevant advantage: Spell Kenning is a great utility option to poach spells from other classes out of combat.

And finally there's masterpieces, lots of good ones, but Music Beyond The Spheres is free Limited Wishes, and that's the intended (only) use, I'm not sure if that deserves a seperate rating, it's certainly quite the power boost.

[Rynjin]

Bard T3, Skald T3.3 or so?

Skald is pretty definitively weaker than Bard in most respects, largely because Inspire Rage sucks and Inspire Courage doesn't. And most of the other Raging Songs suck too.

Spell Kenning IS one of the most powerful class features in the game, but I don't think a single a super-powerful class feature really makes up for it being worse in every single other respect than Bard.

But like, it's still a 6 level caster with decent martial abilities and a dickload of skills, so it's fine overall. And in the right party (a party where all of the martials are beefy Str based melee bois specifically) Inspire Rage is solid simply for the fact it grants Rage Powers.

But that, in my opinion, is mainly why Skald rates lower than Bard: it's a more situational class.

Bard is T3 because it is like...the literal definition of T3. When people think "T3 classes" it's always followed up with "Classes like Bard and...".


Bard has a more generally useful performance, though the gap isn't as big as some people think (you choose to recieve raging song on a round per round basis, so only Warpriests and Maguses really run into the issue of it stopping casting).

It's more that the average Magus (the quintessential Dervish Dance Magus) doesn't want or need Raging Song when they could just be making an extra attack with Arcane Mark if nothing else. That +2 Con is not really a priority.

The issue with Raging Song is that Dex based characters don't care, and casters don't care, so most of the time you're making yourself and one other person Rage, if that.

[Thunder999]

Urban Skald can provide a dex boosting rage, though it still isn't great with a mixed dex/str party.

Still, don't discount rage powers, you can grant some pretty great benefits with those.

Casters don't gain much more from inspire courage, it's really just a probably unneeded bonus on your touch attack rolls.

[AvatarVecna]

As mentioned in a previous thread, you basically have to go out of your way to make a bard who can't contribute to most situations. Bardic music and enchantment/Illusion spells just lend themselves to too many situations as long as you have the slightest bit of creativity. The list being chock full of healing and utility doesn't hurt. And other class features help make bard one of the prominent skillmonkeys in the game.

Definitionally T3. I doubt there's any Archetypes that really push it up to T2 though.

[Rynjin]

Urban Skald can provide a dex boosting rage, though it still isn't great with a mixed dex/str party.

Still, don't discount rage powers, you can grant some pretty great benefits with those.

Casters don't gain much more from inspire courage, it's really just a probably unneeded bonus on your touch attack rolls.

Casters may not gain much by it, but they also don't lose anything, and that's only 1/3 primary "archetypes" of character that doesn't super benefit from Inspire Courage. Inspire Rage only benefits one specific type of character: Str-based melee. Or, as you say, Dex-based melee with an archetype.

Affecting 1/3 of the party (generously) seems like a poor investment.

[Gnaeus]

3 and 3.
Aside from spell kenning, Lore Master is pretty generally useful. Fort and Will better than Dex and Will. Rage powers are versatile enough that you can probably pick ones that mesh well with your party melee. Medium Armor, martial weapons and DR make them adequate combatants, especially when raging.

[Kurald Galain]

Bard is both a great beginner class, in that's it's pretty hard to screw up a bard so that it does not have something to contribute in most situations; and a great class for advanced players, in that everybody enjoys a good support character and it's unlikely to upstage the whole table. And yeah, it's pretty much the definition of tier three.

Skald plays basically identical to a bard in practice, and for those parties where raging song doesn't work, there's archetypes that instead hand out weapon enchantments and/or teamwork feats. And I'd argue that in a party build for raging song, it's actually more powerful than inspire courage (it can hand out a truly ridiculous amount of rage powers and teamwork abilities at the same time). I'd call this a wash and also place it firmly at tier three.

And now that we've gotten to more tier three classes, I think we should take another look at the rogue thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?649952-Tiering-the-Pathfinder-Classes-Rogue-(Chained)-and-Rogue-(Unchained)). That's because the eldritch scoundrel is currently listed at 3.0, but a bard is a fair amount more effective and versatile than an ES, so some adjustment may be in order.


And finally there's masterpieces, lots of good ones, but Music Beyond The Spheres
Masterpieces shouldn't be rated separately, because every bard can take masterpieces.

[pabelfly]

And now that we've gotten to more tier three classes, I think we should take another look at the rogue thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?649952-Tiering-the-Pathfinder-Classes-Rogue-(Chained)-and-Rogue-(Unchained)). That's because the eldritch scoundrel is currently listed at 3.0, but a bard is a fair amount more effective and versatile than an ES, so some adjustment may be in order.

It's also worthwhile to ask... would you rather 6th-level Wizard spells or the Bard spell list? I legit don't know the answer to that. And if the Wizard's spell list is better, does that make up for the comparatively weak Eldritch Scoundrel class features?



Current Votes

Bard
Thunder999, Rynjin, AvatarVecna, Gnaeus, Kurald Galain – 3.0

Average – 3.0



Skald
Thunder 999, AvatarVecna, Gnaeus, Kurald Galain – 3.0
Rynjin – 3.3

Average – 3.06

[Rynjin]

As a general rule, dedicated 6-level lists are stronger than truncated 9-level lists, because dedicated 6-level casters will get certain spells at lower spell levels but in general match the same LEVEL a 9-caster would get them, or slightly faster. So eg. Bard gets Heroism as a 2nd level spell, meaning it comes online at level 4, actually FASTER than a Wizard would get it as a 3rd level spell by one level.

An Eldritch Scoundrel, by contrast, gets Heroism at 7th level, a full two levels slower than Wizard.

This is part of the reason why being a Warpriest is kind of suffering because if you want to cast any of the actually fun Cleric stuff you have to wait until ridiculously high levels. At least Hunter has the "if it's on the Ranger lists as a lower level spell you can take that instead" clause to boost them up.

Now in the specific case of truncated Wizard list vs Bard...it's hard. Those drawbacks are there but the Wiz list IS very, very strong. But I'd still say on the whole having Bard list with Bard progression is better (they should have just given Scoundrel the Magus list IMO, maybe with specific access to Illusion and Enchantment Wizard spells or summat at the lowest available level), and the comparison of every other list when trimmed down is way worse than the Wizard one.

Truncated Cleric, Druid, etc. lists are kind of awful for instance because divine lists often don't "come online" until 4th level spells in terms of proactive stuff. A 7 level wait for the cool **** kinda sucks. A 10 level wait is abject suffering.

[Kurald Galain]

It's also worthwhile to ask... would you rather 6th-level Wizard spells or the Bard spell list? I legit don't know the answer to that. And if the Wizard's spell list is better, does that make up for the comparatively weak Eldritch Scoundrel class features?
The wizard list is the best in the game, but despite the ES having this list, the Bard's class features still make it a more effective class. Both are tier 3, but I'd put bard at 3.0 and ES at 3.5.

[exelsisxax]

This is just the tier inflation i was talking about. If ES is T3, then both bard and skald must be rated meaningfully higher, as they are both better. But they're both being judged against the dogmatic mantra of bard being T3, while ES is mostly compared to noncasters and 4th casters instead of being placed in a full comparison to the now-shifted meaning of T3.

PF just has a lot more diversity and variance in its classes. It is not locked into to bard being the entirety of the tier as it was in early 3.5. Classes can now be in the same tier for completely different reasons, further complicating these ratings. At minimum they need to be compared to the entire spectrum of tiers, not just a handful of immediately similar classes.

So i'm +1 for changing ES, because it being 3.0 doesn't make any sense.

[AvatarVecna]

This is just the tier inflation i was talking about. If ES is T3, then both bard and skald must be rated meaningfully higher, as they are both better. But they're both being judged against the dogmatic mantra of bard being T3, while ES is mostly compared to noncasters and 4th casters instead of being placed in a full comparison to the now-shifted meaning of T3.

PF just has a lot more diversity and variance in its classes. It is not locked into to bard being the entirety of the tier as it was in early 3.5. Classes can now be in the same tier for completely different reasons, further complicating these ratings. At minimum they need to be compared to the entire spectrum of tiers, not just a handful of immediately similar classes.

So i'm +1 for changing ES, because it being 3.0 doesn't make any sense.

The meaning of tiers hasn't shifted, the sky is not falling, putting two 6th lvl casters in the same tier is not the end of the world. Spontaneous casting off the bard list plus all the other bard goodies, vs prepared casting off the first 6 levels of the wizard list plus some rogue goodies, is about the same tier. Eldritch Scoundrel is really solid and capable of expanding their capabilities more than bard is, for the same reason that wizard is more capable of expanding than sorcerer is. I think the "other stuff" bard gets is better than the "other stuff" ES rogue gets, but both the list and method the rogue is using is better.

[Elvensilver]

I don't think the meaning of the tiers has shifted. It still measures how classes are capable of dealing with problems and different situations.

Ideally, you either have some broad categories (combat/ exploration+travel /social interaction /investigation) or specific scenarios (you're fighting a horde of stampeding rabid emus/ the guard has caught you at the scene of a murder/an adamantium golem (in stasis) blocks the entrance) and then look how the class can solve these.

Going back to the bard and skald: absolutely dominate social interaction, can always meaningfully help in a fight (except maybe when they're fighting alone against something mindless?), great in investigation through skills and inspire compentence, can contribute in exploration+travel.

The definition of tier 3 is "very good at solving a couple of problems and competent at solving a few more. Of course, there are other possibilities, for example that you might instead be competent at solving nearly all problems",
A class should be measured by this metric, and it shouldn't be argued that just because another class does X better, it belongs in an entirely different tier.

Take paladin and bard, for example (both apparently tier 3) In combat, the paladin is likely stronger more often than not, in travel and exploration the bard has skills, while the pally has a mount and changable spells, in social interaction the bard is better, but the pally is still a good face, and in investigation the bard wins the day. Still, as long as the paladin fulfills the criteria of being very good at solving a few of these and competent at the rest, they are still in one tier. There is a floor and a ceiling.

(I'm not voting anything, just sayin' that we should look at each class by their own merits using the given metric")

[Rynjin]

This is just the tier inflation i was talking about. If ES is T3, then both bard and skald must be rated meaningfully higher, as they are both better. But they're both being judged against the dogmatic mantra of bard being T3, while ES is mostly compared to noncasters and 4th casters instead of being placed in a full comparison to the now-shifted meaning of T3.

PF just has a lot more diversity and variance in its classes. It is not locked into to bard being the entirety of the tier as it was in early 3.5. Classes can now be in the same tier for completely different reasons, further complicating these ratings. At minimum they need to be compared to the entire spectrum of tiers, not just a handful of immediately similar classes.

So i'm +1 for changing ES, because it being 3.0 doesn't make any sense.

I think people only rated ES as T3 flat because they didn't realize we were doing a decimal rating system. It doesn't deserve full T3 status IMO since it's shackled by the Rogue chassis and the drawbacks I mentioned about having a truncated full list.

But It's pretty important to peg Bard as the defining T3 class in PF I think, since it's an exceptional one to show what a T3 class should be able to achieve. It doesn't have as many broken tricks as others in its tier (eg. Summoner being a 2.6 at minimum) but it's also not equivalent to the relatively lower entries in its tier (eg., IMO, Warpriest, which is a solid class with some VERY powerful things it can do but is gimped by a lot of things).

I think the issue is some of us are coming at this from a perspective of "we are comparing these classes to 3.5" (and thus marking classes as above or below 3.5 standards for each tier) while others are comparing Pathfinder to, well, itself. The tier definitions are going to need to be flexible somewhat because otherwise they're meaningless.

[Kurald Galain]

I think people only rated ES as T3 flat because they didn't realize we were doing a decimal rating system.
I agree, and that's why I changed my ES ranking from 3 to low-3, and suggested other people may want to doublecheck. I also agree that the sky isn't falling.

[spectralphoenix]

I feel like if ES makes T3 (and while I'm not formally voting on these, I suspect it probably is) it's because even a really terrible wizard is still T3, more so than anything it still gets from the Rogue class. TBH, I think it would have worked better as a Magus archetype that traded the Fighter feats, full BAB, and maybe some arcana for some Rogue features.


Take paladin and bard, for example (both apparently tier 3) In combat, the paladin is likely stronger more often than not, in travel and exploration the bard has skills, while the pally has a mount and changable spells, in social interaction the bard is better, but the pally is still a good face, and in investigation the bard wins the day. Still, as long as the paladin fulfills the criteria of being very good at solving a few of these and competent at the rest, they are still in one tier. There is a floor and a ceiling.

To some extent, I feel like the paladin is a victim of its own success in the investigation department - at-will Detect Evil is such a silver bullet for "someone is a secret assassin/shapeshifter/vampire/rakshasa" scenarios that no DM or AP would ever write one of those scenarios without a reason it wouldn't instantly solve the problem.

[AnonymousPepper]

I think Bard can break into low tier 2, personally. It can basically resolve any problem or fulfill any role to a degree that I think people undersell, on top of being more or less the best non-T1 buffer in the game, with its main weakness being enchantment immunity at very high levels, which is not universal. You can make a Bard into just about anything, and it can fit into any party, and I like that a lot. 2.8

Skald... while Spell Kenning and its other abilities are incredible, and so are rage powers, I have one very specific beef with Skald, and that is that it can't provide its buff to mixed martials/gishes/etc. Any class that relies on casting spells in combat, which doesn't just include backline wizards, is worse for having a Skald in a party over a Bard. Having played gishes in Skald parties before, it's just such a painful and frustrating experience. While on paper its buffs are in some ways straight better than Bards, I genuinely think it gets hamstrung by the rage preventing other spellcasters from casting with absolutely no way around it (besides a metamagic that increases the spell level or being a skald or bloodrager yourself). It's still got a lot of the other Bard bells and whistles, though; it's still a good class. It's just antisynergistic in some parties, unlike Bard which can be dropped into almost any party. 3.2

[Gnaeus]

I think people only rated ES as T3 flat because they didn't realize we were doing a decimal rating system. It doesn't deserve full T3 status IMO since it's shackled by the Rogue chassis and the drawbacks I mentioned about having a truncated full list.


I personally don't always plan to use decimals. Because there is no functional difference between a 3.3 and a 3. Its an invited argument with no purpose. Its hard enough determining what belongs in T3 or T4 without going "But is it a high T3 or a low T3." At that narrow a gap, its far less likely that quality of play is going to be determined by class ability than campaign assumptions, rulings on specific things, party composition, how random loot drops etc. I think the rankings were pretty decent without voting by decimals. I'm not really opposed necessarily to someone saying something is a 3.4. I know what they mean. But 3.4 IS full T3 status. There isn't really a T3.4. We don't remotely need 50 tiers. If this argument gains enough steam it will likely just result in me changing my vote for all the low T3s to T2.6.

[pabelfly]

So i'm +1 for changing ES, because it being 3.0 doesn't make any sense.

Everyone should consider the old tiering threads still open if they feel like they have something to contribute, want to vote, or change their vote.



Current Votes

Bard
AnonymousPeppeer – 2.8
Thunder999, Rynjin, AvatarVecna, Gnaeus, Kurald Galain – 3.0
Bucky - 3.2

Average – 3.0



Skald
Thunder 999, AvatarVecna, Gnaeus, Kurald Galain – 3.0
AnonymousPepper – 3.2
Rynjin – 3.3

Average – 3.06

[vasilidor]

Having seen bards in play in pathfinder, I feel comfortable with most instances of them being tier 3. plus or minus about half a tier depending on what archetype is picked.
I have limited experience with skalds and I am inclined to grade them as slightly worse due to how rage works. But then they are more durable in combat overall, so it is a bit of a trade off there.

[Maat Mons]

Man, I have not been looking forward to doing the 2/3rds casters. There are so many of them, and I’ve barely looked at any of them. I’ll need to research them all before I feel comfortable giving any decimal ratings within Tier 3. That’s actually why I just gave Eldritch Scoundrel a broad rating of Tier 3 instead of trying to figure out a precise number. But I guess now I can no longer put off the plunge into Paizo’s favorite branch of classes.

[Rynjin]

Man, I have not been looking forward to doing the 2/3rds casters. There are so many of them, and I’ve barely looked at any of them. I’ll need to research them all before I feel comfortable giving any decimal ratings within Tier 3. That’s actually why I just gave Eldritch Scoundrel a broad rating of Tier 3 instead of trying to figure out a precise number. But I guess now I can no longer put off the plunge into Paizo’s favorite branch of classes.

They're favorites for a reason, by both players and the devs. They hit a great middle ground, providing enough raw power just from having spells to compete in any part of the game while still having room to add TONS of class features and do really interesting things with them.

I can see why they thought it would be a good idea to remove full casters entirely from Starfinder.

[Kaouse]

Tier 2.5 - 2.75 is pretty good for both of them.

Why? Because they can get access to Wish with the Bardic Masterpiece, Music Beyond the Spheres, as well as Planar Ally via Legato Piece of the Infernal Bargain.

They also both get Impenetrable Veil as a 6th level spell, and that's practically the god spell for Stealth users.

[Kurald Galain]

Why? Because they can get access to Wish with the Bardic Masterpiece, Music Beyond the Spheres, as well as Planar Ally via Legato Piece of the Infernal Bargain.
Bear in mind that we're looking at what classes can do at all levels, not just what they can do at level 20 (or 16-20). Most campaigns don't get anywhere near level 20, so it's not practical to base advice only on that.

[Kaouse]

Bear in mind that we're looking at what classes can do at all levels, not just what they can do at level 20 (or 16-20). Most campaigns don't get anywhere near level 20, so it's not practical to base advice only on that.

Music Beyond the Spheres is available as early as level 13, in the form of Limited Wish (with an extra ability at level 17 that lets it function as full Wish). Legato Piece of the Infernal Bargain is available at level 11, halfway through leveling.

That said, the tier system most certainly takes into account what classes can do at late levels, so let's not pretend that access to Wish doesn't put the Bard one step above say, the Magus, for example.

But more to the point, Bards can pretty much do everything. Great at stealth, great at skills, great at buffing the party, can even heal the party (Greater Skald's Vigor is especially great here) or deal damage. I think 2.5 - 2.75 is perfect for them, IMHO. Not many of the other mid-casters can do all of the different things that Bards & Skalds can do, IMHO.

[Kurald Galain]

That said, the tier system most certainly takes into account what classes can do at late levels
The tier system does not ONLY take into account what classes can do at late levels. And your posts about bards/skalds so far ONLY mention late (and very late) level abilities, they paint an unrealistic picture of what bards/skalds do in practice.

[pabelfly]

Tier 2.5 - 2.75 is pretty good for both of them.

So does this mean Bard is 2.5 and Skald is 2.75?

[vasilidor]

The variable nature of what class abilities are available to what archetype makes it hard to pin down an exact tier for most classes, which is why I prefer allowing for a range. Yes, Music beyond the Spheres probably makes the Bard jump at least a quarter of a tier when it comes on, if it is available.
where is Music beyond the Spheres frim anyway? I can't seem to find it and have been working from your description of it.

[Ramza00]

The variable nature of what class abilities are available to what archetype makes it hard to pin down an exact tier for most classes, which is why I prefer allowing for a range. Yes, Music beyond the Spheres probably makes the Bard jump at least a quarter of a tier when it comes on, if it is available.
where is Music beyond the Spheres frim anyway? I can't seem to find it and have been working from your description of it.

2016’s Horror Realms

https://aonprd.com/BardMasterpieces.aspx

[AnonymousPepper]

Skald is indisputably worse than Bard due to its primary mechanic in Inspire Courage being useful in almost all situations while Skald's corresponding Inspired Rage shutting out anyone who needs to cast spells makes it situational and party-dependent. I do hope we can all agree on that.

[Kurald Galain]

Skald is indisputably worse than Bard due to its primary mechanic in Inspire Courage being useful in almost all situations while Skald's corresponding Inspired Rage shutting out anyone who needs to cast spells makes it situational and party-dependent. I do hope we can all agree on that.

(1) For those parties where raging song doesn't work, there's Skald archetypes that instead hand out weapon enchantments and/or teamwork feats.
(2) Primary spellcasters don't really care, since they don't get a useful bonus from inspire courage either (although gishes do).
(3) In a party built for raging song, it's actually more powerful than inspire courage, as it can hand out a truly ridiculous amount of rage powers and teamwork abilities at the same time.

[vasilidor]

So on the part of Skalds, they have to be built for the party requiring a higher level of system mastery.
And having finally read Music beyond the Spheres, A wish (limited or otherwise) being granted by something from the dark tapestry and costing 2 constitution or wisdom points is not what I would call free or safe. Useful, depending on the DM, but not free or safe.
In some games the stat point cost might actually be a bigger cost than the gold cost of the original spells.

[Arkain]

(1) For those parties where raging song doesn't work, there's Skald archetypes that instead hand out weapon enchantments and/or teamwork feats.
(2) Primary spellcasters don't really care, since they don't get a useful bonus from inspire courage either (although gishes do).
(3) In a party built for raging song, it's actually more powerful than inspire courage, as it can hand out a truly ridiculous amount of rage powers and teamwork abilities at the same time.

There's also another archetype (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/skald/archetypes/paizo-skald-archetypes/court-poet-skald-archetype/) that hands out bonuses to charisma and intelligence, so all but wisdom based casters are probably very happy about the improved spell DCs and easier concentration checks. Classes like Paladin also don't mind the charisma, I'm sure. Unless I've overlooked something and it actually still doesn't allow casting.

Though a powerful class, my experience with using Skald NPCs as a GM has been rather negative. Where your usual inspire courage would've just been "You get these bonuses, enjoy", inspired rage ended up being "You get these bonuses, but you also get a slight penalty to AC and can't do these couple things...". In the end, not even a Fighter ever wanted it, ironically enough because of the AC penalty, I think. Where in the last thread an issue was that Ranger's favored enemy requires some aid by the GM and can be useless, in the case of Skald I'd say it's even worse. You have a strong buff that ideally the entire party is built around it to some degree or it falls completely flat on its nose as a rage variant for only the Skald. I feel that requiring the party to build around your character's core ability is a bit much, really. Bards can at least hand out their bonuses and worst case the casters don't need them, rather than them being a hindrance.

[Ramza00]

And having finally read Music beyond the Spheres, A wish (limited or otherwise) being granted by something from the dark tapestry and costing 2 constitution or wisdom points is not what I would call free or safe. Useful, depending on the DM, but not free or safe.
In some games the stat point cost might actually be a bigger cost than the gold cost of the original spells.
Restoration the level 4 spell with a 100 gp material component heals all ability drain.

A wand of restoration is 420+100 gp per charge of one buys it, and 260 gp per charge if crafted. Furthermore one can do several of these limited wishes or wishes and then do a single restoration to heal all the ability drain.

Likewise there are a dozen magic items in pathfinder and 3.5 which can handle the ability drain problem.

[Kurald Galain]

Likewise there are a dozen magic items in pathfinder and 3.5 which can handle the ability drain problem.
I don't see the drain as much of an issue (although the non-limited wish has a 25000 gp component), but Vasilidor has a good point that a wish-like effect that's "interpreted by an alien entity of the Dark Tapestry" is just asking for capital-T Trouble. Are you familiar with the Call of Chthulhu mythos, or perhaps with End Of The Cycle? That kind of Trouble.

I'd call this particular option Tier 666, really :smallamused:

[Thunder999]

Oh you just take the Thoughtful Wish-Maker trait to get around that, DC 30 sense motive to make wishes that can only be interpreted how you want. Highly recommended for anyone calling genies for free wishes too.

[Ramza00]

I don't see the drain as much of an issue (although the non-limited wish has a 25000 gp component), but Vasilidor has a good point that a wish-like effect that's "interpreted by an alien entity of the Dark Tapestry" is just asking for capital-T Trouble. Are you familiar with the Call of Chthulhu mythos, or perhaps with End Of The Cycle? That kind of Trouble.

I'd call this particular option Tier 666, really :smallamused:

Yes I am familiar with that mythos, and the philosophy that came prior to that.

Gotta love one’s death drive! You are choosing the path of destruction / repetition insisting it is going to be similar to what came before … it is what the repetitious drive expects…and now the wish/desire/longing backfires :smalltongue: in a way one does not expect.

So yes I am loving the flavor and mechanics for it opens up so much (DM) fun 🤩

But yeah what Thunder999 said if one wants to meta game. Then again even there one can do a Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus aesthetics where on your wrist creepy words appear giving you a warning before the pact is sealed. (It was the Latin words, Homo Fuge, Man Flee! But since the good doctor thought his soul was already damned he ignored this warning of providence and completed the ill fated Wish.)

[Kyubey - Do you wanna make a contract? (Frozen Parody)]

[Kurald Galain]

Oh you just take the Thoughtful Wish-Maker trait to get around that
That's a nice trick... except that TWM only works on wishes granted by outsiders, whereas Dark Tapestry entities are classed as aberrations (which is probably an order of magnitude higher on the bad-news-o-meter). So yeah, Tier 666 it is :smallbiggrin:


So yes I am loving the flavor and mechanics for it opens up so much (DM) fun 🤩
Oh, I'm definitely loving the flavor here. However, this is clearly not more agency in the hands of the players (and hence, not higher tier).

[pabelfly]

Okay, class writeups for Bard and Skald. Critiques welcome, of course. You all know these classes better than I do.



Bard (3.0)

Bards have quite a lot going for them. They’re an excellent skill monkey – they come with a lot of skill points and Versatile Performance makes it easy for them to get very high skill checks. Inspire Courage is a nice all-round buff any party member will appreciate, especially martial builds. Bard spells include buffing, utility, healing, and some save-or-suck effects, which give you a lot of options. Bards were one of the definitive T3 allrounder classes of 3.5, and the move to Pathfinder hasn’t fundamentally changed this.



Skald (3.06)

Skald is Pathfinder’s attempt to meld the Bard and Barbarian classes together. So what are the differences? Not much on a fundamental level. Spell Kenning is the Skald's standout feature, which lets a Skald poach spells, but the usefulness of this depends quite a bit on both the opponents you face and your system mastery. Inspire Rage isn’t as universally useful as the Bard’s Inspire Courage, but there are multiple archetypes that let you trade this for other bonuses if this is a problem for the party. The Bard's Inspire Courage will likely still be better though. Otherwise, you’re pretty similar to Bard – you have the same Bard spell access (including a variety of buffing, utility, healing, and some save-or-suck effects) and Versatile Performance is still great at boosting your skills. All the nice features that make Bard the definitive all-round T3 character are still largely present for Skald, earning it a near-identical rating.

[Drelua]

Okay, class writeups for Bard and Skald. Critiques welcome, of course. You all know these classes better than I do.



Bard (3.0)

Bards have quite a lot going for them. They’re an excellent skill monkey – they come with a lot of skill points and Versatile Performance makes it easy for them to get very high skill checks. Inspire Courage is a nice all-round buff any party member will appreciate, especially martial builds. Bard spell include buffing, utility, healing, and some save-or-suck effects, which give you a lot of options. Bards were one of the definitive T3 allrounder classes of 3.5, and the move to Pathfinder hasn’t fundamentally changed this.



Skald (3.06)

Skald is Pathfinder’s attempt to meld the Bard and Barbarian classes together. So what are the differences? Not much on a fundamental level. Spell Kenning is likely the Skald's best feature, which lets a Skald poach spellsInspire Rage isn’t as universally useful as the Bard’s Inspire Courage, but there are multiple archetypes that let you trade this for other bonuses if this is a problem for the party. The Bard's Inspire Courage will likely still be better though. The Skald’s bonus to Fort saves is better than Bard’s Reflex saves. Otherwise, you’re pretty similar to Bard – you have the same Bard spell access, versatile performance is still great, even with less skill points than Bard. All the nice features that make Bard the definitive all-round T3 character are still largely present for Skald, giving it a near-identical rating.

Looks good to me, just highlighted a minor typo. One thing I might change, if others agree, is that if anything I think less skill points makes versatile performance better for Skalds. You're less likely than a bard to have ranks in the skills you can get through it, and just need them more. With PF's condensed skill list, 6+INT can get you most of what you need anyway, though more ranks to put into knowledge skills is still great.

[pabelfly]

Looks good to me, just highlighted a minor typo. One thing I might change, if others agree, is that if anything I think less skill points makes versatile performance better for Skalds. You're less likely than a bard to have ranks in the skills you can get through it, and just need them more. With PF's condensed skill list, 6+INT can get you most of what you need anyway, though more ranks to put into knowledge skills is still great.

I've removed the remark about Skald's versatile performance being worse than Bard, so I think it reads a little better now. Thanks for the suggestion.

[Kurald Galain]

I'd say the Skald's best feature is its skills and spellcasting; for most players, Spell Kenning is a useful wild card but not a standout ability (in the hands of a skilled player it's very good, but that requires a lot of system mastery to pull off).


The Skald’s bonus to Fort saves is better than Bard’s Reflex saves.
I'd leave out this part. The whole idea that "some saves are better than others" is largely theory-op and it's something that some prominent forum users disagree with. That's a matter for a separate thread.

[pabelfly]

I'd say the Skald's best feature is its skills and spellcasting; for most players, Spell Kenning is a useful wild card but not a standout ability (in the hands of a skilled player it's very good, but that requires a lot of system mastery to pull off).


I'd leave out this part. The whole idea that "some saves are better than others" is largely theory-op and it's something that some prominent forum users disagree with. That's a matter for a separate thread.

I fixed it up, thanks very much for the suggestions.

[Rynjin]

I'd leave out this part. The whole idea that "some saves are better than others" is largely theory-op and it's something that some prominent forum users disagree with. That's a matter for a separate thread.

You wanna make that thread? I'd like to see the general arguments for why some people believe this.

Like Ref has a few advantages as a good save, primarily because it's by far the most COMMON save, but it's also the one that has the least moment-to-moment impact in the average campaign IME past low levels (where raw damage is the biggest threat to characters' lives).

[Kurald Galain]

I note that bard and skald end up ranked so close together that I'd say the central list should combine them both on a single line. I'm saying this because it's going to be a looooong list so combining makes it clearer, and because in practice the skald plays pretty much the same as a bard archetype.

The same applies to barb and u-barb. $.02

[pabelfly]

I note that bard and skald end up ranked so close together that I'd say the central list should combine them both on a single line. I'm saying this because it's going to be a looooong list so combining makes it clearer, and because in practice the skald plays pretty much the same as a bard archetype.

The same applies to barb and u-barb. $.02

Hmm... I'm happy with how the list is formatted now, but if the list gets too long and unwieldy since Pathfinder has so many base classes, I will keep this in mind.

[Bucky]

My experiences with Bards are that they've been a bit underwhelming in what were admittedly fairly high-op tables. Inspire Courage is slow to get started until higher levels (13). With poor weapon proficiency, mid BAB and a need to focus on CHA, the Bard is not competent at weapon combat even with Inspire bonuses. Utility and crowd control out of spell slots, and information abilities if Int isn't dumped too hard, set the floor for the Bard's tier at a low 3. I'd call the Bard Tier 3.2.

I've attempted to build a Skald but never played one. Abstain.