Is the Bard overrated?

[Yagyujubei]

If you don't distinguish between what's good because you're a Bard and what's good because you're MC'd then your feedback is misleading at best in a discussion about the Bard class.

I see your point. I just think taking MC into account is worth noting when talking about a class is all

[Asisreo1]

Asisreo1, that isn't the class that is the player.
In my campaign that has been running for 5 years now, the Bard has been the primary spell caster. With foresight (the characteristic not the spell), the bard can control, Raise Dead, blast, shelter, and transport the party, all with one character.

A lore bard can, ironically, easily be the unsung hero of the party.

Song of Healing with a party full of Short Rest heavy martial characters is strong.

Countercharm while situational is good to have, especially if you included a friendly in your Hypnotic Pattern. I houseruled Countercharm to be a Reaction, but reliably having a solid Bonus Action choice in Bardic Inspiration means that when a bards Action is resisted, or they have to take a Dodge or Withdraw Action, the class still contributes meaningfully.

Even with a player new to the hobby, I would imagine, that with the eventual accumulation of experience, and a good spell list to chose from, one can always retrain on level ups to a good build.

In fact, compared to a Sorcerer, the Bard having Ritual Magic can retrain spells that do not age well at higher tiers of play into Ritual spells, which is nice.

If the U/A Alternate Class features becomes official, retraining a spell on a LR is going to really boost the Bard's power.

I agree it was the player. I played high-level bard before and it was fine. I wasn't doing anything I'd consider "spectacular" since bounded accuracy also bounds the guaranteed failure of enemies and there are some limits to things that usually get ignored until real play, but it isn't like Bards are any better or worse than most other classes in the game at their fullest potential.

At higher levels, spellcasters and AoE attacks become more common so when an intelligent creature sees a bard, they'll want to target their wisdom and dexterity. Depending on the effect, it could be debilitating. Noncasters or innate casters are the most frustrating as counterspell isn't much of an option against their AoE.

But that doesn't make them "weak." They're just backliners specifically. Even playing as a Valor Bard, it's hard to justify being on the frontlines with so little features to back you up. It feels more like a "just in case" or something that lets you do good damage while using healing word (HW then Extra Attack is phenominal).

[Merudo]

As far as damage went, I don't remember anything having more impact than dissonant whispers - it wrecked some of our early boss fights, and only got better after our Druid got Conjure Animals at level 5.

[...] or assist a grapple or shove.

I agree that the Bard is excellent in a melee-centrip party. However in a party full of archers and spell casters, dissonant whispers won't do much damage, and grapples/shoves won't happen.

[diplomancer]

I'd be tempted to agree, to a point. For spellcasters, the real benefit of increasing your main stats is often not a simple +1 to a roll, but rather being able to prepare an additional spell or having an extra use of bardic inspiration.



Bards are missing the important Flaming Sphere and Moon Beam, which I consider to be the best level 2 AoE spells in the game.

Flaming sphere is not AoE, and is barely worth the concentration. A phantasmal force is a far better use of it, specially since, if they fail the first save, you can cutting words their intelligence checks afterwards to make sure it sticks.
Moon bean is a good druid-exclusive spell, but it's also only an AoE in very specific conditions (and usually only for the 1st round, unless you're dealing with mindless enemies or a very nice DM)

Dissonant whispers gets better the more melee there are in the party, true. But even 1 melee oriented character is sufficient to make it the best 1st level damage spell. And I've yet to see a party with NO melee characters.

[heavyfuel]

I'm yet to see a Bard in actual play in the hands of a competent player, so take this with a heaping tablespoon of salt, but I can't see the Bard as anything but an astounding class.

Worst defense? You have as much AC and HP as a Rogue. You don't have Uncanny Dodge, but neither do Tier 1 Rogues. Plus, a lot of subclasses offer defensive options starting at level 2.

Spells. You don't have to be a Schrodinger Wizard. You have more spells known than the Sorcerer, and your spell selection isn't as limited as some people make it out to be. Your BFC potential is great, even if your damage sucks. But hey, damage is hardly everything. Use BFC and let your martials shine.

Sleep at level 1 is bonkers, and anything immune to it is probably stupid enough to be fooled by Minor Illusion (elves being the exception). By level 3 you can pick up Phantasmal Force and remove anyone who isn't a Wizard from combat (dumb Undead and Constructs are still fooled by Minor Illusion).

Then you also have 3 skills from a great list, with Expertise just like the Rogue.

And on top of all that, you get what is - in my opinion - a completely bonkers feature called Bardic Inspiration. It boggles my mind how the designers thought this was a good idea. In a game with bounded accuracy, where earning every +1 is an uphill battle and where advantage is the main bonus you get, they let the Bard give an average of +3.5 to any roll, at level 1.

This, along with Guidance, is the kind of thing that has no place if you want to make a game with bounded accuracy. It makes a Lv 1 chump have the same bonus as a Lv 20 hero. Just completely ridiculous.

Like I said in the beginning. Haven't seen a Bard in actual play, so feel free to prove me wrong here.

[Willie the Duck]

Moon bean is a good druid-exclusive spell, but it's also only an AoE in very specific conditions (and usually only for the 1st round, unless you're dealing with mindless enemies or a very nice DM)

Does your game not have chokepoints?

[diplomancer]

Does your game not have chokepoints?

Where a bunch of enemies stay within a 5' radius while being burned for no good reason for more than 1 round? I don't think that ever occurred, that's VERY situational.

[Man_Over_Game]

By level 3, a Bard covers most of the same benefits that a Rogue would, replacing mediocre damage against melee enemies (which is generally the Rogue's primary target) for utility-and-control-oriented fullcasting. Sure, the Rogue can hide better, but the core rules make stealth as a party solution to a problem really friggin' hard. And that's before comparing things like subclass features, in which case the Bard is almost always on top.

Don't get me wrong, Rogues are cool, but they're generally so one-dimensional that I'd normally expect a Bard to do just as well in the same circumstances and still have more options, unless you need someone to take a hit (as Rogues don't use Concentration, generally have a higher Dex/AC, and have Uncanny Dodge - They're better tanks if you need one). Even then, I think I'd still expect a Valor Bard to outperform most other Rogues in almost every way that isn't damage.

[Asisreo1]

By level 3, a Bard covers most of the same benefits that a Rogue would, replacing mediocre damage against melee enemies (which is generally the Rogue's primary target) for utility-and-control-oriented fullcasting. Sure, the Rogue can hide better, but the core rules make stealth as a party solution to a problem really friggin' hard. And that's before comparing things like subclass features, in which case the Bard is almost always on top.

A rogue has Cunning Action, which is extremely effective especially at lower levels. If you can successfully hide, you'll probably not get hit by anything at such a low tier since AoE is rare. If you can't hide, you can dodge which makes dex saves and attacks, the most common thing you'll face in that tier, rarely hit you.

Let's say a goblin wanted to hit you as a rogue while you used cunning action to dodge. You have an AC of 15 at this point. The goblin's DPR without CA is 2.5. The goblin's DPR while your cunning action is 1.25. You've reduced a goblin's DPR by half by using dodge. However, you've also been able to keep your main damage dealing option of attacking and usually using sneak attack.

[Man_Over_Game]

A rogue has Cunning Action, which is extremely effective especially at lower levels. If you can successfully hide, you'll probably not get hit by anything at such a low tier since AoE is rare. If you can't hide, you can dodge which makes dex saves and attacks, the most common thing you'll face in that tier, rarely hit you.

Let's say a goblin wanted to hit you as a rogue while you used cunning action to dodge. You have an AC of 15 at this point. The goblin's DPR without CA is 2.5. The goblin's DPR while your cunning action is 1.25. You've reduced a goblin's DPR by half by using dodge. However, you've also been able to keep your main damage dealing option of attacking and usually using sneak attack.

A Rogue can't use Dodge with Cunning Action, and Hiding requires some form of cover, which is either:

• Available, but unlikely for an enemy to engage with you, as most melee attacks against you would already reveal you, and most attacks against you would already have a -2 to hit, and you're likely behind some bottleneck with allies taking point.
• Unavailable.

In any scenario where a Rogue would have Cover, so could a Bard, The Rogue would just happen to have Disadvantage to be hit, and it'd almost have to be guaranteed to be a ranged attack in those circumstances. More than likely, though, the Rogue attacked each turn he attempted to Hide, and so is likely not Hidden but behind Cover, and have the same circumstances as the Bard.

Don't get me wrong, Cunning Action is useful, but I see it generally be useful for either melee characters, or a party that doesn't have the means of controlling swarms (which a Bard does), when it isn't being used to spam Advantage attacks.

[Dork_Forge]

By level 3, a Bard covers most of the same benefits that a Rogue would, replacing mediocre damage against melee enemies (which is generally the Rogue's primary target) for utility-and-control-oriented fullcasting. Sure, the Rogue can hide better, but the core rules make stealth as a party solution to a problem really friggin' hard. And that's before comparing things like subclass features, in which case the Bard is almost always on top.

Don't get me wrong, Rogues are cool, but they're generally so one-dimensional that I'd normally expect a Bard to do just as well in the same circumstances and still have more options, unless you need someone to take a hit (as Rogues don't use Concentration, generally have a higher Dex/AC, and have Uncanny Dodge - They're better tanks if you need one). Even then, I think I'd still expect a Valor Bard to outperform most other Rogues in almost every way that isn't damage.

Am I right in reading this as the Rogue doing mediocre damage in tier 1 (and well... at all?)? At 3rd level a Rogue is likely doing 3d6+3 (13.5) a turn, with no resources, that's some of the best melee damage at that level (and certainly the best resourceless damage) with the options of TWF for an additional die or using a Rapier for a larger die for more damage.

Rogues are better skill specialists than Bards overall: they get four skills (vs three) and whilst they both get four Expertise eventually, the Rogue gets their's earlier (having all four by 6th level). Then there's reliable talent... Bards are the best skill generalists but Rogues are the best skill specialists.

Even defensively, a Valor Bard getting medium armour and shields doesn't place them universally ahead defensively, Rogues still have Uncanny Dodge and Evasion (and later on get Wisdom save prof), with Cunning Action giving hit and run and fleeing from too difficult combats more viability.

[Willie the Duck]

Am I right in reading this as the Rogue doing mediocre damage in tier 1 (and well... at all?)? At 3rd level a Rogue is likely doing 3d6+3 (13.5) a turn, with no resources, that's some of the best melee damage at that level (and certainly the best resourceless damage) with the options of TWF for an additional die or using a Rapier for a larger die for more damage.

Yes, but resourceless is quite a qualifier. If you compare a rogues combat damage output to a paladin, barbarian, or fighter's output (including their limited resources such as rages, action surges, smites, etc.), mediocre is a absolutely justifiable term. Add in the lower staying power/having to manage exposure to reprisal, and rogues are clearly in the middle of the pack in terms of combat damage. Which is not a problem, since combat damage is the majority of what most of those other classes get.

[KorvinStarmast]

And on top of all that, you get what is - in my opinion - a completely bonkers feature called Bardic Inspiration. It boggles my mind how the designers thought this was a good idea. In a game with bounded accuracy, where earning every +1 is an uphill battle and where advantage is the main bonus you get, they let the Bard give an average of +3.5 to any roll, at level 1.

This, along with Guidance, is the kind of thing that has no place if you want to make a game with bounded accuracy. It makes a Lv 1 chump have the same bonus as a Lv 20 hero. Just completely ridiculous.

Like I said in the beginning. Haven't seen a Bard in actual play, so feel free to prove me wrong here.

You can roll a 1.
It is a limited resource. It doesn't recharge on a short rest until level 5.
I can be great, though, to help a fighter land a hit or to help a party member make a save.
At low levels, the song of rest feature during a short rest can be a really nice assist in keeping the HP resource topped off.

Nobldy needs to 'prove you wrong', since a lot of us have seen bards in play. (In my case, up to level 13, but it's been a party member not me). The Lore bard in our first campaign, once he got into the rhythm, was very timely in his application of cutting words ... it takes some 'learning by doing' I think to develop that knack.

I like having one in the party. The complaint from a friend of mine who started one at level 2 was 'where is my offense' but he's a very innovative sort and he made the bard quite effective once we got that light crossbow for the occasional need to let loose with just a plain attack. He also put Phantasmal Force to good use.

Would I make the bard the primary caster for a three person party? Probably not, but some people will suggest that.

I think Willie the Duck called this one pretty well. Bard is probably a "high skill coefficient" class, in terms of player skill needed to make the bard really shine. You'll get out of it what you put into it. It has a high ceiling.

[Nagog]

The Bard has some of the best class abilities in the game. Skill Expertise, Jack of All Trades, and Inspiration are top of the line abilities for both in and out of combat. Depending on your subclass, you can get great defensive abilities, including but not limited to: Cutting Words, Defensive Flourish, Medium Armor/Shields, and Mantle of Inspiration (Temp HP and free reaction Disengage to yourself/allies). This is similar to saying the Rogue isn't tanky because it doesn't have high AC: when in reality, a Rogue is tanky because they're difficult to pin down.

And for why the bard is the best class in the game (I'd say they surpass Wizards, but that's just me); they can fill literally any role the party needs them to. The aforementioned defensive abilities don't work the same as a Barbarian's Rage, but it works just as well. I had a College of Satire bard with 18 AC that was a front line healer, blaster, and support all at the same time. Outside of combat, they were the party face and skill monkey. To this day they are one of my favorite characters I've ever played, mechanically or narratively.

[Dork_Forge]

Yes, but resourceless is quite a qualifier. If you compare a rogues combat damage output to a paladin, barbarian, or fighter's output (including their limited resources such as rages, action surges, smites, etc.), mediocre is a absolutely justifiable term. Add in the lower staying power/having to manage exposure to reprisal, and rogues are clearly in the middle of the pack in terms of combat damage. Which is not a problem, since combat damage is the majority of what most of those other classes get.

Looking at this at level 3 with all primary stats set at +3:

Rogue w/two short swords: 4d6+3 (17)

Paladin with Greatsword smiting: 2d6+2d8+3 (19) *three per day

Zealot Barbarian with a Greatsword raging: 3d6+6 (16.5) *two encounters per day

Fighter Battle Master longsword w/ Dueling, Action Surge and Maneuvers: 4d8+10 (28) *once per short rest

I don't believe I'm missing anything, so the Rogue comes out just ahead of the damage orientated Barbarian, is pretty on par with the Smiting Paladin (which they can do three times a day assuming they're not casting any spells) and is only really behind the Fighter, notable on the turn they burn Action Surge and Maneuvers.

Fighter vs Rogue as above but over the average 3 round encounter:

Rogue: 12d6+9 (51)

Fighter: 8d8+20(56)

So over an average encounter the gap narrows considerably and would continue to if the combat goes any further than 3 rounds. If there is a second (or more) encounter(s) then the Fighter is reduced to just weapon die+mod.

That doesn't really look mediocre to me at any point, in fact the Rogue is up there with those classes whilst they're using their limited resources (apart from the Figher, but as analysed over an encounter that balances).

The most meh time for a Rogue is 5/6 when the other classes are getting Extra Attack and other goodies (like 2nd level slots for Paladin), but even then the Rogue pulls back at about 7th and can be optimised to compete instead of just keep up (TWF Shadow Blade AT).

[Asisreo1]

A Rogue can't use Dodge with Cunning Action, and Hiding requires some form of cover, which is either:

• Available, but unlikely for an enemy to engage with you, as most melee attacks against you would already reveal you, and most attacks against you would already have a -2 to hit, and you're likely behind some bottleneck with allies taking point.
• Unavailable.

In any scenario where a Rogue would have Cover, so could a Bard, The Rogue would just happen to have Disadvantage to be hit, and it'd almost have to be guaranteed to be a ranged attack in those circumstances. More than likely, though, the Rogue attacked each turn he attempted to Hide, and so is likely not Hidden but behind Cover, and have the same circumstances as the Bard.

Don't get me wrong, Cunning Action is useful, but I see it generally be useful for either melee characters, or a party that doesn't have the means of controlling swarms (which a Bard does), when it isn't being used to spam Advantage attacks.

Ah, misread the feature.

However, BA disengage is a powerful defensive ability as well, especially at these lower levels. A bard and rogue's worse nightmare is being singled out from their crowd. If a rogue gets singled out, though, they can disengage and prevent another hit from occurring while retreating. Bards have extremely little in "get off me" features, with cutting words being a limited resource that only comes back at a long rest, which also shares the same resource as your primary bard resource.

[Nagog]

And on top of all that, you get what is - in my opinion - a completely bonkers feature called Bardic Inspiration. It boggles my mind how the designers thought this was a good idea. In a game with bounded accuracy, where earning every +1 is an uphill battle and where advantage is the main bonus you get, they let the Bard give an average of +3.5 to any roll, at level 1.

This, along with Guidance, is the kind of thing that has no place if you want to make a game with bounded accuracy. It makes a Lv 1 chump have the same bonus as a Lv 20 hero. Just completely ridiculous.

Like I said in the beginning. Haven't seen a Bard in actual play, so feel free to prove me wrong here.

The biggest drawback to Bardic Inspiration (and Guidance) is that it needs to be used in advance. If the party really believes that the check won't succeed without Inspiration, then the DC is typically high enough that they'd still need to roll well without inspiration to hit it.
Also note that outside of a few subclass outliers, you can't use Bardic Inspiration on yourself, so unless you have another Bard or a Rogue in your party, there likely won't be any Expertise+Inspiration shenanigans going on, and if there is, kudos to creating great party synergy.

[Willie the Duck]

I don't believe I'm missing anything.

You are treating Battlemaster maneuvers as simply damage-on rather than damage-on plus rider, not giving barbarians any increased hit change through reckless assault, and ignoring the bonus actions (or whole rounds) not spent attacking by the rogue because they are busy trying not to be face-to-face with their opponents because they have been chewed up and do not have the rage/second wind/higher AC that those other classes posses. This isn't really my fight, I just don't find mediocre some kind of ridiculous notion.

[Dork_Forge]

You are treating Battlemaster maneuvers as simply damage-on rather than damage-on plus rider, not giving barbarians any increased hit change through reckless assault, and ignoring the bonus actions (or whole rounds) not spent attacking by the rogue because they are busy trying not to be face-to-face with their opponents because they have been chewed up and do not have the rage/second wind/higher AC that those other classes posses. This isn't really my fight, I just don't find mediocre some kind of ridiculous notion.

Yes I was, as this was explicably about damage output and I wasn't considering accuracy, just the amount of damage each can push out under optimal conditions. You seem to be factoring durability in as a damage output factor, which is a little unusual to me in this instance, Rogues are hardly glass cannons with a d8 hit die and a suite of defensive class features. The bonus action to run away concern is addressed by just being a Swashbuckler to get the free disengage, all the damage calculations for the Rogue didn't factor a subclass into it at all.

Mediocre isn't necessarily a bad thing, I just don't believe it's true, in tier 1 Rogues are up there with Monks and TWF style users as high and reliable damage output and they only start looking meh or mediocre in comparison to novas from other classes, which are novas: impressive and short lived.

[heavyfuel]

The biggest drawback to Bardic Inspiration (and Guidance) is that it needs to be used in advance. If the party really believes that the check won't succeed without Inspiration, then the DC is typically high enough that they'd still need to roll well without inspiration to hit it.
Also note that outside of a few subclass outliers, you can't use Bardic Inspiration on yourself, so unless you have another Bard or a Rogue in your party, there likely won't be any Expertise+Inspiration shenanigans going on, and if there is, kudos to creating great party synergy.

Bardic Inspiration is contribuiting more to this combo than Expertise is.

So if someone is arguing that the Bard is overrated, then they don't care about something that's better than Expertise, that can be applied to more than skill checks, and to anyone, without a locked-in choice, which is just an absurd thought.

Bardic Inspiration alone makes the Bard top tier pick. That's also on top of all else that was mentioned.

[Nagog]

Bardic Inspiration is contribuiting more to this combo than Expertise is.

So if someone is arguing that the Bard is overrated, then they don't care about something that's better than Expertise, that can be applied to more than skill checks, and to anyone, without a locked-in choice, which is just an absurd thought.

Bardic Inspiration alone makes the Bard top tier pick. That's also on top of all else that was mentioned.

While it can grant a higher bonus than Expertise, it's a die roll rather than a static bonus, so in most cases it won't. At max level, a skill with expertise will have a +12 proficiency bonus, while the Bard's maximum Inspiration die is a d12. I don't think that's a coincidence. What really makes the ability powerful is that it can stack with Expertise or Proficiency if somebody has it.

I'd also be remiss not to mention that Bardic Inspiration is a resource, rather than a constant bonus like Expertise is. While it's tied to your primary casting stat in uses, a character can only have one Bardic Inspiration die at a time, and in combat (or other Initiative-based scenarios like Skill Challenges), the Bard can only hand out one at a time.


Regardless of where exactly Bardic Inspiration is most powerful, I think we've answered the OP's question of whether or not they're overrated: No, they're not. I'd even wager to say they're underrated (Like, why do people use Sorcadin when Bardadin gives them so much more?)

[heavyfuel]

While it can grant a higher bonus than Expertise, it's a die roll rather than a static bonus, so in most cases it won't. At max level, a skill with expertise will have a +12 proficiency bonus, while the Bard's maximum Inspiration die is a d12. I don't think that's a coincidence. What really makes the ability powerful is that it can stack with Expertise or Proficiency if somebody has it.

You're looking at this wrong. Expertise doesn't give +12, it gives +6. The other +6 comes from proficiency. So Bardic Inspiration always gives an average bonus higher than the Expertise bonus. In most cases, the bonus from BI is higher than the bonus from Expertise.

[Nagog]

You're looking at this wrong. Expertise doesn't give +12, it gives +6. The other +6 comes from proficiency. So Bardic Inspiration always gives an average bonus higher than the Expertise bonus. In most cases, the bonus from BI is higher than the bonus from Expertise.

If that's how you define Expertise, than sure. I've always defined Expertise as being the total bonus added, including the base proficiency bonus.

But if that's how you define it, than I'd also argue that at Tier 1 and 2, the Pact of the Talisman UA is extremely broken, as it adds 1d4 to any skill you aren't proficient in, no setup or resource required. That has the potential to essentially grant you Proficiency in all skills, with a smaller chance to grant more than that.

[heavyfuel]

If that's how you define Expertise, than sure. I've always defined Expertise as being the total bonus added, including the base proficiency bonus.

But if that's how you define it, than I'd also argue that at Tier 1 and 2, the Pact of the Talisman UA is extremely broken, as it adds 1d4 to any skill you aren't proficient in, no setup or resource required. That has the potential to essentially grant you Proficiency in all skills, with a smaller chance to grant more than that.

It's not how I define it. It's how it is. When you get Expertise, you already have the proficiency bonus, so Expertise itself is only adding half the total bonus. If you could get Expertise in skills you're not proficent in, then I'd agree with you.

Look at this way: Say you have 10 dollars, which you invest. You make an excellent investment, and it's now worth 20 dollars. You didn't get 20 dollars from the investment, you only got 10, because you already had the original 10 to begin with. Same goes for Expertise.

I just don't think Pact of the Talisman is broken (though it's certainly very strong) because it doesn't stack with Proficiency/Expertise and it doesn't scale. So it's very strong in Tier 1, but it drops in relative power as the game progresses. Adding a large number of uses per rest, just so that it's not literally infinite, should balance it out. Something like 5 uses per short rest or something.

[Satori01]

This isn't really my fight.

If you were a Rogue, you could have Disengaged from this conversation and still got some parting damage in.....but you are not.....so you didn't. 🤪 😀😁

[Nagog]

It's not how I define it. It's how it is. When you get Expertise, you already have the proficiency bonus, so Expertise itself is only adding half the total bonus. If you could get Expertise in skills you're not proficent in, then I'd agree with you.

Look at this way: Say you have 10 dollars, which you invest. You make an excellent investment, and it's now worth 20 dollars. You didn't get 20 dollars from the investment, you only got 10, because you already had the original 10 to begin with. Same goes for Expertise.

I just don't think Pact of the Talisman is broken (though it's certainly very strong) because it doesn't stack with Proficiency/Expertise and it doesn't scale. So it's very strong in Tier 1, but it drops in relative power as the game progresses.

You can't definitively say that is or isn't how it is, as it is never defined whether Expertise replaces Proficiency or is added to it. Here is the description from the Prodigy feat (I do believe it is stated similarly, if not verbatim, in Bard and Rogue's class descriptions)

"Choose one skill in which you have proficiency. You gain expertise with that skill, which means your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make with it. The skill you choose must be one that isn’t already benefiting from a feature, such as Expertise, that doubles your proficiency bonus."

There are cases for both definitions here. For yours, yes you do need a baseline of proficiency in order to gain expertise. For mine, it defines Expertise as "proficiency bonus is doubled for any check you make with it". Ergo, both of our various definitions could be true.

But because you seem very defensive of your definition being right, we'll go with that one, I don't particularly care anyway (and it makes no difference to the point we were discussing). The point that we got off track of was Bardic Inspiration and how it compares to Expertise. Yes, Bardic Inspiration can give a character the same bonus having proficiency and expertise in that skill can give them. It could also just give a +1 with the same regularity. In contrast, it can also stack with proficiency and expertise bonuses, if you have somebody in the party that has such, to reach phenomenal heights that may not have been accessible otherwise. A powerful ability to be sure, but also one that requires some setup and investment, as is the case with any powerful ability. While "Hard" DCs are typically 25-30, combining Expertise and Bardic Inspiration can give you a bonus of anywhere between 5 (assuming proficiency bonus is 2 and rolling a 1 on the BI dice) and 24 (Assuming proficiency bonus is 6 and rolling max on BI d12 dice). If you set up the skill expertise and get lucky rolling you BI, it's exceptionally powerful. Otherwise it's just really good.

[heavyfuel]

You can't definitively say that is or isn't how it is, as it is never defined whether Expertise replaces Proficiency or is added to it. Here is the description from the Prodigy feat (I do believe it is stated similarly, if not verbatim, in Bard and Rogue's class descriptions)

But because you seem very defensive of your definition being right, we'll go with that one, I don't particularly care anyway (and it makes no difference to the point we were discussing). The point that we got off track of was Bardic Inspiration and how it compares to Expertise. Yes, Bardic Inspiration can give a character the same bonus having proficiency and expertise in that skill can give them. It could also just give a +1 with the same regularity. In contrast, it can also stack with proficiency and expertise bonuses, if you have somebody in the party that has such, to reach phenomenal heights that may not have been accessible otherwise. A powerful ability to be sure, but also one that requires some setup and investment, as is the case with any powerful ability. While "Hard" DCs are typically 25-30, combining Expertise and Bardic Inspiration can give you a bonus of anywhere between 5 (assuming proficiency bonus is 2 and rolling a 1 on the BI dice) and 24 (Assuming proficiency bonus is 6 and rolling max on BI d12 dice). If you set up the skill expertise and get lucky rolling you BI, it's exceptionally powerful. Otherwise it's just really good.

The crux of this discussion, I think, is that you seem to think I'm comparing "bardic inspiration with no proficiency" against "proficiency and expertise", and that's not what I'm doing.

I'm comparing "proficiency + BI" against "proficiency + expertise"

At level 1, with Proficiency but without Expertise you have +2. If you then gain Expertise, you now have +4. How is expertise itself adding +4? If that were the case, you'd have +6 total. No, Expertise only adds +2. Bardic Inspiration adds +3.5 (on average). So BI adds more than Expertise.

Yes, it adds less than proficiency and expertise combined, but it does add more than just expertise (on average).

If one considers Expertise to be a good feature (which it is), then BI is not simply "really good", it's absolutely amazing.

[Nagog]

The crux of this discussion, I think, is that you seem to think I'm comparing "bardic inspiration with no proficiency" against "proficiency and expertise", and that's not what I'm doing.

I'm comparing "proficiency + BI" against "proficiency + expertise"

At level 1, with Proficiency but without Expertise you have +2. If you then gain Expertise, you now have +4. How is expertise itself adding +4? If that were the case, you'd have +6 total. No, Expertise only adds +2. Bardic Inspiration adds +3.5 (on average). So BI adds more than Expertise.

Yes, it adds less than proficiency and expertise combined, but it does add more than just expertise (on average).

If one considers Expertise to be a good feature (which it is), then BI is not simply "really good", it's absolutely amazing.

I fail to see why we're still discussing this. We've come to the same conclusion, just using different definitions of what defines "Expertise", a difference which holds no weight in the discussion.

Regarding each, I'd say the Bardic Inspiration feature and the Expertise feature are about the same in terms of power levels, that reach new heights when used in tandem, for the following reasons:

Bardic Inspiration:
Pros:
Can be added to any skill
Can be applied after seeing the roll (high roll; save for later use)

Cons:
Draws from a limited resource pool
Cannot be used on self (Lore Bard 14 notwithstanding)
Requires Bonus Action to activate
Will more often than not roll lower than maximum
10 minute duration between giving and use, otherwise wasted


Skill Expertise:
Pros:
Added to every use of the skill
No resource cost
Always grants maximum bonus
No setup required

Cons:
Tied to one skill

All in all, I'd rather have Expertise in a skill than a BI dice to add to it, but that's just me.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Funny how this thread gets posted, then shortly after we get this other thread in which Bard (Lore) is stated to be one of two classes (four total subclasses) at Tier 0, best of the best at combat. And Bard (Valor) is Tier 1, equal to or better than nearly every other class/subclass at combat. That's coming from a community of optimizers who actually know how to play the class.

At this point anyone who actually thinks Bard is overrated is doing it wrong, or focusing on the wrong things, or both. Even if you've only got the core rulebooks, Bard is literally one of the two strongest classes in the game, regardless of which college you pick.

[Merudo]

Funny how this thread gets posted, then shortly after we get this other thread in which Bard (Lore) is stated to be one of two classes (four total subclasses) at Tier 0, best of the best at combat. And Bard (Valor) is Tier 1, equal to or better than nearly every other class/subclass at combat. That's coming from a community of optimizers who actually know how to play the class.

A. My point is that (1) the Bard is usually ranked as the best or second best class, and that (2) doing so is overrating the class. Linking to a list in which the Bard is ranked second best is actually supporting point 1.

B. The list is of poor quality and unprincipled.