[D&D] Bards, Time For A Rebalance?

[nightinverse]

So, now that we've reached a tenative finishing point for Clerics, it's time to move toward the other end of the spectrum. If we were playing 3.0, that might mean Specialists, depending on your view, but as this is 3.5 the class in question is the dreaded Bard!

The Bard is a "Jack of all Trades" which has remained relatively low-power from 2nd Edition AD&D to this point. It's now outmoded by the Ranger in flexibility and unfortunately the favoured class for the arguably least played standard race in D&D, Gnomes.

We need to bring it up to par. No holds barred aside from flavour!

And... go!

[akiko]

2 things I suggest to help. Martial weapon proficiency and allowing bardic music to counter any spell with a verbal component as opposed to just language dependent.

[LynMars]

I glee'd when they got 2 skill point bump between 3.0 and 3.5. For a jack-of-all-trades, their skills were wretchedly low. Maybe still are, unless you make the feat "Jack-of-all Trades" a class ability.

Which they sort of do in the PHB2...at the expense of Bardic Knowledge, which really isn't a worthwhile trade to me.

[akiko]

Even by granting the JoaT as a class ability I think they may still lag behind.

[Linklegacy77]

Well, the PHB2 lets you get rid of the Bardic Knowledge feature in order to be a jack-of-all trades, which lets you substitute your bard level for ranks in any skill you don't have ranks in, and lets you make checks in trained only skills if you don't have ranks in it.

[LynMars]

Yeah, I didn't add those details to the feat desc at the time. I still don't see it as a good trade-off; I use Bardic Knowledge like mad when playing a Bard, and it's often an extremely handy Plot Tool for GMs. It covers things Knowledges and Gather Info can't always accomplish.

[Linklegacy77]

Well, it also counts for knowledges, and bardic knowledge is incredibly dependant on your DM and on the game, especially since some DM's just say that you can't use bardic knowledge for this or that. As I was saying though, it applies to knowledges though, so a 5th level bard has 5 ranks minimum in every skill essentially.

[treehouse]

I definitely disagree with the blanket assumption that bards are weak, having played one for over two years in the toughest campaign I've ever been involved in (Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil - it's claimed the lives of 16 characters so far).

A splash of fighter and exotic weapon master has turned him into an absolutely demonic archer, and our party is so accustomed to the buffs he puts on everyone at the start of combat that we have their bonuses figured into our character sheets. He's an essential part of every victory.

[akiko]

I can also tell you that my pixie bard was an integral part of the quest that we went on in Faerun that started at level 4 and went epic. I handled more foes with music and talking than any other character did. Including getting us out of a fight with frost giants and some fire giants, etc. But I still think mechanically its weak.

[treehouse]

Mechanically, a bard can kick ass and take names. It just requires the right build and the right mindset. Most people mistakenly think that a bard is actually supposed to be equally good (bad) at all of the things it can do. In truth, you build a bard who focuses on one area, and you wait for all of the other things he's 'okay' at to come up to fulfill his jack-of-all-trades role. You can build a weapon generalist fighter who is good at various fighting styles, but the best fighters focus on one or two fighting styles. Hell, the only feats that only a fighter can take focus on specific weapons.

Bards rock; if you don't see that, you haven't built one correctly yet, or you've had really bad luck.

[Benicus]

Then I must have really poor bard building skills...

[akiko]

I'd say the former, tree. I am not much (if at all) a powerbuilder. So please, someone teach us. I know that one build I think BP or Leadpal posted on the other board was interesting to say the least. And that Seeker of the Song is definitely fun, but by no means overpowerful.

[Mercutio]

You want to see a pretty powerful bard? I'm playing a gestalt bard/paladin in SPQR Anarchy's game on this board. Kergan is the first bard I ever built, and damn if he isn't the most smooth-talking character. He kicks some serious ass. Now he is a gestalt, so it's a little different, but the bard parts of him have seen more play than the paladin parts and I'm loving the character.

[treehouse]

Let's see, Delvanos is currently a human bard 9/fighter 4/exotic weapon master (greatbow) 1. He is through with non-bard levels, so his final build will be bard 15/fighter 4/exotic weapon master (greatbow) 1.

He has taken the feats Exotic Weapon Proficiency (greatbow), Weapon Focus (greatbow), Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Improved Rapid Shot, Improved Precise Shot and Song of the Heart. His 15th level feat will be Ranged Weapon Mastery (piercing), and his 18th will most likely be Weapon Specialization.

He uses a greatbow called Stormdirge; it's a holy, shocking greatbow +1. Not sure what else he's doing with it yet, though keen is probably on the list of upgrades. His exotic weapon master weapon trick is Close Combat Shot, so he never provokes AoOs for firing while threatened. That's been handy. He is currently decked out in celestial armor +3.

His most often used spells are haste, cure moderate wounds and inspirational boost.

Not sure what else to say about him. His basic buffing pattern is an extended haste (using a lesser metamagic rod)and then inspirational boost-enhanced inspire courage (giving everyone in the party a +4 moral bonus on attack, damage and saves vs. fear and charm effects). Then he focuses on tough targets, using his wide array of special materials arrows to bust through most types of DR.

[Chris Chandler]

I'm right there with Treehouse. The bard is a very viable character. They have the best class-skill selection in the game, and the bardic music abilities are much more powerful than people give them credit. The ability to cast in light armor is a big plus, and they already get a good assortment of weaponry, though I know the list is pretty short. With song of the heart and inspirational boost, the bard becomes downright tough as nails. The bard is a well balanced, good-powered character.

[MOFF]

I played a bard in a single campaing, taking him from lvl 1 to 11. This was also the least optimized character I ever played, because he was my first 3rd ed. character ever.

At the lower levels he was a great addition to the group with bardic music. Using dodge and mobility he was also able to flank a lot. That worked great.

Later on, of course, he did crappy damage, and could rarely stand his ground in combat. He's was not the best at buffing either (partly because of the way I played him).

But he worked well in the group, providing small, but important bonusses. And he was great at gathering information. Information that gave the group knowledge of what kind of foes we we're facing. Very helpfull.

The true "jack-of-all-trades" in D&D 3.5 is of course the cleric.

[Linklegacy77]

Mechanically, the Bard is superior to the rogue, because of it's spellcasting. The weakest PhB class is not the bard, it is the rogue. Bard would probobly take either 2nd or 3rd weakest, next to the monk.

[AbusePuppy]

Tree:
Mechanically, what does your bard do that a fighter/sorcerer or fighter/cleric can't do better? I'm failing to see that. Both of them can get all the buff spells you mentioned and more and cleric interacts much better with your fighter levels than bard does. (Obviously bard gives you the secondary benefits of bardic knowledge/song but both of these are just that- secondary.) I suppose you get your extra skill points, but if you have a rogue in the group that's irrelevant.

I should, perhaps, clarify a bit. I don't think bards are weak per se but rather weak in the most common style of D&D game0 "let's go kill some monsters and/or villains." In games where intruigue, stealth, subterfuge and the like are paramount the bard is at least on par with everyone else and clearly superior to a lot of the others (melee classes, etc).
__________________
"Oh, sure, I start by reinventing, then I disinvent it. I swim in the realm between panels, what I call the... Imaginarium?"

[treehouse]

Mechanically, what does your bard do that a fighter/sorcerer or fighter/cleric can't do better? I'm failing to see that. Both of them can get all the buff spells you mentioned and more and cleric interacts much better with your fighter levels than bard does. (Obviously bard gives you the secondary benefits of bardic knowledge/song but both of these are just that- secondary.) I suppose you get your extra skill points, but if you have a rogue in the group that's irrelevant.

I didn't say Delvanos proved that bards were the best class ever. However, he has been demonstrating for two years that the 3.5 bard is a competetive class, especially considering we have been adventuring mainly in a combat-heavy dungeon environment. I would argue that a fighter/bard is better at the specific role Delvanos fills simply because of inspire courage and better base attack. Comparing him to a fighter/cleric is unfair, because clerics are crazy ass broken.

[LeadPal]

I don't think it's very fair to compare bard to cleric, generally considered the most overpowered class. I mean, that's sort of like rejecting any build that deals less damage than the Hulking Hurler, isn't it?

I have little opinion in this matter, as I've never played a bard, myself, though I've considered it many a time. So far as I've seen from number-crunching and my players of bards, they're only good in with three things given:

1) When multiclassed or with heavy PrC usage. Not necessarily a bad thing, but a strike against any straight build.

2) At low levels. You'd be amazed what 1st level bards can do. Or, at least, I sure was. Buff the whole party while still posing a threat yourself? Bards, at that level, do it better than almost anybody else.

3) When non-combat abilities reign supreme. I like my knowledge checks, especially, so bards thrive in my games moreso than others might. After all, bardic knowledge covers a lot of bases. Not to mention their excellent spell selection in that department, and stellar skill bonuses.


But, again, this is basically second-hand knowledge.

[Darken]

This is not a thread about Rogues, so I will leave the 10 reasons why Rogues are mechanically the worst class in core games out of the thread.

Regarding Bards, yes, they are not that hot as well, and they shouldn't be. The designed intention was they know a bit about everything, but master of none... then again, the Charisma skills along can make Bards the most powerful class towards higher levels and into Epic. A single action to make everyone, who hates your guts and ready to tear you part, into your fanatic servants, with no SR, no saves, no opposed checks, and no magical protection. The only protection against it would be a "Int -" in the stat block. But that's just a crazy side of Bard, and such trick is available to anyone who wishes to use Charisma skills and invest in Charisma.

If we are to revamp Bard to make it on par with other balanced classes, I would say one need to focus on the unique parts of Bard. The other areas, by default, is going to bad anyways - they cannot be allowed to good, otherwise Bard will be the most powerful class (even more than Cleric) when they can be master of all. Jack of all trade cannot be used as balanced against someone who can master one or two things - the exponential growth of almost all ability paths is the easy reason of that. Thus the focus should be on the unique abilities: Bardic Knowledge and Bardic Music.

A direction I was pondering before was a full set of Bardic Music, similiar to those of all the Bard PrCs such as Virtuso or Seeker of the Song, integrated into the main Bard class, and in return reduce Bardic spellcasting to perhaps Ranger/Paladin level. This will make sure they are still able to perform a little bit here and there on all areas, but also have their own unique trades that can measure up to other classes in effectiveness. If we can make it so that the Bardic music can measure up to level 8ish spells in effectiveness (be it offensive, defensive, support, or utility), that'll probably be a good start.

[Linklegacy77]

As for bards, fine, they are weaker than some other classes. So what? They are still competitive enough to be quite playable, and fun. Just because they are slightly weak doesn't mean they have to be buffed up a bit.

Darken has an interesting idea.

[LynMars]

I've found pulling a Bard's spell selection from S&S's "Relicsand Rituals" and the newer "Spell Compendium" to go a long way to helping bump up a few things; a few better buffs, defenses, and distraction spells--cuz offensive spells just aren't what the Bard's about.

Bards are a catch-all class where you take a missing component from a party and use them to help fill it. Need a healer, cuz you left out the broken-cleric? Focus on the Heal skill and "Cure" spells and items, as well as all the Buffs Bards get that can really help out a party.

[LeadPal]

A boost to bardic music might be merited. I think giving them tighter control over morale bonuses would also help; basically, making it so that the highest morale bonuses you can ever get anywhere at any given level are always given by bards. That way they can never be useless from a buffing perspective, since you'll always want a bard around to get the extra bonuses, if possible.

There should also be more benefits to bardic knowledge written directly into the rules. Or at least a wider list of examples of situations in which bardic knowledge is useful, to encourage DMs to allow it. Maybe add some feats that let bardic knowledge function somewhat like the archivist's dark knowledge.

[Doomsmile]

Now, while I love complaining about bards, the only reason I don't have a bard in action this very second is because I've played so many of them already.

Granted, I really suck as a twinker, power-gamer, number-cruncher, etc. My bard is almost always the weakest member of the party, and when they aren't the weakest member of the party, they come across as such. In short most people think of bards as fairly laughable characters. This is a view that I don't terribly mind.

Those of you who have played in games with me know that I hate having super-hero-esque characters- my characters always have some very substantial weakness and I tend to play up their vulnerabilities with my roleplaying. Having a character, such as a bard, that no one really expects to do anything comes as a relief to me- I can play the character as I want them to be, even if it severely undermines their combat performance. Also, it makes it seem miraculous when the bard accomplishes something. Also, this image of the bard allows me to make referances easier, such as
would relegate clerics to the "sucks with a vengance" box, right next to bards.

I'm pretty sure I'm just rambling at this point, so I'll shut up now.

[treehouse]

The only thing I would do to 'fix' bards if someone insisted is allow them to combine the effects of their bardic music into single standard actions. Inspire courage is easily the best buff they get because they can affect an entire party, but inspire greatness and inspire heroics should at least see some use. A house rule I've considered is allowing them to start up two songs at once after a certain level, much like the Warchanter.

[Linklegacy77]

Seeker of the Song seems pretty awesome just for flavor.

[akiko]

In Song & Silence they discussed abilities tied to instruments. I know it was 3.0 and I haven't looked at the CV section about instruments in detail so I don't know if followed along. In S&S if you used a mandolin or lute you could have 2 songs going at one time. Though each takes its own action to start. I think it was something like each of the "main" bard instruments had this ability. I think they were harp, lute and drum or something along this. I always felt that the Book of Exalted's bard word feat that doubles the bonus should be standard. Meaning the inspire moral bonuses should be twice as much.

[Chris Chandler]

Merc touches the role of the bard in a typical party. Bards are the 5th man, but they also make outstanding soloists (I'd put them as the #3 solo class, behind the druid and cleric). If you play with the team in mind, a bard can't really replace your healer, support, or blaster roles, but he can do all three in good capacity. Likewise, he cannot replace the tank, but he can sure make the tank shine, by taking the support flanker role, the area control role (to an extent), or the archer role. Flexibility does indeed supplant power with the bard. It might not impress you in a singular capacity for one task, but over the course of a campaign, that flexibility will be more useful than not.

And comparing bards to clerics is like comparing any other class outside of druids to cleric. There is no point to such an argument. Core divine casters win D&D. So what, btw?

[Doomsmile]

[non-relevance]So what? It really sucks for those of us who like to play actual fighters, for one thing.[/non-relevance]

I've always liked to think that a properly built bard would make the ultimate soloist- bards can slink away from any encounter that wouldn't seem to go their way. Let's see that plate-mailed cleric do that!
Seriously, bards get my four favorite skills: hide, move silently, bluff, and sence motive. It makes me sad how seldom I get to use the first two, though.

[Doomsmile]

I just read this on Giant in the Playground. The author is discussing the Diplomacy skill:
It has a flat DC that is too low; a 2nd level bard turning a hostile character to indifferent is DC 25; seems "tough, but doable". But it's actually child's play. With a 16 Charisma, 5 ranks in Diplomacy, 5 ranks in Bluff (which grants a +2 synergy bonus), and 5 ranks in Sense Motive (which also grants a +2 synergy bonus), and (new in 3.5!) 5 ranks of Knowledge (nobility) (which yes, ALSO grants a +2 synergy bonus), the 2nd level bard already has a +14 and only needs a 11 or better to succeed. And that's without spending a feat on Skill Focus (Diplomacy) or Persuasive. Now here's the real problem: at 11th level, that same bard will have 9 more ranks in Diplomacy and probably at least an extra +1 from Charisma; he can now succeed on a roll of 1, which means he doesn't have to roll. He can automatically turn all hostile people indifferent by talking to them. He has 9 more levels of adventuring before he goes epic, but he can already make every enemy he meets apathetic to his existence. Now if the bard slaps on a toungs spell (which is totally on his list), he can get out of any fight with any creature of intelegence 3 or better.
I mean, a cleric could do it, too, but they're too good at just blowing up the enemy to consider it, you see...

[elmer_jok]

Having played a 1st level bard in a campaign that was a PC killer I can attest to the usefullness of them. It was my first 3.0 character ever played and if it wasn't for his wide array of skills and his bardic music ability to inspire courage, we would have died first, if not then second or third session. I mean really... what DM throws TWO wyrmling red dragons at you at only 2nd level! Not to mention his bluff skill made the party rich at around 3rd level. I beleive 3.5 did all that was necessary to balance them. One of the weakest classes? Maybe at trying to fill the roles of others, but even another class focusing on charisma skills all game can't touch a bard at high levels.

[Mercutio]

The point is we're discussing parties and if built to do a specific task, clerics can outdo anyone, including rogues, and yes, bards. Bards are not necessary in a 4 person group. Bards are not necessary at all, but properly added into a group that already has the 4 bases covered, a bard can be awesome.

[Linklegacy77]

Diplomacy is something completely different. Just because a class has access to that skill doesn't make the class great. The skill Diplomacy is incredibly broken, but that shouldn't matter to the class itself. Bards have Diplomacy. So what? So do rogues, and clerics for that matter.