Bards and their Sucky Greatness [A massive rant about bards]

[TimeAdept]

nerf harpergon (idk how ) and make the class "Spy", which, when levelled, allows you to select from the Harpers if non evil, the Zhentarim if non good, the Moonstars if non lawful, and the Lord's Alliance if non chaotic

Or just the first two works too - add a Zhent base to the Shadowplane or something

Really, the class has alot of options associated with the path and it's a shame it's so inherently tied down to one organization - PDK was opened to all knights

offtopic ramble sorry

[Tarkus the dog]

You do kind of break them by giving them 40 hp ( that is debatable however, and the debate is based around whether you do indeed break them, or how many of you can I persuade that they are already broken ). I'd suck an old man's weiner if I just happened to be a bard player. If memory serves I couldn't afford it on the 26/4 paladin version, and the 27/3 full support one would just get a straight up buff. You can take your light ASF removal home with you because I'm packing CON on this baby, not DEX. Their HP and lack of evasion is their only weakness ( you could also count their lack of offensive as one, but considering they have means to reduce discipline and AC of multiple targets this is easily fixed by having a buddy - bards aren't a solo class in the first place )

Yeah, I do agree with you that they are sucky/annoying to play. At least for me, but remember that not everybody is the same. Not many people do play them, true ( hence the reason there are no changes to them in the first place, as far as I'm awre. Bards are vanilla ). But I know some enjoy playing them. Maybe with the 'right' reason, if I dare say that, maybe not. And here is what I think. I think that bards are the strongest class in both the Neverwinter Nights game and on Arelith (again, because they remain untouched). They nearly have it all. You could yell at them for having no means to heal you ( the only thing missing from their massive support arsenal ), but this is not necessarily entirely true. They make up for it for getting a bonus to their Heal skill ( and yours ), giving everybody temp HP and a massive AC boost. At the same time they provide these bonuses to the enemy team, except it's reversed. On top of that I'm going to bring up what Dr. B said and gently ask that somebody in the team takes another look at Harper Scout class. 25bard/5harper scout is also an option ( and best one on top of that ). Your CL is 30, not 27. While your skills are scattered and placed into the points you don't need, you get one free feat out of that ( as you don't need to take power attack ). At the same time you also don't need to start with 13 STR.

So if the goal here is to give them something more, so that all of us who simply don't like playing them as they are now given a reason to give them a go, I'm sure it can be done in better ways . I think that bards need a serious nerf/rework because if played properly they are too strong ( as in the strongest class in the game, strong ).

[R0GUE]

You could yell at them for having no means to heal you ( the only thing missing from their massive support arsenal ), but this is not necessarily entirely true. They make up for it for getting a bonus to their Heal skill ( and yours ), giving everybody temp HP and a massive AC boost.

We also get access to all the Cure Spells, just like a divine class.

It's interesting to me that everyone thinks Bards are so amazing, but really I don't meet many other bards on a daily basis. I think a lot of people on this forum are "build junkies" and what I'm getting is there are only one or two "correct ways" of playing a bard: STR based, with levels of Paladin, or pure Bard but also STR based. I'm sure my bard build would bring many of you to tears. It includes levels of Rogue, DEX based, more ranged than melee. But I don't really care I am enjoying it.

I mentioned the two or three things that I thought might make my particular experience more enjoyable. I don't think they would break anything, except the hit point boost, so I'm willing to back off of that one. Really I just think a few more options to really be "jack of all trades master of none" is what I would like.

[Hunter548]

It's interesting to me that everyone thinks Bards are so amazing, but really I don't meet many other bards on a daily basis. I think a lot of people on this forum are "build junkies" and what I'm getting is there are only one or two "correct ways" of playing a bard: STR based, with levels of Paladin, or pure Bard but also STR based. I'm sure my bard build would bring many of you to tears. It includes levels of Rogue, DEX based, more ranged than melee. But I don't really care I am enjoying it.

For the longest time Dragonshaper could be an absolute pissant to kill. There still weren't that many dragonshapers at a time.

Just because a class is powerful doesn't mean anything about how popular it will be.

[R0GUE]

It's interesting to me that everyone thinks Bards are so amazing, but really I don't meet many other bards on a daily basis. I think a lot of people on this forum are "build junkies" and what I'm getting is there are only one or two "correct ways" of playing a bard: STR based, with levels of Paladin, or pure Bard but also STR based. I'm sure my bard build would bring many of you to tears. It includes levels of Rogue, DEX based, more ranged than melee. But I don't really care I am enjoying it.

For the longest time Dragonshaper could be an absolute pissant to kill. There still weren't that many dragonshapers at a time.

Just because a class is powerful doesn't mean anything about how popular it will be.

That's fair.

[Opustus]

I would really like to see the bard's role be gently veered away from stand-alone building, namely Bard/Pally and Bard/BG, and towards the squishy and marked target in combat as the all-time shiniest buff machine for all the wonderful WMs, barbarians, and rogues out there in the crazy world. Also, by making extra Perform easier to attain, Bard25-30 would be less of a stretch to achieve in terms of song power; if only to enable the most potent archetype of Bard30 as a playable option. Currently the top dawg builds seem to be the default choices for most builders, which, theoretically, narrows down the scope of different types of bards met across Arelith.

Limiting the power of Barbadin mechanically is an easy job, and it could lead to a larger variety of Bard types, which would at the very least be interesting. Mind, I'm talking strictly from a point of view that excepts considerations to server balance. I suppose, were Bard/Pally reduced, Bard/Harpers and Bard20/CoT10 would become more relevant. Maybe we'd even see one of my favourites, Bard20/Clerk10, as a gimmick for the divinely oriented bard players.

[Dr. B]

Maybe there could be a path for Bards that sacrifices combat power for spellcasting (sort of analogous to the Healer path), but please do not do anything to change the base class.

[Tourmaline]

The armor on, armor off thing is what drives me crazy about bards and why I usually abandon my attempts early on. I know you can get still spell and spellthief armor at some point but it's like.. Why even have these spells if they're such a pain to cast?

I know it's a powerful class when built right but I can't think of any other class that's so finicky and it just feels like a drudge to level. I know I'd love a 25/5 bard/fighter if I ever got one there but I don't think I'll ever have the patience.

I don't pretend to know what the balance would be. Saying I can have a special armor when I get to epics doesn't make me want to play one at level 5. Just reducing the penalty so they could cast spells while wearing studded leather and carrying a shield would be nice though. Or.. maybe even letting bards with their song active cast spells freely or something.

[Opustus]

The armor on, armor off thing is what drives me crazy about bards and why I usually abandon my attempts early on. I know you can get still spell and spellthief armor at some point but it's like.. Why even have these spells if they're such a pain to cast?

The fact that the mechanics encourage players to switch between heavy armour and nude in between spawns baffles me. On Amia this was handled simply by placing 0% chains into armour shops generously; the payoff for this was the DEX requirement that had to be noted in starting abilities, spellcasts, and equipment.

If possible with the EE motor and tools, certain crucial bard spells could be flagged as nonsomatic, allowing the bard to cast them even in armour. These could be certain turn-based buffs, such as Ghostly visage and Improved invis. Hourly durations would probably stick since resting, when they could be quite logically be cast out of armour anyway. The round-based spells would have to be stilled, risked with the arcane fail chance, or met by wearing ASF-reduced armour. The fail percent for medium armours is 20-30% and the shield can be swapped out for the duration of casting.

[Rebel4ever]

Bard is VERY weak in the early game...and lacks the amount of spells other classes have in the mid and late. Missing feats like Armoured Arcana is a miss but the server provides armours for that...just not in early game..also the choice of weapons bard gets is simply awful.

Late game though bards are good.

[Ork]

Played a bard from 3 to 24. Never had an issue soloing. I don't know what you mean by very weak.

[yellowcateyes]

Use Still Spell for in-combat casting.

[Dr. B]

Played a bard from 3 to 24. Never had an issue soloing. I don't know what you mean by very weak.

Yeah, same here. There are much worse classes to solo.

The armor on, armor off thing is what drives me crazy about bards and why I usually abandon my attempts early on. I know you can get still spell and spellthief armor at some point but it's like.. Why even have these spells if they're such a pain to cast?

This confuses me. They're not a pain to cast if you have either of these things. And you can take still spell very early if you want to. But you don't have many spell slots early on anyway--you'll just be casting a few buffs--and as yellowcateyes suggested, those buffs can be cast before you venture out.

I never had much of an issue leveling my Bard at all; if anything, they're easier to level than other classes. They get UMD very early on, allowing you to use things like shield scrolls and concealment wands, not to mention scrolled versions of your standard buffs (like Mage Armor), which you can cast in combat. If you wanna go str-based, take expertise as soon as possible, then take your first four fighter levels from 4-7, and upon hitting level 8 or so you'll be able to solo things higher than your level range. My bard was soloing ogrillons at level 8. The class is amazing if you play it well.

Get competent, people! The issues raised in this thread are non-issues. And if you're new to the game and soloing is hard, then avoid soloing and bring a friend. Admittedly, Bard is a somewhat more advanced class to play, but frankly, I prefer this, because people spamming epic Bard Songs left and right will make the game too easy, IMO, and will reduce the sought-after nature of Bards.

[Rebel4ever]

never had much of an issue leveling my Bard at all; if anything, they're easier to level than other classes. They get UMD very early on, allowing you to use things like shield scrolls and concealment wands, not to mention scrolled versions of your standard buffs (like Mage Armor), which you can cast in combat. If you wanna go str-based, take expertise as soon as possible, then take your first four fighter levels from 4-7, and upon hitting level 8 or so you'll be able to solo things higher than your level range. My bard was soloing ogrillons at level 8. The class is amazing if you play it well.

I disagree...expertise is only good if you can actually hit things or you just plan to wait for them to die. If your spamming high level scrolls with endless amounts of crash then yes things will be extremely easy.

Strength based = Take expertise and never hit anything EVER. You could have say 18 strength...4 AB + base AB +2 is 6 then -5 for expertise and you have a cracking 1 AB at level 3 ....up to a massive 4 AB at level 7. Would not recommend this at all...frankly your more likely to die this way due to the fact fights will last waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay longer and enemies will have the hell of a lot more chances to get 20's. Seeing your H/P is super low i think that seems a very bad idea.
Grab a tower shield + Full plate and any prebuff before you go out. You still have a slight chance of dying because your H/P is really low but it gives you a decent chance...i got crited 13 today from a slime with 5 AB that was with a 24 ac bard 12 constitution and it killed me from half health. In the Underdark the AB of monsters is higher than the surface so bards should be less painful there.

[Dr. B]

I disagree...expertise is only good if you can actually hit things or you just plan to wait for them to die. If your spamming high level scrolls with endless amounts of crash then yes things will be extremely easy.

Take expertise and never hit anything EVER.

Bards compensate for this with taunt, Bard song, and curse song. An effective strength bard is built around being able to hit things from within expertise by lowering the opponent’s AC and raising its AB. If Expertise were a bad decision, it would not be considered mandatory in the meta, but it is, for the reasons just stated. With a few noteworthy exceptions, this applies across all melee builds, but Bards, especially, benefit from it.

Moreover, I wasn't talking about expensive scrolls. Mage armor and shield scrolls are super cheap and very useful.

[Tourmaline]

This confuses me. They're not a pain to cast if you have either of these things. And you can take still spell very early if you want to. But you don't have many spell slots early on anyway--you'll just be casting a few buffs--and as yellowcateyes suggested, those buffs can be cast before you venture out.

It shouldn't confuse you. I said I just don't enjoy the finickiness of their casting at all. It is not a weakness in the class's power, it is a mechanic that is annoying to me as a player and frustrates me too much to invest in the class even though I know they are very good later on and have had some bard character ideas I'd like to have pursued.

It just feels messy and clunky to have spells, to be able to (and need to) wear armor, but not actually be able to cast your spells unless you take that armor off. That's a pretty unique thing in NWN-- all other casters can either cast in armor or don't need armor at all.

I don't think they're difficult to play early on (any class with UMD can have summons do most of the work until level 9 or 10) but I do think there has to be a better way to synergize their spellcasting with their equipment needs.

[Rebel4ever]

Bards compensate for this with taunt, Bard song, and curse song. An effective strength bard is built around being able to hit things from within expertise by lowering the opponent’s AC and raising its AB. If Expertise were a bad decision, it would not be considered mandatory in the meta, but it is, for the reasons just stated. With a few noteworthy exceptions, this applies across all melee builds, but Bards, especially, benefit from it.

Moreover, I wasn't talking about expensive scrolls. Mage armor and shield scrolls are super cheap and very useful.

I disagree with that being a good way to fight low level. Expertise stacked with scrolls of AC is just a waste of time seeing if your using proper armour one of the two of these things will be enough. You would be 100% better off going for a scroll and going full AB with taunt. You would kill faster and take less damage as the more chances you give an enemy the more chance he has to roll a 20. If you kill them fast you will get less 20's.

[Dr. B]

I'm not suggesting you use Expertise 100% of the time. Use it when needed.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

You'd see improvements to the Bard class if Light Armor didn't impose ASF. This would definitely open up space for bard builds built around Bard Song and spellcasting.

The problem is that it could break bard/paladin/AAs, maybe.

Overall, bards are fine.

In general, Arelith sorely lacks "party mechanics" as an element of class and path design. Healer and Knight were brilliant because they're an example of classic D&D paths built around providing something to a party. A lot of the time PvP mechanics discuss 1v1, and we don't often get new tricks and mechanics that are built around interacting with teammates to overcome obstacles.

If anything, I'd love to see all classes - especially bards - have more cookies that enhance or provide to a party than work in isolation. I.e. if you have 2 of X class in a party, they can receive Y buff.

Maybe that's getting too into a numbers game, but the sentiment of more "multiplayer matters" in paths and mechanics would be great to see.

(Ironically, it goes against the casual point of "should be able to solo" but I still don't get it.)

[The1Kobra]

If bards were to reduce ASF in light, it would ideally only be for bard spells. Since it shares ASF with wizard/sorcerer (And I don't think it's possible to separate them), it could be set up so that light armor gives 0 ASF to bards as long as their bard level is greater than their wizard or sorcerer level, which should prevent cheesing the ASF reduction.

[Iceborn]

Bards cannot ever be balance as a class of its own as long as the blackguard/paladin dip are not addressed individually.
People will argue that it's fine as it is to kingdom come, but that has never been good design choice to begin with, and should have been changed in Arelith years ago, along with our very obsolete deity system and hunger/thirst/rest.

Alas...


BTW, Kobra.
Warlocks do get ASF up to 20%/20% with 6 levels in the class, which means that you use up to the chain shirt and medium shields, though at the cost of 3 unnecessary levels.

[BegoneThoth]

Isn't both bard 30 and bard 26 fighter 4 legit? As is 25-5? 20 bard 10 pdk is good. You can also do cute stuff with CoT as well.

No pally or BG here, so there's no reason to say;

Bards cannot ever be balance as a class of its own as long as the blackguard/paladin dip are not addressed individually.

[Dr. B]

Someone already mentioned spellthief armor. I imagine it was put into the module for exactly this type of purpose. Pick up a Bard with 16 cha and put the rest into con, sort of like a warlock, shooting for EDR feats, then go pure Bard if you really want to. Though not optimal, this will certainly be viable (i.e., able to get to level 30) and useful in a party support role. If you want to play a purely charisma-based Bard who wears light armor, well, that's going to have problems whether or not they have ASF reduction, so I really don't see what adding this solves. Assuming you elect not to take fighter or divine levels, you won't end up with a build that is all that much better than what is already possible. If the idea is to go dex-based, well, then wear clothing, in which case, you don't have ASF anyway. If the idea is to focus on casting and singing without going dex-based, but without wearing heavy armor, well, your AC will already be pretty sub-par anyway, and adding some of the more swanky leather armors won't do all that much. Ranger's Runic Studded Leather would be nice (provided you meet the UMD reqs) but then, one is compelled to ask: why shouldn't you have to trade off a feat in order to wear that, i.e., take still spell? What's so horrible about sinking one feat? You'd be playing a caster Bard, right? Don't caster builds typically take metamagic feats?

To repeat: if you want access to some of the more nice leather armors, why not just drop a feat on still spell? What's so awful about having to do this?

[Rebel4ever]

Bards cannot ever be balance as a class of its own as long as the blackguard/paladin dip are not addressed individually.
People will argue that it's fine as it is to kingdom come, but that has never been good design choice to begin with, and should have been changed in Arelith years ago, along with our very obsolete deity system and hunger/thirst/rest.

There is some truth in what you say ill give you that. In vanilla NWN bard is a weak choice most of the time. I find it hard to say a time when it outshines other casters in the early/mid game. Due to the fact they don't gain access to higher spell levels and have lower amount of spells per day. You will always have people argue the other side of the story to quote the world of warcraft forums "Its fine learn to play". i think the DM's/Design could give Bards a look and see what they think...can't ask more than that.

Balance is so difficult I think we just have to trust the DM's/Designers to do their best.

http://engl393-dnd5th.wikia.com/wiki/Bard - Official D&D 5.0 rules you can see considerable buffs for bards.

By contrast, bards not only know how to wear light armor effectively, but they can also ignore the arcane spell failure chance for such armor. A bard wearing armor heavier than light or using any type of shield incurs the normal arcane spell failure chance, even if he becomes proficient with that armor.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Arcane ... _and_Armor

So seems even by standard rules they have been sold short.

[Cortex]

If you want to play a support caster, just play a mage or a cleric.