Can I ask which skill? Perform, perchance? Oh wait...
You bring up a good point, I was thinking of putting a perform skill in, but figured if you are a bard, you probably are good at singing, dancing or playing an instrument. Hmm, something to think about.
You bring up a good point, I was thinking of putting a perform skill in, but figured if you are a bard, you probably are good at singing, dancing or playing an instrument. Hmm, something to think about.
Very nice work. My wife is going to use it in our Eberron game.
I'd love to see what come up with for the druid.
Also, I agree that a Perform skill is not needed. If the bard needs to make any sort of singing, poetry, or story-telling check in front of an audience, I'd probably go with a Diplomacy-based attack against the audience's/subject's Will defense. I'd use an Acrobatics check if it were a more physical performance like dancing, juggling, or acrobatics. Other sorts of skill-based checks can be improvised based on the skills 4e already has.
I don't particularly see the need for new skills to soak-up the already limited number of trained slots. I favor finding more uses for the existing skills to give them a broader use in the game.
Very nice work. My wife is going to use it in our Eberron game.I'd love to see what come up with for the druid.Also, I agree that a Perform skill is not needed. If the bard needs to make any sort of singing, poetry, or story-telling check in front
I haven't had a chance to scrutinize it entirely, but I would like to point out that Sorceror and Barbarian were not "iconic classes" at all, and neither were included in any edition before that point. (Neither was monk, but monk is hardly as "iconic.") I'm not disagreeing that I wish the classes were still present, but I think it is nearsighted to call them iconic.
From what I've read so far, I think you'd done a good job of capturing the spirit of the Bard, though. Congrats.
I haven't had a chance to scrutinize it entirely, but I would like to point out that Sorceror and Barbarian were not "iconic classes" at all, and neither were included in any edition before that point. (Neither was monk, but monk is hardly as "iconic
I haven't had a chance to scrutinize it entirely, but I would like to point out that Sorceror and Barbarian were not "iconic classes" at all, and neither were included in any edition before that point. (Neither was monk, but monk is hardly as "iconic.") I'm not disagreeing that I wish the classes were still present, but I think it is nearsighted to call them iconic.
From what I've read so far, I think you'd done a good job of capturing the spirit of the Bard, though. Congrats.
Very true, I played 2nd edition, and the druid and bard both appeared there. Barbarian was some sort of kit I believe. And our lovely strap-wearing sorcerer didn't exist (I'm looking at you hennet!). Either way, I appreciated the flavor that the new classes gave to the game rather than just having another fighter or wizard running around. Even though at the core the differences were: "I rage and hit stuff while running fast" and "I don't carry a magic book around", it made enough of a distinction that they probably should have been released as well.
Granted, my statement didn't mean I thought barbarian and sorcerer were iconic. I meant that my group's favorite classes are those 4. Which is the reason they don't really want to play 4th edition. Every time I talk about it with them and showed them my books all I hear is "What? no Druid or Sorcerer?" "I never liked the Bard but he should be in there."
So basically, I don't think I'll be playing 4th at least for the time being...
Bluff_Im_a_Horse wrote:
Very nice work. My wife is going to use it in our Eberron game.
I'd love to see what come up with for the druid.
I'm 2/3 of the way with the druid. I should be done by the end of the week. I'm also planning to make some bard,druid related feats and items after I finish/balance the druid.
In the meantime, I'd love to hear it plays out. Oh, and if your wife breaks the game because of my class, you can come back here and yell at me.
Very true, I played 2nd edition, and the druid and bard both appeared there. Barbarian was some sort of kit I believe. And our lovely strap-wearing sorcerer didn't exist (I'm looking at you hennet!). Either way, I appreciated the flavor that the new
This is awesome. As far as I can see, and I read to level 12 , the abilities are quite balanced, since they all require allies. This is a great character, well done. :D Totally using this for my campaign.
This is awesome. As far as I can see, and I read to level 12 , the abilities are quite balanced, since they all require allies. This is a great character, well done. :D Totally using this for my campaign.
Granted, my statement didn't mean I thought barbarian and sorcerer were iconic. I meant that my group's favorite classes are those 4. Which is the reason they don't really want to play 4th edition. Every time I talk about it with them and showed them my books all I hear is "What? no Druid or Sorcerer?" "I never liked the Bard but he should be in there."
Actually I think the sorcerer would probably be the easiest to do. The only really difference between the sorcerer and wizard was wizard could change out spells each day, had to pick the list ahead of time, and the sorcerer got 50% more cast per day. Also be was based off CHA but even so they still have the same spell list.
So just use the wizard power list and figure out some class abilities that will make him unique. Perhaps he can convert his higher lvl powers into a lower level one. Similar to spontaneous casting in 3.x. So if say he has a level 13 encounter and level 7 encounter. He can either use each one once or use the level 7 twice using up the level 13.
Since the sorcerer and wizard had access to the same spells before it doesn't seem unreasonable to have them share the same power list for the time being.
Actually I think the sorcerer would probably be the easiest to do. The only really difference between the sorcerer and wizard was wizard could change out spells each day, had to pick the list ahead of time, and the sorcerer got 50% more cast per day.
I'm 2/3 of the way with the druid. I should be done by the end of the week. I'm also planning to make some bard,druid related feats and items after I finish/balance the druid.
In the meantime, I'd love to hear it plays out. Oh, and if your wife breaks the game because of my class, you can come back here and yell at me.
She's working on her character concept at this point, and looking at different power and feat combinations. She's very happy to have a bard in her hands at this point.
If it's not too much trouble, or too inappropriate, would you link your druid class thread to this thread so that I can get it through my Thread Subscription? I don't get into the forums very often, and I don't want to risk missing it.
Thanks
She's working on her character concept at this point, and looking at different power and feat combinations. She's very happy to have a bard in her hands at this point.If it's not too much trouble, or too inappropriate, would you link your druid clas
Hey all, I've taken Saric's incredible amount of work and fixed some things (and probably screwed some other things up) and made a few changes that I thought would make it better fit my group and posted it as a pdf if you're interested. Given how great these forums work on a day to day basis here's the link to where you can get it that doesn't depend on them.
Hey all, I've taken Saric's incredible amount of work and fixed some things (and probably screwed some other things up) and made a few changes that I thought would make it better fit my group and posted it as a pdf if you're interested. Given how g
Also, is improvisation supposed to be for the target's end of next turn? Or just the bard's? You sorta lose out if its only the bard's casting it on others.
Any feats coming out?Also, is improvisation supposed to be for the target's end of next turn? Or just the bard's? You sorta lose out if its only the bard's casting it on others.
Also, is improvisation supposed to be for the target's end of next turn? Or just the bard's? You sorta lose out if its only the bard's casting it on others.
Feats, items and the answer to your question and the like are in the pdf I just made. It contains the tweaks for the Bard that I worked on the past couple days and is more up to date than the forum posting. Here is the link. http://www.badongo.com/file/9985993
But to answer your question, the improvisation power works for whoever the target is, even if the bard targets himself. And it lasts until the end of the Bard's next turn.
Considering it also is a minor action to activate, having one round of an instant boost in addition to any other attack or buff you wish to give your ally during that turn, it can be pretty potent.
If you are referring to inspire competence, it should also work until the end of the bard's next turn.
Feats, items and the answer to your question and the like are in the pdf I just made. It contains the tweaks for the Bard that I worked on the past couple days and is more up to date than the forum posting. Here is the link. http://www.badongo.com/fi
The target only benefits 1 rd with the text, and a bard would benefit 2 rds. I guess I was wondering if this was intentional or not. Until end of bard's next turn means it'll only last 1 round for a target or ally, when self-cast it lasts 2.
Basically if the combat list looked like...Enemy's init 14Target init 12Bard init 10The target only benefits 1 rd with the text, and a bard would benefit 2 rds. I guess I was wondering if this was intentional or not. Until end of bard's next turn m
The target only benefits 1 rd with the text, and a bard would benefit 2 rds. I guess I was wondering if this was intentional or not. Until end of bard's next turn means it'll only last 1 round for a target or ally, when self-cast it lasts 2.
Ahh, I see what you mean. The effect should only be one turn, thus until the start of the bard's next turn. It was unintentional for the bard to benefit two rounds instead of just one. Thanks for pointing it out.
Huzzah for errata!!
Ahh, I see what you mean. The effect should only be one turn, thus until the start of the bard's next turn. It was unintentional for the bard to benefit two rounds instead of just one. Thanks for pointing it out.Huzzah for errata!!
If it's not too much trouble, or too inappropriate, would you link your druid class thread to this thread so that I can get it through my Thread Subscription? I don't get into the forums very often, and I don't want to risk missing it.
Haven't really looked at all the Powers, but, so far, I like it very much. However, I have a few suggestions:
1) Skills list. Even a Bard shouldn't be so versatile. I'd suggest the following Skills as Bard Skills, based on 3.5's list of Bard Class Skills: Acrobatics, Arcana, Athletics, Bluff, Diplomacy, History, Insight, Nature, Perception, Stealth, Streetwise, Thievery. He would start with Diplomacy and History as Trained Skills and would be able to choose three others.
2) I think both Improvised Jab's power bonus and Inhibiting Song's penalty should be a flat +2/-2, respectively, to bring it more in line with similar At-Will Powers in the book.
Haven't really looked at all the Powers, but, so far, I like it very much. However, I have a few suggestions:1) Skills list. Even a Bard shouldn't be so versatile. I'd suggest the following Skills as Bard Skills, based on 3.5's list of Bard Class Ski
Haven't really looked at all the Powers, but, so far, I like it very much. However, I have a few suggestions:
1) Skills list. Even a Bard shouldn't be so versatile. I'd suggest the following Skills as Bard Skills, based on 3.5's list of Bard Class Skills: Acrobatics, Arcana, Athletics, Bluff, Diplomacy, History, Insight, Nature, Perception, Stealth, Streetwise, Thievery. He would start with Diplomacy and History as Trained Skills and would be able to choose three others.
This is the bard's skill list in 3rd edition. Class Skills The bard’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Appraise (Int), Balance (Dex), Bluff (Cha), Climb (Str), Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Decipher Script (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Disguise (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Gather Information (Cha), Hide (Dex), Jump (Str), Knowledge (all skills, taken individually) (Int), Listen (Wis), Move Silently (Dex), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Speak Language (None), Spellcraft (Int), Swim (Str), Tumble (Dex), and Use Magic Device (Cha).
I think its safe to say they get pretty much everything. However, Intimidate and heal probably should be removed. Since a bard had access to all knowledges, it would be a crime to not allow him to have access to dungeoneering and religion. As for history as a trained skill, many others have also pointed this out and it will be changed in lieu of arcana.
Thorvald_Grimbjorn wrote:
2) I think both Improvised Jab's power bonus and Inhibiting Song's penalty should be a flat +2/-2, respectively, to bring it more in line with similar At-Will Powers in the book.
See the cleric's Righteous Brand. it is the exact same other than the fact that this one can aid an ally's ranged attack and thus does not last until the end of the bard's next turn.
Inhibiting song should have a duration, and I've just changed it to "next attack." A flat -2 seems appropriate for this power.
This is the bard's skill list in 3rd edition.Class SkillsThe bard’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Appraise (Int), Balance (Dex), Bluff (Cha), Climb (Str), Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Decipher Script (Int), Diplomac
I agree that Heal, Endurance, and Intimidate should not be class skills.
Maybe the Jack-of-all-Trades feat should be part of the bard's class features somehow. Then you could trim down the list of trainable skills, and still give the proper "feel" to the class.
I agree that Heal, Endurance, and Intimidate should not be class skills. Maybe the Jack-of-all-Trades feat should be part of the bard's class features somehow. Then you could trim down the list of trainable skills, and still give the proper "feel"
This is the bard's skill list in 3rd edition.(...) I think its safe to say they get pretty much everything. However, Intimidate and heal probably should be removed.
So, basically, you agree with what I said, except for Dungeoneering and Religion.
Since a bard had access to all knowledges, it would be a crime to not allow him to have access to dungeoneering and religion.
I thought that as well at first, but, really, what kind of Bard would have either Dungeoneering or Religion? Neither Skill is thematically appropriate for minstrels/bards/skalds/jongleurs/etc., and I doubt too many Bards had Knowledge (Dungeoneering) or Knowledge (Religion) in 3rd Edition.
As for history as a trained skill, many others have also pointed this out and it will be changed in lieu of arcana.
Actually, I think you should change Streetwise to Diplomacy as an automatically Trained Skill, since all Bard archetypes use Diplomacy, but not all use Streetwise.
So, basically, you agree with what I said, except for Dungeoneering and Religion. ;) I thought that as well at first, but, really, what kind of Bard would have either Dungeoneering or Religion? Neither Skill is thematically appropriate for minstrels/
So, basically, you agree with what I said, except for Dungeoneering and Religion.
I thought that as well at first, but, really, what kind of Bard would have either Dungeoneering or Religion? Neither Skill is thematically appropriate for minstrels/bards/skalds/jongleurs/etc., and I doubt too many Bards had Knowledge (Dungeoneering) or Knowledge (Religion) in 3rd Edition.
Actually, I think you should change Streetwise to Diplomacy as an automatically Trained Skill, since all Bard archetypes use Diplomacy, but not all use Streetwise.
Basically. If i'm a bard who likes to collect stories, it usually covers all aspects of knowledge, including caves, dungeons and even religious rites. A bard who knew stories and tales/monsters of the underdark or the fabled "tomb of horrors". It is very appropriate for them to have it.
It also could apply as a racial theme too, a dwarven bard could be well versed in the hills/caverns.Or say I was a bard who stopped at a a couple monasteries on my travels.
The main theme of a bard to me is meeting people and knowing what was going on in a town. Streetwise covers that very well. If you were a simple juggler you probably weren't well versed in royal etiquette, but you knew where the best place to put on a show was. Rumor gathering is how the bard sometimes gathers information and some of his stories. Thus, History and Streetwise coincide towards this goal better than diplomacy in my opinion.
As an observation, I believe streetwise should be a subset of the diplomacy skill, but thats just me. Considering how it almost seems to be the same thing.
Basically. :) If i'm a bard who likes to collect stories, it usually covers all aspects of knowledge, including caves, dungeons and even religious rites. A bard who knew stories and tales/monsters of the underdark or the fabled "tomb of horrors". It
Hmm... while bards don't get Heal in 3.5, in 4e bards (by this post) are leaders. I don't think that having heal as a skill is essential to the bard concept, but I don't think that not having heal as a skill is essential to the bard concept either (I can imagine bards having heal in 3.5 and no one would have minded), and if they're going to be a group's main healer, as per their "leader" role, then giving them access to the skill trained without needing to spend a feat would be nice, since they could then do rituals like raising the dead and such.
Hmm... while bards don't get Heal in 3.5, in 4e bards (by this post) are leaders. I don't think that having heal as a skill is essential to the bard concept, but I don't think that not having heal as a skill is essential to the bard concept either (I
Congratulations on making the EN World front page! Just a note: by posting to this board, you gave this wonderful build to WotC. I actually hope that they do, you created a wonderful build which I hope to use soon either as a DM or as a player.
Congratulations on making the EN World front page! Just a note: by posting to this board, you gave this wonderful build to WotC. I actually hope that they do, you created a wonderful build which I hope to use soon either as a DM or as a player.
This will be getting playtested in my group this coming weekend. One of my players complained since we've switched over to 4th, "I haven't been a bard for two whole weeks, man. I feel like I'm getting stupider". Thanks for "smartening up" my player again.
Good Gaming Be well in all things, Rave
Really impressive.This will be getting playtested in my group this coming weekend. One of my players complained since we've switched over to 4th, "I haven't been a bard for two whole weeks, man. I feel like I'm getting stupider". Thanks for "smart
If i'm a bard who likes to collect stories, it usually covers all aspects of knowledge, including caves, dungeons and even religious rites. A bard who knew stories and tales/monsters of the underdark or the fabled "tomb of horrors". It is very appropriate for them to have it.
Hmmm, true, didn't think of it that way.
The main theme of a bard to me is meeting people and knowing what was going on in a town. Streetwise covers that very well. If you were a simple juggler you probably weren't well versed in royal etiquette, but you knew where the best place to put on a show was. Rumor gathering is how the bard sometimes gathers information and some of his stories. Thus, History and Streetwise coincide towards this goal better than diplomacy in my opinion.
Ah, but Diplomacy doesn't necessarily mean courtly etiquette, it may mean only that you know how to talk with people! It would also be a nod to what has always been a staple of the D&D Bard, the ability to influence (for the better) the reactions of the NPCs. Streetwise also bothers me a bit because I can come up with several types of Bards - Viking Skalds, or any Bard from a barbarian culture, and the old Meistersinger 2nd Edition kit, for example - for whom it would be inappropriate to have Streetwise.
Hmmm, true, didn't think of it that way.Ah, but Diplomacy doesn't necessarily mean courtly etiquette, it may mean only that you know how to talk with people! It would also be a nod to what has always been a staple of the D&D Bard, the ability to infl
I think Diplomacy should be the only automatically trained class skill. The other knowledge-type skills, whether they be of religion, arcana, dungeons, nature, the mean streets of the city, or whatever should be the player's choice based on the 'flavor' bard s/he is going for. Thus, I think those choices should be available for training.
I think Diplomacy should be the only automatically trained class skill. The other knowledge-type skills, whether they be of religion, arcana, dungeons, nature, the mean streets of the city, or whatever should be the player's choice based on the 'fla
I think Diplomacy should be the only automatically trained class skill. The other knowledge-type skills, whether they be of religion, arcana, dungeons, nature, the mean streets of the city, or whatever should be the player's choice based on the 'flavor' bard s/he is going for.
Yes, that makes perfect sense - an acrobat, a jongleur or something of the sort wouldn't really need to know History, for example. Thus, the Bard could start with either Bluff or Diplomacy as an automatic Trained Skill, and then choose 4 other Skills amongst his list of Class Skills.
Yes, that makes perfect sense - an acrobat, a jongleur or something of the sort wouldn't really need to know History, for example.Thus, the Bard could start with either Bluff or Diplomacy as an automatic Trained Skill, and then choose 4 other Skills
sweet crakers this is awsome. I only have one problem... why cant they choose Endurance as a skill? i think they should be able to for the purpose of long winded songs that require an endurance check ^^
sweet crakers this is awsome.I only have one problem...why cant they choose Endurance as a skill? i think they should be able to for the purpose of long winded songs that require an endurance check ^^
sweet crakers this is awsome. I only have one problem... why cant they choose Endurance as a skill? i think they should be able to for the purpose of long winded songs that require an endurance check ^^
While it may seem the Bard should get it for purposes of traveling and the sort, I don't see the bard as a really "tough" it out kind of class. Which is why currently only the 4 classes who do seem "tough" actually get it. Namely Paladin, Ranger, Warlord, Fighter.
While it may seem the Bard should get it for purposes of traveling and the sort, I don't see the bard as a really "tough" it out kind of class. Which is why currently only the 4 classes who do seem "tough" actually get it. Namely Paladin, Ranger, War
I love this bard :D just one question: the bardic music can sustain? u just mention the sustain in one utility power, in bardic music hability description you dont mentoin that.
Lingering Chorus - Bard Utility 10 Spectral voices continue to echo your song. Daily ✦ Arcane Free action Personal Effect: You do not need to sustain any of your Bardic Music for the rest of the encounter. In addition, the bonus or number of targets for your Bardic Music increases by 1 until the end of the encounter.
Bardic music Once per encounter you can play or sing a Bardic song, inspiring your allies to greater deeds, or confusing your opponents. Regardless of how many different uses you have for Bardic Song, you can use only one such ability per encounter. The special ability or power you invoke works just like your other powers. A starting bard can choose two of the following musical options;
Bardic Music: Countersong - Bard Feature You sing and play at your highest notes trying to mask the sounds of battle. Encounter ✦ Arcane, Implement Immediate Interrupt Close burst 10 Trigger:You or one of your allies is attacked by an effect with the thunder or charm keyword. Target: All allies within burst Effect: Against an effect with the thunder or charm keyword, the target gains resist 5. This effect lasts until the end of your next turn. In addition, if the triggering attack has a lingering effect, the target gets an immediate save to remove the effect. The bonus increases to resist 10 at 11th level, and 15 at 21st level.
Bardic Music: Inspire Courage - Bard Feature You quickly chant a song of bravery, and raise your allies’ morale for a few seconds. Encounter ✦ Arcane, Implement Standard Action Close burst 10 Target: All allies within burst Effect: Target gains a +1 power bonus to attack and damage rolls. In addition, if the target is affected by an effect based on fear it gets an immediate save to remove it. This effect lasts until the end of your next turn. The bonus increases to +2 at 11th level and +3 at 21st level.
Bardic Music: Fascinating Song - Bard Feature A strange but soothing melody erupts from you, enthralling your enemies in their steps. Encounter ✦ Arcane, Charm, Implement Standard Action Ranged 10 Target: One creature within range (2 creatures at 11th level, 3 creatures at 21st level) Attack: Charisma vs. Will. Hit: Target is restrained and can't take attacks against you until the end of your next turn (save ends). If you or your allies attack the target, this effect ends immediately.
Bardic Music: Inspire Competence - Bard Feature A mellow melody motivates your allies to try their best. Encounter ✦ Arcane, Implement Standard Action Close burst 10 Target: All allies within burst Effect: Your allies gain a +2 power bonus to their skill checks until the start of your next turn. The bonus increases to +3 at level 11, +4 at level 21, +5 at level 30.
I love this bard :D just one question: the bardic music can sustain? u just mention the sustain in one utility power, in bardic music hability description you dont mentoin that.
I love it, honestly I might allow my players to use this in my next campaign.
The only real thing I have against it is that the bard's ability to heal is right up there with a cleric's or warlord's (perhaps even better), a Bard is naturally a support class, so I don't think it should have such a strong ability to heal. Instead of a large pool of healing abilities I think having the bard to make the decision to utilize some of his feats on the healing type to improve his healing abilities would work better for game balance.
But once again, outstanding job, overall it feels just like the core 4E classes.
EDIT: After a quick look at the Cleric class, I noticed that Clerics get a lot more healing abilities then I thought. So perhaps the problem wouldn't be as bad as I thought. Maybe it was just me... hmmm. I think that maybe reducing the bonus healing die size on healing hymn from d6 to d4 would perhaps be enough. Anyone else have a thought about the healing capabilities?
P.S./EDIT2: I also agree with the above guys that the bard shouldn't be able to train every skill but endurance and making diplomacy a class skill instead of streetwise. For intimidate, I was thinking "What about Orc bards?"... Does an Orc aim to be diplomatic (in most cases)... of course not. So I think what should be done is this.
Remove streetwise as a class skill, make it trainable instead. Make diplomacy a default trained skill, give some races (particularly the monster-like races and Dragonborn) the ability to choose intimidate as a initially trained class skill instead of diplomacy if they want, and allow the other to be trainable. As for the other races which are naturally diplomatic, either keep intimidate as a trainable or disallow it as a class skill. (EDIT 5: Ok I didn't realize that Bard's never had intimidate in 3.5/3.0, I was thinking along the lines of like a War Bard (A Leader) being very intimidating because he had a huge army of fierce monsters and a very high skill in intimidate to go along with it. MAYBE making that into a Paragon path which gives you intimidate as a trained skill? Just a thought)
P.S P.S/EDIT3: Still needs Bard specific feats (EDIT4: >< I skipped over the feats thinking they were encounter powers, they almost exactly alike at first glance lol. Explains why the only feat I saw was the Multiclass feat which had different color text. But yea there in there)
I love it, honestly I might allow my players to use this in my next campaign. The only real thing I have against it is that the bard's ability to heal is right up there with a cleric's or warlord's (perhaps even better), a Bard is naturally a support
I love this bard :D just one question: the bardic music can sustain? u just mention the sustain in one utility power, in bardic music hability description you dont mentoin that.
No, I had determined that a class feature that scaled with class level and could be sustained was overpowered compared to almost every other encounter power in the game. My original draft had it, but for the reasons aforementioned I changed it to the current one.
CoolEdgar wrote:
The only real thing I have against it is that the bard's ability to heal is right up there with a cleric's or warlord's (perhaps even better), a Bard is naturally a support class, so I don't think it should have such a strong ability to heal. Instead of a large pool of healing abilities I think having the bard to make the decision to utilize some of his feats on the healing type to improve his healing abilities would work better for game balance.
EDIT: After a quick look at the Cleric class, I noticed that Clerics get a lot more healing abilities then I thought. So perhaps the problem wouldn't be as bad as I thought. Maybe it was just me... hmmm. I think that maybe reducing the bonus healing die size on healing hymn from d6 to d4 would perhaps be enough. Anyone else have a thought about the healing capabilities?
No, the whole point of being a leader class is to be able to fill a role which is support/heal while having other interesting abilities to bring to the table. To take that away means you pretty much have to include a cleric/warlord in addition to the bard to make it a better rounded party. If you made it d4's why on earth would a bard be taken above a cleric.
P.S./EDIT2: I also agree with the above guys that the bard shouldn't be able to train every skill but endurance and making diplomacy a class skill instead of streetwise. For intimidate, I was thinking "What about Orc bards?"... Does an Orc aim to be diplomatic (in most cases)... of course not. So I think what should be done is this.
Remove streetwise as a class skill, make it trainable instead. Make diplomacy a default trained skill, give some races (particularly the monster-like races and Dragonborn) the ability to choose intimidate as a initially trained class skill instead of diplomacy if they want, and allow the other to be trainable. As for the other races which are naturally diplomatic, either keep intimidate as a trainable or disallow it as a class skill.
You didn't read the pdf. Below is the trained skills of the bard. And below it is the skill list of the bard in 3.5.
Trained Skills: Streetwise (Cha) and History (Int). Choose any three more trained skills at 1st level. Class Skills: Acrobatics (Dex), Arcana (Int), Athletics (Str), Bluff (Cha), Diplomacy (Cha), Dungeoneering (Wis), History (Int), Insight (Wis), Nature (Wis), Perception (Wis), Religion (Int), Stealth (Dex), Streetwise (Cha), Thievery (Cha).
Class Skills The bard’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Appraise (Int), Balance (Dex), Bluff (Cha), Climb (Str), Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Decipher Script (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Disguise (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Gather Information (Cha), Hide (Dex), Jump (Str), Knowledge (all skills, taken individually) (Int), Listen (Wis), Move Silently (Dex), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Speak Language (None), Spellcraft (Int), Swim (Str), Tumble (Dex), and Use Magic Device (Cha).
I'm going to make history the only trained skill. and allow the other 4 skills to be picked up by the player. If the bard wants diplomacy, he has to choose it from his list. History is one of the only clear-cut things that everyone agrees the bard should have as a baseline skill. As for intimidate being an option, I'll consider it.
But once again, outstanding job, overall it feels just like the core 4E classes.
I'm glad you liked it.
No, I had determined that a class feature that scaled with class level and could be sustained was overpowered compared to almost every other encounter power in the game. My original draft had it, but for the reasons aforementioned I changed it to the
The concept of a "Bard" as a "Leader" is good as you have it writen, but for me I see the "Bard" as a "Controler". That is s/he is able to enhance the skills and moral of the group the bard is running with. Also the Bard would be able to "Intice" and "Mezmerize" the opponents the group would come across in there travels. Also IMO Bard powers (those that use music in any form) should not be bound by the instrument the Bard uses, but be more open ended. A Bard can rally the party using two sticks just as easely as using a horn or a small harp.
The concept of a "Bard" as a "Leader" is good as you have it writen, but for me I see the "Bard" as a "Controler". That is s/he is able to enhance the skills and moral of the group the bard is running with. Also the Bard would be able to "Intice" and
The concept of a "Bard" as a "Leader" is good as you have it writen, but for me I see the "Bard" as a "Controler". That is s/he is able to enhance the skills and moral of the group the bard is running with. Also the Bard would be able to "Intice" and "Mezmerize" the opponents the group would come across in there travels.
Enhancing the abilities of the party is the purview of a Leader. A Controller is all about creating hazardous terrain, AoE damage, and impeding/moving the enemy around on the battlefield.
Also IMO Bard powers (those that use music in any form) should not be bound by the instrument the Bard uses, but be more open ended. A Bard can rally the party using two sticks just as easely as using a horn or a small harp.
Indeed, and that's how the class as written works. However, the Bard will do better with a +5 instrument than he would with two mundane sticks.
Enhancing the abilities of the party is the purview of a Leader. A Controller is all about creating hazardous terrain, AoE damage, and impeding/moving the enemy around on the battlefield.Indeed, and that's how the class as written works. However, t
The concept of a "Bard" as a "Leader" is good as you have it writen, but for me I see the "Bard" as a "Controler". That is s/he is able to enhance the skills and moral of the group the bard is running with. Also the Bard would be able to "Intice" and "Mezmerize" the opponents the group would come across in there travels. Also IMO Bard powers (those that use music in any form) should not be bound by the instrument the Bard uses, but be more open ended. A Bard can rally the party using two sticks just as easely as using a horn or a small harp.
You obviously didn't read the powers of the class or the new pdf. Despite being a leader, a good majority of the bard's powers involve controlling or damaging multiple opponents in some manner. Glitterdust, Grease, Sound Burst, Whirling Blade come to mind. Basically the bard as written does exactly what you say it "should" do.
The cleric also falls into this category of controller (leader) if you hadn't noticed.
Also in regard to bardic instruments, if you had read the second pdf it states as so.
"Implement Bards make use of instruments to help channel and direct their arcane powers. A bard holding or wearing a magic bardic instrument can add its enhancement bonus to the attack rolls and the damage rolls of bard powers, as well as bard paragon path powers that have the implement keyword. Without a bardic instrument, a bard can still use these powers but he or she doesn’t gain the bonus provided by the magic implement.
Depending on the bard’s choice of entertainment or focus, a bardic instrument can range from a musical instrument, storybook to a juggling pin. A typical Bardic instrument costs and functions exactly like a holy symbol. "
Since the bard's implement works just like a holy symbol, it just needs to be held or worn. Just because it says "instrument" does not mean it has to be a musical instrument.
You obviously didn't read the powers of the class or the new pdf. Despite being a leader, a good majority of the bard's powers involve controlling or damaging multiple opponents in some manner. Glitterdust, Grease, Sound Burst, Whirling Blade come to
Shadowdancer Path Features Hide in Plain Sight (11th level): When you use an action point to hide, you don’t have to have cover or concealment to make a stealth check. This effect lasts until the end of your next turn.
Does it actually take an action to make a stealth check? I just thought it was part of some other action, like a move action to get behind cover or such. Might it make more sense to just say "When you spend an action point, you gain concealment until the end of your next turn." That way it is also more in line with most other path effects that are "when you spend an AP, you get + to attack, bonus to damage, an extra move action, etc." This way you are free to get easy stealth, and a boost to defenses.
Saric wrote:
Shadow Illusion - Shadowdancer Attack 11 You create a shadow duplicate that stands right next to you after striking. Encounter ✦ Arcane, Illusion Standard Action Melee weapon Target: One Creature Attack: Dexterity vs. AC Hit: 3 [w] + Dexterity modifier. Effect: You create a duplicate of yourself that stands in your square. Until the start of your next turn, all attacks have a 50% of hitting you. Creatures with special senses such as truesight, tremorsense or blindsight are immune to this effect.
So you make an attack, and then also make a duplicate of yourself? But if there's no one adjacent to you, you can't use this? It seems like it would make more sense to just use the effect as a utility power with a minor action. For an encounter power, maybe something along the lines of the anime-style attack of "I throw a dagger at your shadow (vs reflex) and you are immobilized (save ends)." Or if you want to stay similiar to this power (and keep the 12 utility free for a teleport) then maybe more along the lines of "I throw shadow in the target's eyes for damage, and if I hit it also sees multiple of me (until next turn, or until save)."
Saric wrote:
Summon Shadow - Shadowdancer Attack 20 You harness the power of the shadowfell and summon a companion to aid you. Daily ✦ Arcane, Conjuration, Implement Standard Action Ranged 10 Target: One creature adjacent to the shadow Attack: Dexterity vs. AC Hit: 4d8+Dexterity modifier damage Effect: You conjure a shadow that occupies 1 square within range. The creature follows your orders and takes its turn at the start of your turn. It can move up to 5 squares and attack once per round. The shadow lasts until the end of the encounter.
The way this is written, it sounds like you attack someone, then a shadow appears. However, I take it to mean that the attack/hit section is to describe the shadow's attacks. And then since it doesn't say otherwise, the shadow gains your dexterity? It would probably be better to phrase this along the line of the wizard power Bigby's Grasping Hands (PHB 164)
So basically you summon a shadow under your control that can move and attack for 4d8+dex once per round for the whole encounter. And requires no concentration from you to maintain. This is waaay overpowered.
It should, at the least, either require a Sustain Standard to maintain it, or else a Sustain Minor and to move it require a move action from you. Alternately, you could instead say that you become a shadow yourself -gaining a basic attack that does 4d8+dex damage, and the insubstantial and possibly phasing qualties. Otherwise, this means that once per day you can essentially become two characters.
Of course, we don't really have any "official" summon-type spells to base it off of, so who knows, summons could end up like this, but it seems to be much more powerful than the other lv20 paragon path dailys...
In regards to the Shadowdancer paragon path...Does it actually take an action to make a stealth check? I just thought it was part of some other action, like a move action to get behind cover or such. Might it make more sense to just say "When you s
Does it actually take an action to make a stealth check? I just thought it was part of some other action, like a move action to get behind cover or such. Might it make more sense to just say "When you spend an action point, you gain concealment until the end of your next turn." That way it is also more in line with most other path effects that are "when you spend an AP, you get + to attack, bonus to damage, an extra move action, etc." This way you are free to get easy stealth, and a boost to defenses.
First of all, stealth reads as so. "Stealth: Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily." Since an action point allows a move, minor or standard I think it actually covers all of them. Perhaps a reword of the shadowdancer's ability like "whenever you use an action point and wish to perform the action stealthily, you do not require cover or concealment."
Would just granting concealment be a tad bit more simpler? Yes and no. The intent is not to give characters a defense boost if they decide to hit and run, rather make sure that if they use the action point to be stealthy, that they will be able to do so in a clear field while being directly observed. I'll consider it.
So you make an attack, and then also make a duplicate of yourself? But if there's no one adjacent to you, you can't use this? It seems like it would make more sense to just use the effect as a utility power with a minor action. For an encounter power, maybe something along the lines of the anime-style attack of "I throw a dagger at your shadow (vs reflex) and you are immobilized (save ends)." Or if you want to stay similiar to this power (and keep the 12 utility free for a teleport) then maybe more along the lines of "I throw shadow in the target's eyes for damage, and if I hit it also sees multiple of me (until next turn, or until save)."
First of all if you didn't know, powers that have an "effect" clause occur regardless if an attack hits or not. Page 59 of the phb. Thus if you wanted to make it pop out even if no one was next to you then you could.
I rather like the idea of a duplicate springing out after you strike, confusing your opponent. Granted I should probably note that area effects should hit the bard and his duplicate.
The way this is written, it sounds like you attack someone, then a shadow appears. However, I take it to mean that the attack/hit section is to describe the shadow's attacks. And then since it doesn't say otherwise, the shadow gains your dexterity? It would probably be better to phrase this along the line of the wizard power Bigby's Grasping Hands (PHB 164)
So basically you summon a shadow under your control that can move and attack for 4d8+dex once per round for the whole encounter. And requires no concentration from you to maintain. This is waaay overpowered.
It should, at the least, either require a Sustain Standard to maintain it, or else a Sustain Minor and to move it require a move action from you. Alternately, you could instead say that you become a shadow yourself -gaining a basic attack that does 4d8+dex damage, and the insubstantial and possibly phasing qualties. Otherwise, this means that once per day you can essentially become two characters.
Of course, we don't really have any "official" summon-type spells to base it off of, so who knows, summons could end up like this, but it seems to be much more powerful than the other lv20 paragon path dailys...
Good example: lower level cleric power. Knights of glory cleric level 19 daily- minor action to attack, move to move. deals 3d10+wis mod on a hit. Average damage = 16.5 + stat mod + implement shadowdancer is 18 + stat mod + implement.
I'm going to lean with its perfectly fine in terms of damage. as for actions, it could be debatable. I'll check it out in playtesting. But considering some area sustains deal damage to multiple targets I'm pretty sure having 1 summon without actions attached to it isn't gamebreaking.
First of all, stealth reads as so."Stealth: Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily."Since an action point allows a move, minor or standard I think it actually covers all of them. Perhaps a reword of the shadowdancer's ability li
First of all, stealth reads as so. First of all if you didn't know, powers that have an "effect" clause occur regardless if an attack hits or not. Page 59 of the phb. Thus if you wanted to make it pop out even if no one was next to you then you could.
I rather like the idea of a duplicate springing out after you strike, confusing your opponent. Granted I should probably note that area effects should hit the bard and his duplicate.
Well, yeah, but the way I read it implies that you actually make an attack roll. But I can see your point as well. My real concern is that it is basically two things in one - an attack against a single target, and then an effect that "hits" everyone. Just seems jarring to me that way. But that's just my 2/100ths of a buck.
Saric wrote:
Good example: lower level cleric power. Knights of glory cleric level 19 daily- minor action to attack, move to move. deals 3d10+wis mod on a hit. Average damage = 16.5 + stat mod + implement shadowdancer is 18 + stat mod + implement.
But the Cleric's Knights require action on the part of the character to do anything, so you mostly conserve economy of actions. As an aside, isn't it kind of weird that to make the Knights attack, you use a minor action, but just to move them requires a move action? But I digress...
Saric wrote:
I'm pretty sure having 1 summon without actions attached to it isn't gamebreaking.
Quite true, but once you have one, then you have precedence for another. And even if that other is a wizard power, then you just multiclass and you can have two "free action" summons at once. Slippery slope and all that. I just oppose any power that effectively gives a character extra actions for an extended duration. Then again, when I consider how many rolls large area effects do sometimes entail, especially if successful hits also lead to multiple save-ends effects...
I think I may just have negative associations with summoning due to the 87 skeleton army of 3E necromancer party members...
Well, yeah, but the way I read it implies that you actually make an attack roll. But I can see your point as well. My real concern is that it is basically two things in one - an attack against a single target, and then an effect that "hits" everyon
Well, yeah, but the way I read it implies that you actually make an attack roll. But I can see your point as well. My real concern is that it is basically two things in one - an attack against a single target, and then an effect that "hits" everyone. Just seems jarring to me that way. But that's just my 2/100ths of a buck.
But the Cleric's Knights require action on the part of the character to do anything, so you mostly conserve economy of actions. As an aside, isn't it kind of weird that to make the Knights attack, you use a minor action, but just to move them requires a move action? But I digress...
Quite true, but once you have one, then you have precedence for another. And even if that other is a wizard power, then you just multiclass and you can have two "free action" summons at once. Slippery slope and all that. I just oppose any power that effectively gives a character extra actions for an extended duration. Then again, when I consider how many rolls large area effects do sometimes entail, especially if successful hits also lead to multiple save-ends effects...
I think I may just have negative associations with summoning due to the 87 skeleton army of 3E necromancer party members...
Actually in epic levels the number of skeletons could be infinite as long as you had bodies but thats another story...
I see what you're saying about a chain reaction, I'll run some play-testing on the shadow later tonight. I'll reword it to be more clear in the next update.
Actually in epic levels the number of skeletons could be infinite as long as you had bodies but thats another story... ;) I see what you're saying about a chain reaction, I'll run some play-testing on the shadow later tonight. I'll reword it to be mo
Oh man, I can't thank you enough. I'm switching my 3 year long 3.5 campaign to 4th and the party bard was my major problem!!! Many, many, many thanks from your brazilians folks here!
The only thing I've found so far:
Inhibiting Song - Bard Attack 1 You sing or play a strange verse, distracting your foe's attention from your allies. At Will ✦ Arcane, Thunder, Implement Standard Action Ranged 5 Target: One creature Attack: Charisma vs. Will Hit: Deal damage equal to your Charisma modifier, target takes a penalty to attack rolls equal to your Intelligence modifier.
The way it is written it seems quite unbalanced even if it was a daily. It becomes an attack debuff that lasts forever, without an ending specification.
Now, I'm not sure what would be better for balacing, since it is an at-will:
An one shot penalty:
Hit: Deal damage equal to your Charisma modifier, target takes a penalty to his next attack roll equal to your Intelligence modifier.
or
An one round penalty:
Hit: Deal damage equal to your Charisma modifier, target takes a penalty to attack rolls equal to your Intelligence modifier, this effect lasts untill the start of your next turn
Oh man, I can't thank you enough. I'm switching my 3 year long 3.5 campaign to 4th and the party bard was my major problem!!! Many, many, many thanks from your brazilians folks here!The only thing I've found so far:The way it is written it seems quit
Oh man, I can't thank you enough. I'm switching my 3 year long 3.5 campaign to 4th and the party bard was my major problem!!! Many, many, many thanks from your brazilians folks here!
The only thing I've found so far:
The way it is written it seems quite unbalanced even if it was a daily. It becomes an attack debuff that lasts forever, without an ending specification.
Now, I'm not sure what would be better for balacing, since it is an at-will:
An one shot penalty:
or
An one round penalty:
Since I've been rather busy/lazy recently I have not updated the thread. However, the pdf links at the beginning of the thread contain a good amount of changes.
For your convincence I'm quoting the pdf.
Inhibiting Song Bard Attack 1 You sing or play a strange verse, distracting your foe's attention from your allies. At Will ✦ Arcane, Thunder, Implement Standard Action Ranged 5 Target: One creature Attack: Charisma vs. Will Hit: 1d6 + Charisma modifier thunder damage. Target takes a -2 penalty on its next attack roll.
I'm glad you can get some use out of this class. send any more potential issues my way. I occasionally check the thread from time to time to put more errata in for the next release.
Since I've been rather busy/lazy recently I have not updated the thread. However, the pdf links at the beginning of the thread contain a good amount of changes. For your convincence I'm quoting the pdf. ;) Inhibiting Song Bar
Bardic Music: Inspire Courage Change the bonus type. Instead of giving a +1 power bonus to attack and damage, make it a +1 morale bonus. This would keep in theme with the Bard inspiring it's comrads, plus allow it to stack with any power bonus that another class may grant (and there are several).
For the Bardic Music powers, perhaps instead of having them end at the end of your next turn (as most of them seem to do) you can remove that with a Sustain: Minor. Again, this seems in flavor of how Bard's used to work, continuously singing songs in battle and continuing to grant benefits.
Not sure I like how you diverge from how powers increase. For example, Healing Hymn grows stronger at levels 6, 11, 16, 21 and 26. This isn't in unison with how abilities usually grow, just at each tier (11th and 21st levels). But that is just a minor nit pick and just a suggestion.
I think Inciting Strike At-Will might be too strong. Compare it to the Paladin's At-Will Bolstering Strike. They just get a flat Wis Mod for temporary Hit Points, not the bonus 1/2 level AND they can only apply it to themselves, whereas the Bard can pick himself or an ally. I think temp hit points are a strong thing in this edition (basically replaces DR from 3.5), and if you are going to have an At-Will power that grants temp HP, you shouldn't make it too good. I would suggest removing the +1/2 level.
Anyway, great job over all!!!
Very nice work...I'll throw a couple suggestions at you as well...Bardic Music: Inspire CourageChange the bonus type. Instead of giving a +1 power bonus to attack and damage, make it a +1 morale bonus. This would keep in theme with the Bard inspiri
Bardic Music: Inspire Courage Change the bonus type. Instead of giving a +1 power bonus to attack and damage, make it a +1 morale bonus. This would keep in theme with the Bard inspiring it's comrads, plus allow it to stack with any power bonus that another class may grant (and there are several).
Read page 275 for power bonus: "A power bonus derives from a power or a class feature."
The whole point of 4th edition is to not have 30 different bonuses stacking like in 3.0-3.5. No morale, circumstance, insight, luck, sacred, profane, deflection, natural armor, resistance bonuses.
For the Bardic Music powers, perhaps instead of having them end at the end of your next turn (as most of them seem to do) you can remove that with a Sustain: Minor. Again, this seems in flavor of how Bard's used to work, continuously singing songs in battle and continuing to grant benefits.
Because 4th edition encounter powers are not supposed to be sustained. I dare you to look in the book and see how many low level "encounter" powers that can be sustained.
Astral shield is a cleric one but its level 16 power.
And lets put it into perspective. a stackable +1 to +3 bonus is a 5%-15% more chance to hit. Why wouldn't a bard not use this every fight and why would anyone be a cleric/warlord when this is clearly better than their class features?
Not sure I like how you diverge from how powers increase. For example, Healing Hymn grows stronger at levels 6, 11, 16, 21 and 26. This isn't in unison with how abilities usually grow, just at each tier (11th and 21st levels). But that is just a minor nit pick and just a suggestion.
Not to seem like attacking you, but have you even read the warlord and cleric "healing" abilities? They both are identical and since the bard is a leader I made it follow along the same lines, otherwise the bard wouldn't be able to keep up with the others.
I think Inciting Strike At-Will might be too strong. Compare it to the Paladin's At-Will Bolstering Strike. They just get a flat Wis Mod for temporary Hit Points, not the bonus 1/2 level AND they can only apply it to themselves, whereas the Bard can pick himself or an ally. I think temp hit points are a strong thing in this edition (basically replaces DR from 3.5), and if you are going to have an At-Will power that grants temp HP, you shouldn't make it too good. I would suggest removing the +1/2 level.
Err, first of all the bard is a leader not a defender. Comparing two different class roles doesn't accomplish that much. 2nd of all, if you hadn't noticed the bard can only pick an ally. You must have misread it since I double checked the pdfs, and the thread which really hasn't been updated that much.
Inciting Strike - Bard Attack 1 By striking in a skilled fashion, your allies are inspired to fight longer. At Will ✦ Arcane, Weapon Standard Action Melee weapon Target: One creature Attack: Dexterity vs. AC Hit: 1[w]+Dexterity modifier damage,and one ally you can see gains temporary hit points equal to your Intelligence modifier + one-half your level. Increase damage to 2[w]+ Dexterity modifier at 21st level.
Lastly, the cleric power "sacred flame" does the same thing as a ranged attack and gives the ally the option of temporary hit points = cha mod + 1/2 level or to make a saving throw.
With all due respect, you should do a little more research of comparable classes before calling overpowered.
Read page 275 for power bonus:"A power bonus derives from a power or a class feature."The whole point of 4th edition is to not have 30 different bonuses stacking like in 3.0-3.5. No morale, circumstance, insight, luck, sacred, profane, deflection, na
I'm looking it over, and I like it! But I'm sure giving the ability to make a saving throw with an at will power is too much. Other classes/races get this ability as an encounter based utility ability, or as part of an encounter ability or daily ability. or when an action point is used. I can't recall any other way to get the ability more frequently. At Will seems like too often.
But all in all, a great job.
I'm looking it over, and I like it! But I'm sure giving the ability to make a saving throw with an at will power is too much. Other classes/races get this ability as an encounter based utility ability, or as part of an encounter ability or daily ab
I'm looking it over, and I like it! But I'm sure giving the ability to make a saving throw with an at will power is too much. Other classes/races get this ability as an encounter based utility ability, or as part of an encounter ability or daily ability. or when an action point is used. I can't recall any other way to get the ability more frequently. At Will seems like too often.
But all in all, a great job.
The cleric power sacred flame.. and yes its "at-will".
The cleric power sacred flame.. and yes its "at-will".
I'm going to make history the only trained skill. and allow the other 4 skills to be picked up by the player. If the bard wants diplomacy, he has to choose it from his list. History is one of the only clear-cut things that everyone agrees the bard should have as a baseline skill.
Actually, I still think Diplomacy is a better choice, since it fits all Bard archetypes, while History doesn't. I also have a few more suggestions:
- Fluff: Change Healing Hymn's name to Inspiring Performance and Fascinating Song to Fascinate. I'd also suggest renaming several Powers and rewriting the fluff accordingly, so that they are less based on "songs" and more on "performance"; I could help you with this part, if you want. Finally, I don't think there's a need to name the Bard's Powers "Spellsongs", just name them Spells. After all, if a Paladin strikes someone with a two-handed sword using a Prayer, why can't the Bard hit someone with a rapier or a song using a Spell?
- Bardic Knowledge: The bonus should probably increase to +4 at 11th level and +6 at 21st level.
- Bardic Music: To keep it more in line with the Cleric's Channel Divinity feature, I think the list of Bardic Music powers should be trimmed down to only two: Inspire Courage and Fascinate. Countersong is too situational to be useful as a class feature, and Inspire Competence... Really, even back in 3rd Edition it made no sense - how can a Bard inspire his Rogue companion to pick locks better? Or to move more silently? Really, no wonder Rich Burlew's "Order of the Stick" makes so much fun of this class feature. Countersong could still be learned as a Feat.
- Bardic Music Feats: You're giving too many Encounter Powers to the Bard; a Cleric can only choose one Channel Divinity Feat. I'd suggest making all Bardic Music Feats Heroic Tier for now, and only allowing a Bard to learn one.
- Inspire Courage: Since you're not making an attack with it, there's no need for the Implement keyword.
- Improvised Jab: I'd suggest having the attack bonus be based on Intelligence, not Dexterity. While Righteous Jab has Strength as both its attack attribute and its "effect" attribute, the fact that Improvised Jab helps both melee and ranged attacks makes it much more useful than Righteous Jab.
Actually, I still think Diplomacy is a better choice, since it fits all Bard archetypes, while History doesn't.I also have a few more suggestions:- Fluff: Change Healing Hymn's name to Inspiring Performance and Fascinating Song to Fascinate. I'd also
"A bard was one of a caste of poets and scholars of medieval and early modern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall.
Bards (who are not the same as the 'Filidh' or 'Fili') were those who sang the songs recalling the tribal warriors' deeds of bravery as well as the genealogies and family histories of the ruling strata among Celtic societies. The pre-Christian Celtic peoples recorded no written histories; however, Celtic peoples did maintain an intricate oral history committed to memory and transmitted by bards and filid. Bards facilitated the memorization of such materials by the use of poetic meter and rhyme.
As officials of the court of king or chieftain, they performed a number of official roles. They were chroniclers and satirists whose job it was to praise their employers and damn those who crossed them. It was believed that a well-aimed bardic satire, glam dicenn, could raise boils on the face of its target."
Sounds like history to me. If a bard wants to be diplomatic he or she can pick it themselves. If you wish to change it for your game, I encourage you to do so. However, due to the above mentioned, History will stay as the primary skill.
- Fluff: Change Healing Hymn's name to Inspiring Performance and Fascinating Song to Fascinate. I'd also suggest renaming several Powers and rewriting the fluff accordingly, so that they are less based on "songs" and more on "performance"; I could help you with this part, if you want. Finally, I don't think there's a need to name the Bard's Powers "Spellsongs", just name them Spells. After all, if a Paladin strikes someone with a two-handed sword using a Prayer, why can't the Bard hit someone with a rapier or a song using a Spell?
I just wanted to make it sound different. Strictly speaking, the difference between spell-song and spell is the word "song" and makes no in-game impact. I'd suppose for consistency with the rest of the power sources to name it spells only.
- Bardic Knowledge: The bonus should probably increase to +4 at 11th level and +6 at 21st level.
Im unsure that a +30% to all knowledge skills sounds like a fair idea. If anything, possibly a +1,+2,+3 ratio or +2, +3, +4.
The bard should indeed get a leg up on other classes with knowledge but not so big.
- Bardic Music: To keep it more in line with the Cleric's Channel Divinity feature, I think the list of Bardic Music powers should be trimmed down to only two: Inspire Courage and Fascinate. Countersong is too situational to be useful as a class feature, and Inspire Competence... Really, even back in 3rd Edition it made no sense - how can a Bard inspire his Rogue companion to pick locks better? Or to move more silently? Really, no wonder Rich Burlew's "Order of the Stick" makes so much fun of this class feature. Countersong could still be learned as a Feat.
Turn undead then seems too situational too wouldn't you agree? Thats the point, turn undead is great should the situation arise. Countersong is great should said situation arise. It might need a few more tweaks but thats the design of it.
Inspire Competence is just an ability that the bard can use to help his comrades in skill challenges or aid them at a distance. And since there are no rules for verbal components for spells, Inspire competence could be just a pat on the back, a whisper, a glance, a thumbs up, a nod of recognition etc.
With that in mind I believe the rogue could indeed pick locks better or move silently better since he knows he has backup.
- Bardic Music Feats: You're giving too many Encounter Powers to the Bard; a Cleric can only choose one Channel Divinity Feat. I'd suggest making all Bardic Music Feats Heroic Tier for now, and only allowing a Bard to learn one.
Thats because the clerics and paladins in my games have some of the divine feats from 3.5 converted to "channel divinity" feats available. The game must expand, and a lot of the old material is still good enough to use with a little tinkering.
If a bard really wanted to pick up more powers with his feat selection instead of other feats why shouldn't he be able to?
Also bear in mind that it wouldn't matter that if a bard had 900 bardic songs because they can only use 1/encounter. or 2 with a feat. (Which I'm pretty sure will also be instituted in some fashion for channel divinity.)
Now what I will concede is that maybe the 2/encounter feat might need to be moved up a tier perhaps. I still have to do a little more play-testing on it.
- Inspire Courage: Since you're not making an attack with it, there's no need for the Implement keyword.
Noted. Will change in the next update.
Improvised Jab: I'd suggest having the attack bonus be based on Intelligence, not Dexterity. While Righteous Jab has Strength as both its attack attribute and its "effect" attribute, the fact that Improvised Jab helps both melee and ranged attacks makes it much more useful than Righteous Jab.
The cleric's power is called "righteous brand" not jab. :P
Actually that was the balancing factor. Improvised jab is supposed to be more useful theoretically. However, you must also realize that righteous brand works on all melee attack rolls and damage until the end of the cleric's next turn. Improvised jab only works on the next attack.
Which means if someone used an action point and had a way to strike an opponent more than once with a power like say the ranger's twin strike, thats potentially three attacks not including an opportunity attack or a fighter's combat challenge. Also bear in mind that the bard has to be in melee range to use the power which means it technically should be better than lance of faith since it can't be used from 5 squares away.
So i'd say with all these things in mind, improvised jab is pretty fair.
Quoted from the bard definition from wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bard"A bard was one of a caste of poets and scholars of medieval and early modern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall.Bards (who are not the same as the 'Filidh' or 'Fili')
Quoted from the bard definition from wikipedia(...)
True, going by a strict definition, all bards should have History. However, if we go by a strict definition, Druids should be radically different from what they are. The D&D Bard isn't, and never has been, a Celtic bard, he's an amalgam of several archetypes - including jongleurs, jesters and others. Which is why I believe Diplomacy fits all Bard archetypes, while History doesn't.
Im unsure that a +30% to all knowledge skills sounds like a fair idea. If anything, possibly a +1,+2,+3 ratio or +2, +3, +4.
+2, +3 and +4 sounds about right. The point is, it should scale up with tier, since the DC for Knowledge checks also does.
Turn undead then seems too situational too wouldn't you agree?
Facing undead is much less situational than facing Powers with the Charm or Thunder keyword, wouldn't you agree?
Thats because the clerics and paladins in my games have some of the divine feats from 3.5 converted to "channel divinity" feats available. The game must expand, and a lot of the old material is still good enough to use with a little tinkering.
While that is true - and I have no doubt we will be seeing more Channel Divinity Feats in future sourcebooks -, then your work loses some of its appeal to others who prefer their homebrews to stick as close as possible to the official rules.
The cleric's power is called "righteous brand" not jab. :P
Right, my bad. Since you haven't answered my suggestions about "re-fluffing" the class, I assume you feel that's not necessary.
True, going by a strict definition, all bards should have History. However, if we go by a strict definition, Druids should be radically different from what they are. :)The D&D Bard isn't, and never has been, a Celtic bard, he's an amalgam of several
+2, +3 and +4 sounds about right. The point is, it should scale up with tier, since the DC for Knowledge checks also does.
I'll run the math on the dc's and skill challenges later. I'll post later what I come up with.
Facing undead is much less situational than facing Powers with the Charm or Thunder keyword, wouldn't you agree?
A lot of creatures have powers with the charm keyword. Aboleth's, Beholders, Bone Devil, Succubus, Green Dragons, ghosts, Mind Flayers, Some Nagas, Vampires. However not many have lingering effects...
But I see what you're saying, I'll probably change the power to help defenses against attacks with those keywords rather than as use as written.
Since you haven't answered my suggestions about "re-fluffing" the class, I assume you feel that's not necessary.
Put simply, yes the re-fluffing would make the bard more generic for other archetypes. Do I want to do it right now? no I'm kinda working on some other project + studying.
I also don't believe its superbly detrimental to the class right now that its more geared towards the singing aspect.
Maybe its just because its 1:30 in the morning that I can't make up my mind. Hmm I wonder...
I'll run the math on the dc's and skill challenges later. I'll post later what I come up with.A lot of creatures have powers with the charm keyword. Aboleth's, Beholders, Bone Devil, Succubus, Green Dragons, ghosts, Mind Flayers, Some Nagas, Vampires
Put simply, yes the re-fluffing would make the bard more generic for other archetypes. Do I want to do it right now? no I'm kinda working on some other project + studying.
I also don't believe its superbly detrimental to the class right now that its more geared towards the singing aspect.
Maybe its just because its 1:30 in the morning that I can't make up my mind. Hmm I wonder...
Hey, you know what, Saric? I've changed my mind, I agree with you: it's better to leave the Bard focused on music and lore! Those who prefer to play a jongleur, an acrobat and other, non-musical types of Bards can still play a Rogue, perhaps multiclassed into Bard. That said, here's a new suggestion: let the Bard have both Diplomacy and History as automatic trained Skills, plus a choice of four others - or maybe three. However, I still suggest trimming down both the Class Skills list and the Bardic Music options.
Hey, you know what, Saric? I've changed my mind, I agree with you: it's better to leave the Bard focused on music and lore! Those who prefer to play a jongleur, an acrobat and other, non-musical types of Bards can still play a Rogue, perhaps multicla
Hey, you know what, Saric? I've changed my mind, I agree with you: it's better to leave the Bard focused on music and lore! Those who prefer to play a jongleur, an acrobat and other, non-musical types of Bards can still play a Rogue, perhaps multiclassed into Bard. That said, here's a new suggestion: let the Bard have both Diplomacy and History as automatic trained Skills, plus a choice of four others - or maybe three. However, I still suggest trimming down both the Class Skills list and the Bardic Music options.
Yeah I'm probably going to move countersong and inspire competence to feat powers. The current skill list available seems pretty decent, except for the fact that maybe thievery and perception could be cut. However, bard's in 3.5 had listen and sleight of hand. As for thievery, it probably should stay because if a warlock gets it, why shouldn't a trickster bard be able to get it?
Perception has a 50-50 chance of getting dropped. But what kind of bard is one who can't pay attention to the finest and faint intricacies of prose and song?
Hmmm....
Yeah I'm probably going to move countersong and inspire competence to feat powers. The current skill list available seems pretty decent, except for the fact that maybe thievery and perception could be cut. However, bard's in 3.5 had listen and sleig
However, bard's in 3.5 had listen and sleight of hand. As for thievery, it probably should stay because if a warlock gets it, why shouldn't a trickster bard be able to get it? Perception has a 50-50 chance of getting dropped. But what kind of bard is one who can't pay attention to the finest and faint intricacies of prose and song?
I think you may be basing yourself too much on 3rd Edition. Sleight of Hand is only a small part of Thievery; ditto for Listen and Perception. Personally, however, I'd remove Athletics, Dungeoneering and Religion*.
*I know Bards should know about a lot of stuff, but that's basically what Bardic Knowledge is for. If the Bard also has Jack of All Trades, he would have a +4 bonus to all Dungeoneering and Religion checks - almost the same as being trained in the skills.
I think you may be basing yourself too much on 3rd Edition. Sleight of Hand is only a small part of Thievery; ditto for Listen and Perception.Personally, however, I'd remove Athletics, Dungeoneering and Religion*.*I know Bards should know about a lot
Again, many thanks for your bard class. I'm definatly using it on my campaings. But I've been doing some changes here and there mostly on fulfill my personal feelings about possible balance issues and fit better my campaing's bard.
So, I'd like to share one of the major changes I've done so far. It's the War Chanter Paragon Path, which is the paragon the bard of my campaign will be using in near future:
War Chanter Path Features
Inspire Recklessness (11th level): When you spend an action point to take an extra action, you and your allies may choose to gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls until the start of your next turn. Anyone choosing to take this attack bonus will also receive a -1 penalty to AC until the start of your next turn. Your allies need to be able to see and hear you to gain this bonus.
Singing Shout (11th level): On the first round of combat (or both the first and the surprise round if your allies gain a surprise round), allies who start their turn within 10 squares of you gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls.
War Chanter Music (16th level): You can use your Bardic music one extra time per encounter.
Inspire Awe [COLOR="LemonChiffon"] ____________ War Chanter Attack 11[/COLOR] You showcase your finest vision of the chaos of battle, placing dread in the hearts of your enemies. Encounter ✦ Arcane, Fear, Implement Standard Action ____________ Close burst 5 Target: All enemies within burst Attack: Charisma vs. Will Hit: The target is immobilized and grants combat advantage to you and your allies until the end of your next turn. Effect: The target takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls. (save ends)
Inspire Toughness [COLOR="LemonChiffon"] ____________ War Chanter Utility 12[/COLOR] Your song or poetics inspire a berserk resiliency on your allies. Encounter ✦ Arcane, Healing Immediate Reaction ____________ Close burst 15 Trigger: You target at least one ally with your Bardic Music. Target: Each ally affected by your Bardic Music in burst Effect: Each target gain temporary hit points equal to 5 + your Charisma modifier.
Inspire Legion [COLOR="LemonChiffon"] ____________ War Chanter Attack 20[/COLOR] You release a battle cry that unites your allies with the fervor of the ancient armies of the past. Daily ✦ Arcane, Implement, Thunder Standard Action ____________ Ranged 10 Target: One Creature Attack: Charisma vs. Fortitude Hit: 3d8 + Charisma modifier thunder damage and every ally within 10 squares of you can make a basic attack as a free action. Miss: One ally within 10 squares of you can make a basic attack as a free action. Effect: Until the end of the encounter, whenever you or an ally scores a critical hit, the attacker that scored the critical hit can choose an ally within10 squares of him. That ally can make a basic attack as a free action.
My main intention on doing these changes was to simplify things with complicated mechanics (powers used as part of charge) or things that I felt were not usual to 4th ed. mechanics (stat switching or enhancement; combination of encounter powers, etc)
Secondly, I've considered build concept... this was a path with one power based on Charisma and other power based on Dexterity. Not usual for paragon paths to be based on primary and thirdiary powers at the same time. The choice for Charisma I've made was to fulfill the needs of my own campign's bard that is a Musician. However making this a Dex based path would be ok and would not be dificult at all.
Finally, I benchmarked other classes and powers looking for similarities... for exemple Singing Shout description on 3.5 is quite similar to 4th ed. Battle Captain's Cry Havoc, so I've kept the power the same from Warlord's path.
The main difficult on converting was Inspire Legion since 4th ed. is very prohibitive on stat changes and enhancement of any kind. So I've sticked with a 4th ed. mechanic that represents fightning union on higher levels.
That is it! I'm all open to inputs, critics and/or suggestions.
Hi Saric,Again, many thanks for your bard class. I'm definatly using it on my campaings. But I've been doing some changes here and there mostly on fulfill my personal feelings about possible balance issues and fit better my campaing's bard.So, I'd li
My main intention on doing these changes was to simplify things with complicated mechanics (powers used as part of charge) or things that I felt were not usual to 4th ed. mechanics (stat switching or enhancement; combination of encounter powers, etc)
Indeed. It seems Saric is basing himself too much on 3.5, which, in my opinion, is bad, since 4th Edition's design principles are different.
Indeed. It seems Saric is basing himself too much on 3.5, which, in my opinion, is bad, since 4th Edition's design principles are different.
The Level 1 daily that does 3[w] and minor shifts is absolutely ludicrous as well.
I've been been moving through and basically cutting everything into pieces whenever I've had time, but since I haven't playtested it, I'm not sure entirely if what I'm doing is rational. Has anyone actually played this and had it NOT be overpowered?
The temporary hit point at-will is insane.The Level 1 daily that does 3[w] and minor shifts is absolutely ludicrous as well. I've been been moving through and basically cutting everything into pieces whenever I've had time, but since I haven't playte
The Level 1 daily that does 3[w] and minor shifts is absolutely ludicrous as well.
I've been been moving through and basically cutting everything into pieces whenever I've had time, but since I haven't playtested it, I'm not sure entirely if what I'm doing is rational. Has anyone actually played this and had it NOT be overpowered?
I believe i've countered that argument earlier at least twice in the thread. You should read it the rest of the thread before posting. However for your convenience here it is.
Saric wrote:
Inciting Strike - Bard Attack 1 By striking in a skilled fashion, your allies are inspired to fight longer. At Will ✦ Arcane, Weapon Standard Action Melee weapon Target: One creature Attack: Dexterity vs. AC Hit: 1[w]+Dexterity modifier damage,and one ally you can see gains temporary hit points equal to your Intelligence modifier + one-half your level. Increase damage to 2[w]+ Dexterity modifier at 21st level.
Lastly, the cleric power "sacred flame" does the same thing as a ranged attack and gives the ally the option of temporary hit points = cha mod + 1/2 level or to make a saving throw.
With all due respect, you should do a little more research of comparable classes before calling overpowered.
Also the pdf clearly states that the other power does 2[w] damage.
"Immediate Assistance Bard Attack 1 As your ally suffers at the hands of your foes, you leap into the fray to aid him. Daily ✦ Arcane, Weapon Immediate Reaction Melee weapon Trigger: An ally within 5 squares takes damage. Attack: You can shift up to 5 squares closer to your ally and make a Dexterity vs. AC attack against the creature that attacked your ally. You gain combat advantage against the target for purposes of this attack. Hit: 2[w] + Dexterity modifier damage. Effect: The ally that was damaged can spend a healing surge."
While I'll admit it seems a bit off the wall and it needs to be reworded and maybe a little tweaks would be good for it, I don't think this power breaks the game. I'll give it a look.
I believe i've countered that argument earlier at least twice in the thread. You should read it the rest of the thread before posting. However for your convenience here it is.Also the pdf clearly states that the other power does 2[w] damage."Immedi
"Accelerated Strike Bard Attack 1 You strike hard and fast, inciting your allies to follow your example. Daily ✦Arcane, Weapon Standard Action Melee weapon Target: One creature Attack: Dexterity vs. AC Hit: 3 [w] + Dexterity modifier. Effect: Until the end of the encounter, you and your allies within 5 squares can shift as a minor action."
How is it overpowered? The power to shift as a minor action is hardly gamebreaking.
Let's see White raven onslaught for the warlord, it allows any time an ally within 10 squares of you to make a successful attack to slide an adjacent ally 1 square. Which does not use an action nor does it count as movement. Oh and it also deals 3 [w] + mods.
Accelerated Strike can only be used on the ally's turn and takes up an action.
Seems pretty clear cut to me. Wow you can shift and run away, or shift two squares in a round like a kobold yippie.
"Accelerated Strike Bard Attack 1You strike hard and fast, inciting your allies to follow your example.Daily ✦Arcane, WeaponStandard Action Melee weaponTarget: One creatureAttack: Dexterity vs. ACHit: 3 [w] + Dexterity modifier.
Please keep your posts respectful of other members, even if they disagree with you.
I have removed content from this thread because of violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.phpPlease keep your posts respectful of other members, even if they disagree with y
What I had said, Saric, is that I wasn't trying to offend you or anything- but that I had looked over the class with my gaming group, and we all agreed that on paper, it certainly looked overpowered. You said to look at what other classes can do, but it seems to me like you've cherry-picked some of the best abilities of the other leaders, as well as some other classes, and in doing so have created a class that is, overall, way too powerful. I merely wondered if it had been extensively playtested otherwise...
My post was deleted because I used the term "BigD***", and was apparently a little hostile. It was late, I claim innocence.
:D
Bah, this is a strict forum. Haha, no big deal. What I had said, Saric, is that I wasn't trying to offend you or anything- but that I had looked over the class with my gaming group, and we all agreed that on paper, it certainly looked overpowered. Yo
What I had said, Saric, is that I wasn't trying to offend you or anything- but that I had looked over the class with my gaming group, and we all agreed that on paper, it certainly looked overpowered. You said to look at what other classes can do, but it seems to me like you've cherry-picked some of the best abilities of the other leaders, as well as some other classes, and in doing so have created a class that is, overall, way too powerful. I merely wondered if it had been extensively playtested otherwise...
My post was deleted because I used the term "BigD***", and was apparently a little hostile. It was late, I claim innocence.
:D
None taken, I just wish for actual comparisons when advocating balance issues for points of reference. Considering my gaming group is around level 9, I haven't seen any issues as of yet, however since its impossible to pick up every power/level, play-testing in an actual party environment is still not going to cover everything.
Overall, I think the class has a few dents here and there, but I believe it is viable alternate class. Just needs a little more polish.
None taken, I just wish for actual comparisons when advocating balance issues for points of reference. Considering my gaming group is around level 9, I haven't seen any issues as of yet, however since its impossible to pick up every power/level, play
My group's been using Saric's Bard since our 4th edition campaign's inception, two months ago. They're hitting 5th level now. Nobody ever thought the bard is overpower.
Well... in 3.5 the bard guy always thought his character was the weakest link. Now (he's playing the bard again) he's really happy with it. Well... maybe it's overpowered now :P
My group's been using Saric's Bard since our 4th edition campaign's inception, two months ago. They're hitting 5th level now. Nobody ever thought the bard is overpower.Well... in 3.5 the bard guy always thought his character was the weakest link. Now
My group's been using Saric's Bard since our 4th edition campaign's inception, two months ago. They're hitting 5th level now. Nobody ever thought the bard is overpower.
Well... in 3.5 the bard guy always thought his character was the weakest link. Now (he's playing the bard again) he's really happy with it. Well... maybe it's overpowered now :P
That's good news to hear, if you don't mind if any balance issues crop up drop a line here.
That's good news to hear, if you don't mind if any balance issues crop up drop a line here.
Well, I'm definetely going to check with my DM next game on this.
It's well written- assuming my qualms about the class are wrong, it should be just fine, and I've always been a Bard man. Until the offiicial supplement, this will be great.
Yippee!
Well, I'm definetely going to check with my DM next game on this. It's well written- assuming my qualms about the class are wrong, it should be just fine, and I've always been a Bard man. Until the offiicial supplement, this will be great.Yippee!
Thank you very much for this. Yes, I, go figure, was dissapointed to see the lack of bard classes (Wotc don't like bards in Magic, either) and was thinking what a task it wold be to make one. Again, thank you.
Suggestion: The voice. Bardic music for my charatcer has always been voice and never a musical instrument. There's the power of poem, soothing lullabye, or an actor's guile. While a bard is a worthwhile performer, there seems to be little room for this path.
Is there a chance to add an errata for "Vocalist?" While singing and "dancing" (swordplay, for example) is nice, bards can be powerful speakers. I would love to help and add to this, but this really is your project. I leave it to you.
Thank you very much for this. Yes, I, go figure, was dissapointed to see the lack of bard classes (Wotc don't like bards in Magic, either) and was thinking what a task it wold be to make one. Again, thank you.Suggestion: The voice. Bardic music for m
I was wondering about giving the bard the ability to wear chainmail armor, for several reasons:
In 4E, the warlord and the cleric can wear chainmail (and serve similar party roles)
Exalted Armor is designed to be used by clerics/warlords to improve on their healing abilities. Exalted Armor can only enchant chain mail.
Finally, in 3E the bard can use chainmail.
Please tell me your thoughts!
I was wondering about giving the bard the ability to wear chainmail armor, for several reasons:In 4E, the warlord and the cleric can wear chainmail (and serve similar party roles)Exalted Armor is designed to be used by clerics/warlords to improve on
I was wondering about giving the bard the ability to wear chainmail armor, for several reasons:
In 4E, the warlord and the cleric can wear chainmail (and serve similar party roles)
Exalted Armor is designed to be used by clerics/warlords to improve on their healing abilities. Exalted Armor can only enchant chain mail.
Finally, in 3E the bard can use chainmail.
Please tell me your thoughts!
On the topic of heavy armor I have two thoughts...
Bards focusing on Dex or Int aren't likely to need or use the heavy armor.
But I do think that bards should have comparable armor and weapon proficiencies as the other leader classes, and if they don't, that should be a balacing factor.
Saric, was the missing armor proficiency a concious choice and balancing factor?
Simply saying they aren't likely to use it isn't a balancing factor, and there's no reason to close off particular builds unless it is in order to balance the class against some other option.
For instance a spell focused bard with a high charisma and only an average intelligence might like chain as an option, but a Dex focused combat bard is likely better off with Hide and Dex unless then can afford the feats to pickup Scale or Plate.
On the topic of heavy armor I have two thoughts...Bards focusing on Dex or Int aren't likely to need or use the heavy armor.But I do think that bards should have comparable armor and weapon proficiencies as the other leader classes, and if they don't
Thank you very much for this. Yes, I, go figure, was dissapointed to see the lack of bard classes (Wotc don't like bards in Magic, either) and was thinking what a task it wold be to make one. Again, thank you.
Suggestion: The voice. Bardic music for my charatcer has always been voice and never a musical instrument. There's the power of poem, soothing lullabye, or an actor's guile. While a bard is a worthwhile performer, there seems to be little room for this path.
Is there a chance to add an errata for "Vocalist?" While singing and "dancing" (swordplay, for example) is nice, bards can be powerful speakers. I would love to help and add to this, but this really is your project. I leave it to you.
I don't think that actually requires an errata, rather an update/addition.
This has been discussed quite a bit already but I'll give you a summary. The Musician suggested Bard build is considered to be just that, singing/playing an instrument.
There is nothing that assumes that this is the only way to describe how a bard's power work. If you really wanted to, you could describe your powers working after making a riveting speech/inspiration to empower your allies.
Remember, a bardic instrument does not neccecarily mean it has to be a musical instrument. A bardic instrument can be whatever the bard needs to do whatever he needs to do. If the bard is a juggler, he could have a magical juggling pin. If the bard is an orator, like you wish him to be, he could have maybe a small speech book wrapped around his neck like a necklace.
However, I would suppose a tree/build of powers solely dedicated to just talking/giving speeches could prove interesting. It would be kind of strange doing so in the middle of combat, but then again so is singing.
gregorypeck]I was wondering about giving the bard the ability to wear chainmail armor, for several reasons:
In 4E, the warlord and the cleric can wear chainmail (and serve similar party roles)
Exalted Armor is designed to be used by clerics/warlords to improve on their healing abilities. Exalted Armor can only enchant chain mail.
Finally, in 3E the bard can use chainmail.
Please tell me your thoughts!
A bard in 3rd edition was proficient with only light armor. It just so happened that in 3rd edition one of the most overpowered armors in the game was also considered to be light. Mithral Chain Shirt and or just plain old chain shirt. Despite being made of chainmail, it wasn't exactly as heavy as full "chainmail". Thats why I chose not to give them chainmail.
Quoted from the 3.5 srd " Bards are proficient with light armor and shields (except tower shields)"
The reason I didn't give them shields is beyond me...
Now in 2nd edition, a bard was proficient with chainmail, but not with shields.
Hmm. I'll have to reconsider this.
I was wondering about giving the bard the ability to wear chainmail armor, for several reasons:
In 4E, the warlord and the cleric can wear chainmail (and serve similar party roles)
Exalted Armor is designed to be used by clerics/warlords to improve on their healing abilities. Exalted Armor can only enchant chain mail.
Finally, in 3E the bard can use chainmail.
Please tell me your thoughts![/quote] A bard in 3rd edition was proficient with only light armor. It just so happened that in 3rd edition one of the most overpowered armors in the game was also considered to be light. Mithral Chain Shirt and or just plain old chain shirt. Despite being made of chainmail, it wasn't exactly as heavy as full "chainmail". Thats why I chose not to give them chainmail.
Quoted from the 3.5 srd " Bards are proficient with light armor and shields (except tower shields)"
The reason I didn't give them shields is beyond me...
Now in 2nd edition, a bard was proficient with chainmail, but not with shields.
Hmm. I'll have to reconsider this.
Arius]On the topic of heavy armor I have two thoughts...
Bards focusing on Dex or Int aren't likely to need or use the heavy armor.
But I do think that bards should have comparable armor and weapon proficiencies as the other leader classes, and if they don't, that should be a balacing factor.
Saric, was the missing armor proficiency a concious choice and balancing factor?
Simply saying they aren't likely to use it isn't a balancing factor, and there's no reason to close off particular builds unless it is in order to balance the class against some other option.
For instance a spell focused bard with a high charisma and only an average intelligence might like chain as an option, but a Dex focused combat bard is likely better off with Hide and Dex unless then can afford the feats to pickup Scale or Plate.
You are correct, since I assumed players would have a decent Int score to supplement their AC, I basically waived the notion of using chainmail.
As said earlier, I will strongly consider this, and post my tweak in my next update. Thanks a lot for the input. :D (Buff Bards!!!!!) wrote:
On the topic of heavy armor I have two thoughts...
Bards focusing on Dex or Int aren't likely to need or use the heavy armor.
But I do think that bards should have comparable armor and weapon proficiencies as the other leader classes, and if they don't, that should be a balacing factor.
Saric, was the missing armor proficiency a concious choice and balancing factor?
Simply saying they aren't likely to use it isn't a balancing factor, and there's no reason to close off particular builds unless it is in order to balance the class against some other option.
For instance a spell focused bard with a high charisma and only an average intelligence might like chain as an option, but a Dex focused combat bard is likely better off with Hide and Dex unless then can afford the feats to pickup Scale or Plate.[/quote] You are correct, since I assumed players would have a decent Int score to supplement their AC, I basically waived the notion of using chainmail.
As said earlier, I will strongly consider this, and post my tweak in my next update. Thanks a lot for the input. :D (Buff Bards!!!!!)
I don't think that actually requires an errata, rather an update/addition.This has been discussed quite a bit already but I'll give you a summary. The Musician suggested Bard build is considered to be just that, singing/playing an instrument.There is
You are correct, since I assumed players would have a decent Int score to supplement their AC, I basically waived the notion of using chainmail.
Since both builds have either DEX or INT as their primary/secondary attribute, I don't think it's a problem if he doesn't have chainmail proficiency. I would suggest adding light shield proficiency, however.
Since both builds have either DEX or INT as their primary/secondary attribute, I don't think it's a problem if he doesn't have chainmail proficiency. I would suggest adding light shield proficiency, however.
Since both builds have either DEX or INT as their primary/secondary attribute, I don't think it's a problem if he doesn't have chainmail proficiency. I would suggest adding light shield proficiency, however.
Please keep your posts respectful of other members, even if they disagree with you.
I just read through the entire post and I do not see what was removed or why it was in violation of the CoC. If Saric is correct and all he did was delineate what "constructive criticism" was, then I would like to know how that violates the CoC.
It's kinda hard to prevent history from repeating itself if no one knows what the history was. Eh?
I just read through the entire post and I do not see what was removed or why it was in violation of the CoC. If Saric is correct and all he did was delineate what "constructive criticism" was, then I would like to know how that violates the CoC.It's
I just read through the entire post and I do not see what was removed or why it was in violation of the CoC. If Saric is correct and all he did was delineate what "constructive criticism" was, then I would like to know how that violates the CoC.
It's kinda hard to prevent history from repeating itself if no one knows what the history was. Eh?
If I recall correctly, I didn't call anyone names. /shrug/ I don't even remember what was going on anyways.
Anyways without futher ado,
Update- September 20, 2008: After some free time I finally managed to glance over the bard again and tweaked it a little bit. Among the changes are addition of armor proficiency (chain), removal of the rapier, and an assortment of critical corrections to power attack types. A few powers changed slightly such as bardic music being streamlined and some of them moving to feats. Thanks again everyone for the feedback.
As a mathematical response to the concern of bardic knowledge not increasing at higher tiers, I have the following data.
All examples assume the bard has the relevant training in the knowledge skill. The assumptions also are based on the phb's most recent update to knowledge dc's
Base dc's Heroic Paragon Epic Common 10 15 20 Expert 20 25 30 Master 25 30 35
Level 1 bard starting with 16 intelligence (+3) and 12 wisdom Int based knowledge +5 trained +3 stat, +2 bardic knowledge = +10 Knowledge nature +5 trained +1 stat +2 bardic knowledge = +8
Level 11 (19 intelligence and 13 wisdom) Int based knowledge = +5 trained, +4 stat, +2 bardic knowledge +5 level = +16 Wis based knowledge = +5 trained, +1 stat, +5 level, +2 bardic knowledge= + 13
A level 11 basic bard can make any int based master knowledge with a passive skill check (he could have done this same feat approximately 3 levels ago or quicker with the skill focus feat.). With wisdom, he can make any wis based expert knowledge with a passive skill check and is only two away from master. (he could have accomplished this same feat approximately 7 levels ago or quicker with the skill focus feat.)
Level 21 (22 Intelligence and 14 wisdom) Int based Knowledge = 6 stat, +5 trained, +10 level, +2 bardic knowledge = 23 Wis based knowledge = +2 stat, +5 trained, +10 level, +2 bardic knowledge = 19
A level 21 basic bard can make any epic int based expert knowledge with a passive skill check. He will gain epic master knowledge with a passive skill check by approximately level 24. With wisdom, he can make any epic wis based common knowledge with a passive skill check, and will gain expert by level 22.
Obviously these assumptions change if the bard is untrained, but with the easily obtainable jack of all trades feat, the bard should only be approximately 3 numbers behind one with training. Which means it is feasible to get a good roll and still get the knowledge check. Due to the math given above, bardic knowledge will stay at a base +2 until I can see a valid reason to change it.
If I recall correctly, I didn't call anyone names. /shrug/ I don't even remember what was going on anyways.Anyways without futher ado, Update- September 20, 2008: After some free time I finally managed to glance over the bard again and tweaked it a l
You know, Saric, I have some concerns about the balance of your Bard. It feels like you're cherry-picking other Leaders' best features - the Cleric's healing and buffing and the Warlord's damage and battlefield re-arrangement.
You know, Saric, I have some concerns about the balance of your Bard. It feels like you're cherry-picking other Leaders' best features - the Cleric's healing and buffing and the Warlord's damage and battlefield re-arrangement.
You know, Saric, I have some concerns about the balance of your Bard. It feels like you're cherry-picking other Leaders' best features - the Cleric's healing and buffing and the Warlord's damage and battlefield re-arrangement.
A bard cannot heal as good as a cleric due to healers lore. That extra wis modifier adds up after a few heals. Especially when concerning multiple allies. Leaders are supposed to buff, otherwise they aren't leading are they? As of now, I only have two classes to really compare the bard to. So in a sense, they must be somewhat similar to be able to accomplish the same role and knowing how far you can push the envelope when concerning abilities. Otherwise, people will moan and groan when you pick the class much like 3.5. "Another bard? come on we need a cleric!!"
Are some of the powers almost identical? To a degree, yes. Healing Hymn should be on par with the other two leaders. I'm unsure of how you're suggesting a bard is like a warlord in battlefield re-arrangement though.
People don't bat an eye when a warlock deals +1d6 - 3d6 extra damage with warlock's curse just like a ranger's hunter's quarry. They both even have the same other class feature "prime shot". Do people complain when a paladin marks a target?
While I will admit that the taking of a wizard's cantrips might seem as a bit ripping off of the wizard, from a rping and design standpoint, those cantrips fit right up the alley of what a bard feels like. A bard with ghost sound? sounds about right to me. In addition, the bard was always considered to be a jack of all trades. That was how it has been portrayed in the last two editions, and I feel that it would be a disservice if they couldn't come a little close to that now.
If a bard wants to heal, he can heal. If a bard wants to buff he can buff. If a bard wants to fight he can fight, dealing respectable damage. If a bard wants to be sneaky he can do so. If the bard wants to control, he can control. I would say the least effective role the bard can fill is a defender's due to the way the class is built.
The thing is, a bard can't heal more than the cleric, because the cleric will always heal more effectively. Can the bard always give free bonuses just for being near, not requiring activation like a warlord? No, (granted a warlord's features are kinda dull in play) and thats why the bard can't really entirely overshadow the other two classes. The bard's niche is the arcane trickster/buffer.
A bard can never control as well as a wizard, can never defend better than a defender, nor can they do as much damage as a striker.
While I won't say the class is perfect, it is in pretty solid and just requires more polish and loose ends tied up.
Also if you don't mind, can you share some examples so I can see where you're coming from? (sonic weapon is the only other power that comes to mind).
A bard cannot heal as good as a cleric due to healers lore. That extra wis modifier adds up after a few heals. Especially when concerning multiple allies. Leaders are supposed to buff, otherwise they aren't leading are they? As of now, I only have t
As a mathematical response to the concern of bardic knowledge not increasing at higher tiers, I have the following data.
So basically to sum up your notes in a line or two, DCs scale at 5 per tier just as character bonuses scale at 5 per tier, so either way being a bard, you are always 2 points ahead of the curve ... I could buy into that, maybe.
After looking through AV, there are a couple items, particularly the level 12 Foe Stone, which seems like it can replicate the most useful combat application of this feature at-will, or the Headband of Intellects Level 10 property of +2 to all knowledge checks.
Certainly many uses for knowledge outside of combat exist with the same DCs, but you boil it down, the bard is only 2 ahead of a wizard on nearly any knowledge check, and a wizard with a headband of intellect is equivelant. On top of that the wizard probably has a better Intelligence as a primary ability, and may, depending on build, have a much better wisdom (orb wizard). So it seems much more likely that even given the class ability of the bard, the wizard is just as good with lore as the bard.
To look at it from a different angle, when compairing class features to the Cleric (which I think is closest in comparison to the bard based on role, features and general game play) you have the following:
Cleric vs. Bard Healing Word vs. Healing Hymm (equivelant) Healer's Lore vs. Bardic Knowledge (I think the cleric wins this one hands down) Channel Divinity vs. Bardic Music (equivelant; the cleric has more choices, but is limited based on deity) Ritual Casting vs. 2 Cantrips (I love cantrips, but I think this comes out slightly in favour of the cleric)
So basically to sum up your notes in a line or two, DCs scale at 5 per tier just as character bonuses scale at 5 per tier, so either way being a bard, you are always 2 points ahead of the curve ... I could buy into that, maybe.After looking through A
I noticed that you made this class the best "group buffer", since a lot of his powers give bonuses to all the allies nearby. You're trying to differentiate it from the cleric (best healer) and the warlord (best tactical leader), am i right?
Just a question tough, why the Ispiring courage chant affects only one ally? In your last version it was a Close burst 5 power that affected all the allies in the area, while now it's a single target spell.
If you want to bring the power more in line with the others Class abilities, wouldn't be better to raise the bonus, something like (+ Car score of the caster?) cause a single target spell should be more powerful and significative than a multi target spell.
Warning Yell (Bard attack 1), I think this power should give an alternative to the saving throw, something like "an Ally that you can see can chose to get +1 to his next attack roll or to make a saving throw", that's because if there's no one affected by a status this power deals just plain damage...
Very nice work Saric, really awesome :DI noticed that you made this class the best "group buffer", since a lot of his powers give bonuses to all the allies nearby. You're trying to differentiate it from the cleric (best healer) and the warlord (best
A bard cannot heal as good as a cleric due to healers lore. That extra wis modifier adds up after a few heals. Especially when concerning multiple allies. (...) Are some of the powers almost identical? To a degree, yes. Healing Hymn should be on par with the other two leaders. (...) People don't bat an eye when a warlock deals +1d6 - 3d6 extra damage with warlock's curse just like a ranger's hunter's quarry.
I'm not talking about class features. I'm talking about the powers. For instance, take Improvised Jab, which gives a power bonus to an ally's next attack roll equal to the Bard's DEX modifier. That's nothing, right? After all, it's basically a re-flavoured Righteous Brand. Except Righteous Brand is one of the best buffing powers out there, one that borders so closely on overpowered that even the folks at the Character Optimization board - who almost to a man think paragon multiclassing is worthless - suggest melee builds that paragon multiclass into Cleric just for this at-will. The Warlord has no at-wills like this one. Meanwhile, the Bard also has Accelerated Strike, which deals 3[W] and allows the Bard and his allies to shift as a minor action until the end of the encounter. In a way, it's similar to the Warlord's White Raven Onslaught, arguably better - but the Cleric has no similar level 1 power that allows for anything even close to such a thing. See now what I mean? Your Bard is almost like a combination Cleric-Warlord, with the best powers of both classes.
I'm not talking about class features. I'm talking about the powers.For instance, take Improvised Jab, which gives a power bonus to an ally's next attack roll equal to the Bard's DEX modifier. That's nothing, right? After all, it's basically a re-flav
Just got finished trying this class out in all three tiers of play. Nothing short of excellent. The powers worked well, really demonstrating this character's abilities as a Leader Class. It was not over-powered (we found that it fits right in with the "official" classes as written), allowed for great role playing experiences, and not only preserved the balance of the game mechanics, but also had opportunities to shine as an individual character class as well as creating opportunities for the other characters to share the floor.
Outstanding work. I really hope to see more from you in the future.
(It can be noted that the Druid is in playtest currently, but as a main PC in the campaign [we had a side-trek to test this one because it looked like fun and I found a way to fit the story in with the campaign], so a report on how well that class does at different tiers will be delayed).
Thank you muchly for your efforts in building this class and for sharing it with us.
Good Gaming! Be well in all things, Rave
Saric:Just got finished trying this class out in all three tiers of play. Nothing short of excellent. The powers worked well, really demonstrating this character's abilities as a Leader Class. It was not over-powered (we found that it fits right i
Cantrips Charming, but I am not certain they are needed (conversely they almost certainly aren’t overpowering)
Bardic music 4 choices seem a bit much at start. Restrained is very powerful. Inspire confidence has always seemed like a silly one to me (Bluff, Bluff, Bluff, the stupid ogre ;-). I would trim it down to 2-3 with a couple extras as feats.
Level 1 At-Will Spellsongs Inciting Strike - Bard Attack 1 – Very Good Improvised Jab - Bard Attack 1 - Very Good Inhibiting Song - Bard Attack 1 – Poor Warning Yell - Bard Attack 1 - Good.
All the powers are within the reasonable range of at wills. As a whole I think their at will selection might be better than it should be though. Making them competitive with clerics merely makes Warlords seem weaker than they already do.
Level 1 Encounter Spellsongs Distracting Shout - Bard Attack 1 - I would eyeball this at a d8 Ghost Song - Bard Attack 1 – If all classes were balanced against clerics they would be tougher than they are. Too good for a will targetter. I would reduce the damage to d6. Critical Strike - Bard Attack 1 – A lot going on, but good. Amplifying Verse - Bard Attack 1 – Overly redundant, 2W no heal would be my guess. Phantom Blow - Bard Attack 1 – Average.
Overall too many powers for first level, and I think a tad above average. Need a true double damage option.
Level 1 Daily Spellsongs Burst of Awe - Bard Attack 1- Poor Accelerated Strike - Bard Attack 1 – Good Immediate Assistance - Bard Attack 1 – Too defendery, and awfully good at that. If I saw a need for a power like this I would at least limit it a bit more. Tasha's Hideous Laughter - Bard Attack 1 – Poor Shadow Image - Bard Attack 1 – Too far below average to be worthwhile. I would say up the damage or make it sustain minor. Grease - Bard Attack 1 – Poor.
Perhaps the weakness of their daily powers makes up for the high quality of encounter and at wills at 1st, I would prefer more across the board balance. Again too many choices at this level.
Level 2 Utility Spellsongs Refreshing Song - Bard Utility 2 – Better than similar powers for no reason I can see. Improvisation - Bard Utility 2 – Good (Perhaps a tad too good) Inspirational Boost - Bard Utility 2 - Good Lively Step - Bard Utility 2 – Good
Nice.
Level 3 Encounter Spellsongs Two powers that daze seem redundant, even if they have different deliveries. I think you default to a d10 more often than you should for damage, that said, looks good.
Bard Daily Spellsongs 5 Glitterdust - Bard Attack 5 – AOE Blindness seems awfully good. Wave of Grief - Bard Attack 5 – Restrained remains too good. I am a bit confused about when the restrained ends as well. I am assuming that Save ends overrides until the end of the encounter. Battle Hymn - Bard Attack 5 – Should the extra limit apply to the hit as well? And is it needed. Sonic Weapon - Bard Attack 5 – Nice
Level 6 Utility Spellsongs Combined Talent - Bard Utility 6 – Really good, perhaps too good (but also cool). Soothing Touch - Bard Utility 6 – More complicated than it needs to be. I would go regain use of second wind.
I think you like until the end of the encounter powers more than the designers think you should, you also tend to overcomplicate some things in the effort to make them more distinct from their origins. In these cases I would lean towards simplicity.
Level 7 Encounter Spellsongs Hold Creature - Bard Attack 7 – Ranged 6? Deafening Blast - Bard Attack 7 – Outside the reasonable power range for this level (aka better than the wizard power of the same level), even more so for a leader type. Tactical Precision - Bard Attack 7 – Is there any basis for a power this good elsewhere?
Woof, prior to this level, minor complaints aside, I would allow this class. This is just a bit too much.
Level 9 Daily Spellsongs Dirge of Discord - Bard Attack 9 – We seem to be drifting more out of range as we go up in level. On a 1-5 I would rate this a 7. Whirling Blade - Bard Attack 9 – Again woof. War Cry - Bard Attack 9 – This one I like.
Ok I know that the classic bard was defined by his poorly defined role, but he also wasn’t very good.
I think you need to tone down the controller elements. At the very least powers which are cut and paste from wizard should not then gain extra features. I would lose most of the controller specific elements, keeping just enough for good flavor and a bit of versatility. (Aka you have way too many area attacks for this class)
I think we need to remember that will is the lowest average defense, and so when converting vs. fort attacks into vs. will attacks we should be giving something up, not gaining.
I would look closer to warlord than priest, I am not sure if warlords are underpowered, or cleric over, but balancing against cleric will kill the warlord for good.
I think your "second wind but not" thing is simply complication for the sake of it, it also leads to a bit more bonus in most of these cases than seems warranted.
Ok you have probably guessed I am a critical person. Overall I think I like it. But you need to really consider it against a tight core of classes. Being as wizardy as a wizard and as clericy as a cleric is simply too good. Top that off with dex based melee and I think you are combining too many roles into one, which is of course the classic definition of the Bard, but you aren’t giving up enough for it.
As a side not I think most games place way to much of a premium on versatility, overcharging for it, so I am not saying you must cripple a template to let it be a tad versatile, just that full healing and multiple area powers at virtually every level is too much.
Now that you have read my review you would almost certainly not guess how much I like your work ;-)
CantripsCharming, but I am not certain they are needed (conversely they almost certainly aren’t overpowering)Bardic music4 choices seem a bit much at start. Restrained is very powerful. Inspire confidence has always seemed like a silly one t
My wife is a Bard nut, she is going to flip when she reads this. Why are you not working for WotC? I think you nailed Bard dead on. So, are you or have you done a sorcerer yet?
My wife is a Bard nut, she is going to flip when she reads this. Why are you not working for WotC? I think you nailed Bard dead on. So, are you or have you done a sorcerer yet?
Wish I had something helpful to say, but all and all you did a fantastic job and should be extremely proud of yourself. I'll be using it in my game without hesitation, and this is the first time I've done such a thing with something I found on a message board. That said, while I agree that the lack of certain classes in 4e is aggravating, they did a good job putting all the typical fantasy archetypes in the new PHB. Much as I love classes like bard and monk, they aren't exactly atypical characters in most fantasy stories. Even classic archetypes like the barbarian and druid can still be made accurately enough with the fighter and cleric classes respectively (though having a "real" version would be rather nice).
Wish I had something helpful to say, but all and all you did a fantastic job and should be extremely proud of yourself. I'll be using it in my game without hesitation, and this is the first time I've done such a thing with something I found on a mess
Wow Saric great job. I've always wanted to play a bard, but 3e and 3.5 bard was worthless. Although he was pretty awesome in Neverwinter Nights 2.
I think you nailed it though. Any plans to merge/reconcile your bard with the new official preview in the latest ampersand column?
If your druid is as good as your bard, WOTC needs to offer you a job.
Wow Saric great job. I've always wanted to play a bard, but 3e and 3.5 bard was worthless. Although he was pretty awesome in Neverwinter Nights 2.I think you nailed it though. Any plans to merge/reconcile your bard with the new official preview in th
Ah, but Diplomacy doesn't necessarily mean courtly etiquette, it may mean only that you know how to talk with people! It would also be a nod to what has always been a staple of the D&D Bard, the ability to influence (for the better) the reactions of the NPCs. Streetwise also bothers me a bit because I can come up with several types of Bards - Viking Skalds, or any Bard from a barbarian culture, and the old Meistersinger 2nd Edition kit, for example - for whom it would be inappropriate to have Streetwise.
every single viking skald ever born had the realworld equivelent of streetwise. period. many of them ALSO had diplomacy. the skald was more than just a warrior poet. he was a man that went amongst the people, all of them, from lord to jarl, and knew their ways. a bard who is a member of a barbarian tribe would be the most likely person in the tribe to have streetwise. i don't know how much you have studied viking era scandinavian and germanic culture, but all i've seen tells me that the skald knew more about surviving in what passed for urban areas than the medievil minstrels often did.
sure, this is moot now, because we have a preview to tell us what the bard has and doesn't have, but the idea of not giving a bard diplomacy AND streetwise seems strange to me.
every single viking skald ever born had the realworld equivelent of streetwise. period. many of them ALSO had diplomacy. the skald was more than just a warrior poet. he was a man that went amongst the people, all of them, from lord to jarl, and knew
the skald was more than just a warrior poet. he was a man that went amongst the people, all of them, from lord to jarl, and knew their ways.
First of all: "lord" and "jarl" are pretty much the same thing. Second of all: what you're describing sounds more like Diplomacy than Streetwise.
a bard who is a member of a barbarian tribe would be the most likely person in the tribe to have streetwise.
Medieval Scandinavian society wasn't tribe-based, it was clan (or family, whichever term suits you best)-based.
i don't know how much you have studied viking era scandinavian and germanic culture,
A lot, actually. I'm majoring in Norse Literature, Norse Culture and Norse History.
but all i've seen tells me that the skald knew more about surviving in what passed for urban areas than the medievil minstrels often did.
London, Paris, Genoa and Venice, to name only capitals, were much larger - with a correspondingly larger population - than Norway's then-capital, Trondheim, so no - just no.
First of all: "lord" and "jarl" are pretty much the same thing. ;)Second of all: what you're describing sounds more like Diplomacy than Streetwise.Medieval Scandinavian society wasn't tribe-based, it was clan (or family, whichever term suits you best
Just read the preview for the Bard that will be in the PHB2 and I just had to comment.
First, alot of the class traits are darn close. Only a few differences like the implement, weapon list and a couple skills. I still think your Bard captures the feel of the bard better.
Like, they gave wands as the Bard's implement. Makes MUCH more sense for it to be an instrument. And I personally like the bard to get thievery and stealth. I can understand why they didnt because bards really arent thieves, but they got those kind of skills before so its kinda nice to still have them.
The Bard features on both are fine, though I think the PHB version does a good job there. The only one I really liked is the cantrips you gave them. Makes sense to me, being a magic user, to get a couple cantrips.
The few abilities (spells and such) they listed for the Bard are similar in feel to what you did, which is good.
So to sum up, if it were me, I would definitly keep the implement as an instrument, keep the cantrips and probably keep your skill list. The rest I would just go by the PHB I think, just to keep it "legal". With all the similarites, I really gotta wonder if they did pull any ideas from your Bard or others here.
Just read the preview for the Bard that will be in the PHB2 and I just had to comment.First, alot of the class traits are darn close. Only a few differences like the implement, weapon list and a couple skills. I still think your Bard captures the fee
Like, they gave wands as the Bard's implement. Makes MUCH more sense for it to be an instrument.
If I'm not mistaken, the same article mentioned special instruments which the Bard could use as implements.
Makes sense to me, being a magic user, to get a couple cantrips.
Then the Warlock and the Swordmage should also have Cantrips?
The few abilities (spells and such) they listed for the Bard are similar in feel to what you did, which is good.
Yes, but much more balanced. :heehee
With all the similarites, I really gotta wonder if they did pull any ideas from your Bard or others here.
Considering Saric, and everyone else, took inspiration from earlier incarnations of the Bard, I hardly think so.
If I'm not mistaken, the same article mentioned special instruments which the Bard could use as implements.Then the Warlock and the Swordmage should also have Cantrips? ;)Yes, but much more balanced. :heehee Considering Saric, and everyone else, took
If I'm not mistaken, the same article mentioned special instruments which the Bard could use as implements.
Then the Warlock and the Swordmage should also have Cantrips?
Yes, but much more balanced. :heehee
Considering Saric, and everyone else, took inspiration from earlier incarnations of the Bard, I hardly think so.
Yes, it did mention instruments later in the article. Didnt notice it at the time of the post. Even still, its kinda odd to have wands as an implement at all.
Warlock no, seeing how its a completely different type of magic. Swordmage I dont know what that is, so I cant comment. However, bards in previous editions always got a small number of wizard spells, so cantrips are a cool idea that I like. They dont really do anything so I dont see the harm in bards having them.
Of course balanced. They have a team of playtesters for that..
What I meant from the last statement was how close all the stuff was 4E wise, like number of skills, HPs, number of surges, ect. And seeing how Saric came up with this almost half a year ago devs at Wizards could have easily gotten some inspiration from Sarics 4E bard.
Yes, it did mention instruments later in the article. Didnt notice it at the time of the post. Even still, its kinda odd to have wands as an implement at all.Warlock no, seeing how its a completely different type of magic. Swordmage I dont know what
I've been working (terribly slowly) on a fantasy medieval campaign handbook. That the Bard was missing from the PHB was an unpleasant problem. Given how it's taking forever-and-a-day for me to rewrite the Paladin as a medieval knight (instead of 4E's refugee from World of Warcraft), I wasn't looking forward to having to create a Bard-like class whole-cloth. Unfortunately, the rumors I heard about the forthcoming 4E Bard in the PHB2 don't give me much hope that it will be appropriate for a fantasy medieval campaign.
So I'd like to use Saric's idea as a basis for my fantasy medieval 4E Bard-like class, the Minstrel. A great many of the powers looks quite appropriate, though I would need to replace a few of the more "high magic" ones. Thanks for your work, Saric! Have you updated your powers since your last official PDF, from back in like September?
I've been working (terribly slowly) on a fantasy medieval campaign handbook. That the Bard was missing from the PHB was an unpleasant problem. Given how it's taking forever-and-a-day for me to rewrite the Paladin as a medieval knight (instead of 4E's
London, Paris, Genoa and Venice, to name only capitals, were much larger - with a correspondingly larger population - than Norway's then-capital, Trondheim, so no - just no.
I'm going to bother responding to your terminology clarification, mostly because it's not terribly important. as to the rest, I'll begin where I should have begun in the first place.
"Streewise:When in a settlement—a village, a town, or a city— make a Streetwise check to find out what’s going on, who the movers and shakers are, where to get what you need (and how to get there), and where not to go."
Seriously, in what way is this not something a Bard should be expected to be able to do?
Secondly, a court minstrel is often little more than a fop, whereas the Skald is, again, often someone who is expected to know what the hell is going on amongst the people, high and low. This is done, in 4e, through the Streetwise skill.
I'm going to bother responding to your terminology clarification, mostly because it's not terribly important. as to the rest, I'll begin where I should have begun in the first place. "Streewise:When in a settlement—a village, a town, or a city&
Seriously, in what way is this not something a Bard should be expected to be able to do?
The archetypical fantasy Bard? Sure. A Norse Skald? Not necessarily.
Secondly, a court minstrel is often little more than a fop,
Oh good Lord, you didn't just apply what is mostly a fantasy stereotype to a historical profession, did you? Also, Norse Skalds were the court minstrels of their people.
whereas the Skald is, again, often someone who is expected to know what the hell is going on amongst the people, high and low. This is done, in 4e, through the Streetwise skill.
Not necessarily, no. The point is now moot, however: there's an official Bard ready to be released, and while he has the option of learning Streetwise, he doesn't automatically start with it - which is exactly what I've been arguing for.
The archetypical fantasy Bard? Sure. A Norse Skald? Not necessarily. ;)Oh good Lord, you didn't just apply what is mostly a fantasy stereotype to a historical profession, did you? Also, Norse Skalds were the court minstrels of their people.Not necess
The archetypical fantasy Bard? Sure. A Norse Skald? Not necessarily.
Oh good Lord, you didn't just apply what is mostly a fantasy stereotype to a historical profession, did you? Also, Norse Skalds were the court minstrels of their people.
Not necessarily, no. The point is now moot, however: there's an official Bard ready to be released, and while he has the option of learning Streetwise, he doesn't automatically start with it - which is exactly what I've been arguing for.
Seriously, explain how it is that it doesn't make sense for the skald to have streetwise. i don't mean that you're saying it makes no sense whatsoever, I'm just curious as why you think that it doesn't make a great deal of sense.
and when you think of a court minstrel, do you really think of anything other than the archetype of a the minstrel tied to the royal court who spends pretty much his whole time in the court either vying for favor or watching people and reporting to the king or what have you? also, note that i "is often" not "was always" or "was predominately." this usage suggests that i am referring to a variable number of people that may be relatively small, while the fact that i am making a note of it suggests that i am proposing that the archetype is well known enough to take into account. The image of the skald archetype is rather different than the image of the medieval courtly minstrel.
yes, it's all moot now. in my opinion, still, if arcana wasn't more necessary mechanically than any of the other skills, it would make sense for your automatic skill to be choice of diplomacy and streetwise.
Seriously, explain how it is that it doesn't make sense for the skald to have streetwise. i don't mean that you're saying it makes no sense whatsoever, I'm just curious as why you think that it doesn't make a great deal of sense. and when you think o
Honestly, I really dont understand why you two are arguing over that. I mean, the bard is so very loosly based on real life anyways. Minstrils and such were the lowest members of the court usually, and of course in D&D they are anything but. And of course lets not forget the magic and all the other crap that has nothing to do with real life.
So really, who cares? When it comes to Saric's bard, we only need to worry about how it compares to past D&D versions, and nothing else.
Honestly, I really dont understand why you two are arguing over that. I mean, the bard is so very loosly based on real life anyways. Minstrils and such were the lowest members of the court usually, and of course in D&D they are anything but. And of c
Honestly, I really dont understand why you two are arguing over that. I mean, the bard is so very loosly based on real life anyways. Minstrils and such were the lowest members of the court usually, and of course in D&D they are anything but. And of course lets not forget the magic and all the other crap that has nothing to do with real life.
So really, who cares? When it comes to Saric's bard, we only need to worry about how it compares to past D&D versions, and nothing else.
eh, to me, when you are re-imagining a class, you should look at the archetypes that inspired it. unfortunately i came across as thinking more about the historical truth than i really was, i was more concerned with the archetypes as such, the combination of truth and legend that makes up what people think of when they think BARD.
so far, the 4e Bard seems to be doing a decent job, although i hope they eventually have more weapon based powers than they currently do, but overall, good for a preview. Seems like they are low on skills too, but that may be a matter of me thinking back to 3.5, and forgetting how things work in 4e.
eh, to me, when you are re-imagining a class, you should look at the archetypes that inspired it. unfortunately i came across as thinking more about the historical truth than i really was, i was more concerned with the archetypes as such, the combina
