@Randomorph I do see what you are saying, but I'm not sure I see it as an issue. I've not seen an issue in play at least. But I could see that the potential is there.
They really don't have a natural sustained damage cantrip like the wizard, though. ANd if they go with a martial weapon, then they only get one attack (unless they go Valor bard, which then limits their casting)
@Rubiksmoose yeah, I think if the Bard focuses on a niche the others aren't using, eg to replace the absence of a wizard, they're fine. You won't see an issue.
@NautArch True to an extent, or they could just get a cantrip like Booming Blade or Firebolt through either High Elf, Magic Initiate, Magical secrets, etc.
@Randomorph The warlock is beautiful but kind of a wench (the way they RP them). I think the bard was there first (warlock joined later) and thus the bard was allowed to naturally take the party face role without too much toe-stepping.
@Randomorph And that's a big resource (either a feat or a very limited magical secret) in order to do that. Their biggest drawback is no sustained damage dealer. WHen they don't have a tool, or are out of tools, they are very weak.
Yes, but that's a big choice they've made to that. And then they're not as strong in control/damage spells. The options are huge for bards, but most of their big stuff is concentration required.
@Rubiksmoose Yep Frontlining is the one place I can openly agree with being a weakness of the Bard. They aren't that much worse than a Cleric though, or the same if they're Valor.
@NautArch Sorry, is that any different than Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics, or Druids?
this party currently has me (bard 13, warlock 2), a warlock (raven), arcane trickster, psionic, druid (twilight), wizard (bladesinger), swashbuckler, fighter (champion)
@Randomorph yes, in order to compete, they have to expend a major resource. Those classes have that option built-in along with all their other options.
@Randomorph we typically have 4-5 at the table. That campaign is more of a pick-up game that we play when we can't get our main campaign together.
@Randomorph but a cleric can concentrate and then go in and fight (a bard is not going to do as well there). A wizard can concentrate and then has non-con spells to support him (bards are mostly limited there, needing Secrets to get those.),
@Randomorph but that cleric will also likely have spirit guardians (which the bard could steal, but then that's another choice.) Bards are about flexibility.
@Randomorph One problem with this discussion is that we are talking about the entire bard class as if you can have the best off all the options, but valor gives up a bunch of magical secrets and spellcasting as well as inspiration.
I do agree that you can come up with a bard build that competes well against any other build, but to do that, tradeoffs are made. You're using bard theoreticals against actuals from other classes.
It's not a good argument, but if it's really as OP as you think it is - in a world of min-maxers why aren't they pushing it?
I understand Tradeoffs are made. But you're also comparing actuals other classes have, which is all they really have against specific parts of Bards, while ignoring all the other stuff they ALSO get.
Which is why the discussion is not going to get any further without discussing actual builds. There are too many variable to compare the entirety of classes against the entirety of other classes. You inevitably lose a lot arguing that way.
Yes, I understand classes have unique aspects. I'm just saying Bards can take a little bit too much from other classes (since a lot of spells are features in spell form), and still have their chassis (which is better than some other classes)
THere's that IF and the problem @Rubiksmoose and I have with the argument. In order to say "OP", you have to create the specific builds to compare. That way the tradeoffs become clearer and you can get an apples to apples Goodberry to goodberry.
Apples to Apples, as a Caster they are in no way Mad. Goodberry to Goodberry, as a Martial they are no more Mad than a Cleric trying to be Martial, and certainly less Mad than a Paladin.
I think i'm going to step away from the debate unless we start making specific builds to compare. There are just too many moving parts and without that it's just talking in circles.
@NautArch Here's another one: Arcane Trickster played as an infiltrator, with good social skills. You need 3 good stats. Bard can do it with two stats, and have better spell progression. That being said, you trade sustained damage... Which you can get by spending a single magical secret. If you are trying to build for it.. It's far far easier as a Bard.
@GreySage Wizards don't get mad, they spend 5 days preparing and then get even.
It is very very hard to assign a pure value to class features in part because their usefulness might depend on many other factors external to that character
@Rubiksmoose Yep. You're absolutely right. I feel the Bard stuff isn't very situational though. Countercharm certainly is (although it comes up often enough thanks to things like Frightful Presence), and Song of Rest is a minor QOL improvement. The rest is widely applicable though, and Full Spellcasting is always nice.
Also admittedly most of my problems are with Lore. I think the other Bard archetypes aren't as Toe-steppy.
@Randomorph I actually used counterhcarm for the first time last night. Knew we were about to face off against a Black Dragon, so I just started playing.
@NautArch I call that the "Full Caster Effect", when you have a ton of high power options, and some medium power ones, you'll usually want to use the high power ones
@Randomorph Usually, but I'm a big fan of situation goodness (especially with the bard.) I'm more concerned about the most effective thing I can do, not necessarily the biggest damage (which is often the Most Effective. I'm a big believe in the best defense is a good offense.)
Unarmed attacks can crit, but do not do double damage
Can an unarmed strike crit? - Yes
If you roll a 20 on an unarmed strike, it is considered a critical hit.
This means that it will automatically hit regardless of the opponent's AC and has the potential to cause 2 failed death saving throw...
taps mic awkwardly Uhhh...Thank you for this fake internet badge of moderate rarity and no actual value. I shall treasure it and pass it down to my imaginary children and it shall be an heirloom in my family forever. stumbles off stage
Consider using the Infestation cantrip from Xanathar's Guide to Everything
From the spell:
You cause a cloud of mites, fleas, and other parasites to appear momentarily on one creature you can see within range.
Simply reflavouring this spell as Bees could easily achieve the effect you're lo...
I was mostly just salty because I put maybe 30 seconds of effort into my answer for the Bee one. But the one it passed I put a lot of time and thought into.
@Rubiksmoose My one gripe is I've only gotten about half the rep I could've from that answer.. Over a third of it was lost to the Aether. Hell I'm already Rep capped for the day
There's a factor you missed out on: the square-cube law. As Wikipedia describes it:
When an object undergoes a proportional increase in size, its new surface area is proportional to the square of the multiplier and its new volume is proportional to the cube of the multiplier.
Let's consider...
Napkin math for any interest: Fire Giant is about 3x height of a normal man, and well built. Use 200 lbs, 6 ft for normal well built person (just for ease of math). Add on Plate Armour which is 65 lbs. Total weight without other gear = 265. Square cube law says 3x height ~= 9x weight, so 265 * 9 = 2385 lbs
@Rubiksmoose Yep. Played Dark Heresy 2e at one point, and despite it being a cluster F of poor organization, it was nice to use Metric instead.
Although basic math isn't too bad with imperial. It's just different units. The only tricky part is converting between different "sizes" of units not being standardized like Metric.
@Randomorph My sister-in-law is afraid of spiders, so when we had giant spiders in our campaign i changed them to giant fluffy bunnies. Instead of webs they had piles of easter eggs.
This description of a d10: "D10, ten-sided dice. Perfect for generating a random number between 0 and 9. These dice are commonly paired with D100 dice to generate a random number between 0 and 99. They can also be used as standalone 10-sided dice to provide a random result with a 10% chance of any one number coming up."
@SPavel The first result on a google for that is a story about a lion who got his head stuck in a bucket reaching for food, so... fill the microwave with d1s? That will attract d0s?
@NautArch Well anyone who can pick up Mage Armour really. Mage Armour is better than Light Armour. Wizard has a dagger, but it's more for utility than fighting.
@Zachiel When Noah's Ark found land, he docked and commanded the animals to go forth and multiply. But after all the animals left, two snakes remained on the Ark. "Why do you not do as I bid you?" Noah asked. "We can't multiply," said the snakes, 'we're Adders."
today i rediscovered a series pitch i developed 3 years ago, about a witch librarian and her mentor solving various Word Crimes. (in the short i pitched, a villain swaps the words "big" and "little" in all their books.) it was very goofy and fun to work on! 📚
Hey I know the general rule of SE is "accept the answer that helped you, the OP, personally", but what if new information is revealed and it turns out the accepted answer is incorrect? I wrote a question a while ago and have already used the information in the accepted answer somewhere, I'm not going to go and retroactively change that, but since then the lead D&D rules designer has stated the precise opposite thing. Should I accept the new answer so future readers know that it's correct?
@undergroundmonorail I think that if you find a better answer to your original question, you should write up your own answer and accept it. Though certainly feel free to acknowledge in it a prior answer that was useful (and was correct at that time).
Seriously though, experience shows that often the creator of a work is not the most reliable expert on the audience's experiences of the work.
It needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis like anyone else's statements about the work. The dev can say what they intended with authority, but that's very different from what the thing is or how best to use it.
there are times in our site's history a dev has been factually incorrect about their own work, or demonstrably not understood how to use it effectively.
And that's not even an unusual or rare thing: D&D 3.5e had an FAQ from ostensibly developers but not the original authors, and it was famously wrong on a regular basis. (like, you can see the wrongness by comparison with the text they were talking about.) Pathfinder has its actual developers and authors answering questions about their work on the forums, and will not uncommonly contradict each other, or previous rules, or wrongly summarise a rule or describe its effects.
In doing so though, Paizo's official position is that the devs are correct and anything they say is errata, so they have often wound up changing the rules (in an official legalistic POV) in the process of talking about them.
Me, talking a writer down from imposter syndrome: How long have you been writing?
Them: Three years.
Me: And how old are you?
Them: 28.
Me: Okay. So you're a level 28 human and a level 3 writer. How good were you as a level 3 human?
Them: Ooooooooh.
Unarmed attacks can crit, but do not do double damage
Can an unarmed strike crit? - Yes
If you roll a 20 on an unarmed strike, it is considered a critical hit.
This means that it will automatically hit regardless of the opponent's AC and has the potential to cause 2 failed death saving throw...
Consider using the Infestation cantrip from Xanathar's Guide to Everything
From the spell:
You cause a cloud of mites, fleas, and other parasites to appear momentarily on one creature you can see within range.
Simply reflavouring this spell as Bees could easily achieve the effect you're lo...
There's a factor you missed out on: the square-cube law. As Wikipedia describes it:
When an object undergoes a proportional increase in size, its new surface area is proportional to the square of the multiplier and its new volume is proportional to the cube of the multiplier.
Let's consider...
