Talk:Bard, Tome (3.5e Class)

Disclaimer
In the wake of changes made to this class, I don't want to do any disservice to Frank. As such, his original bard draft can be located at The Gaming Den by following this link. - TG Cid 16:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Summon Instrument
I'm only kind of thinking of balance here, but the concept of infinite summon instrument as a free action and an extraordinary ability means you can literally bury yourself in a fortress of mandolins. Instantly be out of line of sight!


 * In the interests of balance, that's not an extremely difficult fix. "Only one such summoned instrument can be in existence at a time; if a new one is summoned the previous one instantly disappears," has been added to the Guitar Hero class feature. I think that takes care of it satisfactorily. - TG Cid 20:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Spells
A bard begins play knowing 12 0-level bard spells.? with only 10 o-level spells on the list this seems a typo?


 * The list isn't totally exclusive, so if you have more 0-level spells to include then you can go nuts. I don't think any DM will be QQ'ing about your cantrips. - TG Cid 15:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible Alterations
Paying particular attention to Daniel Draco's above criticisms, I have looked for ways in which this class could be altered and, hopefully, improved. The changes I am proposing are by no means set in stone, however, and I would greatly appreciate the pointing out of any particular passages that need fixing in terms of ambiguity or the aforementioned short-sightedness with regards to consequences.

So here's what I've been thinking of doing:

Performance Tricks: I know Tome tends to stick to the "pick something new every two levels to get variety and cool stuff" convention, and it shows in this class with Performance Tricks and Skill Focus alternating at every level. That having been said, I think this is an opportunity to break away from that particular tradition with regards to Performance Tricks. Instead, I was contemplating making all Performance Tricks available at level 1 (they're all hypothetically made for that anyway, since there's no limitations on when any particular one can be picked). I think this works because the swift action activation method ensures you can only use one per turn short of being a Legendary Strategist or other class capable of using multiple swift actions (and when you did that and were able to use multiple tricks at the same time, you have to have constant swift action upkeep to keep them running). On the positive side, it prevents you from being straight-jacketed in your choosing of Performance Tricks and gives more of the breadth of capability before level 3 that it lacks in its current incarnation. Another plus is that it essentially functions mechanically in the same way it did before; it just doesn't limit you to one trick.

The new version of the Performance Tricks would read like so:

"Performance Tricks: A bard may call upon his prodigious performing talents to use a magical ability known as a performance trick. Activation or continuation of a performance trick requires a swift action every round, but always lasts for at least an entire round.

Tricks are also categorized according to the types of performances required to use them, and the components used vary for each type according to this list: Acting (S, V), Comedy (S, V), Dance (S), Keyboard Instruments (S, F), Oratory (V), Percussion Instruments (S, F), String Instruments (S, F), Wind Instruments (S, V, F), Singing (V). The list here is not intended to be exclusive, and DMs are encouraged to introduce more unique performance powers into his campaign. The bard is considered to have access to any trick for which he is trained in at least one such type of performance."

While it doesn't change the components, which I could see people having a problem with due to a lot of specificity that could potentially bog down gameplay, I think it gives additional versatility and allows the bard to circumvent the components problem a little more effectively on account of having full choice of Performance Tricks.

Spellcasting: On account of the Performance Tricks being redone in such away, half of the levels become empty in terms of class features since the chosen Performance Trick class features are discarded. As a result, many of the class features that accompany Skill Focus can be shifted down one level to fill in empty spaces left by vacated performance trick choices. That's fine, but it leaves 10 levels in which all you get is Skill Focus in terms of class features, and that is rather sad while your odd-numbered levels are getting both new spells and class features, essentially creating a system of two-level jumps where you get nothing significant in between.

To remedy this, I think shifting the entire spells per day table up one level could work. It shifts the levels at which new spell levels are gained to even-numbered levels, making them not so dead, and actually causes the bard to lag behind slightly less behind as a caster that it does presently.

In addition, I am assuming that the reason the bard currently lacks versatility until level 3 is the lack of spells other than 0-level spells. This change, were it to be implemented, gives access to first level spells at level 2, further increasing your versatility at early levels in conjunction with the revamped Performance Trick.

Lastly, I've been thinking about making certain minor changes. Removing Guitar Hero, for example, as it has little to no mechanical consequences and can be replaced for all intents and purposes simply by having summon instrument as a 0-level spell. It seemed like a good idea to me at the time, but right now it just seems to clog level 1 without adding anything meaningful. Changes to particular Performance Tricks may also be forthcoming, but are complicated by the fact that many of them are not of my own creation and so I cannot presume to know the intent or ideology of the writers.

That all having been said, any suggestions for further improvements would be appreciated. - TG Cid 18:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a suggestion: you need to include a performance style that resembles this. - MisterSinister 22:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Changes Made
In the wake of talking to DanielDraco and Tarkis, I have decided to grant three performance tricks at level 1 and one every two levels thereafter, increasing the early breath of ability as desired while preventing me having to balance every Performance style in accordance with how many tricks they allow. Lazy, perhaps, but convenient and also nice for letting the bard actually pick whatever he/she wants.

I think the last issue at hand is to continually add to the spell list (which has been slow but steady due to the large influx of homebrew spells from Liber Demonica and such) and to go over the Performance Tricks. Any particular ones will be listed below as notes to myself in the event that I feel productive some day:


 * I had reason to go over this recently, and so I have a bunch of performance style thoughts. - Tarkisflux Talk 16:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Bewilder is pretty nuts; consider revising (change to fascinated, perhaps?) if not removing altogether. - TG Cid (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is, but it could be resolved with a "successful save == immune for 24 hours" addendum, a range decrease, or both. I like both. - Tarkisflux Talk 16:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Done and done. - TG Cid (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Dance of the seven swords seems a bit ham-handed. Full BAB + additional attack bonuses based on a perform check result? Bonus AoOs and damage based on perform checks? None of the other styles are as variable as that. Just give out attack bonuses (one-third of level, like the magic scaling), no bonus AoOs, and some bonus damage function that makes sense or a standard action attack that "hits with 7 swords" or whatever. - Tarkisflux Talk 16:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is actually one of my favorites, but I agree that it is quite variable and the essence of it could probably be preserved that way. I will update accordingly when I get around to changing it. - TG Cid (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Another thought: SA as rogue -3 + always flank 1 target. The seven swords are you distracting them before shanking them in an open spot. - Tarkisflux Talk 21:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Destructive cacophony has a weird duration in that it stops as soon as you get to max damage and a sort of weird target scaling. It might work better to say that it deals damage to up to 1 target (or even square if you wanted) per level within medium range, and that damage starts at 1d6 and grows by 1d6 per round to a maximum of the number of selected targets. And whenever you stop increasing damage and targets you can maintain it for an additional number of rounds equal to your bard level. It lets you sing walls down more effectively, without adding in new damage locations randomly. Alternately, an effect that grew in AoE with your damage might be ok. - Tarkisflux Talk 16:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I opted for the last option, with it starting at 10 feet and 1d6 and working outwards with more damage each turn. It may be a bit short in range (it was initially 5 feet but I felt that was too little), but it fixed the oddities with target acquisition and duration. - TG Cid (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I meant that option to be used at range actually, but this works too. Probably better even, though the area scales up a bit fast. 100' AoE at 10th as an at-will (that takes you 1 minute to get up to, but you can then sustain for another minute) is maybe a bit much. Cap range at Close perhaps, to match with other performances? - Tarkisflux Talk 21:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Heavy metal looks like it's supposed to stop the penalty when the music's done, but it could be more clear. The stacking comment is also weird, unless you're expecting acapella bard groups to go around singing people to a stop. - Tarkisflux Talk 16:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the cumulative bit was saying that each turn that someone is affected, their movement speed slows down by 5 more feet, although the acapella group concept concerns me. Would it be better to ramp up the penalty to something variable like cutting speed in half and then prevent it from being cumulative in any fashion? In the meantime, I cleared up the duration clause. - TG Cid (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * An increased penalty "half-move" would probably be better. Tying on a "save or lose an action this round" makes it a lot like a 1-round slow effect and might round it out nicely, though there's not really a counter to that before level 5... - Tarkisflux Talk 21:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I initially went for the slow, cumulative part with the ability to reduce to 0 to differentiate it from the slow effect. While the bard doesn't have that spell, it seemed wrong to give the equivalent of a level 3 spell at level 1. The bard also has a run of slowly building effects, although we are somewhat changing that in the wake of recent edits. - TG Cid (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, bewilder certainly isn't that slow build, it's pretty in your face about things and statuses. Slow build move penalties are probably ok if written clearly, but this comment got me thinking along a very different track now so I'm going to ramble a bit.


 * If you wanted a slow build class there's definitely a place for that. It would probably need to wind up as an arcane version of the knight where you don't want to ignore them for too long because they really start to hurt after a round or 3. I think it's even in line with the bard musical fluff where songs have lead ins and don't necessarily grab you for a few dozen seconds after which it's too late. You just need to be a lot more consistent about the scaling, maybe even going so far as to define a scaling outside of the performances and then forcing them all to adhere to that. Right now though, there are some performances that take way too long to be useful outside of utility stuff / ambushes at higher levels (any +1dx per round effect really) and a few that are immediately useful (any with no building effects), and those would both need to be replaced. Something like "minor effect on round 1, full effect on round 2, bigger effect on round 3, crazy effect on round 4" might get the feeling across appropriately. You'd probably want the styles to be interruptable though (and if damage doesn't do it, no FoM on the class list). Not sure it's a good call, and it's certainly a big change, but rambling. - Tarkisflux Talk 06:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's probably too big a departure. I like this idea enough to run with it as a new class or alt bard though, so I'll go do that elsewhere. - Tarkisflux Talk 17:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The damage bonus from inspire courage could be higher. - Tarkisflux Talk 16:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * How much higher are we talking? 1d6 for every one point added to attack rolls seems like a reasonably solid starting point that is quite familiar to Tome rules, perhaps too much so if we are looking to make it more unique. Then again, one can only be so unique with "moar damage" abilities and dice continuity is probably beneficial. - TG Cid (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 1d6 per plus, in line with other Tome damage boost considerations. Alternately, a flat +3 per plus to reduce huge dice piles. - Tarkisflux Talk 21:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am in favor of reducing die piles so +3 it is. - TG Cid (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't get the ability damage healing on long road at all. - Tarkisflux Talk 16:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ditto, given that forced march rules (which I thought would be explanatory) do nonlethal damage instead of ability damage. We could nix it, since it doesn't really add much, and still maintain the point of the trick. We could even make nonlethal damage be healed incrementally, such that it wouldn't really affect scenarios in which nonlethal damage would be used for combat (examples of which admittedly elude me). - TG Cid (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Fast healing that only affected non-lethal seems like a good call. - Tarkisflux Talk 21:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I did a healing of one hp of nonlethal damage per level after listening for 10 minutes. Seems a good middle ground. - TG Cid (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strings of healing could lose the bonus healing on cure thing, and instead allow all cure spells to be cast at any target in range without requiring a touch. Because connecting strings or whatever. - Tarkisflux Talk 16:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. Grammar/clarity could probably use a double check, though. - TG Cid (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Through the fire and flames may as well be close, or creature only (the flames of their emotions or whatever). This is less a "it's too strong" thing, and more a "let's not let them start 100'+ radius fires" thing. - Tarkisflux Talk 16:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am OK with him starting fires as far as the intent of the trick was concerned, so I am in favor of toning down the range and have done so. In order to address the concerns below about the weakness of the damage, I am thinking of making the damage increase by 1d4 points or more every round or two, to a maximum of 1d4 per level or something similar. That way you have more damage without an infinitely scaling bard from hell. If it needs to scale faster, it can scale not only over time but also with the bard's level. 1d4 per four levels and then increasing upon itself periodically seems an interesting compromise. - TG Cid (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You could do "fire damage to area of 1d4" and "fire damage to person of 1d4 + 1d4/round since started" if you just wanted grass fires and not melted stone. I admit that I'm not really sure where you're going with this though. - Tarkisflux Talk 21:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Torrent of Anger's 10 minute thing should require a diplo check like the animal and undead ones. - Tarkisflux Talk 16:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Easy and done. - TG Cid (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Questions?/Problems?
So I was looking through the performance tricks, and when I read "Through the Fire and the Flames", at first, I laughed a little, and then I wondered what it was supposed to be. Medium range is 100 feet plus an additional 10 feet per caster level, which means he'll certainly have his whole party within the area. It takes a minute before anything bad starts happening; that's a whole ten rounds that probably (considering Tome is Wizard tier) will find combat already concluded. Even if it doesn't, we then get into the really problematic part: there's no save against any of the parts of it. After a minute, your party's fighters (and their foes) are fatigued, and everyone (including the wizard) is taking 1d4 points of fire damage. So you could accidentally kill your wizard and weaken your fighter, while simultaneously providing very little benefit otherwise. On top of that, it doesn't scale at all, so at level 20, you're still only dishing out 1d4 points of damage. Unless there's a way to make the bard indestructible at level 1 (so that he can go, wade out in the middle of a swath of foes, and wait for a minute for them to start dropping), this trick sucks.

I would suggest maybe lowering the buildup, scaling the damage (1d4 is piddly at higher levels; maybe 1d4 per two levels?), providing a save (I'd suggest Fortitude), and providing some kind of "safe haven" mechanic; maybe the fire shield extends out to within 10 feet of the bard, so any compatriots (or foes, for that matter) within that range are immune to the effects. -TheDarkest 07:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree on the whole that it is really slow to do much, and my only real justification (since I would probably have to disagree to call it a counter-argument) is that the kind of duration to take effect is in line with many of the other performance tricks that take a long time to take effect. I think the reasoning when they were made is that they are intended to support the bard's spellcasting while maintaining their status as a full caster who can't just handle everything with tricks. That having been said, some of them (like Dance of the Seven Swords) have clear immediate and lasting benefits that kind of put them over the others, and it would probably be better for the class as a whole to have all of them scaled up to a similar level so they are not ignored entirely in favor of spellcasting. We could probably do a comprehensive review of the whole thing. - TG Cid (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree on toning the abilities up. I feel like the feature that makes the bard unique is their performance tricks. While they do get up to 9th level spells, their spells are fairly limited. Most of them are very good spells, but they are still limited. A player playing a bard likely would do so for the musical aspect, less for the full casting, and so they would likely focus more on their performance tricks and be disappointed when they have to rely on spells because the tricks aren't powerful enough. I would be willing to go through and help increase the power of each of the abilities that needs it, though I'm still somewhat new to gauging power levels and may need help finding the right level of balance.


 * As an aside, I'm wondering why Countersong is a Will Save and not a Concentration check. It seems like they'd be trying to concentrate through the melody rather than a resistance to mental influence or magical effects. I suppose it could be seen as magical, but still. -TheDarkest 02:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Tarkis has started a list on one of the above posts that I will begin to address as time (and motivation) permits. I think the reasoning behind Countersong that is that not every character or opponent has been statted with ranks in Concentration, but by RAW they have to be statted with a Will save of some sort. That universality made it better, in my opinion. - TG Cid (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well if you want some more targetted / completed suggestions to help with the motivation/time thing, I can do that. This got flagged for inclusion in the TRD as a bard replacement, so I suddenly care about it a lot more ;-). - Tarkisflux Talk 16:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A thought I just had - how do you feel about turning this into a partial progression casting class (like the Ranger or Templar) and turning some of the higher level spell effects into Legendary Performances instead? - Tarkisflux Talk 17:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A whole year removed, but this was brought up on IRC chat as well. I am not completely opposed to this suggestion provided we can make sure the added performances are legit, but I wish to avoid just having them replicate spell effects. Refluffing having spells is not very attractive to me, nor to anyone else I suspect, so I am not sure how we would actually go about pulling this off when the spells/performances combination works pretty well all the way through the game. - TG Cid (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I was thinking less refluffing, and more just "here's an SLA that your performances create"... probably. It was a year ago, and I'm not sure what exactly I had in mind anymore. - Tarkisflux Talk 18:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Something I found while rating
Break the Silence -- this is kind of strong, just a way to say no to an ability that's basically meant to hose Bards in the first place. I'd recommend forcing the Bard to make a save or something instead. Surgo (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. How's this:

"A 2nd level bard’s spells do not automatically fail when in the effect of a silence spell and can still be attempted, at which point the bard makes a caster level check (against a DC equal to 10 + the caster level of the silence effect). Success allows the spell to be cast normally."


 * I think that fulfills the requirement of at least having to make a roll while still allowing it to be pretty easily made and not be too arduous. Thoughts? - TG Cid (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)