Why The Bard Is Broken (And How To Fix It)

[Arimmus]

Except it's weird. The bard has to be playing for the song to be in effect? The warrior gets a +1 while bartering because someone is singing in the background? It's a good idea, but I think the song should have a duration.

Well Yeah. I would say something like, Dragon die + Com Rounds. (round =15 seconds, so a person with 4 comm and rolled a dragon die of 3 would have 7 rounds or 1 min. or whatever to do it)

Its all up to GM really.

[Loswaith]

...

Well the factor then is if you take damage it's then better than an assassin ability,

Well, no, because the assassin's ability has lower activation cost and no maintenance cost.

Which is only a factor if you arent defeating the SINGLE target every round that it is placed on (creatures dont actually have that much health that a group cant regularly defeat them in a single round) this is also assuming the party is all attacking the same target (which doesn't often happen either), otherwise the assassin is effectivly picking a new target every round (if they want to keep mark on new targets), and thusly using a minor action every round, the same as a bard. While if the bard was damage it would be effectivly be mark on every creature per time, in the AoE, a huge bonus than .

...

The bard does get the equivlent as anyone else (if not slightly more), the Assassin novice gives +1 damage to each person of the group, abet to only one target (a minor action to intiate, limited range), the dualist novice gets +1 bonus (to itself only and conditional to weapons) for either attack (just like the bard but only themselves) or melee defence (likely using from dual weapons anyway). The bard gets +1 attack for every ally in range (for a minor action, limited range), regardless of number of targets they then attack.

So all in all the bard is getting more bonus than the other rogue specialisations for novice rank (dualist is effectivly getting nothing at novice, if attack is useless), it tends to be more conditional but it is on the whole a much greater bonus as well.

No. This is a superficial and incorrect judgement, it is contradicted when you do a mathematical analysis of the actual benefits as I have done and posted in this thread. I don't really need to repost the numbers they are there for everyone to see.

It's only superficial if you only take it as a factor of damage potential with a melee bard using Song of Valor. I could throw up many legitimate scenarious where if characters that arent purely built for combat, where the +1 for a bard using Song of Valor is far more effective than anything they would otherwise lose (as I could also show if it was a +10 bonus how it is still underpowered as well). You cant just take your singular scenario approach and categorically say it is 'broken' because there are a multitude of different situations, not just that one aspect your trying to use to use to prove it is broken (if you dont like it or it doesnt work for your group thats fine, it doesnt mean it is broken). It's much like saying the world is flat because you cant see the curve when standing on the ground, because that is the majority of situations.

...
The duelist gets a passive bonus to an ability he already has, so it doesn't cost him anything extra -- it's a pure positive even if it is situational.

It costs an activate action to get the duel weapon style bonus, so initially a minor action.
While if a duelist doesn't use a main gauche or spiked buckler (which they dont just get automatically, they have to pay for them) the novice of dualist gives nothing (accept if they have bought a rapier), so they are paying a specialisation slot for nothing, so how is loosing a specialisation slot a positive if you get no benefit.
They are also paying the cost of not using whatever off hand weapon they would otherwise be using (assuming a short sword and that would result in -1 damage on any lightning attack stunts) and have to then buy a main gauche or spiked buckler to then get the bonus thats may not be that good anyway. Like wise if a bard doesnt use Song of Valor they are free to backstab/bluff (those abilities arent taken away from the bard) and are then in the exact same situation the duelist is in, if they dont have the dueling weapons.
Assuming the dualist has paid all those costs it is then

an ability of microscopic benefit.

All in all a Bard is still better off than an unspecialised Rogue, because when the group/situation can use the benefits of the bard specialisation they have the options to use them, while the unspecialised Rogue does not.

[empyrien]

Which is only a factor if you arent defeating the SINGLE target every round that it is placed on (creatures dont actually have that much health that a group cant regularly defeat them in a single round) this is also assuming the party is all attacking the same target (which doesn't often happen either), otherwise the assassin is effectivly picking a new target every round (if they want to keep mark on new targets), and thusly using a minor action every round, the same as a bard. While if the bard was damage it would be effectivly be mark on every creature per time, in the AoE, a huge bonus than .

The maximum benefit is each case is +1 damage per party member per attack. To achieve this the bard uses a major action (a full attack) to initiate the song and must give up a minor action each round, plus the each party member must remain with 12 yards of the bard. The assassin gives up a minor action per enemy (at most a minor action per round) and each party member must attack the same enemy. Some enemies will last only one round, some won't particularly if we are talking about some of the Set 2 enemies (which is relevant because we are talking about level 6+ characters). I don't see how having a bard song give +1 damage would be such a huge imbalance as you are claiming (particularly given that Mark of Death gets a synergy bonus at the master level for the assassin, whereas Song of Valor doesn't improve).

It's only superficial if you only take it as a factor of damage potential with a melee bard using Song of Valor. I could throw up many legitimate scenarious where if characters that arent purely built for combat, where the +1 for a bard using Song of Valor is far more effective than anything they would otherwise lose (as I could also show if it was a +10 bonus how it is still underpowered as well).

One would hope that in such a group of non-combat characters, that they would have invested in abilities that allow them to solve problems without resorting to combat, given that they would likely die in combat due to not being built for it. Hence, Song of Valor becomes less useful anyway because the characters are trying to avoid a fight.

You cant just take your singular scenario approach and categorically say it is 'broken' because there are a multitude of different situations, not just that one aspect your trying to use to use to prove it is broken (if you dont like it or it doesnt work for your group thats fine, it doesnt mean it is broken). It's much like saying the world is flat because you cant see the curve when standing on the ground, because that is the majority of situations

.

Well I would say that my "singular scenario" is representative of a typical scenario. I made the minimal assumptions I could about typical character builds and typical adversaries to provide a meaningful comparison. Sure, it is possible to contrive a situation where Song of Valor comes out ahead, but those situations are just that: contrived and rare.

Perhaps we are arguing about what broken means. To me if a specialisation ability is only more useful to the party than a baseline ability against a few percent of enemies, that is broken.

I am fine with abilities being situationally useful, but if I have to choose between abilities I would want them to be useful 20% or 25% of the time before I would justify spending a talent on them.

It costs an activate action to get the duel weapon style bonus, so initially a minor action.

But the activation cost comes from the Dual Weapon Style talent, the specialisation talent is a passive bonus that simply improves that.

While if a duelist doesn't use a main gauche or spiked buckler (which they dont just get automatically, they have to pay for them) the novice of dualist gives nothing (accept if they have bought a rapier), so they are paying a specialisation slot for nothing, so how is loosing a specialisation slot a positive if you get no benefit.

Well, okay so they have to pay some silver to get a main gauche/buckler but that's hardly relevant for game balance. More money can always be acquired in game, it never "runs out" but you only get a fixed number of talent points.

They are also paying the cost of not using whatever off hand weapon they would otherwise be using (assuming a short sword and that would result in -1 damage on any lightning attack stunts) and have to then buy a main gauche or spiked buckler to then get the bonus thats may not be that good anyway.

So they have to choose between using a main gauche/buckler and having both +1 to Attack and +1 to Defense, or using a short sword in the offhand and having either +1 Attack or +1 Defense and +1 damage to their off-hand lightning attacks. So which one you would choose is situational, but at first glance I don't think there is a clear winner. You are only using your offhand weapon when you get stunt points and choose lightning attack. Against armored opponents, lightning attack for rogues isn't so useful, normally one is better off choosing pierce armor plus mighty blow or lethal blow. Against unarmored opponents it can be good though. I'd have to think about it, but I can say now that the comparison won't be as one-sided as Song of Valor vs backstab. Particularly given that if you have a spare stunt point you can always just use lightning attack with your main hand weapon.

All in all a Bard is still better off than an unspecialised Rogue, because when the group/situation can use the benefits of the bard specialisation they have the options to use them, while the unspecialised Rogue does not.

As I have said, my issue with the bard is that the circumstances within which one would choose to make use of Song of Valor are extremely limited, to the point where it is broken. I think it could have been implemented differently and have suggested an alternative.

[shonuff]

While if a duelist doesn't use a main gauche or spiked buckler (which they dont just get automatically, they have to pay for them) the novice of dualist gives nothing (accept if they have bought a rapier), so they are paying a specialisation slot for nothing, so how is loosing a specialisation slot a positive if you get no benefit.
They are also paying the cost of not using whatever off hand weapon they would otherwise be using (assuming a short sword and that would result in -1 damage on any lightning attack stunts) and have to then buy a main gauche or spiked buckler to then get the bonus thats may not be that good anyway. Like wise if a bard doesnt use Song of Valor they are free to backstab/bluff (those abilities arent taken away from the bard) and are then in the exact same situation the duelist is in, if they dont have the dueling weapons.
Assuming the dualist has paid all those costs it is then

The difference is in the percentages. The percentage of combat situations where a duelist will be using dueling weapons is far higher than a bard will be using SoV. An ability doesn't have to be the only used in order to be considered worthwhile, either. Look at Song of Friendship... it's a decent ability and really only useful outside of combat. But with SoV, using it once or twice would be nice....

All in all a Bard is still better off than an unspecialised Rogue, because when the group/situation can use the benefits of the bard specialisation they have the options to use them, while the unspecialised Rogue does not.

Eh. An unspecialized rogue would take different talents in exchange for the Specializations and would not have taken Music Lore/Performance and Music in the first place. I'd say overall, an unspecialized rogue is better off ability-wise.

[shonuff]

OK... just had a thought, and I think I got it.

Novice: Song of Valor -- +1 attack & damage & +1 stunt points when stunt points are generated. Major action to initiate, and minor action to maintain.

Reasoning: Admittedly much stronger than the original, but the bard is also losing backstab (different than some of the suggestions about making SoV a free action) and the bard also has higher initial prerequisites (2 primary abilities, 1 talent & 1 focus) than any other specialization. I liked Empyrien's suggestion about boosting stunt points, but that (IMO) was a little too random. And this only adds about 2.5 avg damage/turn for warriors (less for others), while bards will be losing backstab (3.5 avg damage) and what would be a good guess? 20% of their attacks?

Journeyman: Taunt cost reduced by 1 stunt point. Credit to empyrien.

Reasoning: I like it. Also, IIRC, all of the other specializations have only combat abilities. I'm not against a non-combat focus, but more and more I'm thinking that the specializations should all focus on combat abilities.

Master: Song of Courage -- Same as SoV above, but additionally allies receive a +2 to Courage, Morale, & Self-Discipline checks.

Reasoning: They're inspired. I toyed around with having the bard's Communication (Performance) score being used as a replacement for a character's Willpower, but then that makes Willpower trivial/redundant (although it would be a perk to bards who invested in Communication).

[empyrien]

Nice variation. Just a couple of points.

Firstly, at master level, the bard's Song of Courage is now providing the same bonuses a Champion's Rally provides at the same level or better. Admittedly the bard is giving up a major action to initiate and a minor action to maintain, whereas the champion is just giving up a minor action to activate. I'm just a bit wary of having so much overlap between the two abilities.

Secondly, I think that too much of the good stuff is up front in the Novice ability and there's not enough reward for taking the specialisation all the way to Master.

I'd move the Novice ability you have to Master and just call it Song of Courage as that what it most closely resembles in that form, particularly if it is providing +1 to hit, +1 damage and +1 SP. Possibly you could also up one or more of the bonuses to +2 given the higher cost the bard is paying to maintain the ability. You could then stick Song of Friendship back in at the Novice level, or something else if you prefer.

[shonuff]

Firstly, at master level, the bard's Song of Courage is now providing the same bonuses a Champion's Rally provides at the same level or better. Admittedly the bard is giving up a major action to initiate and a minor action to maintain, whereas the champion is just giving up a minor action to activate. I'm just a bit wary of having so much overlap between the two abilities.

Possibly. But they are different classes. Arcane Warrior, for instance turns mages into armor-wearing sword-wielders. And you're right that bards have to spend a significant amount of time/energy to maintain their buff -- they should be better. Higher prereqs and extensive should equal greater payout.

Secondly, I think that too much of the good stuff is up front in the Novice ability and there's not enough reward for taking the specialisation all the way to Master.

Maybe. The problem is that bards give up a lot by using a song. It's a level 6 ability... IMO, it should have a higher yield than backstab. And +2 to Willpower could definitely mean a lot if it would help against Horror, especially if you haven't houseruled the duration.

I'd move the Novice ability you have to Master and just call it Song of Courage as that what it most closely resembles in that form, particularly if it is providing +1 to hit, +1 damage and +1 SP. Possibly you could also up one or more of the bonuses to +2 given the higher cost the bard is paying to maintain the ability. You could then stick Song of Friendship back in at the Novice level, or something else if you prefer.

I might split the damage and stunt point, but I like the Willpower buff, personally. SoV inspires... really, it should be a Willpower buff before anything else, but that's not too mechanically useful. Besides, I liked your idea about moving SoF to Music (because Music is HORRIBLY balanced).

[empyrien]

And you're right that bards have to spend a significant amount of time/energy to maintain their buff -- they should be better. Higher prereqs and extensive should equal greater payout.

Obviously. The Willpower buffs certainly make sense (the D&D 3.x bard had a very similar ability).

To be honest, though, in my opinion (which I'm sure everyone is sick of hearing by now ), is that now that you have gotten rid of Song of Captivation I see no reason to keep the whole major to initiate/minor to maintain mechanic at all. In my mind that was there solely to provide some balance to Song of Captivation. If you are going to get rid of that, I would just have some bard songs being balanced around a single major action to activate the "song mode" with no maintenance cost. This would be a lot easier to balance because the other specialisations have a similar mechanic.

So for example you could have:

Novice: Song of Valor provides +1 to hit and +1 SP to allies within 12 yards.
Master: Song of Courage provides +1 Damage and +1 to Willpower (Courage, Morale) rolls to allies within 16 yards.

Or some variation/combination of that according to your preferences. This adds a tactical element of choosing the best song for the situation (most of the time it would be Song of Courage though). Or you could just make it a single song that gets upgraded at Master level.

Novice: Song of Courage provides +1 to hit and +1 Willpower (Courage) to allies within 12 yards.
Master: Song of Courage improves, additionally providing +1 damage and +1 Willpower (Morale) to allies within 12 yards.

Then you know its balanced because its almost identical to the champion's rally -- being slightly better but also a slightly higher cost (major action to activate instead of a minor).

My point is that there is lots of possibilities, and trying to balance the loss of a minor action every round is hard.

Maybe. The problem is that bards give up a lot by using a song. It's a level 6 ability... IMO, it should have a higher yield than backstab. And +2 to Willpower could definitely mean a lot if it would help against Horror, especially if you haven't houseruled the duration.

Perhaps you could reshuffle the bonuses around? Also no need to have two different Songs when the Master ability supercedes the novice one -- just have one Song at Novice with an upgrade at Master.

As an aside, I have had PCs kept out of an entire combat because they didn't pass the resistance check against Horror. I haven't houseruled it because I don't want my players looking at Willpower as a dump stat. The one warrior in my group who does have a decent Willpower and also the Courage focus has reaped the rewards of investing in Willpower.

I might split the damage and stunt point, but I like the Willpower buff, personally. SoV inspires... really, it should be a Willpower buff before anything else, but that's not too mechanically useful. Besides, I liked your idea about moving SoF to Music (because Music is HORRIBLY balanced).

If you like the WIllpower buffs then go for it, they make sense. The only real balance issue to me would be the distribution of the bonuses between Novice and Master, and the stacking between Rally and Song of Courage to give +3 to Willpower (Courage, Morale) rolls.

[shonuff]

Easier to balance? Sure. But then bard would play the same as the other rogues. Activate ability then bluff/backstab. The different specializations should play differently... not just have similar abilities with different flavor text. Your alterations work great for your system; I think they're an appropriate power level if you get rid of the maintenance cost; however, IMO, they're too weak if you have one.

And whether or not the Willpower buffs would stack is anybody's guess, but I wouldn't see why not. In my mind, neither is really a specialization that most people would flock to, so a little extra oomph so people play them isn't too bad, right?

[empyrien]

Easier to balance? Sure. But then bard would play the same as the other rogues. Activate ability then bluff/backstab. The different specializations should play differently... not just have similar abilities with different flavor text.

The activation cost to enter a mode is a fundamental mechanic to the system. It is shared by the Berserker, Champion, Blood Mage, Spirit Healer, Arcane Warrior as well as Single Weapon Style, Dual Weapon Style (and hence the Duelist). I think that the bard abilities are different enough to the other specialisations. Saying that a bard plays similarly to an assassin because they both use an activation cost seems a bit strange to me.

Having to maintain a song with a minor action basically means that you eliminate melee bards. Why would you bother going into melee when you can do the same damage from range? But you better forget about using a crossbow because you'll halve your damage. So longbow rogues only. But the ability only has a range of 12 yards, so unless you're fighting indoors you'll probably have to choose between attacking and moving to keep the party in range every few rounds. It just seems too problematic to me. You have to provide some really substantial buffs to compensate for that.

Maybe that was what Green Ronin was aiming for -- a strait jacket to force people into choosing a ranged rogue. To me that's a problem with the rest of the system, so the fix should be provided there rather than crippling melee bards. There is absolutely no lore reason why bards should be longbow wielders only.

Assuming that we do get to choose a second specialisation for levels 11-20 in Set 3, what happens then? A bard/assassin would be right out as they would have to give up a full attack anytime they wanted to Mark an enemy ... which seems crazy to me given that it is explicitly stated that one of the roles that bards take is assassins. What about bards who wanted to use poison, another ability which the lore explicitly supports. A ready action to get the poison out and an activate action to coat a blade ... so that's two rounds where you have to forego an attack to use an ability because you are maintaining the bard song.

And whether or not the Willpower buffs would stack is anybody's guess, but I wouldn't see why not.

They would stack as they are different effects. I just think it might devalue Willpower even more than it already is, as it's only useful for resisting spells. A berserker who is affected by Rally and your Song of Courage would have +5 before they added their Willpower and Focus. Maybe that is okay, I don't know, but I think people should have some incentive for investing in Willpower.

I agree that if you stick with the minor action to maintain mechanic you do need a fairly hefty set of buffs to compensate for that.

In my mind, neither is really a specialization that most people would flock to, so a little extra oomph so people play them isn't too bad, right?

I think Champion is quite good already. I have 2 warriors in my group, one is going Templar, the other Champion. I don't think Champion needs a boost. Obviously the RAW Bard does.

[shonuff]

The activation cost to enter a mode is a fundamental mechanic to the system. It is shared by the Berserker, Champion, Blood Mage, Spirit Healer, Arcane Warrior as well as Single Weapon Style, Dual Weapon Style (and hence the Duelist). I think that the bard abilities are different enough to the other specialisations. Saying that a bard plays similarly to an assassin because they both use an activation cost seems a bit strange to me.

I just like a little more difference than "activate" then "attack until everything is dead".

Maybe that was what Green Ronin was aiming for -- a strait jacket to force people into choosing a ranged rogue. To me that's a problem with the rest of the system, so the fix should be provided there rather than crippling melee bards. There is absolutely no lore reason why bards should be longbow wielders only.

Especially because bards are worst archers from rogue group?

Assuming that we do get to choose a second specialisation for levels 11-20 in Set 3, what happens then? A bard/assassin would be right out as they would have to give up a full attack anytime they wanted to Mark an enemy ... which seems crazy to me given that it is explicitly stated that one of the roles that bards take is assassins. What about bards who wanted to use poison, another ability which the lore explicitly supports. A ready action to get the poison out and an activate action to coat a blade ... so that's two rounds where you have to forego an attack to use an ability because you are maintaining the bard song.

I'm sure there will be a disjointed, broken fix like ability advancements.

They would stack as they are different effects. I just think it might devalue Willpower even more than it already is, as it's only useful for resisting spells. A berserker who is affected by Rally and your Song of Courage would have +5 before they added their Willpower and Focus. Maybe that is okay, I don't know, but I think people should have some incentive for investing in Willpower.

I don't know... I doubt anyone will take bard for the Master ability. And I don't think Willpower will be devalued more, just more easily compensated if someone is a bard... that is to say, I don't think someone will invest less in Willpower because of the bard, just the negative aspeccts of low Willpowers will be reduced, which might be a good thing overall.

That, and I don't think most rogues will choose bard, regardless.That's one thing that many got right: RPers like bards; others don't. You could give them insta-kills and the ability to poo gold and most people would still pick assassins.

[empyrien]

I just like a little more difference than "activate" then "attack until everything is dead".

I agree. This criticism is completely valid. But it's not just restricted to the bard. If you are a warrior then basically all you can do is attack. Occasionally you get to choose between attacking and charging, but apart from that its attack. Rogues get at least a little variety in their attack enhancements. Mages are really the only interesting class, they can take a really proactive role in dictating the tide of battle. Warriors and rogues have to rely on generating stunt points. Without stunts playing a rogue or warrior would be mind-numbingly boring.

I think there was a real opportunity missed by Green Ronin to include a stamina mechanic for rogues and warriors. To have some non-mage classes that had some choice in how they play their character in combat, having to strategically choose between their abilities rather than just rolling and hoping for stunts would have been a novel, compelling mechanic. Possibly it would have been too "advanced" given that they were targeting people who have never roleplayed before, but I think it could have worked. It's not so different to hit points/health after all.

So I think the answer to your desire to differentiate the bard would be to give them more active abilities rather than an uber-passive ability. Because with the minor action to maintain cost, the bard suffers even worse from the "activate then attack until everything is dead" syndrome -- they can't even backstab anymore.

Especially because bards are worst archers from rogue group?

Well, the way I would put it is that if you want to be a bard then you basically have to be a longbow wielder (rather than the reverse).

That, and I don't think most rogues will choose bard, regardless.That's one thing that many got right: RPers like bards; others don't. You could give them insta-kills and the ability to poo gold and most people would still pick assassins.

Maybe. I think the take on the bard given in Dragon Age: Origins and The Stolen Throne might give people a compelling reason to take them if the abilities reflected the lore.

[empyrien]

Okay, so here is my third attempt to rework the bard. I have recently finished reading The Stolen Throne, which reinforced my perceptions about the bard being deadly both in combat and out of it. It also convinced me that neither the DA:Origins bardic abilities nor the Green Ronin bardic abilities provided a good realisation of the bard as described by the lore.

Bard Specialisation (Version 3)
Class: Rogue
Requirements: You must have Communication and Dexterity 3 or higher, and Music (novice).

The bard is a master of manipulating people's emotions, able to inspire their allies and distract and unnerve their foes.

Novice: You can inspire your comrades to great feats of heroism during battle. As a Major action, you can attempt a TN 14 Communication (Performance) test to commence singing a Song of Valor, affecting all allies within 12 yards. Affected allies get +1 SP whenever they generate stunt points, and receive a +1 bonus to Willpower (Courage) rolls. Each rank beyond Novice that you take in the Music talent increases the range of your Song of Valor by 6 yards (i.e. 18 yards at Journeyman and 24 yards at Master).

Once initiated, the song may be continued without the use additional actions. Severe adverse effects (such as being paralysed) can interrupt the song. The GM may require an additional Communication (Performance) test to continue the song, or simply rule that you cannot continue singing at that point and the effects of the song cease immediately.

Note: Credits to shonuff for two excellent ideas: the first being that bard song should provide a Willpower buff (in this thread), the second being the idea of having a synergy between the bard's song and the Music talent.

Edit: Added a Communication (Performance) test to initiate Song of Valor and the possibility of interruption.

Journeyman: You are skilled in the art of deception, able to effortlessly spin an intricate web of lies and more easily detect when someone is attempting to deceive you. You receive a +1 bonus to Communication (Deception) and Perception (Empathy) tests. The ease with which you deceive others also aids you in combat. You may perform the Taunt stunt for 1 stunt point instead of the usual 2.

Edit: Dropped the bonus to Communication (Deception) and Perception (Empathy) from +2 back to +1.

Master: You are a master of manipulation, able to distract and unnerve your adversaries to greater effect, and with more control. Opponents you successfully Taunt suffer a -2 penalty to attack rolls and casting rolls on their next turn. Additionally, you may now perform the Taunt stunt as a minor action.

Design Notes

While I was initially comfortable with Song of Captivation in terms of balance (although not impressed with it in terms of realism), the seeds of discontent sown by shonuff in this thread eventually won out. shonuff's persistence has convinced me that Song of Captivation is just too unrealistic without also giving the bard some magical inspiration. Given that there is no basis in the lore for such inspiration, I've gotten rid of it and taken the opportunity to make Taunt the signature ability for the bard, which I feel suits well with the concept that bards are master manipulators. It also corresponds loosely to the Distraction ability that the DA:Origins bard had.

I think that the stunt point bonus fits in well with the idea of inspiring heroic feats, and it also distinguishes the bard's buffs from Mark of Death and Rally, adding a unique flavour.

I've also borrowed two really nice ideas from shonuff regarding the Willpower buffs and synergy with Music for Song of Valor. I think having an additional boost to help against Horror is good, and at the level of +1 doesn't devalue investing in Willpower or the Berserker bonus.

I've given the bard a specialisation specific bonus at the journeyman level to both deceiving others, and avoiding being deceived. These bonuses give the bard a clear edge over other rogues in the realm of deceiving and manipulating others, which I feel was lacking in the RAW bard. I think these give an appropriate game mechanic to represent that bard's skill at intrigue. The deception bonus also synergises with Bluff and Taunt.

Due to the stacking rules, an opponent may only be affected by a single Taunt at a time. So if a non-bard taunt's an opponent first, they can't be taunted by the bard until after their next turn, even though the bard's Taunt may be better.

I tried to keep the abilities weapon-style neutral, so that both ranged bards and melee bards are valid builds. Melee bards have more opportunities to generate stunt points for Taunt than a ranged bard, as if Bluff generates stunts then they can use those to Taunt. So I added the possibility of using a minor action to Taunt to help out the ranged bards. It also gives the bard an element of control -- a way to be proactive rather than reactive (i.e. relying on stunts). I felt this was important if I was going to make Taunt the bard's signature ability.

I will also note that as far as I can tell, the opposed roll used to Taunt an opponent can generate stunts, because it is not specifically excluded. In that instance, one could use Sway the Crowd in conjunction with Taunt, making it quite potent (especially if used in conjunction with my revised Music talent).

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far (special mention to shonuff and Loswaith for extended discourse). It has been invaluable to have such great feedback. Having people challenge my ideas and force me to justify my reasoning has really helped solidify in my mind what I wanted from the bard specialisation and contributed to the revision of my initial ideas. I hope I haven't offended anyone along the way, I know I have a fairly assertive discussion style.

So, to those of you who have managed to stick it out this far, I again invite you to provide feedback on my revised bard (mark III).

In particular, I was considering extending the range of Taunt to 10 + Communication for Master bards but I wasn't sure if that was too unrealistic. I think that if you are going to ruffle someone's feathers that badly you need to be up close. Thoughts?

[Admiral Yacob]

I haven't followed this thread in detail, mostly because it doesn't matter for my group, but this is, IMO, the best bard I've seen. It has both in and out of combat uses which I like and still maintains all the feels of the bard. Will it still require a minor action to maintain the song while singing? My thought would be yes because it is fairly powerful now with the +1 SP.

[shonuff]

I like the redone bard a lot. Doesn't look overpowered, IMO, and stunts and courage seem to get be a fit for SoV (as opposed to just hitting and damage). The only thing I would consider doing differently is changing Dexterity as a prerequisite to Cunning -- especially because one of the prerequisites for Music is a Cunning focus.

Consider that stolen'd.

As to increasing the taunt range, I probably wouldn't bother. 10+Com just seems to add an extra level of complexity that will probably be glossed over anyway. That, and I think your idea about being up close is spot-on.

I haven't followed this thread in detail, mostly because it doesn't matter for my group, but this is, IMO, the best bard I've seen. It has both in and out of combat uses which I like and still maintains all the feels of the bard. Will it still require a minor action to maintain the song while singing? My thought would be yes because it is fairly powerful now with the +1 SP.

I'm thinking it's just the initial major action. The +1SP, IMO, is fairly powerful, but if you need the minor action maintenance, bards plummet back to being completely "suck".

[Loswaith]

novice comment
I have the same concerns as Admiral Yacob, though in addition, I'd likely limit stunt points still to a maximum of 6, simply to avoid it allowing the mighty blow and leathal blow stack, without any training on the part of the attacker (though not a big issue if thats not a concern). I also see no real reason not to add the willpower bonus to morale as well as courage, it tends to be less used however inspiring troops would be a useful approach as well (unless you have plans for that being part of the music talent). The synergy to the music talent is a nice touch however.

Journeyman comment
The +2 bonus for Communication(deception) is fairly large, as most bards would likely also have the deception focus, resulting in a +4 bonus, making them realy only need a 3 communication to hit the +7 point (alternatively because of the bonus a bard could ignore taking the deception focus alltogeather, which seems a bit out of sorts for a bard to do). I have similar concerns for empathy, though thats of less use in general, I cant realy see why a bard would be any more perceptive to someones emotions than anyone else with training (hence the focus), though also cant come up with a solid enough reason for them not to be either.

A possibility could be to give the focuses for free, but I suspect that any one making a character planing to become a bard would already have deception by the time they can take the specialisation (if they plan to take it at all), so haps making the focus bonus +3 for bards instead. It makes it better for bards to have, and gives an incentive for a bard to actually take the focus rather than ignoring it for the bard specific bonus.
Much the same method for empathy could be done as well as there is even less incentive for a bard to actually take the empathy focus than deception.

Master Comment
I think leaving the range at the basic 10 yards is fine, the ability to take taunt as an action and the double bonus of it is more than enough of a bonus for the master that it realy doesnt need the minimal range increase that communication would offer and the journeyman rank offers enough of a tie in for communication anyway.

...
I will also note that as far as I can tell, the opposed roll used to Taunt an opponent can generate stunts, because it is not specifically excluded. In that instance, one could use Sway the Crowd in conjunction with Taunt, making it quite potent (especially if used in conjunction with my revised Music talent). ...

While my take on it is that stunt points are they are designed to realy only be generated by the roll directly tied to the action, not on resistance rolls or ancillary opposed rolls.
Also extra rolls on stunts dont usualy generate any stunt points. Allowing taunt to be used as an action kind of muddies that rationale, but given the increased penalities on it to normal taunt, it should likely not be the case.
If you wanted stunt poitns to be generated for the taunt action, maybe reducing the penality back to -1 but making it cheaper cost (when used as a stunt) and have the ability to generate stunt points (for the action), could be a way to go.

[empyrien]

I haven't followed this thread in detail, mostly because it doesn't matter for my group, but this is, IMO, the best bard I've seen. It has both in and out of combat uses which I like and still maintains all the feels of the bard. Will it still require a minor action to maintain the song while singing? My thought would be yes because it is fairly powerful now with the +1 SP.

No minor action will be required to maintain the song -- I've gotten rid of that mechanic completely, and it's one of the reasons I'm glad to be rid of Song of Captivation. The cost of a minor action to maintain a song is too hard to balance, you either have to have huge buffs or basically cripple melee bards, assassin/bards etc. If you have a look through the earlier posts, the majority of the discussion is about this mechanic.

On average, I would say +1 SP is worth less than +1 to damage, how much exactly is a bit tricky. Doubles or better get rolled 44% of the time, but you only get stunt points when you succeed. Most attacks will be successful though. I estimate that +1 SP is worth approximately 0.75 damage per successful attack on average. Some of the time you'll already have "enough" stunt points and so the extra Stunt Point won't be a huge advantage, other times it will make a big difference.

Of the Set 2 specialisations, bards have the most requirements, significantly more than either the Champion or the Assassin. So I think they are entitled to a better ability at Novice level.

Also, if you compare with the mage spell Invigorate, it has a similar effect and only costs 1 MP per round to maintain. I think Song of Valor should be stronger than Invigorate as it is one of the bard's defining abilities. Having a single spell that "replaces" the bard just seems a bit much.

I was probably going to add a Communication (Performance) test to Song of Valor to balance it a little better, depending on what people thought of the idea.

In addition, I'd likely limit stunt points still to a maximum of 6, simply to avoid it allowing the mighty blow and leathal blow stack

Given that Invigorate doesn't specify that restriction, I don't think Song of Valor should either.

I also see no real reason not to add the willpower bonus to morale as well as courage, it tends to be less used however inspiring troops would be a useful approach as well (unless you have plans for that being part of the music talent).

Possibly. PCs in general don't make Morale checks, it's up to the player when they run. So adding to Morale I picture as more of a Champion ability as the leader of NPC troops rather than the bard, who I tend to picture as working in small groups or with elite troops. It's not an unreasonable suggestion, I'm just not sure how I feel about it. I like having some distinction between Rally and Song of Valor.

The +2 bonus for Communication(deception) is fairly large, as most bards would likely also have the deception focus, resulting in a +4 bonus, making them realy only need a 3 communication to hit the +7 point (alternatively because of the bonus a bard could ignore taking the deception focus alltogeather, which seems a bit out of sorts for a bard to do). I have similar concerns for empathy, though thats of less use in general, I cant realy see why a bard would be any more perceptive to someones emotions than anyone else with training (hence the focus), though also cant come up with a solid enough reason for them not to be either.

The motivation is that the bard has spent more time and has more experience in the art of deception as it is such an intrinsic part of their role.

I was basing the +2 on the Berkserker and Templar's Novice abilities -- they both get a solid +2 bonus. However, after reading your comment I realised that those bonuses are to resistance rolls and hence more situational, whereas the bard's bonuses are to tests that they will actively be using most of the time, so I think there is a strong argument for dropping the bonus back down to a +1, particularly looking at the Novice Shadow ability in the set 3 playtest. So I think I will do that, and drop back to a +1 bonus.

A couple of ideas I was considering were giving a reroll to Communication (Deception) test or upping the focus bonus to +3 but these have both appeared in alternate forms in the Set 3 playtest so I'll stick with the current mechanic, but reduced to a +1.

While my take on it is that stunt points are they are designed to realy only be generated by the roll directly tied to the action, not on resistance rolls or ancillary opposed rolls. Also extra rolls on stunts dont usualy generate any stunt points.

I was of the same opinion until I read through the stunt descriptions again and noticed that stunts like Lightning Attack and That Makes Me Wonder explicitly state that the additional tests do not generate stunts, whereas there is no such qualifier specified for Taunt. I wouldn't allow a Taunt to generate a second Taunt, but I would allow Sway The Crowd to be used off a Taunt for example.

Allowing taunt to be used as an action kind of muddies that rationale, but given the increased penalities on it to normal taunt, it should likely not be the case.

Well, I think the increased penalty is commensurate with having it as the Master ability of a specialisation, so for the moment I'll stick with it and see how it goes in some playtesting.

I like the redone bard a lot.

The only thing I would consider doing differently is changing Dexterity as a prerequisite to Cunning -- especially because one of the prerequisites for Music is a Cunning focus.

None of the bard-specific abilities are based on Cunning or Dexterity, so I could see it going either way. I mainly went with Dexterity because it was already there and that is a stat that is likely to be high anyway. Cunning does fit with the lore though, as bards are supposed to be educated in history and cultural lore.

Consider that stolen'd.

Well, seeing as I borrowed from a couple of your ideas that seems fair.

As to increasing the taunt range, I probably wouldn't bother. 10+Com just seems to add an extra level of complexity that will probably be glossed over anyway. That, and I think your idea about being up close is spot-on.

I'll leave it as is then.


As I mentioned earlier, I was thinking of adding a TN 14 Communication (Performance) test as part of the activate action for Song of Valor. That way there is some chance of failure and bards have more reason to invest in Communication, and they get something for the focus that they had to pick to actually acquire the Music talent. I'm curious as to what people think of that idea?

[empyrien]

Updated the Version 3 Novice ability to include a test and the possibility of interruption:

Novice: You can inspire your comrades to great feats of heroism during battle. As a Major action, you can attempt a TN 14 Communication (Performance) test to commence singing a Song of Valor, affecting all allies within 12 yards. Affected allies get +1 SP whenever they generate stunt points, and receive a +1 bonus to Willpower (Courage) rolls. Each rank beyond Novice that you take in the Music talent increases the range of your Song of Valor by 6 yards (i.e. 18 yards at Journeyman and 24 yards at Master).

Once initiated, the song may be continued without the use additional actions. Severe adverse effects (such as being paralysed) can interrupt the song. The GM may require an additional Communication (Performance) test to continue the song, or simply rule that you cannot continue singing at that point and the effects of the song cease immediately.

[vonpenguin]

I was going to write a long drawn out argument on why I think Song of Valor is perfectly viable. But it’s late so I’m just going to put up four scenarios where I see it being useful.

1: Assuming they stared at level one a level six party should have picked up enough allies, hirelings, love-interests, and assorted other hangers on that A song of Valor could effect a very large number of allies. Even if the GM isn’t rolling for them they fact that they are being technically buffed should play a part in the battles narrative.

2: Similar to the first, Large scale battles. Again, at this level the PCs should be important enough people that this sort of thing is not out of the question.

3: A duel or trial by combat. The Bard can’t technically interfere but I really doubt the characters are going to stop the bard singing because it might make his friend more accurate.

4: The Bard, performing at Bann so and sos party while the group archer crawls into position on the beams over head and gets ready to put an arrow between the banns eyes.


Also on the whole “DA bards are spies why are their skills singing?” I think that kind of bard can be done by simply taking novice music and calling it a day, the specialization is for ones that are so involved in the ruse (or are perhaps legitimate minstrels) that they have abilities related to it.