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

[aris]

Hello I read the analysis and the answers and I would like to add some thought,

It seems that the whole analysis is based on computing the average damage of the party per turn. Do not get me wrong, I am not saying that this is not important, but I believe that this is just one point of view. I designer should take it into account, but this is not the only thing that's important.

When we are in computer game where everybody is attacking a boss, computing the average damage of the party is truly important.Why? Because the boss has many hit points and a large number of hits is needed in order to kill it. So you have an experiment that is repeated hundreds of times and the only thing that's important is maximizing the average damage per turn (or per second in most computer games).

But there are some big differences IMO in a pen and paper RPG like dragon age:
a) First the experiment is repeated less times since you do not need to hit something 500 times to defeat it. Most of battles end after less than 10 turns. This means that many times someone may choose to sacrifice his hit potential in order to make sure that the strong member of his party will dilever the last hit to the enemy. Every extra turn could potentially mean the death of a party member/friend. The average damage per turn is not the right measure for evaluating battles that last only 10 turns.

b) Another difference is that in a pen and paper you do not want to get hit (or at least if you role play you shouldn't). It should not be a combat of who does the most damage and who has the more hit points. Every hit is an injury, in real life you do not want to get injured. It is natural for a less combat oriented character to prefer to maximize the probability of a fighter to hit enemy instead of trying to maximize his probability himself. It is not only a competence of maximizing party damage but also avoiding being near to an enemy, helping your friend finish his enemy and other factors that are not taken in to account just by averaging damage per turn.

c) It is different when you fight one big enemy or fighting many weak. When computing average damage per turn, it is like all damage is subtracted from a common hit point pool. But in fact this damage is distributed to many different pools. What is the best strategy is situational based. It is possible to be better to help an ally kill a ready to die enemy than deal damage to an enemy next to you that is full health.

d) Finally you do not always choose the option that deals the more damage given the chance to hit. Some people risk for a greater gain although this is not the best average damage per turn solution.
Aimed shots in many games are a risk for a greater gain that has a small probability of success. Aiming an eye for example is in most games the worst option because of the chances of succeeding. Does that mean that no one would choose to risk for a greater gain?

What I am trying to say in the end is that increasing chance to hit is something much more complicated than just computing average damage per turn. This is an important computation but it not the whole story. If things were that simple we wouldn't play, we would just choose the optimum solution. The DM could do the battle alone without asking the players of their decision only by choosing the best rotation for each one.

[CRKrueger]

It seems that the whole analysis is based on computing the average damage of the party per turn.

Unfortunately, this is what MMOGs have given us, Raid-DPS logic applied to tabletop role-playing games. It doesn't help that DA is a cRPG license. There is already a tabletop tactical minatures game that lends itself to direct MMOG-style analysis, it's D&D 4e. Dragon Age is a Role-playing game, where combat is not the only metric, and many times not even the most important metric. If damage is what you care most about, become an Assassin, Duelist, Berserker, or Mage. If sub-optimum DPS bothers you - pick another specialization. Sometimes there are gigantic holes in a system that mathematical analysis can uncover, but a Bard not being able to outdamage an Assassin or Duelist isn't one of them.

[Badu777]

I read all you originally said, but not everyone's posts. But take a look at the other specializations the things you get aren't really all that game changing so neither should the bard's and I think have the song of captivation is pretty nice, and all you really need for valor is it to give a +1 to attack, damage, and defense, and let it work for magic as well, but keep the minor action. But honestly being a bard should be because you want to role-play as one not because you want to be as/more useful than everyone else.

[shonuff]

What I am trying to say in the end is that increasing chance to hit is something much more complicated than just computing average damage per turn. This is an important computation but it not the whole story. If things were that simple we wouldn't play, we would just choose the optimum solution. The DM could do the battle alone without asking the players of their decision only by choosing the best rotation for each one.

Not quite. The issue is by level 6, a +1 to hit doesn't mean that much. Does it help? Sure. But will most PCs hit almost every time regardless? Yes. This is coupled with the fact that by using Song of Valor, bards cannot use backstab, so their damage goes WAAAYYYY down.

So, by the time everything is said and done, the only thing that really differentiates a bard from other specializations is that they get a +1 to communication rolls, but lose things like dueling weapons, mark of death, stronger backstab, etc. Duelists and assassins can do the same things bards can do with talents and focuses (except song of friendship).

Unfortunately, this is what MMOGs have given us, Raid-DPS logic applied to tabletop role-playing games. It doesn't help that DA is a cRPG license. There is already a tabletop tactical minatures game that lends itself to direct MMOG-style analysis, it's D&D 4e.

I blame the Internet more than MMOs. There's always been peeing matches over which character can outdamage which character. The Internet just brought about forums which consolidated that.

Dragon Age is a Role-playing game, where combat is not the only metric, and many times not even the most important metric. If damage is what you care most about, become an Assassin, Duelist, Berserker, or Mage. If sub-optimum DPS bothers you - pick another specialization. Sometimes there are gigantic holes in a system that mathematical analysis can uncover, but a Bard not being able to outdamage an Assassin or Duelist isn't one of them.

Yes and no. While I agree that bards are more non-combat, they don't really have non-combat abilities... just a +1 Communication buff. So their non-combat abilities aren't that impressive, and they're the only specialization with non-combat abilities (or 1 ability).

But honestly being a bard should be because you want to role-play as one not because you want to be as/more useful than everyone else.

Well, yeah. But we're discussing whether or not it's underpowered. When push comes to shove, you play what you want, but it is still weak sauce.

[aris]

Not quite. The issue is by level 6, a +1 to hit doesn't mean that much. Does it help? Sure. But will most PCs hit almost every time regardless? Yes. This is coupled with the fact that by using Song of Valor, bards cannot use backstab, so their damage goes WAAAYYYY down.

The issue is by level 6, a +1 to hit doesn't mean that much, in the situations you have in mind. There are situations where it is important and matters:
a) Players are fighting an opponent with high defense and it is better to increase the probability of each other to hit instead of increasing only your attempt to hit. You will answer here that more NPCs have less than 14 Defense but this is not true if you take into account conditional modifiers or an NPC created by the story teller that uses defense stunts and other stuff.

b) You are not always able to backstab. There are situations where you must run away from your opponent because for example you are on low hit points or because of him moving behind a cover and other reasons... In situations like this you might choose to boost an ally instead of just moving / hunting someone.

What I am trying to say is that these abilities are optional, not always use abilities. There are situations where there is a point using them or where the best choice would be just to attack with backstab.

In general the greatest debate here should be of whether increasing chance to hit is important or not? This is the most important factor and it is bad for the game system if it comes out that increasing chance to hit of everybody is unimportant. So my question is:
Is it truly unimportant for dragon age in levels about 6 to increase you chance to hit? Is it a game where the PCs always hit?

a) If this is true then it is very bad IMHO and this is a much bigger problem about the whole system. But if your answer is YES!, then do you use conditional modifiers (cover, shooting in to melee), do you allow NPCs using defensive stances, do you make boss NPCs from scratch like PCs with high dexterity and shields or whatever?

b) If the answer is no then by no way an ability that requires a minor action and boosts the chance to hit of everybody is unimportant/broken.

[shonuff]

a) Players are fighting an opponent with high defense and it is better to increase the probability of each other to hit instead of increasing only your attempt to hit. You will answer here that more NPCs have less than 14 Defense but this is not true if you take into account conditional modifiers or an NPC created by the story teller that uses defense stunts and other stuff.

Even with higher defense targets, the percentage difference that a +1 adds is negligleable considering what the bard has to sacrifice.

b) You are not always able to backstab. There are situations where you must run away from your opponent because for example you are on low hit points or because of him moving behind a cover and other reasons... In situations like this you might choose to boost an ally instead of just moving / hunting someone.

Really? Backstab is the mainstay of melee rogue damage (especially after bluff). The situations you are describing can happen, yes, but are so situational that you don't actually create abilities for them.

What I am trying to say is that these abilities are optional, not always use abilities. There are situations where there is a point using them or where the best choice would be just to attack with backstab.

Except bard songs work to party detriment. Lower overall damage. Actual accuracy isn't changed terribly much -- a backstabbing rogue gets a +2 to hit; bards only give a +1 to everyone. And singing bards will quite easily not have an option to attack at all... further lowering their damage.

Are there situations where the RAW Song of Valor could be useful? Sure. They exist. But they're so few that they represent an anomaly, not the rule.

[Loswaith]

...
In general the greatest debate here should be of whether increasing chance to hit is important or not? This is the most important factor and it is bad for the game system if it comes out that increasing chance to hit of everybody is unimportant. So my question is:
Is it truly unimportant for dragon age in levels about 6 to increase you chance to hit? Is it a game where the PCs always hit?
...

The reason the +1 isnt of much use is that using a 3d6 bell curve when a character hits +7 bonus to their roll (often refered to a sweet spot) on an attack anything further doesnt add a whole lot of extra chances to the roll succeeding.

This is due to that the +7 is pushing the result into the upper reachers. Typically you are looking at an average roll of about 17-18, with a more realistic range of 13-22 (rolls of 6-15), any values below 13 (roll of 3-5) or above 22 (roll of 16-18) typically have less than 5% (4.63%) chance of occuring either way.
In general the upper reachers aren't taken into account as often they are an indication of success anyway so doesnt matter too much in the equasion.

Even then rolling a 6 or 15 they have a 4.63% chance of occuring themselves. So as you can see an equal chance that a 6 or 15 will occur as any result of the roll will have for the next 3 values lower or higher respectivly.

Does that make the bard broken though? I personaly dont think so. Sure it's not as good in melee but with two other melee specialisation choices as a rogue that do it far better (without excissivly changing the bard), why would you then take a bard specialisation for that kind of character?

[empyrien]

Unfortunately, this is what MMOGs have given us, Raid-DPS logic applied to tabletop role-playing games. It doesn't help that DA is a cRPG license. There is already a tabletop tactical minatures game that lends itself to direct MMOG-style analysis, it's D&D 4e. Dragon Age is a Role-playing game, where combat is not the only metric, and many times not even the most important metric.

The trouble with this assertion is that Song of Valor is clearly a combat ability -- so it's perfectly valid to compare it with other combat abilities. In combat, damage taken (or damage avoided) is the appropriate metric to use. If I can make an analogy to sport, different players on a team can contribute to the team's success in different ways, but ultimately the victor is decided by what's on the scoreboard. In combat, damage is the scoreboard. Different abilities can affect the scoreboard in their own way, but to compare them damage is the best metric to use.

If damage is what you care most about, become an Assassin, Duelist, Berserker, or Mage. If sub-optimum DPS bothers you - pick another specialization. Sometimes there are gigantic holes in a system that mathematical analysis can uncover, but a Bard not being able to outdamage an Assassin or Duelist isn't one of them.

I have no problem with an assassin out-damaging a bard. The trouble is that a bard using Song of Valor can be out-damaged by a rogue who doesn't bother taking a specialisation at all -- that is in 99% of combats Song of Valor actually has a net negative effect when compared with a baseline rogue ability.

I blame the Internet more than MMOs. There's always been peeing matches over which character can outdamage which character. The Internet just brought about forums which consolidated that.

This. Comparing the damage that different classes/builds do has been around for a lot, lot longer than the MMO scene.

[empyrien]

Does that make the bard broken though? I personaly dont think so. Sure it's not as good in melee but with two other melee specialisation choices as a rogue that do it far better (without excissivly changing the bard), why would you then take a bard specialisation for that kind of character?

Sure, if you are aiming for a damage build then don't choose a bard. Hopefully we can at least agree though that the novice ability should provide a net positive effect against more than 1 or 2 percent of enemies you might come across.

[Loswaith]

...
Hopefully we can at least agree though that the novice ability should provide a net positive effect against more than 1 or 2 percent of enemies you might come across.

This is realy where we diverge in our opinions a bit, as I see it the bard does provide net positives all the time, to much a similar extent as any other specialisation does.
Whether that positive is minimised (when compared to others) by the way people decide to build characters is a totaly seperate matter, and clearly comes down to the choice of the individual player given the style of their game.

[empyrien]

This is realy where we diverge in our opinions a bit, as I see it the bard does provide net positives all the time, to much a similar extent as any other specialisation does.

Well, in my mind the maths conclusively shows that the bard is better off backstabbing rather than using Song of Valor against every listed adversary given to us so far. Hence, broken.

Whether that positive is minimised (when compared to others) by the way people decide to build characters is a totaly seperate matter, and clearly comes down to the choice of the individual player given the style of their game.

Even if you build a ranged bard, the limited range of Song of Valor is going to ensure it still destroys your damage output. Given that many characters can cover 12 yards in a minor move, one can almost guarantee that in the majority of combats that a ranged bard is going to have to choose between attacking and moving to ensure that the party members continue to receive the Song of Valor buff. So I think it is still going to be a net negative effect for a ranged build. Especially as SoV doesn't help mages, who are the ones that are most likely to also be making use of ranged attacks.

The thing that annoys me the most about the RAW bard is that the Dragon Age:Origins bard is the first bard archetype I've come across in a game that I thought, "Wow -- this is actually a really awesome class." The Dragon Age bard to me was kind of a medieval La Femme Nikita/James Bond/Mission Impossible type. Sure, on the outside they appear to be a "harmless" minstrel but that couldn't be further from the truth. On the inside, they are cunning, deceptive and deadly. The computer game clearly stated that bards often acted as assassins. So to me, the Dragon Age bard is someone who is just as comfortable with a dagger in their hand as a lute.

What GR have produced is a novice ability that is worse than useless and a journeyman ability that is not much better. Song of Valor is clearly intended to be a combat ability, and it is broken. Almost anything would be better than Song of Friendship as well. I hope that I have shown in this thread that there are a number of ways these abilities could be replaced or reworked to properly realise the image of the Dragon Age bard.

When you ask Leliana if she can teach you the bard specialisation in Dragon Age: Origins, she says something along the lines of "Well, we better find some space where there is room to move. I expect there will be daggers flying about everywhere." That does not sound like a "non-combat specialisation" to me.

[Loswaith]

Well there realy isnt any out of combat anything in DA: Oragins (with the exception of travel time between combats), so goes to say that there wont be any class/specialisation that does appear to be out of combat in DA:O.

That said most of the abilities of the bard are copied over within the RPG as much as they have similar concepts.
Song of Valor in DA:O is non exisant in the RPG as there is no concept of stamina.
Distraction is effectivly the equivlent of bluff, which all rogues get.
Song of Courage is effectivly the converted Song of valor.
Captavating Song is basically identical to song of captivitation.

So it's all there as access to the bard as well, just converted into a table top staple.

All in all a rogue is always better off backstabbing if you directly compare just the damage with any action where you dont backstab. It doesnt mean no other builds are viable option however.

[Arimmus]

I think the bard is one of those " I am not a combat monkey" builds. They are more for flavor than for the mechanics of Combat. Personally I like them as are. But hey, Gotta do what must be done. I prefer in my games RP over mechanics. Stats mean little to me as a good BG.

[zanwot]

The mere existence of this debate is a pain to me...

The bard is broken, and will be in any combat orientated rpg, because it is like trying to make circles fit into (smaller) squares. By definition it cannot, and more importantly should not, be balanced with any remotely combat orientated build. Already the by the book DA one is lame, pathetic and a shame.

[empyrien]

Well there realy isnt any out of combat anything in DA: Oragins (with the exception of travel time between combats), so goes to say that there wont be any class/specialisation that does appear to be out of combat in DA:O.

I was basing my image of the bard more on the flavour text, cut scenes and dialogue that appeared in the game, rather than the abilities, so I'm not sure how this relates to what I was saying.

That said most of the abilities of the bard are copied over within the RPG as much as they have similar concepts.
Song of Valor in DA:O is non exisant in the RPG as there is no concept of stamina.
Distraction is effectivly the equivlent of bluff, which all rogues get.
Song of Courage is effectivly the converted Song of valor.
Captavating Song is basically identical to song of captivitation.

It's true there is no direct translation of stamina onto the tabletop, but as you've probably gathered I think the closest equivalent is Stunt Points, being that they fuel some of a character's abilities.

I don't think distraction the equivalent of bluff at all. Distraction is a short mez/stun, whereas bluff is a damage booster.

Song of Courage buffed attack, damage and critical chance. Song of Valor is a pale, pathetic reflection of that if it is supposed to be the equivalent.

Captivating Song was more powerful (an area of effect stun) but also more costly than Song of Captivation (you couldn't do anything while maintaining it). They are closely related but hardly identical.

All in all a rogue is always better off backstabbing if you directly compare just the damage with any action where you dont backstab. It doesnt mean no other builds are viable option however.

This is not what I have been saying at all. Damage is the scoreboard but there are other ways to affect the score rather than directly dealing damage. Damage prevention or damage recovery also affect the scoreboard. For example, if I give up an attack/backstab to initiate/maintain Song of Captivation to (attempt to) stun a potent enemy, it is likely I will prevent more damage than I would have done with the backstab. This is an example of where the party is better off if the bard chooses not to backstab.

Given that Song of Valor and Song of Captivation have an equal cost to initiate and maintain, would you say they are equal in effectiveness? I would hope not.

I think the bard is one of those " I am not a combat monkey" builds. They are more for flavor than for the mechanics of Combat. Personally I like them as are. But hey, Gotta do what must be done. I prefer in my games RP over mechanics. Stats mean little to me as a good BG.

I think many people are carrying over their image of the bard from D&D as the guy who sits at the back and buffs the rest of the party who actually get the job done. I can't stress enough that, in my mind at least, the Dragon Age bard is a very different creature.

By definition it cannot, and more importantly should not, be balanced with any remotely combat orientated build.

I disagree with this. The bard pays the same talent points as his comrades. He should get something of equivalent value, be it a combat or a non-combat ability. At the moment that is not the case. There is more than one way to balance the bard.

I'm going to repeat that my main argument compares Song of Valor with Backstab, a baseline rogue ability. I have not been balancing the bard against the assassin, I've been balancing it against someone who doesn't bother to take a specialisation. And when comparing overall party damage with a bard using Song of Valor vs overall party damage with a rogue who doesn't take a specialisation at all, the latter comes out ahead. That's the broken bit.

[zanwot]

I disagree with this. The bard pays the same talent points as his comrades. He should get something of equivalent value, be it a combat or a non-combat ability. At the moment that is not the case. There is more than one way to balance the bard.

True, make the bard a specialisation that gives bonuses to roleplaying encounters exclusively, and I will be happy... Any combat ability a Bard has is just grotesque, other than some willpower bonus (to NPCs)...

[Arimmus]

I wasn't carring over the Bard from D&D, actually I was more in favor of the romance type bard. Actually, I feel that bards should be the non combat rogues IE, they watch a fight. Bards in Dragon age are Spies, and only a bad spy ends up in a fight. What I meant by a bard should not a combat monkey build is they should be able to talk their way out a fight. Backstab by the true sense of the term is hitting someone when they least expect it. As Brutus did to Caesar. Rogues should infiltrate, and never be front liner combat twinks. Let the warrior do that job. In my current game, My Rogue hardly ever does any damage, or makes attack rolls, rather waits for the best time to strike. Sure he is an assassin, But a rogue none the less. By saying that Bards should be on par with a warrior is down right foolish. What I think you want, rather than a bard, is a swashbuckler. Bards aren't broken, Just your view on them.

[shonuff]

Except the bard doesn't even really have non-combat abilities.

Song of Valor is a weak buff that keeps bards from doing anything else worthwhile.

Song of Friendship is OK, but weird in its implementation (IMO it should have a duration equal to 2x or 3x communication).

Song of Captivation is useful when it works, but it can also burn both actions and still fail. That's coupled with the fact that it makes no sense that a bard actually has that ability.

I think many people are carrying over their image of the bard from D&D as the guy who sits at the back and buffs the rest of the party who actually get the job done. I can't stress enough that, in my mind at least, the Dragon Age bard is a very different creature.

As I recall bards from D&D they weren't buffers (of course this is 2E, so things have probably changed). But it is true in numerous other games, even in DA. The bards-as-spies, IMO, seems to be a jarring mishmash with their actual abilities, and of the two, only party buffer really translates to an RPG, as being a spy is handled by a variety of focuses and talents.

And yes, a role-player will still pick a bard, even if their abilities suck because they want to play a bard. That doesn't change the fact that their abilities still suck.

[Arimmus]

Bards from AD&D weren't buffers, 3.x turned them into such things. If one really wanted to add some things that did more to the songs, they could remove the buff element from them and did something else. Like you could make a song that enemies had to make a Willpower (Morale) check vs Comm (Performance) or they might cower in fear or even leave the battlefield. as for not having non-combat abilities, I looked at the set 2 rules and song of friendship does grant some social bonuses to it which can come in handy for those in the market of persuasion or bartering. I mean it could be worse.

[Loswaith]

...
I don't think distraction the equivalent of bluff at all. Distraction is a short mez/stun, whereas bluff is a damage booster. ...

It's rather closer than you would expect, the function of both are to put the target in a state where the Rogue can then can backstab the target, bluff is just combined directly with the backstab and the stun/mez factor is just the way the computer game puts an enemy into a state where they can be backstabbed, though can be used in other ways too.

...
Song of Courage buffed attack, damage and critical chance. Song of Valor is a pale, pathetic reflection of that if it is supposed to be the equivalent.

Well the factor then is if you take damage it's then better than an assassin ability, there basically isn't any criticals what so ever in the RPG, so criticals are out, leaving only attack. Seems the logical choice that it would then be an attack bonus to coreleate some what to the mechanics of the computer game.

...
Captivating Song was more powerful (an area of effect stun) but also more costly than Song of Captivation (you couldn't do anything while maintaining it). They are closely related but hardly identical.

Within the contest of both games it is effectivly identical it stuns/captivates/whatever taking targets out of the battle. Having the AoE in the RPG would be way over powered, because you simply are dealing with a far smaller number of opponents than in the computer game, thus the scaled difference.

...
Given that Song of Valor and Song of Captivation have an equal cost to initiate and maintain, would you say they are equal in effectiveness? I would hope not.

No they arent the same and in no way should it be equivlent, Song of valor is the novice ability, it costs but one specialisation rank. Where as Song of captivation costs three specialisation ranks to get. Captivation costs more so should be better, which it clearly is.

...
I disagree with this. The bard pays the same talent points as his comrades. He should get something of equivalent value, be it a combat or a non-combat ability. At the moment that is not the case. There is more than one way to balance the bard.

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.

The journeyman and master ranks work out similarly as well.

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.

[shonuff]

I looked at the set 2 rules and song of friendship does grant some social bonuses to it which can come in handy for those in the market of persuasion or bartering. I mean it could be worse.

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.

[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.

The journeyman and master ranks work out similarly as well.

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.

Not quite. The duelist and assassin abilities are free to maintain. Duelists get +1 attack and defense (not one or the other); mark of death is free to maintain. A bard has to maintain SoV every round, losing out on bluff/backstab combo or even attacking.

[empyrien]

just the way the computer game puts an enemy into a state where they can be backstabbed, though can be used in other ways too.

I'm not convinced. In the computer game a rogue could backstab just by positioning themselves correctly. Distraction combined a mez with a threat reset, so it was useful if a rogue or mage was getting beaten on to reset aggro so the tank could pick up that enemy. Hence it would be difficult to translate into a tabletop game where there aren't any threat mechanics.

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. I'm not really arguing for the novice bard ability to be Song of Courage because that was a higher level bard ability. I'm just saying Song of Valor isn't the equivalent of Song of Courage. If you look at the mage spell Rejuvenate you'll see that to translate the computer game Song of Valor you should actually give a stunt point bonus as I have suggested.

Having the AoE in the RPG would be way over powered, because you simply are dealing with a far smaller number of opponents than in the computer game, thus the scaled difference.

Yes, I agree with this part and have said as much earlier in the thread.

No they arent the same and in no way should it be equivlent, Song of valor is the novice ability, it costs but one specialisation rank. Where as Song of captivation costs three specialisation ranks to get. Captivation costs more so should be better, which it clearly is.

So we agree that Song of Captivation gives a net positive benefit to the party when compared with, say backstab. My point is that Song of Valor doesn't, except against maybe 1 or 2 percent of enemies.

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.

Song of Valor costs a major action to initiate and a minor action every round after that to maintain. So the bard is giving up a full attack+backstab to start the song, and then is giving up a backstab every round after that, for a bonus to attack that only boosts his companions effective damage by a fractional amount, doesn't affect mages, and drops his damage and chance to hit.

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.

The assassin gives up a minor action to activate his ability (effectively giving up 1 backstab), and after that each party member gets a +1 damage bonus against that enemy. So mages get a benefit as well. So the assassin ability is actually more useful to the other party members than the bard ability because they are already hitting nearly every attack anyway. Given that a backstab is worth 3.5 damage on average, in a party of 4 there is a net benefit to the party even if the assassin has to re-mark a new enemy every other round.

So the bard is paying a higher cost for an ability of microscopic benefit to the party against the vast majority of enemies. They do not get an equivalent benefit at all.

[empyrien]

As I recall bards from D&D they weren't buffers (of course this is 2E, so things have probably changed). But it is true in numerous other games, even in DA. The bards-as-spies, IMO, seems to be a jarring mishmash with their actual abilities, and of the two, only party buffer really translates to an RPG, as being a spy is handled by a variety of focuses and talents.

The 3rd edition bard was definitely a buffer, with a choice of songs that gave bonuses as well as a spell selection that had an emphasis on providing party bonuses. I'm fairly certain the 2E bard had a buffing song ability but it's been so long I can't be sure.

I agree that the image of the Dragon Age bard and the abilities clash somewhat. In D&D the bard was a spellcaster, so there was a reason that their music could influence people so dramatically: it was magical. In Dragon Age, unless we postulate some inspiration drawn from a Fade spirit it is harder to justify, and to be honest I wouldn't mind if the bard had some non-musical abilities at journeyman or master level, as long as those abilities were balanced. Song of Valor RAW is just broken though.

[shonuff]

The 3rd edition bard was definitely a buffer, with a choice of songs that gave bonuses as well as a spell selection that had an emphasis on providing party bonuses. I'm fairly certain the 2E bard had a buffing song ability but it's been so long I can't be sure.

They may have had a buffing song, but they could be played any way you wanted. They were effective nukers, as they cast at their actual level.

I agree that the image of the Dragon Age bard and the abilities clash somewhat. In D&D the bard was a spellcaster, so there was a reason that their music could influence people so dramatically: it was magical. In Dragon Age, unless we postulate some inspiration drawn from a Fade spirit it is harder to justify, and to be honest I wouldn't mind if the bard had some non-musical abilities at journeyman or master level, as long as those abilities were balanced. Song of Valor RAW is just broken though.

IMO, the musical abilities (based on the descriptions) are a little silly. Singing in combat inspiring or stunning? Really? The mage seducing the servant girl while the mariachi band plays three steps away? Really?

Personally, I think the idea of bards drawing power from the Fade to be interesting, but it's also a hot mess. So they're spies, singers, and Fade-connected?

[empyrien]

IMO, the musical abilities (based on the descriptions) are a little silly. Singing in combat inspiring or stunning? Really? The mage seducing the servant girl while the mariachi band plays three steps away? Really?

I'm probably comfortable with music being inspirational in combat, even if it does seem a little silly. I agree that stunning is unrealistic though. So I would be perfectly happy if Song of Captivation got replaced with a non-musical ability.

It would be really good if the bard had a bard-only ability that made them better spies or saboteurs than a generic rogue.

Personally, I think the idea of bards drawing power from the Fade to be interesting, but it's also a hot mess.

Artists often talk about having a 'muse' -- a source of inspiration from which their creativity springs forth. The idea would be that the bard's muse is a benevolent Fade spirit, and hence when they draw their inspiration from the Fade spirit their voice gains a magical quality.

So they're spies, singers, and Fade-connected?

I think it comes back to there being a clash with the flavour/description of the bard versus the abilities. It would probably work if you separated the concepts.

On the one hand, you could have the spy/bard who uses being a minstrel as a cover, with the majority of their abilities revolving around deception, infiltration or combat.

On the other hand, you could have the Fade-inspired bard, who inspires their allies and captivates their enemies with their enchanted voice. This is much more like the 3.x D&D bard.