Warchanter

[Deusxmachina]

"Warchanter:
Prereqs: Bard level 6, Bard Inspired Attack 1, Bard Inspired Damage 1, Bard Inspired Bravery 2, Power Attack, Any one of the following: Weapon Focus: Slashing, Weapon Focus: Piercing, Weapon Focus: Bludgeoning

"Your studies into war have granted you a +2 bonus to your Intimidate skill. Your Inspire Courage song gains an additional +1 to attack rolls, +2 to damage rolls, and +1 to fear saves. If you possess the Barbarian Rage ability, you gain +1 use per rest. You also gain the ability to expend a use of Bardic Music to grant all nearby allies damage reduction 5/-."
-------------------------------------

Not bad. However, as some in the bard forum have already said, requiring power attack leaves out most if not all of the TWF and sword-and-board battle bards. I don't mind the prereqs too much, although it'd be nice to have a little wider feat choice, but I do wonder about the DR5 song. It may just read that way, but if barbarian bards are the only ones who can sing that song, that leaves out ALL of the fighter bards. And that would be bad.

Frankly, that is THE exact song I've been thinking battle bard warchanters should get. But if it's barbarian only, it would greatly pigeon-hole builds.

[The_Cataclysm]

You aren't required to be a barb to take that enhancement. Just says if you have barb rage you can an extra rage.

[Freeman]

I think the DR song is gained regardless of whether or not you have a barb level, but the wording could go either way. Since I think barbarian is required for the PnP class, it could be translated either way, really. Still, I think they should leave it separate from the rage requirement, so that other melee bards could make use of it also. And yes, opening it up to a few more fighting styles would give it a broader appeal.

[EinarMal]

Even just changing the focus feats to the improved critical feats or adding both would make it a lot more attainable for many. Most battle bards take improved critical not many at all take weapon focus. That would screw up the level 6 thing though, at least at some point I could get it though.

[The_Cataclysm]

Even just changing the focus feats to the improved critical feats or adding both would make it a lot more attainable for many. Most battle bards take improved critical not many at all take weapon focus. That would screw up the level 6 thing though, at least at some point I could get it though.

That would make it impossible to be attainable by the target level.

[EinarMal]

That would make it impossible to be attainable by the target level.

Yeah that is why I added the "both" part. So it would read Power Attack + one of (IC or Focus). If you qualify via IC you couldn't get it until later but at some point you could qualify (Kind of like the new Music of the Dead thing).

[The_Cataclysm]

Yeah that is why I added the "both" part. So it would read Power Attack + one of (IC or Focus)

Ah, didn't notice that part.

[Schmackdown]

That would make it impossible to be attainable by the target level.

Virtuoso contains a possible prereq(ESIV) that isn't attainable until level 10, so the devs already had that in mind.

[CSFurious]

this is how i see it playing out with smart players

first, if i am looking to add a bard to my group and i see a drow pure 14-level bard, i am probably not going to say to myself let's add him for combat, rather, let's add that bard for doing what bards usually do, i.e., make the whole party better with buffs & cc

second, if i see a human or dwarf 10bard/4barbarian, i am now going to say "let's get us a warchanter" vs. "what a horrible build", i will know that i am not getting a enchantment-based cc bard with chr of 32, instead i am getting an off-tank who is going to make the other melee combatants in the group even better at making "war"

honestly, i want 2 bards in my groups now, a regular cc one & a "warchanter"

best case scenario, you get 3 bards for your group, Einar Mal's two-weapon battle-bard, a "warchanter", & a cc-specialist, i think that group would kick arse & take names

[Conejo]

i really don't see Power Attack as being a good requisite.

i would rather they gave more options to that end.

[EinarMal]

i really don't see Power Attack as being a good requisite.

i would rather they gave more options to that end.

I would be fine with that as well, more options all around! How about just saying you need two combat feats (using the fighter bonus list).

[The_Cataclysm]

I would be fine with that as well, more options all around! How about just saying you need two combat feats (using the fighter bonus list).

I think that would work great for all the fighting based bards.

[Kethir]

honestly, i want 2 bards in my groups now, a regular cc one & a "warchanter"

You sure about that? I'd want 2 sorcerors in my group (on top of the usual 1 arcane spot) rather than 2 bards.

2 bards are 2 support classes, when there really isn't a need for a "support" class at the moment.

Off-tanks are ok, but not necessary. They certainly don't speed things up. A secondary fighter type (without sneak attack) isn't better than a regular high dps fighter - better at taking down monsters.

The reason for these enhancements, from what I can tell, is that bards are seriously hurt in the current environment. With the specialization required these days, bards are jacks of no trade, masters of jack.

A high charisma level 14 bard is fine for fascinate (which any old bard can do atm), greater heroism (which is fine off girds and as an arcane spell), blur (arcane spell), displacement (arcane spell), dancing ball (wizard spell), dance (arcane spell), soundburst (cleric spell, which btw only works against casters, which are better just killed than stunned), and haste (arcane spell).

In most respects, a pure charisma bard is just a bad sorceror. Their only benefit is songs, and songs aren't that helpful in my opinion, at level 14. Most things die quick anyway.

A warchanter gets to make fighters +1 to hit better and +2 to damage better. Thats nice. But at high levels, fighters don't do the damage anyway - at least they won't as more casters learn the fastest way to go thru a quest is to start killing things, and for those people who do speed runs.

From my understanding, the current environment is pretty bard unfriendly. This doesnt' do much to help.

The only way to really help bards, I suspect, is the weaken fighters, specifically, fighters that are 2 handed weapon specialists. However, if you weaken fighters, you REALLY increase the power of casters - which I don't disagree with, just creates an issue.

DDO is entering the high level phase of D&D, at which point the character classes become MASSIVELY unbalanced. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out, esp. since to be true to the idea of high fantasy, MASSIVE unbalance is the name of the game.

After all, Gandalf the Grey didn't sing songs and buff the Fellowship, did he?

And I'm not saying all bards are bad, plenty are great. But looking at the build and the environment, playing a really great bard (at level 14) isn't exactly like playing a sorceror or a pure fighter 2 handed specialist.

[Conejo]

I think that would work great for all the fighting based bards.

yes. that's a more elegant option than just Power Attack.

[CSFurious]

i do not think that it would make much difference if the group had either 2 bards or 2 sorcerors, i.e., both parties would crush most quests in this game

from memory, good example is delera's elite, i have blown thru that quest in a group with 2 bards, me as one of the bards, and in a group with 2 sors, me as one of the sors, both groups were better because of the "dynamic duos"

as to bards not being strong right now, i would submit that bards are very strong right now & every group can benefit from a good bard

You sure about that? I'd want 2 sorcerors in my group (on top of the usual 1 arcane spot) rather than 2 bards.

2 bards are 2 support classes, when there really isn't a need for a "support" class at the moment.

Off-tanks are ok, but not necessary. They certainly don't speed things up. A secondary fighter type (without sneak attack) isn't better than a regular high dps fighter - better at taking down monsters.

The reason for these enhancements, from what I can tell, is that bards are seriously hurt in the current environment. With the specialization required these days, bards are jacks of no trade, masters of jack.

A high charisma level 14 bard is fine for fascinate (which any old bard can do atm), greater heroism (which is fine off girds and as an arcane spell), blur (arcane spell), displacement (arcane spell), dancing ball (wizard spell), dance (arcane spell), soundburst (cleric spell, which btw only works against casters, which are better just killed than stunned), and haste (arcane spell).

In most respects, a pure charisma bard is just a bad sorceror. Their only benefit is songs, and songs aren't that helpful in my opinion, at level 14. Most things die quick anyway.

A warchanter gets to make fighters +1 to hit better and +2 to damage better. Thats nice. But at high levels, fighters don't do the damage anyway - at least they won't as more casters learn the fastest way to go thru a quest is to start killing things, and for those people who do speed runs.

From my understanding, the current environment is pretty bard unfriendly. This doesnt' do much to help.

The only way to really help bards, I suspect, is the weaken fighters, specifically, fighters that are 2 handed weapon specialists. However, if you weaken fighters, you REALLY increase the power of casters - which I don't disagree with, just creates an issue.

DDO is entering the high level phase of D&D, at which point the character classes become MASSIVELY unbalanced. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out, esp. since to be true to the idea of high fantasy, MASSIVE unbalance is the name of the game.

After all, Gandalf the Grey didn't sing songs and buff the Fellowship, did he?

And I'm not saying all bards are bad, plenty are great. But looking at the build and the environment, playing a really great bard (at level 14) isn't exactly like playing a sorceror or a pure fighter 2 handed specialist.

[Solik]

You know, it's not like Power Attack is entirely useless for 1h weapon + shield users. Activate it and crit something with a Heavy Pick and smile. It's not bad with axes or mauls either.

Granted, it's certainly not the best feat for a TWF user. However, I'm not sure why TWF bards think Warchanter should cater to them. It's simply not a generalized combat specialization option. It's not supposed to be. Use other tricks, like picking up a few rogue levels for the sneak attack and evasion.

[Gimpster]

I would be fine with that as well, more options all around! How about just saying you need two combat feats (using the fighter bonus list).

How about just one fighter feat?

The Spellsinger option only requires one feat to qualify, and over 99% of bards already take Extend Spell, so they don't need to spend any feats to get it.

Why should Warchanter require not just 1 more feat, but 2?

[Gimpster]

A warchanter gets to make fighters +1 to hit better and +2 to damage better. Thats nice. But at high levels, fighters don't do the damage anyway - at least they won't as more casters learn the fastest way to go thru a quest is to start killing things, and for those people who do speed runs.

That's just a painfully ignorant thing to read.

[Deusxmachina]

2 bards are 2 support classes, when there really isn't a need for a "support" class at the moment.

Off-tanks are ok, but not necessary. They certainly don't speed things up. A secondary fighter type (without sneak attack) isn't better than a regular high dps fighter - better at taking down monsters.

A good warchanter wouldn't be merely a support class, though. He'd be a good support class and high DPS. Not pure-barbarian DPS, but he should be pretty high. Warchanters would likely have anywhere from four to 12 barbarian or fighter levels and high strength. That's not your typical support-only bard.

With things seemingly constantly becoming more immune to spells, melee is where it's at a lot of the time, and if they actually spend a few bucks and buy some potions, they hardly ever even have to take a rest break.

Different point of view, I guess. Every time I'm in a group of good melee that has a good buffing bard, it's like the game gets broken. It's somewhat on par with the old fighter action boosts but being on more than 20 seconds at a time. Granted, there are also cases where a wizard or sorcerer can one-shot nearly everything, but in Monty Haul campaigns like DDO, melee gets a big boost thanks to all the toys.

Anyway, that's all a bit off the subject. I do think requiring less action points but two feats is a fair tradeoff for a warchanter, but, yeah, it'd be nice if the feat list was a little larger.

People are saying how easy it is to qualify for the other prestige classes, but I don't think that's necessarily the case if the person has a battle bard. Taking AP away from toughness or +con or +str or +tactics etc might not be that easy of a decision.

edit: amusingly enough, the DR5 song would actually be a big reason for me to consider taking more bard levels than fighter or barbarian in a warchanter build. If someone only has, say, eight levels of bard, that's only four castings of DR and IC and none left for Fascinate. Adding that DR song makes bards better at what they should be better at: songs.

[Gimpster]

A good warchanter wouldn't be merely a support class, though. He'd be a good support class and high DPS. Not pure-barbarian DPS, but he should be pretty high.

The thing is, does it need to take two feats to qualify? Suppose you have a barb 1/ bard 13 with the Power Attack feat. He is already a pretty high DPS thing. His dedication to melee combat is obvious. So why does he also need Weapon Focus to qualify for Warchanter?

Do the devs know that even many pure barbs / pure paladins don't bother with Weapon Focus? In PnP, Weapon Focus was already a rather marginal feat. In DDO's melee system extra attacks at a higher BAB are at a bonus instead of a penalty, which makes spending a feat to boost your attack rolls even less attractive.