Devs: Please give caster bards some love

[Chacka_DDO]

I regularly run R10 where I can both CC and heal (preferably one or the other, doing both at the same time can get chaotic), and I join raids where I can be a main healer. Since I'm rarely using damage spells (other than the occasional greater shout and sonic blast for some quick and cheap CC) I can focus on actual CC spells to the fullest.

The CC duration nerf in higher reaper isn't too bad on mass hold/single target hold and greater color spray (awesome for a spellsinger, since it adds illusion DC's). Soundburst duration is nerfed bad in higher reaper, and glacial burst is a bit too expensive to use as CC in higher reaper (not cost effective).

All-in-all, Spellsinger just needs some quality of life fixes (((((>>>mass hold SLA cooldown and AP cost<<<))))). I really don't care about the damage.

A Spellsinger has the option to be a good CC and also a good healer, no one I read here said it is different but this means not that they should not have the option to be good sonic spell casters if one (even if not you) prefers this play style.

And just to mention it, a reduction of cooldown and an AP points reduction is for sure not only a quality of life improvement it actually buffs you CC power and frees APs for other enhancements (also most likely more power).
But I agree that Mass Hold Monster cooldown is too long and I would not complain if the bard would simply get the wizard version of this spell in the spellbook instead of an SLA.

[Xgya]

Looking at their best AoE nukes it basically breaks down like this:
25dmg/level: Alch
20dmg/level: Sorc/Wiz
6.5dmg/level: FvS, cleric, druid (single target), latter two also gets 10 situationally w/ Word of Balance
5dmg/level: all others

Alch and Sorc are comparable because of spell cooldowns (alch gets the longer casting and less mana, but those two should be a non-issue to any experienced caster)
Missing from your list are the Spellsinger's Horn of Thunder for a 7dmg/level, and Artificer's 6/lvl Tactical Detonation and 7.5 Prismatic Strike.
None of those are comparable to the top dogs.

The real aberration here is Alch.
Before Alch became a thing, caster bards and caster artis had the excuse that, like clerics and druids, the extra survivability that came from innate healing meant they shouldn't be the top dogs in the damage department.
I reluctantly agreed with that part.

Much like the argument about not buffing Sonic spells because they're not resisted as often became moot the day they made immunity bypass a common theme, not giving Bard spells the same base potential DPS (without any Tree-specific buffs) with their base spells became moot the day Alch got released with healing, CC and top tier damage.

Under the new paradigm, Bards should get more damage than Alchemists. After all, Alchs get access to killspells and a more reliable access to hard CC.

[LurkingVeteran]

Alch and Sorc are comparable because of spell cooldowns (alch gets the longer casting and less mana, but those two should be a non-issue to any experienced caster)
Missing from your list are the Spellsinger's Horn of Thunder for a 7dmg/level, and Artificer's 6/lvl Tactical Detonation and 7.5 Prismatic Strike.
None of those are comparable to the top dogs.

The real aberration here is Alch.
Before Alch became a thing, caster bards and caster artis had the excuse that, like clerics and druids, the extra survivability that came from innate healing meant they shouldn't be the top dogs in the damage department.
I reluctantly agreed with that part.

Much like the argument about not buffing Sonic spells because they're not resisted as often became moot the day they made immunity bypass a common theme, not giving Bard spells the same base potential DPS (without any Tree-specific buffs) with their base spells became moot the day Alch got released with healing, CC and top tier damage.

Under the new paradigm, Bards should get more damage than Alchemists. After all, Alchs get access to killspells and a more reliable access to hard CC.

Great post, completely agree.

Minor nitpick, I think Alch and Sorc CD seem comparable since they also get a multivial SLA. Not sure how they would compare on a 100% DPS rotation, their filler CDs are longer but generally look stronger and they have more than 2-3 viable options.

[HastyPudding]

YOU might not care about the damage yourself. That doesn't mean that no one should, and it definitely doesn't mean that they don't need it because you don't use it.

A Spellsinger has the option to be a good CC and also a good healer, no one I read here said it is different but this means not that they should not have the option to be good sonic spell casters if one (even if not you) prefers this play style.

Giving spellsingers more magic damage is a surefire way to break them. You can't have good CC, good healing, and good damage all in one package (alchemist is the exception, but their bottles are inefficient and have a tendency to not to work properly, especially the curatives). People are asking for too much and that's why the devs don't do anything about it. It's like the old adage of the child putting their hand in the cookie jar and whining they can't get it back out because they've grabbed too many cookies.

I don't think I've seen any bard be an all-out offensive caster. In any game I've ever seen, bards are more about utility and support magic, not offensive magic.

[Grace_ana]

Giving spellsingers more magic damage is a surefire way to break them. You can't have good CC, good healing, and good damage all in one package (alchemist is the exception, but their bottles are inefficient and have a tendency to not to work properly, especially the curatives). People are asking for too much and that's why the devs don't do anything about it. It's like the old adage of the child putting their hand in the cookie jar and whining they can't get it back out because they've grabbed too many cookies.

I don't think I've seen any bard be an all-out offensive caster. In any game I've ever seen, bards are more about utility and support magic, not offensive magic.

My caster druid has earthquake, the only DOT-heals in the game, and damage spells that are, while not sorc level, very good. So tell me another story about how this isn't possible in game.

[Xgya]

Giving spellsingers more magic damage is a surefire way to break them. You can't have good CC, good healing, and good damage all in one package (alchemist is the exception, but their bottles are inefficient and have a tendency to not to work properly, especially the curatives). People are asking for too much and that's why the devs don't do anything about it. It's like the old adage of the child putting their hand in the cookie jar and whining they can't get it back out because they've grabbed too many cookies.

I don't think I've seen any bard be an all-out offensive caster. In any game I've ever seen, bards are more about utility and support magic, not offensive magic.

It's a great argument to completely overwrite the Spellsinger tree.
If they're not meant to be offensive casters, don't give them a tree full of offensive SLAs and buffs to spell damage.
Spellsingers give more critical chance boost to sonic spells than Fire Savants do to fire spells, yet their damage is a pittance.

Wizards have good self-healing, excellent CC and good damage. It hasn't broken them.

Being good at multiple things but excellent at none is the trademark of Bards.
Their good healing isn't excellent. Their damage isn't even in the good department, and their CC could use some work.

[yfernbottom]

It's a great argument to completely overwrite the Spellsinger tree.
If they're not meant to be offensive casters, don't give them a tree full of offensive SLAs and buffs to spell damage.
Spellsingers give more critical chance boost to sonic spells than Fire Savants do to fire spells, yet their damage is a pittance.

Wizards have good self-healing, excellent CC and good damage. It hasn't broken them.

Being good at multiple things but excellent at none is the trademark of Bards.
Their good healing isn't excellent. Their damage isn't even in the good department, and their CC could use some work.

When you look at the tree, I think any reasonable player would conclude that it's designed for you to be able to build a powerful sonic nuker if you want to. It would really suck to put weeks into building one and find out that you do terrible damage compared to most other casters.

Having not played one myself, I find I'm a bit puzzled about what the problem with them is. The SLAs and the tree look to be on par with a fire savant. Is it a lack of gear? Is it no spells outside of the tree to dump mana into while your SLAs are on cooldown (e.g., no meteor swarm)? Is it the the 12 second cooldown on thunder horn? The OP seems to think gear is the main issue.

Regardless, I agree with you because I am opposed to obvious new player traps. Spellsingers really should be competent sonic nukers, since that what the tree is built around. If that's not the design intent, the tree needs to be reworked.

[cru121]

You can't have good CC, good healing, and good damage all in one package

Fine, let's add some hard choices to the spellsinger tree, similar to Mass Hold vs Horn of Thunder.
Spellsinger sonic DPS can be safely doubled... possibly quadrupled.... or increased 10x ... before it remotely gets close to Sorc / Alchemist. There's A LOT of room before spellsinger becomes good DPS.

[Chacka_DDO]

Giving spellsingers more magic damage is a surefire way to break them. You can't have good CC, good healing, and good damage all in one package (alchemist is the exception, but their bottles are inefficient and have a tendency to not to work properly, especially the curatives). People are asking for too much and that's why the devs don't do anything about it. It's like the old adage of the child putting their hand in the cookie jar and whining they can't get it back out because they've grabbed too many cookies.

I don't think I've seen any bard be an all-out offensive caster. In any game I've ever seen, bards are more about utility and support magic, not offensive magic.

Looks like you missed an important fact, it is not about to be superior at healing CC and sonic damage at the same time it is about to have the option to be good at each but not all at the same time.
What a class can do at the end should be dependant on meaningful choices for the feats and enhancements but if a bard takes all feats and enhancements (e.g. maximize empower etc.) for sonic damage and the sonic damage is still garbage it's just not right.

[ggmarquez]

I find I'm a bit puzzled about what the problem with them is. The SLAs and the tree look to be on par with a fire savant. Is it a lack of gear? Is it no spells outside of the tree to dump mana into while your SLAs are on cooldown (e.g., no meteor swarm)? Is it the the 12 second cooldown on thunder horn?

so... this is the interesting question. what is the problem?

i would start by pointing to spell selection. let's look at what options a sonic nuker has. is there any sonic spell that behaves in a similar fashion to multi-vial or meteor swarm? i don't mean raw damage potential... i'm just looking for a spell that will actually hit the enemies you point it at. shout, greater shout and horn of thunder are all... a cone! and they will never attempt to follow a moving enemy as it jumps/tumbles/runs away from you. they won't arc in a long parabola and land in the middle of a pack. sonic blast has bolt range, sure. but it's pretty limited because it can only travel in a straight line.

typical encounter with a mob pack goes something like this... target the champ/reaper as the pack is closing in. g.shout is off cooldown and can stun, so i'll open with it. but the mob i had targeted just moved a fraction to the left, so the spell not only missed the target, but was only able to hit one or two that were in the cones field. so i move right while turning to face the target champ/reaper and hit horn of thunder... unfortunately horn of thunder has a terrible time targeting while you are moving, especially if you are turning... so it shoots out sideways at a 90* angel and hits nothing. dead serious, if you aren't standing still and targeting yourself theres a 50/50 horn of thunder will hit anything in front of you. so i look at my hotbar and see shout is the only spell not on cooldown, so i stand still, target myself and hit shout. and it does some damage to everything. now all my nukes are on cooldown, but wait! sonic blast! so i hit sonic blast. but i'm still targeting myself in a futile attempt to make my cone spells hit, so of course sonic blast shoots out in a straight line at max distance and hits... some breakables at the far end of the room. because that's what a nuking bard is actually good at. breaking breakables. not quite as good as the legendary double fairy-fire drow druid. but its a close contest for winning the award for most breakables per spell cast.

there is a gap in a nuking bards spell rotation. usually i would fill it with some tactical or melee ability. you have time to cleave twice while waiting for the first spell to come off cooldown. but that isn't really the problem. the problem is the spells you have access to aren't very aggressive like multi-vial or meteor swarm. there's just nothing in the sonic spell book that makes you think you have perfected the art of blasting enemy eardrums from afar.

if you take a level 20 sorc and spend nothing in any sevant tree, you can clear low reaper epic content using nothing but a level 9 spell, maybe hitting a level 7 spell now and then to clean up. energy burst and dragon breath optional.

a level 20 bard doesn't get a level 7 spell. let alone a level 9. and if you want to energy burst or breath, it won't be sonic. and you won't have an enhancement bonus to sonic spell power.

[Xgya]

Having not played one myself, I find I'm a bit puzzled about what the problem with them is. The SLAs and the tree look to be on par with a fire savant. Is it a lack of gear? Is it no spells outside of the tree to dump mana into while your SLAs are on cooldown (e.g., no meteor swarm)? Is it the the 12 second cooldown on thunder horn? The OP seems to think gear is the main issue.

Gear IS part of the issue, but there's also this new comparison because when they reworked arcane spells, they scaled the damage each spell does a lot more by spell level, but left sonic spells untouched.
Greater Shout, a level 8 Wizard spell and 6 Bard spell, does 33% more max damage than normal Shout, a level 4 spell.
Compare: There isn't an obvious level 4 offensive Wizard spell, so I'll start at 3, and end at 7 (still a 4 spell level difference).
- Fireball vs Delayed Blast Fireball. DBF's damage potential is over 3 times the normal Fireball AND has far better radius.

I'm ready to grant that the effect shouldn't be as drastic given Greater Shout adds some CC to the spell, but the comparison of 133% vs 323% is still there and pretty glaring.
Also note that there's still a better Fire spell left (Meteor Swarm), while Greater Shout is the end-all, be-all of Sonic damage.
Bards learn their level 6 spells at the same level Sorcerers learn their level 8 spells, they should be comparable in pure power.

Gear obviously is an issue - you simply can't gear Sonic spellpower the same way you could the other elements because it lacks a Ravenloft belt-equivalent but it's not the only one.

There isn't a single Sonic-damage-based Epic Destiny. Fatesinger is best used on a martial character, and Draconic, the spell DPS Destiny, doesn't have a Sonic option for breath weapons and Energy Burst.

[LurkingVeteran]

The spell pass simply went too far in boosting a small subset of spells far beyond the rest (and other classes). The original spell data was mostly standard D&D 3.5 (with weighted die) and they were mostly pretty balanced internally in D&D. I realize it might not have looked like that if you just look at the damage numbers, but you have to factor in save type and AoE type etc. The one caveat is that Evasion mobs are very common in epic DDO which skews balance a bit from reflex spells but otherwise it was pretty good.

Now we have one (or two now) spells that are clearly best (Meteor / Multivial), and 1-2 spells of each element that are good, with the non-elemental spells being two steps behind. Does it make sense that Disintegrate does the same damage as Chain Lightning when it has 0 damage on save, is single target and has 5s CD? What about Horrid Wilting, which does half as much damage and suffers from bad Force itemization? Shout has a built in stun and was sonic, but shorter range and a fort save (which is worse in D&D at least). Now it additionally also does half the damage.

[LurkingVeteran]

Having not played one myself, I find I'm a bit puzzled about what the problem with them is. The SLAs and the tree look to be on par with a fire savant. Is it a lack of gear? Is it no spells outside of the tree to dump mana into while your SLAs are on cooldown (e.g., no meteor swarm)? Is it the the 12 second cooldown on thunder horn? The OP seems to think gear is the main issue.

Sorcs don't rely on their SLAs because those are only SL3 spells. The real power is in their higher-level elemental spells, especially Meteor.

Alchemist conveniently get their Meteor variant also as an SLA.

[Tuxedoman96]

Bards have plenty of DPS, I don't understand how someone could think otherwise with our Turn the Tide ability. Why gripe? We just lucked out because of Lynn & our other devs.

First, Turn the Tide is not specific to Bard (you get song charges from Fatesinger). Second, Turn the Tide is a buff for physical damage, not spellcasting damage, which is what the OP was referring to.

[Tuxedoman96]

Giving spellsingers more magic damage is a surefire way to break them. You can't have good CC, good healing, and good damage all in one package (alchemist is the exception, but their bottles are inefficient and have a tendency to not to work properly, especially the curatives). People are asking for too much and that's why the devs don't do anything about it. It's like the old adage of the child putting their hand in the cookie jar and whining they can't get it back out because they've grabbed too many cookies.

I don't think I've seen any bard be an all-out offensive caster. In any game I've ever seen, bards are more about utility and support magic, not offensive magic.

I think the request is less for good CC, good healing, and good dmg and more for good CC, decent healing, and decent damage. I mean, for one thing, most of the CC for bard is situational, in that there are plenty of enemies immune to enchantment (and also those spells are pass/fail for landing unlike dmg that can have partial save) and they have very little outside of enchantment for CC, unlike most other casters. A bard isn't really gonna help much with healing compared to a bonafide healing class like cleric or fvs, and even if the bard started healing, that would drop their DPS significantly, since most of their healing is instantaneous (the sustaining song heals over time, but it can't crit, checks spellpower each tick, and has a pretty low base, so you're likely to have to use the cure spells/Heal to keep someone alive). I mean, the other issue is versatility versus specialization. In all honesty, the fact that you could invest wholeheartedly in DPS casting, for a class that can't just swap out spells in-quest and can't get healing or CC spells spontaneously, and still not get anywhere near the DPS of a DPS caster is pretty sad. My suggestion would be for the tree to increase caster levels to sonic spells based on the number of sonic spells and SLAs that your bard picks up. This would mean that the more you invest in damage, the better your damage will be, since you are specializing in damage and giving up more of your versatility. There are 8 sonic effects total that the bard can get, 4 spells and 4 SLAs. They could make it so that for cores 2-5 you get this bonus to CL and MCL capped to 2 per core. So after taking the lvl 3 core you'd get CL and MCL bonus of up to +2 if you have 2 or more sonic abilities, and after taking the lvl 6 core you'd get CL and MCL bonus of up to +4 if you have 4 or more sonic abilities, up to lvl 18 core that gives +8 to CL and MCL of sonic abilities if you have all 8 sonic effects. If they decide to increase the damage for the sonic abilities, then that bonus could be reduced to +1 CL and MCL every 2 sonic abilities acquired. Keep in mind too, that of the 8 sonic abilities, 3 are low damage (the 2 Sonic Blasts and Soundburst), 3 have fortitude saves for damage and will have their damage cut down often (the two Shouts and G. Shout), one is a dot (and so only has utility on bosses), and one is reflex based (I see monsters fail the reflex more than the fort generally). The stuns from Soundburst and G. Shout are unlikely to land because they are fortitude saves. At the end of the day, bard really only has 4 sonic abilities that have base damage that isn't completely laughable (not taking into account save types), and 1 of them takes the place of one of the most important CCs a bard could ever get (Mass Hold).

[Tuxedoman96]

Shout is an arcane spell. They could improve bards just by upping its damage dice. This would also open up more options for Sorc/Wiz. The bottom line is though: Does it make sense that certain wizard/sorc/alch spells do twice or more damage per caster level than all the other spells in the game? Not really, the difference is too large.

I wouldn't think that would be too bad if they balanced out the damage with the spell cost and number of enemies hit. Polar Ray, for example, is 1d6+8 per CL (MCL 25) but only hits one target. DBF does 1d6+7 per CL (MCL 20) and has a reflex save for half, but even then, as long as you hit 3 or so enemies (which would happen often), you're going to do more damage even if they make their reflex saves (unless they have evasion). For 5 more spell points. Currently AoE spells do not have a really balanced spell point cost and CD compared to each other and compared to single-target spells.

In FvS they doled out a ton of +MCL instead, but now we are stuck because if they increase damage die of divine spells (to make e.g. cleric DD relevant) FvS will be OP. Does this mean divines should now scale via MCL, arcanes via higher damage dice, and everybody else not at all?

Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to AoV and DD being completely different niches. I mean, AoV has the whole fire and brimstone and radiant light. It'd be nice if they increased the damage of the alignment spells (Chaos Hammer, Holy Smite, etc.) and added CL and MCL bonuses to them. 32.5 base damage for neutral creatures and 50 base damage for the opposite alignment at lvl 10 until lvl 24 and taking a feat is pretty sad. I'd up the damage for them, have them do the same damage but keep the debuff for the opposite alignment (meaning you still get more use out of it by picking your targets; the damage doesn't apply to creature of the same alignment as the spell, so the spells are still situational). Ultimately the downfall of clr and fvs casting DPS is that they have few decent DPS spells, even fewer decent AoE DPS, and of the few AoE DPS they have, the targetting is pretty bad. If they improved the damage on the other AoEs or improved the targetting on spells like Fire Storm and Flame Strike (the enemies can outrun the blast radius very easily), preferably both, then that would go a long ways towards alleviating the issue.

For DD, I'd include each of the alignment spells as SLAs in the tree, and add CL and MCL bonuses in the cores based on your alignment (so for example, you'd get CL and MCL bonuses to Holy Smite and Deific Vengeance if you're good; Unholy Blight would work off of the Neutral alignment since you can't be evil). I'd still keep the WoB in the tree, since that's pretty powerful even as a regular spell. For the alignments spells themselves, I'd increase the MCL for all the lvl 4 ones to 15 (and MCL 10 for Deific Vengeance) and increase the damage to 1d6+4 per CL (since it works off of light, there's not as much support for the damage scaling anyways) for the lvl 4 spells and 1d6+2 per CL for Deific Vengeance (double damage for undead).

I think a good solution would be to adjust the arcane damage dice a bit down again (maybe D6+SL/2 instead of current D6+SL for AoEs, with an extra x2 for SL9 and x1.5 for single target). They also need to adjust certain outliers like Meteor Swarm and Multi-Vial dice or cooldown to make it on par with the other SL9s. Then they can give the arcane caster trees more MCL instead like FvS. The idea is that Sorc/Wiz/Alch gets an overall slight nerf by end game, all other casters get a moderate increase so that they are maybe 30%? behind Sorc/Wiz/Alch.

This also means that you get some damage out of the ED caster levels, because currently most nuking builds don't gain much from those. Sorc can run in e.g. US for little penalty.

Most importantly, this would give more variety, because each build is basically pegged into using the same 2-3 spells the entire game now. Make all spells relevant. This can also be aided by doling out more potency spell power and general crit %. Maybe we will see people using Disintegrate, Shout, Horrid Wilting, Cyclonic Blast, Flamestrike etc again. It's either that, or readjust the damage die of every spell in the game, and I'm not too optimistic of SSG ever having time for that.

Not a bad suggestion.

[Grace_ana]

If we want to talk about niches, keep in mind that if ANY caster - even a sorc - tried to specialize in sonic damage, they would be woefully behind. Sonic is in a terrible place across the board. It makes sense that sonic would be the bard's niche. Improving sonic in gear AND bumping it in the spellsinger tree would make spellsingers the masters of sonic damage (if they decide to go all in as other all-in casters do). Or, if they want to be more versatile, they can do good damage with sonic (less than all-in blasters but still respectable) and also CC and heal. I'm not advocating for all classes to be the same; I'm advocating for bards to have their spell niche made way more viable.

[Tuxedoman96]

I find Spellsinger to be quite capable. I do not find in the lore Spellsinger is meant to be a "nuker" on the level of an arcane. This has never been the lore in my understanding of it and the request to give the class such equivalency is simply a desire to give power and capability beyond the design of the class.

It's not so much trying to make them equivalent. It's more of providing a decent enough incentive to specialize in a particular playstyle if that's the player's intention vs maintaining versatility. Think of it this way. [Hypothetically speaking] Let's say that the Bard didn't take healing spells. Should they still be so far behind in damage because the class has the ability to pick healing spells (but again, chose not to)? That's where opportunity costs come into play. Ideally, the Bard should be doing more damage the more he specializes in DPS and more CC the more he specializes in healing, etc. Right now, there is no way for the bard to specialize meaningfully in the casting DPS paradigm. I mean, sure, you could argue that the bard can choose between Reverberate and Suggestion or between Mass Hold and Horn of Thunder, but if one choice quickly becomes irrelevant (Suggestion gets outclassed by the mass variant and even then, the single-target version is less of an issue once you get your spell points back) and the other doesn't have enough support to really merit taking normally (1d4+1 sonic and 1d4+1 electric per CL up to 25 seems decent, except there's no spellcrit/spellpower bonuses to the electric damage). If the choice is between two options with one being a much better alternative to another, then it's not really a fair competition. Not only do bards only have 4 DPS options even worth mentioning (2 Shouts, a G. Shout, and Horn of Thunder), but 1 of them is a huge opportunity cost (the hold prevents damage, increase party damage, etc.) and the other 3 are likely to do reduced damage. This is true whether the bard specializes or not, and that's why many players don't see a point in specializing in damage even if they hypothetically could. If they made it so that the Spellsinger tree offered more return on investment for specialization, then you'd see a bunch of different builds emerge. You'd still see the versatile caster bard of course, but you could also have a hard healer/buffer or a hard cc/debuffer, or a hard nuker, without having a hard healer/buff/cc/debuffer/nuker one-size-fits-all character that everyone is worried about. They have the means to do it.

[Tuxedoman96]

If we want to talk about niches, keep in mind that if ANY caster - even a sorc - tried to specialize in sonic damage, they would be woefully behind. Sonic is in a terrible place across the board. It makes sense that sonic would be the bard's niche. Improving sonic in gear AND bumping it in the spellsinger tree would make spellsingers the masters of sonic damage (if they decide to go all in as other all-in casters do). Or, if they want to be more versatile, they can do good damage with sonic (less than all-in blasters but still respectable) and also CC and heal. I'm not advocating for all classes to be the same; I'm advocating for bards to have their spell niche made way more viable.

Oh, I'm aware how far behind sonic is. I just think that having niches is preferable to trying to equate everything (and that wasn't directed towards you but to the people that keep talking about equivalence). One of the nice things about having a bunch of niches is that it's easier to make adjustments here and there without causing too much collateral damage. I mean, look at what happened when they added the lvl 9 spells. Wizards got a nice boost but Sorcs even more so (since they specialize in a particular element or two), and then they nerfed Sorc to compensate (may also have to do with Alchemist). But if the Wizard's Force and negative damage niches were better (and they had more spells for those two types) then that wouldn't be as much of an issue. Right now, all the force spells pale in comparison to Acid Well or DBF or Meteor Swarm. And yeah, I know that Archmage still hasn't had its pass yet, but I find it weird that these spells were thrown into the spellbook for a class that is already up there in regards to spellcasting DPS, and can strip immunities (which means that the spells benefitted Sorc a whole lot more).


Meanwhile, negative spells got 1 (technically 2) additions (ones a DoT and the other is healing) and force has at best force missile in the spellbook and Arcane Blast in the Archmage tree. That's it. For all the desire to specialize in force damage with a class that gets bonuses to force in one of its trees, I have 1 force AoE even worth mentioning. I guess there is Feydark Illusionist, but the AoE force spells in there are at least T4, and you get 2: a cone and a static ring similar to Blade Barrier. Ring of Shadowblades is unlikely to be helpful when monsters are held or otherwise unable to move through quickly enough to really take advantage of it, and the cooldown is too long to place more than one (plus it would take away your other T5 options), so it's more like 1 option. 2 AoE force options for only 56 AP (not taking full ranks in both would be counter-productive for the purposes of DPS), and no real support outside of the trees in order to have other force options in rotation.


I mean, I'm fine with non-elemental and sonic spells doing less damage, since they are more or ubiquitous. However, if that's the case, there should be more spells of that damage type to rotate through to make up for the fact that your damage is lower. Having only 2 AoE force spells or 2 AoE negative spells to rotate through, 3 of which have a CD of at least 6 seconds (NEB is about 3.5 seconds) is a pretty sad position to be in for a niche.


I'll concede for the negative damage niche, that it might be a bit much to have more AoE negative damage considering one's self-healing would probably be tied to the spellpower as well. Then again, there's nothing saying they can't just simply reduce the damage or reduce the scaling from spellpower a bit (nothing crazy like 50%) so that it's less of an issue. For force there really isn't an excuse though.

[Tuxedoman96]

In general, no, they're not. Bards are great.

I enjoy playing bards myself.

But if you add "...at nuking" to the end of that, then, duh, of course. Nobody disagrees with that. Yes, Bards are orders of magnitude behind sorcs at nuking.



They should be. That's the argument here, and it's well made. See, I can do it too!

I mean, it really boils down to: should a bard be allowed to specialize? I for one think that any class should be allowed to specialize according to what they have. So should a Ftr be able to specialize in healing? No, not really, because they don't get healing spells to begin with. But a ftr can specialize in DPS, or CC, or tanking. Or he can make himself be more versatile and not be the greatest in any area. Now yes, of course epic desinies can come into play, but then that's more a matter of the destiny than the class.

We're disagreeing about what "should" be. Some people here seem to think Bards should be nukers. I don't, for multiple reasons, including game balance, lore, elimination of character diversity and more general dumbing-down of the game to nothing but DPS. You're not going to convince me that Bards should be nukers, and I don't really expect to convince you otherwise if you think Bards should be nukers, but I can at least present the opposing point of view for the benefit of any other readers.

What help caster Bards need is to be better caster Bards, not to be fake Sorcs. If you want to play a Sorc, just go play a Sorc.

You'd actually increase character diversity. You already have people playing some mix between the following: CC bards, Buffing bards, hard healing bards, Melee DPS bards, throwing bards, tanking bards. You don't see nuking in there as an option. I for one am not asking for nuking to be added on there without drawbacks. I'm asking for the ability to specialize in better spellcasting DPS should I ever choose to do so, just as a bard can specialize more in the other options. Having good alternatives is the foundation of the diversity of builds, and not having an option for worthwhile spellcasting DPS means that that is a build that is not really present (the less builds are present the less diverse the character pool).


You suggest that giving the bards the ability to be nukers would make the game dumb down. I'd beg to differ. I'd say that enabling nuking for bards, with drawbacks makes the choices more meaningful, because at each crossroad you decide "do I want to specialize in more dmg/healing/cc, etc. or do I want to be more versatile?". Take the Mass Hold versus Horn of Thunder. Because bards can't really even do meaningful damage during their rotation, there's really not a reason to take Horn of Thunder. Especially because you're only getting bonuses to spellpower and crit for half the damage. But if it was actually competitive, then you'd see more people with Horn of Thunder. An equilibrium is established.


Also, you seem to think that we want bards to be fake sorcs. That's incorrect. Bards definitely should not be doing as much damage as sorcs, but that doesn't mean that they should be where they are right now if you're willing to specialize in DPS. You say there'd be an issue with game balance. Well, that's the whole point of having benefits and drawbacks for the choices you make when you progress the class. The more enhancements for DPS that you take, the less you should have remaining for CC or healing or buffing. You make them mutually exclusive, and then that means you can't have everything. That sounds pretty balanced to me. You say that there's an issue with the lore. Alright, tell me. I could roll up a bard in pnp and make it so that he is an obscure specialist in random trivia (all the knowledge skills) and have him enhance his bawdy tales with illusions, but I can't make a guy that can blow out people's eardrums and shatter their souls with the power of rock and roll?


The whole point of "lore" in pnp is that you make the lore. You decide what your character's origins are, what phobias and quirks he has, and how he reacts to the events in his life, and generally the DM, being the final authority, usually only cares about balance wrt what is and isn't allowed. A kill-everything-in-one-shot, heal-to-full-every-round, two-actions-per-round build wouldn't fly there, and we're not asking for that here. The core books are guidelines, and players have always been encouraged to use their imagination, so we shouldn't necessarily be trying to follow it down to the letter.


If we want to get into what would be thematic for a bard, being the musically gifted, they should have more sonic abilities. Make them mutually exclusive with important buffs and abilities. I wouldn't be opposed to resist sonic and protection from sonic, since sonic is there shtick (even though sonic is the least represented for use in abjuration too). But let's not pretend that 1) what works in pnp works here and 2) limiting choices by presenting an option with a clearly superior alternative is healthy for the class or lends itself to build diversity.