Bard is spoiled!

[James McMurray]

Ultimately though, if the option is get training in thievery or get training in thievery AND have the option to sneak attack (and be considered a Rogue), there isn't really a reason to pick the first option OVER the second option. There may be a third option ... but that doesn't make it so the second option isn't better than the first option.

True, but if the third choice renders the first two moot, the first two effectively don't exist.

You can carry around a secondary weapon solely to use when you want to get the sneak attack off. You have the Dex for it ... so you could pick up Quick Draw.

Now you've spent two feats? I guess we have a different idea of what makes a viable choice. No biggee.

 

[WalterKovacs]

True, but if the third choice renders the first two moot, the first two effectively don't exist.

+2 to a skill [and the potential to get other feat based bonuses to that skill, meet prereqs that require that skill to be trained, certain features of the skill that require training, etc] isn't necessarily moot.

Now you've spent two feats? I guess we have a different idea of what makes a viable choice. No biggee.

It was a suggestion. Saying that you MUST have a suboptimal weapon choice for a 1/encounter sneak attack isn't necessarily true. Even without quickdraw, it is possible to afford a simple minor action to draw a different weapon for the sneak attack.

 

[Cadfan]

I don't get why there's argument here.

If you are a bard.
And you want to be trained in Thievery.
And you have a dexterity of 13.
THEN: you should use multiclassing instead of skill training.

Because even if you never use your sneak attack option, it was free.

Now maybe you don't have a dexterity of 13.
Or maybe you don't want to be trained in Thievery.
And maybe the reason you don't want to be trained in Thievery is because its just a +5 bonus that doesn't stack with the +3 you're getting from Jack of All Trades and your bard powers.

That's fine! But its not relevant to other people with different builds and different concerns.

The "multiclass for skills" choices I see as being useful at the moment are going to be multiclassing into Warlock (any skill from the list, no ability score compatibility problems), and possibly Sorcerer when it comes out.

 

[James McMurray]

I doubt we're going to agree that Sneak of Shadows is a good pick for a Bard, especially given the hoops he has to run through to get the benefit. I agree with your basic premise (MC feats > Skill Training), just not this example.

 

[deleteme123456]

Multi Warlock and take Thievery that way if you want it so badly. I like Dark Pact Bards, personally.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I know it's fun to be mysterious, but for those of us who don't subscribe (I said I wouldn't until they had certain features, they still don't have them), could someone describe, in general terms, what this bard is "like"? I'm not asking for specifics of powers and numbers, but theme, style, whether it's not an Arcane Leader, and so on, would be good to know. If it sounds sufficiently exciting, I might even be interested enough to break my little vow, considering bard was long my favourite class.

I mean, with 1E, 2E, and 3E, we saw three very different bards, and in other fantasy games, we've seen a pretty wide variety of conceptions of "bards". Specificially, the 1E was a weird celtic multiclass deal, the 2E was a jack-of-all-trades, combining mostly magic and thievery, and the 3E one was all about illusion magic and, dare I say it "buffing".

What have we got for 4E? Remember, general terms, I don't want anyone getting in trouble for quoting anything.

 

[lexoanvil]

I know it's fun to be mysterious, but for those of us who don't subscribe (I said I wouldn't until they had certain features, they still don't have them), could someone describe, in general terms, what this bard is "like"? I'm not asking for specifics of powers and numbers, but theme, style, whether it's not an Arcane Leader, and so on, would be good to know. If it sounds sufficiently exciting, I might even be interested enough to break my little vow, considering bard was long my favourite class.

I mean, with 1E, 2E, and 3E, we saw three very different bards, and in other fantasy games, we've seen a pretty wide variety of conceptions of "bards". Specificially, the 1E was a weird celtic multiclass deal, the 2E was a jack-of-all-trades, combining mostly magic and thievery, and the 3E one was all about illusion magic and, dare I say it "buffing".

What have we got for 4E? Remember, general terms, I don't want anyone getting in trouble for quoting anything.

i would say its like a combination of all 3 they have some pretty good healing like 1st edition bard and with the ability to multi class many times they are like 2nd edition in that they are very flexable and they have many buffs and "auras" like 3rd edition.

for instance one of their at wills marks the target to a member of your party. most of their spells involve helping your allies or disrupting your foes. it seems like a very solid class.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

i would say its like a combination of all 3 they have some pretty good healing like 1st edition bard and with the ability to multi class many times they are like 2nd edition in that they are very flexable and they have many buffs and "auras" like 3rd edition.

for instance one of their at wills marks the target to a member of your party. most of their spells involve helping your allies or disrupting your foes. it seems like a very solid class.

Sorry if I'm unclear, I mean to ask more about flavour. Is the bard some kind of magical mystic? A naturally-talented arcane-user? Trained by the elves? None of the above? The flavour/atmosphere is what interests me most (and/or is most likely to be put me off). Is there a heavy emphasis, or any at all, on using musical instruments and/or singing?

 

[lexoanvil]

Sorry if I'm unclear, I mean to ask more about flavour. Is the bard some kind of magical mystic? A naturally-talented arcane-user? Trained by the elves? None of the above? The flavour/atmosphere is what interests me most (and/or is most likely to be put me off). Is there a heavy emphasis, or any at all, on using musical instruments and/or singing?

the description of their origins like many classes was pretty flexable ranging from "a talented wanderer who casts impressive spells almost instinctively" to "a student of a bardic college" or "a warrior who mixes skill at arms with thundering music" or a "dashing performer" most of the emphasis was put on the combination of art and magic.

i hope this helps a little.

 

[Milambus]

Sorry if I'm unclear, I mean to ask more about flavour. Is the bard some kind of magical mystic? A naturally-talented arcane-user? Trained by the elves? None of the above? The flavour/atmosphere is what interests me most (and/or is most likely to be put me off). Is there a heavy emphasis, or any at all, on using musical instruments and/or singing?

Flavor: Bards are artists that practice their instruments and magic.
Mechanical: Arcane Leaders, with some Controller stuff

Lots of ranged attacks. A few melee. One of their unique things seems to be the ability to attack, and make that target marked by an ally (not themselves). Some healing, ranked between cleric and warlord. Enemy debuffs. A domination song.

Yea, i'd say this build is more about debuffing the enemy than buffing allies.