Complete Bard Kit Evaluations

 I think I can say pretty confidently that the Complete Bard is one of the best Complete Handbooks of the series; I've heard few bad things about it, and, usually, their reasoning is incomprehensible to me, so they're obviously entirely wrong. Unlike the previous books, the kits in the Complete Bard are close to being new classes. They take four abilities of bards... Influence Reactions, Rally Allies, Countersong, and Legend Lore... and make them optional, mixing in other abilities that fit a particular type of performer. They also take the 4 NWPs bards begin with... Singing, Musical Instrument, Reading, and Local History... and swap them around, too. It results in one of the most dynamic complete handbooks.

I should note, all of the kits (except True Bard) get a modification to their thieving abilities, and these can vary pretty widely; Gallants get a net -25, all from Pick Pockets, while the best net +15%. Of the 17 kits in the book, five of them are net negative thieving skill points.

True Bard: The True Bard is just the bard class, as written up in the PH, and sort of a template for how the rest of them will come out. Bards are jacks of all trades, with tons of abilities and very little synergy... they're thieves but have the least-taken thief abilities, fighters but they have bad HD, and wizards who can't take advantage of their fightery armor while casting spells. Their Rally Allies ability remains simply horrible (+1 to hit OR +1 to saves OR +2 to morale, IF the bard can do nothing for three rounds, and then it only lasts 1 round per bard level), but their Legend Lore ability got a bit of an interesting change... as an optional rule, if the bard succeeded, the DM should roll 3d6 once per level of the bard, and give the bard information base on the table; an 18 means you should just let them read the DMG entry, a 3 will tell them how many charges are left, and all sorts of other things. It's a neat addition, which takes bards from being the identify machine and into someone who knows random bits of stuff about stuff.

Blade: Oooh, sexy and scary! Dark clothes and weapons and they definitely appealed to a younger me a lot more. The first thing to note is the NWPs... Armorer, Bowyer-Fletcher, Gambling, and Weaponsmith... that's 7 slots worth of bonus proficiencies, not the 4 the bard gets. Their Weapons Display is actually better than Rally Allies... it hurts the enemy's morale, and gives allies a +1 to hit, while taking only a round to do (and lasting the same round/level). Two effects, one round, as opposed to a bard getting one of three effects for three rounds of work. They also get some combat benefits (better TWF and automatically ambidextrous), and spins, another kind of weapons display. They give up the 10th level ability to read any magic item. It's a potent ability, but... it's a 10th level ability. The restriction isn't going to come up much.

Charlatan: One thing I missed when younger... Charlatans can wear any armor. They don't like to, but they can. And, sweet monkey, are they powerful. They can charm person, without magic, 1 person per level at a time. Not "A 3rd level charlatan can have 3 people charmed"... as written, they can charm 3 people, then go on and charm another 3 people, and another 3 people. Indefinitely. They can pretend to have any NWP, and have a chance to actually succeed at it... roll Int-10, and if you do, roll a NWP check and, if you succeed at THAT, you successfully used the NWP. They can detect lies, they can detect alignments, they can pick pocket people with words. There's no specific hindrances to this kit, save that people are mad when you swindle them. It is an amazingly powerful kit if people read it.

Gallant: Gallants are if bards were knights in shining armor... literally. They can wear any armor, but only want the coolest stuff... they will always choose pretty over better protection. It's not backed up by mechanics, though, just "This is what Gallants do." Their special abilities are pretty potent, including a +1 HP per level, a floating +2 that can be applied once each round, and, improving reactions with, and the ability to charm, someone of the opposite sex (or appropriate sex, I would argue, given that we're not under TSRs Hayes Code equivalent... Zorro, after all, is sometimes a Gay Blade). Their hindrance is that they cannot gain the soldiers of a True Bard, instead getting a 1st level fighter as a squire starting at 5th level, and their Code, which, among other romantic ideals, requires that they spend half their money.

Gypsy-Bard: Drinking deep the stereotypes of "gypsies", the gypsy-bard is a free-spirit, nature-loving, dancer. They can cast certain animal-related spells as spell-like powers, can free cast any enchantment/charm they know in a long ritual (1d10 turns of dancing and music), and they can tell fortunes with any magical item designed for divination, even if they normally couldn't use the item; they can even use the Deck of Many things this way, and do it safely (but they can't use it normally any safer than others can). If the DM allows, they have a psionic wild talent, all in exchange for a -25 to climb if it isn't a tree. They have a small restriction on weapon choices, and armor, too. All in all, I think they're kind of scattered... there's the fortune-telling and the dancing which fits with the stereotype they're going for, but there's also the animal magics and the "oh, yeah, they might have any weird psionic power the dice give them." It's not a very cohesive idea, and is a bit real-world racist.

Herald: Heralds are supposed to be either wandering bearers of news or James Bond. The intro text is literally "Hello, my name is Bard, James Bard, and I'm a Herald working for His Majesty, the king." They identify rumors, learn who's-who in a given town or district, sway crowds (similar to a True Bard's Influence ability), and can, with luck, speak to anyone, regardless of language. This is a really social kit, and doesn't carry much advantage in a dungeon, but would be an invaluable member of a thieves guild or other espionage game.

I think my biggest complaint is with the sway crowds ability, and this applies to the True Bard, and a few others, as well... if someone fails at their save, they go with the bard's opinion. If someone makes their save, they go opposite the bard's opinion. There's no chance that people listening to the bard just won't have their opinion swayed, which seems odd to me.

Jester: Oh, the Jester. I think I could kill several grognards at a time by suggesting I was going to play a kender jester, as they are deeply unserious characters with some seriously powerful abilities. They do have some weapon and armor restrictions, but relatively minor. Fool's luck gives them a +1 to AC and almost everything else (except attack and damage). They can communicate with anyone through body language, if the person is wise enough to figure out the jester's actions, or they can use it to try to make people hit them. They can use jokes to influence reactions or dispel fear. And they get a big bonus to save v. enchantment/charm and a chance to confuse (as the spell) anyone who tries to read their mind. Fools luck makes them a potent jack of all trades, but as the book observes, it's going to take a special player, in the right campaign, to not make them an annoyance.

Jongleurs: Jumping and tumbling around as entertainment; they're kind of neat, and have some similarities to the Complete Thief Acrobat kit, in that one of their big benefits is enhanced proficiencies... not only do they get Jumping, Tumbling, Juggling, and Tightrope Walking for free, they're better at it than other people. They also dodge certain attacks and calamities, and entertain crowds, with only minimal downside (weapon and armor restrictions, and no 10th level reading ability). They're a nice one... a very physical character, with nice benefits that aren't overpowering.

Loremaster: If Bards were wizards, really. They have a bard's legend lore, but can attempt to use ANY magical item from the jump, and have at least a 70% chance of doing do (minimum Wisdom 14, and it is a Wisdom check). They cast spells from 1st level, as a 2nd level caster, can influence people and, unlike True Bards, Jesters, etc., only turn people against them on a 20 on the save. They can also try to read ancient languages twice, but they have restrictions on weapons and armor.

I don't hate it; I wouldn't be opposed to entirely replacing wizards with this kit. They have a slower ramp-up in power; while they cast at 1 level higher, they get fewer slots, and the numbers bear out that normal wizards would surpass them in spells. Because of their mastery of magic and legend lore, they feel more like characters who know things, rather than the rather hyper-focused wizards who do nothing but cast spells.

Meistersinger: If Bards were Druids... or maybe Disney Princesses. They have an odd weapon proficiency restriction; they have to start with a melee weapon and a ranged weapon, but then they must select proficiencies in the order hurled (4th) melee (8th), ranged (12th), and so on. It's not overly restrictive. Their music is oriented towards animals... they pick up animal companions and magical abilities from them (but those animal companions dying might kill the bard), they can influence the reaction of animals, protect others with their song, and even straight-up charm animals. They don't get standard followers, just animal companions. They're a nice, focused, class, but the risk of dying if their animal companions do throws me right out of interest in the kit. Animals are so very squishy in D&D, it feels like few will make it to 10th level, when they can shapechange into their Large animal companion.

Riddlemaster: While I kind of like the Loremaster, the Riddlemaster rubs me wrong; they're supposedly super-intelligent and oriented towards solving puzzles, so they get extra time and attempts to work through things, bonuses to learn spells, and can use written magical items at 8th, instead of 10th. They have some minor restrictions on weapons, but their "Common Sense" ability is kind of what spoils it for me. Like the Jester's Fool's Luck, it adds +1 to AC and +1 to a lot of rolls... including attack and damage. Why are these guys, of all people, the better fighters? Blades don't get any attack or damage bonuses, why do Riddlemasters? It's out of place, and the whole ability feels off.

Skald: Skalds are more fighty, less casty, bards. Their War Chant is better than a bard's, kind of... while they can choose more and different effects, they still require the 3 round pre-combat chanting. The effects end instantly if the skald is hit. They get a +1 to hit and damage under pretty common circumstances (must be chanting, must use one of their kit's preferred weapons), and can influence reactions and do legend lore like a regular bard (though they only turn people against them on a 20, not on any successful save). But they ALSO might not be able to cast spells, if the DM doesn't want them to. Their cultures are presented as illiterate and non-spellcasting, and so Skalds can't learn Reading/Writing at first, don't get the Read Languages ability at first, can't use written magic items at all, and don't start casting spells until the level after they encounter it. It is a very stiff penalty, and, to be honest, I'd rather just be a regular bard and wear a horned helmet... War Chant isn't THAT much better, and +1 to Hit and Damage is nice, but hardly game-changing.

Thespian: I never liked the Thespian, much. They're able to use any armor (with a 1 AC penalty if it's heavier than a bard's usual chain mail), get a -2 non-proficiency penalty with all weapons (except the 3 that they are allowed to be proficient with), and can influence reactions. But they're also implied to be able to convince anyone of anything they act out... they can pretend to be dead from a light blow, they can pretend to be a powerful wizard, even force people to make morale checks by pretending to cast spells. I don't like it; it's a bit too much bullshit, too dependent on the DM willing to let you do whatever zany thing you come up with. Their "Observe Motions" ability gives them a +2 to AC and a +1 to hit if they win initiative, which is a nice restriction on the bonuses for a non-combat variant.

Demi-Bards. Bards who are neither human nor half-elven. Gnome and elven demi-bards are pretty standard, though gnomes have to abide by illusionist spell restrictions for some reason. But dwarves and halflings? Instead of actually casting spells, they can become partially immune to them. See, they learn a spell, right? And then, instead of being able to cast the spell, they get, effectively, magic resistance against that spell. Learn Magic Missile? You now have a % chance to ignore any and all magic missiles. Fireball? % chance it won't affect you. But you have to learn the spell. How does this work if a halfling encounters a Wall of Fog? Can he see through the fog?

Dwarven Chanter: So, Dwarven chanters can not only resist spells they know, they can also try to dispel them. A dwarven chanter can attempt to chant at a spell in place, that they know, to dispel it, which is kind of neat. Their War Chant is a better combat music than we've seen so far, because it doesn't require a 3 round prep time, just 1d10 rounds to get started. It improves dwarven morale and initiative, and degrades opponents... not hit or damage bonuses, but definitely worthwhile, especially on the battlefield. Their timing chants (which increase productivity during mining and other dwarven activities) and trance chants (which let them chant for a long time, up to and including their own deaths) are not that inspiring... explanation for NPCs, more than anything else. They can wear any armor except plate, but can't use shields, and are supposed to only take bludgeoning weapons. Apparently, the author never heard of smacking your shield as part of a chant.

Elven Minstrels: I'm not 100% sure this kit is a benefit. Bonus to save v. musical attacks, counter song, influence reactions, and a completely different method of spellcasting that requires them to have a bag made of deer leather, as well as be able to sing and play an instrument. This is neat, but I don't get how it's supposed to be a benefit to the Minstrel, because it seems like it's adding additional components to an spell with Somatic or Material components, and that's it. If it were paired to something like specialist benefits or SOMETHING, it might be interesting, but it's not, and so it's just "So, you cast your spells from a bag?" And they top it off with weapon and armor restrictions.

Gnome Professor: I want to like them, but they do some weird things. First all, their weapon proficiency options are weird, only allowing complex things like crossbows, arquebuses, mancatchers, whips. They're limited in armor, but they can, once a month, wear anything for 1d10 days. Do you have spare suits of armor lying around? But their abilities are kind of cool. Standard legend lore, but they also have floating bonuses (+1 per level, limited to +1 per action) to hand out if everyone is following the plan... but that means you have to develop a plan. They can find/remove traps, and figure out strange devices. They can design stranger things... but they also have a 1% chance of killing someone every time they do. Not as vulnerable as the Meistersinger, with their small furry bags of vulnerability hanging around, waiting to kill them, but still something concerning, especially since you can't, BTB, do anything to defend against it. Your rotary potato peeler might kill someone.... maybe even you.

Halfling Whistler: A more druidy, less Disney-princessy, bard. Halfling whistlers can Influence reactions like bards, and cast a small number of druidy spells through whistling, as well as communicate with some animals through making weird noises. But they also whistle to defend themselves against spells... which is odd, since other halfling and dwarven demi-bards don't have to do anything to defend themselves against a spell sent against them. Overall a neat idea, but I don't know what they were going for with the counter-whistling.

Overall, I still like this book. I think it approached kits in a unique way that was better suited to the more complex classes... there's not a lot you can take away from a fighter and still have it be good at its job (qv the Savage, who gives up their armor), but pulling chunks out of the bard and putting new things in their place is a good one. I still like the gnome professor, and got a new respect for the Loremaster. Blades and Gallants are interesting variants on the fightery-bard, and while Skald tries, I think it ultimately takes away too much for too little gain. Charlatans were simply not thought through, Riddlemasters are somehow more annoying than Jesters, and elven spell-singing looks to be a new and fascinating way to need more to do less.