D&D 2E 2e Bard vs Wizard Class Balance

[GreyLord]

Bards were effective at slaying most Mage's. The problems was that the Bard's spellcaster level would normally be higher than a Mage's, hence when trying out spell clashing, the Bard's spell would be harder to do away with than the Mage's spell.

Another thing to note, depending on WHICH higher level rules you were using, Bard's could actually cast up to 8th level spells.

Fast casting spells to disrupt Mage spells were the Bard's forte (Magic Missile, etc), and being able to close in with a dagger after taking away the Mage's defenses was what a Bard could really do well.

Bard's also could one up Fighters at higher levels BECAUSE of their spells.

Monks, Druids, and Clerics could be problematic at times though from what we saw. (and yes, Monks from the Scarlet Brotherhood were a thing...almost exactly like their 1e counterparts). Never had Bards face off with Assassins (ala...Scarlet Brotherhood book again).

Of course, the original Druid up until level 13 (as found in the Complete book of Druids which offers the 1e advancement type Druid in the back) was probably the most over powered of all the classes that one could play in 2e, at least up until high level).

 

[James Gasik]

It really does come down to how favorable the conditions for Bard spell collecting are. I always played specialist Wizards in 2e because I never could really count on getting the spells I wanted otherwise (and the costs for scribing spells in your spellbook added up). Not to mention how many people like to target your spellbooks, lol.

But yes, if you can get the right spells, a Bard's faster levelling speed makes them useful...and if they are allowed to get higher level spells, that's all to the good (I never played with those rules, personally).

I just felt that the rest of the Bard's chassis wasn't really that great when compared to, again the Cleric and his Specialty Priest Cousins, outside of their ability to use a wide array of magic items.

Once multiclassed Bards was on the table though, things got fun. Also, due to that fast xp table, Bards were great if you wanted to Dual Class.

 

[Ancalagon]

I've only seen a bard in play in one game, and not the entirety of the campaign either. It was a high level one (think 12-15 range) and there were a lot of henchmen and PCs (8 or 9 if I recall correctly). Anyway, the bard (I can't remember if this was a player or a henchmen) was not very ... effective or remarkable. My illusionist-thief gnome could do so much more.

the 3e bard I've seen more than once, and in pathfinder too. The 3e one is not very powerful, but certainly useful to have around. The pathfinder 1e one is a force multiplier.

 

[James Gasik]

The 3e Bard got a shot in the arm by the later stages of the development cycle thanks to Prestige Classes like the Fochlucan Lyrist (basically, a 1e Bard) or the 9 level caster Sublime Chord, and Feats like Snowflake Wardance and Dragonsong Inspiration, which could turn your Bard into a real powerhouse.

Our friend the 2e Bard is probably the weakest version of the class, only saved due to their rapid xp growth. It was never very popular, I'm the only person in all my old 2e groups to actually play one, and I've never encountered a 1e Bard.

One thing that is worth mentioning for the 1e/2e Bards is the existence of the Instruments of the Bards, and other musical magical items. I've rarely seen these in play, but they feel like they would make the Bard especially cool to have around.

 

[cbwjm]

2e bards also had some pretty cool kits, the blade, gallant, and skald were pretty cool. So were the herald, jongleur, and loremaster. Different focuses, but all pretty cool. I actually quite liked the 3e bard as well, even before all the prestige classes came out.