I'm not really sure what you mean here. Also, if this is a plausible thing, then huzzah, more power for bards.
It's a helpful thing for army scenarios, which are valid scenarios. As is though, this argument is mostly that there's too much awesome here, and you don't need that much. In other words, not a valid argument against bardic power.2: way too much symbolic value on the range of the buff when he's basically never going to be in a situation to actually make use of it
First, what wizard or cleric spell adds that much damage to that many targets, or even that much damage to a smaller number of targets? We're talking about something close to a mass venomfire effect here. Second, why does it matter? Bards aren't wizards, and they can't be wizards. They're tier 3, and that makes the valid comparison between them and warblades, factotums, and beguilers.3: wizard/cleric have plenty of spells to add energy damage to weapons, and unlike bardsong they can be meta'd so a bit redundant
Not really. If you took away all of that inspire courage stuff, like just all of it, you'd still be a tier 3 class, on the basis of skills and spells.4: It's not terrible, but it's your entire build for one buff....
Given that the "name" was basically "Making a claim without any evidence," it seems like a valid thing, given that you're still ignoring a whole pile of arguments, and claiming bardic suckitude regardless.And still of the opinion it's sad to call names.