Oh, that makes me feel so much better, you have no idea.

I'm not sure I like the assertion that acro is so much worse for monks than psymet. Psymet has some useful stuff, but it's not that special, whereas acrobatics has a few things that are great to monks. Like dodging, hyperactive, and contort. Monks hate being hindered 'cause then they can't do any combos. In fact, I'd change except psymet is so much cooler conceptually.

Hyperactive all by itself justifies a skillset in a huge way.

I also hate skillsets that are full of useless crap and then one awesome bomb at the end, mind you.

Acrobatics is great for bards. Monks, in my opinion, do better with the flexibility of psymet. The great part about being a monk is that almost everything about our skills is customizable to the situation. If I'm fighting a bard, I can change harmony chants, change my locked psymet channels, and change my forms around to ones specifically targeting bard weaknesses. If I am fighting a warrior, I can change everything around again.

Acrobatics are great especially against warriors, since it allows you to stand with them for quite awhile. Still, it takes away a lot of the flexibility. It is much more powerful than psymet against warriors (IMO), but weaker against wiccans/guardians, and possibly druids/mages. I say psymet is better not because the skills are actually that much better, but because it is a better fit for monks.

I think pretty much everyone does.

I think I can probably speak for most every commune bard, and the city Illusionists, when I say "Screw you."

Like Ildaudid said, even with a Viscanti bard specialization Mugwump would probably still be a better choice, which is disappointing.

And Hyperactive is pretty useless for any bard.

I'm still grappling with the idea of a short-sighted krokani wearing a giant monacle.

acrobatics have no defences other than avoidance though. that's why bards are so squishy. I'd go psymet all the way, even if it were just for the psionic skills.