Greetings!
I've read where some people have a passionate dislike of Bards, seeing them as feminine and useless idiots, that add little to an adventuring group, and are only worthy as a footnote in the cultural commentary of the campaign as part of the cmpaign's furniture.
I've wondered, like, geesus, you know? Throughout Celtic mythology, Bards were heroic, skilled, important people. Capable of fighting, very intelligent, and wise in lore, knowledge, and tribal geneologies and tribal laws. In Finnish and Norse mythology, the Bard may not have quite the exalted social status that Bards enjoyed in Celtic society, but Bards were none the less socially prominent and highly respected individuals. In all three traditions, Bards are deeply involved in heroic adventures, romances, epic quests, poetry, sagas, as well as numerous local social challenges, stories, and politics. Very interesting characters, and certainly a class that should be able to contribute just fine in any adventuring group.
What do you think? Thematically, do you think Bards are good and worthwhile? Mechanically, in D&D5E, is there something flawed about Bards that makes them a sub-par adventuring companion?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
The Bard is an interesting class and overall I don't have a problem with it, although it's the class I like the least of all the 5e classes.
Mainly as the spells don't feel like they are that explainable in RP terms.
The spell Vicious mockery (https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Vicious%20Mockery#content) is an example of this. It seems to work with any creature, regardless of whether it can understand you or have intelligence.
Then it does Psychic damage. It doesn't explain why or how that works.
Still, mechanically, they are a useful class to have around with the Bardic inspiration and generally being able to use lots of skills etc.
I personally don't like the Bard much. But it still remains to be a pretty popular class at Open tables where I run DnD.
Am I the only one who read the title as "bards are not useless, you feminine idiots!" :D
Quote from: Trond;1079716Am I the only one who read the title as "bards are not useless, you feminine idiots!" :D
We're all feminine compared to big, manly SHARK. :D
Quote from: jhkim;1079717We're all feminine compared to big, manly SHARK. :D
No I am too much of a land whale to be feminine.
Bards require a game where the solution to problems isn't always a combination of I kill it with my axe, or FIREBALL!!! While there are probably legitimate complaints, most that I've run across come down to player / GM issues. If talking and negotiating are not supported by the players / GM then yes Bards are going to suck. It isn't fun playing a PC whose only contribution is identifying magic items for the party and being comic relief.
Quote from: Trond;1079716Am I the only one who read the title as "bards are not useless, you feminine idiots!" :D
That is how I read it too.
Rename the magic-user the "bard", drop the spellbooks, give them the bardic lore. Poof, you have Taliesin.
Problem is, not enough gamers are familiar with the myths, but they're all familiar with the self-absorbed rock star archetype.
My bards were quite useful, feminine idiots. People always underestimate the spoony bard.
Quote from: Trond;1079716Am I the only one who read the title as "bards are not useless, you feminine idiots!" :D
Greetings!
LOL! Fantastic, my friend!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jhkim;1079717We're all feminine compared to big, manly SHARK. :D
Greetings!
LOL! Yes, that's right!:)
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
That's because they ARE useless at what a lot of people mistakenly believe what they are, even the designers sometimes.
Bards are useless at being a Jack of All Trades.
What they are useful as, is the party 'face', the person that goes and deals with the social aspects of the game/life. You need to speak to a king or a merchant lord? The Bard should know what to say, to flatter or intimidate as necessary. You don't send the Rogue to talk to the guards, after all.
Quote from: Azraele;1079726My bards were quite useful, feminine idiots. People always underestimate the spoony bard.
Greetings!
Hey Azraele! Indeed, I think Bards are very versatile and flexible characters. They have a wide range of interesting abilities. Something I also like about them is that while not as *glamorous* as a Fighter or Barbarian, or as lethal as a Rogue, whether the Bard is adventuring out in the countryside, or finds themselves wheeling and dealing in the Lord's court, a Bard can always be very useful in many situations. Some of the other characters when not in their element so to speak, can often be like a fish out of water. The Bard never really has that problem.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Toadmaster;1079723Bards require a game where the solution to problems isn't always a combination of I kill it with my axe, or FIREBALL!!! While there are probably legitimate complaints, most that I've run across come down to player / GM issues. If talking and negotiating are not supported by the players / GM then yes Bards are going to suck. It isn't fun playing a PC whose only contribution is identifying magic items for the party and being comic relief.
That is how I read it too.
Greetings!
Good points, Toadmaster! I agree. The DM shouldn't be setting up every problem where the only solution is a battleaxe or a fireball! LOL. I love that imagery, Toadmaster! Oh gosh, we have to *talk* to the courtiers? LOL.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: danskmacabre;1079715The Bard is an interesting class and overall I don't have a problem with it, although it's the class I like the least of all the 5e classes.
Mainly as the spells don't feel like they are that explainable in RP terms.
The spell Vicious mockery (https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Vicious%20Mockery#content) is an example of this. It seems to work with any creature, regardless of whether it can understand you or have intelligence.
Then it does Psychic damage. It doesn't explain why or how that works.
Still, mechanically, they are a useful class to have around with the Bardic inspiration and generally being able to use lots of skills etc.
I personally don't like the Bard much. But it still remains to be a pretty popular class at Open tables where I run DnD.
Greetings!
Interesting, Danskmacabre. You like them the *least* of all the 5E classes. I think some of their spells are kind of wierd, too though.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079731That's because they ARE useless at what a lot of people mistakenly believe what they are, even the designers sometimes.
Bards are useless at being a Jack of All Trades.
What they are useful as, is the party 'face', the person that goes and deals with the social aspects of the game/life. You need to speak to a king or a merchant lord? The Bard should know what to say, to flatter or intimidate as necessary. You don't send the Rogue to talk to the guards, after all.
Greetings!
Interesting, Christopher Brady. I can see your point. I'm not certain that if you pull much from the Celtic/Norse mythology that Bards should *necessarily* be "Jack of all trades". That's definitely a later medieval era/Renaissance flavour tacked onto them, I think. Which is also where I think the designers drew most of their inspiration for the Bard from--the Renaissance era motif, which is, by then, what the medieval Bard had *become*. But that wasn't very close to what the Bard actually was *historically*, before the Renaissance, in the old Celtic and Norse and Finnish lands. Back then, the Bard was a warrior, but also something of a religious figure, a spiritual figure, a man knowledgable of ancient lore and mysteries, as well as someone with a keen knowledge of a people's history, and oaths, laws, and genealogies. For peoples that had no writing, or very limited writing, someone with a Bard's skills, knowledge, and finely-trained memory, was an enormous resource, for everyone, whether he was a common farmer, a local warrior, or a prominent Lord.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: danskmacabre;1079715Mainly as the spells don't feel like they are that explainable in RP terms.
The spell Vicious mockery (https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Vicious%20Mockery#content) is an example of this. It seems to work with any creature, regardless of whether it can understand you or have intelligence.
Yeah this would be my top priority for the eventual 6ed. Explain how shit works in RP terms so you can adjudicate stuff like this and don't make everything so black and white that you don't need a GM to adjudicate stuff like this.
Quote from: SHARK;1079735Interesting, Christopher Brady. I can see your point. I'm not certain that if you pull much from the Celtic/Norse mythology that Bards should *necessarily* be "Jack of all trades". That's definitely a later medieval era/Renaissance flavour tacked onto them, I think. Which is also where I think the designers drew most of their inspiration for the Bard from--the Renaissance era motif, which is, by then, what the medieval Bard had *become*.
Well that's the issue - the 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e D&D Bard is not really a Bard, he's more an adventuring minstrel or troubadour. If you want a manly Celtic Bard or Norse Skald you pretty much have to go back to the 1e AD&D Bard, or there's the very nice Castles & Crusades Bard.
I don't think the 5e Bard is useless, despite not being very manly. A female friend played a cool male Bard as a kind of 'Jonny Depp Plays Don Juan' lothario character in my Wilderlands game, and he certainly contributed well on the battlefield as well as in the bedroom.... he was brave too, a Valour Bard AIR, although not actually very good at fighting... I remember him bravely holding off the lizardmen in a cave while his friends fell back... he ended up temporarily dead with a trident through his chest. :)
Also in my Wilderlands, I used the Bard class as the base for Lady Meda, a powerful Lore Mistress/Wise Woman character, kind of a female Gandalf. Worked very well for that.
Lady Meda, Servant of Mycr
Medium humanoid (human)
Armor Class 12 (15 with mage armor) (10/13, +2 DEX)
Hit Points 75 (15d8+15)
Proficiency +5
Speed 30 ft.
STR 8 (−1) DEX 14 (+2) CON 12 (+1) INT 14 (+2) WIS 16 (+3) CHA 20 (+5)
Saving Throws Wisdom +9 Charisma +11, +1 to all with robes
Skills Arcana +12 (Expertise), Persuasion +15 (Expertise), Perception +8.
Senses passive Perception 18
Spellcasting. Meda is a 15th level Bard-list spellcaster, spellcasting ability is Charisma (spell save DC 18, +10 to hit with spell attacks).
Cantrips (4): friends, light, mage hand, mending
Spells
She knows the following 19 spells:
1st level (4 slots): Burning Hands, Detect Magic, Mage Armor, Healing Word, Animal Messenger
2nd level (3 slots): Detect Thoughts, Suggestion
3rd level (3 slots): Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Fireball, Revivify, Speak with Dead
4th level (3 slots): Dimension Door
5th level (2 slots): Scrying, Raise Dead
6th level (1 slot) Globe of Invulnerability
7th level (1 slot) Fire Storm (as Sorcerer), Teleport
8th level (1 slot) Power Word Stun
SA: Song of Rest +5 hp recovery on short rest to those who can hear it.
MI: 1d4+4 potions of healing, 2d4+2 doses of Keoghtom's Ointment, Cloak of Elvenkind, the Heart of Dur - a giant ruby which functions as a Stone of Controlling Earth Elementals. Robe of Resistance +1 to Saves
In 3e-era I ran a Bard who was basically a scary smart drill sergeant. Mithral Breastplate, longsword and shield. His instrument was a war horn and his bellowing commands ("move it maggot! Hit them harder!"). Between the bonuses he could get from his knowledge checks (via Skill Tricks) and Inspire Competence he hit as hard as a baseline fighter in melee... while also making the party fighter and barbarian fight better too (they converted the bonus to hit into twice that to damage with their two-handed weapons via power attacks)... then when the enemy archers were about to skewer us as we charged across the bridge... GLITTERDUST! Blind archers are useless archers. It also marked their location for the wizard who was hanging back several hundred feet to drop a fireball on their heads.
In 4E the Skald variant of the bard was absolutely a frontline fighter. My go-to daily aura (which due to Skald mechanics could be used for every daily slot and lasted all encounter long... so basically every encounter) gave all allies continuous combat advantage on any enemy within 30 feet of me. I played a half-elf who snagged a warlock attack that could be used in melee and range with their racial trait and fluffed it as their "blackfire blade" which they used to trigger their skald at-wills which buffed their allies and picked encounter attacks that triggered off hits or minor actions to further the carnage. The rest of the party considered them the most dangerous member of the party.
In 5e I play a College of Swords Bard who IS something of a fop... but he's also a master duelist whose flourishes help tear through the enemy while using very subtle magic to tilt the battle in his allies' favor. Basically I play him as a D'Artagnan-like figure with his magic being more a function of inspiration and luck than arcane power. His best friend is a tiny invisible dragon named Pidge who may or may not be imaginary... but when he spends the actions to call out for Pidge's help things generally catch on fire (Mage Initiate with Firebolt and Mage Hand... because sometimes Pidge likes to engage in mischief beyond blowing things up)... basically any of the overt magic is the work of Pidge and I've left whether the dragon is actually real (stranger things have happened) or not entirely the DM (who seems to enjoy keeping it nebulous... half the party thinks Pidge is real, another half is convinced my PC is just a lunatic and half think the dragon is real AND I'm a lunatic... there's overlap in the first two).
In short... what is this "useless feminine" garbage you are spewing? Bards are awesome when they do their job of being force multipliers for the party. You help make your party awesome and they appreciate you for it!
WotC bards are at least half designed as support characters. They work better when the player is willing to embrace that role, much like the TSR era clerics. WotC has gradually gotten better at understanding how to make a support character. In 5E, they finally came to terms with something I've been complaining about since they got the license:
In class-based, niche-focused D&D, you can't really make a Jack of all Trades that works well (with the usual exceptions for those relatively rare players that can milk anything). What you can do is make a character that splits between two things, roughly 50/50, or even better with a notable slant, maybe 60/40 or so. Most players can handle that just fine, as long as the slant is something they are willing to run with.
The 5E Bard is a "full power" caster with a highly limited spell list and selection, who is also very deeply and broadly skilled. I think the base is about a 50/50 character (magic/skills), but I could be off. Then the bardic traditions skew towards a focus, with "valor" left for that rare player that wants to skew towards a 3rd thing (and can handle it). You could make the case also that the base 5E bard is a 60/40 (skill, magic) character.
Now if WotC would only internalize this lesson of not diffusing character ability too much, they could finally design a halfway decent ranger.
The best rendition of what a D&D bard should do in a party is The Knight's Tale version of Chaucer. You don't have to like the movie, but look up the clips of him talking to the crowds, how he sounds when he's bullshitting them. That is what a Bard does in D&D.
The fact that they can fight, blast, thieve and heal are just icing and not what they're really good at.
Quote from: SHARK;1079713Greetings!
I've read where some people have a passionate dislike of Bards, seeing them as feminine and useless idiots, that add little to an adventuring group, and are only worthy as a footnote in the cultural commentary of the campaign as part of the cmpaign's furniture.
I've wondered, like, geesus, you know? Throughout Celtic mythology, Bards were heroic, skilled, important people. Capable of fighting, very intelligent, and wise in lore, knowledge, and tribal geneologies and tribal laws. In Finnish and Norse mythology, the Bard may not have quite the exalted social status that Bards enjoyed in Celtic society, but Bards were none the less socially prominent and highly respected individuals. In all three traditions, Bards are deeply involved in heroic adventures, romances, epic quests, poetry, sagas, as well as numerous local social challenges, stories, and politics. Very interesting characters, and certainly a class that should be able to contribute just fine in any adventuring group.
What do you think? Thematically, do you think Bards are good and worthwhile? Mechanically, in D&D5E, is there something flawed about Bards that makes them a sub-par adventuring companion?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
The most common complaint I have heard about Bards is that they are combat ineffective to which I respond that the Bard is about as combat ineffective as a Predator drone. Bards are designed to be Jack-Of-All-Trades and so are not supposed to be front line combatants, they are great at supporting the party in combat. Need a healer but the Cleric is busy? Bard. Need a Magic-User but the Wizard is busy? Bard. Need a Fighter for some missile weapon support but the Ranger is busy? Bard.
I think that players fall back on the nellie queen overly effeminate stereotype persona for Bards because they can't roleplay for sour owl poop and would feel outside of their safe space if they tried to run a Bard as a believable character. I had a DM who would pull this and try to puppeteer my character for laughs, I left that game.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079731That's because they ARE useless at what a lot of people mistakenly believe what they are, even the designers sometimes.
Bards are useless at being a Jack of All Trades.
What they are useful as, is the party 'face', the person that goes and deals with the social aspects of the game/life. You need to speak to a king or a merchant lord? The Bard should know what to say, to flatter or intimidate as necessary. You don't send the Rogue to talk to the guards, after all.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079833The best rendition of what a D&D bard should do in a party is The Knight's Tale version of Chaucer. You don't have to like the movie, but look up the clips of him talking to the crowds, how he sounds when he's bullshitting them. That is what a Bard does in D&D.
The fact that they can fight, blast, thieve and heal are just icing and not what they're really good at.
Something tells me that you aren't getting the most out of the Bard class......by your own choice.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079731That's because they ARE useless at what a lot of people mistakenly believe what they are, even the designers sometimes.
Bards are useless at being a Jack of All Trades.
What they are useful as, is the party 'face', the person that goes and deals with the social aspects of the game/life. You need to speak to a king or a merchant lord? The Bard should know what to say, to flatter or intimidate as necessary. You don't send the Rogue to talk to the guards, after all.
Quote from: SHARK;1079735Greetings!
Interesting, Christopher Brady. I can see your point. I'm not certain that if you pull much from the Celtic/Norse mythology that Bards should *necessarily* be "Jack of all trades". That's definitely a later medieval era/Renaissance flavour tacked onto them, I think. Which is also where I think the designers drew most of their inspiration for the Bard from--the Renaissance era motif, which is, by then, what the medieval Bard had *become*. But that wasn't very close to what the Bard actually was *historically*, before the Renaissance, in the old Celtic and Norse and Finnish lands. Back then, the Bard was a warrior, but also something of a religious figure, a spiritual figure, a man knowledgable of ancient lore and mysteries, as well as someone with a keen knowledge of a people's history, and oaths, laws, and genealogies. For peoples that had no writing, or very limited writing, someone with a Bard's skills, knowledge, and finely-trained memory, was an enormous resource, for everyone, whether he was a common farmer, a local warrior, or a prominent Lord.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
All of the above is true, but as soon as AD&D 2E came out all character classes stopped being about what inspired their creation from medieval times and instead became what was important to players within the game.
Quote from: SHARK;1079734Greetings!
Interesting, Danskmacabre. You like them the *least* of all the 5E classes. I think some of their spells are kind of wierd, too though.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Yeah, I don't HATE the Bard class and I LIKE the idea of a Bard class, I just don;t think it was done that well in 5e.
Like has been pointed out, they are very useful in pure RP situations.
The open table 5e campaign I help run is all mapped out, so characters or teams of characters can even buy deeds to a hex area, which they need to clear/investigate to settle down on.
However, even getting to that point requires investigations and RP in cities etc with NPC s to get information, so being able to talk to people well, a good background knowledge etc is a very useful thing.
The main thing for me is often the spells just aren't described very well, so it all feels a bit like 4th Ed DnD with Bards and their spells.
Quote from: Daztur;1079737Yeah this would be my top priority for the eventual 6ed. Explain how shit works in RP terms so you can adjudicate stuff like this and don't make everything so black and white that you don't need a GM to adjudicate stuff like this.
Agreed, this is my beef with the 5e Bard.
Quote from: jhkim;1079717We're all feminine compared to big, manly SHARK. :D
I heard they don't let you in the Marines if you played a bard.
I always saw bards more as Keith Richards types with a dash of Robbin Hood than heroic fighter types.
Castles & Crusades has an excellent bard class. I prefer it to the D&D versions which is basically a Mage/Thief, but either an over or under powered version depending on the edition. The C&C bard isn't a spellcaster and that's to the benefit of the class.
But like so many things D&D touches, the "D&D bard" is deeply divorced from its historical and/or literary roots. And that's okay as long as the class is interesting and useful. I have no problems with a "support class" or "hybrid class" which isn't as "powerful" as a prime class because lots of players are drawn to characters like the Bard for their flavor, not mechanics.
Back in AD&D, my fave character were Gnome Illusionist / Thief who was never going to be the Big Dog in the party and I was never as good as the pure Thief or the Mage, but that was totally fine because my G-I/Ts were were just fun to roleplay.
Also, WTF with bards being "feminine" or "idiots"??? Where the hell did that noise come from?
Quote from: Spinachcat;1079858Castles & Crusades has an excellent bard class. I prefer it to the D&D versions which is basically a Mage/Thief, but either an over or under powered version depending on the edition. The C&C bard isn't a spellcaster and that's to the benefit of the class.
But like so many things D&D touches, the "D&D bard" is deeply divorced from its historical and/or literary roots. And that's okay as long as the class is interesting and useful. I have no problems with a "support class" or "hybrid class" which isn't as "powerful" as a prime class because lots of players are drawn to characters like the Bard for their flavor, not mechanics.
Back in AD&D, my fave character were Gnome Illusionist / Thief who was never going to be the Big Dog in the party and I was never as good as the pure Thief or the Mage, but that was totally fine because my G-I/Ts were were just fun to roleplay.
Also, WTF with bards being "feminine" or "idiots"??? Where the hell did that noise come from?
Greetings!
Hey Spinachcat! The "Feminine" and "Idiots" part of my title was inspired by my reading someone, somewhere saying that Bards were "Useless, Foppish and Stupid." I'm paraphrasing, but that's the source of my inspiration. I can certainly see room for a foppish, feminine Bard, LOL--but I certainly don't think that is the only flavour for them. The historical roots are definitely distinctly different from the Bard's more recent Renaissance focus and the focus that D&D imagery usually promotes.:)
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Spinachcat;1079858But like so many things D&D touches, the "D&D bard" is deeply divorced from its historical and/or literary roots. And that's okay as long as the class is interesting and useful. I have no problems with a "support class" or "hybrid class" which isn't as "powerful" as a prime class because lots of players are drawn to characters like the Bard for their flavor, not mechanics.
I think the cleric and the bard in particular are odd archetypes that are mostly unique to D&D rather than being from popular literature or film. (There are precedents for them, but they are either obscure or not a close fit.)
The bard is supposed to be a support character and social specialist. Within fantasy fiction, though, usually the social lead is the most powerful character - like Gandalf or Aragorn. There is sometimes a social specialist archetype in modern genres, like Face of the A-Team or Inara in Firefly. I think that sort of social specialist usually is based on a more complicated social structure than is presumed in fantasy. For these modern genres, the social specialist is more of an actor and/or high-society fop. I think that might drive viewing the social character as less masculine.
But in fantasy or post-apocalyptic, society is usually supposed to be more straightforward - and the social lead tends to be just the toughest/wisest character.
Quote from: danskmacabre;1079715The Bard is an interesting class and overall I don't have a problem with it, although it's the class I like the least of all the 5e classes.
Mainly as the spells don't feel like they are that explainable in RP terms.
The spell Vicious mockery (https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Vicious%20Mockery#content) is an example of this. It seems to work with any creature, regardless of whether it can understand you or have intelligence.
Then it does Psychic damage. It doesn't explain why or how that works.
Regarding mockery, I think of it from a myth of a Norse skald who once insulted a man so viciously that boils broke out on his face.
I think the idea is a magical extension of social mockery. In a social situation, the person is damaged in their social standing - not because they understand the insult, but because the audience hears the insult. For vicious mocker, the universe hears the insult and the person's literal life is damaged.
Never heard of bards being described as feminine or useless.
Hard to qualify for in AD&D? Yes. Allmost pointless in 5e? Yes.
Bards seemed to hit their stride in 2e. They filled a support niche and could fight some as well. Somewhere between a druid and a thief.
No idea what they were like in 3 or 4e.
Quote from: Omega;1079869Never heard of bards being described as feminine or useless.
Hard to qualify for in AD&D? Yes. Allmost pointless in 5e? Yes.
Bards seemed to hit their stride in 2e. They filled a support niche and could fight some as well. Somewhere between a druid and a thief.
No idea what they were like in 3 or 4e.
Greetings!
Hello Omega! Why do you think Bards are almost pointless in 5E? What about them do you find to be so pathetic?:)
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Snowman0147;1079720No I am too much of a land whale to be feminine.
Never seen Tess Holiday? :D
Quote from: SHARK;1079713What do you think? Thematically, do you think Bards are good and worthwhile? Mechanically, in D&D5E, is there something flawed about Bards that makes them a sub-par adventuring companion?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I really don't like how they are handled in 5e. 5e has a serious problem with redundancy with classes and the Bard is a prime example. The fact they're full casters is my biggest gripe. They're almost Sorcerers with support themed casting, almost Rogues with their expertise, almost Clerics with their access to healing. Bardic inspiration is a fun mechanic that I would keep but tone down in how much it increases.
Were I to have had a hand, I would have made Bard a subclass of Rogue that gains abilities surrounding the theme. Maybe make the subclass give some magic like the Arcane Trickster does, give it charisma casting, and feed more into the performer jack of all trades vibe.
To me, the most frustrating thing about Bards as a GM is them using Vicious Mockery from 60 ft as their primary means of attack. It ruins the vibe.
What other fantasy RPGs have bards? How do they deal with them?
BTW, the best bards I've ever played were the old Bard's Tales video games, as it was all about magic through music.
Quote from: SHARK;1079862I can certainly see room for a foppish, feminine Bard
Foppish and feminine are quite different. Johnny Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow is a fop, but not feminine. Dude doesn't ever bathe, yet gets nookie.
Quote from: AaronThePedantic;1079908To me, the most frustrating thing about Bards as a GM is them using Vicious Mockery from 60 ft as their primary means of attack. It ruins the vibe.
Welcome AaronthePedantic to the Mos Eisley of the internet! Enjoy the forum and keep your blaster handy.
Vicious Mockery shouldn't work beyond 30 feet. If you are going to melt someone down with insults, its gotta be in your face.
Quote from: Jason Coplen;1079907Never seen Tess Holiday? :D
Do I want to? Though with my statement I was referring to myself.
Honestly Aaron they should had gone four to six classes and just done the archtype route. Paladin (lawful good knight who has the Mandate of Heaven and brings forth civilization) should be a divine version of the Eldritch Knight.
Being a charming Face character who spends lots of time with women and gets lots of female nookie was traditionally seen as un-masculine. Rock Star, Jack Sparrow types were seen as womanly. Real Men preferred the company of Men, except when making babies.
Quote from: SHARK;1079899Hello Omega! Why do you think Bards are almost pointless in 5E? What about them do you find to be so pathetic?:)
Pathetic? No. Nearly pointless. Yes. In 5e about every class has at least one magic path. The class feels redundant with how prevalent magic is in 5e. They can still do thieving stuff. But even that anyone can pick up. They still have the support ability. But so do more classes now. Especially the Fighter. It aso feels like they are too spell reliant now. I much preferred the playtest's cut-off of only up to level 5 spells.
Mind you. The class works fine and if you lack a thief or support caster in the party they fill those spaces well enough.
They also synergize well with other classes via bardic inspiration. Which they should have named something else.
Quote from: Omega;1079934Pathetic? No. Nearly pointless. Yes. In 5e about every class has at least one magic path. The class feels redundant with how prevalent magic is in 5e. They can still do thieving stuff. But even that anyone can pick up. They still have the support ability. But so do more classes now. Especially the Fighter. It aso feels like they are too spell reliant now. I much preferred the playtest's cut-off of only up to level 5 spells.
Mind you. The class works fine and if you lack a thief or support caster in the party they fill those spaces well enough.
They also synergize well with other classes via bardic inspiration. Which they should have named something else.
The 5e Bard is a very powerful primary caster who gets a lot of other stuff too. Depending on the game they can feel OP compared to most other casters.
Quote from: Omega;1079934Pathetic? No. Nearly pointless. Yes. In 5e about every class has at least one magic path. The class feels redundant with how prevalent magic is in 5e. They can still do thieving stuff. But even that anyone can pick up. They still have the support ability. But so do more classes now. Especially the Fighter. It aso feels like they are too spell reliant now. I much preferred the playtest's cut-off of only up to level 5 spells.
The main thing bards do for me is replace the cleric. That in and of itself makes them the most useful class in the game as I absolutely loathe the D&D cleric with its, until 4E, monopoly on healing while pushing paganism as a replacement for the monotheism that was the foundation of Western Civilization in the Medieval period it wants to emulate and generally being something that literally does not exist outside of D&D inspired fiction.
The cleric was crapped out to deal with a munchkin vampire PC in game and so ended up as an unholy potpourri of thematic elements based more on Van Helsing than a medieval priest, yet was pressed into service in all later D&D editions as the default priestly figure in their settings.
Frankly, the college of lore bard is thematically a better Medieval priest type figure (skilled/educated, doesn't wear heavy armor or use military weapons, can inspire their allies and casts subtle spells) than the D&D cleric will ever be while the Colleges of Valor and Swords are about the only way you can get a vaguely 4E warlord-shaped object in 5e (no, the Battlemaster fighter doesn't work because the most fundamental element of the 4E warlord was "completely replaces the the cleric... it's telling that in all my years playing and running 4E, even at Encounters events, I've never seen ANYONE play a cleric; plenty of warlords, some bards/skalds and even an artificer and shaman once, but never a cleric).
Frankly, I'd sooner dump the cleric (maybe keep their spell lists for spell secrets/college of lore) from the system before I'd drop the bard from 5e. I'm never going back to a system where the cleric holds a monopoly on healing; that crap can die in a dumpster fire.
For that matter, dump divine magic entirely, turn the paladin into a flavor of Eldritch Knight and make the druid someone who taps into magic through nature instead of a nature god and maybe you could finally do something interesting with religion in D&D for once... like build them based on Faith alone instead of having overt divine intervention removing all doubt. Spellcasting priests would be scholars who studied magic and cast it just like anyone else would (many Catholic religious throughout the Medieval and Renaissance periods studied the 'natural magics' of the day; the precursors of what today is chemistry, physics, medicine and astronomy) and neither side in a holy war could provide any real proof their God was on their side (other than the usual "we won so it's God's will" that is still used to this day in the real world).
TL;DR the Bard lets me kill the cleric; ergo it is the best class in the game.
Not sure about 3 and 4 e. But the Druid used to have a spread of healing spells too? Not as many as the cleric. But they made for a good healer when needed.
I hear the 2e Complete Handbook of Bards is a thing of beauty... ;)
Also, the Birthright Bard Guilder kit was nice... a bard who could wear up to breastplate IIRC. Nice for merchants who take no shit while traveling. :)
I have the Complete Bards book, though it is in storage now. Was pretty good. 2e also introduced the Liche Bard, a good aligned undead. Or at least non-evil aligned.
Speaking of the Complete series. I had the Humanoids and Psionics ones and both were fairly good as well.
Well, in the scheme of having so many classes, I like the Bard just fine. If anything in that pattern, I'd keep the bard while dumping the sorcerer and warlock. Then make the latter two paths off of the bard (if we must). Though if you wanted to name the primary thing "sorcerer" and have bardic stuff as a path from it, I wouldn't mind that either. It's not as if "Magical musical character" needs a class and 5+ paths to express it.
Though if we are going that route, I'd make a Scout/Ranger primary with no spells (with spell-casting paths, as Eldritch Knight is to Fighter). Then dump most of the Cleric and some of the Paladin stuff (particularly Lay on Hands) into a base Priest class, with some armored paths as options. Though the path named "Paladin" gets reserved for a primary Fighter that paths into a bit of healing. And now that we've slayed that many sacred cows, the Wizard/Bard/Sorcerer stuff gets lumped into a "Loremaster" primary, with paths focusing more on specific magic, generalized hyper magic (wizard) or skills. If someone wants to keep "Wizard" as the main class, I'd not quibble.
With the 5E structure, you could even do a credible job of simplicity with most of the options still preserved going with Warrior, Wizard, Priest, and Scout, and then notable paths to give the most common options available. Heck, conceptually, just do Warrior (paths: More Warrior, dabble Wizard, dabble Priest, dabble Scout), and then the same parallel combos for Wizard, Priest, and Scout. Add a few redundant combos with different slants for flavor. Maybe 20 in all. Call it done. About the only thing left out would be the Monk. Call the Warrior(priest) a "Monk" and flavor appropriately. If you don't squint at it too hard, it would be close enough. And if all of that isn't enough, do a 5th primary of Expert, and that leaves room to push into the 25-35 path range. Plenty of room for source books to sell later. It also pushes back a little on the overwhelming focus of casters in the various combinations.
Ha, but having gone that far, I'd also tweak the ability scores, and somewhere in there it stopped being D&D.
Totally agree with Steven about dumping the warlock and sorceror, who honestly seem like wizards with less fun wizard stuff (i.e. choice of spells).
I think Bards are thematically pretty great, however. Rallying your friends with songs, insulting enemies to death, etc. is a wonderful combination of ancient myth and whimsy. I only wish that WOTC really leaned into that, and gave the bard more abilities that aren't just bog-standard versions of everyone else's spells; say if Bards had abilities revolving around them spreading tales of the party's heroic deeds, starting rumours to undermine their enemies, taunting creatures into rashness, and so on.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1079917Honestly Aaron they should had gone four to six classes and just done the archtype route. Paladin (lawful good knight who has the Mandate of Heaven and brings forth civilization) should be a divine version of the Eldritch Knight.
Now that you mention that, I think that would have been very cool. Basically a Fighter with lay on hands, some divine spells, and smite, end of transaction.
Quote from: jhkim;1079863I think the cleric and the bard in particular are odd archetypes that are mostly unique to D&D rather than being from popular literature or film. (There are precedents for them, but they are either obscure or not a close fit.)
The bard is supposed to be a support character and social specialist. Within fantasy fiction, though, usually the social lead is the most powerful character - like Gandalf or Aragorn. There is sometimes a social specialist archetype in modern genres, like Face of the A-Team or Inara in Firefly. I think that sort of social specialist usually is based on a more complicated social structure than is presumed in fantasy. For these modern genres, the social specialist is more of an actor and/or high-society fop. I think that might drive viewing the social character as less masculine.
But in fantasy or post-apocalyptic, society is usually supposed to be more straightforward - and the social lead tends to be just the toughest/wisest character.
I agree 100%. The fact that there's no fantasy archetype for what the bard should be is evident in this thread. Name any other class and the archetypes literally spill forth endlessly from myth, literature, film, etc. And that's the problem. With no archetype to fill, the bard is relegated to filling whatever spot someone else isn't filling, and doing it not-as-well.
I've begun to think that rather than a "bard" archetype, what should be in the game is an "aristocrat/noble" archetype. The noble would have cleric-level fighting abilities, knowledge of lore due to superior education, and benefits to Charisma-based interactions. That's an archetype that exists, and is not filled at present. Perhaps if the class were called Courtier it could serve as both bard and noble - that's the route I took for elves in ACKS with the Elven Courtier class.
My earlier comments were based only on AD&D / 2E, I don't really remember what 3E did and have never even looked at 4E or 5E.
Quote from: jhkim;1079863I think the cleric and the bard in particular are odd archetypes that are mostly unique to D&D rather than being from popular literature or film. (There are precedents for them, but they are either obscure or not a close fit.)
The bard is supposed to be a support character and social specialist. Within fantasy fiction, though, usually the social lead is the most powerful character - like Gandalf or Aragorn. There is sometimes a social specialist archetype in modern genres, like Face of the A-Team or Inara in Firefly. I think that sort of social specialist usually is based on a more complicated social structure than is presumed in fantasy. For these modern genres, the social specialist is more of an actor and/or high-society fop. I think that might drive viewing the social character as less masculine.
But in fantasy or post-apocalyptic, society is usually supposed to be more straightforward - and the social lead tends to be just the toughest/wisest character.
I took the D&D Bard to be based on the idea of a minstrel, a storyteller which has often been a respected profession. That wouldn't be a particularly well suited role for a PC though, more of a hireling to tell of the brave deeds of his lord, so they added some additional abilities making them more of a knowledge source with some ability to defend themselves.
Alan Dean Foster's Spellsinger would be a fantasy example of a D&D style bard, although being 1980s novels, they could have very easily been inspired by the D&D bard.
I much prefer the Lion and Dragon take on the Cleric as a holy warrior (cleric / paladin) rather than as warrior / priest, with priests as a distinct and much less martial class (also typically an NPC class).
It's difficult to talk archetypes. I've finally gotten around to reading some Celtic myths that I had managed to skip all this time. It's interesting the way the bard/druid overlap works in the source material, being somewhat different roles within the same focused tradition. If we were going to be true to the archetype, the bards would be a path from the druid.
Sorcerer? Sure let us dump that to the curve.
Warlock? Hell no! You need a witch class to represent uneducated spellcasters who got their knowledge from traditions, family, or literally making pacts with dark forces.
Wizards had always been the court magicians. Using their education to pull off amazing feats. They are the trained magic users.
If I was to do classes it would be cleric, druid, fighter, rogue, warlock, and wizard. If you want a one true God, then make the cleric do that. RPGPundit and Lamentations of the Flaming Princess did that so why can't you. As for healing you should have four classes that can do that easily.
I dislike musical and magical bards, especially the 5e one. Full caster bard. Uh-uh.
I prefer a non-magical, 4e warlord/bard hybrid: capable warrior, decent armour, good weapons, abilities with respect to obscure lore, etiquette/social/face, action enabling and "inspiration" abilities that elevate the party beyond the sum of its parts. If they really want to bang out a tune in the middle of combat, ala The Bard's Tale computer game, well... ok then, but it's not a requirement.
Quote from: jhkimI think the cleric and the bard in particular are odd archetypes that are mostly unique to D&D rather than being from popular literature or film. (There are precedents for them, but they are either obscure or not a close fit.)
The bard is supposed to be a support character and social specialist. Within fantasy fiction, though, usually the social lead is the most powerful character - like Gandalf or Aragorn.
Quote from: amacris;1079973I agree 100%. The fact that there's no fantasy archetype for what the bard should be is evident in this thread. Name any other class and the archetypes literally spill forth endlessly from myth, literature, film, etc. And that's the problem. With no archetype to fill, the bard is relegated to filling whatever spot someone else isn't filling, and doing it not-as-well.
I've begun to think that rather than a "bard" archetype, what should be in the game is an "aristocrat/noble" archetype. The noble would have cleric-level fighting abilities, knowledge of lore due to superior education, and benefits to Charisma-based interactions. That's an archetype that exists, and is not filled at present. Perhaps if the class were called Courtier it could serve as both bard and noble - that's the route I took for elves in ACKS with the Elven Courtier class.
I think a noble is interesting, but for medieval fantasy, I think it's hard to distinguish from other fighter types. What fantasy characters would you say fit more with being an "aristocrat/noble"?
There are certainly nobles in fantasy - but as I see it, they tend to fit as other classes. i.e. Boromir is a noble and a fighter. Aragorn is a noble and a ranger.
I think one of the problems - basically ever since non-weapon proficiencies in 2nd edition - is that fighters are often treated as less skillful/educated jocks compared to other classes. But that runs counter to a lot of noble fighter archetypes.
Quote from: Toadmaster;1079991I took the D&D Bard to be based on the idea of a minstrel, a storyteller which has often been a respected profession. That wouldn't be a particularly well suited role for a PC though, more of a hireling to tell of the brave deeds of his lord, so they added some additional abilities making them more of a knowledge source with some ability to defend themselves.
Well, yeah. I think that matches what I'm saying - that it kind of invented abilities and qualities that don't match up with fantasy fiction and archetypes.
I think the original 1st edition bard was based on Gygax's reading of Irish and Welsh tradition, but the bard was really a super-class that was flatly more powerful than others, which fit the myths but didn't really work for a game. As a separate specialist character in a team, the examples are pretty thin. I think the most direct fantasy example is Fflewddur Fflam from the Chronicles of Prydain. But that's relatively obscure, and moreover, as a game character, Fflewddur would probably be best modeled as a fighter with a musician background.
I dislike games with dedicated "face" characters. It goes against the way I want to run.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1080030I dislike games with dedicated "face" characters. It goes against the way I want to run.
Yeah, me too.
Re sorcerors, they seem a bit superfluous in 5e, but I have players playing and enjoying them. I think the issue is just there are SO MANY Cha-based spellcasters now, you'd think they could be paths within a single class.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1080030I dislike games with dedicated "face" characters. It goes against the way I want to run.
Quote from: S'mon;1080044Yeah, me too.
What's the problem here? Not enough real world involvement by the other players?
Quote from: Snowman0147;1080006If I was to do classes it would be cleric, druid, fighter, rogue, warlock, and wizard. If you want a one true God, then make the cleric do that. RPGPundit and Lamentations of the Flaming Princess did that so why can't you. As for healing you should have four classes that can do that easily.
I'd have gone Cleric with Druid as a path. Fighter with Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger as a path, Rogue with Bard as a path, Warlock with Eldritch Knight as a path. Wizard with Sorcerer as a path. Leaving Monk as it is overall its own thing. Though you could move monk to a path for Fighter too.
Or keep Druid seperete and make the Bard a path.
I can guess why they did not go that route as you'd lose some variety or have to have paths with sub paths. Maybee it worked better with them split up as they are.Who knows.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1080066What's the problem here? Not enough real world involvement by the other players?
That's definitely an issue.
My main gripe is it gives rise to "shove the Bard to the front" mentality - "face" encounters are seen as silo'd to the "Face" character, rather than the socially appropriate character taking the lead. So instead of the Fighter giving the rousing pre-battle speech to the army, the Wizard consulting with the Arcane Academy, the Cleric meeting with the temple, or the Rogue doing underworld stuff, the group sends in the Bard. This was a huge issue in 3e due to the ungodly skill bonuses (the Fighter might have -1 Diplomacy to the Bard's +20) - it is less so in 5e but I still see some of this mentality, especially from veteran players.
Quote from: S'mon;1080080That's definitely an issue.
My main gripe is it gives rise to "shove the Bard to the front" mentality - "face" encounters are seen as silo'd to the "Face" character, rather than the socially appropriate character taking the lead. So instead of the Fighter giving the rousing pre-battle speech to the army, the Wizard consulting with the Arcane Academy, the Cleric meeting with the temple, or the Rogue doing underworld stuff, the group sends in the Bard. This was a huge issue in 3e due to the ungodly skill bonuses (the Fighter might have -1 Diplomacy to the Bard's +20) - it is less so in 5e but I still see some of this mentality, especially from veteran players.
Yes. Plus, I run for large groups. There is already plenty of natural times and reasons for a player (or their character) to fade out for a few minutes if they want. I don't need the game to force the issue. That is,
any scene or encounter, I want a minimum of 2 or 3 players heavily involved, and probably that many again orbiting around the main events. I have the same beef with the lack of helping rules on some skill checks (like picking for locks), but those can be handled so much faster than talking to NPCs, that I can live with it.
Dedicated face is an A-Team type of dynamic. Like dedicated "pilot". It's a contrivance of small ensembles that doesn't scale well.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1080006If I was to do classes it would be cleric, druid, fighter, rogue, warlock, and wizard. If you want a one true God, then make the cleric do that. RPGPundit and Lamentations of the Flaming Princess did that so why can't you. As for healing you should have four classes that can do that easily.
If I were to do spellcasting classes for 5e I'd use just the bard and warlock (dropping the cleric, druid, sorcerer and wizard).
Bards would be the studied caster; a lore bard is the dedicated student... a wizard if they're an academic or a "cloistered cleric" if they're an ordained religious type. There would be no arcane/divine distinction in my world, there's just magic. A priest can learn magic the same way some real priests studied the natural magics of alchemy and primitive medicine, but it's not miracle working (well, no more so than you'd normally consider using the properties and principles the divine naturally wove into the fabric of the world anyway). The college of valor and swords would be the studied gishes and the other colleges (and I think college is a really useful term in understanding the bard... Charisma may be their casting stat, but the ability to use that natural strength for magic comes from practice and study) represent other specialized uses of "studied magic."
The warlock is the path to magic based on bargaining with spirits and other entities (or occasionally just having their favor); some good, some bad, some just outright alien. I'd add a nature spirit pact here to fold in the druid concept. Their magic works nothing like the practiced magic of the bards (though it uses the same casting stat because magic is magic), it is far more raw... more cantrips, invocations that generally just work and while they can't cast a lot of spells at once, they regain their magical strength quickly (needing only a short rest to be back at full strength while the bardic path of magic requires a long rest to restore them).
Some are witches, some are wonderworkers, but they all fall outside the wheelhouse of studied magic that would be folded into the Three Estates of feudal society (perhaps the commoners are demoted to the Fourth Estate while members of the bardic colleges are the Third Estate; something less than a noble, but more than a peasant).
The magic paths and abilities of the non-caster classes; barbarian, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger and rogue; would be linked to either the bardic/studied path or the bargaining/favored path based on what fits best. I could see this as the major divide between the mystic theurge fighter (studied path) and the paladin (their oath is a pact with a celestial power... a combat focused celestial warlock in essence).
The Bard in this case is NOT a face character. They are a studied caster whose default casting (barring PC specific choices) leans towards more subtle adjustments, enchantments and illusions than the raw blasting of wizards or divine channeling of clerics (though their choice of spell secrets can lean them in either of those directions, particularly those who go into the college of lore). They are skilled because the study of magic requires study of the world and its nature; it is not for the academically lax. Those who reach the level of casting spells are doctors of the arts and sciences (college of valor and swords are the ones who got in on a sports scholarship, but take advantage of the opportunity to get a proper degree... those who wash out are just fighters or rogues).
Bards in a D&D sense are utter shite...
Quote from: S'mon;1080080My main gripe is it gives rise to "shove the Bard to the front" mentality - "face" encounters are seen as silo'd to the "Face" character, rather than the socially appropriate character taking the lead. So instead of the Fighter giving the rousing pre-battle speech to the army, the Wizard consulting with the Arcane Academy, the Cleric meeting with the temple, or the Rogue doing underworld stuff, the group sends in the Bard. This was a huge issue in 3e due to the ungodly skill bonuses (the Fighter might have -1 Diplomacy to the Bard's +20) - it is less so in 5e but I still see some of this mentality, especially from veteran players.
I agree, and I think this is partly a problem of social ability definitions. What is the point of having high Charisma and Diplomacy, if it doesn't make one the best to succeed in social encounters? I tend to think that the social sphere shouldn't be a separate niche. Don't have Diplomacy be a single general skill, but rather fold in appropriate social skills with other skills.
Quote from: Chris24601;1080130The Bard in this case is NOT a face character. They are a studied caster whose default casting (barring PC specific choices) leans towards more subtle adjustments, enchantments and illusions than the raw blasting of wizards or divine channeling of clerics (though their choice of spell secrets can lean them in either of those directions, particularly those who go into the college of lore). They are skilled because the study of magic requires study of the world and its nature; it is not for the academically lax. Those who reach the level of casting spells are doctors of the arts and sciences (college of valor and swords are the ones who got in on a sports scholarship, but take advantage of the opportunity to get a proper degree... those who wash out are just fighters or rogues).
I think you're misinterpreting the substance of the complaint. The complaint isn't that the bard lacks knowledge - i.e. "just a pretty face". It's just as much a problem if the bard really is a thoroughly-trained and knowledgable expert, who is well-spoken on many different topics from fighting to magic. The problem is that the bard really is both expert and well-spoken, so it makes sense for them to take the lead in talking to others.
The problem is having other players sit on the sidelines while the bard takes the lead.
Quote from: jhkim;1080135I think you're misinterpreting the substance of the complaint.
I think you're misinterpreting Chris - he was presenting his own ideas, not default D&D assumptions.
For my current game I have everyone roll best 3 of 5d6 in order for stats, most stats are +2 or +3 after racial mods, no CHA 8 (or STR 8 or INT 8) dump statting. The game is working much better like this! And most PCs are well able to do social stuff.
So, I am trying to break down this:
One part of the problem seems to me a gamemastering problem: giving adequate circumstantial modifiers to members of different classes in appropriate situations.
The other part seems to be a game design problem: on the one hand, the party's "face" needs to have a significantly higher chance of succeeding than average PCs, taking into account his/her specialization. He needs to shine. On the other hand, the other players should be able to meaningfully contribute to the conversation and not be relegated to the back-bench. That's a fine balance to strike, especially if there is varying degrees of specialization - but it's possible.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1080162So, I am trying to break down this:
One part of the problem seems to me a gamemastering problem: giving adequate circumstantial modifiers to members of different classes in appropriate situations.
The other part seems to be a game design problem: on the one hand, the party's "face" needs to have a significantly higher chance of succeeding than average PCs, taking into account his/her specialization. He needs to shine. On the other hand, the other players should be able to meaningfully contribute to the conversation and not be relegated to the back-bench. That's a fine balance to strike, especially if there is varying degrees of specialization - but it's possible.
Or even better, don't reduce to "party face", and then it will be much easier for the GM to adjudicate, and the players will have more incentive to participate. If you've got a "party face", that's a symptom, not the problem itself.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1080184Or even better, don't reduce to "party face", and then it will be much easier for the GM to adjudicate, and the players will have more incentive to participate. If you've got a "party face", that's a symptom, not the problem itself.
I agree. I prefer not having "social encounters" be something any one PC is optimised for.
Okay, I don't understand that part. Players are bound to specialize in any activity that might be relevant enough for quest success. Clearly, persuading/fast-talking NPCs is a relevant activity, therefore there is bound to be players that want to specialize in it. Furthermore, we can observe that there are specialists for all kinds of other relevant activities: combat, healing, buffing, stealth, knowledge, etc.
Why would you treat interpersonal skills any different? Granted, it's an activity, just like combat, where you'd want everyone to be able to chime in - except for builds that are deliberately incompetent by design. But I think it's kinda alright to have a dedicated combat specialist in your party - for as long as the gap to average party members doesn't get too big.
So why not the same for social encounters?
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1080217So why not the same for social encounters?
Because the process of play is done by talking. The part of that that is PC-NPC interation shouldn't be locked off from some players. [even though there is still Pc-PC and palyer-palyer space for talkng]. The combat specialist does not usually fight to the excluion of others being in the combat. [When would that occur - an encounter settled by a one-on-one duel?]
Quote from: S'mon;1080211I agree. I prefer not having "social encounters" be something any one PC is optimised for.
But you have some optimized for other functions. Cleric for healing, Rogues for skills, wizard for combat... What's wrong with something designed for interaction with NPCs?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080222But you have some optimized for other functions. Cleric for healing, Rogues for skills, wizard for combat... What's wrong with something designed for interaction with NPCs?
Because everybody fights, even when different PCs have different in-combat roles (& D&D has moved away from any non-combat-competent PCs, like the old Thief). Optimised talker results in only one PC talking - only one player is playing the game, while everyone else watches. It's incredibly dumbass design unless social encounters are resolved on the same level as lockpicking, ie by an abstracted die roll.
I don't know if they were so much "the party face" in TSR as much as a professional lore-monger.
Anyone could have good, or even better, CHA. (Though CHA 14 is pretty high threshold indeed.) Anyone could bribe or ingratiate themselves, even to hostiles. Just like anyone could attempt climbing walls or picking locks, it was never isolated off everyone else's table.
But no one else could just *know* stuff because of breadth of experience and professional shared knowledge. Mysterious items identified, heritages expounded upon, song or storytelling woven to incite or soothe reactions... It really was a magical level of social professionalism.
I think it's one of those creeping "best practices" that came about from people trying to niche protect during play, and 'Strategic Players' trying to micro-manage party composition. Not the original intent, but the text was read that way, and play drifted into that direction.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1080217Okay, I don't understand that part. Players are bound to specialize in any activity that might be relevant enough for quest success. Clearly, persuading/fast-talking NPCs is a relevant activity, therefore there is bound to be players that want to specialize in it. Furthermore, we can observe that there are specialists for all kinds of other relevant activities: combat, healing, buffing, stealth, knowledge, etc.
Why would you treat interpersonal skills any different? Granted, it's an activity, just like combat, where you'd want everyone to be able to chime in - except for builds that are deliberately incompetent by design. But I think it's kinda alright to have a dedicated combat specialist in your party - for as long as the gap to average party members doesn't get too big.
So why not the same for social encounters?
First, someone specializing in "persuading" is not automatically being the party face--if "persuading" is not so broad as to be the de facto party face thing. Having a persuasion skill that some characters can specialize in is not an issue. Having the skill designed such that one person hyper-specializes in it, while no one else bothers, is a problem.
Second, there is a bigger issue with "only one person does it" than there is with "only one type of character can do it". Having only a cleric be able to heal annoys some players at times, and I'm certainly glad to have more options than that--not least so that the cleric is not required. But even in the Basic D&D days, if you had a big enough group, multiple clerics were valuable.
Third, ideally, you can easily handle near duplicates in characters mechanically. An extra fighter or two beyond the first might not be ideal party composition, but all of them can whack things, and there are probably a lot of things to whack.
Fourth, a nasty side effect of a system with a lot of hyper specialization is that frequently it produces situations where if the character does not so specialize, they might as well not bother. That is, one consequence of a system that encourages a "party face" is that the players may decide to ignore social situations altogether. Not because they aren't happy to do social situations, but because the character costs are too great to bother, and there is no room to dabble.
Finally, the dedicated combat specialist is OK, as you say as long as the gap is not too large. Why, because there are still meaningful ways for the rest of the group to contribute.
Of course, depending upon the skill and inclinations of the GM and the exact system used, one can gloss over things like an overly broad persuasion skill by bringing in circumstantial reasons why multiple characters need it. I do quite a bit of that in my 5E game now, as a necessary side effect of such a broad skill system. If I nudge the system a little, it will go where I want it. Whereas, with 3E, I found that I was fighting the system all the time over such issues. There's no perfect answer here, but there are definitely system choices that are far less than optimal, at least for certain styles.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080222But you have some optimized for other functions. Cleric for healing, Rogues for skills, wizard for combat... What's wrong with something designed for interaction with NPCs?
Quote from: S'mon;1080232Because everybody fights, even when different PCs have different in-combat roles (& D&D has moved away from any non-combat-competent PCs, like the old Thief). Optimised talker results in only one PC talking - only one player is playing the game, while everyone else watches. It's incredibly dumbass design unless social encounters are resolved on the same level as lockpicking, ie by an abstracted die roll.
I totally agree with Chris here. There is nothing wrong with someone creating a character for diplomacy/negotiation situations. Or ending up with one die to how the dice happened to fall during chargen.
And news flash S'mon. In real life when someone is negotiating or even just talking to someone else its usually best to not butt in or interrupt unless necessary. Which is also how alot of RPG sessions go. Its how all mine have when I've been a player. And as a player I tend to get elected the group negotiator because they believe Im good at it. And half the time I end up with a good Charisma score by sheer chance. So I will be talking to a NPC and usually at some point one of the players will have their PC interject a quick question or ask for clarification from the NPC. Or have their character make a suggestion to mine to relay along. Other times they sit back and enjoy the show as it were. Same when say the Thief is doing their thing disarming a trap or searching for one. We step back and watch.
Not everything has to be "ALL participation ALL the TIME!"
Being sane people we know that eventually everyone gets their moment in the spotlight. Wether they want it or not.
Quote from: SHARK;1079713Greetings!
I've read where some people have a passionate dislike of Bards, seeing them as feminine and useless idiots, that add little to an adventuring group, and are only worthy as a footnote in the cultural commentary of the campaign as part of the cmpaign's furniture.
Bards are not useless. If you get enough of them piled up then they make an effective barrier for cover purposes.
Quote from: Shasarak;1080640Bards are not useless. If you get enough of them piled up then they make an effective barrier for cover purposes.
:D
Hide behind the pile of dead bards!
Quote from: Toadmaster;1080649:D
Hide behind the pile of dead bards!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ohk5Swy-04
Quote from: Shasarak;1080640Bards are not useless. If you get enough of them piled up then they make an effective barrier for cover purposes.
Greetings!
LOL! Nice, Sasarak! That made me laugh. :)
Piles of dead Bards...oh, the imagery! Their lyres and violins laying about...LOL
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK