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).