Greetings!
Periodically, I have heard that some people *hate* Bard characters in D&D games. I certainly believe that the "gameified" Bard has some problems and can be annoying--but I also think that has more to do with the presentation of Bards rather than particular class features or abilities. In historical times, Bards were immensely important kinds of people--such individuals were often invited to attend the local Lord's manor or estate soon upon arriving in the area. In an age without television, radio, or mass newspapers or readily accessible books, aristocratic lords, town mayors, tribal chieftains, even Muslim Amirs and Sultans all eagerly sought to welcome and patronize Bardic characters. Even in the great Steppes, and also in places like the empires in India, or in China, Bardic characters were often of distinct prominence. These attributes of storyteller, newsman, travel journalist, explorer, and chronicler of different places and cultures, serve to make the Bard character generally quite memorable, entertaining, and always intriguing and interesting, for everyone, whether a tribal chieftain, a noble lord, a churchman, or a common artisan, farmer, or shepherd.
These attributes are quite apart from the distinct religious and magical properties assumed to Bards, especially so within ancient Celtic, Norse, Finnish and Baltic civilizations and tribal societies. Add some of the alluded to magical abilities in, perhaps some kind of religious and mystical status, and the Bard should make for an interesting and intriguing character for the campaign, and for any adventuring group!
What do you all think? Have you modified Bards in some way for your campaigns? Do Bards hold some kind of religious or mystical status? Do your Bards have some social prominence as being explorers, storytellers and chroniclers of foreign lands, places, and people?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
First, "music is magic" dies in a fire. Done.
Second, bards as you describe them from history are loremasters. Not the "like wizards but no magic" types, but the Indiana Jones types. Travelers, adventurers, men of the world who seek both knowledge and experience. Men who live the tales, not the men who tell the tales of others in the safety of the local tavern.
Start from there and make bards for your games.
I prefer Taliesin-style bards. Wizards, but in the traditional sense of a wise one, one steeped in lore and natural history and able to perform miracles, not the bookish version in D&D.
Quote from: RandyB on September 28, 2020, 10:43:05 PM
First, "music is magic" dies in a fire. Done.
Second, bards as you describe them from history are loremasters. Not the "like wizards but no magic" types, but the Indiana Jones types. Travelers, adventurers, men of the world who seek both knowledge and experience. Men who live the tales, not the men who tell the tales of others in the safety of the local tavern.
Start from there and make bards for your games.
Greetings!
"Music is Magic" dies in a fire!" *Laughing* Ahh, yes, that's fucking awesome, RandyB! I admit, the particular ren-faire esque Bard loaded with uber wizard spells irritates me very much. I think that Bards make as you say, excellent loremasters. However, even in Celtic and especially Finnish and Baltic mythology, Bards are known to be mysterious and fairly potent spellcasters. In Celtic lore, Bards are while also Loremasters, historians, storytellers, and travelers, they are also a particular lower-tier of Druidic priest, a branch of the Druid priesthood. In the context of all Druids are former Bards, being required to be Bards before becoming full Druid priests--while not all Bards necessarily proceed with their mystical studies and lore to become full-fledged Druid priests. Also, some Bards are considered excellent Bards, but otherwise by temperament to be unsuitable for being Druids, or the Bard no longer wishes to proceed with the additional studies to become a Druid, having found their calling sufficient to remain a Bard. How to square the two concepts? I think that the Player's Handbook Bard is strangely, far too much "wizard" and pirate-like scoundrel and rebellious rebel, and not enough Loremaster, Chronicler, or mystical priest-shaman. Within ancient Pagan tribal cultures, for example, the typical Bard wasn't a rebellious rebel or scoundrel, but likely a person of noble station, from a good family, and also liked and appreciated by the nobility, priest classes, and the chieftain or king, in addition to the warriors and the common people.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Granted, this is speculation, but the reasons for the hate:
* Bards were a bolt-on when AD&D was first published. And so many people playing bog-standard thieves, fighters and wizards were pissed off not only at all the Kewl New Powerz they had, but that bards could do some things those other classes could do. Something of the 1950s two-women-wearing-the-same-dress-at-the-party scenario.
* Back then (and the syndrome's still there today) there was a marked hostility in many gaming groups for roleplaying. Clerics who boasted about their levels, +5 Maces of Big Bad Smiting, and Holy Armor of the Eternals stammered when asked about their religions' doctrines and dogmas, beyond a "But but but ... he's Lawful Good!" "My fighter tells the NPC lord to fuck off" was a common element of dialogue. Any RP element that might interfere with sole focus on completing the tactical mission was -- and still is -- a mortal sin in many groups. So a character class that was ostensibly about RP was just a non-starter.
How do I handle bards? Well, for starters, I don't play D&D; I've been a GURPS GM for 35 years now. A bare handful of points will get you decent Singing, Public Speaking, Performance and/or Musical Instrument skills, there is no archetype onto which that can't be bolted effectively (although it's easier on a high-IQ character), and someone who wants to go whole hog and do up a master minstrel has many other options. There's no canalization as required by D&D.
For another, I just have a strong roleplaying campaign. If the gypsy healer/herbalist in my group (who has some modest performance skills) says that she's going to break out her instrument, sing a couple love tunes, entertain the throng, keep her ears open for info, and schmooze the bad guy thugs after, the other players don't sneer at her and mutter "special snowflake" under their breaths. That's her gig, and that's part of what she contributes to the group, and they like that fine.
Quote from: Ravenswing on September 29, 2020, 01:23:23 AM
Granted, this is speculation, but the reasons for the hate:
* Bards were a bolt-on when AD&D was first published. And so many people playing bog-standard thieves, fighters and wizards were pissed off not only at all the Kewl New Powerz they had, but that bards could do some things those other classes could do. Something of the 1950s two-women-wearing-the-same-dress-at-the-party scenario.
* Back then (and the syndrome's still there today) there was a marked hostility in many gaming groups for roleplaying. Clerics who boasted about their levels, +5 Maces of Big Bad Smiting, and Holy Armor of the Eternals stammered when asked about their religions' doctrines and dogmas, beyond a "But but but ... he's Lawful Good!" "My fighter tells the NPC lord to fuck off" was a common element of dialogue. Any RP element that might interfere with sole focus on completing the tactical mission was -- and still is -- a mortal sin in many groups. So a character class that was ostensibly about RP was just a non-starter.
How do I handle bards? Well, for starters, I don't play D&D; I've been a GURPS GM for 35 years now. A bare handful of points will get you decent Singing, Public Speaking, Performance and/or Musical Instrument skills, there is no archetype onto which that can't be bolted effectively (although it's easier on a high-IQ character), and someone who wants to go whole hog and do up a master minstrel has many other options. There's no canalization as required by D&D.
For another, I just have a strong roleplaying campaign. If the gypsy healer/herbalist in my group (who has some modest performance skills) says that she's going to break out her instrument, sing a couple love tunes, entertain the throng, keep her ears open for info, and schmooze the bad guy thugs after, the other players don't sneer at her and mutter "special snowflake" under their breaths. That's her gig, and that's part of what she contributes to the group, and they like that fine.
Greetings!
Very interesting, Ravenswing. I remember the hate for such characters--and often roleplaying, as you mentioned, back in the day. I hadn't thought that such hate had continued! *laughing* I agree, though, in original AD&D, the Bard was quite a mess. ;D Your female gypsy healer/herbalist sounds like a great player! I always love players like that. They often really bring so much to portraying a fantasy character that is three-dimensional, sophisticated, and articulate. Admittedly, even with the historically-inspired commentary I have made here, a Bard--to be successful even in a barbaric, tribal environment--must be a complex and skilled social character, equally comfortable with socializing and rubbing shoulders with fierce warriors, ambitious nobles, or mystical priests. The Bard's greatest assets or attributes are knowledge and history, politics and a powerful grasp and understanding of various family lineages and local lore, memory, socially smooth, and some mystically awareness and sensitivity. Having some decent family and social status helps immensely as well. None of which relies on flashy, uber magic, or skill with a multitude of weapons, or summoning monsters. I suppose that's a tall order to create and embody such a character, even for today. *Laughing*
I'm reminded of reading where some of the Finnish and Celtic Bards possessed some skill with a sword, and occasionally fought in battles, but were particularly well-known for knowing about everyone's family, lineages, and past history, personal curses or frailties, as well as virtues and accomplishments. Such figures knew how many people around their community ticked, and could teach a person about themselves, their destiny, their hopes, as well as a trove of details about their enemies or opponents. Bards also knew all kinds of details about a person's family--sometimes things they preferred kept secret, but other times deeper issues and goals, and character. It is small wonder then why in historical settings such figures were so highly regarded, by noble and commoner alike.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on September 28, 2020, 09:00:04 PMPeriodically, I have heard that some people *hate* Bard characters in D&D games. I certainly believe that the "gameified" Bard has some problems and can be annoying--but I also think that has more to do with the presentation of Bards rather than particular class features or abilities. In historical times, Bards were immensely important kinds of people--such individuals were often invited to attend the local Lord's manor or estate soon upon arriving in the area. In an age without television, radio, or mass newspapers or readily accessible books, aristocratic lords, town mayors, tribal chieftains, even Muslim Amirs and Sultans all eagerly sought to welcome and patronize Bardic characters. Even in the great Steppes, and also in places like the empires in India, or in China, Bardic characters were often of distinct prominence. These attributes of storyteller, newsman, travel journalist, explorer, and chronicler of different places and cultures, serve to make the Bard character generally quite memorable, entertaining, and always intriguing and interesting, for everyone, whether a tribal chieftain, a noble lord, a churchman, or a common artisan, farmer, or shepherd.
These attributes are quite apart from the distinct religious and magical properties assumed to Bards, especially so within ancient Celtic, Norse, Finnish and Baltic civilizations and tribal societies. Add some of the alluded to magical abilities in, perhaps some kind of religious and mystical status, and the Bard should make for an interesting and intriguing character for the campaign, and for any adventuring group!
I think the fundamental disconnect is that bards are from a
pre-literate tradition of oral storytelling. But D&D usually doesn't depict such a world. All characters are literate - it's taken for granted. Books are commonplace. When literacy is common, then the memory of a bard loses a huge part of its power and impact.
Back when I ran an medieval Norse campaign (using homebrewed RuneQuest), figures like bards were considered highly important. But I feel like the bard in D&D is an odd duck at best - one that doesn't fit with the society that D&D projects, and doesn't figure in nearly all of the fantasy fiction that D&D draws on. Bards featured in Lloyd Alexander's Prydain books based on Welsh myth, but that's pretty peripheral to D&D's inspirations.
Not coincidentally, the D&D rules have never settled well on what bards are supposed to be like. I feel like bards don't have a strong archetypal power given the world of most games. I'd tend to have bard be a background option rather than it be a separate character class.
Think it depends on the depiction and mechanics really. Bards in D&D are magical musicians that were originally a long process to get to. Some did not like that and wanted to get right to the bardinin.
For others it could be anything really. Theres never been a class that has not had someone bitch about it being overpowered, and someone else bitch about it being underpowered, and someone else bitch about -because!-.
Monks, rangers, paladins etc.
I love bars both in fiction and history, but to me they just don't fit in with adventuring in a dungeon. The obvious bard skills don't do much for overcoming the standard challenges, and the ones added on for D&D don't make much sense. And D&D bards don't really have a useful niche, which is pretty important in a class-based game. If the games were focused on places where there are more people, than party face-man would make a lot of sense. Or if the game made having a loremaster important and interesting. But of course it doesn't.
Quote from: Mishihari on September 29, 2020, 04:30:46 AM
I love bars both in fiction and history, but to me they just don't fit in with adventuring in a dungeon.
Oh, I don't know, stopping in for a cold one and chatting up the regulars is pretty dern welcome mid-adventure!
Humor aside, perhaps not. But a lot of us don't play dungeon fantasy. I've only GMed one stereotypical dungeon crawl in over 40 years, and that was only because my players heard that I still had the maps and notes from my Big Damn Dungeon from 1978, and thought it would be a hoot to check it out. I'm quite content with character abilities, concepts and styles that have nothing to do with tactical combat.
Quote from: SHARK on September 28, 2020, 11:32:44 PM
Quote from: RandyB on September 28, 2020, 10:43:05 PM
First, "music is magic" dies in a fire. Done.
Second, bards as you describe them from history are loremasters. Not the "like wizards but no magic" types, but the Indiana Jones types. Travelers, adventurers, men of the world who seek both knowledge and experience. Men who live the tales, not the men who tell the tales of others in the safety of the local tavern.
Start from there and make bards for your games.
Greetings!
"Music is Magic" dies in a fire!" *Laughing* Ahh, yes, that's fucking awesome, RandyB! I admit, the particular ren-faire esque Bard loaded with uber wizard spells irritates me very much. I think that Bards make as you say, excellent loremasters. However, even in Celtic and especially Finnish and Baltic mythology, Bards are known to be mysterious and fairly potent spellcasters. In Celtic lore, Bards are while also Loremasters, historians, storytellers, and travelers, they are also a particular lower-tier of Druidic priest, a branch of the Druid priesthood. In the context of all Druids are former Bards, being required to be Bards before becoming full Druid priests--while not all Bards necessarily proceed with their mystical studies and lore to become full-fledged Druid priests. Also, some Bards are considered excellent Bards, but otherwise by temperament to be unsuitable for being Druids, or the Bard no longer wishes to proceed with the additional studies to become a Druid, having found their calling sufficient to remain a Bard. How to square the two concepts? I think that the Player's Handbook Bard is strangely, far too much "wizard" and pirate-like scoundrel and rebellious rebel, and not enough Loremaster, Chronicler, or mystical priest-shaman. Within ancient Pagan tribal cultures, for example, the typical Bard wasn't a rebellious rebel or scoundrel, but likely a person of noble station, from a good family, and also liked and appreciated by the nobility, priest classes, and the chieftain or king, in addition to the warriors and the common people.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Agreed on all counts.
A bard should cast spells based on their mastery of lore. And they should definitely have their historical social status and place in the social hierarchy.
All of which disqualifies the Premodern Rockerboy that the class became, which has no historic, literary, or legendary antecedent.
That would make for an interesting mechanic -- your spellcasting abilities being dependent on your Knowledge skills.
I can't really disagree with any of the things everyone has listed above--which is the problem with the Bard--all those issues are there. ;D
One thing that strikes me in the Celtic and Norse source material is how much power the Bard has an arbiter of tradition, justice, and thus condemning incorrect behavior. It's not "vicious mockery" doing a bit of hit point damage. Rather, it is the Bard has spoken about your behavior in rhyme, and now your reputation and standing in the community is in tatters, possibly beyond repair.
However, I've always viewed the main drawback to bards as not exactly opposite to rangers--call it a tangent drawback. (Not an accident that D&D has struggled mightily with those two classes.) They aren't archetypes--in a game that can't always decide whether classes are archetypes, mechanical packages, niche protection, or more likely, what proportion of the three. Thus you end up with "ranger" as "shoehorn Aragon into a class" later replaced with "make sure Drizzt fits too." With Bards, you get little bits of historical bards, skalds, minstrels, troubadours, shady performers, illusionists, and tricksters trying to pretend that it is both a niche and an archetype, when it neither. Of course the mechanics often end up borked, too.
To the extent that the 5E bard works (and it does better than any other WotC version, at least), it does so because it quits trying to do so much. The music is almost secondary to the lore.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 29, 2020, 02:21:51 PMThey aren't archetypes--in a game that can't always decide whether classes are archetypes, mechanical packages, niche protection, or more likely, what proportion of the three.
Of
course it's an archetype, by any legitimate definition of the term. That many different roles can be defined as performers? Sure, I agree: and the same thing can be said of any other D&D-ish "archetype." Using the word "fighter" to categorize Conan, D'artagnan, Tempus, Belisarius, Lancelot, Croaker and Paksenarrion is just as broad. Using the term "magic-user" to define Gandalf, Elric, Egwene, Morgon of Hed, Milamber, Bink, Garion, Mary Poppins and your bog-standard Evul Necromancer is just as all over the place. D&Ders seem to have little problem managing to square the circle.
EDIT: Here's a bit amusing to me. I've been trolling over my old posts, having been away from the site for a couple years. This one came up from a 2015 thread:
QuoteOmega, I think the real problem came with the "character class" concept in the first place.
In a point-buy system, there's no problem. You want to play a performer? You throw a few points as picking up a few music- and/or acting-based skills. There's nothing otherwise about being a "bard" that should be about -- or preclude -- being a skilled swordsman, being a wizard, practicing burglary, what have you. I've had minstrel-types in my parties that weren't the party spokesmen: being entertainers defined their roleplay, but it didn't often affect their battle strategies, except in so far as lutes are fragile things you don't want anywhere near a melee.
But D&D being D&D, you had to build a character class around it ... with unique abilities, powers tied to achieving this level or that, the whole nine yards. There had to be something about "bard" which was every much as valuable a niche as "wizard" or "fighter" or "cleric," and didn't come off as a retread of what other classes did. That the writers made a hash of it isn't surprising; it would've been very tough for them not to have had, without a radical redefining of D&D's structure.
And this is why my bards always take a level in barbarian!!
Quote from: Ghostmaker on September 29, 2020, 11:32:41 AM
That would make for an interesting mechanic -- your spellcasting abilities being dependent on your Knowledge skills.
Pretty much how they worked in my own book. Player started as a Minstrel type, travelling entertainer and part time adventurer. A bit like some of the singing cowboys and swordsmen of old movie serials. No magic. Their forte was in knowing bits of gossip and local knowledge from all over the land and thus being of use at times when one needed a translator, amateur diplomat, etc. And some swordfighting skills. Or whatever they player happened to spec into.
Eventually they had the option of advancing into the bard, where their varied knowledge and delving allowed them some rudimentary access to spellcasting based on what lore they had picked up along the way. Things like alchemical lore, enchantment lore, curse lore, etc. And of course harmonic magic which was rare in the setting but could be discovered.
Quote from: SHARK on September 28, 2020, 09:00:04 PM
Greetings!
Periodically, I have heard that some people *hate* Bard characters in D&D games. I certainly believe that the "gameified" Bard has some problems and can be annoying--but I also think that has more to do with the presentation of Bards rather than particular class features or abilities. In historical times, Bards were immensely important kinds of people--such individuals were often invited to attend the local Lord's manor or estate soon upon arriving in the area...
This. I have a lot of people that just liked to play the TSR/WOTC Bards as written in PHB. I found them boring and uninspiring, and have never particularly liked these Bards or their limited (Gimped) abilities.
My traditional view of the Bard is that of a Loremaster, and a living Historian, one that uses music to enhance the traditional divination spells, and they inspire listeners to perform worthy and memorable deeds, and actions. In my campaigns for their spell list in addition to using the D&D Bard Spell List, Bards can also learn spells from the Divination, Enchantment, Illusion, and Summoning schools of magic, and forego the spell component, using whatever music they perform as the somatic component when casting these additional spells. They can also use any magic Item created by a Wizard, just like a Rogue, Wizard, or Sorceror can.
They use their music and storytelling to Charm their audience, and both NPC and Player Bards in my games are instrumental in revealing new clues and opportunities for players relaying information and the history and lore of my campaign worlds directly to the players. As a simple example, during an evening encampment in a newly explored area of my game world, the Bard could say, "I'll practice one of my songs about the history of this new area we are visiting and share what I know in song of this new place."
At this point I'd take the player playing the bard aside, and relay privately to them some vital bits of history such as the background history of a nearby ruin, or settlement, or noble family. Depending on the Bards performance skills check, I would relay either more, or more accurate, or less, and less accurate information to the player playing the bard. He/She then roleplays either actually singing for the other players, or describing how they perform the song to relay the knowledge contained in the music/performance in a manner the other players can understand. Some of my previous players have really gotten into this, and this is a great character class for the player that showboats or who needs some extra time in the spotlight once in awhile.
So the Bards IMC can cast Divination spells like Identify, and Legend Lore and Unseen Servant, Summon Animals, Summon Monsters, etc. They can Detect Evil, Detect Invisibility, Cast ESP, Forget, Charm Person, Charm Monster, Scare, Clairaudience, Clairvoyance, Conjure Elementals, all like that... I of course, encourage Bards to come up with completely new unique to their character spells as well. Bards in my campaigns can interpret dreams, omens, riddles, signs, and portents, just like the ancient Norse storytellers, Like Floki, Habard and the Seer of Kattegat, all of whom I consider as Bards.
The other major inspiration for Bards in my campaigns, of course came from fiction, and I'll mention
Patricia A. McKillip and the
Riddlemaster of Hed series of Books as a powerful influence on my early perception of what a Bard character should be.. In this series the Bards were powerful shapeshifters. The novel and original trilogy utilize themes from Celtic mythology, The Riddle-Master is Morgon, the Prince of Hed, a Harpist from small, simple unremarkable island populated by farmers and swineherds. The prince, inexplicably, has three stars on his forehead, like Tatoos, but these were birthmarks. Morgon's sister Tristan discovers that he keeps a crown hidden under his bed. He explains that he won it in a riddle-game with the ghost of the cursed king Peven of Aum. When Deth, the High One's harpist, discover this, he explains that another king, Mathom of An, has pledged to marry his daughter Raederle to the man who wins that crown from the ghost. So that story begins. It was one of the best fantasy series I read from the 70's, and really defined what Bards could do in my early D&D games. Before the Bard Class was released as part of AD&D we had already been using them in our home games for several years, so of course we viewed AD&D Bards, as something that was just copied and then regurgitated by TSR, for the uninformed newb gamers.
Now I read the Riddlemaster Trilogy before I even started playing D&D and these stories featured
Ioun Stones, which are high magic stones, and crystals, that floated or flew depending on the will of their owner. Ioun stones can be permanently imbued with magic spells. When I saw
Ioun Stones first featured in the AD&D DMG back in 1980, I was already well aware of what they were, and what they could be used for, and they had been used extensively in my hone games from about mid-1978 on...
Many of the Bard/Shapeshifters that were featured in my early D&D campaigns, or that I played in the early campaigns of my friends, of course each owned a small collection of
Ioun Stones, some of which could be used to temporarily buff a stat like Intelligence or Charisma, some of which stored spells, and some that had unique abilities, or that granted a character special powers like the ability to speak with animals, monsters, or the dead. Bards like this were common in my early games, and deviated significantly from the AD&D Bard which I only first saw in 1980. Jack Vance used Ioun Stones in his stories, which is where Gary Gygax glommed onto them, and they were used by Wizards, but I only read those stories after reading the Riddlemaster series, so for me, Ioun stones were definitely a Bard or Shapeshifter character Item, albeit one that other Magic-users could use.
These are also the types of Bards, and the ones I really like, The Seers, and Oracles, and Diviners, that were charming were the ones that frequently were included in my early D&D games, either as a player, ...or a GM, that I like to include in my games now.
...and Rock N Roll Bards!One other comment, our early perception of Bards in fantasy games were heavily influenced by Metal Rock Bands of course. It seemed them bands all got the best babes, who would throw themselves, as well as their lingerie and underwear at the band members during concerts, and literally catfight to be with them. This was something that us normal dweebs aspired to greatly during our high school years while gaming in the basement. I decided to personally test the theory that Bards were chick magnets and when I was living in El Paso, Texas in 1984 joined a band on tour for about a week once. Now I had frequented this rock and roll nightclub called the
Treetop where live bands would perform, you know like
Stryper, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Allman Brothers, Tokyo Rose, RockIt, Dark Hart, Uriah Heep, Looker, all the road tour bands that traveled around in Greyhound buses ...like that. I brought my expensive Olympia 35mm camera and did a photo shoot with the permission of the nightclub owner Mike, of a band that showed up to perform one weekend,
Windfall. Long story short, they liked my photos and asked me to join them, and I did. Yes it's true. If you are in the band, the babes just throw themselves at you. Still have this 33RPM album that was gifted to me by
Charlie, the lead singer of Windfall in exchange for my Indiana Jones Hat. The Bonfire party in the desert was the best! Three guitars, including a Bass, Drums of course, and a keyboard, Woot!
Windfall, Agora ballroom, Dallas Texas 1981
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WToBVJZP8mE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WToBVJZP8mE)
Windfall, 1985
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NAaCMECjZA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NAaCMECjZA)
Quote from: RandyB on September 28, 2020, 10:43:05 PM
First, "music is magic" dies in a fire. Done.
Second, bards as you describe them from history are loremasters. Not the "like wizards but no magic" types, but the Indiana Jones types. Travelers, adventurers, men of the world who seek both knowledge and experience. Men who live the tales, not the men who tell the tales of others in the safety of the local tavern.
Start from there and make bards for your games.
this! i hate the concept of music as magic very strongly.
As many have said, the bard exists in an aliterate culture, and in standard dungeon fantasy the know-it-all role is already taken by clerics and wizards.
Still, they seem to have slid the monk in, which was mostly based on kung fu movies (specifically, the Destroyer novels by Williams and Sapir). I'm guessing the monk fit well as an alternate fighter, whereas the bard tended to be done as jack-of-all-trades, and hence master of none.
Castles & Crusades does a good job with a non-caster bard, very based on the Norse skald so you got a sword-swinging poet who rouses the party to action. I've played one and the swift level progression was a boon. Perfect PC for me since I'm a ham actor as a player.
However, as a huge fan of the ancient Bard's Tale series (how has that not been revived???), I do love music as magic.
And I say 40k's Noise Marines = Chaotic Evil bards!
Quote from: Ravenswing on September 29, 2020, 06:23:02 PM
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 29, 2020, 02:21:51 PMThey aren't archetypes--in a game that can't always decide whether classes are archetypes, mechanical packages, niche protection, or more likely, what proportion of the three.
Of course it's an archetype, by any legitimate definition of the term. That many different roles can be defined as performers? Sure, I agree: and the same thing can be said of any other D&D-ish "archetype." Using the word "fighter" to categorize Conan, D'artagnan, Tempus, Belisarius, Lancelot, Croaker and Paksenarrion is just as broad. Using the term "magic-user" to define Gandalf, Elric, Egwene, Morgon of Hed, Milamber, Bink, Garion, Mary Poppins and your bog-standard Evul Necromancer is just as all over the place. D&Ders seem to have little problem managing to square the circle.
Here's the difference: The fighter is mechanically simple. There is really nothing in the mechanics to support the archetype except "can hit things" and "can take some hits". The bard has specific bits taken from a kitchen sink from several different archetypes.
Now granted, magic makes the whole thing fuzzy. A wizard by itself is more like the fighter. You start looking at the spells the wizard can do, you get some of the same kitchen sink mix. The more a bard depends on spells to be a bard, the more it will get the same effect.
Or if I'm not being clear enough, the bard is in an uncanny valley for most people.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 01, 2020, 08:29:47 AMHere's the difference: The fighter is mechanically simple. There is really nothing in the mechanics to support the archetype except "can hit things" and "can take some hits". The bard has specific bits taken from a kitchen sink from several different archetypes.
You're either arguing apples and turnips, or defining the word "archetype" as meaning "pre-AD&D character classes." Leaving aside that quite a few gamers don't play D&D, there is nothing about archetypes that is defined by only two elements. Just as well, or thieves, mages and clerics -- each with broad baskets of skills and powers -- would be SOL too. That TSR botched the mechanics in 1980 doesn't invalidate the concept.
But sure, let's reduce minstrels/performers to their lowest common denominator. With a nod to the posters above, they "know stuff," "entertain people" and "charm people." That's not a whole lot. Can some fight well? Sure, if they're designed to do so. † Can some cast spells? Sure, if they're designed to do so. For my part, I define ten broad adventuring archetypes for which I provide templates for the faint at heart.
† Disclaimer: I've been GMing point-buy systems for almost 40 years now. None of the above is incongruous, IMHO.
I think that a great deal of the disconnect between RPG bards and their historical or legendary antecedents is due to a lot of what makes up a bard's role and cultural significance being largely up to RP, rather than something that can be properly defined in terms of class features. A lot of what a bard can do in terms of storytelling, news and entertainment is stuff that pretty much anyone can do with just a few interaction, knowledge and performance skills. You don't really need an entire class based around it, specially if you stretch the term "Bard" to mean "anyone who gathers lore and spreads news".
Celtic bards are a different deal because they fulfill a religious role in a tribal culture relying on oral traditions to pass down their history. And even then they're basically just wizards with lore keeping, poetic and oratory skills. They could arguably be clerics or druids instead, but the arcane/divine dichotomy is a D&D invention with no historical antecedents (every single historical mystical tradition, including those purporting to be "magicians", has a spiritual component) and the sort of stuff legendary celtic bards are portrayed as doing sounds more like "wizard" magic to me in D&D terms, so I'm more inclined to say they're wizards (and even more inclined to just fold all spell casting into a single class, but that's another tangent).
Either way the point being that Celtic bards are mechanically full spell casters (wizards, clerics or druids) with a "Bard" kit rather than a stand alone class. This is one of the pitfalls of trying to work every single possible role into its own separate class, rather than working with a handful of core classes and expanding on them with 2e-style kits (or subclasses, professions, whatever you wanna call them) that grant them a couple of extra abilities to fulfill a specialized role, which is more effective and requires less bookkeeping.
Quote from: Ravenswing on October 01, 2020, 09:19:51 AM
You're either arguing apples and turnips, or defining the word "archetype" as meaning "pre-AD&D character classes." Leaving aside that quite a few gamers don't play D&D, there is nothing about archetypes that is defined by only two elements. Just as well, or thieves, mages and clerics -- each with broad baskets of skills and powers -- would be SOL too. That TSR botched the mechanics in 1980 doesn't invalidate the concept.
No. I'm saying that there are fault lines in D&D classes and the bard archetypes (plural) used don't fit well within them.
Of course, you'll get similar issues in point-buy games too, but that's less about the mismatch of archetypes and mechanics and more the mismatch between archetypes and what the players want to do. Example, I can much more easily build a pacifistic healer in GURPS or Hero System than D&D, but if the players want to go tomb robbing, the character probably won't work well. Try to do that in D&D, and it either ends up with stupid tricks or just doesn't work. So people don't try.
But you seem to have misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not saying there are no such things as archetypes that can be loosely considered "bardic". I'm saying that that the school of class design that tries to make classes centered on a key points in archetypes can't do that with the collection of those bardic archetypes. To take just two: Traveling minstrel versus tradition keeping, lore memorizing, druidic side-kick are too far apart. If you had a generic set of mechanics in the class, you might make that work like the fighter. But D&D did
not go generic with the bard. They used very specific things from those different traditions--and then overtime it became (again, like the ranger), more a case of following the earlier D&D lead rather than checking the source material.
Short version: The 5E bard kind of works because the designers threw out about half or more of the accumulated "bard stuff" and went back to "wizard-like lore guy with a bit of music". Then they threw some of the off stuff back in with the bardic spells, but you can't have everything.
I had a player in my OD&D game who wanted to play a bard so he took a Magic-User made CHA his highest score and INT his number two, and we agreed that instead of any reagents, chants, gestures to cast spells, instead he needed to be playing an instrument. Of course, he named him Bowie the Bard.
Boom done.
We could have done the same with a Cleric of a Music god (music as holy symbol) or just a Fighter with a high INT/CHA combo and average physical attributes.
It gets even easier if you port in Primes from Castles & Crusades. Pick two abilities, you get ADV with those ability roll, they reflect your areas of study / focus / talent.
I got to play a Lore of Valor Bard in Planescape up to 7th level. Man I loved it! He was a blacksmith and a skald -- used a guitar and basically played working man tunes. Although I based him on Other Jared from Silicon Valley personality wise since my character was a Believer of the Source so he was constantly spouting self-help junk and corpspeak.
Big thing was that he was big and tough and tended to solve stuff with his sword first and spells second. And his magic was more based around Inspirational Speeches given that he was basically a Motivational Speaker.
I've been playing a Finnish (alternate fantasy Earth) 5E Lore Bard with the Outlander background (Finns really didn't have anything like cities until well past the middle-ages) and loving it with the music as magic. He wrested a dragon from the sky with his song (Command spell to "approach"), and then used his training in Athletics to grapple him in place (it was a small dragon) so that the Swedish barbarian could tear into him without the dragon flying off. It seemed to me to be in line with the Finnish tale of Väinämöinen singing his opponent Joukahainen deep into the ground.
I don't understand the hate on music as magic. Besides the Celtic and Finnish traditions using this, you'd have to take a piss on the Music of the Ainur from the Silmarillion. I think music as magic can especially make sense if you take that magic existed before writing and written lore come into being.
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 01, 2020, 10:03:35 AM
I think that a great deal of the disconnect between RPG bards and their historical or legendary antecedents is due to a lot of what makes up a bard's role and cultural significance being largely up to RP, rather than something that can be properly defined in terms of class features. A lot of what a bard can do in terms of storytelling, news and entertainment is stuff that pretty much anyone can do with just a few interaction, knowledge and performance skills. You don't really need an entire class based around it, specially if you stretch the term "Bard" to mean "anyone who gathers lore and spreads news".
Celtic bards are a different deal because they fulfill a religious role in a tribal culture relying on oral traditions to pass down their history. And even then they're basically just wizards with lore keeping, poetic and oratory skills. They could arguably be clerics or druids instead, but the arcane/divine dichotomy is a D&D invention with no historical antecedents (every single historical mystical tradition, including those purporting to be "magicians", has a spiritual component) and the sort of stuff legendary celtic bards are portrayed as doing sounds more like "wizard" magic to me in D&D terms, so I'm more inclined to say they're wizards (and even more inclined to just fold all spell casting into a single class, but that's another tangent).
Either way the point being that Celtic bards are mechanically full spell casters (wizards, clerics or druids) with a "Bard" kit rather than a stand alone class. This is one of the pitfalls of trying to work every single possible role into its own separate class, rather than working with a handful of core classes and expanding on them with 2e-style kits (or subclasses, professions, whatever you wanna call them) that grant them a couple of extra abilities to fulfill a specialized role, which is more effective and requires less bookkeeping.
Greetings!
Excellent analysis, VisionStorm! Very interesting making Bards as a Wizard with a Bard kit or template. Nice!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: wmarshal on October 03, 2020, 10:11:02 PM
I've been playing a Finnish (alternate fantasy Earth) 5E Lore Bard with the Outlander background (Finns really didn't have anything like cities until well past the middle-ages) and loving it with the music as magic. He wrested a dragon from the sky with his song (Command spell to "approach"), and then used his training in Athletics to grapple him in place (it was a small dragon) so that the Swedish barbarian could tear into him without the dragon flying off. It seemed to me to be in line with the Finnish tale of Väinämöinen singing his opponent Joukahainen deep into the ground.
I don't understand the hate on music as magic. Besides the Celtic and Finnish traditions using this, you'd have to take a piss on the Music of the Ainur from the Silmarillion. I think music as magic can especially make sense if you take that magic existed before writing and written lore come into being.
Greetings!
Very good points, Wmarshal. Celtic, Baltic, and as you mention, Finnish mythology has Bards and music very prominently, using music interwoven as magic and part of their spells.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK