SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Bards need to be taken back to their origins

Started by Dropbear, January 15, 2022, 09:39:44 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

SHARK

Quote from: Pat on January 18, 2022, 01:11:41 PM
Quote from: SHARK on January 18, 2022, 12:56:19 PM
Greetings!

I have always liked the Bard concept. I think of Celtic Bards, of course, but also Finnish Bards, both of which were prominent figures throughout society. I also think about Mongolian Bards--Throatsingers--that created music and lore for their clans, and accompanied the great armies on campaign. Indeed, Beduins have Bardic traditions, as Persimmon mentioned. I'm also reminded of the Persian storytellers and musicians that Professor Michael Wood met on his journey in making In the Footsteps of Alexander.

Lots o different styles and inspiration!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Yes, Gygax in particular was clearly inspired by the Kalevala. And don't forget the skalds, like Egill Skallagrímsson.

The trick is to keep a coherent enough class, without diluting it too much.

Greetings!

YES, PAT! The Skalds of the Norse! How could I have overlooked them? Quite right. Very prominent and important people in Norse society. All of these different sources of inspiration and style, how can someone not like the Bard? Bards are ideal adventurers.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

DM_Curt

Quote from: HappyDaze on January 17, 2022, 10:32:18 AM
Quote from: Dropbear on January 16, 2022, 10:09:48 PM
The overuse of Vicious Mockery in the 5E games I have been a part of as of late makes me want to gag...
Oh yes, vcious mockery seems to fly freely around 5e games, and I'm not talking about the spell.
Mockery of the system and the players doesn't count.

Personally, I don't think that you should be able to "Insult something so hard that it takes Psychic Damage" if it can't understand what you're saying.  For starters.

SHARK

Greetings!

Vicious Mockery is stupid. Just ban the spell. Problem solved!

I ban or restrict or modify many spells in my campaigns. Overseeing the magical spell composition in the campaign is an essential responsibility and duty of the DM. Should the DM fail in these duties, the campaign is very likely to suffer numerous problems.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

Pat

Quote from: DM_Curt on January 18, 2022, 06:00:56 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 17, 2022, 10:32:18 AM
Quote from: Dropbear on January 16, 2022, 10:09:48 PM
The overuse of Vicious Mockery in the 5E games I have been a part of as of late makes me want to gag...
Oh yes, vcious mockery seems to fly freely around 5e games, and I'm not talking about the spell.
Mockery of the system and the players doesn't count.

Personally, I don't think that you should be able to "Insult something so hard that it takes Psychic Damage" if it can't understand what you're saying.  For starters.
You've clearly never seen a sassy enough talk to the hand gesture.

jhkim

Quote from: DM_Curt on January 18, 2022, 06:00:56 PM
Personally, I don't think that you should be able to "Insult something so hard that it takes Psychic Damage" if it can't understand what you're saying.  For starters.

I feel it neatly represents the Irish "glam dicenn" - a satire so powerful that it would cause physical damage. That's been one of my favorite stories of satire ever since I learned about it decades ago. The satire isn't supposed to be about making the victim self-consciousness -- it's symbolic of how just the *world* hearing the stories told causes judgement on the victim.

Quotethe satire fell into ten categories, the most scalding of which was known as the Glám Dicenn. You want boils on the face of your wicked evil King? Then, this is the satire for you.

The glám dicenn, when raised by a powerful poet, could cause 'the Three Blisters of Satire' to appear on the face of the victim, thus marking his shame and dishonour for all to see.

Source: https://www.timboucher.ca/2021/08/satire-that-raises-boils-on-the-face/


Pat

Quote from: jhkim on January 18, 2022, 07:02:52 PM
Quote from: DM_Curt on January 18, 2022, 06:00:56 PM
Personally, I don't think that you should be able to "Insult something so hard that it takes Psychic Damage" if it can't understand what you're saying.  For starters.

I feel it neatly represents the Irish "glam dicenn" - a satire so powerful that it would cause physical damage. That's been one of my favorite stories of satire ever since I learned about it decades ago. The satire isn't supposed to be about making the victim self-consciousness -- it's symbolic of how just the *world* hearing the stories told causes judgement on the victim.

Quotethe satire fell into ten categories, the most scalding of which was known as the Glám Dicenn. You want boils on the face of your wicked evil King? Then, this is the satire for you.

The glám dicenn, when raised by a powerful poet, could cause 'the Three Blisters of Satire' to appear on the face of the victim, thus marking his shame and dishonour for all to see.

Source: https://www.timboucher.ca/2021/08/satire-that-raises-boils-on-the-face/
I'm not familiar with the edition or the power, but "psychic damage" sounds like a clear failure when going for that feel. Make it a curse: Wondrous, magical, and malign. Don't make it a psychic blast.

jhkim

Quote from: Pat on January 18, 2022, 08:07:33 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 18, 2022, 07:02:52 PM
I feel it neatly represents the Irish "glam dicenn" - a satire so powerful that it would cause physical damage. That's been one of my favorite stories of satire ever since I learned about it decades ago. The satire isn't supposed to be about making the victim self-consciousness -- it's symbolic of how just the *world* hearing the stories told causes judgement on the victim.

Quotethe satire fell into ten categories, the most scalding of which was known as the Glám Dicenn. You want boils on the face of your wicked evil King? Then, this is the satire for you.

The glám dicenn, when raised by a powerful poet, could cause 'the Three Blisters of Satire' to appear on the face of the victim, thus marking his shame and dishonour for all to see.

Source: https://www.timboucher.ca/2021/08/satire-that-raises-boils-on-the-face/
I'm not familiar with the edition or the power, but "psychic damage" sounds like a clear failure when going for that feel. Make it a curse: Wondrous, magical, and malign. Don't make it a psychic blast.

Here's the spell description.

QuoteYou unleash a string of insults laced with subtle enchantments at a creature you can see within range. If the target can hear you (though it need not understand you), it must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or take 1d4 psychic damage and have disadvantage on the next attack roll it makes before the end of its next turn.

I'd agree that the description fails to convey the glám dicenn - though it also doesn't come across as a psychic blast. I think it would fit better if you need to loudly proclaim the insult = i.e. you need to be able to accurately describe the target and your words need to be loudly proclaimed to some audience, but you don't have to see it, and it doesn't have to hear you.

HappyDaze

I still like using bards (the angry ones) as siege weapon ammunition against the old pig-nosed, green-skinned orcs.

Pat

Quote from: HappyDaze on January 19, 2022, 01:07:36 PM
I still like using bards (the angry ones) as siege weapon ammunition against the old pig-nosed, green-skinned orcs.
1e bards would just brush themselves off and go about their day.

(They have ridiculous hp.)

HappyDaze

Quote from: Pat on January 19, 2022, 04:17:39 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 19, 2022, 01:07:36 PM
I still like using bards (the angry ones) as siege weapon ammunition against the old pig-nosed, green-skinned orcs.
1e bards would just brush themselves off and go about their day.

(They have ridiculous hp.)
1e bards were a myth. They were written to use the dual classing rules, and the ability score restrictions of those rules along with random generation made 1e bards almost impossible to qualify for.

Pat

Quote from: HappyDaze on January 19, 2022, 04:19:17 PM
Quote from: Pat on January 19, 2022, 04:17:39 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 19, 2022, 01:07:36 PM
I still like using bards (the angry ones) as siege weapon ammunition against the old pig-nosed, green-skinned orcs.
1e bards would just brush themselves off and go about their day.

(They have ridiculous hp.)
1e bards were a myth. They were written to use the dual classing rules, and the ability score restrictions of those rules along with random generation made 1e bards almost impossible to qualify for.
There were no dual classing rules in 1e, that's a term from second edition. And 1e bards did not use the rules for a character with two classes, in any case. Neither section refers to the other, and the rules aren't the same. That's one of the reasons why the bard has so many hit points, because the bard HD stack with the fighter/thief HD, instead of overlapping.

You're correct that they're a hard class to qualify for, but there is one other class that's harder.

HappyDaze

Quote from: Pat on January 19, 2022, 04:34:16 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 19, 2022, 04:19:17 PM
Quote from: Pat on January 19, 2022, 04:17:39 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 19, 2022, 01:07:36 PM
I still like using bards (the angry ones) as siege weapon ammunition against the old pig-nosed, green-skinned orcs.
1e bards would just brush themselves off and go about their day.

(They have ridiculous hp.)
1e bards were a myth. They were written to use the dual classing rules, and the ability score restrictions of those rules along with random generation made 1e bards almost impossible to qualify for.
There were no dual classing rules in 1e, that's a term from second edition. And 1e bards did not use the rules for a character with two classes, in any case. Neither section refers to the other, and the rules aren't the same. That's one of the reasons why the bard has so many hit points, because the bard HD stack with the fighter/thief HD, instead of overlapping.

You're correct that they're a hard class to qualify for, but there is one other class that's harder.
I'll have to drag out my old copy of the 1e AD&D PHB, but I'm pretty damn sure there were dual classing rules for humans (and only humans) and that the appendix with the bard said that they progressed from thief to fighter (or was it fighter to thief?) then to druid/bard (weird wording) exactly as a dual classed character (even if half-elf, but they might have been able to multi-class fighter/thief before dual classing into druid/bard).

Pat

#42
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 19, 2022, 05:48:16 PM
Quote from: Pat on January 19, 2022, 04:34:16 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 19, 2022, 04:19:17 PM
Quote from: Pat on January 19, 2022, 04:17:39 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 19, 2022, 01:07:36 PM
I still like using bards (the angry ones) as siege weapon ammunition against the old pig-nosed, green-skinned orcs.
1e bards would just brush themselves off and go about their day.

(They have ridiculous hp.)
1e bards were a myth. They were written to use the dual classing rules, and the ability score restrictions of those rules along with random generation made 1e bards almost impossible to qualify for.
There were no dual classing rules in 1e, that's a term from second edition. And 1e bards did not use the rules for a character with two classes, in any case. Neither section refers to the other, and the rules aren't the same. That's one of the reasons why the bard has so many hit points, because the bard HD stack with the fighter/thief HD, instead of overlapping.

You're correct that they're a hard class to qualify for, but there is one other class that's harder.
I'll have to drag out my old copy of the 1e AD&D PHB, but I'm pretty damn sure there were dual classing rules for humans (and only humans) and that the appendix with the bard said that they progressed from thief to fighter (or was it fighter to thief?) then to druid/bard (weird wording) exactly as a dual classed character (even if half-elf, but they might have been able to multi-class fighter/thief before dual classing into druid/bard).
Yes, there are rules for humans switching from one class to another. It's not called "dual classing", though (that's a 2eism). In 1e, it's a "character with two classes." You could only switch once, there were very stiff prime requisite requirements, and you had to be human no exceptions. Until the second class's level exceeded the first no new hit dice were gained, and you couldn't use both sets of class abilities freely.

And yes, the bard started as a fighter, then switched to a thief, then switched to the bard. But that's three classes, not two. Also, they're not restricted to humans. Half-elves are allowed. And while a character with two classes has overlapping hp (fighter 7/thief 9 has 7d10+2d6 hp), and that's true for a bard's fighter and thief levels, it is not true for bard levels. A fighter 7/thief 9/bard 3 has 7d10+2d6+2d6 hp (the last 2d6 because bards only have 2 HD at 3rd level). The bard has minimum ability score requirements that aren't high enough to qualify for a character with two classes. The bard always attacks using their fighting level, instead of losing that ability while using other class abilities.

Those are pretty major differences, and there are no cross-references between the two sections. They do have some similarities, which is why a lot of people conflated the two (me included, before I had reason to go through both sections with a fine toothed comb). But they are completely independent sets of rules.

Bards aren't druids. They just study with druids, cast druid spells, and cast as druids of the same level (max 12, or 13 if 23rd level).

HappyDaze

Quote from: Pat on January 19, 2022, 06:20:12 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 19, 2022, 05:48:16 PM
Quote from: Pat on January 19, 2022, 04:34:16 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 19, 2022, 04:19:17 PM
Quote from: Pat on January 19, 2022, 04:17:39 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 19, 2022, 01:07:36 PM
I still like using bards (the angry ones) as siege weapon ammunition against the old pig-nosed, green-skinned orcs.
1e bards would just brush themselves off and go about their day.

(They have ridiculous hp.)
1e bards were a myth. They were written to use the dual classing rules, and the ability score restrictions of those rules along with random generation made 1e bards almost impossible to qualify for.
There were no dual classing rules in 1e, that's a term from second edition. And 1e bards did not use the rules for a character with two classes, in any case. Neither section refers to the other, and the rules aren't the same. That's one of the reasons why the bard has so many hit points, because the bard HD stack with the fighter/thief HD, instead of overlapping.

You're correct that they're a hard class to qualify for, but there is one other class that's harder.
I'll have to drag out my old copy of the 1e AD&D PHB, but I'm pretty damn sure there were dual classing rules for humans (and only humans) and that the appendix with the bard said that they progressed from thief to fighter (or was it fighter to thief?) then to druid/bard (weird wording) exactly as a dual classed character (even if half-elf, but they might have been able to multi-class fighter/thief before dual classing into druid/bard).
Yes, there are rules for humans switching from one class to another. It's not called "dual classing", though (that's a 2eism). In 1e, it's a "character with two classes." You could only switch once, there were very stiff prime requisite requirements, and you had to be human no exceptions. Until the second class's level exceeded the first no new hit dice were gained, and you couldn't use both sets of class abilities freely.

And yes, the bard started as a fighter, then switched to a thief, then switched to the bard. But that's three classes, not two. Also, they're not restricted to humans. Half-elves are allowed. And while a character with two classes has overlapping hp (fighter 7/thief 9 has 7d10+2d6 hp), and that's true for a bard's fighter and thief levels, it is not true for bard levels. A fighter 7/thief 9/bard 3 has 7d10+2d6+2d6 hp (the last 2d6 because bards only have 2 HD at 3rd level). The bard has minimum ability score requirements that aren't high enough to qualify for a character with two classes. The bard always attacks using their fighting level, instead of losing that ability while using other class abilities.

Those are pretty major differences, and there are no cross-references between the two sections. They do have some similarities, which is why a lot of people conflated the two (me included, before I had reason to go through both sections with a fine toothed comb). But they are completely independent sets of rules.

Bards aren't druids. They just study with druids, cast druid spells, and cast as druids of the same level (max 12, or 13 if 23rd level).
If I get around to digging the book out, I'll look it over again.

zend0g

Quote from: HappyDaze on January 19, 2022, 04:19:17 PM
1e bards were a myth. They were written to use the dual classing rules, and the ability score restrictions of those rules along with random generation made 1e bards almost impossible to qualify for.
I lost count of campaigns that sputtered out before the poor bard player actually got to being a bard especially if they were trying to make the most of their fighter and thief levels. 
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest person, I will find something in them to be offended.