I'm all alone here probably, but I think the bards of 1E were the most awesome, fun to play, and cool. The bards in further editions were kind of wish-washy in both design and intent. Arcane bards with wizard spells really leave me feeling cold. And I dislike those 4E archer bards the most of all.
OSE bards kinda attempt to go back to their beginnings by giving them clerical spells, but still leave something to be desired for me.
I feel like Castles & Crusades bards, using the class and a half multiclassing rules, move towards the original design of bards best of all out of anything I have read in a while. I also really like the Hyperborea bards, as well.
Anyone else feel this way?
I think bards need to be taken back to their origins, but the origins I'm thinking of are a bit older.
I like the C&C bard, but it's really just a spellless but tough version of the 3e bard. The 1e bard is another interesting example that does capture at least some of the Celtic feel with the druid spells, lore, and so on; but even that version is a bit too much of a minstrel. Not familiar with the OSE or Hyperborean bards.
Taliesin is my idea of a bard. The problem is that requires cultural context and an alternate method of knowing and magic, and has to fight against the rockstar dilettante archetype that's become too strongly associated with bards in D&D and its influences.
The sweet spot for me is the AD&D 2E Bard and the D&D 3.x Bard. Functional jack-of-all-trades with access to a lot information from medieval media and social interaction.
Yeah, I must say within D&D I doubt it's easy to bring it back to Celtic context. Then of course Druids with their nature worship from the very get go were some weird hippy cult in D&D, not original augurs and tribal memory keepers. Sure they were associated with oaks - but most of priesthood in Northern Indoeuropean culture cared about oaks as those were holy trees (that's why Saint Boniface cut one when preaching among Saxons). Going from there to nature-tree magic was already quite off.
And augury does not works that well for RPG for obvious reasons.
So I'd probably go with what's already there - D&D as it's own genre, with own archetypes. Which means bard is somehow musical quasi-magician.
I sort of enjoy them being truly jacks of all trades. It would sort of pull together their insane history through edition - druidic, divine, rougish, magical magic boosters, arcane lore, arcane leader in 4e, psychic spellcaster in PF2. Put it all into big mixer and crush together.
I'd go more with sage as basic social role, with minstrel being just on many options of jacky nature of bard, but their overall combat-utlity roles I'd well how to say it. If we were using 4E, he'd be able to take powers from each power source and class (though with power limits stronger than them) and be forced to take them from at least 3 sources. Mess.
AD&D 2E is also my sweet spot for the Bard. I honestly hate the 'magic music' version of Bard in any iteration from video games to tabletop. I hate it. It's just so insipid and makes combat a farce.
If I want to fight people with music, I'll play a dubstep, bass-dropping, flesh-liquefying Noise Marine, thank you very much.
The overuse of Vicious Mockery in the 5E games I have been a part of as of late makes me want to gag...
Quote from: jeff37923 on January 15, 2022, 10:17:01 PM
The sweet spot for me is the AD&D 2E Bard and the D&D 3.x Bard. Functional jack-of-all-trades with access to a lot information from medieval media and social interaction.
Same for me. I still have fond memories of the Complete Bard's Handbook for 2E. They were a bit on the ren-faire side, but they fit and were great in the hands of a player who knew how to make them 'sing'
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...
One of the several reasons why I won't play 5E anymore.
Interesting that the guy with the nickname "the Bard" was a playwright instead of a musician.
My view of bards comes from "The Chronicles of Prydain", where bards played harps, but were more known as the keepers of ancient lore. Fflewdur Fflam spends most of the series acting as one, but isn't officially a bard. Adaon in "The Black Cauldron" is the son of the Chief Bard, Taliesin, as I recall, but in that story has not yet taken the test to enter the profession. He gives Taran a brooch that increases the wearer's insight and perception, but Taran eventually realizes that Adaon had these attributes already.
Does this mean you think players should gain levels in thief & fighter and then switch to bard? Or just that bards should be more like the powers of old without all the strange restrictions?
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.
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 16, 2022, 10:03:24 PM
AD&D 2E is also my sweet spot for the Bard. I honestly hate the 'magic music' version of Bard in any iteration from video games to tabletop. I hate it. It's just so insipid and makes combat a farce.
If I want to fight people with music, I'll play a dubstep, bass-dropping, flesh-liquefying Noise Marine, thank you very much.
I cannot
agree more. "Music is magic" is revulsive and yes, insipid. And any other similar adjectives you care to invoke.
Quote from: Banjo Destructo on January 17, 2022, 10:29:49 AM
Does this mean you think players should gain levels in thief & fighter and then switch to bard? Or just that bards should be more like the powers of old without all the strange restrictions?
Yeah, I liked the 1E Bard best.
Quote from: RandyB on January 17, 2022, 11:05:51 AM
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 16, 2022, 10:03:24 PM
AD&D 2E is also my sweet spot for the Bard. I honestly hate the 'magic music' version of Bard in any iteration from video games to tabletop. I hate it. It's just so insipid and makes combat a farce.
If I want to fight people with music, I'll play a dubstep, bass-dropping, flesh-liquefying Noise Marine, thank you very much.
I cannot agree more. "Music is magic" is revulsive and yes, insipid. And any other similar adjectives you care to invoke.
On the other hand, magic as poetry is awesome.
Just to be clear, I'm talking about legendary examples like Taleisin from Celtic and other mythos. D&D has never done that type of magic very well. The default magic-user is a scholarly type, learning from books. Conversely, the ancient wizards from pre-literate traditions were often just as if not more powerful, but more wise than book-learned, and very knowledgeable about the world and natural history. Attempts like 3e's sorcerer were... really bad. And things like bloodlines and warlocks are a different more modern archetype, closer to superheroes.
I would disagree that "music is magic is cringe". Sure a lot of how it is presented in modern fiction is less than stellar. But there have been some good adaptations. See the guzheng assassins in Kung Fu Hustle.
Quote from: Pat on January 17, 2022, 11:21:07 AM
On the other hand, magic as poetry is awesome.
Just to be clear, I'm talking about legendary examples like Taleisin from Celtic and other mythos. D&D has never done that type of magic very well. The default magic-user is a scholarly type, learning from books. Conversely, the ancient wizards from pre-literate traditions were often just as if not more powerful, but more wise than book-learned, and very knowledgeable about the world and natural history. Attempts like 3e's sorcerer were... really bad. And things like bloodlines and warlocks are a different more modern archetype, closer to superheroes.
Quote from: Hzilong on January 17, 2022, 04:20:47 PM
I would disagree that "music is magic is cringe". Sure a lot of how it is presented in modern fiction is less than stellar. But there have been some good adaptations. See the guzheng assassins in Kung Fu Hustle.
I've never been thrilled with any of the bards in typical games. Part of the problem, I think, is that bards just don't mix with a literate culture. If reading and writing are commonplace in the culture (which has been the case with nearly all D&D worlds that I know), then bards don't fit. Songs and poems are entertainment rather than a primary source for knowledge. If one wants knowledge, one pictures going to a sage with his books rather than to a bard.
The point of bards in myth and legend is that their role as keepers of knowledge is powerful and important. That's how it is in ancient myth, and also in some older fiction, like the Chronicles of Prydain. If one gets into the feel of a non-literate culture where bards are the lynchpin of communication, knowledge, and history - then the feel of bards works better. I think both poetry and music having power is very fitting in that context.
The closest that I've come to bards that I like has been in 5E, but that's not so much a function of the rules - it's more about how the role was handled in the campaign. If songs and poetry are shown as important to society, then the bard role has worked better - though it never fully works if books are commonplace. One schtick that helped was when outside of combat, the bard is vital to the party's reputation - and both the bard and NPCs took their role as historian seriously.
Castles and Crusades in the supplement of Codex Celtarum (now on its second printing) has a Celtic bard as a class, as well and Druid and seer
Savage World Pathfinder Bard - is really hitting it for my group.
They're the shit-talking, influence peddling, support badasses that I always wanted since D&D 2e. And I think due to the mechanics of the system they work better.
I think the issue of Bards as Druid/Mage/Cleric hybrids is a D&D issue that SW bypasses since the abilities of SW are chunkier and less discrete than d20 (regardless of edition). Because of that - as a "class concept" in SW it can literally be all the different Bard concepts that have emerged over the 5+ editions of D&D while retaining what most people can agree are "Bardly" things.
I think it's a system issue more than a concept issue. I've always loved Bards, I think their expressions in D&D have been very poor for reasons that shouldn't be.
Quote from: tenbones on January 17, 2022, 05:30:25 PM
Savage World Pathfinder Bard - is really hitting it for my group.
They're the shit-talking, influence peddling, support badasses that I always wanted since D&D 2e. And I think due to the mechanics of the system they work better.
I think the issue of Bards as Druid/Mage/Cleric hybrids is a D&D issue that SW bypasses since the abilities of SW are chunkier and less discrete than d20 (regardless of edition). Because of that - as a "class concept" in SW it can literally be all the different Bard concepts that have emerged over the 5+ editions of D&D while retaining what most people can agree are "Bardly" things.
I think it's a system issue more than a concept issue. I've always loved Bards, I think their expressions in D&D have been very poor for reasons that shouldn't be.
I'll have to check that out. I'm due to run a SW Primeval Thule game soonish.
Not sure what the conceits of Primeval Thule are - but be prepared to tweak it, since I assume it's not like Goliarion. Fortunately Savage Worlds is designed for this so it should be a snap.
Quote from: tenbones on January 17, 2022, 06:01:39 PM
Not sure what the conceits of Primeval Thule are - but be prepared to tweak it, since I assume it's not like Goliarion. Fortunately Savage Worlds is designed for this so it should be a snap.
It's a low magic S&S setting, but I did get the SW PF Bestiary because there's so little fantasy monster books out for SWADE right now other than older stuff that I have not picked up and converted from older editions of SW yet.
Quote from: Pat on January 15, 2022, 10:07:05 PM
I think bards need to be taken back to their origins, but the origins I'm thinking of are a bit older.
I like the C&C bard, but it's really just a spellless but tough version of the 3e bard. The 1e bard is another interesting example that does capture at least some of the Celtic feel with the druid spells, lore, and so on; but even that version is a bit too much of a minstrel. Not familiar with the OSE or Hyperborean bards.
Taliesin is my idea of a bard. The problem is that requires cultural context and an alternate method of knowing and magic, and has to fight against the rockstar dilettante archetype that's become too strongly associated with bards in D&D and its influences.
Incidentally, the
Adventurers Backpack for C&C offers a spellcasting bard variant. They get their own spell lists, which combine druid and illusionist spells. IMHO it's the best version of the bard out there, with the Hyperborea bard coming in second.
And FWIW in our OSE campaign, the party's bard is modeled after Bedouin storytellers. So there are variant archetypes folks can draw from, not that there's anything wrong with Taliesen.
I think it would be good to just make bard (more celtic one) & troubadour (more modern editions) one as subsets of some more jack class called Sage or Dabbler or something like this.
Once it sort of frees it to return word bard to more strictly Northern European context, while allowing many different archetypes of jack to be played around.
TBH, based on what I've read about Celtic bards, I'm not sure that they're that much different from just being wizards with a religious, lore keeping and poetic background. A lot of this stuff are just roles or backgrounds that ultimately fall into one of three broad archetypes: Warrior, Specialist (Rogue/Skill Monkey) or Mystic. Specialists could arguably be broken down into Scout, Diplomat, Scholar or Craftsmen/Tinkerers.
I'm not sure you need a specialized class for any of that. You just need the core 4 (or 3 IMO), and skills/talents (Feats?) to cover background stuff.
Wizard = Plain Mystic
Bard = Mystic with Lore Keeping and Poetry skills, plus a religious backstory.
Marvel comics had a character, the mutant Xman named BANSHEE. So, bard can charm, but in combat, use a type of sonic attack.....just an idea.
My favorite Bards are the ones that get eaten by dragons, or run over by wagon trains, or don't exist as a PC option.
It's a class that's never made sense, seems to be a hybrid of being a wannabe lorejunky, thief/rogue, and spellcaster, and musical prodigy, and wandering entertainer all in one. It's more the concept of the bard I dislike the most. It's this mishmash of all these things that don't quite got together. Rangers are better explorers. Wizards should be the Loremasters. Obviously there are many classes that do spellcasting better. Thief's are better thieves. Rogues are better rogues. All that's left is being a entertainer, and anybody can put skill points or proficiency points into musical instruments.
It's a pointless class in D&D.
The Witcher rpg does it better. The Earthdawn rpg does it better. And even in those rpgs I'd rather players just play something else.
Quote from: VisionStorm on January 18, 2022, 06:51:46 AM
TBH, based on what I've read about Celtic bards, I'm not sure that they're that much different from just being wizards with a religious, lore keeping and poetic background. A lot of this stuff are just roles or backgrounds that ultimately fall into one of three broad archetypes: Warrior, Specialist (Rogue/Skill Monkey) or Mystic. Specialists could arguably be broken down into Scout, Diplomat, Scholar or Craftsmen/Tinkerers.
I'm not sure you need a specialized class for any of that. You just need the core 4 (or 3 IMO), and skills/talents (Feats?) to cover background stuff.
Wizard = Plain Mystic
Bard = Mystic with Lore Keeping and Poetry skills, plus a religious backstory.
I mean kind of? I always kind of imagined they were mostly responsible for the oral traditions. Not sure where they came up with the dnd version of the bard
Quote from: Ocule on January 18, 2022, 12:32:48 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on January 18, 2022, 06:51:46 AM
TBH, based on what I've read about Celtic bards, I'm not sure that they're that much different from just being wizards with a religious, lore keeping and poetic background. A lot of this stuff are just roles or backgrounds that ultimately fall into one of three broad archetypes: Warrior, Specialist (Rogue/Skill Monkey) or Mystic. Specialists could arguably be broken down into Scout, Diplomat, Scholar or Craftsmen/Tinkerers.
I'm not sure you need a specialized class for any of that. You just need the core 4 (or 3 IMO), and skills/talents (Feats?) to cover background stuff.
Wizard = Plain Mystic
Bard = Mystic with Lore Keeping and Poetry skills, plus a religious backstory.
I mean kind of? I always kind of imagined they were mostly responsible for the oral traditions. Not sure where they came up with the dnd version of the bard
It's a mix. The AD&D1e version clearly draws from the Celtic sources, with the druid spells, the lore, and so on. But it's useful to remember that Celtic mythology is a bit of mess, since we don't have any primary sources. The Celts seemed to have a cultural prohibition against writing things down, so we don't know what the stories originally said. In fact, they were mostly lost, because while Celts spanned the whole continent of Europe the only stories that survived until today come from the fringe, one minor set of islands (Great Britain). And those stories passed down for hundreds of years through changing cultures, which adapted them to their needs, before they were finally written down in a relatively static form. One of the more obvious examples is the creation mythos, which have clearly been adapted to fit in with the Christian Genesis. So a lot of Celtic culture is lost or distorted, and as a result much of it is speculation -- or pure fabrication. Because a lot of what you can look up about bards and druids on the internet comes from the Celtic renaissance movement, which has created a new modern legendarium that has obscured much of the real scholarship.
AD&D1e draws inconsistently from this mess, and the bard as it's evolved has also adapted elements from medieval troubadors, like the lyres, jangly bits, an occasional pair of tights. But they've also adopted elements from modern musicians, including many of the traits of rock stars like the womanizing, drugs, and celebrity. They also draw or parallel from secondary sources, like the Harpers from McCaffrey's stories. And even more recently, there's the whole sonic motif which appears to be entirely game mechnical.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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/
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.
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.
I still like using bards (the angry ones) as siege weapon ammunition against the old pig-nosed, green-skinned orcs.
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.)
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
Quote from: zend0g on January 19, 2022, 08:50:05 PM
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.
I had one bard, a half-elf, who got into the teens in level as a bard. But he was the only one and he was part of a party that (mostly) reached high level together. I recently dug out his character sheet because I want to convert him to C&C for a high level adventure I wrote. Since none of our C&C PCs are above 8th level, I'm converting a few AD&D characters over.
Quote from: Persimmon on January 19, 2022, 10:38:29 PM
Quote from: zend0g on January 19, 2022, 08:50:05 PM
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.
I had one bard, a half-elf, who got into the teens in level as a bard. But he was the only one and he was part of a party that (mostly) reached high level together. I recently dug out his character sheet because I want to convert him to C&C for a high level adventure I wrote. Since none of our C&C PCs are above 8th level, I'm converting a few AD&D characters over.
We mostly played bards as pre-created characters when doing one-shots or short campaigns that started at high levels. There's at least one in the H-series.
I've never quite been able to wrap my head around what the bard's weird progression is supposed to represent. First you, you're a fighter. Are you a soldier? Is this supposed to be some martial training by the druids? Then you're a thief. Okay, that makes no sense, but thief was often a stand-in for general sneaky types. But why sneaky? Then you go away and study with the druids, and come back with music, magic, and lore.
Become a bard or druid did involve extensive study. Natural history was science before science became a formal field, a massive collection of lore that was passed down by rote memorization and mnemonic techniques. This includes epic legends and stories, knowledge of nature from herbs to seasons, jurisprudence, and more. Bards got social protections, and a pass when they said things that challenged authority. In legend, bards were wizards and wonder-workers, distinct from the more scholarly sorcerers and alchemists of the early modern period. There's a little of that in the class, but it's hard to get it to cohere into something that isn't just a game artifact.
Quote from: zend0g on January 19, 2022, 08:50:05 PM
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.
I managed to play one. Fighter 5/Thief 5/Druid 5/Bard 7.
The rules as written in the PHB do not state a level requirement for Druid (it states the character is a bard under Druidic tutelage), but my DM ruled that I had to level that too as per fighter & thief - he did not know I was going for Bard until I hit Thief 5 and said I was ready to switch over. We hit all 21st level total before the game was ended.
Dougal ended up being one of the most fun characters I have ever had the chance to play to high level. And sadly one of the only ones. The only other character that made it that high was my noble rogue in the PF1 campaign another group played through.
The major complaint I heard about Bards in 1E was it took too long to get to the class and the requirements were steep, although I have run plenty of games where there were characters that could meet those requirements. Bards using druidic magic still seem more appropriate to me than arcane bards, never have been a fan of that direction.