|
Bards
Jun 10, 2007 19:00:47 GMT -5
Post by Scott on Jun 10, 2007 19:00:47 GMT -5
Been involved in a few bard discussions recently, so I've been reading through the class. "The bard gains druidic powers as a druid of the same level, with the exception of druid spells..." That looks like it includes the languages the druid gains at every level starting at 3rd level. The bard also gains a new language at 4th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, and 23rd level. That's a lot of languages. The bard takes a lot of flak. I question the language thing, but the only thing that really bugs me is the HP thing. It totally goes against everything else in the system relating to gaining HPs. Once the character starts gaining bard levels, he's really going to start piling up the HPs at a rate much faster than other characters, up to a maximum of 18 HD. That's the same as a monk. but the monks are all d4s. The bard can have up to 7 d10 plus 11 d6s. That's a lot of HPs. Hmm. I just noticed druids get 14 d8s, so it really isn't that much of an exception, maybe it's just how fast they gain them once they become bards.
Scott
|
|
|
Bards
Jun 10, 2007 19:58:29 GMT -5
Post by geneweigel on Jun 10, 2007 19:58:29 GMT -5
That actually was the first reason I disliked the bard. It was like that Ultimist parody class that Gygax wrote and the people that were making them were just taking advantage of that, Which bred legions upon legions of these characters which should have never been. Etc, etc., etc.
I would have rather had that type of "ultimate" be some form of knight or wizard if at all.
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Bards
Jun 17, 2007 13:47:58 GMT -5
Post by GT on Jun 17, 2007 13:47:58 GMT -5
Well, I still like Bards!! Anybody who has read "Silverlock" cannot help but see them as a viable class! That, and the mythological precedents set by Orpheus,the Celts, Finns, et al.!
|
|
|
Bards
Jun 17, 2007 14:01:24 GMT -5
Post by Scott on Jun 17, 2007 14:01:24 GMT -5
Oh I like the class too. One of my favorite PCs is a bard, just discussing some of the class peculiarities.
Scott
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Bards
Jun 17, 2007 14:17:19 GMT -5
Post by GT on Jun 17, 2007 14:17:19 GMT -5
I think the Bard perspective is dependant on your Fantasy literature experience. Gene has a valid point with the "minstrelsy" image given to Bards starting in 2E, but the Kalevala and "Silverlock" (to name two) give total validation to the class. As for power levels; is Merlin (Myrrdin) any less famous or powerful than Taliesin? How 'bout Roland? Or Moses? The "power" of a Class in 1E lies in how you play it. There are 3 or 4 examples in my campaign--one just happens to be (the only) Bard played. Woodstock (the aforementioned Bard) would be the first to tell you that with all of his abilities, an Elven Fi/M-U was constantly able to bedevil him. Or a certain (former servant) Halfling Fi/Thief!! I agree with Scott that this class has validity! ^__^
|
|
|
Bards
Jun 25, 2007 0:23:32 GMT -5
Post by Scott on Jun 25, 2007 0:23:32 GMT -5
In addition to the other languages mentioned, anybody think they shouldn't know druidic too? And what about weapons (and this goes for dual classing as well)? When a character switches to a new class, how do you handle weapon proficiencies?
Scott
|
|
|
Bards
Jun 25, 2007 18:45:48 GMT -5
Post by Scott on Jun 25, 2007 18:45:48 GMT -5
One stricture that I don't ever recall anybody bringing up when talking about the bard is the requirement to 'donate' half of all monetary gains. That's 40% more than the paladin. They're going to have to cast animal summoning spells just to eat.
Scott
|
|
|
Bards
Jun 26, 2007 11:53:03 GMT -5
Post by geneweigel on Jun 26, 2007 11:53:03 GMT -5
I don't know the whole thing is built on a somewhat zany druid idea (druid as "plant" oriented clerics makes about as much sense as making a thief "plant"-oriented in my opinion.) in the first place but selectively gets serious on top of that. The bard if ever to be salvaged in my eyes needs a totally serious redo from scratch.
There is so many other "quasi-medieval" facets that have been left on the wayside. How about a battle "physician" for D&D? Far more important than a battle musician in my opinion. So why even bother with the bard?
|
|
|
Bards
Jun 26, 2007 13:51:26 GMT -5
Post by Scott on Jun 26, 2007 13:51:26 GMT -5
Well, I agree that a different version, or versions, of the class might be interesting, but the fact that the class is a hodgepodge of real world information doesn’t nullify the validity of the class for a fantasy world character.
Scott
|
|
|
Bards
Jun 26, 2007 15:11:54 GMT -5
Post by geneweigel on Jun 26, 2007 15:11:54 GMT -5
In 1979 perhaps. But these days theres an entire "bard as staple" generation that mistakenly takes a lot of hodgepodge crapola(ex: Forgotten Realms, etc.) as something that was in demand instead of taking it as the "watered down but good enough for filler" material that it really was.
If I shoved you into a time warp and showed you Taliesin the bard, you would say: Where is he? Behind the clown with all the bells on?
Reality in the best case sucks in regards to bards so thats why I call them game breakers.
|
|
|
Bards
Jun 26, 2007 21:36:17 GMT -5
Post by GRWelsh on Jun 26, 2007 21:36:17 GMT -5
I have always looked at the bard class as a possible model for the road to quasi-deityhood. The Dragon issue 71 seemed to imply there were questests and special routes of advancement to take, for exceptional characters who ascended to "personage" rank or those who garnered divine favor. I thought this left the door open for DM's to develop special rules to allow favorite characters to become dual-classed, and then graduate into unique classes. They could then become -- like demigods or hero deities -- skilled in several different classes (like Keoghtom, Murlynd, etc.).
In later years, this sort of thing would only be decried as munchkin power gaming. Gary Gygax's game philosophy often seemed to waver between strict adherence to official play, and this kind of open-ended bending of the rules at higher-end play. But it's not really a contradiction... it's more like he was saying, "Follow the rules faithfully up to a certain point, but then once you have mastered them, go ahead and develop your own moulds..." And this is quite different from allowing players to start out with something like the parody Ultimist class, or just handing them lots of power to begin with.
|
|
|
Bards
Jun 26, 2007 22:28:00 GMT -5
Post by geneweigel on Jun 26, 2007 22:28:00 GMT -5
Maybe the "lost classes" should've been that sort of character class. The demonurgist certainly suggests it was to be a high end class. _____________________________ "Power gaming" and "munchkin"....you got to love that shit! If a "power gamer" and a "muchkin" actually showed up at my table, I'd try to make casts of their footprints! Too bad the exact opposites show from time to time... that is, "powerless gamers" and "winkies"!
|
|
|
Bards
Jun 27, 2007 20:35:56 GMT -5
Post by GRWelsh on Jun 27, 2007 20:35:56 GMT -5
I thought the character Gravestone from the later Gord novels may have been a demonurgist. Other classes were the savant, mystic, and mountebank. I don't know if they were going to be split-classes, where one could get to a certain level and diverge into this different class, or not. Or maybe they would have been more like dual-classes, or similar to the bard... who knows?
|
|
|
Bards
Jun 27, 2007 21:36:22 GMT -5
Post by geneweigel on Jun 27, 2007 21:36:22 GMT -5
The demonurgist comes off as a class. I jotted down a bunch of notes on it a while back. I can't recall if Gary said that was intended for 2e though. I think he did but its a blur. Somebody should ask him... And it won't be me! The savant and the mystic are described by EGG as "inveterate planar travellers" in November 1982: Doesn't that suggest high end? He also describes then as having more than regular classes before that in Sept 1982: And
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Bards
Jul 7, 2007 22:47:46 GMT -5
Post by GT on Jul 7, 2007 22:47:46 GMT -5
Yes... yes... the Savant and Mystic classes were all well and good; And from what Gary did during Mythus, I would have to say that he did plan on the Demonurgist being a class in some respect (maybe as a foe if not a PC...) but getting back to the Bard---Taliesin did have certain "nature-oriented" aspects; and conceivably his more M-U oriented powers were done through his instrument as much as through innate ability. The Finnish skalds were more of the wizardly sort of "Bard", and maybe a choice should have been given between Druid and M-U spells on this basis... but I still strongly contend that Scott is correct in that a properly (and perhaps pre-2E?) played Bard is a very enjoyable character from both player and DM standpoint.
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Bards
Jul 7, 2007 23:13:59 GMT -5
Post by GT on Jul 7, 2007 23:13:59 GMT -5
For those who wish to see where Gary might have went with some of the classes, check out "Spellsinger", "Mysticism", Apotropaism", "Sorcery", and "Divination" headings in the Mythus books. And Dave Newton signed mine when it came out: "Bippity, Boppity, Boo!" HARRRR!!!!
|
|
|
Bards
Jul 7, 2007 23:18:18 GMT -5
Post by Scott on Jul 7, 2007 23:18:18 GMT -5
Wasn't there a revised bard mentioned for EGG's 2E, a bard from the get go?
Scott
|
|
|
Bards
Jul 7, 2007 23:21:52 GMT -5
Post by Scott on Jul 7, 2007 23:21:52 GMT -5
My bard PC is Gildon the Glib. 4th level bard. 7th level fighter, 5th level thief. He was a party guy while gaining his fighter and thief levels, but has gone on some solo adventuring since becoming a bard. Last time I played him we ended on him settling down in Greyhawk to relax for the winter.
Scott
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Bards
Jul 7, 2007 23:22:29 GMT -5
Post by GT on Jul 7, 2007 23:22:29 GMT -5
Yes... and that fits in exactly with the "Spellsinger" from Mythus. But in AD&D terms, I don't mind a Bard having to train in a couple of classes before he achieves "Bardhood". I mean, they're actually a bit weak until they become Bards-- "jack of several trades, master of none" as it were... ^__^
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Bards
Jul 7, 2007 23:26:31 GMT -5
Post by GT on Jul 7, 2007 23:26:31 GMT -5
Woodstock (who started in 1979) actually became a quasi-deity in my world, but when we "reset" the campaign , we decided it would be fun to push him back to merely a "high-level" Bard for thr time being. We're all about the fun, not the power! If we ever meet at a Con, I'll relate some of his adventures which I'm sure you'll find amusing (especially over ale and pizza---and Doritos!) ;D
|
|