Wait, I played a dwarven bard back in 2E. Trust me when I say he was anything but stereotypical - he was the world's first, if not only, metrosexual dwarf. Does this mean I have to pay myself a million dollars?
Were dwarf bards even allowed in 2e?
|
Were dwarf bards even allowed in 2e?
Wait, I played a dwarven bard back in 2E. Trust me when I say he was anything but stereotypical - he was the world's first, if not only, metrosexual dwarf. Does this mean I have to pay myself a million dollars?
Yep, sure were. The rules for dwarven, halfling, and gnome bards were in 2E's Complete Bard's Handbook. The core book disallowed such choices, but they were added here along with a host of variant bards which significantly altered the core bard class' powers and abilities. You can really see the beginnings of a few key 3E concepts here, such as the concept of prestige classes, opening all classes to all races, and even the evasion ability.
The book is a must read for any bard fan, or D&D historian. It's hands down one of the best books of 2E's Complete series.
Were dwarf bards even allowed in 2e?
Wait, I played a dwarven bard back in 2E. Trust me when I say he was anything but stereotypical - he was the world's first, if not only, metrosexual dwarf. Does this mean I have to pay myself a million dollars?Yep, sure were. The rules for dwarven, halfling, and gnome bards were in 2E's Complete Bard's Handbook. The core book disallowed such choices, but they were added here along with a host of variant bards which significantly altered the core bard class' powers and abilities. You can really see the beginnings of a few key 3E concepts here, such as the concept of prestige classes, opening all classes to all races, and even the evasion ability.
The book is a must read for any bard fan, or D&D historian. It's hands down one of the best books of 2E's Complete series.
I still with foundness recall my halfling whistler.....what a great bard he was to play.
|
|
I still with foundness recall my halfling whistler.....what a great bard he was to play.Were dwarf bards even allowed in 2e?
Wait, I played a dwarven bard back in 2E. Trust me when I say he was anything but stereotypical - he was the world's first, if not only, metrosexual dwarf. Does this mean I have to pay myself a million dollars?Yep, sure were. The rules for dwarven, halfling, and gnome bards were in 2E's Complete Bard's Handbook. The core book disallowed such choices, but they were added here along with a host of variant bards which significantly altered the core bard class' powers and abilities. You can really see the beginnings of a few key 3E concepts here, such as the concept of prestige classes, opening all classes to all races, and even the evasion ability.
The book is a must read for any bard fan, or D&D historian. It's hands down one of the best books of 2E's Complete series.
Amen, brother Thurgon. My dwarven chanter was always a favorite.
Is anybody else really looking forward to the bard preview?
Yep, sure were. The rules for dwarven, halfling, and gnome bards were in 2E's Complete Bard's Handbook.
Weren't there rules for elven bards in the elf book?
How I love the old "choices cost extra" philosophy. And by "love" I mean "hate like poison" ;-P
One of the main points I love about 3e: Everyone can play every core class. Of course, there was plenty of extra rules to sell you, but those were more mechanical options, not roleplaying options.
Is anybody else really looking forward to the bard preview?
Oh yes! I'm playing a bard right now. Pathfinder made them usable again, and I think they will get even better in the final game. I love the new and improved bardic knowledge, that bards get new bardic performance abilities, jack-of-all-trades and a few more spells.
My predictions:
|
|
How I love the old "choices cost extra" philosophy. And by "love" I mean "hate like poison" ;-P
One of the main points I love about 3e: Everyone can play every core class. Of course, there was plenty of extra rules to sell you, but those were more mechanical options, not roleplaying options.
It was more of a "developing of new ideas" than a "let's gouge people for money thing". Way back in the olden days of D&D, playing non-stereotypical characters was a new concept. When we started, all elves were fighter/mages, all halflings were thieves, all gnome were illusionists, and all partially-shaved ewoks were fighters with axes. 2E started stressing and breaking these molds, leading eventually to the 3E racial and class choices we know and love.
As far as roleplaying options, many of the 2E Complete books (and particularly the Bard one), gave you oodles of roleplaying possibilities. Heck, the Bard book had a section on developing your bard's personality and personal quirks. The Bard options screamed cool role playing options: why be a simple singing bard, when you could be a dexterous and acrobatic Jongleur, or a Blade, the master of weapon display, or even a Gypsy, a mystic fortune teller. BTW - none of these alternate bards relied on singing for their inspirational abilities! Jongleurs tumbled, Blades spun weapons in mesmerizing arcs, and Gypsies danced.
Is anybody else really looking forward to the bard preview?Oh yes! I'm playing a bard right now. Pathfinder made them usable again, and I think they will get even better in the final game. I love the new and improved bardic knowledge, that bards get new bardic performance abilities, jack-of-all-trades and a few more spells.
My predictions:
Jack of all trades will be split, the individual abilities be made available earlier.
A change to how performance types and available bardic performances are linked
Maybe a the way bardic suggestion works (so it isn't limited to non-combat situations any more)
More text spelling out that no bardic abilities (spells, bardic performance...) is tied to music. Oratory bard spells will work. This could go as far as saying that performance type XYZ needs a verbal component (singing, speaking), some a somatic component (dancing), some a focus in the form of an instrument (any instrumental work), and that you can ignore the other components but get some small bonus if you use more than one type (sing and dance for +1 DC maybe).
More bardic performance at low levels
To properly portray skald characters, the bard will get full BAB, d12 hd, and strong fort save in addition to everything else. (Just kidding)
I think you are on the right track with most of these predictions (barring the skald one). The bardic reliance on different type of performance for their abilities (and spellcasting) would be a welcome return. One not seen since the 2E Complete Bard's Handbook.
On a side note, anybody else notice that we're in the Harsk the Ranger preview thread? I think I may be personally responsible for derailing this thread twice (once with partially-shaved ewoks, and again with bards). Once would be a derailment from my own derailment. Do I get bonus points for that?
It was more of a "developing of new ideas" than a "let's gouge people for money thing".
It felt like that to me - of course, the first rulebook I read was 3e (though that wasn't quite the first I got of D&D - there were games like Baldur's Gate before that).
It just feels weird that you put in restrictions in the core rules, and then have extra books where you get "options" to circumvent those restrictions. I'm sure someone thought about dropping the restrictions before.
Well, anyway, let's wait for bards!
BTW - none of these alternate bards relied on singing for their inspirational abilities! Jongleurs tumbled, Blades spun weapons in mesmerizing arcs, and Gypsies danced.
I'm still surprised they didn't make bards more open in 3e. Luckily, it looks very much like PF fixes this. One of many steps in the right direction. (I almost cannot wait for PF 2e)
I think you are on the right track with most of these predictions (barring the skald one).
You think? I have the biggest bet on that one ;-)
The bardic reliance on different type of performance for their abilities (and spellcasting) would be a welcome return. One not seen since the 2E Complete Bard's Handbook.
Well, I know I suggested stuff like that repeatedly, and Jason and I seemed to be pretty much on the train of thought regarding the bard.
|
|
It was more of a "developing of new ideas" than a "let's gouge people for money thing".It felt like that to me - of course, the first rulebook I read was 3e (though that wasn't quite the first I got of D&D - there were games like Baldur's Gate before that).
It just feels weird that you put in restrictions in the core rules, and then have extra books where you get "options" to circumvent those restrictions. I'm sure someone thought about dropping the restrictions before.
Well, anyway, let's wait for bards!
It seems weird looking through the perspective of 3E, but it was a natural growth in the game at the time. Way back in 1E D&D, the class restrictions for each race weren't really seen as a restriction - but more of a way of helping each race gain identity and uniqueness. It wasn't until year's later, after the race and class links had been strongly established, that we began asking those "why can't race x be class x" questions. 2E D&D began to explore those questions.
Of course, the bard is a complicated case. In 1E D&D, the bard was effectively the first prestige class, requiring levels in fighter, druid, and thief(rogue)before you could take levels in bard. It was originally restricted to humans and half-elves. This restriction carried over to 2E D&D, which made the bard a base class.
I'm still surprised they didn't make bards more open in 3e. Luckily, it looks very much like PF fixes this. One of many steps in the right direction. (I almost cannot wait for PF 2e)
BTW - none of these alternate bards relied on singing for their inspirational abilities! Jongleurs tumbled, Blades spun weapons in mesmerizing arcs, and Gypsies danced.
We should be thankful we have a 3E Bard at all. I recall several articles (and playtest discussion), where the bard was going to left out of 3E entirely. Only after a letter (and email) campaign did the bard survive. At that point, I was happy to even have the class in the game!
Interestingly enough, I believe this is how the monk made it in as well, since the class missed out on 2E D&D entirely. Possibly why it has been a second class class for much of 3E.
Hooray Bards!
We should be thankful we have a 3E Bard at all. I recall several articles (and playtest discussion), where the bard was going to left out of 3E entirely. Only after a letter (and email) campaign did the bard survive. At...I'm still surprised they didn't make bards more open in 3e. Luckily, it looks very much like PF fixes this. One of many steps in the right direction. (I almost cannot wait for PF 2e)
BTW - none of these alternate bards relied on singing for their inspirational abilities! Jongleurs tumbled, Blades spun weapons in mesmerizing arcs, and Gypsies danced.
I remember at least one of those articles. Sorc was also mentioned as a player-demanded class. I got the impression that the author [whom I don't remember] would have cheerfully dumped all three in spite of the player requests. I got the same feel from some of the articles leading up to 4e saying the problem with 3.x was too much player freedoms and choices. That apparent attitude by WotC was what brought me here. [sorry about the 4e slam] Wierd, that. I was more turned off by the presentation than the game.
Hm, perhaps, instead of PrCs we could hark back to 2e and play with the current stuff...I love the feat trees in SWSE. Something like that to provide variants to the core classes might just be better ... and more fun ... than tons of new classes both base and PrC. You can never have too many choices when building a character.
Wasn't the sorcerer a new creation for 3.0?
4.0's "we're taking away your options" schtick was one of my major turn offs with the game, too.
I got the same feel from some of the articles leading up to 4e saying the problem with 3.x was too much player freedoms and choices.
Yeah! What crappy game is it when players get to decide what they want to play? Be a productive part of the Collective and do what you're told! Play what you're told, like what you're told, buy what you're told. Your brain will last a lot longer if it isn't constantly stressed by thinking.
;-)
As an advocate of the Maelstrom, I am, of course, all for Choice. Play what you want! Restrictions are for computer games, we put an extra guy behind the GM screen for a reason!