It sounds like some GM's exclude classes because they don't like them. No bards? If the player likes it why not? It's not only the GM's fantasy world.
Gunslingers work fine in the fantasy movie curse of the dragon slayer (although it is a crappy movie)
The Ninja and Samurai can just put on non-oriental clothes and match nearly every campaign (yes even with shurikens, just call them throwing knives)
Ok if you have a medieval France campaign setting it is fair to exclude a tai-chi velociraptor druid/monk.
My point is: as long as the character is willing to make his PC fit the setting of the campaign I see now reason to disallow it, because it is a group fantasy world, not only a GM fantasy world.
(Sometimes gamebreakers would be illegal, like in a 6 men party, I woudn't allow a summoner, and in a party with a paladin, a would't allow an evil character)
|
...
Add to that the fact that a bardic performance is supernatural (and thus has magical properties to compel the audience), it's hardly immersion breaking in a world of wizards and channelers of divine power. Bards, as written, are not mundane--they are closer to sorcerers than rogues.That is probably the most persuasive argument in favor of the bard abilities. You are the first pro-bard person I've heard/seen advance that into the discussion. All I've ever heard is a 6 second performance or inspiring declaration that is supposed to change everything.
I will try to keep the SU aspect in mind the next time Chris goes off on how his amazing sitar riffs inspire us to heroic levels.
For the record, as a strong Bard supporter, I agree with blahpers entirely. Non-magical music or other similar things can certainly give some sort of bonus if done properly (with, say, a Feat or two)...but not nearly as much as Bardic Performance does.
As a player, I might find it strange that the tap dancer over there is such a wonderful tactician that a few words of his babble make me fight better, especially if the player's actual commands most of the time consist of "go over there and hit that guy".You know the bard is literally magical, right? Saying "It doesn't make sense that it would be inspirational" is like saying it doesn't make sense that the Wizard can create a 20 ft sphere of destruction with a couple bat droppings.
Generally speaking, I ban Druids, Summoners and Paragon Surge Sorcerers for simple mechanical/balance reasons, and go from there.You can druids and summoners for balance complaints but leave wizards, witches and clerics? Odd.
You seriously don't see how another person might find that corny?You seriously don't see how the idea that it's somehow "nonsensical" when it's both something that's been done in real life for thousands of years and is literally magic comes across more as 'looking for a reason to be mad' than anything else?
It always warms the heart to see the community gather together and tell one person how they're playing wrong. Good job, guys!
Heaven forbid someone have a different opinion I guess.
It always warms the heart to see the community gather together and tell one person how they're playing wrong. Good job, guys!
Differing opinions are fine, but telling someone they're playing wrong? I think that crosses a line. But then again, that's just my opinion.
Heaven forbid someone have a different opinion I guess.
It always warms the heart to see the community gather together and tell one person how they're playing wrong. Good job, guys!
I know, right? Hopefully others who don't like bards will read this thread and correct their thoughts.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It always warms the heart to see the community gather together and tell one person how they're playing wrong. Good job, guys!
That's not what's being said. Never want to play a Bard? Fine.
On the other hand...by banning Bards from one's games because they are 'too silly' one is telling everyone who plays Bards in serious games that they are doing it wrong, and indeed, forbidding their players from even exploring a very fun and effective class that's only as silly as you make it.
So...I don't think you're quite as firmly in the right on this one as you think you are.
It always warms the heart to see the community gather together and tell one person how they're playing wrong. Good job, guys!That's not what's being said. Never want to play a Bard? Fine.
On the other hand...by banning Bards from one's games because they are 'too silly' one is telling everyone who plays Bards in serious games that they are doing it wrong, and indeed, forbidding their players from even exploring a very fun and effective class that's only as silly as you make it.
So...I don't think you're quite as firmly in the right on this one as you think you are.
Funny, I saw someone say that he didn't like the bard class for reasons. I didn't see him say that anyone who likes bards is silly and playing wrong. Once it was posted that he thinks bards are silly, a number of bard fans jumped in to tell him that he's playing/viewing bards wrong.
I personally don't care one way or the other. When I GM I let people make whatever they want to make. But, I'm not going to tell people that if they view a class in a way that I don't they're doing it wrong.
So, more strawmanning? Well if that floats your boat. You'd probably be better off actually trying to further the discussion rather than just attempting to mock people for saying things you don't like.
Something useful? You mean something like:
You seriously don't see how the idea that it's somehow "nonsensical" when it's both something that's been done in real life for thousands of years and is literally magic comes across more as 'looking for a reason to be mad' than anything else?
I usually put a numerical cap on class types rather then ban them.
In a low magic campaign i ask my players to share a limited number of caster slots. Or limit them to only 1 nine level caster class.
Example slot system:
I give 4 slots.
A 9 level caster class is 3 slots.
A 6 level caster class is 2 slots.
A 4 level caster class is 1 slot.
So a party could include:
A Paladin, Slayer, Ranger and an Oracle.
A Bloodrager, Warpriest, Paladin and a Fighter.
.
Sometimes there is a seperate track for divine casters and Arcane ones, in that system I allow 3 slots for each.
The point that some people make is that the huge bonuses that a bard can give seem a bit over the top for a performance.
Give green, terrified, broken, troops a slight increase in morale? Yes that is reasonable for an inspiring speech or commands. But it isn't going to do much other than annoy experienced elite veteran troops. And PC's (by mid levels) are supposedly beyond all but superheroes, but it is expected to suddenly make them perform better?
Have a war chant that throughout history has presaged great victories and the massacre of the defeated? Yeah ok, that might terrify raw green troops or even upset veteran troops that have experience with that foe. But JimmyJoe over there stands behind the fighters and he does a musical/martial kata so well that veterans (nearly as experienced as the PC's who are superheroes) suddenly lose all control of their bowels? Sorry, no I'm not buying it. It is just too far past my suspension of disbelief.
I can see the argument there but the bard is also supposed to be of that level. They're not supposed to be just singing dixie to keep comrades from running. They're speeches should be able to turn whole cities akin to "Friends, Romans, Countrymen". The fighter can split a mountain with his sword and a bard can convince it to step aside with his words/performance. That all being said silly performances like tapdancing in a serious campaign did always rub me the wrong way.
I allow all classes but I did look pretty hard at some of the new ones. I do have a few races on my ban list but for the most part if my players can provide a good backstory as to why a particular banned race should be in the adventuring party I'll allow them. The only ones I'll outright say no to are any races that get racial hd.
Noob question, I suppose, but here it is: what, exactly, are "racial hd"? How do they differ from any other kind of hd? And what do modern televisions have to do with pathfinder, anyway? :-)
Noob question, I suppose, but here it is: what, exactly, are "racial hd"? How do they differ from any other kind of hd? And what do modern televisions have to do with pathfinder, anyway? :-)
Lol. I don't have a rule book handy so my numbers may not be correct but here is a example. Let's say I want to create a gnoll fighter. A gnoll gets 2d8 racial hit dice then the 1d10 hd for his fighter level on top of that.
How many racial hit dice does a human get?
Why not just rule that if you're going to create a character from a race which is not normally a character race, that character gets no racial hit dice?
How many racial hit dice does a human get?
Why not just rule that if you're going to create a character from a race which is not normally a character race, that character gets no racial hit dice?
Humans like all core classes don't get racial Hd just the class hd. I'm thinking about doing just that actually. I have one player that keeps trying to bring in characters that are monstrous races.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many racial hit dice does a human get?
Why not just rule that if you're going to create a character from a race which is not normally a character race, that character gets no racial hit dice?
Zero.
Because it takes a lot of work on the GM's part to lower the power level of those creatures by removing racial HD. You're essentially creating a custom race when you do that.
Because it takes a lot of work on the GM's part to lower the power level of those creatures by removing racial HD. You're essentially creating a custom race when you do that.
That's the main problem I've run into. It's easy to knock out the extra hd but most these creatures get bonuses and abilities above the typical level 1 character. Any I've derailed this thread enough. Carry on with the class discussion :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funny, I saw someone say that he didn't like the bard class for reasons. I didn't see him say that anyone who likes bards is silly and playing wrong.
Not precisely, but there's certainly an implication in saying Bards are inherently silly, which was said.
Once it was posted that he thinks bards are silly, a number of bard fans jumped in to tell him that he's playing/viewing bards wrong.
Not precisely. My post at least was more "That's a very narrow view of Bards, much like saying a Slayer could never be a sneak-thief, only an assassin. Or any other Class only fill very specific roles." Followed by examples of Bards that broke with that stereotype.
It's not about one way of playing it being wrong, it's about advocating allowing players to play however they'd like without being trapped by the GM's definition of a Class's flavor.
I personally don't care one way or the other. When I GM I let people make whatever they want to make. But, I'm not going to tell people that if they view a class in a way that I don't they're doing it wrong.
Except that that's exactly what people are doing who ban a class because it's 'silly'. They're saying that serious interpretations of the class aren't valid.
Funny, I saw someone say that he didn't like the bard class for reasons. I didn't see him say that anyone who likes bards is silly and playing wrong.Not precisely, but there's certainly an implication in saying Bards are inherently silly, which was said.
Once it was posted that he thinks bards are silly, a number of bard fans jumped in to tell him that he's playing/viewing bards wrong.Not precisely. My post at least was more "That's a very narrow view of Bards, much like saying a Slayer could never be a sneak-thief, only an assassin. Or any other Class only fill very specific roles." Followed by examples of Bards that broke with that stereotype.
It's not about one way of playing it being wrong, it's about advocating allowing players to play however they'd like without being trapped by the GM's definition of a Class's flavor.
I personally don't care one way or the other. When I GM I let people make whatever they want to make. But, I'm not going to tell people that if they view a class in a way that I don't they're doing it wrong.Except that that's exactly what people are doing who ban a class because it's 'silly'. They're saying that serious interpretations of the class aren't valid.
As you're keen on saying, not precisely. You're reading something into it that wasn't said, probably because you have a different opinion of the bard class.
In the interest of not getting this locked by a certain moderator who comes after me often, I'll let the original guy stick up for himself from here on out.
It could be a testimont to both camps being correct; but I always play Bards who rely on no instruments, and even then, tend to stick to Oratory and Dance, at most.
That being said; if you'd ban bard; you could always allow the Archetype archeologist. With that archetype, I've made a force + sonic vibration specialist thief who grimly hunts for the reason his family destroyed itself. No silly giggles involved, and yet my favored class is still: Bard. The only music I make, is Pain.
That being said for Performance though; PCs are still (most of them anyway), mortals who reach highs and lows in their lives. It could be presumed that a character is always at an emotional medium, until Shaken, and Morale bonuses come into play. After all; When you are in good spirits, feeling ready for anything, you DO perform physically, and mentally better.
Bards forcibly confer these conditions on others. They use their performance to bend your mind, in numerous ways.
Like any magical archetype in fantasy, It's a tradition, as 'silly' or 'acceptable' as a student who traces pictures, and formulae to bend the laws of nature. Afterall, music and sound is said to have it's own spiritual significance.
|
|
As you're keen on saying, not precisely. You're reading something into it that wasn't said, probably because you have a different opinion of the bard class.
Eh. Maybe so, but if it wasn't intended, that's still the way it came across to me and several others. A "that's not what I meant at all" post would be sufficient to dispel that, but until then, I have to go with responding to what was actually said.
In the interest of not getting this locked by a certain moderator who comes after me often, I'll let the original guy stick up for himself from here on out.
Uh...noted, I guess.
I guess now would probably be a good time to note that I have serious mechanical issues with Bards which are completely separate from flavor issues I have with the class. Simply put: the D&D/PF social skills system is badly broken, and the Bard is the worst offender in exploiting the weaknesses in that system. I don't guess I should have to come up with examples for some of the ridiculous Diplomacy or Bluff bonuses a well-build Bard can come up with - bonuses which, if not controlled by Rule 0 (always the sign of a poor design decision), simply break the game by making the whole universe love, worship, and implicitly trust the Bard.
Also troubling to me is the idea of players building a Bard and then deciding "I'm going to be the party face". Social interaction is a good 50% of my games, sometimes more, and I can't abide by any one PC hugely overshadowing the rest in that field. I find that Bard PCs tend to do just that, often to the point that it saps the fun out of social situations for the other players.
|
|
I guess now would probably be a good time to note that I have serious mechanical issues with Bards which are completely separate from flavor issues I have with the class. Simply put: the D&D/PF social skills system is badly broken, and the Bard is the worst offender in exploiting the weaknesses in that system. I don't guess I should have to come up with examples for some of the ridiculous Diplomacy or Bluff bonuses a well-build Bard can come up with - bonuses which, if not controlled by Rule 0 (always the sign of a poor design decision), simply break the game by making the whole universe love, worship, and implicitly trust the Bard.
Also troubling to me is the idea of players building a Bard and then deciding "I'm going to be the party face". Social interaction is a good 50% of my games, sometimes more, and I can't abide by any one PC hugely overshadowing the rest in that field. I find that Bard PCs tend to do just that, often to the point that it saps the fun out of social situations for the other players.
Okay, see, I feel like that's pretty reasonable. I haven't actually had either problem personally, but I can see where they could easily be distinct issues in some games with some players.
For the first problem, I'd probably suggest overhauling how social skills work rather than singling out the Bard, but then the Orc Barbarian in my current game has maxed out Diplomacy, so I suspect my group's not typical in regards to how they interact with social skills.
You can druids and summoners for balance complaints but leave wizards, witches and clerics? Odd.
Wizards and clerics are staples of the genre. The game would simply be unrecognizable without them in it. Witches...meh, haven't had any bad experiences with them yet.
As the game gets into the mid-to-high levels, the biggest imbalance on the combat side is casters overshadowing martials, and the biggest problems in this space come from summoning spells and casters who can magically tank better than the best martial. The Summoner and Druid are, in my experience, the two worst offenders on this front.
But yes, I do restrict the power of wizards and clerics through house rules.
Okay, see, I feel like that's pretty reasonable. I haven't actually had either problem personally, but I can see where they could easily be distinct issues in some games with some players.
For the first problem, I'd probably suggest overhauling how social skills work rather than singling out the Bard, but then the Orc Barbarian in my current game has maxed out Diplomacy, so I suspect my group's not typical in regards to how they interact with social skills.
Rehabilitating the game's social skills system is not easy. I have toyed with completely removing the social skills from the game and just letting the players try to convince the NPCs as best they can, but I think this is perilous, and would require an awful lot of fudging.
Thus far, I have found that simply imposing bigger than Core-suggested modifiers (both positive and negative) on social interactions and not letting any PC have godly social skills works in most cases.