The Bard Grievance Thread


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 290 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My opinion disagrees with that of the OP.

I've played a few bards.

One was a goblin juggler/comedy act who juggled knives and "accidentally" hit enemies. Or one time he pants'd the enemy cleric, also taking down his potion belt which ruined his day (hooray for Dirty Trick). BTW that cleric's day was short lived when, unable to run with his pants around his ankles and unable to reach his potion belt without an AOO, he changed his career to that of a weapon rack.

Another was a bardic pirate named Glibbon, who sang. He would sing about how violent and fearsome his comrades were, about all the carnage they've done (highly exaggerated of course) and how their enemies would die horribly and graphically. All while fighting and such, of course.
"Your blood will soak the ground... your family's hearts will shatter when daddy never comes hooooome... it you'r misfortune to meet the bringers of death and dooooom! ... we are machines of waaaar.... we've butchered legions and leave broken, MANGLED bodies in our waaaake... but you can run, RUN RUN!!! ..... and die tired."


thegreenteagamer wrote:
I have literally played in and GM'd games like that. It's not the entirety of my experience, but roughly...oh, 30% of the games I've played in.

So let me get this straight, tgtg...you don't like me trying to define what is "proper D&D", but you're perfectly willing to lecture me on what good GMing is, eh? Booooo....

Dark Archive

the secret fire wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
I have literally played in and GM'd games like that. It's not the entirety of my experience, but roughly...oh, 30% of the games I've played in.
So let me get this straight, tgtg...you don't like me trying to define what is "proper D&D", but you're perfectly willing to lecture me on what good GMing is, eh? Booooo....

I think you're both being silly and neither of you are contributing meaningfully. There are pros and cons to either side and you're both pretty much just pointing the finger and saying, "Nuh uh, he's wrong!"

Much like the OP, really, and that's not a place you want to be.


Seranov wrote:
I think you're both being silly and neither of you are contributing meaningfully.

I think you should try reading for content.


RDM42 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

It's very easy (and, I'd say, appropriate) for the GM to add a few restrictions for purposes of flavor. For example, maybe visual performances are inherently distracting to watch, so Perform (Dance) is not a good idea for party buffs, but perfectly reasonable for Fascinate.

And I would probably not allow Bardic Inspiration to be done with Perform (Comedy) in any game that had a very serious tone because it would break the mood.

Comedy can be the three stooges. It can also be Mark Twain, Swift, Satire and an incisive understanding of human namture and psychological weak points and how they can be used to good effect.

I guess I can see how that could be done. I admit I wasn't really considering satire because the mythical bardic satire ability is so far from what we usually consider comedy today that it should probably have been a separate Perform skill.

However, if a player's idea of Perform (Comedy) is channeling Daffy Duck in the middle of a Ravenloft campaign, I reserve the right as GM to forbid it.


JoeJ wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

It's very easy (and, I'd say, appropriate) for the GM to add a few restrictions for purposes of flavor. For example, maybe visual performances are inherently distracting to watch, so Perform (Dance) is not a good idea for party buffs, but perfectly reasonable for Fascinate.

And I would probably not allow Bardic Inspiration to be done with Perform (Comedy) in any game that had a very serious tone because it would break the mood.

Comedy can be the three stooges. It can also be Mark Twain, Swift, Satire and an incisive understanding of human namture and psychological weak points and how they can be used to good effect.

I guess I can see how that could be done. I admit I wasn't really considering satire because the mythical bardic satire ability is so far from what we usually consider comedy today that it should probably have been a separate Perform skill.

However, if a player's idea of Perform (Comedy) is channeling Daffy Duck in the middle of a Ravenloft campaign, I reserve the right as GM to forbid it.

You mean if someone is disruptive they should stop it? Well. Yeah.

But a good comic has very keen insight into human nature. Also note that the bard is not actually making a performance check other than in coutersong. So even if his ability is perform, sing, he isn't neccesarily singing. Its a magical ability. He may be using hs skill to shape it, but ...


Quite bluntly, slapstick isn't the only form of comedy around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:

It simply sounds like you are good at social situations. Many people are not.

You require your players to be the center of attention to 4-6 of his or her friends. Or, maybe not friends. Maybe just six people they get together with on occasion but just met.

Well, I am definitely in the "not everybody should be the party face" camp. The thing is...D&D is inherently a social game. The players are constantly "using their social skills" while sitting around the table. If we take the social aspect of the game and reduce it to a die roll, then what we have left is a board game.

Imagine a whole party full of fully inarticulate people who are wholly disinterested in actually roleplaying encounters with NPCs. They could navigate social situations thus:

"The guard says you need a pass to get in."

"I bluff him...16+13...a 29 on my roll."

"Ok, the guard lets you by. You are now in the lord's council chamber. The council is in session, and look shocked to see you."

"I diplomacy them...7+15...a 22 on my roll."

"Ok...they will listen to what you have to say."

"I say we need help with the Orcs."

"Ok, they will give you 20 men for the mission."

"Ok. We leave."

------------------------------------------------------

This is what you get playing Baldur's Gate, not proper D&D. Players who are unwilling or unable to actually roleplay social interactions suck the life out of the game when they substitute die rolls for actually "acting it out" with NPCs.

Hey, life's tough. Not everybody was born to be the party face.

I am going to swing my sword at this guy...

Ok I roll a 22 to hit?

I hit? Cool... thats.... 22 damage...

Oh! and lets not forget the:

Hm? Guard not letting me through? Ok... make a will save... Rolled a 24? Cool... DC was 36. Ok moving along....

S


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Inspire Courage with Perform: Oratory.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
JoeJ wrote:
However, if a player's idea of Perform (Comedy) is channeling Daffy Duck in the middle of a Ravenloft campaign, I reserve the right as GM to forbid it.

So would you also forbid a player to make in-character jokes that have no mechanical effect?


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
RDM42 wrote:
Quite bluntly, slapstick isn't the only form of comedy around.

True, but something that seems no longer to be known in Hollywood these days.


Zaister wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
However, if a player's idea of Perform (Comedy) is channeling Daffy Duck in the middle of a Ravenloft campaign, I reserve the right as GM to forbid it.
So would you also forbid a player to make in-character jokes that have no mechanical effect?

There is an important difference. A non-mechanical joke can be whatever it wants to be. It's just words. But a Bardic performance of Oratory (Comedy) must be believable, on some level, if it is not to seem silly or out of context.

Say you're using Oratory (Comedy) to fascinate an enormous, ancient troll who is ready to tear you limb from limb. Let's say you now launch into a Jerry Seinfeld routine. While I might find it funny, and you might find it funny, I have a really hard time believing that mr troll would find it funny.

But...but...they're magic jokes, you say. Yeah, that really helps my suspension of disbelief. Now it's magical goofiness that is supposed to tame the snarling beast. People can play however they want and I have seen the class played well, but with the Bard it is very easy for the flavor of the performances to be both out of synch with the flavor of the campaign and immersion-breaking, all at once. I am sort of mystified that more people don't seem to grasp this.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Comedy need not be goofiness. Anyway, you can't use bardic perfomance to fascinate an opponent in combat anyway, so your troll example is moot.


Zaister wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Quite bluntly, slapstick isn't the only form of comedy around.
True, but something that seems no longer to be known in Hollywood these days.

And why is hollywierd relevant?


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
RDM42 wrote:
Zaister wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Quite bluntly, slapstick isn't the only form of comedy around.
True, but something that seems no longer to be known in Hollywood these days.
And why is hollywierd relevant?

Because it imprints its customs on its audience, and thus many people can no longer envision any other kind of comedy.


Zaister wrote:
Comedy need not be goofiness. Anyway, you can't use bardic perfomance to fascinate an opponent in combat anyway, so your troll example is moot.

First of all, I didn't say you were in combat. Just because a troll is ready to eat you doesn't mean you are automatically in combat. Trolls are always ready to eat you.

Second, the main point, which you seem to be trying really hard not to get, is that the comedy can be goofiness as there are no guidelines, whatsoever, regarding the content of the performance. This is specifically what JJ was saying he would disallow if it didn't jive with the setting - not all Bardic performance, but the goofy kind.

I'll take your bait, though. Give me an example of a comedy routine (no, sorry...a magical comedy routine) you think would both stop a troll from eating you and not be completely out of place in a gritty setting like Ravenloft.

Please remember that, by definition, the troll would have to understand your routine as fascinate has an auditory component and performances with auditory components are language-based, so the meaning of the jokes is actually relevant here.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm not giving you an example, because bardic performance cannot do what you are describing.

And if it could, I couldn't give an example, because I'm not a comedian.

I don't want to judge wan anybody is allowing or not allowing in their campaign, it just sometimes seem rather arbitrary.


Zaister wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
However, if a player's idea of Perform (Comedy) is channeling Daffy Duck in the middle of a Ravenloft campaign, I reserve the right as GM to forbid it.
So would you also forbid a player to make in-character jokes that have no mechanical effect?

That depends. Which jokes? And in what context? If one player is interfering with everybody else enjoying a good horror game, I will ask them not to do that.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
JoeJ wrote:
That depends. Which jokes? And in what context? If one player is interfering with everybody else enjoying a good horror game, I will ask them not to do that.

Guess I wouldn't want to play in your campaign then, with a GM that mandates how I'd have to roleplay my character. But if your players are OK with that, that's fine.


Zaister wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
That depends. Which jokes? And in what context? If one player is interfering with everybody else enjoying a good horror game, I will ask them not to do that.
Guess I wouldn't want to play in your campaign then, with a GM that mandates how I'd have to roleplay my character. But if your players are OK with that, that's fine.

This is just a hunch, but I'm guessing the GM and rest of the players would be just as happy to not have you there if you couldn't bear to get into the mood of the game.


Zaister wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
That depends. Which jokes? And in what context? If one player is interfering with everybody else enjoying a good horror game, I will ask them not to do that.
Guess I wouldn't want to play in your campaign then, with a GM that mandates how I'd have to roleplay my character. But if your players are OK with that, that's fine.

If you're not interested in playing the same game as the rest of us, then it's probably for the best if you're not there.


Zaister wrote:
I'm not giving you an example, because bardic performance cannot do what you are describing.

Of course it can. If you can get the troll to watch the performance before entering combat with it or threatening it, of course you can fascinate the stupid thing. Page 37 of Core.


Physically Unfeasible wrote:
To the Mary Sue thing - I just don't see that either. Sure, the Bard solves most skill challenges, but the battle skills and tone suggest a support character. With Mary Sue being, in its origins, a power-play/self-insertion - I just do not see it. Who Mary Sues as Luigi when Mario is an option?

The accusation of Mary Sue in regards to the Bard class probably revolves around the fact that the Bard is the clearest "everybody loves me" class in the game. To the extent that you think this particular form of power would be more attractive to Mary Sues, I can see the argument, though I do not find it compelling. Mary Sues comes in all stripes, as far as I can tell.


the secret fire wrote:
Physically Unfeasible wrote:
To the Mary Sue thing - I just don't see that either. Sure, the Bard solves most skill challenges, but the battle skills and tone suggest a support character. With Mary Sue being, in its origins, a power-play/self-insertion - I just do not see it. Who Mary Sues as Luigi when Mario is an option?
The accusation of Mary Sue in regards to the Bard class probably revolves around the fact that the Bard is the clearest "everybody loves me" class in the game. To the extent that you think this particular form of power would be more attractive to Mary Sues, I can see the argument, though I do not find it compelling. Mary Sues comes in all stripes, as far as I can tell.

You're right with this, really. But I just think Paladin works far better if you want the ultimate "I am the amazing-est, loveliest, strongest!" power-trip. Heck, your class has it written in that you're a paragon of goodness that people should strive to!

EntrerisShadow wrote:

Ironically, you kind of made my point right above that. Women and gay people have always existed in cultures as well, however they were treated. But so many GMs say, "Well this is medieval Europe, so no female characters! You'd be at home doing chores and servicing the menfolk!", or "You have to be a white character - people of other races wouldn't be accepted by the rest of the party/quest givers!"

Obviously that's especially ridiculous when playing in a completely made-up world, but even if you were to be running a game meant to take place in medieval Europe it's still an incredibly weak justification for sexism/homophobia/racism/whatever.

To be honest, it's on stuff like that to which I have to visit G.R.R Martin's work. Since in A Song of Ice and Fire, yes - women are second-class citizens. But then see all such female characters who exert positions of authority de facto, even if not de jure. Let alone the mythos of say, Joan-of-Arc, Amazons, and the fact that Mulan is ancient as a story. You can hardly say female warriors don't exist in real history either.

Let alone, a GM who said to me "In this setting, you must play a flibble because flibbles are the dominant group/culture", I'd scoff! Why tell me that there is a potentially huge swath of RP out there by being an underdog that constantly strives to prove their value then say "but you must engage in an assertion of the dominance of flibbles by playing one that saves the day." That's just...boring! And when it is something more directly extant in real-world politics (rather than a made-up concept (flibble is quite fun to say, I found writing this)), it strikes as a tactic encouragement that the dominant normative is best. That does, and should set off alarm bells.


Fascinate doesn't use a Perform though. If I'm going to Fascinate a troll it's going to be by jingling my keys and waving them around. Or something else shiny, maybe a necklace.

The only two performances that use Perform are Countersong and Distraction. The only one you can use Perform (Comedy) on is Distraction. So, make a few wisecracks to your friends to distract them from the Illusion.

And again, in the Grimdark Darkness of Grim that is Warhammer 40k there's a whole group of people in the army of Man whose job it is to keep up morale and inspire their men. Now, the average Commissar uses Perform (Summary Execution) to inspire his men, but they can use Oratory or even Comedy. They might be better as a warlord in 4e, but in Pathfinder they're all bard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Physically Unfeasible wrote:
the secret fire wrote:
Physically Unfeasible wrote:
To the Mary Sue thing - I just don't see that either. Sure, the Bard solves most skill challenges, but the battle skills and tone suggest a support character. With Mary Sue being, in its origins, a power-play/self-insertion - I just do not see it. Who Mary Sues as Luigi when Mario is an option?
The accusation of Mary Sue in regards to the Bard class probably revolves around the fact that the Bard is the clearest "everybody loves me" class in the game. To the extent that you think this particular form of power would be more attractive to Mary Sues, I can see the argument, though I do not find it compelling. Mary Sues comes in all stripes, as far as I can tell.
You're right with this, really. But I just think Paladin works far better if you want the ultimate "I am the amazing-est, loveliest, strongest!" power-trip. Heck, your class has it written in that you're a paragon of goodness that people should strive to!

The most mary-sueist class of them all is either the Wizard or the Arcanist. They can make people love them, they can smite people with meteors from the heavens, and they can assume any "inner animal" form that they desire. And they don't need to justify any of those abilities at all, because magic.

Heck, Arcanists can get a super-special talking katana if they want one.


Bob Bob Bob wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

I'm saying that a Bard using Perform (Comedy) can be done just as seriously as those equally silly things. If one of them can be seriously, they all can.

Show me that it can.

Ciaphas Cain, holding off a monster he can't actually beat in combat while someone else lines up a kill shot:

Traitor's Hand wrote:

Cain: I thought the acolytes of Khorne were supposed to be warriors, not a bunch of pansies.

(a rather frustrated) Khorne Berserker: I'll feed you your own entrails!
Cain: Like I've never heard that one before...
And if you think that's not a serious story, you've never seen Warhammer 40k.

I'm sorry, I have no idea who that is. Was this doing something that could reasonably be considered a bardic performance in PF terms? You're certainly right about my not being familiar with Warhammer 40k. All I know is that it's a miniatures game with some (in my opinion) very silly figures.

Just to be clear, I don't agree with the OP. I like bards, I just expect player characters of any class to fit aesthetically into the world.

His role in the military is Commissar, morale officers outside the structure of the normal army and assigned to regiments to enforce discipline. Usually by murdering 10% of the regiment if they don't get in line fast enough. There's also ones that give inspiring speeches, threaten violence, etc. In this specific case he's using inspire courage so he doesn't flee in terror (he's kind of a coward) and so the rest of the unit sticks around and actually gets the kill on the Berzerker. He's presumably also helping them aim by keeping the Berzerker off-balance and angry.

All you need to know about Warhammer 40k is that the "nicest" race mass murders anyone who doesn't follow their religion, anyone who knows anything about other races, and most of their own people in suicidal charges. The rest are... worse. Much worse.

I don't know when this post was posted and I don't really care. I have but one thing to say:

Necrons with googly-eyes:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/p417x417/10 471086_348222108664087_2408099850191463322_n.jpg?oh=f7bc6dd44cbab5d8efbd610 cdbe6fa77&oe=549A90D6&__gda__=1417875430_02b432322e462a3519e4711131 298a6d

(hope this works)


nope. :(
Damnit. It's funny as anything you've ever seen.


Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Fascinate doesn't use a Perform though. If I'm going to Fascinate a troll it's going to be by jingling my keys and waving them around. Or something else shiny, maybe a necklace.

Whether or not a use of a Bardic performance requires a Perform skill check is irrelevant; it is still a performance. The special effect is that the Bard is performing, which can be anything. If you want to jingle your keys to fascinate a troll, I'd say good, that's an appropriate way to achieve your ends, but there's nothing stopping you from creating the same effect with a Seinfeld routine, and that is just the problem.


Now, inline with the actual thread.
I have problems with the bard but it has nothing to do with the performance issues everyone has been talking about.

I have issue with the bard spell list.

I know the "back in the day" argument is kind of crap, but here goes anyway.

The bard used to be a Jack-of-all-Trades, a little fighting ability, a little thief ability, and a little magic ability. Not really a powerhouse at anything but good support for any other class. With the d20 combat system they can still do a little bit of fighting, and the skill system allows them to do their little bit of thievery, but their casting got trashed.

When AD&D was updated to the new d20 system and everything got an overhaul they threw out the bard spell casting in favor of something useless. Bards used to cast like Wizards, need spell books, intelligence, but max out at 6th level spells. So if you were playing a bard you could replace a wizard's versatility in the party so long as you made good spell choices.

With the d20 system you were put on a spell list that does illusion and enchantment spells with a few healing spells thrown in for some reason I still cannot fathom.

The 'new' list does not offer the versatility that was the idea behind the previous edition of the bard. Most players that played bards now, even without having played the previous edition of the bard, that I have played with forgo nearly all spell casting because most of the spells are useless without the bang of higher BAB or AoE damaging spells. Usually they just fill all their slots with the cure spells and call it a day. Not really what I and the people I've played with would call a "Jack-of-all-Trades" anymore.


the secret fire wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Fascinate doesn't use a Perform though. If I'm going to Fascinate a troll it's going to be by jingling my keys and waving them around. Or something else shiny, maybe a necklace.
Whether or not a use of a Bardic performance requires a Perform skill check is irrelevant; it is still a performance. The special effect is that the Bard is performing, which can be anything. If you want to jingle your keys to fascinate a troll, I'd say good, that's an appropriate way to achieve your ends, but there's nothing stopping you from creating the same effect with a Seinfeld routine, and that is just the problem.

No, you can't do it with a Seinfeld routine. You need both audible and visual components, so you can make the audible components a Seinfeld routine while the visual component is you waving a pendulum back and forth or something. Either way it doesn't matter, this is pure fluff. The only way to prevent this from happening is to restrict how the class is allowed to do things, heavily curtailing player freedom to refluff. Do you include the exact words and hand gestures for every spell? Is every longsword the exact same sword design, down to the hilt and handguard? Because that sounds boring as @#$%.

And as to the bard casting as a wizard, I didn't think so. I thought he was originally based on the druid, which is why he still has cure light wounds on his list.


CigarSmoker wrote:

Now, inline with the actual thread.

I have problems with the bard but it has nothing to do with the performance issues everyone has been talking about.

I have issue with the bard spell list.

I know the "back in the day" argument is kind of crap, but here goes anyway.

The bard used to be a Jack-of-all-Trades, a little fighting ability, a little thief ability, and a little magic ability. Not really a powerhouse at anything but good support for any other class. With the d20 combat system they can still do a little bit of fighting, and the skill system allows them to do their little bit of thievery, but their casting got trashed.

When AD&D was updated to the new d20 system and everything got an overhaul they threw out the bard spell casting in favor of something useless. Bards used to cast like Wizards, need spell books, intelligence, but max out at 6th level spells. So if you were playing a bard you could replace a wizard's versatility in the party so long as you made good spell choices.

With the d20 system you were put on a spell list that does illusion and enchantment spells with a few healing spells thrown in for some reason I still cannot fathom.

The 'new' list does not offer the versatility that was the idea behind the previous edition of the bard. Most players that played bards now, even without having played the previous edition of the bard, that I have played with forgo nearly all spell casting because most of the spells are useless without the bang of higher BAB or AoE damaging spells. Usually they just fill all their slots with the cure spells and call it a day. Not really what I and the people I've played with would call a "Jack-of-all-Trades" anymore.

I'd hate to say anyone is playing the game wrong, but... seriously? Only heals? No haste or good hope? Those are some of the most important spells on the bard spell list in my little world where every bard's goal is to make the frontliners extra amazing.

101 to 150 of 290 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Bard Grievance Thread All Messageboards