Search Posts
Expanded Bond seems like it would be okay. An ability at -5 character level seems sufficiently weakened. "Expanded" is a little confusing though. I would call it "Aditional Bond" and let it apply to all of the bond-ing classes. Perfect Bond sounds too powerful at the price of only two feats. It shouldn't be at more than -2 or -3 effective level.
I just read through this for the first time. That's a really good system.
As I stated above, I'm in favor of Brother Willi's proposal to remove jumping from Acrobatics and combine it with Climb. I'm not in favor of adding Swim, though. Although it is another strength-based athelitc skill, there's a good mechanical reason why not. There are three skills that correlate directly to a movement type: Climb, Fly, and Swim. Each of these types of movement requires checks to pull certain things off--combat while moving in that way, stunts, difficult situation, etc. Like the example of Tritons above, even creatures that posses a natural movement speed in one of these must still take ranks in the related skill to make such checks (although they probably also recieve a racial bonus). Combining Swim and Climb would combine two of the three movement types, and is not desirable. Adding jump to climb seems pretty harmless, though. Many to most creatures that are good climbers are also strong jumpers anyway. In the cases that aren't, it's just one of those times where you sacrifice a little reality for a smoother game.
I don't want to be the guy who shoots everything down, but again, I feel like there are existing rules in places to deal with these sorts of things. The DC on a Knowledge (Religion) check should just be lower if it's your own religion, no bonuses needed. The other example, diplomacy, is a textbook case for the +2 favorable situation modifier. Trying to influence a co-religionist? +2 situational modifier. You're both clergy, and you outrank him? Another +2. Trying to convince a parishoner of a competing god's temple to help you out? -2. Similarly, if a PC was clearly chracterized as being a Soliciter and had ranks in Profession (Law), I would grant him a +2 when dealing with others of the legal profession. (The point here being that lawyer is not a character class, but an aspect of roleplay). In any case, whether character class or established characterization, the character shouldn't have to make a profession check to gain the benefits of being what he is. Only when actually performing the profession.
My current campaign takes place in a world of airships and islands floating in the void. We make frequent use of Profession (Sailor) in tacking ships for storms, maneuvering in aerial ship to ship combat, and the like. My character, the ship's physician, is a scholarly druid. (It's all very Master & Commander, but in the sky and with magic.) His approach to medicine is very plant-heavy, so he has ranks in Profession (Herbalist) in addition to Heal. So far, this aspect of the character has been entirely ornamental. But I have a clever DM, and I don't doubt it will come into play eventually. Profession and Craft are the sort of things that only make a world more rich and characters more realistic. That aspect of the skills should definitly be discussed in the PHB. But I'm not sure there's much that can be done mechanically to encourage people to utilize them. In addition to a longer list of profession examples, a table that suggests DCs for different difficulty levels of using the skill would be helpful for DMs trying to figure out how difficult a particular task should be.
I think most of the effects you mentioned would be best handled through roleplay and judicious use of the +2 bonus by DMs. The main use of the skill by PCs isn't to get bonuses, it's to bake an expensive cake, succesfully tack a ship for a storm, or build a compelling legal case. I would like to see some example lists for professions and crafts, though.
BrotherWilli has a suggestion HERE that would help with this. Reallocate the combination of skills. Remove jumping (which should be strength-based, not dex-based) from Acrobatics and combine it with Climb to make a skill called Athletics. Larger sizes could get an athletics bonus and an acrobatics penalty. Smaller sizes could get an acrobatics bonus but not an athletics penalty, because smaller creatures get more bang for their muscular buck. That's why a flea can jump so far. Alternatly, small creatures could recieve a penalty to athletics, but more creatures that are especially good climbers or jumpers could get the ability to take 10 or even 20. (Real world example: I think our 6 foot fence is about the limit of our cat's vertical jump, but he lands it every time.)
I had to think about this for a moment. Climbing is actually a skill, rather than a developed physical ability like jumping. And gymnists are really good jumpers. But, both effective climbing and jumping are all about strength in the legs, so it makes little sense to pair jumping with two dexterous abilities. Acrobatics as it stands now is too powerful. And it seems to me that anyone who wanted their character to be extremely acrobatic would feel it only right that their acrobatic character was good at climbing. So after consideration, I support this suggestion. Have two skills: Athletics (Str) and Tumbling (Dex).
I love the new skill buying system as is.
I'm not sure why this posting exists twice, but here's what I said in the other. I guess I don't see why this needs to be included as a class ability. If there's no mechanical aspect, then it's up to the player to describe it how he or she wants. It's really the responsibilty of the DM to enable his players to have fun doing the things they want with their characters. If you're really worried about jerk DM's, you could throw in a few sentances in the magic chapter that say, "The player may choose how his or her spell appears. This grants no mechanical benefit. A spell cannot be made invisible in this way, but a player may choose to make an invisible spell visible."
I guess I don't see why this needs to be included as a class ability. If there's no mechanical aspect, then it's up to the player to describe it how he or she wants. It's really the responsibilty of the DM to enable his players to have fun doing the things they want with their characters. If you're really worried about jerk DM's, you could throw in a few sentances in the magic chapter that say, "The player may choose how his or her spell appears. This grants no mechanical benefit. A spell cannot be made invisible in this way, but a player may choose to make an invisible spell visible."
I don't see where it says the wizard gets his or her bonded weapon for free. They still have to buy it. So a first level wizard could only sell her masterwork composite longbow at a loss. If there is a money making exploit in the mechanic, that really shouldn't be a problem for the designers. There are silly loopholes in any system. It's the responsibilty of the player not to act like a jerk. If the player can't meet that responsibilty, it's the responsibility of the DM to keep his or her players in line.
It means he can pour all his ability score points into Charisma and get a big benefit out of it, not to mention never having to worry about not having a weapons. I have to agree with Abraham; this isn't a problem. Anyone with Improved Unarmed Strike; Caught Off Guard; a level in monk; or any of a handful of domains, school specialization powers, or cantrips has access to weapon-like effects that can't be taken away. That's probably a third of PCs. Your player will max out his Chr no matter what; he's playing a paladin. He's giving up a level of paladin advancement---delaying access to abilities---so that he can gain access to something that increases his fun because it increases the story for him. This kind of behavior should be encouraged.
As much as I like noncombat abilities, you have to ask yourself if those are really balanced against the other abilities. I can see a lot of the other things on the list being a lot more useful. I mean, the bard's already going to be alright at knowledge checks (depending on how the final bardic knowledge skill system works out) and social skills. I can't say I'd want to take it if I were playing a bard (of course, the number of knowledge checks vary by campaign). Though, I will agree, those are very solid mechanics. I guess what I like about those two ideas is they offer you the choice to make your bard the undisputed master of those things. A paladin could also be very charming, but a bard who chooses Go Native can walk right into a room of indiferent strangers and leave their boon companion. A wizard can know a lot about history, but it's a bard with Student of History that remembers the silly little rhyme that activates the legendary kings magic sword. I want bards to be effective generalists, too, but it doesn't hurt to throw in a few choices that strengthn their special areas.
Meh. I'm not a big fan of returning bard magic to wizard magic. Actually I'm quite opposed to it. I like that they have their own spell list, and I like that it's spontaneous. It has more of a 'here is some magic I picked up in my travels/training/whatever' feeling to it. I always thought fireballing bards were really stupid. I agree with you. I think the unique bard spell list was a good step forwrd in 3E, as was the decision to make bards spontaneous casters. I'd just like to see bard spells treated like sorceror spells, with regular verbal and somatic components, not singing and playing. I honestly think the best way to fix the bard is not to remove performance from his class abilities (which seems to be what some people want), but rather to give him a choice of which performances he gets, expanding the list substantially beyond what the Pathfinder bard gets and making many of them specific to single types of Perform. I really think performance is already suitably vague. Those of us that would like to see the bard's non-performance areas get a boost need to focus on proposing things to go alongside it. There's a really great thread on the subject here: The Bard as Both a Musician and Jack Of All Trades. Veledrane pointed it out earlier. There are some great ideas on there, so everyone check it out, and if you'd like the bard to be a little less silly, contribute.
This is a great one. I like the fixed DC with bonuses for exceeding it. I would define the time more appropriately (I would say either an hour or a day)and define "area" a bit more. A large city and an expansive farming community are very different, but I see this skill working equally well in both. Well, I wanted both abilities to have wiggle room for the DM to decide how it applies. I started with the general +2 bonus for a favorable condition. I wanted an area to be able to apply to a farming community, a neighborhood, or even a small social circle---a community of people small enough that they will talk to each other about you and how you're pretty cool. I picked a week, because a day is just too short. A whole community doesn't become interested in you and then uninterested in the space of a day. Again, an exceptionally sound ability. Is there a reason you moved the bonus to +5 here? I liked the mechanic there a bit better; because it rewarded higher skills. +5 is also a steep bonus. In this case, my thinking was: you find some ruins and the bard realizes they're historical (as opposed to completely insignificant), so she gets a favorable bonus to remember other details about the place while you're inside, because she's correlating data. And she gets a big bonus to dicipher strange writing, identify historical items, and figure out how famous items work. Perhaps I should specify that the bonuses are only meant to apply to the historical stuff, not the bards own stuff she brings with her onsite. I guess I made the bonuses so big so that the ability would still be useful to the bard if she adventures in an insignificant place, but finds a famous magic sword or something.
One important details that is being overlooked in the lore-based magic debate: It would require changes to how bard magic works. If it was about lore, not performance, it would have to be based off Int rather than Cha - and that alone would mean the bard needs to boost both Int and Cha for his magical abilities. That's the opposite direction of the Paladin's magic, which is not based on his Cha to reduce the dependency on multiple abilities. Of course, bard can use int, too, but now, you couldn't treat it as a secondary stat and concentrate on Cha to boost your magic. To me, CHA instead of INT just means the bard approaches magic in an intuitive maner. They haven't completeded long apprenticeships or recieved degrees from wizard colleges. They half-ass it. But just because the bard is using magic in an intuitive rather than formaly trained manner doesn't mean that said magic can't have come from learning. You realize you have a slight talent/interest in magic, you study it a little, then you wing it.
What kind of abilities would you have tied to bardic knowledge? I mean, I'm sure some talents could be worked up. I always really liked the archivist from heroes of horror. I guess I was thinking of something along the lines of what Brother Willi proposed--synergies gained from succesful knowledge checks. I think they should stay within the traditional realms of bardic knowledge though---history, magic, nobility, monsters. Not so much disarming traps or wilderness survival. I'm better at analyzing this stuff than making it up, but here are a couple of ideas. There should probably only be three or four: Go Native: The bard is especially good at ingratiating herself into the local scene wherever she goes. If she spends some time getting to know the people in an area and makes a succesful Knowledge (Local) check against DC 20, she becomes readily accepted by the community and recieves a +2 bonus to Diplomacy, Bluff, and Sense Motive checks to gather information and request aid for one week. For every 5 points over 20 the bard makes her check by, the bonus increases by +1. Student of History: The bard's extensive knowledge of history helps her when dealing with antiquity. When faced with a location or item of historical importance, the bard may make a Knowldege (History) check against DC 20. If she succeeds the details she remembers grant her a +2 bonus to subsequent, related Knowledge checks and a +5 to related Appraise, Linguistics, and Use Magic Device checks.
Hmm, I guess you'll have to elaborate on those super-builds; nothing comes to my mind. Simplicity is a big reason for a unified list. As people have said, the class entry is already quite lengthy. A single list would be simpler and therefor shorter. I guess I feel like the abilities offered at each time should be roughly equal in power between the two "paths." It would be more complicated to have them at different power levels. There are two models for the kind of mechanic we're suggesting, the ranger/sorceror style---relativly fixed tracks---and the monk/rogue style---an open list from which the player chooses. Right now we have one fixed path and one open list. I don't think that works terribly well; it needs to be one or the other. The ranger style "paths" produce specialists. The rogue style produces generalists. Since the point of this mechanic is to strengthen the bard's ability to be a generalist, going with the open list makes the most sense to me. Like I said above, it's the simplist thing in the world to pick only specialized options if you want to specialize. Or make only "non-bardy" choices if you want to distance yourself from the troubador image. But many people will want a little from Column A and a little from Column B, and I think that's great.
Are you always this rude? I apologize; I misread your post. My frustration was not with you specifically, but with people in this and similiar threads who have posted reflexivly, believing we meant to remove any performance aspect, without giving the thread a close reading.
That sounded to me like you were tlking about a performance-less bard, and not about the nature of bardic spell casting. I overreacted. I support the current bard class's tie to performance, because that is what a bard is supposed to be. Bard doesn't mean "a guy who trained a bit of magic as a renaisance man and swordplay in a fencing school." Bard is a performer and creator of the arts. You talk about what the bard is "supposed" to be, but an equal number of us respectfully disagree. We think the bard is "supposed" to be more like its 2E predecessor, and we don't feel the complicated multiclass you suggest is an adequate substitute. The bard has two cores: versatility and performance. We believe the bard isn't one or the other of the things you mentioned, she's all of them. She's a renaissance woman who knows a little of everything---the best artists always are. We very much dislike the flavor of Mystic Performer. We don't want to deny it to you, but we want an equally valid option for ourselves. Right now, people from both sides are working on a compromise mechanic in the thread I posted above, The Bard as Both a Musician and Jack Of All Trades. Why don't you check it out, and if you feel you have something to add, contribute?
I don't know how many times I have to say this: I have not suggested the removal of Bardic Music. I have suggested a minor flavor change to spellcasting, which many people have said they find desirable. Please actually read the thread before posting!
It makes perfect sense to me for bards to have whatever alignment, but as far as the rest goes, they have to stay as they are. When it comes to their abilities, the barbarian's rage and the monk's ki are kind of the opposite extremes, and it makes sense that an ordered, lawful character can't progress as a barbarian, or that an unfocused mind can't continue as a monk. I agree. There is no good justification for an alignment requirement for bards. But barbarians aren't just angry, they're harnessing a fundamental mental state of chaotic frenzy that predates ordered civilization. It's not something an ordered mind would do. Likewise, monks are walking a path that requires extreme personal discipline. It's not something an un-lawful person can do. (Honestly, I'd prefer to get rid of alignments, period, but there's no chance of that this version.)
You know what? We don't have any powers that interact with Bardic Knowledge! That's a classic part of the class. We should come up with somee.
There are some great ideas developing here. Hooray! I really do think it's unnecissary to have two different paths with two different lists. Put all of the Bard Talents in one list. It would be easy enough to choose all the music and magic enhancing talents and call oneself a Mystic Performer. It would be equally easy to choose all the combat options and think of oneself as a dueling, spoiled, noble diletantte, or even stradle the line between the two. So just one list, please.
I really like this idea. I would love to see it implimented. However, I would want to apply it to the paladin's armor, not his sheild.
A Thousand Faces also makes some sense, though a bard lacks the shape-shifting abilities of a druid which I believe is the basis for this power. Should they be required to have Alter Self in their spell's known before selecting this? Sounds good to me. I just wanted to add another druid ability, given the bard's distant druidic origin.
Ok, can I make a suggestion? Having re-read this based on your request, I don't think all of this dilettante stuff is bad. In fact, some of it, including rogue talents seems good. Why don't you start a new thread suggesting these Dilettante talents, without the "not a musician" component, discussing how something like this could be incorporated into the existing class instead of as a nonperforming variant? That might be a nice way to keep on track and keep from alienating other posters. For those that haven't seen it, the thread Velderan requested has been created and there's already a great discussion going on. So move over there and weigh in. This thread is pretty much closed.
The spirit of this thread has been taken up in a new mechanics thread, The Bard as Both a Musician and Jack Of All Trades. It's got some great ideas, so check it out and weigh in.
I'd like to see the dilettante stuff and the music stuff both added to the existing class, since this seems to be a compromise between both schools of thought. Thanks for your help in searching for middle ground, Velderan. With your continued support, I think we can find a good mechanic that makes everyone happy, and avoid the unpleasentness present in some of the paladin and druid discussions. Bardic Path: At 3rd level, the Bard must decide if they are going to pursue one of two paths. The first is Mystic Performer, the second is the Dilettante. I know it's been talked about as two seperate paths, but I don't see the need to divide this into two seperate mechanics. Just have one big list that all bards choose from. It will have powers for both bardic music and all the other things. I think if you put them all together, most players will want to mix and match. Even someone who wants to play a diletantte may want more music per day, and a performer might want wild empathy.
I understand your concern with sneak attack, but lots of classes and prestige classes get it or similar abilities. I don't think that 1d6 is going to make any rogues feel cheated. In fact, since it can't be incresed or repeated, I would push it up to 2d6. It's very appropriate to a swashbuckling style bard. Music has a close relationship with religion, and the bard already straddles the divide by having arcane healing spells. Some people might like to play a divine bard---a cantor. The following abilities were proposed for the Dilettante, but there was opposition to them as several felt they encroached on the unique realm of the other classes. Barbarian rage 1/day; Ranger Favored Enemy (May take multiple times, does not stack); Smite Evil 1/day. I would appreciate comments on whether they belong on the list at some point. I've been thinking a lot about these. I think favored enemy should be on the list normally, although maybe it should only be allowed once. I think the other two are fine, but they should have alignment requirements to match the barbarian and paladin. Perhaps they could be presented as optional choices in a sidebar. That way, it would be up to each DM. I welcome any comments, criticisms, or ideas for improvement. I still think Arcane Bond should be on the list at 9th, and A Thousand Faces at 15th. I second those who would add the ability to choose any feat the bard qualifies for in place of a trick. I also really like the idea of an ability to choose some spells off other casters' lists.
Psionichamster, keep in mind that this thread is not looking for new bardic songs. There are some other great threads for that. This thread is looking for abilities to add to the bard alongside its music. Meta-Bardic Music abilities would be appropriate, such as extra bardic music or improved DCs along the lines of what Brother Willi suggested.
Normally, I'm not against people having lame variations on a class. However, in this case, Paizo's intent is to fix up the existing bard. What you're advocating isn't removing a minor aspect of the class (like a familiar or a save progression), you're talking about removing a central mechanic and replacing it with a new variant. Which means that your variation will require all kinds of playtesting, compatibility muck-ups, and rebalancing while the mechanic it's being balanced around is being fixed. A bard without music requires a major rewrite of the class, which is a waste of page space and developer time. All of this is so that you can make a halfhearted version of things that already exist because you're too tied to the word bard to give your arcane trickster some perform ranks and call it a day. Velderan, please reread the things Brotherwilli and I have proposed. Neither one of us has any desire to strip performance away from the bard. We simply want to add a little more to its other areas. 1. You yourself have expressed appreciation for the bard's role as a jack-of-all trades. 2. Pathfinder has been all about correcting imbalences to rebalance the character classes along their original intent. The 3E paladin fell behind in his role as a melee combatant, so people have been hard at work trying to fix Smite Evil. 3. Power creep has caused the bard to fall behind in his role as "versitile guy." The only additions to its power and abilities as a class have been more and more music. It needs a slight overall bump, or the ability to choose areas to improve by degrees. Just like roue talents and monk bonus feats. 4. As there is a cornicupia of musical options already extant, we would like to see the non-musical side of the bard get bumped up a little. 5. At no point have we ever suggested that Bardic Music be removed as a core class feature. We both view it as integral to the class. I merely asked that the fluff mechanics stop saying that the bard's spells are powered by music. It's a flavor change that makes a lot of people happy, to judge by the response I got. Brotherwilli proposed a class feature that would go alongside Bardic Music. 6. In another thread you've been arguing for a rogue talent that grants a familiar on the grounds that there's conceptual precedent. (I just backed you up mechanically, by the way.) Well there is equal precedent for our position on bards. We've outlined it in detail. 7. Since our suggestions wouldn't remove the feature you like, would strengthen a class many see as overly weak, and would make many people happy, why are you so dead set against them?
The only real problem seems to be the word familiar. I agree that that word is not appropriate for a rogue. Just rename it "Animal Sidekick." Different in power level from animal familiar, no arcane association. I don't see why it would be problematic.
I think we may be wandering a little far off topic. We're not likely to see major changes to the bardic music abilities. No doubt they'll be tinkered with, but retroactive compatability will keep them there. The question is, as we try to compensate for power creep by making the bard more powerful, what do we add? Do we add even more to the already vast array of music and performance based options, miring the bard in this single archetype? Or do we strengthen it's other, neglected archetype, the jack of all trades master of none? I say the musicians have enough goodies already. Let jack out to play! Brotherwilli has proposed a good raw mechanic here. If making the bard a better generalist is too hard, let him choose from a list that to emphasize one quality or another. It's very much in keeping with the way other class features work (rogue talents, monk bonus feats, all the options the ranger gets, etc). I'm sure in the final version, there will even be choices that boost bardic music. Surely everyone can agree on that?
The problem is that as the bard progresses in level, it becomes a weaker and weaker choice compared to it's fellow heros. The multitool breaks. It's versitile, yes, but each of the things that it does becomes so outclassed by the primary classes that it's not fun to play. Including bardic music---you can find many complaints on the board that spells become far more effective, making the bard's one unique power redundant. The class needs a power boost. To answer your second question, each edition from 1E to 3.0 and then 3.5 has narrowed the focus of the bard more and more on music and performance based powers. Those of us agitating for change feel that the proper balance was struck in 2E. We don't feel that performance should be the one core of the class, it should be one two cores, performance/social interaction and versitility. Just like a paladin has two cores: he is a warrior who is also a priest. So to return to your first question we want to increase the power of the character by bringing it back into balance with it's two halves. We don't want to take away the bardic music. (It could probably use some tinkering with, but that subject has it's own threads.) We want to give the bard new choices that allow it to again be versitile as it gains in level, and be it's own class again---not just the spare for whover just got incapacitated
I like that spell idea. It's a nice way for a bard who wants to be a better caster to get a little more depth. I think I would make it a little stronger though, either giving the bard more than one spell or a +1 to CL. (Although this would seem like a very strong ability, I think it would be offset by the bard's reduced access to powerful spells.) If it were up to me, I would definitly have more than just four options though.
It's a possibility. I wouldn't want to divorce one from the other though. The performer should still be a dilettant and the dilettant should still be a performer.
Good lord. There should absolutely be no smite whatsoever. What on earth is the bard's justification for that ability? Righteousness, purity of heart, desire to be a hero like the legends he tells about? It's just an idea. There's no need to get defensive about it.
Who else fondly remembers a bard who was a more than just a minstrel? I remember playing a bard with a kit called The Blade, he was an entertainer who's instrument was weaponry. He did juggling, and knife throws, and swrod tricks. I don't really feel like his magic came from the immense artistry of his sword swallowing. I also remember playing a kit called the Thespian. It had the power to fake enemies out through acting. You pretended to cast some horribly dire spell and send them running, and if you did actually cast some flashy spell while you were doing it, you got a bonus.
Have I mentioned this is a great idea? Here are some more options that could go on the list at later levels: Rogue Talent: Skill Mastery, Tongue of the Sun and Moon, Wild Empathy. Maybe even Smite Evil 1/day. That would depend on how the Smite Evil tangle ends up.
The thing is, what you're describing is an arcane trickster with a perform skill. There's nothing wrong with that type of character, but it just doesn't have its own niche the way the 3.5 bard does. Respectfully, what I describe is not remotely an arcane trickster. The arcane trickster is a specialized class. It has one purpose--to let you steal stuff with magic. The bard is a jack-of-all-trades. It's purpose is to be very versitile. It's niche is that it has no niche. I mean, really, you can flavor it the way you want. That is the stated point of this thread, yes. Clearly many of us would like to see a change in flavor of the bard class to allow more of its potential to show. The bard can be many things other than a musician. He can be a con man, a sage, a poet, a spy, a dancer, a daredevil, a historian, an evangelist--the list goes on.
I agree that no class should be too front-loaded, but you know what? I like a little level-dipping. I once played an arcane paladin. He was a wizard who viewed himself as a paladin using magic instead of a sword. (Yes, I know that later they came out with a prestige class that basically did the same thing, but this was before.) I took a couple levels and then did straight wizard. As has been pointed out, he still had to play with all of the restrictions of a paladin. That was a great character.
I would limit it to any LIGHT or DOUBLE weapon the Monk is proficient in. This allows them to use a wide variety of interesting weapons, including Staves or Two-Bladed Swords, but keeps them from being super-charged dual-wielders. I know Long-Swords aren't in the mix, but there have to be some limitations. I would change that to any light weapon or any single weapon the monk is proficient with. Two nunchucks, in. One longsword, in. One double weapon like a staff, in. One polearm, like a nagatina (halabard), in. Two katanas (bastard swords), out.
But the rogue has always had a little magic. In 2E they could use wizard's scrolls. In 3E, they got Use Magic Device. I will say this. The first two magic talents are so weak the rogue might as well just take a single level in a spellcasting class. Then the third comes out of nowhere in terms of power level.
It's great to see so much active interest from someone who isn't even a bard enthusiast. I like the idea of some kind of skill synergy. Bards used to have an ability to improve people's attitudes through performing. I don't know where that went, but it was a lot like what you're talking about with diplomacy. As for Performance for Spellcraft, I'm leery. Many of us would like to see the bard escape from his artsy shackles and go back to being the jack-of-all-trades. Not to be the guy who continually redirects everybody to other threads, but my post on that is here: Bring back the Old School bard
Robert, would it be enough for you if Jason just cut the rank requirments for Bardic Music effects and made them soly level-based? Then a bard could risk having fewer ranks. I'd be in favour of alternative bard abilities. Bards aren't just minstrels. You should weigh in on brotherwilli's excellent post on this topic, Nero. The Bard As A Dilettante, Not A Musician
Yes, exactly! This is what I'm asking for. I think that the descriptions in front of the classes (I assume they're coming when the game actually leaves beta) can talk about the class' roles in the world and then offer a number of examples of archetypes and examples from history and fiction. Game mechanics and flavor should aid you in creating a character who's yours, not lock you into a calcified role. That's what 3E started to do for us, and I think 4E's failure to do that is why an awful lot of us are here.
I see your point, Robert. Maybe this should be looked at. I'm generally in favor of optimum flexibilty. I do think, however, that in practice spellcasters without Spellcraft are nearly as hindered as a bard without Perform, even if it doesn't look that way on paper.
I guess I'm not sure about this. It seems like many classes have built in skill requirments. Spellcasters must take Spellcraft to be effective, and are expected to take Knowledge (Arcane) or (Religion) or both. Rangers need track. Druids are wise to take Fly. Most rogues I've known need tumble.
Quite simply I greatly prefer the idea that a bard is a renaissance man (or woman), but them dragging dozens of spellbooks around is kinda ridiculous. Thanks for your input! I guess I figured one spellbook would be enough. By traditional spell-book rules, they would need less than 150 pages for their spellbook in their whole career.
Some of this is a repost, but please no. By definition, a bard is a musician/storyteller/performer. The 2e bard (I have no familiarity with the 1e bard) was a lame cross between rogue/wizard/fighter without the uniqueness of a 3e bard. I like the idea of bardic magic manifesting as a natural extension of their artistry. It's their thing. I mean, I don't see a wanderer and storyteller sitting down with a spellbook memorizing formulae. I see them as exciting and enigmatic personalities who manifest their energy in a variety of ways. They're like the ADD kids of the D&D universe, without the mind-numbing drugs. I'm sorry you feel that way about the 2E bard. It was my favorite class. Because it was so versatile, you go to do a little bit of everything. My very first character was a 2E bard. He was a minstrel. During one adventure, we found the Spellbook of Tomorast, a powerful evil wizard, in a treasure trove, and it became my bard's spellbook. His magic was just magic, but I think it was much more interesting than magic music. I think it's safer to say that the bard has always been poetic, rather than musical. 1E was, as others have said, a fighter/rogue/druid combination. It was all based in celtic-type society, with bards as the keepers of history and lore. Music plays a part in that, but just one part in the whole.
Hey, guys, thanks for all the responses. It's great to see that so many other people are passionate about the bard. I never said the bard wouldn't be an artist. Bardic music will still be there, guys! But as brotherwilli said in a different post, many people want the bard for versitility, not to be a musician.
This is good stuff. Anyone who wants their magic to come from art can still play it that way. But people who have other desires can have it their way, too. For instance, an actor. His bardic music takes the form of rousing monologues from great plays. He studies magic so he can add illusionary special effects to his productions, and fencing because everyone likes a fight scene. Or a wanderer who lives by his wits. He learned some magic because it's useful, and how to fight for the same reason. He knows a little bit of everything. And he always has a useful anecdote, a funny story, or a clever quip to sooth tempers, keep his firends motivated, or prick overblown foes. Niether is a musician, but both are great bards.
Search Posts
|
