|
Ok, why is the Bard depicted as a singer for the most part? The most famous bard of all time, Shakespere... I just cannot picture him in tights leaping around singing and strumming his arcane mandolin with the damsels swooning and throwing underwear on stage...
I do not know one single famouse singing "Bard" from history. The names of several playwrights and several storytellers exist... but why on earth do we have a class that is in essence a modern rock star?
I do not know one single famouse singing "Bard" from history. The names of several playwrights and several storytellers exist... but why on earth do we have a class that is in essence a modern rock star?
Cacofonix/Assurancetourix? Iolo? Too fictional?
If I were Welsh I could probably come up with some famous singing bards...
The 'bard' as you're referring to is more accureately depicted as an Expert or an Aristocrat in dnd setting. While what you say is true, Shakespere didn't make his living killing orcs either, dnd bards are known to do that. Your bard could always take Perform: Oratory or Perform: Storytelling instead, if you felt like it.
The Pied Piper of Hamelin?
Well I think the 3rd edition idea of magic songs and the like came about as a way to differentiate the Bard class from a Rogue/Wizard multiclass which is essentially what it was in 2nd ed.
Bards are actually pretty common historically. I think the problem is the whole rock-star thing. bards were deliverers of knowledge, entertainers mainly but frequently of noble birth with the training that went with it. Why not have them as they fulfill a role that no-one else does?
I mean why are there chinese style monks in what is essentially a medieval setting? Someone thought it would be a cool idea and it is (although very badly realised).
As a bard variant, try the Varisan seer. I may go through and change the "bardic music" effects at some point, also.
Details for those who don't click the link:
Bard Variant: Varisan Seer
The Varisan seer is a spokesperson of fate for their family. With the death of Aroden, discerning the future has become unreliable and vague. However, the Varisan seer still has the talent to pierce the veils of chance as well as any in the current Age, often through a Harrow deck. Their tie with chance and fate also gives them some control over the fate of others.
Most Varisan seers are female, with only a rare few males.
Class Features
The Varisan seer has all of the normal class features of a bard, but tends toward the use of chants and mystic phrases (Perform (Oratory)) instead of playing musical instruments and singing.
Weapon Proficiencies
The Varisan seer gains proficiency in Bladed Scarf instead of Whip.
Spell Selection
Varisan seers concentrate on divinations and affecting the fate of others, rather than flashy effects and powerful illusions. Make the following changes to the bard class spell list:
0- Add detect poison and guidance; remove flare and summon instrument
1st- Add bane, bless, detect evil/good/law, doom, and true strike; remove animate rope, erase, grease, magic mouth, and Nystul's magic aura
2nd- Add augury* and status; remove glitterdust and pyrotechnics
3rd- Add arcane sight and bestow curse; remove gaseous form and phantom steed
4th- Add divination and sending; remove hallucinatory terrain and shadow conjuration
5th- Add contact other plane and true seeing; remove mirage arcana and shadow evocation
*-Commonly using a Harrow deck as the focus
I mean why are there chinese style monks in what is essentially a medieval setting? Someone thought it would be a cool idea and it is (although very badly realised).
If they were Chinese (i.e., Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) monks, they'd be better realized (as they were in 1st Ed AD&D with Oriental Adventures, the Kara Tur boxed set, and several martial art styles in Dragon magazine). Instead, the 3.x monk is a Japanese/Okinawan monk/ninja that requires use of optional material (Fighting Styles) and house-rules ("monk weapons" based on style) to make them applicable outside of that stereotype.
But this has been covered in other threads.
|
|
Bards are actually pretty common historically. I think the problem is the whole rock-star thing. bards were deliverers of knowledge, entertainers mainly but frequently of noble birth with the training that went with it. Why not have them as they fulfill a role that no-one else does?
I mean why are there chinese style monks in what is essentially a medieval setting? Someone thought it would be a cool idea and it is (although very badly realised).
True they were common in everyday life and even court, but the role in D&D and the role in history is so far removed...
And what are these monks in D&D you speak of? Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard what monk?
:)
And what are these monks in D&D you speak of? Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard what monk?
D&D Basic Boxed Set- Cleric, Fighter, Magic User, Thief
D&D Companion Boxed Set- Druid and Avenger/Paladin; I believe there were some rules for nature-based fighters (Rangers) in one of the Princess Ark articles in Dragon magazine
D&D Master Boxed Set- Mystics (Monks) and Thugs (Assassins) as "monsters," but with rules for playing them as characters
A Barbarian in D&D was just a Fighter who was role-played as "barbaric" and a Sorcerer was just another term for Magic User.
|
Ok, why is the Bard depicted as a singer for the most part?
I dunno.. one particular ability that bothers me is the buff for your allies the requires dancing.. if you're allies are watching you dance, they're not watching the enemy. :)
I'd like to see the skill requires go away and instead have the bard receive a synergy bonus for using 1 type over the others... and that type has to make sense.
If you're effecting your opponent, they can be listening OR watching you.
If you're actively buffing your allies, they should be listening.
When I think of bard, I think of singers, dancers, and public speakers in a fantasy setting. Unless Bards are going to be giving out buffs that last for multiple encounters, I don't think acting or public speaking is a combat performance type.
Unless Bards are going to be giving out buffs that last for multiple encounters, I don't think acting or public speaking is a combat performance type.
Cheerleading (chants, etc.; i.e., Perform (Oratory))? Also, the Bardic Performance effects are quasi-magical, requiring a blend of innate ability and training in some sort of skill. Think of them as early versions of "skill tricks."
oh man there is a joke there, but I think I would get banned...Unless Bards are going to be giving out buffs that last for multiple encounters, I don't think acting or public speaking is a combat performance type.Cheerleading (chants, etc.; i.e., Perform (Oratory))?
Been watching too many B-movies (or soft-/hard-core films) that pander to the "loose" cheerleader stereotype?
My Pangur Bàn character is a gnome bard. However, he doesn't entertain or perform for money and as an apprentice shaman believes his abilities are mystical in nature, granted by his ancestors looking out for him. Bards also make for quite effective magical variant rogues. You can take the class and adhere to the stereotypical minstrel concept or conversely stay far away from it - it's a pretty open class really.
There are a variety of instruments bards could choose to be good instead of being a good singer. For instance, they could play the flute, violin, drum or any other instrument that would make sense for their character. You also must remember that in cultures where they do not have a literally tradition, their history would be passed down orally. For instance I can see orcish bards recalling tales of great orc warriors fighting in Gruumsh’s name and the victories of the tribe.
Speaking of orcs and Gruumsh is Gruumsh OGL material or is the chief orc god off-limits for pathfinder?
My main issue with the bard involves the existence of the Perform skill, doubly so since Pathfinder asks that bards take at least two Perform skills to gain their class abilities.
My question is: why? The Perform skill doesn't actually do much of anything on its own, other than as a measure of a performer's talent. Why not remove the skill entirely, or at least roll it into other skills, like Diplomacy (to impress an audience) or Intimidate (to scare a rival performer). (As a side note, why the Bard does not get Intimidate as a class skill, especially when the Virtuoso[CAdv], perhaps the most bard-geared prestige class, requires 4x Intimidate, is beyond me.) All Perform really does is force the Bard to drain skill points just to use his class abilities.
Thus, 3.5 made the Bard go from being a 6+Int skill class to a 5+Int skill class; Pathfinder seeks to make it into a 4+Int skill class, just like Druid or Monk. Is draining the Bard's skill points, reducing its usefulness as a skill-based class, really necessary?
-Matt
I confess: I hate bards.
I could tolerate their presence normally, but they're always so near the beginning of the classes chapter— it is really off-putting to some folks. They're just so... err... whimsical.
The problem is, they're not a bad class— I'd like to see their "performance" based buffs given an alternative, much as some paladins don't want mounts, and some wizards don't want familiars, there are a huge number of players who might consider playing a magically adept, skilled, light fighter character if they were, well, less poncey.
Partly, I think my resentment derives from being a musician, and the son of an earning musician. I understand Bards are a fixture, but I think an alternative interpretation of their powers would be welcome.
Ok, why is the Bard depicted as a singer for the most part? The most famous bard of all time, Shakespere... I just cannot picture him in tights leaping around singing and strumming his arcane mandolin with the damsels swooning and throwing underwear on stage...
I do not know one single famouse singing "Bard" from history. The names of several playwrights and several storytellers exist... but why on earth do we have a class that is in essence a modern rock star?
The term "bard" being applied to Shakespeare is a bit of a misnomer, it came from a revival in the usage of the word to refer to poets of reknown. The word originally comes from Celtic to refer to composers and reciters of poetry, primarily in Ireland and Wales. The traditions died out over time. The last historical personage that could claim this title would likely be Turlough O'Carolan.
In myths and legends, such as the Ulster Cycle, bards and poets are revered members of the warrior culture. Their words could cause the enemy to lose morale and thus win victory for their chief and tribe. It isn't a far step to ascribe magical powers to them.
I think the origins of D&D's magical bard lie in Keith Taylor's Bard novels, though that could have simply been a concurrent evolution of the idea.
Ok, why is the Bard depicted as a singer for the most part? The most famous bard of all time, Shakespere... I just cannot picture him in tights leaping around singing and strumming his arcane mandolin with the damsels swooning and throwing underwear on stage...
I do not know one single famouse singing "Bard" from history. The names of several playwrights and several storytellers exist... but why on earth do we have a class that is in essence a modern rock star?
As several others have noted, Bard as it's applied to old Billy Shakes and as it's applied in D&D are very unrelated. Probably the closest equivalent I can find to a D&D Bard in folklore would be Orpheus, a greek legendary figure that taught men the arts of medicine and writing.
His singing and poetry were ascribed magical power, and he was described as "the father of songs."
Another possible choice for the Bards inspiration might be Väinämöinen from the Kalevala, he's fairly sage like and is described as having a "potent, magical voice."
The problem is, they're not a bad class— I'd like to see their "performance" based buffs given an alternative, much as some paladins don't want mounts, and some wizards don't want familiars, there are a huge number of players who might consider playing a magically adept, skilled, light fighter character if they were, well, less poncey.
You actually bring up a really good point, one that actually relates to my own.
Bard is the only class whose class abilities require a skill point expenditure. Does a rogue have to max out Stealth to use Sneak Attack? Does a druid have to max out Knowledge(Nature) to use Wild Shape? Does a Cleric have to max out Knowledge(Religion) to use Channel Energy? No. But a Bard has to max out Perform to use Bardic Music. And Alpha3 goes a step further, requiring a Bard to max out a second Perform category.
So if we simply remove the Perform requirement, we have a Bard who's less poncey.
As a second point, I'd also like to see the Bard given a class ability that lets him use Inspire Courage as a swift action. Or at high-level, allow the bard to have Inspire Courage up constantly, because his very presence is an inspiration. It sucks to devote your first turn of every combat to singing.
-Matt
With your points taken into account, Khalarak, I would like to see one of two things happen with Perform:
A) Remove the Perform skill entirely, as it doesn't really do anything.
or
B) Expand upon the Perform skill, so it would actually do something. Add mechanics for impressing an individual, for example, rather than relying on "DC 30 = extraordinary," which really doesn't mean anything in game terms. As it stands, Perform doesn't change attitudes, it doesn't earn glory; all it does is let you peddle for cash.
And with the bard:
A) Remove the Perform skill requirements, as all it does is force the bard to drain skill points (on a skill I've established does not do anything), turning it into a 4+Int skill class.
or
B) Let the Bard player pick X types of Perform; he gains bonus skill ranks in those Perform types for free every level.
or
C) Give the bard bonus skill points to spend on Perform.
or
D) Make the Bard an 8+Int skill class, to compensate for the skill point drain.
New points:
-Why doesn't the Bard have Intimidate as a class skill?
-Give higher-level Bards the ability to activate Bardic Music as a swift action. A Wiz13 can cast Quickened Haste, yet the Bard is still stuck spending his standard action on Inspire Courage. Or at least spell out how long Inspire Courage can last. When I watched Return of the King most recently, I noticed that King Theoden would inspire his troops before going into battle, not during it. That's what Bards should be able to do: inspire the party all the time, perhaps even with his very presence, not only after the battle has begun.
-Reserve the morale bonus for the Bard, as they have a hard time filling a buff role when they're constantly in competition with the other classes. Righteous Wrath of the Faithful (SpC) was particularly damaging to the Bard, for example. A Sorcerer with Heroism also makes the Bard less important, as Heroism lasts 10min/lvl, adds to saves and skill checks, and doesn't have to be activated every combat. The damage begins as early as level 1, when the Cleric's Bless doesn't stack with Inspire Courage. When other classes try, they can outdo the Bard, simply by having a morale-bonus buff as well as other abilities. That's not a good thing. We should fix that.
-Matt
Bard is the only class whose class abilities require a skill point expenditure. Does a rogue have to max out Stealth to use Sneak Attack? Does a druid have to max out Knowledge(Nature) to use Wild Shape? Does a Cleric have to max out Knowledge(Religion) to use Channel Energy? No. But a Bard has to max out Perform to use Bardic Music. And Alpha3 goes a step further, requiring a Bard to max out a second Perform category.
To be fair, you don't have to max out anything. Doing so just makes good sense. ;-)
That said, the situation you describe is the logical consequence of WotC setting the bard class up so you can choose the different disciplines your specific bard practices. If you want just the one, it takes only one skill point per rank you want. If you want more, you're looking at a bigger investment. I don't see anything wrong with that (and I do play bards myself). The Pathfinder double performance requirement is admittedly pushing things though.
Probably the closest equivalent I can find to a D&D Bard in folklore would be Orpheus, a greek legendary figure that taught men the arts of medicine and writing.
His singing and poetry were ascribed magical power, and he was described as "the father of songs."
Another possible choice for the Bards inspiration might be Väinämöinen from the Kalevala, he's fairly sage like and is described as having a "potent, magical voice."
Also, Bricriu Poison-tongued from the Ulster Cycle, whose poetry would dishearten the enemy. The Norse skalds would also be historical archetypes, as would the Welsh and Irish bards of both history and legend.
To get on the side track of the Perform skill: Yeah it is a silly skill that only exists because of the Bard class. Lets face it, if it were not for the Bard class the uses of the Perform skill would exist in the Profession (Singer), or Profession (Performer) or Craft (music) or something like that.
To get on the side track of the Perform skill: Yeah it is a silly skill that only exists because of the Bard class. Lets face it, if it were not for the Bard class the uses of the Perform skill would exist in the Profession (Singer), or Profession (Performer) or Craft (music) or something like that.
Since other Craft and Profession skills do exist, what's so silly about Perform? Just the fact that it doesn't have Craft or Perform in the name?
If Suckians from Planet Suck held a Sucking contest the Bard would will hands down. They SUCK
Did I mention that I don't like them?
|
Dont know if this was covered, but on page 16 in PFRPG, it says:
A bard can cast bard spells while wearing light armor and using a shield without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance. Like any other arcane spellcaster though, a bard wearing medium or heavy armor or using a shield incurs a chance of arcane spell failure if the spell in question has a somatic component.
Is it just me, or did those two sentences contradict each other..
We usually just use the "Mystic Artist" paths ( http://www.box.net/shared/lum1u99fu5 - around page 80). That way people can use Performance skills (Music, Dance, Oratory, Storytelling, etc), Craft Skills (Painting, Sculpture, etc), and even things like Knowledge/Architecture (one character got a lot of mileage out of designing structures that inspired people, spread particular ideas, or produced other effects).
Dont know if this was covered, but on page 16 in PFRPG, it says:
A bard can cast bard spells while wearing light armor and using a shield without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance. Like any other arcane spellcaster though, a bard wearing medium or heavy armor or using a shield incurs a chance of arcane spell failure if the spell in question has a somatic component.Is it just me, or did those two sentences contradict each other..
The shield is not actually the issue, since the somatic component makes the difference: without somatic component, no ASF for using a shield; with somatic component, ASF for using a shield.
The real issue is what happens when wearing medium or heavy armour and trying to cast a spell without somatic component. Presumably the bard always suffers ASF when wearing medium or heavy armour, but the wording of the sentence above implies otherwise. There's no contradiction, but there is an ambiguous grey area.
Dont know if this was covered, but on page 16 in PFRPG, it says:
A bard can cast bard spells while wearing light armor and using a shield without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance. Like any other arcane spellcaster though, a bard wearing medium or heavy armor or using a shield incurs a chance of arcane spell failure if the spell in question has a somatic component.Is it just me, or did those two sentences contradict each other..
The shield is not actually the issue, since the somatic component makes the difference: without somatic component, no ASF for using a shield; with somatic component, ASF for using a shield.
The real issue is what happens when wearing medium or heavy armour and trying to cast a spell without somatic component. Presumably the bard always suffers ASF when wearing medium or heavy armour, but the wording of the sentence above implies otherwise. There's no contradiction, but there is an ambiguous grey area.
The "ambiguity" is probably the difference between the light shield (or buckler) and heavy shield. At least that's my read of it. It's still a slight bump from the 3.5 PHB, which applied the arcane failure chance for any shield. Of course, a bard can benefit from Still Spell like any other arcane caster or get a mithral shield...
The "ambiguity" is probably the difference between the light shield (or buckler) and [/b]heavy[/b] shield. At least that's my read of it. It's still a slight bump from the 3.5 PHB, which applied the arcane failure chance for any shield.
Not at all: the text is pretty clear when it comes to shields, you can take it completely literally. Moreover, shields don't come in light or heavy categories, even if some of them have such an indicator in their name.
I'm pretty sure it's (supposed to be) like this:
light armour: no ASF
shield and no somatic component: no ASF
shield and somatic component: ASF
medium/heavy armour: ASF
I wouldn't mind some official clarification myself though. Perhaps the bèta version of the rules will put it more clearly (all that needs to be done is move the somatic component part of the sentence forward, so it only applies to shields)?
without somatic component, no ASF for using a shield; with somatic component, ASF for using a shield.
Actually, the text does contradict entirely, as the ASF rules tell us that if a spell has no Somatic component, it has no ASF at all.
It's a simple oversight on the author's part.
What should also be clarified (even if it's for idiot-proofing sake) is whether a bard can use a heavy shield in one hand, a weapon in the other, and still cast spells with Somatic components, as his hands are full.
-Matt
without somatic component, no ASF for using a shield; with somatic component, ASF for using a shield.Actually, the text does contradict entirely, as the ASF rules tell us that if a spell has no Somatic component, it has no ASF at all.
It's a simple oversight on the author's part.
True, but it's theoretically possible - though extremely unlikely - that Pathfinder changes that.
What should also be clarified (even if it's for idiot-proofing sake) is whether a bard can use a heavy shield in one hand, a weapon in the other, and still cast spells with Somatic components, as his hands are full.
Idiot-proofing is always good. That said, the armour table in the 3.5 equipment chapter only indicates "hand not free to cast spells" for locked gauntlets. This at least heavily implies that having a shield on your arm does leave the hand free for spellcasting.
What should also be clarified (even if it's for idiot-proofing sake) is whether a bard can use a heavy shield in one hand, a weapon in the other, and still cast spells with Somatic components, as his hands are full.Idiot-proofing is always good. That said, the armour table in the 3.5 equipment chapter only indicates "hand not free to cast spells" for locked gauntlets. This at least heavily implies that having a shield on your arm does leave the hand free for spellcasting.
The 3.5 rules for shields also state:
Bucklers- can use with a bow or crossbow without penalty; can wield weapons with that hand at a -1 penalty
Light Shield- can carry (and presumably manipulate to some extent) items in that hand, but cannot wield weapons
Heavy Shield- cannot use the hand for anything else
The question in this case is where the limit to the bard's spellcasting without ASF falls. Do they require full use of both arms and hands (and does a buckler prevent this)? Do they require full use of one hand and some manipulation with the other? Do they require only one hand?
|
Also, Bricriu Poison-tongued from the Ulster Cycle, whose poetry would dishearten the enemy. The Norse skalds would also be historical archetypes, as would the Welsh and Irish bards of both history and legend.Probably the closest equivalent I can find to a D&D Bard in folklore would be Orpheus, a greek legendary figure that taught men the arts of medicine and writing.
His singing and poetry were ascribed magical power, and he was described as "the father of songs."
Another possible choice for the Bards inspiration might be Väinämöinen from the Kalevala, he's fairly sage like and is described as having a "potent, magical voice."
I like Arion (from Herodtus) who was trapped on a boat with people who wanted to kill him - so he sang a song that called a dolphin to him, and rode the dolphin home.