Given the number of threads devoted to this theme, I can see opinion is divided between those that want want the Bard forced into a single flavor/character concept, and those who want it to be able to diversify.
I've played a roguish Wizard with a trickster concept, (looong before the Arcane trickster existed) who specialized in thinking outside the box... no gaming table has ever had a complain with him.
I've also played no-armor, dexterity Fighter with a 'fencer' concept. No complains heard either.
I've even seen a no-armor, no-weapons Fighter who specializes in unarmed attack and combat maneuvers without people complaining.
However in two out of three gaming tables, whenever someone mentions playing a Bard that 'is not a minstrel and whose Bardic Music or spells are done in a way that has nothing to do with music or poetry' people instantly rises torches and pitchforks... why?
I can think of at least seven (completely) different concepts to play an arcane spellcaster, and even more ways to play a Rogue, so why should there only be one way to play a Bard? I know I'd have been rather pissed if my DM had instead told me that time "No no, you're describing a Rogue, you can't play a wizard because that's not what a wizard does."
Sure, if we were talking about a class that clearly lacks the resources for what the player wants to do with it then by all means, it's your duty as a DM to rather point him in the right direction. However, the issue here is that the Bard already can be a lot more without the need of any change in its core game mechanics, yet the only thing holding the class back is people's prejudice.
How would you feel if, say, these kinds of "flavor" were enforced in the core book, thus by the players as a consensus?
1) All rogues are born with a rampant kleptomania that forces them to steal any shiny object in their vicinity unless they succeed a Will save DC 17, not even Heal can cure a Rogue from his thieving habits. Every time a Rogue gains a level, two of his skill points are automatically spent on Disable Device and Sleight of Hand.
2) In order to remain in good terms with his deity, a cleric must spend at least one action of every round of combat healing an ally. A Cleric that knowingly and willing fails his duty as a healbot loses all clerical powers for a year and a day.
3) In order to cast an arcane spell, male sorcerers or wizards must wear long, thick robes that collect bodily odors at an astonishing rate, detracting from their charisma. Female arcane spellcasters, on the other side, can only cast while wearing nothing but thin strips of gauze over their naughty bits, detracting from their credibility. Both male and female must wear pointy hats while casting or be forced to roll Spellcraft in order not to lose the spell.
1) A Paladin's Lawful Good alignment prevents him from saying 'no' to any request, no matter how irrational or stupid.
More than one thread has already shown that people really wants to like Bards, it's the forced flavor and prejudice that turns the vast majority away. Really, even a change as suble as changing the name of "Bardic Music" for "Bardic Voice" would be a huge step in the right direction.
Dude...it's called bardic performance...right there in the book. You can act, you can sing, you can dance, you can perform comedy (Jester bard FTW). Hell, I have one player who does monologues from Buffy. What else should it be called? I mean, come on. You gotta perform. That's what a bard does (though, I'd be interested in seeing an art-related bard as a possibility). A nonperforming bard (in whichever venue of performance you aim) is like a nonfighting fighter. I've never given players crap for being creative with their character. I doubt most people do. As for a compromise on allowing the existing bard to branch out, I think this thread has some good ideas. Though, thumbs up for the reference. Elan's self admission of his own silliness put me at peace with the idea of singing at monsters.
Dude...it's called bardic performance...right there in the book. You can act, you can sing, you can dance, you can perform comedy (Jester bard FTW). Hell, I have one player who does monologues from Buffy. What else should it be called? I mean, come on. You gotta perform. That's what a bard does
Thanks for proving my point. I rest my case, your honor.
I have been contemplating playing a Bard that uses puppets for his visual performances. Am also contemplating buying a few basic puppets OOC to represent monsters and heroes so as to enhance the experience for the other players and GM =)
Let me turn your argument right back at you:
What would you say to someone who wants a fighter option that isn't about combat?
What about a wizard without spells?
A cleric that is not religious or spiritual at all?
A druid who loves to litter, sodomises and turtures animals, and lists sylvan incendiarism as his favourite pastime?
A pacifist paladin who follows no ideals?
A civilised barbarian who keeps his cool in battle?
A bard who isn't about performing?
They're all along the same lines. Sure, in a sense, this is forcing concepts on people, but that cannot be completely avoided in a class-based game.
And D&D has not just generic classes (which the fighter could be considered, for example, since he isn't limited to any one fighting style), but also quite specific ones. Paladins (champions of goodness and order with supernatural abilites born from their convictions), Monks (mystical martial artists with great discipline), and, well, bards.
There's no problem with the concept of a versatile adventurer who's able to do some wizardly magic, some performance and other skillmonkeying, and a bit of rakish fighting. But that concept is not for the bard. It's a wizard/rogue, plain and simple.
You call it restrictions, I call it identity. If we make everything possible with every class, we can as well do away with classes, because they have lost their identity. But that's not D&D, and there are enough games like that out there (WoD and Cortex come to mind, and L5R is somewhere between freestyle and class-based). Or we only use generic classes, like the Unearthed Arcana variant or True 20: Warrior, Skill Monkey, Spellcaster.
If we turn the bard into a wizard/rogue multiclass "virtual class" with only a few perks of his own, we might as well forget the class. Or make it a PrC (which has been done in UA).
But Pathfinder wants to keep 3.5e's classes, and to me, that means that they all should have something going for them, something that will make you play them over a similar multiclass concept.
For the bard, that means performance as the base for his magical abilities.
"There's no problem with the concept of a versatile adventurer who's able to do some wizardly magic, some performance and other skillmonkeying, and a bit of rakish fighting. But that concept is not for the bard. It's a wizard/rogue, plain and simple."
My problem and the problem of many others is that IS the bard. That's what the bard is all about to us. Yes the rogue/wizard may be trying to steal his place but a rogue/wizard is not the same thing. I like having the bardic music, I want it to do more, but a bard is the ultimate generalist...
NOT something else + rogue. That's seems to be what others thing right now "just add a dash of rogue and it's a jack of all trades skillmonkey."
We are supposed to be avoiding multiclassing and the bards spot is as a "Ultimate Generalist" see the Ultimate part? it's missing -- the rogue stole it. Give it back.
(I say this in a jesting and exagerated tone for emphasis, not for attack, I like the bard having and using music... ALOT but he NEEDS his old stnick back as well.)
You should be able to be a generally decent fighter, roguish type wizard without multiclassing, and that class is called bard. Now the bard does have some unique abilities with his singing, but IF he is only going to be a performer MAKE THE PERFORMANCES BETTER/ WORTH SOMETHING TO PLAY FOR!
As it stands it's kind of like being a healbot.
"Bard why aren't you singing and giving us bonuses?"
"Becuase I want to take an action and do something too!"
"But that means I don't get my + x to hit and damage"
that's something cohorts are for not PC classes.
|
A druid who loves to litter, sodomises and turtures animals, and lists sylvan incendiarism as his favourite pastime?
You mean a blighter? PrC from the complete divine and legitimate character option for a duid.
What about a wizard without spells?
Rincewind the wizard?
A cleric that is not religious or spiritual at all?
Oh you mean a cleric dedicated to war and chaos who never prostheletizes but who seeks battle around the globe and exhibits strange powers.
Shall I go on?
A cleric that is not religious or spiritual at all?Oh you mean a cleric dedicated to war and chaos who never prostheletizes but who seeks battle around the globe and exhibits strange powers.
A cleric does not have to proselytize to be religious, and war and chaos is perfectly cromulent (if a bit twisted) as a spirituality.
|
Let me turn your argument right back at you:
What would you say to someone who wants a fighter option that isn't about combat?
a pacific man who is trying to stop to fight but that sometimes is forceddue tot he circumstances? an officer that is more intothestrategy than the fuighting itself and whose decisión change the battlefield?
What about a wizard without spells?
a wizard or sorcerer that see his/her power as a curse or who lives ina land where magis is distrusted and the moment he uses his spells he will be hunted and killed?
A cleric that is not religious or spiritual at all?
err they already exist... the godless clerics that follow abstract things... they have nothing religious or espiritual about them... and they are available in the rules...
A druid who loves to litter, sodomises and turtures animals, and lists sylvan incendiarism as his favourite pastime?
Neutral Evil gnoll druid FTW!... i have DM one of those... and they are described like that in one or more books
A pacifist paladin who follows no ideals?
a paladin dissilusioned with battle, seeing thatthe followers of her god are more into killing for killing and looting and who decides that as a protest she will not fight, proving herself going everywhere without raising her sword and trying to eb all example that people can do ebtter by not fighting?
A civilised barbarian who keeps his cool in battle?
they are also called "domesticated" and he can see his rage as a curse by some evil god... trying to force itdown unless it destroys everything he loves... someone remembers the "Berserker" from Recorf of Loddoss War OAV...
they had to actually kill him before he killed the woman he was in love.
A bard who isn't about performing?
my bard is a campaign
other is a politicianthey do not eprform
both give orders and speaches (Perform[oratory]) both of them complain if someone calls them "artist", "performers"
Dogbert WAS NOT talking about changig the CLASS abilities or powers... but of how people see the Bard... the minstrel, the trouvador, the Bouffon... its ok to play like this... its NOT ok for the rules to just portray it like that... while the generic bard is a trouvador... it takes something in the collective conscience...
i myself when offered a bard for my Ship Captain had to thought it twice... why? because i had the image of the minstrel... i was planning on using rogue and 1 or 2 levels of wizard
i was doing a bard... but i had no intention to use a bard because of the way they are portrayed
still my DM took time to understand that she IS NOT a performer... or bard... she is a sailor and a captain... she just learned to do the right orders and make the best speaches to help her crew
i myself thin that changing the name of Bardic Music (which was the original name) to Bardic Performance is good... but i would like to see a name that gave me better options with what i already have
Dude...it's called bardic performance...right there in the book. You can act, you can sing, you can dance, you can perform comedy (Jester bard FTW). Hell, I have one player who does monologues from Buffy. What else should it be called? I mean, come on. You gotta perform. That's what a bard doesThanks for proving my point. I rest my case, your honor.
Let me elaborate then. The argument isn't between people who want the bard to be able to be any kind of performer and the people who want it to be a minstrel. Hell, I've never met one of those people. The argument is between people who want the bard to be any kind of performer and those who don't want it to be a performer.
Rincewind the wizard?
Rincewind knew one spell that just happened to fill his mind and scare away any other spells that might have wanted to take up residence. And if you'll remember, the reason he put "Wizzard" right on his hat was because people kept questioning him about it.
Oh you mean a cleric dedicated to war and chaos who never prostheletizes but who seeks battle around the globe and exhibits strange powers.
That's still a spirituality, an ethos.
a pacific man who is trying to stop to fight but that sometimes is forceddue tot he circumstances? an officer that is more intothestrategy than the fuighting itself and whose decisión change the battlefield?
The former is fine, but not what KaeYoss specified ("disliking using your combat ability" is markedly different from "my class abilities have nothing to do with combat"). And trying to do the latter with the Fighter is pretty much impossible. The class is totally unsuited for noncombat options. I'm not sure it's even strictly possible to build a fighter without combat prowess after a certain point.
a wizard or sorcerer that see his/her power as a curse or who lives ina land where magis is distrusted and the moment he uses his spells he will be hunted and killed?
Having spells and hating it or not being able to use them for fear or being burned at the stake is different from not having them.
err they already exist... the godless clerics that follow abstract things... they have nothing religious or espiritual about them... and they are available in the rules...
"Following abstract ideals" falls under the umbrella of "spiritual" as KaeYoss was describing it.
a paladin dissilusioned with battle, seeing thatthe followers of her god are more into killing for killing and looting and who decides that as a protest she will not fight, proving herself going everywhere without raising her sword and trying to eb all example that people can do ebtter by not fighting?
That paladin is still following some pretty strong, if atypical, ideals.
they are also called "domesticated" and he can see his rage as a curse by some evil god... trying to force itdown unless it destroys everything he loves... someone remembers the "Berserker" from Recorf of Loddoss War OAV...
they had to actually kill him before he killed the woman he was in love.
By definition, your counter examples don't keep their cool in battle.
my bard is a campaign
other is a politician
they do not eprform
both give orders and speaches...
That's still a performance, if not a musical performance.
The argument is between people who want the bard to be any kind of performer and those who don't want it to be a performer.
Again, thanks. This thread is really bringing memories back, particularly of 2E back when the Rogue class was still called "Thief", and there were arguments between people who wanted the Thief to be any kind of criminal, and those who didn't want him to be a criminal.
The argument is between people who want the bard to be any kind of performer and those who don't want it to be a performer.Again, thanks. This thread is really bringing memories back, particularly of 2E back when the Rogue class was still called "Thief", and there were arguments between people who wanted the Thief to be any kind of criminal, and those who didn't want him to be a criminal.
I agree. A bard should be anyone who performs, be that a jester, politician, singer, dancer, artist, etc. I just don't think it needs to be a fighter/wizard/rogue, which is what a lot of people are pushing. Have you actually played with people who insisted performance had to be music?
Uhh...most of these are roleplaying choices, not mechanical ones.
a pacific man who is trying to stop to fight but that sometimes is forceddue tot he circumstances? an officer that is more intothestrategy than the fuighting itself and whose decisión change the battlefield?
Big difference between 'doesn't want to' and 'can't'. He'd still be a combat-based character, just a reluctant one.
a wizard or sorcerer that see his/her power as a curse or who lives ina land where magis is distrusted and the moment he uses his spells he will be hunted and killed?
Umm...still able to use spells.
err they already exist... the godless clerics that follow abstract things... they have nothing religious or espiritual about them... and they are available in the rules...
Uhhh...If you want to housrule that a cleric following an ideal has no spirituality, go ahead, but that's your houserule, has has nothing to do with this discussion.
Neutral Evil gnoll druid FTW!... i have DM one of those... and they are described like that in one or more books
Ermmm...no. Druids don't despoil nature. Even the bad ones.
a paladin dissilusioned with battle, seeing thatthe followers of her god are more into killing for killing and looting and who decides that as a protest she will not fight, proving herself going everywhere without raising her sword and trying to eb all example that people can do ebtter by not fighting?
Yes, this could happen, after having been a normal paladin. However, still following ideals, and, better off as a cleric.
they are also called "domesticated" and he can see his rage as a curse by some evil god... trying to force itdown unless it destroys everything he loves... someone remembers the "Berserker" from Recorf of Loddoss War OAV...
they had to actually kill him before he killed the woman he was in love.
Yes, I agree, Orson was a very cool barbarian, and I use that as an example of rage for my games. However, he still HAD those abilities. And, he didn't always keep his cool. The argument here is that a performanceless bard is like a rageless barbarian. Orson was reticent, not rageless.
my bard is a campaign
other is a politician
they do not eprform
both give orders and speaches...
And that's fine. That's performance. Perform (oratory) is a skill used in bard performances for a reason, because speeches work as well. The thing is, that's STILL a performing bard (and a good idea, IMO). The argument people are having is not about getting rid of that kind of character. It's that some people want to make nonperforming bards (which that is not), meaning that they don't use the bardic performance abilities at all. They want to make rogue/fighter/wizards, which is NOT, by definition, a bard.
A druid who loves to litter, sodomises and turtures animals, and lists sylvan incendiarism as his favourite pastime?
You mean a blighter? PrC from the complete divine and legitimate character option for a duid.
What a BS response. The blighter is not an example of a druid, the blighter is an example of a fallen druid or anti-druid. If it was part of the normal druid, it wouldn't need to be a PRC. You may as well have just said 'Paladins are evil murdering bastards because some paladins become blackguards'.
|
|
And that's fine. That's performance. Perform (oratory) is a skill used in bard performances for a reason, because speeches work as well. The thing is, that's STILL a performing bard (and a good idea, IMO). The argument people are having is not about getting rid of that kind of character. It's that some people want to make nonperforming bards (which that is not), meaning that they don't use the bardic performance abilities at all. They want to make rogue/fighter/wizards, which is NOT, by definition, a bard.
i agree... but what Dogbert expressed was the idea of wanting to change the name (not take the feature away) so there were more RPG options, which from my perspective is what he is aiming (and i know him well enought to understand he is aming to this)
we agree in that part of the discussion in this forum is to make the bard either more shaped into stone... or make it other thing... and i have to agree with Jason that the bard in general like it is now is pretty decent...what we wantto change is how its look... the bard in general is not seen as a "performer" but either as a minstrel, trouvador or bouffon... and whilethis may be ok...people like me want further "options" for RPG shwon in the fluff...
yes my DM almost prohibited me from doing or knowing something a sailor trained in an naval academy (elven child from a noble family who stole avery small craft to seewhat was beyond the horizon... yes she has the trait "rich"), saying something akin to "your bard can not know that... i doubt she was teached that while they teached her music and arts"
which passed to give me an expression of WTF... "she is a captain, a sailor, someone who sails... not a friking minstrel!... for the 3th time!"
but that is the load of being a "bard"
and the examples i give where exactly that RPG options, not based on mechanics... because at least this thread was not about "mechanics"
and yes... gnolls can be druids and if you see they despoil nature and kill or enslave any thing that crosses their path... i need to findthe book... but it think is "the complete gnoll"or soemthing like that...
they think nature is to be used in their benefit... not to beprotected but a tool... NE ideosincracy: "everything is there to serve me and my petty needs"
|
|
I have a player in one of my campaigns who is running a 'Bard'....a Gypsy type character who all of her 'performs' are based off fortune telling. Because the character researched many diferent types of fortune telling and put names of such to each of the bardic performances...I totally went with it and play up the mysteriousness of her powers.
I love role players.
A Bard without perform is a diferent character ;)
I reminisce about the 1e Bard, who had to take Fighter 1st, and change classes sometime after he crossed 5th level, and before he went past 7th I think? (or was that 9th?...age yanno)Then had to take Rogue levels as a dual class character until he crossed 6th and before the broke 10th....and then became a Bard with Druid spells.
I liked that version, yet I also have fond memories of running a Gnome Bard 'spellsinger' using Beetles songs as the basis for his magicks...
go with it, its one of the most fun classes as a roleplayer you can have.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
You can roleplay a Bard in any fashion you choose. At heart they are a great support/leader class that can fill almost any role in a party. It's your character and you can play it anyway you want. If you're a Sea Captain that commands the attention of his crew with well timed orders, the occasional spell, and knowledge of a myriad of topics from his travels gravy for you.
Are you actually saying your DM wanted you to act more minstrelish? If so they need a lesson in flexibility and imagination. The Bard should and can perform or not perform as any concept you like that'[s basically a jack of all trades, a scoundrel, or a rake. Or he can be an upstanding member of a royal naval force whose leadership qualities have won him the respect of crew and commanders alike.
What's all the fuss???
-Keep on Vrocking in the free world!
|
|
Are you actually saying your DM wanted you to act more minstrelish? If so they need a lesson in flexibility and imagination. The Bard should and can perform or not perform as any concept you like that'[s basically a jack of all trades, a scoundrel, or a rake. Or he can be an upstanding member of a royal naval force whose leadership qualities have won him the respect of crew and commanders alike.
actually he supposed she was more a minstrel than a sailor, just for having the bard class... she has knowledge: profession (sailor), perform(oratory), her bardic knowlegde is bassed in Geography, she has cantrips for know direction & message
and yes ... that is the idea in how i plan to play her, more like a privateer and merchant while exploring than naval commander or pirate
and i agree there are many ways in which to take the Bard... and i knwo everyone is entitled to play it whoever they want... the problem with many players not wanting to play one... is because the feel of the class is of nothing more of minstrel, town jester, etc... what we ask is that they give more options in such description... that the be something more than just the minstrel
any one can play it as they want... but some players and DM can see beyondthe prejudices of the class, again the only reason why my cleric heals... is because she has "positive channeling" without that... people would have to heal themselves in other way or wait till the end dies so she uses what spells are left to heal people...
You mean a blighter? PrC from the complete divine and legitimate character option for a duid.
PrCs are often bad examples as things the base class can do, especially in this case.
I don't know about your nature, but in my games, a druid who doesn't respect nature will run out of spells pretty soon. He'd have to find a way to get his magic back, maybe as blighter or talonan blightlord.
Rincewind the wizard?
Wrong. He's a Wizzard.
Oh you mean a cleric dedicated to war and chaos who never prostheletizes but who seeks battle around the globe and exhibits strange powers.
Yes. I mean a spiritual follower of war and chaos. Not member of the church of Gorum, maybe, but still spiritual.
a pacific man who is trying to stop to fight but that sometimes is forceddue tot he circumstances? an officer that is more intothestrategy than the fuighting itself and whose decisión change the battlefield?
The first is still about combat, since he does fight. I mean Ghandi. I mean a guy standing in front of tanks, not lifting a finger to defend himself.
The officer won't become an officer without training at arms. And if he does, he's not a fighter.
a wizard or sorcerer that see his/her power as a curse or who lives ina land where magis is distrusted and the moment he uses his spells he will be hunted and killed?
That wizard still has spells.
err they already exist... the godless clerics that follow abstract things... they have nothing religious or espiritual about them... and they are available in the rules...
They might be godless, but they are religious/spiritual. If they weren't, they couldn't draw power from their dedication to ideals like war or evil.
a paladin dissilusioned with battle, seeing thatthe followers of her god are more into killing for killing and looting and who decides that as a protest she will not fight, proving herself going everywhere without raising her sword and trying to eb all example that people can do ebtter by not fighting?
He still has martial prowess and supernatural abilities - until his god decrees that his failure to defend others by not lifting a hand in their defends constitutes a violation of his code and strips him of his powers. And still, he has his good BAB then.
they are also called "domesticated" and he can see his rage as a curse by some evil god... trying to force itdown unless it destroys everything he loves... someone remembers the "Berserker" from Recorf of Loddoss War OAV...
He still has his rage. He might not want to use it, but it's still there.
my bard is a campaign
other is a politician
they do not eprform
both give orders and speaches (Perform[oratory]) both of them complain if someone calls them "artist", "performers"
"I take things that do not belong to me, but don't call me thief"
One last thing: Usually I don't complain too much about a relaxed attitude toward spelling and grammar, but your post is painful. I had to think a while before I figured out what you meant when you wrote that your bard is a campaign. Posts like this make people dismiss your arguments out of hand.
Rincewind knew one spell that just happened to fill his mind and scare away any other spells that might have wanted to take up residence. And if you'll remember, the reason he put "Wizzard" right on his hat was because people kept questioning him about it.
Not to forget the one time where he was taken by the UU wizards, who told him that as someone who cannot use magic, he's not actually a wizard - and the penalty for impersonating a wizard is death.
Again, thanks. This thread is really bringing memories back, particularly of 2E back when the Rogue class was still called "Thief", and there were arguments between people who wanted the Thief to be any kind of criminal, and those who didn't want him to be a criminal.
Different thing. The rogue's abilities aren't powered by criminal intent. He can crawl up the wall even if he isn't intent on stealing something at the top of the tower.
And thief has always been a lousy name for someone who can be a security specialist, thief, cutpurse, pickpocket, thug, scout, assassin, burglar, con man, swindler....
Plus, the name was used as an excuse to dislike the character. Even if he never used pick pocket in his life, he was branded as a thief. (Of course, that's more the case of idiots at the table, but you don't have to go and arm idiots).
actually he supposed she was more a minstrel than a sailor, just for having the bard class
Bad DM syndrome. The changes as they are now (bardic performance instead of bardic music) would have helped you.
Still, that doesn't mean that the bard's magic should be divorced from his performances - whatever form they may take.
the problem with many players not wanting to play one... is because the feel of the class is of nothing more of minstrel, town jester, etc... what we ask is that they give more options in such description... that the be something more than just the minstrel
Bad player syndrome.
Still, I already agree that bardic abilities. should not be limited to sing and play the guitar. Any type of performance is fine, and that includes giving rousing speaches.
But what I'm against is that bard's spells should work like wizard spells.
Well if any type of performacne will do lets get rid of the lines that say "only performance types x, y, and z" and let any performance type work. That, and the Bardic lore skill point would put it back at 6 + Int a level which would make me feel better at least.
I still feel that a bard should get more of a nod to what he has been in past editions.
I also feel that the answer to a "jack of all trades" should not be a multiclassing rogue when the bard's discription, straight from the PHB is, "Ultimate Generalist" if we are trying to make classes more of what they are then we should do just that make the bard more of an "ultimate generalist" AS WELL AS a performer.
Well if any type of performacne will do lets get rid of the lines that say "only performance types x, y, and z" and let any performance type work.
The distinction does make sense: A mime canot use countersong, for example.
I'd rather have something similar to bardic knowledge, but for perform, i.e. a free rank per level in one perform skill.
I also feel that the answer to a "jack of all trades" should not be a multiclassing rogue when the bard's discription, straight from the PHB is, "Ultimate Generalist" if we are trying to make classes more of what they are then we should do just that make the bard more of an "ultimate generalist" AS WELL AS a performer.
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.
You'd also have to change it to spellcasting with preparation, and give the bard a spellbook.
Finally, the spell list might have to be changed, since the current list is tailored to a performer-caster with some knowledge thrown in.
All in all, it would so not be backwards compatible.
Maybe Pathfinder 2e will advance the bard in an entirely new direction (game mechanics wise) and find a way to let his magical abilities draw from both his performer and loremaster aspects, but I fear for PF RPG's 3e tweaks, it's too much.
|
|
He still has martial prowess and supernatural abilities - until his god decrees that his failure to defend others by not lifting a hand in their defends constitutes a violation of his code and strips him of his powers. And still, he has his good BAB then.
the paladin does not need to lift an arm, just step in front
still we were talking about RPG issues NO mechanics... which unfortunately have not sunk in many of the people's head
yes i am sorry, i am not a native speaker, and when i reply in my job i tend to write as i think (i have other things to take care of that could not wait... but the vice of replying is in my blood)... sometimes grammars be damned, when i find the mistakes i correct them... but that is no reason for not writing correctly.
PS: my apologies i now see the idea of RPG reference already sunk in.
I'd rather have something similar to bardic knowledge, but for perform, i.e. a free rank per level in one perform skill.
I agree,thiswill solve things.
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.
You'd also have to change it to spellcasting with preparation, and give the bard a spellbook.
Finally, the spell list might have to be changed, since the current list is tailored to a performer-caster with some knowledge thrown in.
All in all, it would so not be backwards compatible.
Maybe Pathfinder 2e will advance the bard in an entirely new direction (game mechanics wise) and find a way to let his magical abilities draw from both his performer and loremaster aspects, but I fear for PF RPG's 3e tweaks, it's too much.
i think we are not trying to change the mechanics of the bard's magic working with the use of perform... but to make perfrom either more versatil or less painful to adquire by the bard... (points mentioned above by you)
i think bardic knowledge helps to make him closer to ultimate generalist... buti agree like in other thread jack of all trades should came easlier or divided in a different way.
anyway... this thread was more about changing the name of "bardic performance" to something more generic...
not changing the ability itself
|
However in two out of three gaming tables, whenever someone mentions playing a Bard that 'is not a minstrel and whose Bardic Music or spells are done in a way that has nothing to do with music or poetry' people instantly rises torches and pitchforks... why?
It's hard enough to get away from the darn harp / lute thing to a drumming bard, or one who uses a bull-roarer, without people looking at you funny.
My favorite two Bards, one an NPC, one an adversary;
A Lizardfolk (Asaatthi, in a Scarred Lands game) 'priest' who had Bard levels, and used his ranks in Perform (oratory) to read sacred inspirational passages from his holy text to Mormo, the Serpent Mother, during combat to inspire the troops. The only rules difference between him and any other Bard was that his spells were Divine.
A Human Nobleman, who had been trained by his fathers oh-so-very-expensive tutors in all the things a young nobleman should know, such as fencing, and history, and etiquette, and tactics and even smatterings of wizardry. The rules difference for him was that he was a Prepared spellcaster, not a Spontaneous one, and had fewer spells per day, and had to use a spellbook (which meant he had more versatility, given a day to prepare new spells, and adequate forewarning of what kind of situation he was going to get into). He also used Perform (oratory), but in his case used leadership skills, rousing speeches and applied combat tactics from his Knowledge (history) to provide his typical bonuses.
Neither of them had any of the newer spells that were music-dependent, since neither of them had a lick of musical ability. The Lizardfolk never sang, or played an instrument, and the Nobleman only sang once during the campaign, when he was drunk in a dwarvem bar and everyone else was singing (and slamming their mugs and stomping their feet) anyway.
I'm not rabidly against the idea of a person carrying a lute into combat, considering the guy next to him is armed with a walking stick and a wad of bat poop, but the Bard-as-Minstrel concept is, IMO, too limiting.
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.
Example alternate bards
Those are both pretty cool character concepts. IMO your mechanical alterations sound logical and balanced. Just as UA has rule on spontaneous-casting clerics, this seems in-line with the reverse (i.e. making a prepared caster out of a spontaneous caster.)
One of the ideas I had on how to address that power-lag of the bard was along similar lines — transform the bard into a hybrid casting class:
Bards would keep a spellbook with their spell progression following roughly 2-3 character levels behind a wizard. As in 2nd Ed, spells would be selected from the Wizard spell list. The catch (and where the hybrid part comes in), is that Bards would have a small list of spells that they could cast spontaneously. i.e. Just as a cleric can loose a prepared spell to cast a cure spell, the Bard would be able to loose a prepared spell to cast a bardic spell.
These bardic spells could either be a set list in the core rulebook, or the bard could select a smattering of spells (say 1 or 2 per spell level) from either the Druid, Cleric, or Wizard lists. Spells so selected could then be cast spontaneously as noted above.
anyway... this thread was more about changing the name of "bardic performance" to something more generic...
What would be a better fit? After all, it is a performance. Giving a rousing speech is a performance.
I agree with the change in Beta, from bardic music to bardic performance, to reinforce the idea that not all bardic power comes from music. And I will gladly support any request to get rid of the requirement that all bard spells will have a verbal component.
Instead, I'd leave components generally as they are, or say that bards could choose what components they have (depending on perform skill used):
A combined performance increases the spell DC by 1 (alternate bonuses might be any 1 level metamatic ability for free, like extended duration).
Silent and/or Still spell cannot be used in these cases, and a spell cannot cast a spell with neither component under any circumstances.
For audible performances, the language-dependant part could be added in, but that would probably be a case-by-case basis, anyway.
Generally, this needs some fine-tuning, and probably some common sense with both players and GMs to adjudicate uses.
i agree... but what Dogbert expressed was the idea of wanting to change the name (not take the feature away) so there were more RPG options, which from my perspective is what he is aiming (and i know him well enought to understand he is aming to this)
I'm sorry, performer is endemic to the class. Changing it from music to performance is fine, the continued debate over something so silly as the name of the bard's special abilities/spells is starting to sound like political correctness in the US.
"So, for bardic music-"
"-Hey! Don't call it music. You're a performancist!"
"-I...I was just trying to use music as an example because most bards-"
"-Most bards?!? That's a stereotype! Now you're classist!"
I mean, really, do whatever performances you want. I'm sorry if your DMs suck. But I fear making language and features so open-ended that they're devoid of flavor because some players will be offended that their (outside the norm) characters aren't precisely included in the language of the rules is going to turn the game into a flavorless generic system.
Example alternate bardsThose are both pretty cool character concepts. IMO your mechanical alterations sound logical and balanced. Just as UA has rule on spontaneous-casting clerics, this seems in-line with the reverse (i.e. making a prepared caster out of a spontaneous caster.)
One of the ideas I had on how to address that power-lag of the bard was along similar lines — transform the bard into a hybrid casting class:
Bards would keep a spellbook with their spell progression following roughly 2-3 character levels behind a wizard. As in 2nd Ed, spells would be selected from the Wizard spell list. The catch (and where the hybrid part comes in), is that Bards would have a small list of spells that they could cast spontaneously. i.e. Just as a cleric can loose a prepared spell to cast a cure spell, the Bard would be able to loose a prepared spell to cast a bardic spell.
These bardic spells could either be a set list in the core rulebook, or the bard could select a smattering of spells (say 1 or 2 per spell level) from either the Druid, Cleric, or Wizard lists. Spells so selected could then be cast spontaneously as noted above.
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.
Set's character concepts are cool, but I don't think they honestly need to be included in the ruleset (hell, if I were DM, I'd have just said that the current spell list covers their abilities and let the player describe it how they want).
|
|
I like bards being a performance-based class. I have played a very effective evil bard in a good party, specializing in disarming attacks with a whip (he eventually took a few levels in the Lasher PrC as well). He never sung or played an instrument, and no PC acting in character expected him to do so.
Later he took Subsonics and used Perform (oratory-insults and scathing wit) to mutter curses under his breath. Only the party wizard grew suspicious when he summoned fiendish crocodiles now and then.
On a side note, this thread has inspired me to write down some lines from music I like and place it next to a thematically-related bard spell. Cheers!
|
|
I agree with the change in Beta, from bardic music to bardic performance, to reinforce the idea that not all bardic power comes from music. And I will gladly support any request to get rid of the requirement that all bard spells will have a verbal component.
Instead, I'd leave components generally as they are, or say that bards could choose what components they have (depending on perform skill used)
point taken
and the ideas you describre have a good basis... i can imagine a mime or a dancer moving themselves around as they createan area of silence from where to work better while interrumping langua based casters.I mean, really, do whatever performances you want. I'm sorry if your DMs suck. But I fear making language and features so open-ended that they're devoid of flavor because some players will be offended that their (outside the norm) characters aren't precisely included in the language of the rules is going to turn the game into a flavorless generic system.
actually he is quite good, but as with lots of people he has the idea of the bard fixated...
which is the thign we want to changeits of thatthe class is based around performance
but the fact is that in great part is based in the trouvador, not the mechanics but the fluff
and yes while some persons decide to try some rather cool variants of the bard (many of which have mentioned here) there are a lot ofpoeple thatcan see beyond the trouvadorin the bard...
and that enrages me almost as much as the same people seeing the cleric as the healbot :P
I like bards being a performance-based class. I have played a very effective evil bard in a good party, specializing in disarming attacks with a whip (he eventually took a few levels in the Lasher PrC as well). He never sung or played an instrument, and no PC acting in character expected him to do so.
Later he took Subsonics and used Perform (oratory-insults and scathing wit) to mutter curses under his breath. Only the party wizard grew suspicious when he summoned fiendish crocodiles now and then.
On a side note, this thread has inspired me to write down some lines from music I like and place it next to a thematically-related bard spell. Cheers!
je is good to hear someone took benefit of the rant in here :P
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 like bards being a performance-based class. I have played a very effective evil bard in a good party, specializing in disarming attacks with a whip (...) He never sung or played an instrument, and no PC acting in character expected him to do so.
I agree, if bards are all about performances, performances shouldn't have to be music by necessity.
I consider the bard the perfect class for an aristocrat. You have to see it as the entertainee as opposed to the entertainer, but the bard features match the role. Being accustomed to be listened (fascinate), to be obeyed (suggestion) and of being motivational/intimidating (inspire courage or competence) are all more than suitable features for an "aristocrat" class.
Its "performances" however, would be drastically different from a minstrel bard. Yet the system would remain the same.
'findel
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.
Blaine Tog we aren't trying to take performance out, we are trying to get rid of the double/triple tax on class abilities.
Some more and better bardic performance would be nice, but that's a side issue. Here's where I stand on the skill issue.
I've paid for my class abilities by taking class levels.
Now I've got to pay again by buying a skill that has no other use.
Then if I want the rest of my class abilities I must buy the same skill again under a different name to get them.
I would like more abilities added to the bard to help him fill his "Ultimate Generalist" role and his spells to come quicker than they do right now. I do not want anything taken away from the bard.
|
|
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 agree with you and Spalding
i would also like to see perform doing something cool without bardic performance, the cost one needs to pay to be a perfoermer of any kind is already step