D&D 5E Bards. They are silly. Is there a way to make them NOT silly?

Celebrim said:

*when you want to give XP but the person's in question have turned off the option there ought to be a meme*

I'm not jealous per se, but as someone who isn't very funny, I certainly admire people who are. I got a chuckle out of "Gorgon Lightfoot".

UPDATE: Treant Reznor and Kurt Gnoll-Bane too.

Click to expand...

You can turn XP off? Huh.

Saelorn said:

Understanding the class is less a question of being attuned to the culture that produced the original bard concept back in the day, and more a question of being attuned to the culture that inspired the class back in the mid-late twentieth century. Was this another Gary invention? What was he trying to represent here?

Click to expand...

Well, I've only done a little research, but the answer appears to be a good bit more complicated than I thought.

The original Bard class I knew had appeared in The Strategic Review prior to its inclusion in the appendix of the 1e AD&D PH. But, it was not as I supposed the invention of Gygax, nor did the original Bard class very strongly resemble that of the class as it appeared in the 1e AD&D. There is enough in common that we can see that it obviously influenced it, but it has been almost completely reworked mechanically.

Ironically, the original strategic review class has much more in common with the Bard of later editions than it does with the 1e Bard. It's a straight class rather than a proto-Prestige class as in 1e. The original Bard (oBard?) is fundamentally in its conception a 'gish' class, intended it would seem as a fighter with half-progression as an arcane spellcaster (almost exactly, with a 10th level bard having the spells of a 5th level M-U) AND half-progression as a thief (literally, your thief abilities are half your bard level). The original author is Doug Schwegman and appears to have been rather loosely inspired by what he describes as a broad European tradition - Nordic skalds, Celtic Bards, and southern European minstrals. He discusses at some length how the northern tradition was more lawful, while the southern tradition was one more of trickery - a thief-illusionist as he puts it. However, he concedes that he is primarily drawing from the Celtic tradition, and - perhaps I should not be surprised - the works of JRR Tolkien.

It's evident that Gygax though the concept rather a good one, but did not like the rules as presented. Exactly what process was used to convert the original concept into the form scene I don't know. Evidently Gygax thought that the dual-classing rules he presented were more suitable than a class which gave a character a little bit of every ability, and I suspect he also understood that the class would as presented be quite weak at around name level - a jack of all trades but nearly useless at all of them. I would guess Gygax rather disliked the concept of Bard as jongleur and rather preferred the bard as Skald or animist Warrior-Priest as presented in the Kalevala, but I'm not sure if any of his thinking regarding the Bard's reimagining is preserved.

In any event, Gygax's bard seems to have ultimately been abandoned in favor of the more rascally ministral of Schwegman.

Dannyalcatraz said:

You can turn XP off? Huh.

Click to expand...

This is quite weird, but your most recent post in the thread always lacks the 'give XP' button. I assumed it was some setting where you had opted out of the system, but as I look up the thread, your older posts - the very same ones I wanted to give XP for - now have the button, while this newest one I'm responding too does not.

[MENTION=10531]see[/MENTION]: I see you beat me to the punch there.

Maybe there's a lag in the system. By design.

Celebrim said:

Ironically, the original strategic review class has much more in common with the Bard of later editions than it does with the 1e Bard.

Click to expand...

The AD&D 1e bard seems to have been almost a "Celtization" by Gygax, since it replaced magic-user elements with druid elements. I note the Strategic Review bard was reprinted in Best of the Dragon/Best of Dragon Magazine (which is the title depends whether you go by the cover or the interior title) volume I, in 1985, on p.47. So it was not a lost artifact of the early era when the development of AD&D 2nd was being undertaken, and yes, it's fairly obvious that provided the model for the AD&D 2nd bard, and thus to the 3e bard.

Whether Gygax thought the concept was a good one I'm not of sure about. AD&D 1st's PHB included every class that was published for the original D&D in the Supplements or the Strategic Review, so he might have just been being comprehensive about including classes. The introductory text in the 1e PHB on p.117 seems to me to be hinting pretty heavily that DMs should not allow it. Similarly, requiring four 15s, a 12, and a 10 for ability scores seems almost designed to keep anyone from playing it even if the class was allowed by the DM.

see said:

Similarly, requiring four 15s, a 12, and a 10 for ability scores seems almost designed to keep anyone from playing it even if the class was allowed by the DM.

Click to expand...

Once upon a time, when Bards were baaaaad...

To put that in context, an AD&D Paladin needed a Charisma of 17, Wisdom 13, Strength 12, Intelligence and Constitution 9. That's right, they at least had a dump stat.

Have you considered a Bard that sings sad songs with deceptively happy tunes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W29uMcp5BWU

The 5th Edition bard covers the 4th Edition incarnations well enough, but it doesn't do so in such a way as to move the class forward in terms of maturation of overall concept. — It feels reductive in terms of being defined by magic use as opposed to the things that make it special and unique.

I think the argument speaks largely to the communal gripe that 5th Edition relies too heavily on spellcasting. The bard is a victim of that.

The only character I've played in 5E was a Bard (I generally DM). He was definitely not silly. He was charismatic to the point where he could manipulate people with or without magic. When your magic is based around putting certain tones into songs and speeches, it's extremely difficult to figure out where there skill ends and the magic begins.

For example, he talked constantly in combat, generally doing Spiderman type insults and rambling. When he wasn't directly engaged with someone, though, he frequently defaulted to vicious mockery to give the meat shields a bit of an advantage. He could also jump it up to using dissonant whispers, if he was a bit more serious. I played up the fact that he was hurting people just by talking.

On the other hand, he can place his hand on your shoulder and sing to your wounds and they close. He's not doing anything goofy. He just knows things.