D&D 5E Anyone else think the Bard concept is just silly?

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Yeah it what if magic is, say, the Internet? One guy gets his Internet from BT, one from Verizon, and so on. It's all the same just different delivery mechanisms.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

 

[Alexemplar]

[Note: These images are mine, fyi. So, no takey/usey without my say so. 'k?

Here's a bard. Let's say his lute/lyre/lap-harp is in his cabin.

Here's a couple of guys, either of whom who could easily be bards

Here's a, perhaps more "stereotypical" bard (on the left), as the ones you're talking about. As I recall, he was Chaotic Neutral and rather always getting himself -and the rest of us- into trouble. But, never did I think "That's a bard for ya." It was THAT PC. I would propose that the guy on the right of this image (who, IIRC, was actually a ranger) could easily be taken as a bard, just going by appearances.

Which is "silly" and why/what makes it so?

If the guy at the top were in the middle of a fight and playing his harp while singing shirtless, I would find him to be the silly one. At the moment, he's just sitting there.

Both the Elf and Dwarf in the second picture look rather serious. I'm assuming the Elven Bard left his instrument somewhere else too.

Regarding the quartet, the Warrior seems to be ripe for parody with his shirtless physique and loincloth, but I'd wager that the fellow in the hat is the Bard, as while everyone else seems to have assumed a stance for battle, that character seems to be making some kind of comical gesture. He seems to be without his instrument as well.

But I don't think these count as Bards, sir. Not from what I've been told anyway. I've been told that being automatically proficiency with no fewer than three musical instruments, being able to cast spells through their instruments, and performing their major functions through singing/playing instruments is what makes a Bard a Bard. Making a jack of all trades/scholar/gish/diletante character with music as an option doesn't count. The musical entertainer aspect has to be front and center.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I think this thread needs a musical interlude/example of singing while fighting...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OWq38TikzU

 

[Xyrlove Woodsoul]

I want to like the bard, but I was never much of a fan of the bard (albeit, I think there was a certain mystique about the 1ed bard, and in 4ed I felt they lacked flavor- which was a good thing IME). If a player is very into the bard, it's history and what not, it works better. But in my experience, folks who want to sing and dance in the dungeon (and sing at the table and what not) tend to take the class, histrionic-types, and they're usually more irritating than entertaining, despite the fun. It often turns into The Wizard of Oz (or, the Whizz).

I would have preferred them to be half-casters, but I can't quite put my finger on as to why.

 

[Lanliss]

I want to like the bard, but I was never much of a fan of the bard (albeit, I think there was a certain mystique about the 1ed bard, and in 4ed I felt they lacked flavor- which was a good thing IME). If a player is very into the bard, it's history and what not, it works better. But in my experience, folks who want to sing and dance in the dungeon (and sing at the table and what not) tend to take the class, histrionic-types, and they're usually more irritating than entertaining, despite the fun. It often turns into The Wizard of Oz (or, the Whizz).

I would have preferred them to be half-casters, but I can't quite put my finger on as to why.

At a guess, because less spell casting would open class space for more Skill and Martial features?

 

[Hussar]

CORRECT!
That is the EXACT essence of this thread.
We are not declaring Badwrongfun on anyone that likes it! Some of us just need a little help visualizing a bard class because we find it a bit silly.
The class mechanics are pretty great. Its the persona that is a bit of a problem for many of us. Luckily there have been a lot of good responses in this thread however that has tweaked my perspective of how a bard can actually have a decent persona and so not be "stuck" as a silly troubadour.

Sidenote: Bards are Inspiring! They are inspiring folks all over this thread to be pissed that people view Bards a silly! LOLThey forget this is OPINION and doesn't even need to be backed up. Saying someone needs to "convince" you that bards are silly is...well silly

Well, to be fair, the connotation here with calling something that other people like "silly" as in childish, immature, stupid, is something that's likely to get people's back up. Calling it an opinion that doesn't need to be backed up isn't really helping either.

There's a world of difference between, "I don't like bards" and "I think bards are stupid and unbelievable in a fantasy setting". The first one, no one can really argue with you. The second is a statement that certainly can and will be debated.

I mean, you started this thread with:

Every time I think of a dude dancing and spouting poetry to " inspire " me while I am being attacked by trolls I just cringe.
If that happened in real life I would stop attacking the trolls immediately and bet the crap outta the singing useless weirdo..
The whole concept is just too silly to even visualize.
Even one that is fighting is silly.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-the-Bard-concept-is-just-silly#ixzz4fMAKvBtH

It doesn't look like you were looking for some help visualising a bard. It looks like you were taking a big, steaming dump of badwrongfun on anyone who actually likes the concept.

 

[thewok]

At a guess, because less spell casting would open class space for more Skill and Martial features?

Which isn't really necessary since attack bonus is based in level, rather than class progression. And since skills aren't based on points anymore--thank God--bards and rogues don't sacrifice combat ability to be skill monkeys. The bard knowledge and expertise features work well for that.

At first glance, it may seem that the bard is just as good a spellcaster as the wizard, but it's not the case. The spells per day is the same, but the bard lacks the utility that comes with the wizard's spellbook. The bard can use only the spells it knows. The wizard can learn as many spells as he can find in scroll or book form. Now, admittedly, the bard can poach spells from other classes, but, again, it is very few, and those will mainly serve to flesh out a bard's role in the group, which can vary from campaign to campaign. Also, those are "permanent" choices, rather than additions to a relatively unlimited spell selection.

Then there is the matter if the bard spell list itself, which lacks the breadth of function of the wizard or even sorcerer. It has a few spells usually considered divine, but not like the cleric or druid. It can use scrolls, but, again, is limited by its spell list to eliminate the chance of failure.

I currently play two bards in different campaigns. They are certainly good characters, but they lack the specialization that makes other classes the "masters" of their respective domains. Even so, that breadth of knowledge is itself a strength, which allows the bard to shore up any weaknesses in the group.

I've already made my thoughts known on the stereotypical trappings of the bard, but I'll sum up here: singing and playing instruments is flavor and not crunch. Foci can be replaced with a spell component pouch, and Inspiration does not specify music at all. Song of rest does, but since you're not in combat, it's a non-issue. A lot of warriors historically have taken up some form of art, and music ability or knowledge is widely considered the mark of a well-educated person.

Sent from my SM-G935V using EN World mobile app

 

[Aldarc]

There's a world of difference between, "I don't like bards" and "I think bards are stupid and unbelievable in a fantasy setting". The first one, no one can really argue with you. The second is a statement that certainly can and will be debated.

Douglas Adams: "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."

Just wanted to point out that if you look in the PHB and DMG, you actually won't find many pointy hat Wizards waving sticks around. If you do, it'll be a rarity.

But there are plenty of wizards with hooded robes carrying staves.

But every Bard is smiling/smirking and all but one is carrying an instrument, and every single actual instrument is a lute/guitar.

I'm pretty sure the folks at D&D know exactly which stereotypes they are and aren't playing into.

Do you plan on backing this assertion up? I would love to see the citations on this. If the prominent character walking the tight rope is meant to be a bard (PHB 52), then is that silly? Where is their instrument? Are you counting the depicted Halfling as a bard? Or the depicted Performer background as a bard? What is stopping the character depicted on PHB 148 from being a bard? What's stopping the Gnome on PHB 35 from being a bard? That could be a bard on DMG 303, if we take the lute as a visual cue, but is this character 1) using the lute in combat, or 2) dressed in a silly fashion? Sure, if you are defining the bard pictures as those in which "the characters are carrying instruments," then of course you will find bards carrying lutes and not find many bards not carrying lutes. If the picture of what is presumably magical music is meant to depict a bard (PHB 202), then there are certainly several things that we can notice about the picture that fly in the face of "silly" stereotypes lobbed at the bard: again, 1) the character is not playing in combat, and 2) the character is not dressed as a troubadour, jongleur, or common minstrel, but is instead decked in mail. Is she smirking or smiling? Hard to say, but the campfire scene looks positively serene as opposed to comically jovial. How many bards can you find who are depicted as the "dude dancing and spouting poetry" while being attacked by trolls or performing in combat?

So how does one spot a bard in the art? The beauty of the bard is that they could be that character you think is the rogue, the warrior, or the caster.

You know what's even sillier than a bard playing music in combat? Making the bard and/or their possession of instruments into some sort of conceptual offense. In the Hobbit, for example, adventurers carrying instruments was normal. We know that Thorin's Company at least had with them when they reached Bag End. We hear in lavish detail about the dwarves pulling out fiddles (Kili and Fili), viols (Balin and Dwalin), drums (Bombor), clarinets (Bifur and Bofur), flutes (Ori, Nori, and Dori), and harps (Thorin). I recall that some of the dwarves - I can't recall which off the top of my head - were excited to find magical harps in Smaug's hoard. Did they play these in battle? Of course not, but we also don't see the 5e bard do this either. And how could they anyway? Their hands will be too busy casting spells and holding their weapons.

 

[Brandegoris]

Well, to be fair, the connotation here with calling something that other people like "silly" as in childish, immature, stupid, is something that's likely to get people's back up. Calling it an opinion that doesn't need to be backed up isn't really helping either.

There's a world of difference between, "I don't like bards" and "I think bards are stupid and unbelievable in a fantasy setting". The first one, no one can really argue with you. The second is a statement that certainly can and will be debated.

I mean, you started this thread with:



It doesn't look like you were looking for some help visualising a bard. It looks like you were taking a big, steaming dump of badwrongfun on anyone who actually likes the concept.

Um...That quote was explaining EXACTLY and succinctly why I was having a problem visualizing the bard. I suppose I could've added " please help give me your opinions on why the bard isn't silly and help me to think he could be cooler"?

Just because It is clear I find them SILLY doesn't mean I think people that like them are crap. I think people tend to take things a Bit too seriously here.
I like plenty of things that people consider silly and we have a great deal of fun trying to convince one another of our opinions ( usually unsuccessfully), and its all good and understood that I am not personally attacking them. We don't take it that seriously. Its lighthearted , just like this thread was meant to be.
I didn't feel I needed a disclaimer that " this is just my opinion and I do not mean to offend and forgive me if I have made you feel lesser than me because your opinion differs".
I mean if that's happening to someone over this thread they probably need to look at other factors in their life.
Side Note: I realize I am coming off as a d*ck right now and I am not trying to. ( seriously I am not). I just can't get that excited about a thread to the point where I might get angry about what someone said. We are all different and have opinions. I shared MY opinions and Invited anyone else that shares that opinion to talk with me about it.
" I Invited anyone else who shares my opinion to talk about it in this thread" ( See that there?)
If you did NOT think bards were silly as well maybe this thread wasn't for you?

 

[Derren]

Did they play these in battle? Of course not, but we also don't see the 5e bard do this either. And how could they anyway? Their hands will be too busy casting spells and holding their weapons.

You of course mean they are holding their spellcasting focus aka their instruments in order to cast spells...