D&D 3E/3.5 Rebuilding 3e (3.75 if you will) - My Rendition, a work in progress

[DreamChaser]

A bard should be more of a druidical figure. That is the historical archetype upon which the class is based.

No, that is the historical origin of the word "bard" which has no bearing on its role in the game.

Similarly, the historical origin of "cleric" ...

noun: a priest or religious leader

...does not directly relate to the heavily armored holy warrior the class represents. Templar or knight most closely resembles what the class is but that has no bearing on the chosen name or the abilities of the class.

The bard class is most closely based upon the English scops and minstrels, French troubadours and jongleurs, and German minnesingers. By the time the term "bard" was applied to the concept within Scotland and Ireland (first recorded in 1449), troubadours had been doing their thing for 400 years.

The Celtic / druidic concept of the bard, as recorded I might add by Roman observers, are shrouded in mystery because we really know nothing of them due largely to an almost entirely oral culture and the extent of the cultural bleeding and assimilation that occurred during the spread of Christianity through the Gaelic lands. Moreover, the druids, bards, and vates (ovates) were not terribly forthcoming with their Roman interviewers, being a largely secret order.

Of the druids' oral literature (sacred songs, formulas for prayers and incantations, rules of divination and magic) not one certifiably ancient verse is known to have survived, even in translation, nor is there a legend that can be called "purely" druidic, without a Roman and/or Christian overlay or interpretation. There is surviving folklore in the modern Celtic nations and the diaspora that deals with these same themes and practices, however there is no way to conclusively trace the origins of these practices or customs to the druids.

Because we have no real way to know if the D&D druid is similar in concept or feel to the historical druid (though we can make some educated guesses that it is not), tying the bard to it more closely out of some sense of historicity seems misguided to me.

*shrug* History aside, choosing to go with a "savage bard" concept like from UA is cool and can add in some additional "bite" to the class, taking it out of the throne room so to speak. Scops and skalds would fit well into this category without any artificial link to druidism.

DC

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

1. Multiclass Characters I don't like AD&D racial level limits, but it is too easy to pick up a new class in 3e. Need I point out the oft-mentioned absurdity of an illiterate barbarian waking up one day with a spellbook full of spells? Even the assumption that he has been learning all along is hard to swallow when it only took a couple weeks or even days of adventuring.

Agreed, multiclassing is too easy, though it mostly bothers me because of the cherry picking opportunities rather than possible in-game inconsistencies. My house rule is that any character can have any two classes before taking the 20% XP penalty, but the two class limit stands regardless of 'building evenly'.

7. Fighter Could this class be any more boring? I liked it back in AD&D when fighters were the ones who got the coolest castles and the most minions. We need to bring that back.

I'm probably just not seeing how you think fighters are boring, but how is giving them a bunch of low level minions (that require a bunch of bookkeeping) making them more fun? I suppose in a political/nation-centered game they might be useful or flavorful, but in general I don't see it. Also, does a fighter get double followers if he takes Leadership or just the cohort? Also instead of just adding a couple fighter-only abilities, have you considered turning various class abilities into feats? There are a whole lot of them that frankly have no business being restricted to specific classes. (fast movement, uncanny dodge, evasion, aura of courage etc.)

11. Armor Space is wasted on armor player characters will never wear anyway (at least not for more than a few sessions). Chain mail and splint mail come immediately to mind.

I have a simplified list of alternative armors here. Though you could go even further and just have three kinds of armor; light, medium and heavy, and leave it up to imagination and description to differentiate what exact type of armor one is wearing. Besides, no one can ever agree on how the different armor types 'should' be statted or even what they should be named.

 

[airwalkrr]

DreamChaser, as per E. Gary Gygax, the bard class was originally envisioned as a branch of druidism. It was the inspiration for the class and is the archetype upon which the first version of the bard class was based. Maybe it is only nostalgia, but I like the druid-bard. I'm not particularly fond the a French/English troubadour the bard has come to represent more in 3.5 (I think the main reason for this is Shakespeare's moniker as "The Bard"). I feel the Jester class from Dragon magazine does a better job of this.

Tequila, my best solution for the fighter is to make him more of a weapon master. The PH2 feats and abilities help, but the idea needs more development. As for what makes it boring, 9 of 20 levels, the fighter gets nothing but hp, bab, skill points, and save bonuses. Those levels just aren't very exciting.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Ah, the ol' dead levels issue. In that case how about giving them a feat every level? Just making suggestions, 'cause I don't think the leadership thing helps much especially with the dead levels problem.

 

[airwalkrr]

A feat EVERY level just seems a tad excessive. I have toyed with the following idea however. At every even level, a fighter gets a bonus feat as normal. At every odd level, a fighter gets a bonus feat that must be selected from a more limited list: Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, Melee Weapon Mastery*, or Ranged Weapon Mastery*.
*PH2

But you could be right. A feat every level might not be as bad as I think it is.

 

[Khaalis]

A feat EVERY level just seems a tad excessive. I have toyed with the following idea however. At every even level, a fighter gets a bonus feat as normal. At every odd level, a fighter gets a bonus feat that must be selected from a more limited list:

This is basically the concept Saga uses. A Feat at odd levels, a Talent at even levels where talent trees are basically just specifically focused groups of feats.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

A feat EVERY level just seems a tad excessive. I have toyed with the following idea however. At every even level, a fighter gets a bonus feat as normal. At every odd level, a fighter gets a bonus feat that must be selected from a more limited list: Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, Melee Weapon Mastery*, or Ranged Weapon Mastery*.
*PH2

But you could be right. A feat every level might not be as bad as I think it is.

Your idea sounds great, but then again I may be the only player who still take the whole Weapon Focus tree as a fighter. So for me, the narrowed feat list wouldn't make a difference.