What Should the Bard Be?

[kigmatzomat]

I would note that Chris Pines played a rogue, whose background was "spy" and cover was being a minstrel. He was a bard in name only.

Possible. But who makes better plans, bards or rogues? And then who leads the party better to its completion?

Any class can be a leader or a planner, assuming they are able/willing to solicit information from others. The Bard isn't inherently a better leader.

A "leader" bard does have it easier than other classes as it needs fewer competent advisors. Between unrestricted skill access, expertise and Jack of All Trades they can be their own expert. Go for Lore bard and they can readily spackle over all the skill-weaknesses in the party without tapping feats.

And my basis for Pine being a rogue is that in every edition bard is a spell caster. Heck, 1e bard was almost the archetype for 3e prestige classes. If the wild-mage has Counterspell, Major Image & Bigby's Hand, how the heck does Chris Pine not cast a single spell? He is a spy-spellcaster who doesn't know Invisibility? Or even a cantrip?

Nah, he's a rogue. He used sneak attack to bash people. Maybe he had Inspiring Leader feat as a buff. No way he's a bard.

 

[Lanefan]

Hmm. I kinda prefer it if the bard's magic isn't some form of music-magic. The 2e AD&D bard had some issues*, but I really liked what they did with their spells -- they were more a case of a wandering lorekeeper and storyteller picking up odd bits of useful knowledge (same as the rest of their jack-of-all-trades schtick) and that just happens to include spellcasting in a D&D-like world. I feel that focusing too much on the music as the magic base kinda enforces the notion that bards are minstrels more than lorekeepers and such.
*Could only readily fight or cast spells in a given situation (unless you found elven chain), low hd and ThAC0 inhibited fighting overall, had a few thief skills, but not the rather important find/remove traps (plus armor issues same as casting).

If they don't use music-magic or some other completely-bespoke system they risk becoming just another bland caster, as evidenced by 5e. There's already too many of those.

To what specific end? Just make them survive better or contribute more at lower levels when they have fewer spells and other tricks? To let them wield longswords and rapiers, but not really compete in the gish/fighting-caster category?

Pretty much - it gives them survivability at low levels and allows them to use any weapon (drawback: they can only ever become proficient with one or two specific weapons, chosen at 1st level) but then fades into the background as spells and other abilities take over at higher levels.

 

[Lanefan]

Are you asserting that bards shouldn't be lone wolves?

They can be inherently lone wolves, or they can be PC-playable characters. The two options don't mesh very well except in solo play.

This sounds like a class change/multiclass. Otherwise, it's too meta for me. "Jogwidt, are you actually getting worse at fighting?" " Sorry. I've been gaining levels. Can't help it. "

Jogwidt never gets worse at fighting, instead he keeps up with the martial classes for the first few levels (or first tier) then falls off the pace after that.

In-fiction rationale: recently he's been concentrating more on learning new bardy things than on learning new fighty things.

 

[The Shadow]

And my basis for Pine being a rogue is that in every edition bard is a spell caster. Heck, 1e bard was almost the archetype for 3e prestige classes. If the wild-mage has Counterspell, Major Image & Bigby's Hand, how the heck does Chris Pine not cast a single spell? He is a spy-spellcaster who doesn't know Invisibility? Or even a cantrip?

Nah, he's a rogue. He used sneak attack to bash people. Maybe he had Inspiring Leader feat as a buff. No way he's a bard.

It seems they made the decision for the movie that only wizards and sorcerers actually cast spells. The druid never does, just wildshapes. Notice that Pine's character asks Simon to cast a healing spell!

The problem is that robbed the bard of a big chunk of his shtick, leaving him as basically a half-hearted rogue.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Fabulous.

 

[Willie the Duck]

It seems they made the decision for the movie that only wizards and sorcerers actually cast spells. The druid never does, just wildshapes. Notice that Pine's character asks Simon to cast a healing spell!

The problem is that robbed the bard of a big chunk of his shtick, leaving him as basically a half-hearted rogue.

Overall, I feel like the 'Is Pine's character a bard' question is like those 'are hotdogs a sandwich?'-type questions. He can be a rogue that's called a bard or a bard that doesn't cast spells (because he can't, won't, or just doesn't), and most positions and justifications I have seen people give are reasonable, but not indisputable (because the situation is too open for there to be only one right answer).

Fundamentally, the way I look at it is that the D&D* movie wasn't D&D characters with PC classes, so much as the PC classes's archetypes or most notable schticks. The barbarian fights, the druid turns into animals, sorcerers and wizards** cast spells***, the paladin chivalrously leads the party through danger and goes badass on undead, and the bard leads and manipulates. Honestly, for me the most interesting case is the rogue, who (fails to, deliberately) find traps in the prologue, and then stops doing rogue-specific stuff and just becomes what the entire group is: thieves.
*In googling the characters for the movie, I just learned that the actress who plays Sofina the red wizard is Anthony Stewart Head's daughter. Huh, small world.
**of which the distinction is not well made
***and use magic items, you'll note Simon spends half the time using magic charms and rods and helms instead of his own spells

The movie is too short (and everything has to be simplified enough that non-D&D players can come and buy tickets and understand what they are watching) to give the breadth of the totality of all the different tropes it references, and bard and druid spells hit the scriptwriter's dustbin alongside making the barbarian fighting style specifically rage-like, having the paladin turn undead, or explaining why Holga's (presumably halfling) ex-husband is a half-height human*.
*not in proportion to Real World physical conditions that create diminutive adults

 

[Willie the Duck]

If they don't use music-magic or some other completely-bespoke system they risk becoming just another bland caster, as evidenced by 5e. There's already too many of those.

See, I don't mind the bard being a 'back-up wizard*.' I think that worked at least as well as every other interpretation of bards. Obviously this only really works if they advance in casting more slowly than wizards (or otherwise cast less/less well). In 2e we appreciated having an alternate option with a bit more survivability and other tricks up their sleeves**, and isn't going to light up the battlefield with fireballs (at the levels we played a lot of), but had us covered for detect magic, identify, knock, and spiderclimb. That worked as a role. I would not have minded if the 5e bard had been the arcane 1/2-caster with mostly the same spell list as wizards.
*complaints going back to the beginning of the game about magic users/mages/wizards being the 'everything but healing' casters and how that can make them very same-y are valid and in general I agree. Just not going to single out the bard on that.
**see previous post about the actual class not exactly living up to the dream.

That said, completely other-role bards* are also a fine option, and I could get behind one of those as well. They should, IMO, either fill shoes similar to the martial classes--such that you would put them in a party with a cleric and a mage type--, or fill some of those... gatekey ability? ... roles that you otherwise needed the cleric and/or mage. I say that because BitD we all loved reading those classes like illusionist and druid (and in 2e psionicist), but they all ended up being 5th wheels because you still needed the thief to find traps, a magic user to identify magic items*, clerics to remove curses**, and so on. 5e has reduced this (notably with thief and cleric-as-hp-battery roles), but there still are some things I see make people really try to get a wizard/sorcerer and cleric (or lore bard dedicated to replicating one or the other, which is pretty much what I'm asking of this theoretical new bard) in their group.
*maybe with bespoke systems, though I'm iffy on 'different for the sake of different'
**and cast fly
***and let's be honest, get the group back to full HP at any reasonable rate

Pretty much - it gives them survivability at low levels and allows them to use any weapon (drawback: they can only ever become proficient with one or two specific weapons, chosen at 1st level) but then fades into the background as spells and other abilities take over at higher levels.

Honestly, this isn't too far from what the baseline bard does already -- give them a rapier and a 16 dex score and they hit* well enough until the lack of extra attack makes them fall behind. Give this theoretical new bard the option to pick Strength based weapons and medium or heavy armor (but no extra attack, maybe unless sub-class grants it) and I think it would work.
*light armor not near-keeping-up with medium/heavy unless you devote ASIs, along with lack of shield, makes withstanding combat a bit more of a challenge.

 

[Lanefan]

See, I don't mind the bard being a 'back-up wizard*.' I think that worked at least as well as every other interpretation of bards.

Thing is, if someone wants to play a Wizard-with-music then why don't they just play a Wizard with some sort of proficiency in a musical instrument?

Obviously this only really works if they advance in casting more slowly than wizards (or otherwise cast less/less well). In 2e we appreciated having an alternate option with a bit more survivability and other tricks up their sleeves**, and isn't going to light up the battlefield with fireballs (at the levels we played a lot of), but had us covered for detect magic, identify, knock, and spiderclimb. That worked as a role. I would not have minded if the 5e bard had been the arcane 1/2-caster with mostly the same spell list as wizards.
*complaints going back to the beginning of the game about magic users/mages/wizards being the 'everything but healing' casters and how that can make them very same-y are valid and in general I agree. Just not going to single out the bard on that.

My point is, if the Bard is to be pretty much just another flavour of Wizard, why bother?

**see previous post about the actual class not exactly living up to the dream.

That said, completely other-role bards* are also a fine option, and I could get behind one of those as well. They should, IMO, either fill shoes similar to the martial classes--such that you would put them in a party with a cleric and a mage type--, or fill some of those... gatekey ability? ... roles that you otherwise needed the cleric and/or mage. I say that because BitD we all loved reading those classes like illusionist and druid (and in 2e psionicist), but they all ended up being 5th wheels because you still needed the thief to find traps, a magic user to identify magic items*, clerics to remove curses**, and so on. 5e has reduced this (notably with thief and cleric-as-hp-battery roles), but there still are some things I see make people really try to get a wizard/sorcerer and cleric (or lore bard dedicated to replicating one or the other, which is pretty much what I'm asking of this theoretical new bard) in their group.
*maybe with bespoke systems, though I'm iffy on 'different for the sake of different'
**and cast fly
***and let's be honest, get the group back to full HP at any reasonable rate

Indeed, the Bard - along with Illusionist, Monk, and maybe Druid - isn't a primary class. It's the sort of class a party picks up as a sixth or seventh character to round out the lineup once the core bits are already sorted. In WotC's versions of D&D where parties are expected to be small, as in 3-5 PCs with no NPCs, these classes don't fit well: Bard isn't specialized enough and the others are too specialized. But IMO the problem here isn't the classes themselves, it's the WotC party-size expectation.

Honestly, this isn't too far from what the baseline bard does already -- give them a rapier and a 16 dex score and they hit* well enough until the lack of extra attack makes them fall behind. Give this theoretical new bard the option to pick Strength based weapons and medium or heavy armor (but no extra attack, maybe unless sub-class grants it) and I think it would work.
*light armor not near-keeping-up with medium/heavy unless you devote ASIs, along with lack of shield, makes withstanding combat a bit more of a challenge.

I've redesigned Bards from the ground up several times now for our 1e-adjacent system, and so far I'm on 0 wins, 3 losses, and 1 tie. The tie is the current version - it works kind of OK and I think the chassis will do but it'll still get a heavy tweaking if-when I ever start a different campaign.

They function completely unlike any other class. They don't get spells as such, instead they choose abilities at each level (almost like feat trees) and via those choices two Bards of the same level can be very different characters. Their magic effects all work via sound e.g. their version of Detect Magic makes magic items within range gently resonate (and anyone nearby who pays attention can hear it) as opposed to glow (that only the caster can see).

Silence, of course, is their kryptonite; but that's to be expected for a sound-based class.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Lore keepers, Internation men of mystery, new reporters out for a story

 

[Tonguez]

It seems they made the decision for the movie that only wizards and sorcerers actually cast spells. The druid never does, just wildshapes. Notice that Pine's character asks Simon to cast a healing spell!

The problem is that robbed the bard of a big chunk of his shtick, leaving him as basically a half-hearted rogue.

I like spell-less bards, or at least bards who arent reliant on spells as a ‘big chunk of their shtick‘. Yes they mostly come off as a combo Rogue, but then I’d love there to be a greater focus on Bardic Inspiration combined with something like the Rogue:Masterminds tactics or even have it operate as a more broadbased Warlord/Leader