D&D 5E Final playtest packet due in mid September.

[Ahnehnois]

While I agree a halfling shouldn't be on par with a half-orc in regards to strength, wouldn't a halfling fighter employ the advantages he has over the half-orc to remain on par with the fighter?

Of course he would. But overall, his disadvantages should outweigh his advantages. Can he make a career? Maybe. Should his size be a meaningful disadvantage? Yes, absolutely.

I think you already envision a default for why the home and hearth cleric would stay home. But, equally so, a war cleric isn't really going to war when he delves into some dungeon. Conflict at home could just as easily keep him there.

The location of where things happen really isn't the point. The point is that consecrating a house or delivering a meal to the table aren't as useful as combat magic, unless your campaign revolves around domesticity.

Examples aside, are you really trying to make the contrary case? That any D&D character concept should be equally adept at adventuring when compared with each other possible concept? That all classes/races/etc. should be exactly equal in power?

I certainly hope not.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I didn't intend to imply that it was a monolithic idea, merely that the idea of "barbarians are better than bards" comes from a combat-encounter-focused way of thinking about D&D.

Largely, but not exclusively. If I'm exploring the wilderness, I want the guy who knows the wilderness. If I'm attacked or subject to adverse conditions, I want the tough guy. If I'm trying to carry piles of treasure, I want the strong guy.

Now, if I'm trying to gently persuade a group of noncombatants of something, I probably value a bard. But that's not a typical encounter. If I'm out "adventuring" a bard might be useful, but just isn't on par with a barbarian, fighter, wizard, etc.

 

[billd91]

Largely, but not exclusively. If I'm exploring the wilderness, I want the guy who knows the wilderness. If I'm attacked or subject to adverse conditions, I want the tough guy. If I'm trying to carry piles of treasure, I want the strong guy.

Now, if I'm trying to gently persuade a group of noncombatants of something, I probably value a bard. But that's not a typical encounter. If I'm out "adventuring" a bard might be useful, but just isn't on par with a barbarian, fighter, wizard, etc.

That depends on the campaign world and how thoroughly the GM populates it with creatures other than bags of hit points that you get to hit. If you're likely to encounter patrols of soldiers, merchants, pilgrims, woodcutters, or other normal elements of society - even a wilder society - on the road or in the wilds, then having someone capable of doing something other than "hit it" is a good plan. So, yes, I'd say that the barbarian > bard really does come from a combat-heavy way of looking at encounters.

It also helps if you look at bards as something other than effete dandies. This isn't hard when you consider how important music tends to be for rugged, less civilized cultures and how often it is associated with important magic.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Largely, but not exclusively. If I'm exploring the wilderness, I want the guy who knows the wilderness. If I'm attacked or subject to adverse conditions, I want the tough guy. If I'm trying to carry piles of treasure, I want the strong guy.

Now, if I'm trying to gently persuade a group of noncombatants of something, I probably value a bard. But that's not a typical encounter. If I'm out "adventuring" a bard might be useful, but just isn't on par with a barbarian, fighter, wizard, etc.

See, that's reasonable, but when you look at an adventure holistically, you can easily see where social expertise comes in handy --
get to know the local merchant, and you can travel in his caravan instead of braving the wilderness. Know how to speak Goblin and you might save your entire party some vicious wounds because you can intimidate the critters int o running. Why carry piles of treasure yourself when you can have smiling, willing peons from the local village haul it back to your palatial mansion for peanuts? If an adventure is not just a chronological series of encounters, but a complex goal to be achieved, social skill can be as valuable as strength and hardiness, because there is no script that necessarily puts you in a place of having to fight things.

(as an aside, it might be worth noting that the original bard concept was much more of a magical warrior who wove powerful spells with her voice, and that kind of person is going to be much more useful in fights and in rough environments than a pretty minstrel is, but that's a bit irrelevant, since the pretty minstrel can still be a vital party member)

 

[Ahnehnois]

See, that's reasonable, but when you look at an adventure holistically, you can easily see where social expertise comes in handy --
get to know the local merchant, and you can travel in his caravan instead of braving the wilderness. Know how to speak Goblin and you might save your entire party some vicious wounds because you can intimidate the critters int o running. Why carry piles of treasure yourself when you can have smiling, willing peons from the local village haul it back to your palatial mansion for peanuts? If an adventure is not just a chronological series of encounters, but a complex goal to be achieved, social skill can be as valuable as strength and hardiness, because there is no script that necessarily puts you in a place of having to fight things.

(as an aside, it might be worth noting that the original bard concept was much more of a magical warrior who wove powerful spells with her voice, and that kind of person is going to be much more useful in fights and in rough environments than a pretty minstrel is, but that's a bit irrelevant, since the pretty minstrel can still be a vital party member)

All fair. But there's no reason to believe that barbarians can't do any of those things either. A barbarian is pretty likely to speak useful languages of savage races, and can intimidate people into doing useful things.

More to the point, a bard can't do any of those things if he's dead, which is pretty unequivocally more likely than the barbarian dying, even if the bard talks himself out of a few risky scenarios. Barbarians are all about toughness.

And none of this is to say that the bard isn't distinctive, useful, or worth playing. As long as you don't play it with unreasonable expectations, it's fine.

 

[Ahnehnois]

That depends on the campaign world and how thoroughly the GM populates it with creatures other than bags of hit points that you get to hit. If you're likely to encounter patrols of soldiers, merchants, pilgrims, woodcutters, or other normal elements of society - even a wilder society - on the road or in the wilds, then having someone capable of doing something other than "hit it" is a good plan.

Sure. But...

It also helps if you look at bards as something other than effete dandies. This isn't hard when you consider how important music tends to be for rugged, less civilized cultures and how often it is associated with important magic.

...it also helps if you look at barbarians as being something other than mindless killing machines. Barbarians are also intimidating and command great respect. They have a way with animals, and they know a few things about surviving in the wild and what goes on there. They're also fast, agile, and have feral senses. They don't just hit things. (That's why I picked barbarian as an example rather than fighter, whose versatility is less clear).

The question is if you can have a guy who is defined by toughness and prowess and has some other stuff, or a guy who is defined by artistic ability and has some other stuff, which are you taking with you into an adventure?

On average, I say the tough guy. Based on party composition, the nature of the adventure, and one's own predilections, you might still say bard.

 

[I'm A Banana]

All fair. But there's no reason to believe that barbarians can't do any of those things either. A barbarian is pretty likely to speak useful languages of savage races, and can intimidate people into doing useful things.

Actually, there's PLENTY of reason to beleive the barbarian can't do any of these things. Barbarians by archetype are savage brutes, uncouth outsiders, dirty and smelly and a half-step above a beast. They aren't necessarily entirely useless in a social situation (a bit of intimidating outsider glare is a useful thing), but this is not their environment. They might know some Goblin curses, but they aren't likely to know much more -- their intelligence is brutish, and they barely take the time to speak Common without a nearly incomprehensible accent. They don't have connections and don't make allies easily, and even if one gets to sit upon a throne of skulls and lead the charge, they leave the people-skills to the ministers and viziers.

It's possible to play against type, or to use the barbarian chassis to represent something more akin to a "noble savage" or something, but that's pretty different than the archetype.

More to the point, a bard can't do any of those things if he's dead, which is pretty unequivocally more likely than the barbarian dying, even if the bard talks himself out of a few risky scenarios. Barbarians are all about toughness.

Well, why would the bard ever risk their own death when there are so many people willing to leap to the bard's defense and obey their every command?

And none of this is to say that the bard isn't distinctive, useful, or worth playing. As long as you don't play it with unreasonable expectations, it's fine.

I don't think "I'm more useful than my peers in certain situations" is much of an unreasonable expectation. I do think that D&D's design has made whether or not a bard player can hit that point pretty scatter-shot.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Actually, there's PLENTY of reason to beleive the barbarian can't do any of these things. Barbarians by archetype are savage brutes, uncouth outsiders, dirty and smelly and a half-step above a beast.

Not sure where you get this from. If anything, it seems like you have a "bias" against barbarians. Savage does not mean inept.

The archetypical Conan isn't some kind of incompetent fool who is only good at making attacks, nor is the 3e barbarian, which has only 2 skill points less than the bard (they were actually equal in 3.0) and several noncombat abilities. Can't speak to the earlier D&D versions.

Well, why would the bard ever risk their own death when there are so many people willing to leap to the bard's defense and obey their every command?

This sort of reminds be of Batman Begins, in which the Scarecrow creates a criminal enterprise and does a variety of things and has tons of henchman and barriers around him, only to melt in Batman's hands and unceremoniously get knocked out. (And indeed, the film was praised for not trying to make the Scarecrow into some kind of martial artist and throw in a needless fistfight).

Social ability is great, but it's not always a substitute for being able to get stuff done yourself. There are a variety of D&D contexts in which even a bard surrounded by allies (for some reason) can still be subjected to attack and will still die fast. Bards dying fast is something of a trope in D&D, as The Gamers movie noted.

I don't think "I'm more useful than my peers in certain situations" is much of an unreasonable expectation. I do think that D&D's design has made whether or not a bard player can hit that point pretty scatter-shot.

Of course not. I'm not anti-bard, just anti-bard as an equally viable adventurer.

After all when I rewrote the bard, I greatly increased its abilities. I took the daily limits off of its special abilities, gave it unrestricted bonus feats, added in some more new stuff. What I didn't try to do was make it specifically to compete with the other classes. I simply made it the best bard it could be, because I had a player who expressed interest in playing one for my campaign involving royal families and court intrigue. I expect if it ever sees use it will turn out well.

I also expect that if another player plays the barbarian I wrote, the barbarian will have the ability to kick the bard's ass.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Of course he would. But overall, his disadvantages should outweigh his advantages. Can he make a career? Maybe. Should his size be a meaningful disadvantage? Yes, absolutely.

Should it be meaningful? Sure. By why, by default, should it outweigh his advantages? Because your bias says only big, strong guys are effective fighters.

The location of where things happen really isn't the point. The point is that consecrating a house or delivering a meal to the table aren't as useful as combat magic, unless your campaign revolves around domesticity.

Your bias is again severly restricting the hearth and home cleric's sphere of influence. You are self-limiting the example despite thoughts outside your box. That's fine for your game, but the overall game shouldn't push your single agenda.

Examples aside, are you really trying to make the contrary case? That any D&D character concept should be equally adept at adventuring when compared with each other possible concept? That all classes/races/etc. should be exactly equal in power?

I certainly hope not.

Exactly equal? No. Characters should have advantages and disadvantages that lend themselves to adventuring careers in different ways. But I see no need to automatically assume that any of them should have their disadvantages outweigh their advantages just because someone's bias has kept them from fully exploring how a concept fits within the adventuring lifestyle on a relative power level to other concepts. Leave it to the players to determine what makes a good adventurer, not yours or any one else's preconceived notions of what makes a good adventurer.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But I see no need to automatically assume that any of them should have their disadvantages outweigh their advantages just because someone's bias has kept them from fully exploring how a concept fits within the adventuring lifestyle on a relative power level to other concepts.

Your definition of "bias" appears to amount to "observation I don't like". What if a player wants to play a gnome fighter? Or a kobold fighter? Or perhaps play an intelligent gnat with a few levels of fighter? Perhaps the gnat's superior speed will make up for his lack of strength and inability to wield weapons.

Conversely, the actual definition of bias, "prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair" is exactly what you're doing. You're picking the inferior options and expressing a bias in favor of them. Which is fine for you if you really like halfling warriors and homely priests and magical minstrels, but definitely not the kind of bias I want in my rules.

Leave it to the players to determine what makes a good adventurer, not yours or any one else's preconceived notions of what makes a good adventurer.

The point of having a rules system in the first place is that you're not leaving it to the players to determine what their characters can be, and are imposing someone else's preconceived notions of what they can be. The entire set of "rules" is exactly that: preconceived expectations.