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

[N'raac]

Well, actually, it is internally consistent. There's nothing there that is inconsistent with itself. However, it's unbalanced as all heck, because it's twice as good as a wizard.

Not TWICE as good, surely? A L12 Wizard would get more bonus feats, HD, BAB, save bonuses, feats, free spells in his spellbook and skill points (off the top of my head) as a L6 SpellSage! The SpellSage is, of course, clearly superior - he has more spell slots available to him, and suffers no drawback to offset this (huge) advantage.

But you clearly grasp the point - it follows all the rules established elsewhere. But it is clearly unbalanced - IOW, other classes are clearly an inferior choice. If the Barbarian is the clearly superior choice to the Bard, then I would consider that a similar failure in game design. It's tougher to compare - the SpellSage example is clearly designed to highlight a lack of balance, but it simply places the choice of a Wizard as a suboptimal trap choice, rather than a viable alternative - but if the end result were that Bard will always be a suboptimal choice compared to Barbarian, then the rules need to be changed to make Bard and Barbarian equally desirable character choices. The goal should be an array of interesting choices, none of which enjoy clear superiority, or suffer from clear inferiority, compared to the other choices. Balancing all those moving parts is, of course, far easier said than done.

This was a large problem with 3e prestige classes and Wizards (or sorcerers), at least to me. Many provided the caster with the same spell progression as he would otherwise have, plus other special abilities, in exchange for a bonus feat every 5 levels (or spell swapping on occasion). Why would he NOT take up a prestige class - to remain a 20 level Wizard/Sorcerer was clearly sub-optimal.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If silliness is inherent to the Bard as a class, that seems a pretty clear statement that the entire concept of a Bard Adventurer is silly or, simply restated, “All Bards are silly”.

That's not a restatement, it's a rather large exaggeration, as your own quotes make clear.

Seemed to redefine your terms, but definitely pulling back from the “bards are silly” stance. That said, I think “the concept does not lend itself to adventuring as well” remains a [perfectly reasonable judgement] against the Bard class as an equal to other classes.

Let me just fix that quote for you and be done with it.

I do not see “occasionally useful” as being a “viable character”.

Sounds like a bias to me. Out of a party of three or four or five characters, I would expect that situations where all of them are fully engaged are rare, situations where some are useful and others are less so are most common, and situations where they are all marginalized happen rarely. What's wrong with only being useful some of the time?

If the Bard is not an equally viable character class to the Barbarian, I consider this a weakness in class design.

I don't.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well, actually, it is internally consistent. There's nothing there that is inconsistent with itself. However, it's unbalanced as all heck, because it's twice as good as a wizard.

If the game describes that a character who devotes his life to magic learns and acquires it at a certain rate, it is not internally consistent to say that another character filling the same conceptual space does so twice as fast. Rates of progression may be arbitrary, but they are ingrained into the system.

It is, however, consistent to say that a character that is less devoted to or adept at magic acquires it more slowly (say, a bard).

 

[N'raac]

That's not a restatement, it's a rather large exaggeration, as your own quotes make clear.

I can only read what you write, not what you are thinking as you write it. The statement, in reference to Bards, that

I don't know that acknowledging their silliness counts as "bias".

seems like a pretty clear statement that Bards are silly, at least from where I sit. And, of course, you would perceive your bias as a perfectly reasonable judgement - that is how most of us perceive our own biases. You will note that I do not doctor your quotes, with or without noting such alterations.

Sounds like a bias to me. Out of a party of three or four or five characters, I would expect that situations where all of them are fully engaged are rare, situations where some are useful and others are less so are most common, and situations where they are all marginalized happen rarely. What's wrong with only being useful some of the time?

I suppose it is a bias. My bias is that characters should be useful a wide variety of the time, as indicated in my comments immediately following the phrase you chose to quote, being

I want to see each PC being equally capable of taking the spotlight, and resolving important challenges. They will shine in different types of challenges but, over time, they should shine more or less equally. It should not be a special occasion for one player to, through bizarre and unusual circumstance, get a shred of the glory usually reserved for the “better” character choices.

If both the Barbarian and the Bard are "occasionally useful", then that too would be balanced. If, however, the Barbarian is the most useful character 1/3 of the time, somewhat useful 1/3 of the time, and marginalized 1/3 of the time, a balanced Bard would also be the most useful character 1/3 of the time, somewhat useful 1/3 of the time, and marginalized 1/3 of the time. If the Barbarian is the most useful character 2/3 of the time, somewhat useful 1/4 of the time, and marginalized 1/12 of the time, while the Bard is the most useful character 1/12 of the time, somewhat useful 1/4 of the time, and marginalized 2/3 of the time, I consider that poor design - the Bard is presented as a viable character choice alongside the Barbarian, but is clearly not an equivalent choice.

If I were inclined to consider Bards an inappropriate choice for an adventurer, my preference is not to leave the Bard as a trap PC class (just like I have no desire to see a Shopkeeper PC class*), but to relegate that role to an NPC class, clearly shown as a background element, and not a PC choice expected to be viable.

* Now, a Merchant class which encompasses interaction, exploration and some skill at combat, who could hold his own with other PC classes would be a different matter entirely, and could certainly be a viable PC class.

 

[Ahnehnois]

seems like a pretty clear statement that Bards are silly, at least from where I sit.

The concept is silly and all bards are silly are very different things. Thus, you presented the quote, but your conclusion does not follow from it.

And, of course, you would perceive your bias as a perfectly reasonable judgement - that is how most of us perceive our own biases.

And of course, you perceive an opinion that you disagree with (or want to disagree with, anyway) as a bias, which is how most of us label our dissenters.

If I were inclined to consider Bards an inappropriate choice for an adventurer, my preference is not to leave the Bard as a trap PC class (just like I have no desire to see a Shopkeeper PC class*), but to relegate that role to an NPC class, clearly shown as a background element, and not a PC choice expected to be viable.

I would say the same. However, the bard as presented is not inappropriate, merely a somewhat suboptimal and offbeat choice for a player who wants to play something a little different.

* Now, a Merchant class which encompasses interaction, exploration and some skill at combat, who could hold his own with other PC classes would be a different matter entirely, and could certainly be a viable PC class.

Pretty much anything can be a viable PC class; just not quite as viable as a barbarian.

 

[N'raac]

If the game describes that a character who devotes his life to magic learns and acquires it at a certain rate, it is not internally consistent to say that another character filling the same conceptual space does so twice as fast. Rates of progression may be arbitrary, but they are ingrained into the system.

Sure it is. Unlike the Wizard, who devotes time to the academic theory of Magic (leading him to learn how to alter his spells, and how to imbue mystic qualities into physical items), the SpellSage focuses exclusively on the practical application of Magic, and as such gains proficiency in the casting of such spells more rapidly than his more academic-focused counterpart, the Wizard. His dedication and study means he also outpaces the random Arcane casting abilities of the Sorcerer, who lacks the focus and study of the SpellSage.

Conceptually, such a practical adventuring wizard as the SpellSage, who is less focused on the underlying theories, principals and academic aspects of magic, but focuses exclusively on its practical application, would reasonably gain access to spells at a more rapid pace than his more academically focused counterpart. The Wizard spends considerable time on these theories and principals, which have no real application on an adventure, but must surely grant him a greater understanding of mystic forces in general, as well as making him a better teacher of the Arcane Arts - but it is the more pragmatic SpellSage, less concerned with theoretical principals than practical application, who is the more suited to a lifestyle of adventuring, and who I would want by my side to use his practical spellcasting skills, so much more suited than a lecture on the history and theory of magical practices when dealing with, say, a hostile force of Orcs. But a Wizard is still a viable character - he should be occasionally useful, right?

He is most certainly unbalanced, but his greater devotion to the practical aspects of spellcasting, not spending time on any more of the theory than is necessary for practical application, clearly indicates, conceptually and with internal consistency, he would acquire such magic more quickly (just as a Bard with other areas of focus would acquire it more slowly). The SpellSage knows how to cast a Fireball, but he lacks the Wizard's understanding of why these words, those gestures and this component conjure such a force, or from whence springs this destructive flames. He knows only that this specific combination conjures forth the expected energies.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

But you think "traveling minstrel" is. Seems like you're unable to see any shades of gray between "useless" and "viable".

And you seem unable to see that the bard has other concepts behind it than "traveling minstrel." The original AD&D bard was a skilled fighter, a devoted druid, and a master of musical magic. He was the game's very first Presige Class over twenty years before that became a game term.

And other concepts people have presented that fall outside your narrow view of what a bard is add to that. There was an entire book of 2E kits that presented varied approaches outside your tunnel vision.

And of course, you perceive an opinion that you disagree with (or want to disagree with, anyway) as a bias, which is how most of us label our dissenters.

My problem isn't that you have biases. As others have pointed out, I have my own. What I've tried to point out is that I don't want your narrow biases to influence the game and restrain any character concept that you consider "silly." If the designers decide that a concept is worthy of a class, I want them to make it of relative equal validity to any other class choice. If they allow class and race combinations, I want to see those combinations not become obviously superior or obviously inferior because of a belief that some races need have their downsides outweigh their upsides.

 

[GX.Sigma]

The game, to succeed, must also be playable by new gamers who pick it up off the shelf. That means building balance into the game so players do not have the unfortunate experience of their first gaming experience being "Lucky Guy who made the best choice and his comic relief sidekicks"

If there's a class that says "Strength is important for this weapon-using class," and a race that gives +2 Strength, and a race that gives 0 Strength and can't use any good weapons, that's not a trap choice. No one is going to accidentally make a halfling fighter and then wonder why it's not as good as a half-orc.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Sure it is. Unlike the Wizard, who devotes time to the academic theory of Magic (leading him to learn how to alter his spells, and how to imbue mystic qualities into physical items), the SpellSage focuses exclusively on the practical application of Magic, and as such gains proficiency in the casting of such spells more rapidly than his more academic-focused counterpart, the Wizard. His dedication and study means he also outpaces the random Arcane casting abilities of the Sorcerer, who lacks the focus and study of the SpellSage.

I guess now I'm biased towards seeing that rationale as BS. If there was a good in-game justification for why a new character class should be better at magic than the existing wizard or better at fighting then the existing fighter, than the mechanics should reflect that. For example, the whole FR Spellfire business. This isn't such a case.

And you seem unable to see that the bard has other concepts behind it than "traveling minstrel." The original AD&D bard was a skilled fighter, a devoted druid, and a master of musical magic.

Well, this wouldn't be complete without an appeal to tradition would it? Any version of the bard in D&D probably meets most of that description, and functions as the jack of all trades, master of none that we know the bard to be. Which is a decent character but rarely the best one.

What I've tried to point out is that I don't want your narrow biases to influence the game and restrain any character concept that you consider "silly." If the designers decide that a concept is worthy of a class, I want them to make it of relative equal validity to any other class choice.

Why? Relative equal viability is simply a postulate in this whole argument. I see no reason why all character types need to meet that standard, and I don't see that anything is lost if they don't, other than some nebulous and arbitrary construct of "balance". If I'm sitting down and making a bard (or anything), making him of "relative equal viability" to some other disparate concept isn't really a consideration. The character the best it can be; such comparisons are marginally relevant at best.

Most players are perfectly capable of enjoying characters that are not relatively equal, and most stories rely on characters that are not, and all versions of D&D have characters that are not. I never understood where this mystical standard arose from.

 

[N'raac]

The concept is silly and all bards are silly are very different things. Thus, you presented the quote, but your conclusion does not follow from it.

The belief the concept is silly leads to a bias against making the class effective, at least in my view. Why can a Bard not be a perfectly serious choice for an adventurer, just as they are in the source material? We can make all Barbarians unwashed, uncivilized oafs, thus making them a silly concept, if we choose to do so. We simply do not choose to do so, nor do many of us choose to treat the bard as a silly fop with a lute.

And of course, you perceive an opinion that you disagree with (or want to disagree with, anyway) as a bias, which is how most of us label our dissenters.

a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.

Statistics. a systematic as opposed to a random distortion of a statistic as a result of sampling procedure.

Selecting the two of five which seem most relevant to our context. Your dismissal of the Bard as a "travelling minstrel, a silly concept for an adventurer", and your bias towards melee might as the primary or sole determinant of viability as an adventurer, seem pretty clear from where I sit, but I also have biases. Perhaps a more objective poster would like to weigh in and assess our relative biases. But then, my biases will lead me to agree with those who favour my interpretation, and yours will lead you to agree with those who favour yours.

There have been a few offerings in this thread of non-silly Bard concepts. I'll quote a few more, from http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/8215/what-are-the-literary-influences-of-the-dd-bard

. . I believe it is a logical addition to the D & D scene and the one I have composed is a hodgepodge of at least three different kinds, the norse ‘skald’, the celtic ‘bard’, and the southern european ‘minstrel’. The skalds were often old warriors who were a kind of self appointed historian whose duty was to record the ancient battles, blood feuds, and deeds of exceptional prowess by setting them to verse much like the ancient Greek poets did. Tolkien, a great Nordic scholar, copied this style several times in the Lord of the Rings trilogy (for example Bilbo’s chant of Earendil the Mariner). The Celts, especially in Britain, had a much more organized structure in which the post of Barbs as official historians fell somewhere between the Gwelfili or public recorders and the Druids who were the judges as well as spiritual leaders. In the Celtic system Bards were trained by the Druids for a period of almost twenty years before they assumed their duties, among which was to follow the heroes into battle to provide an accurate account of their deeds, as well as to act as trusted intermediaries to settle hostilities among opposing tribes. By far the most common conception of a Bard is as a minstrel who entertained to courts of princes and kings in France, Italy and parts of Germany in the latter middle ages. Such a character was not as trust worthy as the Celtic or Nordic Bards and could be compared to a combination Thief-Illusionist. These characters were called Jongleurs by the French, from which the corrupt term juggler and court jester are remembered today . . .

I wanted to put the Bard into perspective so that his multitudinous abilities in Dungeons and Drageons can be explained. I have fashioned the character more after the Celtic and Norse types than anything else, thus he is a character who resembles a fighter more than anything else, but who knows something about the mysterious forces of magic and is well adept with his hands, etc.

I don't see these three historical influences as presenting a "silly character concept", but one sufficiently valid that 1e players wanted such a class enough to influence its inclusion in 2e and all subsequent editions (as well as its 1e hodgepodge optional rule). Some other names presented, beyond the Celtic Bards, Norse Skalds, European Minstrels/Jongleaurs and Tolkeinian historians, include:

- Keith Taylor's Bard series (Felimid mac Fal.?)
- Alan a/Dale from Robin Hood (Will Scarlet also gets a mention, as does Bilbo Baggins, oddly)
- A couple of characters from Pern
- the Pied Piper of Hamlin
- Tennyson's Taliesen
- Bardic Voices (Mercedes Lackey)
- Gypsies

I'm not familiar with all the references, and I'm not sure I agree with all those I do recognize (Bilbo especially). Other suggestions from other sites:

- Fflewddur Fflam (from The Chronicles of Prydain, a series mentioned a few times), Sir Richard Francis Burton, Gurney Halleck (from Dune)
- Orpheus (mentioned before)
- Luthien in the Silmarillion, singing Morgoth to sleep
- Paedur the Bard from Michael Scott's rather good Culai Heritage
- Fafhrd of Lahnkmar fame was trained as a high voiced Skald
- el cid
- Pretty much all the main heroes from the Finnish epic Kalevala - Väinämöinen, Ilmarinen or Joukahinen

A less common approach:

]Most mythical wizards are IMO modelled much better by high level Bards than they are Wizards or Sorcerors. (Also every single Grand Vizier ever is probably a Bard - they make great bad guys.)[\QUOTE]
- Cyrano de Bergerac - an orator and writer rather than a singer
- Odysseus was almost certainly a bard. He had amazing social, sneaky, and fighting skills

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bard_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)

The class is loosely based on the special magic that music holds in stories such as The Pied Piper of Hamelin, and in earlier versions was much more akin to being a Celtic priest or a Norse Skald, although these elements have largely been removed in later editions. Listed inspirations for bards include Taliesin, Homer, Will Scarlet and Alan-a-Dale.

William Shakespeare gets a mention. Thom Merrilin from Wheel of Time, Tyrion Lannister from Game of Thrones

But I guess all of those are just silly concepts. Even Elan the Bard is cited as having become a fleshed out character.

I would say the same. However, the bard as presented is not inappropriate, merely a somewhat suboptimal and offbeat choice for a player who wants to play something a little different.

And again we come back to my bias that we should not have “suboptimal character choices”, but differing areas of expertise which solve challenges in different ways, making a variety of characters desirable, not just a necessary evil forced upon the guy who needs to play the comic relief sidekick so that, on those rare occasions his talents become useful, we’ll have him around.

Pretty much anything can be a viable PC class; just not quite as viable as a barbarian.

Perhaps we should look to a campaign of dungeon exploration. Combat encounters will be rare, and exceptionally lethal. The best prospect for survival is researching the histories of these places, understanding their arcane lore, stealth and trap disarming, negotiation and other interactions (bluff, riddle contests, etc.). The main purpose of the Barbarian, of course, will be when our abilities in these other areas fail us – he will have enough hp to slow the deadly enemies down for two or three rounds, buying the rest of us time to escape. Tough guys are a dime a dozen, so we need to preserve our skilled, knowledgeable characters!


Again, if I were to accept the Barbarian as “the best choice” for a character class, my inclination would be to depower him so he matches the level of the other classes. How would you propose we level the playing field in this regard?


I remain of the view that there is no reason physical might should equate to character viability. Many other roles can, and should, be equally viable. In my experience, that is the case, and most commentary does not highlight the Barbarian as the “excessively viable” choice.