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

[Redthistle]

Anyway - where's our Artist character class? Whips out an easel, knocks out some expressive juxtaposition of void-shape relationships and man's struggle with knowing the infinite. Then proceeds to dart around the encounter, holding the thing up, showing it to all. ''Beholden! I, like many great artists from history & legend, have the power to move you! Have a +2 bonus to attack and damage. Oh, and on insight into your struggle with knowing the infinite. Also, give me gold.''

"Give you gold?!? Dude, I can apply my own war paint, thank you very much."

... although I'm thinking a magical M.C. Escher could really screw up the magic portal business. Minotaurs would have a field day.

 

[Aldarc]

I think this is why I might raise an eyebrow over the 5E bard. Mechanically, it's a rough 'n tough class, capable of great things. I'm not fond of it being 9th level/full caster, but hey, if we subscribe to, 'music is magic!' then powerful music should be on par with powerful magic. Personally I'd want to bring the bard back to a more 'jack of all trades' - the wandering vagabond who dabbles here and there and brings a wide spectrum of assorted (rather than specialised) talents together into a cohesive whole. Valor Bard does bring a bit more fighty into the mix but then again, even they are getting Power Word: Kill, True Polymorph and potentially Wish, in time. But hey - if folks are happy with the bard being a 'musical mage' on par with wizards and clerics in terms of sheer magical power, then to each their own.

I vaguely recall that part of problem that the 5e designers faced was that the bard's jack-of-all-trades niche did not necessarily work as intended, particularly when it came to spellcasting. In at least the core PHB of 3e, the bard was the sole 2/3 caster, sitting above the 1/4 casters (e.g. paladins, rangers), but below the full casters (e.g. wizards, clerics, druids, sorcerers). In 5e, the 3e 1/4 casters got upgraded to 1/2 casters, which placed the bard into something of an awkward position. Were bards more appropriate as half-casters or full-casters? To be honest, I can see the potential argument for either.

I'm not saying the Bard doesn't have knowledge. However it is, like you said, presented as less of a historian/lorekeeper and more of an entertainer/musician in the default portrayal.

Hopefully you realize that these aren't even remotely exclusive ideas, right? Again, if we look at lot of the flavor-fluff of the bard, it remembers these tales and stories, epics and sagas, poems and songs, and the like because these are regarded as snippets of lore and history. That's even a HUGE aspect of what the bard was. Being a historian/lorekeeper (and occasionally other functions, such as law) and a musician were practically inseparable! There is even a sense that they are not learning these things to entertain, but, rather, they entertain because they have learned an overlapping set of skills.

And while they do have "colleges", the more common (overwhelmingly so) portrayal has them picking up their skills and knowledge in their travels as opposed to study in a formal institution with a fixed curriculum. Sitting in a hall and studying tomes and listening to lectures is certainly more in line with how D&D presents the training of wizards and clerics. I suspect a lot of this is a hold over from 3e, when the the Bard became a spontaneous caster with chaotic leanings- not very conducive to portrayal of an especially academic/studious character. More like your stereotypical artsy theater school student than anything.

Really? So the fact that bards are said to "enter long-forgotten tombs, discover lost works of magic, decipher old tomes" means nothing to you? Or nothing that the Creating a Bard even asks whether you attended "a college where you studied bardic lore and practiced your musical magic?" Or that the Lore bards spend their time "collecting bits of knowledge from sources as diverse as scholarly tomes and peasant tales" and "gather in libraries and sometimes in actual colleges, complete with classrooms and dormitories, to share their lore with one another"? Apart from Harry Potter and the Wizards of Earthsea, a lot of popular depictions of wizards veer away from "wizarding school." D&D tends to depict wizards as a solitary, keep-to-themselves sort who seclude themselves in their towers. And there is a less a sense that they are driven by a desire to "accumulate knowledge," but, rather, that they desire to "master magic."

I don't mean capital d Divination as in the "part of the Divination spell school" sense. I meant in the "seer/fortuneteller/advisor" sense. Just look at your comparison between the selection of Bard and Cleric divination spells. The Bard list stands out in it's access to all the spells that facilitate speech, personal connections, and generally highlight the Bard's social skills and role as an entertainer. The Cleric's array of divination spells involve a lot more actual divining and actually knowing stuff.

It seems as if you are conflating two differing senses of "knowing stuff" then. I don't know if you are trying to have your cake and it too or what. You say you mean "knowing stuff" in the "seer/fortuneteller/advisor" sense, but when I look at what you describe, it is essentially the difference of three spells and a cantrip: Guidance, Divination, Commune, and Augury. These are also unique divination spells that even the divination wizard lacks. I guess the divination wizard isn't meant to "know stuff" or be a "seer/fortuneteller/advisor" either. But it's worth noting that both Divination and Commune are spells explicitly tied to "knowing stuff" through a deity or a divine proxy. This is not some rote fortune-telling and magic crystal balls we're talking about here. This is the sort of activity that belong to priests, shamans, and spiritual advisors. (Though it is certainly strange that a cleric seer/fortuneteller could not Identify, See Invisibility, or have lack Foresight.) And the bard's list of communication divination spells that make them "stand out" from the cleric amount to a whopping magnitude of two spells: Speak with Animals and Comprehend Languages. That's it, unless you count Detect Thoughts. A cleric has Tongues too.

The bard's "knowing stuff," however, pertains more to "lore/knowledge/information." Unlike the cleric, the bard has access to the spells Identify, Detect Thoughts, Locate Animals or Plants, and Foresight. How does that not constitute "knowing stuff"? How does Detect Thoughts, See Invisibility, Scrying, and Foresight not help the bard with the seer/fortuneteller/advisor sense of "knowing stuff"? How does True Strike, Detect Magic, Identify, See Invisibility, Locate Animals or Plants, or Foresight highlight the bard's social skills or role as an entertainer? Actually for that matter, what divination spells do you see on the bard's spell list make him an entertainer? You are clearly seeing something that I'm not there.

Most works that have Bard-like classes but ditch the instruments and usually have art of the character speaking, gesturing, reading/studying/writing, teaching, pondering.

Like the bard on page 55 of the 5E PHB?

 

[Brandegoris]

Nope. Unless you count shouting encouragement or the verbal component of spells (which could be flavoured as song if you wished.)
Bards are able to cast spells while holding a musical instrument, but that is more likely to happen out of combat: during combat component pouches are more likely to be used due to item/action economy.

To be fair, that is a strange concept unless you were going full caster. I'm guessing that you don't really have an issue with the "magic-through-music" aspect of the bard? Chanting, waving and throwing bat guano while other people fight for their lives also seems a little odd to visualise.

I can't really speak for all previous editions, but I'm not sure where you're getting the concept of the prancing-around-with-a-lute-in-combat bard in 5e. There are two illustrations and three text examples of bards and in none of them is the bard actually playing a musical instrument in the middle of a fight. Only one illustration and one of the flavour texts have the bard playing an instrument at all.

Because bards were a distinct class in previous editions, and even in 5th ed they are more distinct from wizards and sorcerors than wizards and sorcerors are from each other. As a class they have less emphasis on magical attacks and utility spells, and much wider range in terms of skills and party support.
They're pretty much the greatest jack-of-all-trades of the classes. The full-caster status is new in 5e, but the general class is still pretty distinct.

Great post. Thank You. That does help somewhat. I actually have NO problem with a bard in a chill non-combat situation casting a spell through performance. Only because it seems right so to speak. people are calm, can be enraptured by the performance, whereas if there is a huge fight going on it soon gets ( to me anyhow) a point of ridiculousness when I am being stabbed by an Orc that I have time for anything else ( such as listening intently to an inspirational bard).
Though to be fair people have given me a lot to think about in regards to exactly What that inspiration might be, so depending on what exactly the bard might be doing to inspire it potentially could be less silly than I have experienced or at first imagined.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Ah Bards. Here are my thoughts: I think Bards work better when their magic comes from a bit more than just music. I like my Bards as True Namers. They understand the power of Names and Words. This can take the form of music, but doesn't necessarily have to. A Bard could be a Namer or a Chanter.

With this slight bit of refluffing a Bard can still be Alan-O-Dale, or Fiddler from the Malazan books, but also more like Kvothe from the Kingkiller chronicles who while certainly a talented musician, doesn't use music in combat, just his knowledge of Magic, and Names.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

That doesnt change anything, encounters do not end just because the bard starts to sing. This example was specially crafted for the bard and the rest of the party is just backround. While it does happen that from time to time a character gets the spotlight, during the vast majority of the game you do not have encounters which are solved by one character while everyone else stands back and watches, like in every Orpheus example here, but everyone is "doing their thing" at the same time, especially when it isnt a major BBEG encounter. So while everyone is fighting orks Orpheus stands back playing his harp and shouting mocking insults at the orcs. And even though this is effective in D&D rules as the insults do damage and the harp produces magical effects the imagery is silly. Yet those are exactly the images the rules try to evoke with both art and wording (except they usually go for a lute and not a harp)

If you want to bring examples use normal encounter and not spotlight scenes.

Sigh...

"Orpheus plays his harp, and fixes the lion in his flashing gaze, and speaks in a voice like thunder. And at the sound of his words, the savage creature recoils from him in fear and physical pain. (Meanwhile, Hercules picks up a leopard and hurls it thirty feet.) Blood springs from the lion's eyes, first in drops but then in rivers, as Orpheus continues to recite barbed words, cruel words, words to flay the body and the mind. (Meanwhile, Perseus cleaves at a tiger with his adamantine sickle-sword.) At last, the beast lies dead and the poet stands victorious, never having lifted a weapon but armed with the most beautiful and terrible of all magic. (Meanwhile, an arrow from Atalanta finishes off the last fleeing puma.) As silence descends over the battlefield, the other warriors, blood-spattered and weary, look with awe upon what their youthful companion has wrought."

What exactly was so challenging about understanding that? The paragraph was about Orpheus' part of the fight. It neither stated nor implied that his party-mates just stood back and watched. In fact, if they had done that, they probably wouldn't be "blood-spattered and weary", would they? This is a normal encounter. This is what bards can look like when they do battle with the magic of words. It is an awesome power, and it is no more diminished than any other class by having other people also there doing their thing. If you're going to complain about a bard standing back and killing people with words of power rather than fighting like a manly man, then you should also be complaining about a wizard doing exactly the same thing -- after all, wizards too can cast a spell literally called power word kill. Being able to kill people with words of power is manifestly not silly. If anything, it's terrifying. So terrifying, in fact, that the superstitious worry bards and filidh might be capable of this is precisely the reason real, historical Celtic lords tried to tread lightly around them. So you can keep repeating "silly" "silly" "silly" all you want, you can even shift your goalposts all you want, it's not going to help your case.

 

[Derren]

So you can keep repeating "silly" "silly" "silly" all you want, you can even shift your goalposts all you want, it's not going to help your case.

Ah the usual defense when people run our of arguments. Its not my fault that your last D&D session is so far back that you have trouble actual in game combats.
You still present a scene not representative of actual D&D gameplay because even though you now add blurbs that there are other characters in the combat it is still a story about the bard doing stuff alone and placing him onto a pedestal. In actual gameplay the bard wouldn't solo his enemy unopposed while the rest of the party (maybe) does something in the background and then wonders how awesome the bard is, the bard would while his companions fight play his harp so that they hit harder and maybe throw out an insult at sometimes clearly unintelligent enemies which are currently also fought by his companions. He would not stand apart. I know why you present it this way. You want to lessen the disconnect between a singing, lute or harp playing bard and actively fighting characters by representing them separately. But thats not how it works in game.

When a bard does the same as the wizard, why isn't he a wizard? Why does he have a harp instead of a wand? Why does the art, rules and fluff in the books present us with a guy playing a lute in the background to encourage others and hurl insults at stone golems when you could instead have someone in his place who throws a spear of lightning at the enemies? Even with the same effect in the rules the imagery of that makes a lot more sense than vicious mockery.

Oh and for extra silliness, imagine Orpheus keep playing while a tiger critted him and is gnawing on his leg.

 

[Afrodyte]

When a bard does the same as the wizard, why isn't he a wizard? Why does he have a harp instead of a wand? Why does the art, rules and fluff in the books present us with a guy playing a lute in the background to encourage others and hurl insults at stone golems when you could instead have someone in his place who throws a spear of lightning at the enemies? Even with the same effect in the rules the imagery of that makes a lot more sense than vicious mockery.

I think that's a more appropriate question for the people who designed the class and made the art.

So, my question for you is: what's your goal now? What's your purpose?

You started a thread with a blanket assertion about bards being silly. People who like the bard, or at least don't find it silly, disagreed and shared their reasons why they enjoy it, think it's awesome, or don't find it silly at all. In response, you continue to press this highly subjective opinion as if it were objective fact and go, "Nyah nyah nyah, you don't have an argument" when people start to lose patience with the rather combative approach you've taken here.

I'm a bit confused about what you're really trying to accomplish here. Are you just here to get your jollies by starting debates with people about why they should find something they like silly, or is there some other motive working here?

 

[cbwjm]

Ah the usual defense when people run our of arguments. Its not my fault that your last D&D session is so far back that you have trouble actual in game combats.
You still present a scene not representative of actual D&D gameplay because even though you now add blurbs that there are other characters in the combat it is still a story about the bard doing stuff alone and placing him onto a pedestal. In actual gameplay the bard wouldn't solo his enemy unopposed while the rest of the party (maybe) does something in the background and then wonders how awesome the bard is, the bard would while his companions fight play his harp so that they hit harder and maybe throw out an insult at sometimes clearly unintelligent enemies which are currently also fought by his companions. He would not stand apart. I know why you present it this way. You want to lessen the disconnect between a singing, lute or harp playing bard and actively fighting characters by representing them separately. But thats not how it works in game.

When a bard does the same as the wizard, why isn't he a wizard? Why does he have a harp instead of a wand? Why does the art, rules and fluff in the books present us with a guy playing a lute in the background to encourage others and hurl insults at stone golems when you could instead have someone in his place who throws a spear of lightning at the enemies? Even with the same effect in the rules the imagery of that makes a lot more sense than vicious mockery.

Oh and for extra silliness, imagine Orpheus keep playing while a tiger critted him and is gnawing on his leg.

For extra silliness, anyone who gets critted and keeps going doing what they're doing is silly. Everything in D&D can take a stupid amount of damage and keep going as long as they have 1 or more hit points. Instead of bleeding out or trying to hold in their intestines when that tiger slashed their stomach the PC just goes "Hey guys, I'm down to 17 hit points, I might need a heal soon." See, the game is silly. And quite frankly, the image of Orpheus killing a lion using nothing but his voice is just an awesome image and completely possible due to the various power words on his spell list. A player probably wouldn't waste a power word kill on a lion but they might and it could make for a fun roleplaying moment.

I'm not really trying to convince you to like the bard class since you seem determined to hate it, but if you think something in D&D is silly, perhaps you should look further than just the bard. Silliness abounds.

 

[Aaron L]

Grima Wormtongue, Star Lord, Loki, Paul Atreides from Dune.


But a few examples that could also be Bards. Yet none of them play an instrument.

They have their place in both folklore and in the hearts of many players and their versatility makes them one of the best classes to find that concept you were looking for

Gurney Halleck!

I'm feel sorry for anyone who has never heard a song or bit of music that got their blood pumping and stirred their heart.

Sent from my VS880PP using EN World mobile app

 

[Garthanos]

Any natural, non rapid, non starving, animal would, IMO, run away, faced with that.

Animals or most of the critters in games often act horribly like meat sacks (ok it is probably DMing issues but psychic damage provides a handle for morale that is consistent with the rest of the system, battle cries and intimidation tricks, I like it.)