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

[Alexemplar]

The musical entertainer aspect doesn't really have to be front and centre though, it can be an afterthought if you really want. You don't need to sing or play an instrument to grant inspiration dice. You don't need to play a musical instrument to cast spells, it can bypass cheap material components but you could easily use a component pouch instead OR choose spells without material components.

I think the only two things that really require music is the song of rest and countercharm, except that I just read those abilities and they specifically call our musical notes, oration or words of power. You could easily play a bard who is just someone who has knowledge of 3 musical instruments without it being a major component of the character and it wouldn't even require changing the description of the bard.

So why is music so much of what makes a Bard what it is to the point where changing/downplaying that flavor leads people to feel it'
s effectively destroying/replacing the class?

 

[Lanliss]

So why is music so much of what makes a Bard what it is to the point where changing/downplaying that flavor leads people to feel it'
s effectively destroying/replacing the class?

Some people do see it as that integral to the bard. It is the same as the Warlock issue* I see come up a lot, where people think Warlocks and their patrons can only be evil, or at least not-good, even though it is entirely possible to make a good Warlock/Patron. Some people want to keep their tradition and connotation tightly knit together and there is nothing wrong with that, at least until they start telling others that they have to do the same.

*Other notable examples are back-stabbing rogues, God-bound Paladins, and stupid Barbarians.

 

[Hussar]

Um...That quote was explaining EXACTLY and succinctly why I was having a problem visualizing the bard. I suppose I could've added " please help give me your opinions on why the bard isn't silly and help me to think he could be cooler"?

Just because It is clear I find them SILLY doesn't mean I think people that like them are crap. I think people tend to take things a Bit too seriously here.
I like plenty of things that people consider silly and we have a great deal of fun trying to convince one another of our opinions ( usually unsuccessfully), and its all good and understood that I am not personally attacking them. We don't take it that seriously. Its lighthearted , just like this thread was meant to be.
I didn't feel I needed a disclaimer that " this is just my opinion and I do not mean to offend and forgive me if I have made you feel lesser than me because your opinion differs".
I mean if that's happening to someone over this thread they probably need to look at other factors in their life.
Side Note: I realize I am coming off as a d*ck right now and I am not trying to. ( seriously I am not). I just can't get that excited about a thread to the point where I might get angry about what someone said. We are all different and have opinions. I shared MY opinions and Invited anyone else that shares that opinion to talk with me about it.
" I Invited anyone else who shares my opinion to talk about it in this thread" ( See that there?)
If you did NOT think bards were silly as well maybe this thread wasn't for you?

Heh. Dude, as someone who often has this problem, I can ENTIRELY sympathize.

I'm just pointing out where the source of the pushback is probably coming from.

 

[Brandegoris]

Fair enough!
I will make the disclaimer here though That if you like Bards and you do Not find them Silly, then that is Fantastic! I really mean that. I desire to NOT find them silly actually
And the good news is this thread has helped me, so Although I was definitely giving bard lovers some sh*t I am genuinely grateful for all the good replies. they got me thinking.
Hell I may even play a bard soon and take some of the better suggestions from this thread so that I can have a game where a bard isnt wanky

 

[Aldarc]

The characters in question are wielding a shield and longbow respectively. Bards are not proficient in either.

Valor Bards exist.

So they just save those instruments for whenever the fighting is done? They don't use music at all in their Bardic Inspiration, Song of rest, or in their spells?

Nothing requires that bards use their instruments for their Bardic Inspiration, Song of Rest, or in their spells. Also music =! instruments, as bards (and most people for that matter) can sing, perform (poetry), or simply inspire without the use of instruments.

And where's the art of characters with instruments that aren't lute and guitars? I see a harp... Is the Harp character supposed to convince me that instruments in D&D include more than loots/guitars?

For starters, I recommend reading the equipment section of the PHB. There's a lovely section on instruments there. There's also a section on different types of instruments in SCAG.

I thought I knew, but now I'm not so sure. I once thought and was constantly told that music was an integral part of the Bard class and that to downplay music in Bardic characters defeated the point. But people keep trying to convince that the majority of Bards aren't

Which makes the class description full of musical flavor and peoples' insistence that the Bard remain bound to music and song and instruments so perplexing.

It's not about downplaying music and the bard. Music is part of the bard's identity. It's just that the bard is also more than music, and bard's being trained musicians does not inherently make them silly troubadours. Music is important to the bard but music is not exclusive to the bard any more than chivalry is to the paladin. Not all lutes are carried by bards nor do all bards carry lutes. The problem entails your choice to narrowly restrict your conception of the bard so you can maintain its "silly" image for the sake of your prejudices.

Honestly, I don't think we'd be having this conversation if the Bard's description didn't include obvious references to them casting magic through music and song, their class features operating off of music/song, and depictions of them often including instruments. If Bards got proficiency with any single tool, were described as picking up their magic from dabbling/eclectic studies, and Bardic Inspiration and Song of Healing were presented as the Bard just being skilled/helpful/inspiring, then we could all have our cake and eat it too.

If we did that, then everyone could have the Bards we're constantly being presented here as proof that Bards aren't silly: the kinds that seem to rarely have instruments, and if they do, they never use them to cast spells, provide buffs for allies in combat, or other such nonsense. They just stay strapped to their backs until it's time to relax around the campfire at night or roleplaying situation. Easily represented via a background.

I don't think we'd be having this conversation if people could properly stop identifying shallow player character-creation stereotypes as systemic, mechanical class flaws.

 

[Brandegoris]

Valor Bards exist.

Nothing requires that bards use their instruments for their Bardic Inspiration, Song of Rest, or in their spells. Also music =! instruments, as bards (and most people for that matter) can sing, perform (poetry), or simply inspire without the use of instruments.

For starters, I recommend reading the equipment section of the PHB. There's a lovely section on instruments there. There's also a section on different types of instruments in SCAG.

It's not about downplaying music and the bard. Music is part of the bard's identity. It's just that the bard is also more than music, and bard's being trained musicians does not inherently make them silly troubadours. Music is important to the bard but music is not exclusive to the bard any more than chivalry is to the paladin. Not all lutes are carried by bards nor do all bards carry lutes. The problem entails your choice to narrowly restrict your conception of the bard so you can maintain its "silly" image for the sake of your prejudices.

I don't think we'd be having this conversation if people could properly stop identifying shallow player character-creation stereotypes as systemic, mechanical class flaws.

Well to be fair this conversation was just about people that found the Bard silly ( seriously read the title of the thread)
Im just kidding. Im only bringing it up because I feel that we are all getting aggravated at one another ( We aren't to the point of being uncivil yet and that's a good thing, I just don't want it to go there),


This Quote:
It's not about downplaying music and the bard. Music is part of the bard's identity


Music isn't PART of his identity. it IS his identity. he is CALLED A BARD.
It is Implied even through the naming of the class that this is his focus. He happens to have a lot of secondary skills however

That's like saying Magic spells are Part of a sorcerers identity. They Are the Biggest part

Just thought I would throw that out there. I am getting tired of people minimizing the musical portion of the bard when it is clear that is the Majority of the bards persona.

carry on

 

[cbwjm]

So why is music so much of what makes a Bard what it is to the point where changing/downplaying that flavor leads people to feel it'
s effectively destroying/replacing the class?

Tradition perhaps? I know in 3e that they actually had bardic music which was a certain number of uses/day to activate their class powers.

Also, not using music isn't changing/downplaying the flavour since the flavour also notes words of power and oration. I think people might just be looking at the picture, seeing music or musical instrument in the class, and then getting hung up on that as the image of the bard. It's certainly one way to play them and it isn't wrong to emphasise the musical side, but it isn't the only way to play a bard and making your bard a master or power words or some such is perfectly valid just from the fluff of the class listed in the PHB.

 

[thewok]

Music isn't PART of his identity. it IS his identity. he is CALLED A BARD.
It is Implied even through the naming of the class that this is his focus. He happens to have a lot of secondary skills however

Music is not the entirety of the bard's identity anymore than it was for Shakespeare (AKA "The Bard"). And, in fact, the dictionary definition of "bard" is a poet. Music isn't the core of the Bard class--Performance is. And that can be open to interpretation. And, even then, it doesn't even necessarily happen in combat.

Let's look at the 5E Bard's actual write-up and see how much music itself is ingrained in the class:
Spellcasting: "You have learned to untangle and reshape the fabric of reality in harmony with your wishes and music." So, yes, here music is mentioned. But music can be verbal, and, in fact, the verbal component of bard spells in 3E was recitation or singing. We also learn that a musical instrument can be used as a focus for spells. In 5E, foci are used as replacements for material components. Material components can be used with the same hand that is performing the somatic components, and only one hand need be free. That means a focus need only be used with one hand when casting. I don't know many musical instruments that can be played with one hand. In this case, the instrument serves as a rod, staff, orb, sprig of holly, or whatever a focus might be for any other class. It need not be played, but it can be. I don't view it as a tool so much as a symbol to help visualize and center the mind. In addition, a spell component pouch can replace the instrument as a focus.

Bardic Inspiration: "You inspire others through stirring words or music." Recitation or even just a pep talk can serve the purpose here. Music is a choice, but not a requirement.

Song of Rest: "... You can use soothing music or oration to help revitalize...." Again, music is a choice, but not required.

Countercharm: "... You gain the ability to use musical notes or words of power to disrupt...." Same as above.

Magical Secrets: Spells from other classes become Bard spells and, thus, are cast in the same way as above.

Cutting Words: "... You learn how to use your wit...." No mention of music.

College of Valor pretty much just adds on to combat ability and modifies already-existing features.

So, as you can see, music is not intrinsic to the class at all.

That's like saying Magic spells are Part of a sorcerers identity. They Are the Biggest part

Sorcerers are, by their very definition, born into magic through some sort of bloodline. Of course it is entwined in their very being; it is in their blood.

Just thought I would throw that out there. I am getting tired of people minimizing the musical portion of the bard when it is clear that is the Majority of the bards persona.

As I said above, it's not music, but Performance that is the core of the Bard. But don't mix that up with the Performance skill. (Though, I would go on to say that a Bard without proficiency in Performance does himself or herself an injustice. Even so, Proficiency in that skill is not needed as long as the Bard has an instrument with which he or she is proficient.)

 

[Garthanos]

It doesn't look like you were looking for some help visualising a bard. It looks like you were taking a big, steaming dump of badwrongfun on anyone who actually likes the concept.

Yup that is exactly how many took it even calling him troll on page one of the thread...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

[MENTION=6867337]Brandegoris[/MENTION] I highly recommend you read Guy Gavriel Kay's Song For Arbonne. It is an excellent book, but it also gives a good view of a culture in which one would be hard pressed to argue that a troubadour is "silly".

Unless you view art, in general, as inherently silly, in which case...I don't even know because I can't fathom any human being thinking that, and not immediately disliking them! LOL