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

[TheCosmicKid]

You're certainly not the only one to find the concept hard to visualise and/or roleplay. I love Critical Role's Scanlon Shorthalt (Sam Reigel truly brings the musical bard concept to life) but I just can't see anyone at my table coming remotely close.

If/when I ever play a bard, it will be re-fluffed as an alternative sorcerer-like magic user. I see house-ruling the musical instrument focus into some other type of focus should be the only mechanic that would need tweaking.

Because casting spells with a glorified stick is all well and good, but but the idea that there might be magical power in music is just too ridiculous to contemplate?

 

[Warpiglet]

Because casting spells with a glorified stick is all well and good, but but the idea that there might be magical power in music is just too ridiculous to contemplate?

I think many people are missing the point. It is all ridiculous as we sit behind a computer. The idea though is that the rules and fluff are supposed to be evocative of adventuring archetypes (fictional). Many people find like me that they need to reflavor the bard in order to think it is cool to imagine.

When we play a fighter, we probably are not imagining an astronaut because the rules and fluff are meant to call into mind a warrior from myth.

Someone upthread said it is a failure of imagination to dislike a bard. By this line of reasoning, class preferences are just that. I could play a bard and have fun but it takes more work to create the sense of immersion (for me and many others) because the class as written does not conjure up as many interesting associations. I don't want them to dump bard. People enjoy them! I just don't think they are very cool to imagine as written.

 

[Garthanos]

Because casting spells with a glorified stick is all well and good, but but the idea that there might be magical power in music is just too ridiculous to even contemplate?

Nods, Even the language we associate with magic is wrapped in root reference to song and poetry. Of special note there is: In(cant)ation , en(chant)ment, your mages are already singing things into reality, just like in Tolkeins origin story.

 

[Warpiglet]

Nods, Even the language we associate with magic is wrapped in root reference to song and poetry. Of special note there is: In(cant)ation , en(chant)ment, your mages are already singing things into reality, just like in Tolkeins origin story.

I cannot convince anyone what to like. I don't want everyone to like the same thing. However, how many people associate archetypes from fantasy fiction with singing of spells? I like the root words and the history, but what I think we are playing is trying to call up shared fiction. For most of us, that is not involving root word analysis and intimate knowledge of the customs of the Visigoths or whatever.

I do not think it encapsulates a good archetype. But cheers to people who like them. I built a dwarf that sought out lost dwarven lore (a la indiana jones). In the end I scrapped it. The high level flashy stuff was not part of the idea.

 

[Garthanos]

I cannot convince anyone what to like.

Duh, but calling this silly seems more a case of ignorance. Basically mocking something with rich heritage.

I mean grown ups pretending to be dwarven and fairy princes and princesses and so on, isnt exactly rippling with dignity shouldn't be throwing stones at each other AND calling it silly is doing just that.

I don't want everyone to like the same thing. However, how many people associate archetypes from fantasy fiction with singing of spells? I like the root words and the history, but what I think we are playing is trying to call up shared fiction. For most of us, that is not involving root word analysis and intimate knowledge of the customs of the Visigoths or whatever. .

Hey I invoked Tolkein you know arguably the modern originator of the genre -- > Fantasy inspired me to learn about early history. Tolkeins designing his own fresh language interested me in Linguistics, and those words are really in your face even if you just dabble, its really not obscure at all.

I recommend people to actually use Fantasy as a starting off point for historical exploration use this stuff as personal growth point.

 

[Tersival]

Because casting spells with a glorified stick is all well and good, but but the idea that there might be magical power in music is just too ridiculous to contemplate?

Not at all ridiculous.

I've always enjoyed hybrid characters, so the mix of skills and magic inherent in the bard mechanics appeals but I personally simply have not an ounce of musical talent or ability in my entire being so I struggle to imagine roleplaying a musical character.

On top of already suspending disbelief to allow for magic, for me personally the music/performer element is a step too far.

 

[Warpiglet]

Duh, but calling this silly seems more a case of ignorance. Basically mocking something with rich heritage.

I mean grown ups pretending to be dwarven and fairy princes and princesses and isnt exactly rippling with dignity shouldn't be throwing stones at each other.
AND calling it silly is doing just that.



Hey I invoked Tolkein you know arguably the modern originator of the genre -- > Fantasy inspired me to learn about early history. Tolkeins designing his own fresh language interested me in Linguistics, and those words are really in your face even if you just dabble, its really not obscure at all.

I recommend people to actually use Fantasy as a starting off point for historical exploration use this stuff as personal growth point.

I am sorry I hurt your feelings. I do not like bards. If you look at my reasoning related to character design and archetypes back further, you will see that my opinion was not synonymous with giving you a wedgie and mocking you personally for playing a fantasy game. I also noted that I considered playing one and did not like the imagery and so backed out. It just was not for me.

I think your point about music/lyrics is reasonable. Yet, I did not enjoy the lyrics in the LOTR books much and found them a distraction (oh the heresy!).

I cannot think of many instances of characters throwing flashy spells while playing an instrument and singing (not required, but is present in most artist representations of bard and you can use your instrument as a focus).

As a result, I am not "into" the bard, no matter the literary or intellectual gymnastics that would make them more palatable for me. I have even thought about Jungian archetypes a bit. Nevertheless, I still do not think bards are very immersive for the campaigns in which I have participated.

As a side note your post is really rude and condescending. If someone DID give you a wedgie for playing D&D, it was not me. I was too busy playing D&D.

I looked at my previous posts. I don't like the same thing as you. The difference of opinion is not about ignorance in this case, but rudeness is hopefully due to ignorance on your part. The irony is that your "duh" is in reference to me understanding different people have different tastes. Therefore by all means take me to task for not being educated enough to "get" the bard.

My point remains. For me, the character of a bard, throwing fireballs and plunking on a stringed instrument does not evoke a cool fantasy archetype. Maybe I need to haunt the library more to get into it (said no *#@$% fighter, wizard, sorcerer, rogue, cleric, barbarian, ranger player ever!).

Enjoy you bard. I will enjoy my characters.

 

[Redthistle]

I guess you are not a fan of the cleric class, seeing as how there were certainly priests, and we have records, and we know what they could do, and they weren't magic.

Also, historically there were people who were wizards, sorcerers, and the like, but they couldn't actually do magic. If we want to keep historical accuracy in D&D, we can have wizards, but they all have to be really good at tricking people into believing their nonsense. A class of really good BSers who can't actually do any of the magic they say they can. Like Nicholas Flamel. They could sprinkle in some science, make an exploding volcano out of baking soda and vinegar, but that would be about it. Fun! That is the sort of wizard that your objections to the bard requires.

Doesn't the word "wizard" come from the same root as "vizier"?

My understanding of the RW role of viziers was that they had enough education and experience to enable them to advise leaders as to possible consequences of different courses of action.

They weren't always right, and their modern-world counterparts continue to perform the same role with better tools at their disposal, but also with the same human flaws of bias hindering their interpretation of the available data.

As the late Arthur C. Clarke observed, a relatively advanced technology can appear as magical to a less-advanced culture. Imho, that gap in knowledge doesn't have to be very large.

Magic did not and still does not really exist, but people act on what they believe, and on what they believe they know to be true, so it is unlikely that humanity as a whole will ever fully stop believing in it.

Therefore, even today, wizards and magic may well be "real" to some people.

 

[Garthanos]

I am sorry I hurt your feelings.

I was referring to the original poster who is referring to the Bard as silly, it doesnt look like that is you?

I was rather specific about what I was criticizing.

 

[Garthanos]

The irony is that your "duh" is in reference to me understanding different people have different tastes.

Sorry for making that sound hostile towards you, I meant it with smiling agreement. I find it very obvious that people will have different tastes... to the degree that purely "I like it" or "don't like it" is just not very valuable to a discussion.