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

[cbwjm]

The instrument is pretty much a requirement with the current design of the 5e Bard, as its the only Tool proficiency Bards get and required for their spellcasting.

And Bards didn't use Charisma based spellcasting until 3e. In 1e, they cast spells as Druids and in 2e, they cast them as Wizards. And 4e/5e marked their move from "partial casters" to "full-caster". There's obviously wiggle room regarding the spell situation.

Bards can use a component pouch for casting spells with material components instead of a musical instrument if they prefer. If they are careful in their spell selection and choose only spells that don't have material components then they might not even need the component pouch, instead casting their spells purely based on their voice and actions.

Edit: I really need to read all of the posts before replying. The component pouch has already been mentioned.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What flavor is that?

Tacking the flavor of a musical performer onto a Captain (Skald), Noble (Minstrel), and Scholar (Bard), etc can fill the need of a Bard character in heroic fantasy. You can still have a separate Bard class- but not necessarily because the general concept is impossible to replicate in any other way. Most any class can find a niche/audience.

Especially when it has as long and storied a history in D&D as the Bard.

How are you still stuck on the idea that musical performer is all a Bard is? This is really weird, at this point. What flavor? Read the thread. Every page has a post describing the bard's flavor, many of which don't even mention music!

Why shouldn't the scholar be the class to calm an epic monster or befriend a dragon? In most stories, it's very often that kind of character who knows all the legends and lore about monsters, their likes/dislikes, their languages, etc that provides the solution on how to stop it. Especially when the monster can't be easily killed.

Scholors, as an archetype, aren't charismatic, or possessed of extraordinary force of personality, will, etc. a scholar character can be, but it isn't part of the archetype.

Captain sings a song to inspire his troops. And most Captain classes tend to get training in history and other skills that more straightforward Warrior-types lack.

<sigh> yes, a given, specific, captain character could do that. Again, it is not part of the archetype. You've missed the point so glaringly that I don't even know what to do but to ask that you read it again.

Again, I'm not saying the Bard has to be axed and doesn't have a niche. Just that it's possible to execute the Bard without the musical instruments and still have the option to tack them on if you want.

The musical instrument is an option, and always has been. What are you even trying to say?
What you did say, was that the Bard persists because of tradition, implying that tradition was the only, or even primary reason. You've yet to support that notion, at all.

 

[Aldarc]

And Bards didn't use Charisma based spellcasting until 3e. In 1e, they cast spells as Druids and in 2e, they cast them as Wizards. And 4e/5e marked their move from "partial casters" to "full-caster". There's obviously wiggle room regarding the spell situation.

So what? Out of five editions, there are now THREE consecutive (and newest) editions where Bards go off Charisma, one where they go off Int, and one where they go off Wis? There was wiggle room many editions ago, but the noose is now burying itself in the neck's flesh.

Edit: Out of my own curiosity, I revisited the old edition requirements for the bard. Yes, the bard did not use Charisma spellcasting until 3e. But in 1e, a character aspiring to become a bard still required a Charisma 15+ in addition to the Wisdom 15+ (not to mention 15+ Dex, 15+ Str, 12+ Int, and 10+ Con). In 2e, the bard may have drawn from the wizard, but to become a bard, one still required a higher Charisma than Intelligence: 15+ Cha vs. 13+ Int. Regardless of the spellcasting stat, Charisma has been important for the bard. It's little surprise that 3e just shifted the bard over to a Charisma caster, especially in the gradual evolution away from MAD.

I'm inclined to think that you don't want a bard; you just want a loremaster wizard.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

And continue to agree when someone else points out how they find the class silly and asks others how they feel.

Like I and others do for lots of other D&D idiosyncrasies that we find silly but persist mostly due ro the inertia of tradition.

i don't think that is the case. I can't speak for others, but I despise traditionalism. Nothing should ever stick around just because it's a tradition, ever, IMO.

The Bard persists because people enjoy playing Bards. People enjoy playing Bards because they enjoy being the character described by so many folks in this thread, including the music-as-magic and musical inspiration elements.

I believe that he is talking about his (and others') view of the bard being tradition.

In 5e, there is nothing to require the concept of the bard prancing around strumming a lute in the middle of combat. That image is a hang over from previous editions, but mostly from comedy sketches and satire. Its prevalent enough that it has become the way some people see the traditional bard.

Whatever the PHB says, and however it presents the class, there is a tradition of the comedic image of the bard that people are going to take their cue from instead.

 

[Ratskinner]

Bards...Music...

Well this, IMO, is one of those places where old-timey D&D's "kitchen-sink" approach has lead us down an odd path. But, honestly, is the guy singing and rocking his life during the skirmish any weirder or less sensible than his teammate in the dress and pointy hat waving a stick around? I can't see how.

Now the whole "music is magic" thing may not fit with all games...It's not all that grim and gritty. However, from my reading, the 5e Bard can be easily skinned as a Jack of all Trades style officer like Croaker from Black Company. This is especially true if you're willing to squint and pretend some spells aren't really magic. The music is not fundamentally part of it. That, I can really get behind and support.

That said, I thought Bard was where Warlord would find a home as a subclass or two, and I don't think they quite got there.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using EN World mobile app

 

[steeldragons]

Look, the game is born of swords and sorcery.

Swords ---> Fighting Man/Warrior guy
Sorcery ---> Magic-user/Wizard guy

Your Barbarians, your Knights in shining armor, mercenary Swords-for-hire, soldiers, warlords [small "w!" Everybody relax.], etc. etc... "Warriors," all.
Your Wizards, your "sorcerers/magic is an interior thing," your good and wicked witches, illusionists, enchanters, conjurers, necromancers, etc. etc... "Wizards," all.

Behind and/or alongside them are the "next tier," if you will, of archetypes: "The Support Classes."
Thief ---> Support through Skills/"Rogue" guy.
Cleric ---> Support through various combinations of all of the above/"gish" [but I hate that term so let's call it] "Priest" guy.

Your straight up thieves, pickpockets, burglars, your assassins/ninjas, scouts, spies, tricky tricksters, acrobats, pirates/buccaneers, etc. etc... Your skill-based help you out with non-combat heavy and non-magic-heavy stuff in non-combat/magic heavy ways, support class "Rogues," all.

Your clerics -from pacifist healer to militant crusader, undead hunter to wise counsellor and everything in between, your druids, monks/spiritual martial artists, I would argue your warlocks, one could conceivably throw paladins and rangers in here as well, etc. etc... Your combinations of magic and fighting ability, fighting and skills, magic and skills, fighting-magic-and-skills, in varying amounts in just about any conceivable flavor, support class "Priests," all.

The Bard, quite obviously, falls into the last of these possible archetypal categories, a support class that combines magic and fighting and skillsets (traditionally in D&D, as well as historically, including some level of skill in music, oration, knowledge/history and memory retention) in a wide variety of possible amounts -more magicky, more fightery, more skillsy, jack-of-all-master-of-none, et al.- as suits your Player Character concept. How you choose to imagine a particular combination with a particular flavor -historic, literary, or fantastic- is entirely up to you.

So, no. There is nothing "silly" about the Bard concept.

 

[Miladoon]

I can take a Bard class and play it as a druid concept. I can also take a Druid class and play that character like it is a bard. I use class as a mechanical skeleton, then putty in the character concept. Sometimes you get baggage, like druids being metal armor prohibited but it mostly works out. Next time you want to play a wizard, use the elemental Monk class as a base for the concept. If an NPC questions your wizardiness, throat punch them with your ensorcelled fist.

Or you can just play a wizard with a Wizard class. Don't limit yourself to the designer's archetypes.

 

[Brandegoris]

Quick question: why don't the people who find bards silly...just not play them?

Quick answer: I definitely don't LOL
And I'm just being funny. Not trying to be rude. I get your point. I don't EVER ban a class from my players because I don't feel that is right, even if I hate how the Players portray the class.

 

[Brandegoris]

And yet this "silly" class identity has been a firm and persistent part of D&D. But for the sake of these poor people who find the bard silly, we should just get rid of the bard entirely from D&D. Would that make you and others so offended by "silliness" feel better?

Umm... I don't think ANYONE has suggested getting rid of the class? I may be wrong but I don't think that's the case.
Some of us don't like the Bard Stereotype in D&D which leads some players to play them in a manner we find "silly".
Just seeing how many people feel the same in regards to wishing the Bard could come across in a better manner in my games and seeing if anyone else was grappling with the " Robin Hood, Men in Tights" style bard that all my players seem to play for some reason.
From what I gather so far there are Also some folks that have problems with some of the Mechanical issues of the way the bard functions too.I don't have Those issues. I just hate Colorful tights ?

 

[Brandegoris]

Look, the game is born of swords and sorcery.

Swords ---> Fighting Man/Warrior guy
Sorcery ---> Magic-user/Wizard guy

Your Barbarians, your Knights in shining armor, mercenary Swords-for-hire, soldiers, warlords [small "w!" Everybody relax.], etc. etc... "Warriors," all.
Your Wizards, your "sorcerers/magic is an interior thing," your good and wicked witches, illusionists, enchanters, conjurers, necromancers, etc. etc... "Wizards," all.

Behind and/or alongside them are the "next tier," if you will, of archetypes: "The Support Classes."
Thief ---> Support through Skills/"Rogue" guy.
Cleric ---> Support through various combinations of all of the above/"gish" [but I hate that term so let's call it] "Priest" guy.

Your straight up thieves, pickpockets, burglars, your assassins/ninjas, scouts, spies, tricky tricksters, acrobats, pirates/buccaneers, etc. etc... Your skill-based help you out with non-combat heavy and non-magic-heavy stuff in non-combat/magic heavy ways, support class "Rogues," all.

Your clerics -from pacifist healer to militant crusader, undead hunter to wise counsellor and everything in between, your druids, monks/spiritual martial artists, I would argue your warlocks, one could conceivably throw paladins and rangers in here as well, etc. etc... Your combinations of magic and fighting ability, fighting and skills, magic and skills, fighting-magic-and-skills, in varying amounts in just about any conceivable flavor, support class "Priests," all.

The Bard, quite obviously, falls into the last of these possible archetypal categories, a support class that combines magic and fighting and skillsets (traditionally in D&D, as well as historically, including some level of skill in music, oration, knowledge/history and memory retention) in a wide variety of possible amounts -more magicky, more fightery, more skillsy, jack-of-all-master-of-none, et al.- as suits your Player Character concept. How you choose to imagine a particular combination with a particular flavor -historic, literary, or fantastic- is entirely up to you.

So, no. There is nothing "silly" about the Bard concept.

But yes, There IS something silly about the bard concept. just not silly to you because clearly you haven't had the same experiences.

I get what everyone is saying about the bard. I get it LOUD AND CLEAR
Bard doesn't Have to have an instrument or sing etc etc etc... But then WHY is he called a F*cki*g bard? LOL
Maybe the problem is the name? Keep the class the same and name it something different? That may seriously be the best thing D&D can do since it appears so many people here don't focus on Music as the most prominent class feature ( although I am not sure why that would be since it is a "Bard" ,how they can ignore it or minimize it?).
Bards are Musicians. That's is LITERALLY what they are. So to minimize that to me is also SILLY.
It is a reason so many players do feel they have to include it in their characters (even in combat) and why they visualize music as the focal point for all of their spells and spell-like abilities. ( WAIT! Before you yell at me! LOL
I Know many of you just said you personally do NOT visualize that as a focal point, But I am here to tell you that a TON of people still do and that sh*t makes me laugh and is silly! Whew!