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

[Hussar]

Why isn't it fine to have a story in which malaria can be shouted away? I might read that story. It sounds intriguing.

Trees are real. No treents? Lizards are real and never talk. No talking lizards? I've never found a fantasy world in the back of my closet. No Narnia?

Besides, everything has components of reality in it somehow. We know how making hand gestures and speaking works, for instance. Those things should be treated somewhat realistically, your argument suggests. So how do those things produce a phantom horse? Seems like wizards are failing to treat them realistically in D&D. Your principle needs a second principle to determine its application.

But anyway, you seem to be trying to impose a principle here that would serve to put constraints on where our imaginations can take us. Why? What does this principle give us in exchange for constraining the kinds of stories we can tell? I'm not sold on its value, and just asserting it will not convince me. D&D is fantasy, and its unsupported departures from reality are part of its charm.

This is an argument that is as old as D&D. One camp seems to plunk itself in the "Myths and Legends" realm where supernatural occurrences can be performed by anyone. The other camp sets itself on the hill that says that anything that cannot be done in the real world must be done by magic. That a fighter, because it doesn't have spells, must be limited to real world physics.

And, frankly, these two impulses are probably the root of so much of the friction between fans that I really don't see any reconciliation.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Magicians were real things that actually existed, and wizards are merely a fantastic exaggeration of them. So what's so horrible about bards being a fantastic exaggeration of minstrels (or even, y'know, bards, which were not the same thing)?

Wizards were never real. There was never anybody in history who actually bellowed an incantation and caused an opposing army to explode. It's purely an imaginary concept, based on superstition and old stories. Wizards are exactly as real as faeries and dragons.

Bards were real. We have records. We know what they could do. They weren't magic.

 

[thunktanker]

Bards were real. We have records. We know what they could do. They weren't magic.

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.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

I'm not a particular fan of clerics, no. As soon as you put divine magic into a setting, then you have suddenly established as a fact that the gods definitely exist, which means faith can't possibly be a thing and the entire world is significantly changed.

It's the same thing with bards. Once you establish that bards are magic, and that their magic is different than the magic of wizards or clerics, then you've raised the bar on how fantastic the world is. Again. You've moved it further away from reality, and made it that much harder to take things seriously.

Different people have different thresholds for how high of a fantasy they can tolerate. Most people can accept wizards, because they're traditional. Many people are okay with clerics, because they've been around for so long, though it's not uncommon to see a setting where clerics use the same type of magic as wizards and simply choose to learn different spells. A significant number of people think that clerics and the gods cross the line.

Of the people who accept wizards and clerics, as different things that both exist within the same setting, not all of them are willing to suspend disbelief even further to also accommodate bards. Or druids. Or warlocks. Or psychics. Or incarnum-wielders. Or whatever else you want to pour on top of the setting. No matter what you want to add, there's going to be someone who thinks that crosses the line.

 

[Garthanos]

The classic Bard of early Celtic Era was exemplified by a very mythic caliber Taliesin... they were historians attached to Druidic orders ie old D&D attaching them druid levels.
They were said to perform many magics including transforming into beasts. They are not the mundane minstrels of middle Europe but rather members of a religion and considered sacrosanct curses would fall on you if you harmed them so they did not require a lot of aggressive capacity but rather a retaliatory. Note they did use music as part of the teaching process AND this is very common among a lot of religions to have musical specialists (Cantours of Jewish paradigm).

In a world with magical priests the Bard being magical is entirely paradigm.

The street minstrel can be as mundane as you like but that was not the Bard.

 

[thunktanker]

Of the people who accept wizards and clerics, as different things that both exist within the same setting, not all of them are willing to suspend disbelief even further to also accommodate bards. Or druids. Or warlocks. Or psychics. Or incarnum-wielders. Or whatever else you want to pour on top of the setting. No matter what you want to add, there's going to be someone who thinks that crosses the line.

Fair enough. And any gaming group can certainly choose to bar what they do not want to include or to house rule whatever they want to fit their particular sensibilities and the world they envision. My group seems pretty laissez faire about such things. For instance, at the moment, I am playing a quite unrealistic "awakened shrub monk." Yep, an awakened shrub who limb whips enemies to death. I have a racial ability of being able to spend an action to freeze still like a shrub. Works quite well to hide in plain sight in the forest. Works not so well in the city, but it does help create comic relief.

"What, why is there a shrub here, in the middle of the street?"

Pow bam wham!

"Oh no! That shrub knows kung fu!"

Stupid stupid fun.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I'm surprised no one linked to this yet...
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0128.html

 

[Garthanos]

The street minstrel can be as mundane as you like but that was not the Bard.

Actually a step further even if a most street minstrels are very mundane why cannot the players character be seen as having a gift that makes him different and special.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Wizards were never real. There was never anybody in history who actually bellowed an incantation and caused an opposing army to explode. It's purely an imaginary concept, based on superstition and old stories. Wizards are exactly as real as faeries and dragons.

Bards were real. We have records. We know what they could do. They weren't magic.

Wizards were real. There were men and women throughout history, like John Dee and Paracelsus, who threw themselves into studies of the occult and sought to control supernatural forces. We have records of them and know what they could do too. They weren't magic either. And despite their lack of actual supernatural power, you can't simply say that the wizard of D&D is a distinct concept from these guys. It is, in fact, based on them. There are elements of real hermetic and alchemical practices in the class' flavor and mechanics. The game simply posits a universe where these practices actually work, and builds from there. So the wizard is not a purely imaginary concept. Only the magic is imaginary.

And if we can look at John Dee and say, "What if this guy actually had the mojo he was reputed to have?", then what on earth is so objectionable about looking at Taliesin and asking the same question?

And even if you don't buy anything I've said about historical wizards, even if you still insist that the magical wizard is purely imaginary, then what's to stop us from inventing a magical bard that is just as purely imaginary? Obviously there's nothing wrong with purely imaginary character classes, since the wizard is one, so a purely imaginary bard should be fine too, right?

 

[Tersival]

I hate Bards. The only bards I like are the ones that play music in taverns
Every time I think of a dude dancing and spouting poetry to " inspire " me while I am being attacked by trolls I just cringe.
If that happened in real life I would stop attacking the trolls immediately and bet the crap outta the singing useless weirdo..
The whole concept is just too silly to even visualize.
Even one that is fighting is silly. Some fighting, singing weirdo. I think players should have to write down what the dude is singing so we can all have an example of how it is " Inspiring". LOLOL

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.