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

[Alexemplar]

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.

Pretty sure if the Bard were redesigned to be like the classes I mentioned- but still capable of fulfilling the wandering minstrel characer type through subclasses/feats/backgrounds/etc, people would cry foul about it deviating from D&D traditions and it's idiosyncrasies as a part of its unique brand identity.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't see how. I would prefer a class like the One Ring RPG's Scholar/Fantasycraft Sage or Keeper to the Bard and I hope D&D releases such a class. I try to homebrew such classes.

But I'm not asking WOTC to get rid of the D&D Bard and saying nobody can ever play such. I know what they're doing and respect their right to do it and other's right to enjoy it.

I just think there are ways to do it that would result in far fewer wandering minstrels.

Kind of like how many people come up with/request unarmed warriors with less Asian flavor as am alternative to the Monk. Or a skill monkey class with less criminal flavor as an alternative to the Rogue. Or a shamn-y caster that lacks the Druid's wildshape feature.

So you want to reflavor and rename the bard? How is that not getting rid of the bard? It's about like asking for a zebra without its color, stripes, or name out of one side of your mouth and then reaffirming others that you don't want to get rid of zebras out of the other. It's double speak.

 

[Alexemplar]

So you want to reflavor and rename the bard? How is that not getting rid of the bard? It's about like asking for a zebra without its color, stripes, or name out of one side of your mouth and then reaffirming others that you don't want to get rid of zebras out of the other. It's double speak.

To be fair, refluffing the Bard isn't the ONLY option I presented. D&D can (and has) introduced class variants that swap out many class features and change the flavor. That doesn't get rid of the original class. D&D has also introduced other classes with overlapping functions/mechanics/concepts, but different flavor. That doesn't get rid of the original class either.

But even if I were to change the fluff some...

Is a class with the title Bard, but instead of a musical instrument the class gained proficiency in 1 tool of their choice, Song of Healing changed to Hands of Healing, magic derived from their classical education, a "College of the Song" subclass and introductory art that doesn't show someone with a musical instrument... let's say for every 1 image of a bard with an instrument, you need 3 or 4 of a Bard without an instrument. Is it still a Bard?

I would say yes. Others would say no.

 

[SmokeyCriminal]

Pretty sure if the Bard were redesigned to be like the classes I mentioned- but still capable of fulfilling the wandering minstrel characer type through subclasses/feats/backgrounds/etc, people would cry foul about it deviating from D&D traditions and it's idiosyncrasies as a part of its unique brand identity.

I think you can get what u want if u just change Tools from any three instruments of your choice, to simply any three tools of your choice. Also change Song of Rest to something like...idk...Art of Rest, or Trade in Rest, or Storytelling( Actually, Storytelling sounds really cool, i'd pick that one). Finally, just change the Focus to be an instrument or any you choose. So you can use the Druid, or Wizard, or even cleric focus. Or maybe open up the focus to be Anything that you choose when u create the Character. so for example you can choose Books, or Gold, or Gems. But ya, aside from the half dozen instruments u get during character creation, the focus, and song of rest, nothing else beats you over the head with "Bard!" And with those little tweeks anyone that wants to can still choose three instruments for tools and instruments as your focus, and Storytelling can still include a flute( like that scene in Kill Bill 2 in the camp fire with Bill and Kiddo).

 

[Alexemplar]

I think you can get what u want if u just change Tools from any three instruments of your choice, to simply any three tools of your choice. Also change Song of Rest to something like...idk...Art of Rest, or Trade in Rest, or Storytelling( Actually, Storytelling sounds really cool, i'd pick that one). Finally, just change the Focus to be an instrument or any you choose. So you can use the Druid, or Wizard, or even cleric focus. Or maybe open up the focus to be Anything that you choose when u create the Character. so for example you can choose Books, or Gold, or Gems. But ya, aside from the half dozen instruments u get during character creation, the focus, and song of rest, nothing else beats you over the head with "Bard!" And with those little tweeks anyone that wants to can still choose three instruments for tools and instruments as your focus, and Storytelling can still include a flute( like that scene in Kill Bill 2 in the camp fire with Bill and Kiddo).

Which is pretty much what I do in 5e until WOTC decides to do it in some more official capacity.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

But even if I were to change the fluff some...

Is a class with the title Bard, but instead of a musical instrument the class gained proficiency in 1 tool of their choice, Song of Healing changed to Hands of Healing, magic derived from their classical education, a "College of the Song" subclass and introductory art that doesn't show someone with a musical instrument... let's say for every 1 image of a bard with an instrument, you need 3 or 4 of a Bard without an instrument. Is it still a Bard?

I would say yes. Others would say no.

The word bard means something like "poet/songwriter" (the borderline between poetry and song being fuzzy especially in the historical cultures we're talking about). The instrument is optional -- the identifying quality is skill at verse. But a "bard" who didn't put words to meter in some fashion would be like a "fighter" who didn't fight. If you want magic derived from classical education, the wizard is right there already (and, y'know, actually uses their Intelligence for it). What you're looking for seems more like a Loremaster wizard subclass than a bard.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Pretty sure if the Bard were redesigned to be like the classes I mentioned- but still capable of fulfilling the wandering minstrel characer type through subclasses/feats/backgrounds/etc, people would cry foul about it deviating from D&D traditions and it's idiosyncrasies as a part of its unique brand identity.

There might be some folks doing that, but there would be far more "crying foul" because a scholar, Noble, captain, whatever isn't a bard, and they play bards for the Bard flavor, not "Because Tradition." Having every one of those in the game would be fine with me, but none of them obviate the place of the Bard in heroic fantasy story telling, so the game would still need a Bard.

The Scholar shouldn't be a class who can calm an epic monster, befriend an angry dragon, etc. an individual ascholar might do those things, because characters aren't 1 dimensionally defined by their chosen class, but if you want the class for that, it's the Bard.

The Captain and Bard overlap in terms of encouraging and inspiring allies in a fight, but the captain isn't a master of lore, or storytelling, or song.

So unless you want a system where all classes with any overlap are folded into a single class until there are only 3-4 classes, the Bard has a strong place. And even then, you're gonna have to make sure the Specialist can strongly model the Bard.

 

[Alexemplar]

The word bard means something like "poet/songwriter" (the borderline between poetry and song being fuzzy especially in the historical cultures we're talking about). The instrument is optional -- the identifying quality is skill at verse. But a "bard" who didn't put words to meter in some fashion would be like a "fighter" who didn't fight. If you want magic derived from classical education, the wizard is right there already (and, y'know, actually uses their Intelligence for it). What you're looking for seems more like a Loremaster wizard subclass than a bard.

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.

 

[Alexemplar]

There might be some folks doing that, but there would be far more "crying foul" because a scholar, Noble, captain, whatever isn't a bard, and they play bards for the Bard flavor, not "Because Tradition." Having every one of those in the game would be fine with me, but none of them obviate the place of the Bard in heroic fantasy story telling, so the game would still need a Bard.

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.

The Scholar shouldn't be a class who can calm an epic monster, befriend an angry dragon, etc. an individual a scholar might do those things, because characters aren't 1 dimensionally defined by their chosen class, but if you want the class for that, it's the Bard.

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.

The Captain and Bard overlap in terms of encouraging and inspiring allies in a fight, but the captain isn't a master of lore, or storytelling, or song.

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.

So unless you want a system where all classes with any overlap are folded into a single class until there are only 3-4 classes, the Bard has a strong place. And even then, you're gonna have to make sure the Specialist can strongly model the Bard.

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.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

It's not required for their spellcasting. A lot of their spells are verbal, and for those with material components you can always use the good ol' component pouch if you want. A spellcasting focus is an optional substitute for material components.

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.

Sure there's wiggle room. You could houserule that they cast from Dexterity if you really wanted. But you didn't mention shifting to Int casting, and if you had, that would only convince me more that what you're really looking for is a wizard subclass, since the wizard has been consistently Int-based.