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

[The Crimson Binome]

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

I don't want a minstrel-style bard, or an alt-magic song-power bard, but I'm perfectly fine with a loremaster-style bard. That's kind of the premise of this thread.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't want a minstrel-style bard, or an alt-magic song-power bard, but I'm perfectly fine with a loremaster-style bard. That's kind of the premise of this thread.

So a loremaster wizard?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So a loremaster wizard?

A wizard is already a wizard. All wizards are loremasters. You learn magic from reading books. That's the definition of wizard in D&D.

I don't mind bards also being loremasters, who picked up their lore through travel rather than by studying in a tower.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

'Evoke the classic' game is something WotC has been hammering hard since Essentials, it was a major goal of 5e, if not the top, overriding goal. It's been delivered upon pretty well, IMHO.

i don't think that is the case.

That the minstrel-ish bard is a D&D tradition, or that 5e caters slavishly to D&D traditions at the expense of any/everything else?

I can't speak for others, but I despise traditionalism. Nothing should ever stick around just because it's a tradition, ever, IMO.

There's a long-standing tradition of respecting tradition that I think should be respected.

...or something like that...

The Bard persists because people enjoy playing Bards.

...and making fun of them.

 

[Alexemplar]

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.

Bards use a musical instrument as the focus for their spells. They can't just use a component pouch unless you change the rules.

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.

I didn't mention it because Charisma as a casting stat doesn't really irk me and not one of the things I would bother tweaking. If I were pressed to change it to anything, it'd probably be Wisdom.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Bards use a musical instrument as the focus for their spells. They can't just use a component pouch unless you change the rules.

This is incorrect. Read the rules for components again. PHB 203. Any character has the option to use either a component pouch or a spellcasting focus. Nowhere does it say bards can only use a focus.

 

[Lanliss]

Bards use a musical instrument as the focus for their spells. They can't just use a component pouch unless you change the rules.



I didn't mention it because Charisma as a casting stat doesn't really irk me and not one of the things I would bother tweaking. If I were pressed to change it to anything, it'd probably be Wisdom.

Funny, I am thinking of dumping Wis as a stat, and making Wis classes based on Charisma. Perception would become a flat number like AC, and all the wis skills I can currently think of fit fine under intelligence*. Like medicine, the textbook "This was learned" skill.

EDIT:*Or charisma, like Insight.

 

[Alexemplar]

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.

Then he doesn't do it through raw force of personality, but it's very often that kind of character who knows all the legends and lore about monsters, their likes/dislikes, their languages

<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.

I have to disagree here. Having a larger than life/forceful/inspiring/intimidating/charming personality is VERY MUCH a part of the Captain/Warlord/Battleleader archetype.

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!

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.

I'm saying that if Bards don't NEED the instrument- as others have suggested- then there's no real reason to have them gain automatic proficiency with one or insist they be proficient in one or constantly show them with one. If it doesn't define Bards and they work just fine without, then how is its absence considered a loss that destroys the class' identity?

If the minstrel flavor is optional in the Bard class, what is the issue with a Bard class in which minstrel flavor is presented as optional?

I say it's because of the identity the Bard has in D&D. One that has been cultivated and not changed too much for decades: the insistence that all Bards- that all oral lorekeepers, jacks of all trades, and pretty much the only dedicated support class- need to be musically themed and carry around instruments (usually a stringed one) and the two concepts are more or less inseparable.

D&D *COULD* do what other games have done and separate the two concepts. I doubt it will. Why? The Bard has name recognition. It has history in D&D. There are generations of players who grew up playing the Bard in every edition. There are people who are familiar with the D&D Bard throughout the years and don't want it to change into something that they no longer recognize as the uniquely D&D take on the concept. Too a far lesser extent, there are people who fear that some new class might somehow still the spotlight/role of this D&D fixture.

I consider that a tradition.

 

[Alexemplar]

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 don't ever recall really complaining about the Bard using Charisma for its casting stat. Just pointing out that the idea that the Bard uses MUSIC for his casting of spells was introduced in 3e when the class became a Charisma caster.

And I feel that the implication that, "It's been this way for a while, so we're stuck with it forever" to be an appeal to tradition.

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

[/quote]

With d8, light armor, limited weapons options, a larger and more varied skill list, expertise, the ability to heal, a modified spell with a more limited number of spells known, more of a support role, sub-classes not based on the 8 schools of magic, and some other changes. Sure.

I believe I've been very clear in multiple posts about what I want.

 

[Alexemplar]

This is incorrect. Read the rules for components again. PHB 203. Any character has the option to use either a component pouch or a spellcasting focus. Nowhere does it say bards can only use a focus.

I stand corrected. And very pleasantly surprised.