Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 6613442" data-attributes="member: 14506">If historical bards were historians, and gathered tales and recanted them so that human existence had a sense of place and history because of rampant illiteracy. I can see how commoners would be mesmerized by this and think that it was almost magical that they had such deep knowledge about their past. D&D does not have this problem. Knowledge is common, literacy is common, and written materials are common. The niche the bard had in historical precedent is not the niche they have in D&D. The niche created was one where music was the magic and the historian part was set aside and made a minor feature. I think the better way to make the bard is to pull the class back even further and make them just a jack of all trades. Make them the ultimate dabbler, go back to their knowledge roots. In 5e with backgrounds, allow the entertainer background to define the entertainer stuff, and allow other backgrounds to define them. Basically shave off the entertainer bit. Leave the other stuff. In this way you have a class that can be all things to all people. Entertainer can be there for people who want it and non-entertainer can be there for those who want it.I also, was influenced as a kid with Lloyd Alexander's books. I think he was awesome. However, he had talents for entertaining, I don't think this was his "class". This goes to my design choice and I think fewer classes with broad arrays of options is better than lots of classes with fewer options. Why cant a CHA rogue be a bard, why can't a sorcerer specialize in song magic? And then there are multiclassing... what! That is crazy! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification