Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 2133675" data-attributes="member: 30001">You're right.&nbsp; The hiding of information is a time honored tradition among DMs and is in direct conflict with the bardic lore ability.&nbsp; &nbsp;Here is a hypothetical - say you're running an Arthurian campaign and all characters are knights.&nbsp; You've got a bunch of great dungeons lined up with fiercesome giant guardians and swooning damsels.&nbsp; At the center of the dungeon is the holy grail.&nbsp; Some player comes along with the new &quot;thieves supplement&quot; to your game system.&nbsp; Next thing you know, he's sneaking past the giants, ignoring the damsels, and bounding off with the grail.&nbsp; This is comparable to what I infer from your &quot;butler did it&quot; example.&nbsp;So I agree - changing the bard to be more interesting and effective requires more than just handing out more information.&nbsp; It would probably require some organization of information into tiers (to a greater degree than what's done in the PHB).&nbsp; You'd really have to anticipate a bard's contribution to the adventure, and design things so that it is important but not a plot killer.&nbsp; But how does a DM even design such a framework when, IMO, because of our cultural biases and spotty educations on the subject (and I could include myself) we instinctively take such a dismal view of the culture of knowledge from which the bard is derived.&nbsp; &nbsp;I DM parties of PCs who won't go on an adventure without a cleric to heal them.&nbsp; Most dungeons take into account that PCs will be healed in due course, and this is an important/essential contribution of the cleric.&nbsp; I'm saying why not bardic knowledge as well?&nbsp; (Well, I'm saying alot of things, but this is one of the more rational ones)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 2133675, member: 30001"] You're right. The hiding of information is a time honored tradition among DMs and is in direct conflict with the bardic lore ability. Here is a hypothetical - say you're running an Arthurian campaign and all characters are knights. You've got a bunch of great dungeons lined up with fiercesome giant guardians and swooning damsels. At the center of the dungeon is the holy grail. Some player comes along with the new "thieves supplement" to your game system. Next thing you know, he's sneaking past the giants, ignoring the damsels, and bounding off with the grail. This is comparable to what I infer from your "butler did it" example. So I agree - changing the bard to be more interesting and effective requires more than just handing out more information. It would probably require some organization of information into tiers (to a greater degree than what's done in the PHB). You'd really have to anticipate a bard's contribution to the adventure, and design things so that it is important but not a plot killer. But how does a DM even design such a framework when, IMO, because of our cultural biases and spotty educations on the subject (and I could include myself) we instinctively take such a dismal view of the culture of knowledge from which the bard is derived. I DM parties of PCs who won't go on an adventure without a cleric to heal them. Most dungeons take into account that PCs will be healed in due course, and this is an important/essential contribution of the cleric. I'm saying why not bardic knowledge as well? (Well, I'm saying alot of things, but this is one of the more rational ones) [/QUOTE]

Verification