Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7194559" data-attributes="member: 4937">Well, I've only done a little research, but the answer appears to be a good bit more complicated than I thought.The original Bard class I knew had appeared in The Strategic Review prior to its inclusion in the appendix of the 1e AD&amp;D PH.&nbsp; But, it was not as I supposed the invention of Gygax, nor did the original Bard class very strongly resemble that of the class as it appeared in the 1e AD&amp;D.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is enough in common that we can see that it obviously influenced it, but it has been almost completely reworked mechanically.Ironically, the original strategic review class has much more in common with the Bard of later editions than it does with the 1e Bard.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's a straight class rather than a proto-Prestige class as in 1e.&nbsp;&nbsp; The original Bard (oBard?) is fundamentally in its conception a 'gish' class, intended it would seem as a fighter with half-progression as an arcane spellcaster (almost exactly, with a 10th level bard having the spells of a 5th level M-U) AND half-progression as a thief (literally, your thief abilities are half your bard level).&nbsp;&nbsp; The original author is Doug Schwegman and appears to have been rather loosely inspired by what he describes as a broad European tradition - Nordic skalds, Celtic Bards, and southern European minstrals.&nbsp; He discusses at some length how the northern tradition was more lawful, while the southern tradition was one more of trickery - a thief-illusionist as he puts it.&nbsp;&nbsp; However, he concedes that he is primarily drawing from the Celtic tradition, and - perhaps I should not be surprised - the works of JRR Tolkien. It's evident that Gygax though the concept rather a good one, but did not like the rules as presented.&nbsp;&nbsp; Exactly what process was used to convert the original concept into the form scene I don't know.&nbsp; Evidently Gygax thought that the dual-classing rules he presented were more suitable than a class which gave a character a little bit of every ability, and I suspect he also understood that the class would as presented be quite weak at around name level - a jack of all trades but nearly useless at all of them.&nbsp;&nbsp; I would guess Gygax rather disliked the concept of Bard as jongleur and rather preferred the bard as Skald or animist Warrior-Priest as presented in the Kalevala, but I'm not sure if any of his thinking regarding the Bard's reimagining is preserved.&nbsp; In any event, Gygax's bard seems to have ultimately been abandoned in favor of the more rascally ministral of Schwegman.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7194559, member: 4937"] Well, I've only done a little research, but the answer appears to be a good bit more complicated than I thought. The original Bard class I knew had appeared in The Strategic Review prior to its inclusion in the appendix of the 1e AD&D PH. But, it was not as I supposed the invention of Gygax, nor did the original Bard class very strongly resemble that of the class as it appeared in the 1e AD&D. There is enough in common that we can see that it obviously influenced it, but it has been almost completely reworked mechanically. Ironically, the original strategic review class has much more in common with the Bard of later editions than it does with the 1e Bard. It's a straight class rather than a proto-Prestige class as in 1e. The original Bard (oBard?) is fundamentally in its conception a 'gish' class, intended it would seem as a fighter with half-progression as an arcane spellcaster (almost exactly, with a 10th level bard having the spells of a 5th level M-U) AND half-progression as a thief (literally, your thief abilities are half your bard level). The original author is Doug Schwegman and appears to have been rather loosely inspired by what he describes as a broad European tradition - Nordic skalds, Celtic Bards, and southern European minstrals. He discusses at some length how the northern tradition was more lawful, while the southern tradition was one more of trickery - a thief-illusionist as he puts it. However, he concedes that he is primarily drawing from the Celtic tradition, and - perhaps I should not be surprised - the works of JRR Tolkien. It's evident that Gygax though the concept rather a good one, but did not like the rules as presented. Exactly what process was used to convert the original concept into the form scene I don't know. Evidently Gygax thought that the dual-classing rules he presented were more suitable than a class which gave a character a little bit of every ability, and I suspect he also understood that the class would as presented be quite weak at around name level - a jack of all trades but nearly useless at all of them. I would guess Gygax rather disliked the concept of Bard as jongleur and rather preferred the bard as Skald or animist Warrior-Priest as presented in the Kalevala, but I'm not sure if any of his thinking regarding the Bard's reimagining is preserved. In any event, Gygax's bard seems to have ultimately been abandoned in favor of the more rascally ministral of Schwegman. [/QUOTE]

Verification