R_J_K75
Legend
Oh the irony.
D&D 5E (2014) D&D doesn't need bards
- Thread starter akr71
- Start date
wingsandsword
Legend
Need? No.
There have been versions and editions of D&D without them. There have been settings where the bard as we know it doesn't exist.
It isn't needed.
There's more to D&D than what is needed though.
It is a part of making a main edition of D&D complete enough to encompass the expectations of the player base and cover all the playstyles that players want.
The only classes that have been in all 5 main editions were Cleric, Fighter, Wizard, Rogue (called Thief in 1st and 2nd edition), Paladin and Ranger. . .and going to Basic D&D you didn't even have Paladin and Ranger. Bard was in 1e, as a proto-prestige-class, but not as a base class.
However, as D&D generally tries to include all the archetypes, classes, races that fans expect in its core rules, it needs them to be able to do everything fans expect from an edition of D&D. The lack of bards in the core rules of 4th edition was one of the MANY complaints against it.
There have been versions and editions of D&D without them. There have been settings where the bard as we know it doesn't exist.
It isn't needed.
There's more to D&D than what is needed though.
It is a part of making a main edition of D&D complete enough to encompass the expectations of the player base and cover all the playstyles that players want.
The only classes that have been in all 5 main editions were Cleric, Fighter, Wizard, Rogue (called Thief in 1st and 2nd edition), Paladin and Ranger. . .and going to Basic D&D you didn't even have Paladin and Ranger. Bard was in 1e, as a proto-prestige-class, but not as a base class.
However, as D&D generally tries to include all the archetypes, classes, races that fans expect in its core rules, it needs them to be able to do everything fans expect from an edition of D&D. The lack of bards in the core rules of 4th edition was one of the MANY complaints against it.
Li Shenron
Legend
If you think about it, D&D doesn't even need Fighters because there's plenty of other characters who can fight, or Wizards because the majority of classes cast spells anyway. Nothing's strictly necessary, and if you take away anything that isn't, you end up with nothing.
Undrave
Legend
Oh yeah, the Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Sorcerer, Gnome and Half-Orc were in the PHB2 and people FLIPPED THE EFF OUT, like it was the end of DnD that they weren't in PHB1...
So, DnD doesn't NEED Bards, but the player base WANTS Bards... so, in effect, DnD NEEDS Bards.
wingsandsword
Legend
Well, by normal D&D logic, if it's not in the Player's Handbook, it's not in the core rules, which means that the game presumes that most games won't be using it and most players won't have it and that most settings won't be supporting it.
People didn't assume the Duskblade, Dragon Shaman, Beguiler and Knight classes were suddenly added to the 3.5e core rules because they were in the 3.5e Player's Handbook 2.
I think 4e was trying something new, like spreading core classes out over multiple books to encourage people to buy more books, but it really ignored a lot of the culture of the game in the process.
LuisCarlos17f
Legend
The bard is a hybrid class, stealth as the rogue, but also musical spellcasters, the opposite of the silence.
The wandering minstrel is a good cover for spies, but in infiltration operations when you have to be undetected you can't play music. If I was the sentinel in the vampire lord's castle and I listened sacred music used against undead guardians I would sound an alarm.
And bards can be hired as sidekicks if nobody wants to play with a bard PC. And we can use the archetypes of pathfinder.
* What do you think about a bard playing music to reload spell slots instead short rests? Or to reload some special single-use magic amulets.
tvtropes.org
The wandering minstrel is a good cover for spies, but in infiltration operations when you have to be undetected you can't play music. If I was the sentinel in the vampire lord's castle and I listened sacred music used against undead guardians I would sound an alarm.
And bards can be hired as sidekicks if nobody wants to play with a bard PC. And we can use the archetypes of pathfinder.
* What do you think about a bard playing music to reload spell slots instead short rests? Or to reload some special single-use magic amulets.
Magic Music - TV Tropes
A type of Functional Magic that works via music, where singing a certain song or playing a magical instrument causes spell-like effects to occur. This may be derived from the notion of words containing legitimate power when spoken in the right …
tvtropes.org
Undrave
Legend
Well yeah, they said from the start 'Everything is core'. The classes just took way too much room due to the 4e design that they couldn't fit all the old classes AND the new ones (Warlord and Warlock, even the Martial Ranger was basically new) in a single book so in that sense, splitting it into two was a decent idea. People just wanted those classes (and races) and they wanted them NOW.
Here's an exemple of two bards dueling while being assaulted by guards.
(also, those are GLOVE puppets. The heads are hand-carved and about the size of a kiwi fruit or so)
wingsandsword
Legend
Well, despite WotC's marketing hype, the standard is, that if it's in the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, or Monster Manual, then it's core.
Saying "Everything is Core" ignores the whole point of what "core" rules are.
It really all comes down to 4e being driven more by marketing than game design. That or, as I heard someone describer it once, 4e was designed assuming the old WotC forums were a representative sample of D&D gamers, and not outliers. Thus, the game was designed to assume that every player bought every book and that strict mathematical balance between the classes was a goal because most players would work hard to actively "break" the system through elaborate "builds" if they didn't.
Getting this back to talk of Bards, bards have long been hated by powergamers as not specialized enough to work with powergamer logic. They're great for players that want a versatile character. They are great for characters that can fit into a variety of jobs in the party. They are a popular roleplaying archetype among fans. What they aren't, and probably never will be, is raw optimized power (especially while remaining true to their concept). This mentality probably shaped why 4e didn't have a bard in its initial release, and why it's perennially complained about as being an under-powered class.
Warpiglet-7
Hero
I don’t like Bards much. I really cannot fathom standing around and inspiring others in deadly situations. It’s boring and not very cool imagery for me. HOWEVER, more choices are a good thing. Really do we NEED anything aside from a fighter cleric rogue or wizard?
do we need the plethora of subclasses? One for each would be workable.
options are good. Unless they break the game, just don’t take the ones you dislike! If we start slashing and burning I am in trouble. I play blasé pact warlocks and don’t like hexblade....
options are good, even ones I don’t like much...
