Designers: Say Yes to Bards! Save the Class

[Snapdragyn]

Do we need an archetype that relies on music for its abilities? Probably not.
Do we need an archetype which serves as the jack-of-all-trades class? Possibly, judging from the multiple attempts that have been made at this role in 3.5, both as classes (bard, factotum) & PrCs (chameleon). Start throwing in the multitude of dual-class hybrid PrCs, & it's clear that there's a call for being able to do a bit of x and a bit of y in a single character.

Why is it important that Bard remain a core class? There seems to be a design philosophy in 4E to create more of a separation between the character class's role in combat, and the out of combat usage of the character. The Bard (and the Barbarian and Monk, which also appear to be on the bubble) goes against that philosphy, because anyone playing the bard class is going to be a bard in character (ie that's what people in the world would call him).

Would your wizard not be called a wizard out of combat? Could your bard not as easily call himself a skald, warrior-poet, minstrel, troubador, player, or even just rogue (in the non-D&D class sense)? I don't find that argument compelling.

I really don't see what the difference would be whether someone is a 4E bard, or someone is a 4E some other class which takes artistic skills. Would it be that bad if your skald was really just a warrior with poetry? If you like the support rule, couldn't you be a warlord (or whatever the Leader class ends up being) who's pre-fight pep talk is accompanied by music? With no core bard class you can choose your in combat role, and just roleplay the bard side. How often does your "bardiness" depend on your abilities or your rolls instead of your roleplay?

I don't want to choose one in combat role -- that's what the bard class offers me, variety.

I appreciate the words from the designer, but again voice my concern over waiting. I'll also add this thought: although WotC may consider every PHB core, don't make the mistake of expecting that ever DM will do so. I can assure you that my DMs will not; I have had to battle for every non-core rule my groups has gained in 3.5 (Complete series, PHB2, or whatever the source might've been) & I know that it will be the same in 4e. If it's in the initial 3-book release, they'll accept it as soon as they accept 4e; if it's in a later book, they'll treat it like a gift from the friendly neighbor Trojan war band.

 

[GravyFingerz]

I appreciate the words from the designer, but again voice my concern over waiting. I'll also add this thought: although WotC may consider every PHB core, don't make the mistake of expecting that ever DM will do so. I can assure you that my DMs will not; I have had to battle for every non-core rule my groups has gained in 3.5 (Complete series, PHB2, or whatever the source might've been) & I know that it will be the same in 4e. If it's in the initial 3-book release, they'll accept it as soon as they accept 4e; if it's in a later book, they'll treat it like a gift from the friendly neighbor Trojan war band.

Oh come on. Do you really think they will have a hard time accepting if it's in a different book with the same name?

"I wanna play this new class out of the PHB2, Stan."
"PHB2? I've heard some dubious things about that book."
"It's the Bard class. Remember the Bard from, like, every edition of D&D?"
"Bard class, eh? I dunno ... it's in PHB2 ... I'd have to see it."

If any DM has a sense of D&D history, he or she should have no problem allowing one of the core classes back to the fold.

I'm all about dropping the Sorcerer in place of the Bard. Even though that doesn't fit thematically into WotCs martial/arcane/divine and tank/striker/controller/leader roles, I hate the Sorcerer. Always have, always will.

 

[Nifft]

I want the Bard to be mercilessly vivisected and sold for parts.

There are many "Bard-like" characters that I've wanted to play, but the 3.5e Bard isn't one of them. Inspiring leader, tricky scoundrel, skilled skirmisher, support caster -- these are the roles I want to play.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Snapdragyn]

Oh come on. Do you really think they will have a hard time accepting if it's in a different book with the same name?

Considering that they don't accept PHB2 now? Yes, yes I do. Core-only for these guys means the first 3 books out of the edition gate -- ONLY. In fact, your joking conversation is pretty much exactly what I heard when I tried to get a feat from PHB2 allowed.

 

[The Souljourner]

Maybe what they should do is split up the idea of the jack of all trades and the music based caster. I think most people dislike the bard because of one sentence "I start singing". If you have a jack of all trades who is not a bard, (basically replace bardic music with something else), you don't get that stigma, and if you also have another class that's a kickass spellsinger who happens to also be skillful in his spare time, that would be fantastic. Both of those sound like they probably go in non-PHB books, though.

So, I revise my earlier statement... take the bard as he is out of 4e, but make him into two different base classes later... and make sure they really kick ass.

-Nate

 

[JVisgaitis]

If we're voting, I say out with the lovable scamps.

Scene: A party of dour adventurers prepares to trespass upon the Pits of Mordecore. They gather their gear and company.
"300' of rope?" - "Check"
"Pitons?" - "Check"
"Hammers?" - "Check"
"Holy Water?" - "Check"
"4 10' Poles?" - "Check"
"Holy man?" - "Check, my son."
"Wizard?" - "Check"
"Oh, Food and Water?" - "Check and double check"
"Fighting men?" - "HOOAH!"
"Weapons and Armor?" - "Check and double check"
"Musician?" - "..."
"..."
"..." - "*sigh* Check."

Scene: The party is at sea. Suddenly, the sea erupts as huge tentacles encircle the ship and begin smashing the crew. A great fearsome beak arises as the Kraken bears its maw and attempts to destroy the party, the ship and the crew.
DM: "What do you do?"
Fighter: "I draw my zweihander and slash the nearest tentacle!"
Cleric: "I call down a column of holy fire from the heavens upon this unnatural beast!"
Wizard: "I unleash a bolt of eldritch lightning straight into its terrible visage."
Rogue: "I throw a vessel of alchemist's fire straight into its beak."
Ranger: "I unleash a rain of arrows right into its protuberant eye."
Bard: "I sing!"
...
...
Monk: "I kick the bard in the groin and then attack the squid."

Awesome!

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

We don't think of the PH1, MM1, and DMG1 and "core." Every PH, MM, and DMG is core.

That is wonderfully revealing and should change the tenor of many discussions on 4e if the word gets out widely. I like it . . . I think.

 

[JVisgaitis]

Every PH, MM, and DMG is core.

So does this at all confirm a new PHB, DMG, and MM every year?

 

[Ashardalon]

We don't think of the PH1, MM1, and DMG1 and "core." Every PH, MM, and DMG is core. So any class that appears in one of those books (and any other book, and the magazines) will get all the tender loving care that the fighter, wizard, or rogue got. The bard will appear (and I'm probably the one who will write it).

Does "being put into the SRD" count as tender loving care?

 

[pawsplay]

I am permanently annoyed with the bard. In AD&D 1e, he was an obscure, painful dual-classing option that evoked the Celtic minstrels and their mysteries. He existed because Gary thought (mythological) bards were cool.

Then in 2e, something horrible happened, and he ended up keeping the half-baked rogue aspects and the minor spellcasting, but he became an arcane caster. He lost any recognizable connection to the mythological bard, instead becoming a magical singer.

In 3e, it got worse, with reasons to sing all the time instead of doing other things, and few reasons not to. In 3.0 he lost his leather armor, then got it back in 3.5.

The 3.5 Beguiler is a much better (3e) bard than the bard, and the 1e bard is the best (mythological) bard of any published bard. The Fochlucan Lyricist was a cute idea, but a basically useless rendition of the idea.