Designers: Say Yes to Bards! Save the Class

[Aeolius]

Anyone remember the game Loom ? How about a bard built in the same manner as the Warlock, with powers derived from a "universal rhythm" of sorts?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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

Exactly, my most common definition of Core is "in the SRD". If the future "PHB" isn't going to become part of whatever version of the OGL comes with this edition, I see no reason that they will be treated as any more "core" by the average gaming group than all the 3.X suplements were.

As for the bard, I would be sad to see it gone and sadder to see it done badly. Of course part of the problem, imo, is that even those who love bards rarely agree on exactly what their niche is to build to that. Jack of all trades is one common response, support character (the best 5th party member" is how I've seen that one expressed, before the aura classes stepped all over it) information gatherer and holder... The bard might be the class that benefits most from the Talent Tree treatment, now that I think of it....

 

[No Name]

If they're going to save the bard, they should at least make it worth playing in combat. I'd prefer "the bard" being a couple of talents on a talent tree that any class can take.

 

[broghammerj]

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).

And this is the mentality that scares me. Core is defined as " the central, innermost, or most essential part of anything." In a sense, it is the building blocks of the game. By simply calling things the DMG2, PHB2, MM2 and at the same time calling them core you end up expanding the game's complexity. The "core" is what should be used to teach attract new players. Anything with a number after it is a supplement, expansion, and optional.

Old DM: "Here read PHB1-3 and DMG1-4. Show up to my house on Saturday at 7PM."
Rookie Player: "Thanks. I think I'll stay home to play WoW."

 

[GreatLemur]

From making spontaneous free form songs when they use bardic music, to playing a half-orc viking like skald based of Egil of the Icelandic sagas, (whom incidentaly once brought the house down by when forced to sing once <this bard was not a singer> proceded to do their homage to Young Frankenstein...ala "putting on the ritz").

And this is an argument in favor of the Bard?

 

[Dinkeldog]

I, too, hope for the bard in the PHB. PHB2? To me that feels like suggesting that they just hold off the MM for a year too -- after all, it's no big deal since we'll get around to combat eventually.

Where I see a space for the bard in the PHB is as the jack-of-all-trades -- but one that actually works this time. They've said they're fixing multiclassing, so they already have some ideas of how to keep power level up while allowing greater diversity of options. I think that they could use this experience in crafting a workable hybrid class.

I see the suggestion that they'll wait on the Bard until the PHB2 as an acknowledgement that jack-of-all-trades classes are extremely difficult to design correctly. I would much rather have the Bard wait a year and reappear then show up overly weak or overly strong and need constant re-balancing and errata while people try to play with them. That's just me, though. I can definitely understand other people that would want the Bard out of the box. Maybe they could make it a class where you start as a fighter, then become a rogue, then become a druid.

 

[hong]

What evidence has there been that the Bard class will be cut from the phb?

So, um, to repeat what mhensley said... what evidence is there that the bard is being cut from the PHB?

 

[Dinkeldog]

So, um, to repeat what mhensley said... what evidence is there that the bard is being cut from the PHB?

Without digging forever, IIRC, one of the designers said that not every class from the current PHB would make the 4E PHB. Every class except for 3 have been mentioned explicitly, so that does lead one to think that the Bard is one of the ones that may not make the initial cut.

 

[Knight Otu]

Exactly, my most common definition of Core is "in the SRD". If the future "PHB" isn't going to become part of whatever version of the OGL comes with this edition, I see no reason that they will be treated as any more "core" by the average gaming group than all the 3.X suplements were.

There is an indication that future PHBs will enter the SRD. Scott Rouse has stated that Psionics will eventually enter the SRD, and Chris Sims has said that Psionics will be in a PHB. Taking those two statements together, I'm hopeful that the PHBs may well enter the SRD.

So, um, to repeat what mhensley said... what evidence is there that the bard is being cut from the PHB?

We've been told that there will be eight base classes in the PHB1. The core of Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue will remain, that has been confirmed. There have been names of several other classes tossed around (including the warlord). Bard and Monk are two classes that have been suspiciously absent from those comments, leading to a belief that they are probably out. There is a roster of sorts that indicated that each battlefield role will get no more than one class per power source, and no more than two classes.

Defender - Fighter (confirmed), (Paladin (mentioned as Defender))
Leader - Cleric, (Warlord)
Controller - Wizard
Striker - Rogue, (Ranger)

If that roster is accurate (it apparently came from an interview which identified the classes by their role), the only gap is the second controller, which points to the druid, or a completely new class.
I'd say it's easy to see why people suspect the bard to be out, though confirmed, it is not.

 

[GreatLemur]

So, um, to repeat what mhensley said... what evidence is there that the bard is being cut from the PHB?

Only my hopes and dreams, dude.