Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 3731055" data-attributes="member: 15538">I am permanently annoyed with the bard. In AD&amp;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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pawsplay, post: 3731055, member: 15538"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification