Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6176560" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Let’s look at some history…I think we started here So we start with the presumption that it is wholly inappropriate for the Bard to contribute equally.  Sure, you can play a Bard, but expect to be a second-class character, not an equal to the mighty Barbarian, but his sidekick, making a contribution here and there, but don’t forget who owns the spotlight. So we got a pretty simple response.  And this is the point where “bards are silly” came in, as: If silliness is inherent to the Bard as a class, that seems a pretty clear statement that the entire concept of a Bard Adventurer is silly or, simply restated, “All Bards are silly”.  However, the later comment  Seemed to redefine your terms,  but definitely pulling back from the “bards are silly” stance.  That said, I think “the concept does not lend itself to adventuring as well” remains a bias against the Bard class as an equal to other classes. I do not see “occasionally useful” as being a “viable character”.  In my games, I want to see each PC being equally capable of taking the spotlight, and resolving important challenges.  They will shine in different types of challenges but, over time, they should shine more or less equally.  It should not be a special occasion for one player to, through bizarre and unusual circumstance, get a shred of the glory usually reserved for the “better” character choices. I also don’t see a reason melee combatants, or characters with a full BAB advancement, or any other specific ability, should define them as “the most useful characters” or the “most viable characters”.  I can certainly build a game where such combatants rule the roost – conflicts and challenges will always be capable of resolution by combat, spellcasters will never have the opportunity to plan ahead and avoid melee, social interaction will either not be valuable, or we’ll tweak the rules so having a decent CHA and ranks in social skills aren’t a significant determinant of success, and just being a muscular warrior will be enough to impress the locals into doing whatever it is you wish of them.   But if, for some reason, I planned to run such a game, I’d discuss with my players beforehand that the focus of this game will be the Warrior classes, and simply not allow those classes which will not fit this very specific game, rather than leave “trap choices” that will result in characters which are clearly sub-optimal for this game. I also find the continued use of “travelling minstrel” to betray that ongoing bias.  A “travelling minstrel” can easily be a commoner who tosses skill ranks and feats into improving a Perform skill.  An Expert could have many Perform Skills maxed out, and dedicate his feats to enhancing them.  To say the Bard is merely a “travelling minstrel” is equivalent to classifying the Barbarian as “a bad-tempered dude with an axe”. If the Bard is not an equally viable character class to the Barbarian, I consider this a weakness in class design.  Either the Bard is underpowered (so let’s beef him up) or the Barbarian is overpowered (so let’s downgrade him).   Will the Bard be the equal of the Barbarian in melee combat?  No, and he should not be – that is the Barbarian’s specialty.  The Bard has other abilities the Barbarian lacks.  He’s a capable combatant (BAB in the mid range; a reasonable selection of weapons; armour choices comparable to a Druid), but not a focused warrior type like the Barbarian.   But the Barbarian doesn’t have spells, social skills or knowledge skills like the Bard (BTW, you mentioned the Barbarian being just as likely to speak certain languages – sure, for twice as many skill points since Speak Languages is not on his class list).   The Bard has, and should have, a much greater breadth of abilities, instead of the focused melee combat strengths of the Barbarian.  I don’t think it makes him a poor adventurer – not as good a soldier, a hired killer or a brutish thug, but “adventurer” connotes a much broader range of challenges, at least in my mind.  And I think the game should be designed around this broader range of challenges.</blockquote>

Verification