Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7832359" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Here it is:[ATTACH=full]114867[/ATTACH]In the first paragraph we have:1. it is often not allowed by DMs.2. is greatly modified from the original bard character class3. is offered as supplemental to the systemThis is all the 1E equivalent of the 5E specific beating general. The Bard class was not dual classing which is why it was supplemental. It did not require the same level of ability scores (close though) and allowed half-elves. Also, while you had to remain a fighter to begin with (and only be a fighter), once you began your thieving career you could still use all your fighter abilities, saves, etc. (very different from dual classing). The thief was not &quot;exclusive&quot; like the fighter was. This was built in. And you didn't have to wait for them to advance their thief because in the time it took to gain one level for everyone else, the thief was likely gaining all the 5+ levels they wanted and could begin their life as a Bard.The groups I played with never saw any confusion in this, with one exception (below). I was in three different games where bards were played, the highest reaching 13th or 14th level in Bard IIRC. Seeing it in action, I understand why it was supplemental--it was a very powerful combination.I will agree the only issue (as we saw it) was what happened if you changed to thief and then decided you didn't want to be a bard. Myself and the other DMs I played with basically ruled it, you have no choice. You started as a &quot;bard&quot; in name, even if not in class. Was it ideal? Hardly. But like others we had to make those rulings as we saw fit.LOL true enough, but also (looking around this web site), so do all the other editions of D&amp;D. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Gygax himself easily admitted D&amp;D and AD&amp;D were basically a collection of house-rules they agreed upon. Even the AD&amp;D bard presented was &quot;not the original bard&quot;. I would have loved to see the original as I am not fond at all of 5E's version.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 7832359, member: 6987520"] Here it is: [ATTACH type="full"]114867[/ATTACH] In the first paragraph we have: 1. it is often not allowed by DMs. 2. is greatly modified from the original bard character class 3. is offered as supplemental to the system This is all the 1E equivalent of the 5E specific beating general. The Bard class was [I]not[/I] dual classing which is why it was supplemental. It did not require the same level of ability scores (close though) and allowed half-elves. Also, while you had to remain a fighter to begin with (and [I]only[/I] be a fighter), once you began your thieving career you could still use all your fighter abilities, saves, etc. (very different from dual classing). The thief was not "exclusive" like the fighter was. This was built in. And you didn't have to wait for them to advance their thief because in the time it took to gain one level for everyone else, the thief was likely gaining all the 5+ levels they wanted and could begin their life as a Bard. The groups I played with never saw any confusion in this, with one exception (below). I was in three different games where bards were played, the highest reaching 13th or 14th level in Bard IIRC. Seeing it in action, I understand [I]why[/I] it was supplemental--it was a very powerful combination. I will agree the only issue (as we saw it) was what happened if you changed to thief and then decided you didn't want to be a bard. Myself and the other DMs I played with basically ruled it, you have no choice. You started as a "bard" in name, even if not in class. Was it ideal? Hardly. But like others we had to make those rulings as we saw fit. LOL true enough, but also (looking around this web site), so do all the other editions of D&D. ;) Gygax himself easily admitted D&D and AD&D were basically a collection of house-rules they agreed upon. Even the AD&D bard presented was "not the original bard". I would have loved to see the original as I am not fond at all of 5E's version. [/QUOTE]

Verification