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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6274818" data-attributes="member: 2067">The criticism of a bard defined by their spell list being too samey (and comparing it to how 4e differentiated characters based on their powers) doesn't mean earlier e's necessarily did the bard much better. It's totally possible that 2e and 3e leaned heavily on the spell list as their way of distinguishing the bard from other classes. It's totally possible that this is part of why the bard in those e's kind of sucked. The criticism is that defining things simply by their spell list (or power list) isn't enough differentiation. 2e and 3e both threw a little bit more than a spell list the bard's way. In 2e, the bard had a few thief skills (climb walls, detect noise, pick pockets, read languages, which was pretty valuable as thief skills were exclusive. They could "influence reactions" (make non-hostile a group friendlier or more hostile), inspire (bonus to attacks, saves, and morale), countersong (a pretty niche use), had local history (still a pretty niche thing) and a chance to recognize magic items (in an e with curses and hidden item properties, not insignificant!). He can also use any weapon and armor up to chain mail (essentially, they were not too shabby in melee or ranged combat), and had a mid-range THAC0.In 2e, that was weak sauce. In 5e, that would translate to perhaps some more proficiencies (Diplomacy to influence reactions, Climb, Perception, History for local knowledge and to discern magic items, Thievery to pick pockets...extra languages?), and the bardic inspiration Mearls talked about. Perhaps also some attack bonus or extra attack mechanic to represent their "middling" melee skills. And maybe a countersong cherry on top. Still pretty weak sauce. In 3e, the bard had extra skill points (more than most other characters, a little less than a thief), they could countersong (still pretty niche), and had a Bardic Music trait that let them fascinate an audience, give them a suggestion, grant some bonuses (courage, competence, greatness, heroics), and break enchantments. Plus, a bardic knowledge check that let them know anything. They had a mid-range attack bonus to boot. And this was pretty weak.In 5e, that might translate to, again, more proficiencies, some sort of attack bonus/extra attack, and the countersong cherry. It takes the inspiration idea a lot further, than a simple bonus, though.And I think that distinction -- between a spell-like effect created only semi-magically with a performance, and a spell you cast a la a wizard -- is not nearly as irrelevant as a lot of people are tending to assume here. That distinction is where it makes sense to double-down on, to give the bard a unique, powerful thing that it can do that no one else can, to make the experience of playing a bard unique.There's plenty of room to build on that idea. It dovetails with warrior-skalds, Orpheus, and warlords, who don't "cast spells" as much as they just perform, and achieve their results with the beauty of their art. Pathfinder added a whole suite of doom-n-gloom to their bard, along with the ability to use Perform for a bunch of other things aside from strumming a lute.I wonder if the reason they didn't has to do with simplicity, honestly. Jettisoning yet another niche mechanic that every new player will be forced to learn if they want to decide whether or not they want to play a bard. I can sort of even get on board with that from a practical standpoint ('tis true, learning how spells work and applying that to multiple classes is going to be easier than learning how bardic performance works and how it's different than just casting a spell). This is just one of those places that 5e's advertised customization will be vital for me to get what I want out of it. It's cool -- that's going to be a common 5e experience, I bet. And people who just want a simple easy bard can have one, too.But a mage-bard with a different spell list doesn't do it for me. It can't. Too boring. I'm a pretty advanced player, though. <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    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification