Make Your Case: Monk & Bard

[Celebrim]

Their inclusion would be purely because some people like to play those classes...others might say "But where are these traditional D&D style classes?" and even if they don't play them, the option of them being there "feels" more D&D.

I rather dislike D&D existing entirely as a self-referential meme. At some point D&D seems to have gone from being inspired by fantasy and myth, to just being inspired by itself and I'm fairly sure it's not better for it.

The reason I find it impossible to give you advice on what to do, is I have no idea what sort of fantasy and myth you are creating. You tell me that it is the fantasy and myth of D&D. Well then, ok, Bards are a Rogue subclass, obviously, because that's what they were formerly defined as right? Or maybe not, because Bards in 1e were different. And Monks are probably a Rogue subclass too, in that they used the Thief tables in 1e IIRC. But maybe not, because 4e defined them differently.

That would not be possible as there is no "right/wrong" in fantasy rpgs.

There can be a right and wrong though for the particular world you are trying to create. Paladin's for example would be completely wrong for my world. They are based off a romanticized single idea of a Judeo-Christian knight, a concept that can't possibly be important to the mythology of my world seeing as no Jewish God, no Christian church, and no historical period corresponding to the middle ages. The beliefs and history that created the myth of the Paladin don't exist to provide for a myth or reality of a Paladin in my world. If some member of the great family of 1000 gods chooses a champion in my world, it makes sense for that champion to embody the beliefs of those deities - and not to be some knockoff Orlando from this world.

Because they are major archetypes of a D&D-style fantasy rpg.

Again, I find this an entirely limiting definition. What are the major archetypes of the world you are trying to create, and do you really want to create a system that only allows for the archetypes of one particular fantasy world? Even if the answer is the later, what is that fantasy world? Suppose it is Greyhawk, for example. Monks in Greyhawk are arguably most often neither rogues nor priests, but enforcers and overseers who see to the internal discipline of an organization whether religious or political or a mystical cult or a tribe of strange beings. What does that role suggest, and why make it either a rogue or a priest?

I am certain there are other frpg's that will accommodate you. Have fun playing them.

So far as I know, D&D accommodates me. Now you are telling me that your D&D won't. Again, you're not even creating D&D - you are recreating a small subset of D&D.

I don't have to as you won't be playing it with me. That does not mean my system/game world needs be written to accommodate that.

So you are telling me that everything in your world will be the things that are in these 12 classes? Ok, but in that case don't you still need to decide what the classes mean for the purposes of your world? Are Bards in your world members of established temples and colleges, generally respected and considered holy men, is the institution established by custom, and are they normally considered servants of some deity, or is that situation rare? Are Bards in your world travelling vagabonds and tricksters, living by their wits, practicing deceit, and otherwise acting as if the world owes them a living? Are they feared, despised and sometimes persecuted not for their religious beliefs, but because they are tramps and thieves?

Either answer is technically correct, and maybe both answers can be correct, but however you answer it sets the tone for what is the answer to your question - rogue or priest. There can't be one right answer because there has never been one right answer in D&D.

But here you are going to the trouble to create your own ruleset. So what do you want that D&D isn't giving you? If you are just trying to recreate D&D, what's the point? We've got tons of versions of D&D that let you play bards, barbarians, and paladins? What's wrong with that D&D that you feel the need to rewrite it?

I want to see what people think...what their preference would be...and why they think what they do. Obviously, I am ultimately going to make the decision I think best fits the feel and world and system as I see it. But I want to know/get some outside opinions/feedback. So, whether it's ultimately "right" or "wrong", what do you actually think?

I think that the answer depends on the undisclosed world. In my world for example, monks don't exist (if you wanted to make a martial artist, you'd make a fighter; if you wanted to make a cloistered religious figure, you'd probably make a cleric), and bards are primarily a persecuted version of the Wizard that has (as a result of their persecution and association with 'witchcraft') evolved toward skillfulness in deceit, trickery, and other things associated with the rogue to become a sort of magic-user/rogue hybrid.

 

[Minigiant]

It depends on what you see them as doing primarily. I have rough alpha designs of two RPGs and the Bard and Monk type classes are different in each game.

In one, the Monk is more of a warrior while the Bard is roguish. The Monk in this game is more of a fighter type with an exotic spiritual leaning. The Bard is more a traveller scholar who picks up bits and pieces of local magic and weaves them into songmagic as compliment his skill checks.

Whereas in the other game, the monk is more or less the acrobat rogue class and the bard is a priest with wizard spells who can fight nonwarriors straight up.

It really depends on what focus you want.

 

[Celebrim]

The Bard is more a traveller scholar who picks up bits and pieces of local magic and weaves them into songmagic as compliment his skill checks.

For my part, I concur that the 'traveller' archetype you've been promoting is actually the archetype that both the Rogue and Bard fall into. My homebrew 'Explorer' class also fits into this archetype - not that I see any utility or meaning at all in class groupings or subclassing.

 

[Halivar]

I miss the old Merlin/Taliesin-inspired bard from 1e. Part fighter, part rogue, part druid. It's like a big mixed bag of mismatched abilities. Love it.

So yeah, the bard is divine, but druidic in nature. It is deep, old magic. But these abilities are not where they start; it's something that came to them later, after a lifetime of experiences. Don't much care for the scoundrel-ish ne'er-do-well; it's way too modern a take on it. My ideal bard is a grizzled old fighter, weary of loss and strife, who takes up the roll of storyteller and counselor, like Ambrosius cum Myrddin Emrys. His charismatic wiles are born out of deep understanding of people, and their trials and travails.

 

[Razjah]

Steeldragons, is this in your "archetype" flowchart thing you created?

Bard I place in rogue. The Bard uses charisma, skill, and guile to get by. The influence to allies can be done with moral. Bards can also function like warlords. Charismatic, skilled, competent, and commanding and assisting their troops. I find bards less of the "lead by example" and more of the "follow my commands and we emerge victorious" style.

Monk is much more dependent on what you are stressing, and what the players want. If the player is really looking for an unarmored punching machine, it is a warrior. If the player is seeking a ninja-like class, rogue. If the monk is raised in a monastery and has religious overtones- it would be a priest. Being chosen and trained from young age to master exotic forms of martial arts that are impossible without a god's favor, this matches how I view most monks.

These classes are easy to move around. But if I had to pick just one slot- Bard as a rogue, Monk as a priest.

 

[The Human Target]

Based upon what you've set up I'd go monk/priest and bard/rogue for sure.

 

[steeldragons]

- not that I see any utility or meaning at all in class groupings or subclassing.

Yet you are the one who wants a definition of what these classes are in the world...as if they need to be one thing or the other.

Bards area a collection of abilities and features that make them bards. In my case, these include magic use through "spellsongs", with their own conglomerated spell list derived from arcane, divine and nature spells, non-magic skills of persuasion and stealth, gathering information, "bardic lore" training in history, oration and musical performance, and magical abilities (not spells but still a limited resource) to fascinate or inspire.

Are there bardic colleges in the world? Sure. Do you have to say your PC has been/studied there to be a Bard character? No.

Does that make Bards deceitful wandering tramps and thieves? Historians and Archivists? Valued mediators and advisors...or simply entertainment? Drum beating Battle-poet skalds or Harp-playing spellsingers? Or the guy in the tavern reciting limericks and shanty tunes while pick-pocketing patrons between sets and smiles?

They are all of those things. Any of those are plausible. Is that self-referential to D&D? I don't know. I suppose some is.

Monks...are ascetic martial artists that have some kind of built in spiritualism...I suppose there are remote monasteries about they would originate from. Other than defending their temples/monasteries or sent by a superior on some specific task, finding them roaming around the world would likely be rare (I think I've just talked myself back into saving them for some later supplement, actually...)

As is, right now, in my system sounds like yours. If you want a martial artist, the Fighter class with a Brawler theme/maneuvers will cover the basics...a couple of skill points in Acrobatics and (if you like) Stealth or Athletics...and you've basically got the non-magical martial artist Monk. Alternately, for the religious'/spiritualist/mystic guy...a Cleric (or even a Druid, maybe, or Psychic if you prefer) with the same theme and skill choices will probably get you a pretty decent magicky/chi fisted monk.

Bards could be a Thief, as is, with some skill points in Ancient History Lore, Perform: Harp/Mandolin might do the trick. Arcane Dabbler or Trickster themes would lend some minor arcane magic...for the Celtic learned/holy poet slant, take a Druid, add on some musical and lore skills. Skald? Take a Fighter, with a Warden theme (gets you minor Druidic magic) and/or Warlord theme (for inspiration stuffs), some skill points in Leadership...There're just a few ways to a "poor man's"/cobbled together World of Orea [tm] Bard.

So...I don't know. A Monk or Bard (Bard, maybe moreso) could have any number of roles, origins and/or places in the world. That's up to you, the player.

 

[steeldragons]

Steeldragons, is this in your "archetype" flowchart thing you created?

Yes and no. They are there, but the Bard sits in the middle of everything (having elements of the 4 base classes) and Monks sit outside of everything, containing elements of Warriors and Priests and Rogues. So, they're on that chart...but they aren't groups with any of the four categories I started with.

Bard I place in rogue. The Bard uses charisma, skill, and guile to get by. The influence to allies can be done with moral. Bards can also function like warlords. Charismatic, skilled, competent, and commanding and assisting their troops. I find bards less of the "lead by example" and more of the "follow my commands and we emerge victorious" style.

Monk is much more dependent on what you are stressing, and what the players want. If the player is really looking for an unarmored punching machine, it is a warrior. If the player is seeking a ninja-like class, rogue. If the monk is raised in a monastery and has religious overtones- it would be a priest. Being chosen and trained from young age to master exotic forms of martial arts that are impossible without a god's favor, this matches how I view most monks.

These classes are easy to move around. But if I had to pick just one slot- Bard as a rogue, Monk as a priest.

All makes sense. Thanks.

 

[Remus Lupin]

I too think the best combo given what you've laid out is Monk=Priest and Bard=Rogue, though I now want to go back to my 1st edition players handbook and reread the Bard entry, just for nostalgia's sake.

 

[Celebrim]

Yet you are the one who wants a definition of what these classes are in the world...as if they need to be one thing or the other.

You say that as if it is contradiction. It's precisely because there is no narrow definition of the role of a class that renders association with a larger idea meaningless and counterproductive. If we can't say whether a character that is mechanically a bard has the role of a wanderer, a priest, a sage, a scholar, a warlord, or a trickster, then why do we care to lump the class bard into a some larger role?

IMO, the concept of a 'class' doesn't exist within the game world. It's a meta-game construct we use because it is convenient to encourage breadth, diversity and balance between characters to lump together some mechanical ideas. It discourages narrow johnny one-shot builds, to force players to buy a list of skills and take minor related abilities. But by class we are saying very little about the role being played. The class defines mainly what the character can do, but not who the character is. For what the character is, we must turn to the setting and the player's imagination.

If as you say, "A Monk or Bard (Bard, maybe moreso) could have any number of roles, origins and/or places in the world. That's up to you, the player.", what value are you creating by saying that a bard is more like the role 'rogue' or the role 'priest'? Are you really expanding the definition of the class or are you really going to provide mechanical value and understanding to the Bard's abilities?

Give you an example of what I mean. There have been three NPC bards in my campaign so far:

a) A Lay brother of the Temple of Aymara: That is to say, this bard is actually literally a monk! He's a non-priestly devotee of a temple in religious service. The Aymarians are secretly tolerant of 'spell singing' (the sort of magic Bards perform), and Aymara secretly protects those that practice it. As to his duties, publicly the NPC is an instructor and teacher, who helps train musicians so that they can bring beauty and the arts to the world has his patron desires. Secretly, he is a member of a possibly heretical sect of undead hunters, that is to say, this monk is also trained as an assassin who goes about killing necromancers and putting to rest their creations. So this this bard a monk, a cleric, a rogue, a warrior, a hunter, or what?

b) A Professor at a University: This bard performs the role of a sage or savant. She keeps her magical abilities secret, for fear of public scandal and censure, but if discovered practicing magic she'd claim to be a dabbler in wizardly magic. This bard performs neither the role of cleric or rogue, but rather is a non-religious lore-master.

c) An Orine Skald Mercenary: The Orine are not only tolerant of bards, but greatly respectful of them. This bard performs closest to the traditional historical role of say an Irish Bard. He is a lore master, keeper of traditions, religious assistant, respected tribal elder, and a war leader. The answer here leans much more strongly to 'He's a cleric', than a 'He's a rogue'. He's about as far from being a rogue in role as you can get.

Interestingly, there have also been 2 NPC's with the role bard, in the sense of a travelling gleeman, but not the class bard. One was an expert and one was a rogue.

And for that matter, there have been 2 PC's with the role monk, in the sense of non-clerical member of a religious order, but neither had the class 'monk'. One was (and is) a champion (think Paladin, sorta) of Aravar the god of the dead, and the other was rogue/hunter (think ranger, sorta) in the same aforementioned heretical sect. By role, the former monk is more like a cleric, a crusading holy warrior. The later was quite literally an assassin in both role and abilities, and so roguish in the usual understanding.