Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Capellan" data-source="post: 625498" data-attributes="member: 6294">It's the best fit.&nbsp; First, here's why I think the other classes don't fit:Rangers and Paladins would obviously be imbalanced in a 1st-4th level setting (too front-loaded).Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers and Wizards are not appropriate Narnian heroes (though Sorcerers might work for villains).Rogues are also not appropriate Narnian heroes.&nbsp; Nor are Barbarians (their rage doesn't really work for the setting).I don't see many human children as monks. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Now, as for Bards ...Bards have access to a good range of skills, though without a bewildering number of skill points.&nbsp; This is good for setitng them apart from fighter types, and letting characters learn new things.&nbsp; They also get Cha-based skills as class skills (a good thing for the setting) and stealth.&nbsp; Thus, they fill out a lot of the gaps that Fighters have.Now, looking at class abilities:Bardic knowledge and Bardic performance abilities are quite in keeping with the Narnian flavour, I think.&nbsp; Characters pick up scraps of lore, which help them work out puzzles or challenges in the stories/games.&nbsp; Rallying friends and allies with inspiritng words is also a common theme in the books (Eustace needed some more Bard levels in The Last Battle, I think <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; )Finally, Bardic spells give the players access to a useful selection of magical abilities (such as cure light wounds) without making magic too central and potent a part of the game.I think that, by changing their flavour text a bit, Bards fit pretty neatly into the Narnian setting, and balance quite well, to boot.&nbsp; This is not true for most of the other classes, IMO.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Capellan, post: 625498, member: 6294"] It's the best fit. First, here's why I think the other classes don't fit: Rangers and Paladins would obviously be imbalanced in a 1st-4th level setting (too front-loaded). Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers and Wizards are not appropriate Narnian heroes (though Sorcerers might work for villains). Rogues are also not appropriate Narnian heroes. Nor are Barbarians (their rage doesn't really work for the setting). I don't see many human children as monks. :) Now, as for Bards ... Bards have access to a good range of skills, though without a bewildering number of skill points. This is good for setitng them apart from fighter types, and letting characters learn new things. They also get Cha-based skills as class skills (a good thing for the setting) and stealth. Thus, they fill out a lot of the gaps that Fighters have. Now, looking at class abilities: Bardic knowledge and Bardic performance abilities are quite in keeping with the Narnian flavour, I think. Characters pick up scraps of lore, which help them work out puzzles or challenges in the stories/games. Rallying friends and allies with inspiritng words is also a common theme in the books (Eustace needed some more Bard levels in [i]The Last Battle[/i], I think :) ) Finally, Bardic spells give the players access to a useful selection of magical abilities (such as [i]cure light wounds[/i]) without making magic too central and potent a part of the game. I think that, by changing their flavour text a bit, Bards fit pretty neatly into the Narnian setting, and balance quite well, to boot. This is not true for most of the other classes, IMO. [/QUOTE]

Verification