New Sorcerors are too "vulgar"

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But spontaneous casting wizard is what we need.

Sure - but why is that, necessarily, the sorcerer?

 

[Yora]

Sure - but why is that, necessarily, the sorcerer?

Because that's how the term was introduced to the rules of D&D.

Like Eladrin was first introduced as a term for chaotic good outsiders with elemental connections...

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Because that's how the term was introduced to the rules of D&D.

Like Eladrin was first introduced as a term for chaotic good outsiders with elemental connections...

So, Bards are forever relegated to being a multiclass Fighter / Druid / Whatever Prestige Class?

Or are we allowed to move on, in some small way?

 

[Yora]

I don't see the advantage of taking away something from people who like. If you have new ideas, add them as options. Don't use them to replace something.

 

[Steely_Dan]

So, Bards are forever relegated to being a multiclass Fighter / Druid / Whatever Prestige Class?

Or are we allowed to move on, in some small way?

Yeah, the 2nd Ed Bard kicked massive ass (one of my favourite characters is a 2nd Ed Bard in an Al-Qadim campaign with the Rawun kit).

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

Bards never made much sense as a class to me. It's more like a profession, and would probably make a better Specialty. They seem more a Style of magic, but by themselves they just don't seem like they have enough to be their own real class. But thats just me. I'll admit I never liked how they have been presented in D&D. Now the Minstrel Class in Earthdawn... much better take.

I think part of the reason why I have always felt a disconnect with the Bard in D&D is that, at it's core, it's a social class and all the other classes are more relegated as combat classes and that has always bothered me. If there were more non-combat focused classes, like a Courtier and Sage and maybe the Warlord (depending on fluff), give the Bard more non-combat focused friends, then I think I would like it more.

 

[thewok]

Bards never made much sense as a class to me. It's more like a profession, and would probably make a better Specialty. They seem more a Style of magic, but by themselves they just don't seem like they have enough to be their own real class.

I love the bard as a class, but only since 4E. Its magic is definitely arcane, but not the type of arcane that wizard and sorcerers wield: it's more raw, elemental and primal. After all, music has been around almost as long as man has.

Why not the 3E bard? He was basically a spellcasting rogue, and not too great at either part of that description.

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

I love the bard as a class, but only since 4E. Its magic is definitely arcane, but not the type of arcane that wizard and sorcerers wield: it's more raw, elemental and primal. After all, music has been around almost as long as man has.

Why not the 3E bard? He was basically a spellcasting rogue, and not too great at either part of that description.

IMO... I hated the 3e Bard. Just did not like it. A waste of good space.

The 4e Bard... that one was actually pretty cool. I liked how they made it the best multiclasser in 4e. Made it the ultimately Dabbler and versatile. Very cool.

 

[MoonSong]

IMO... I hated the 3e Bard. Just did not like it. A waste of good space.

The 4e Bard... that one was actually pretty cool. I liked how they made it the best multiclasser in 4e. Made it the ultimately Dabbler and versatile. Very cool.

On the opposite side. I love Bards, my first D&D character was a Bard, they are awesome on all editions [I've played]. I think they rocked on 4e, but I like more 3rd edition bards and second edition Minstrels. Despite being made of pure fun, the 4e Bard feels incomplete, neglected and not social enough, had the design team focussed on keeping the musical flavor of bards things would have been very different, to me fourth edition provides the most dissapointment all around:

-4e is the first one to provide differentiated stats for different musical instruments, yet removed all mechanical significance they had in previous editions.

- A big oportunity was lost when they decided to name Bard powers as "spells" rather than "Songs"

-The class description mentions musical instruments as potential implements for bards, yet only a token amount of them were provided and none of them was scalable, so no luck, if you were a bard you were stuck witht the bland wands or the weapons arbitrarily designated as "Songblades" or "Songbows", I still can't understand how allowing a bard to use any musical instrument as an implement form 1st level would have broken anything.

-The class description mentions Bard-exclusive rituals, and some of them where in fact fairly good, but it creates a big problem, suddenly how good a bard performs is no longer tied to charisma, but rather to Intelligence, a Bard's musical talent should lead him into the arcane, not the other way around.

-Bards get a token bonus to diplomacy as a power, fair enough, then when you reach second level you find only one of the many utilities has out of combat uses, and that only one other utility has out of combat uses, very bad for a class that traditionaly had been socially oriented.

-Bardic Knowledge results good, yet boring.

 

[Argyle King]

I think the new fluff is pretty cool. Having mechanics which actually have a coherent relationship with the fluff is excellent imo.