D&D 5E Next Q&A

[Nemesis Destiny]

To be honest, the bard of 2nd edition was no real skill monkey... he was speicalized in music and quite sucked...

I don't know what version of 2e you were playing. Bards got a very broad selection of NWP groups to choose from, and could take any WP.

A bard, by his nature, tends to learn many different skills. He is a jack-of-all-trades but master of none. Although he fights as a rogue, he can use any weapon. He can wear any armor up to, and including, chain mail, but he cannot use a shield.

Also, the description of the class feature that allowed them to influence reactions indicated that the music could be represented by oratory or other means.

The method can be whatever is most suitable to the situation at the moment -- a fiery speech, collection of jokes, a sad tale, a fine tune played on a fiddle, a haunting lute melody, or a heroic song from the old homeland.

the bard kits however were briliant classes. The were not too much jack of all trades, but a jack of some trades, suited to his kit. Actually this is what I expect the 5e bard to be.
Kits included:
the skald (with lower magic)
the sage (with higher magic)
riddlemasters, mimes, harlekins, blades...

Adding a kit allowed a Bard to be more specialized, but by default, they were a very diverse class.

4e bard and skald in combination would be a great start. Please don´t limit the bard to the 3.x kind... it really really sucked...

This I will agree with.

 

[Weather Report]

I would like a return to the Druidical Tutelage action.

 

[gyor]

I would like a return to the Druidical Tutelage action.

don't see that happening.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't know what version of 2e you were playing. Bards got a very broad selection of NWP groups to choose from, and could take any WP. [/SIZE][/FONT]

Also, the description of the class feature that allowed them to influence reactions indicated that the music could be represented by oratory or other means. [/SIZE][/FONT]

Adding a kit allowed a Bard to be more specialized, but by default, they were a very diverse class.

This I will agree with.

Hmmh... They had less NWPs than fighters... and received them more slowly (1/4 levels instead of 1/3 IIRC) and their bonus skills were limited to play instrument IIRC and some other "stupid" skills.
The kits usually gave them 4 useful bonus skills. The only restriciton was that half of their skills came from a more narrow list. So I still stand my point... the true bard as he was called in the complete bard´s handbook was IMHO the worst of the lot. With 4 fixed skills in abilities I personally found useless. And those skills and the pictures enforced the image of the troubardur...

and this true bard image was the one which was enforced with 3e rules, stripping him his access to true magic, his faster level progression...

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Hmmh... They had less NWPs than fighters... and received them more slowly (1/4 levels instead of 1/3 IIRC) and their bonus skills were limited to play instrument IIRC and some other "stupid" skills.

Table 38: Bard has access to the Rogue, Warrior, Wizard, and General NWP groups. More than any other character class.

At level 1, they get the same number of NWPs as Warriors (3), but do acquire them more slowly. However, they also have 4 Thief skills (Pick Pocket, Detect Noise, Climb Walls, and Read Languages), and unlike warriors, are not only incentivized, but must put a decent score in Intelligence (minimum 13), which modifies the number of initial NWP slots by the # of Languages stat (minimum of 3 bonus NWPs, probably more, possibly as many as 7 bonus slots for a total of 10).

Then, there's Bardic Knowledge.

So, what you're saying is not accurate.

The kits usually gave them 4 useful bonus skills. The only restriciton was that half of their skills came from a more narrow list. So I still stand my point... the true bard as he was called in the complete bard´s handbook was IMHO the worst of the lot. With 4 fixed skills in abilities I personally found useless. And those skills and the pictures enforced the image of the troubardur...

and this true bard image was the one which was enforced with 3e rules, stripping him his access to true magic, his faster level progression...

Stand by what you say if you like, but I'm looking at my 2e books right now, and they are telling me a different story.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The 2nd edition bard was quite powerful. One caster level behind a magic user and a few less spells per level in exchange for using any weapon and armor up to chain mail. That said:

I would like a return to the Druidical Tutelage action.

Count me as one wanting a real bard instead of a mage/thief multiclass, please.

 

[Sadrik]

I would like to see a quad classed character, Fighter wizard cleric rogue. Let the player decide the focus package it as a bunch of options that you select and honestly the bard could be one of the most popular classes in 5e. So how do you package it so you can get all four classes in there? A single spell progression where the bard has to decide arcan or divine. Then the can use fighter and rogue feats. So the key is what spells they know an what feats they know. Also, key their abilities off of a skill. So if it is perform, they activate their spells and feats with a performance. I can see other possible skills though- knowledge, agility, persuade, bluff. Heck leave it to the player to decide. The point here is an extremely versatile character who embodies what the bard has been in the past and open that up to a zillion more possibilities. This would be the coolest class. Make them a d6 hit die and they would literally be the jack of all trades class.

 

[lkj]

The 2nd edition bard was quite powerful. One caster level behind a magic user and a few less spells per level in exchange for using any weapon and armor up to chain mail. That said:

Count me as one wanting a real bard instead of a mage/thief multiclass, please.

Well, I don't exactly disagree with you, but I think that the multiclass approach was an attempt at implementation rather than intended as the true feel of the class. I rather liked what the 1e bard was trying to do-- evoke that powerful mystical bard of Celtic myth (or at least our modern conception of it). A being that is a leader, imbued with an ability to tap powerful natural magic while also being a skilled orator and a powerful seer. A warrior, but a clever warrior and one schooled in magic and mystic knowledge.

Sure, the 1e interpretation was a convoluted approach. But evoking that druidic warrior bard is quite cool. I, for example, was very pleased when the Fochlucan Lyrist appeared in 3rd edition.

Anyway, not to say that this has to be the default bard. But I'd sure like a way to get that feel. And, of course, it would be nice not to require a multi-tiered multiclass.

AD

P.S. I do quite like the 4e implementation of the bard as well. One of the most fun versions of the class (for me) throughout the editions.

 

[Klaus]

My favorite Bard is the 4e Valorous Bard, donning chainmail and swinging a long sword, all while encouraging his allies with battle hymns, which may or may not be inspired by heavy metal songs.

Slight highkack: the 4e bard is the best representation of Aragorn I've seen in over 20 years of D&D.

 

[Rune]

Slight highkack: the 4e bard is the best representation of Aragorn I've seen in over 20 years of D&D.

Pretty good representation of Gandalf, too.