Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 8708224" data-attributes="member: 6750235">&quot;Just... no&quot; comes across as condescending to me.&nbsp; I hope that wasn't the intent.&nbsp; You seem to be begging the question on whether bards are less broad or that this is an unconventional theme.&nbsp; You are mistaken.&nbsp; Celtic and Nordic comparisons to Indigenous shamanism has already been a real world topic of discussion for some time.&nbsp; It's unconventional to you because of your preconceptions.&nbsp; Bards are preservers of ancient history, their songs and tales perpetuating the memory of great events down through time -- knowledge so important that it is memorized and passed along as oral tradition, to survive even when no written record remains. &nbsp; XGtE page 12Why do you think there's a difference between memorizing oral tradition being passed down by a bard versus being passed down by another class?&nbsp; Why do you think a bard singing and performing rituals is different from another concept singing and performing rituals?&nbsp; I don't agree that shamans, witches, prophets etc don't already fall under the bard category because the term &quot;bard&quot; refers to a specific group but the game term &quot;bard&quot; refers to that group and similar roles from other cultures that use different names.&nbsp; Players use the class to cover those concepts from history or mythology and folklore.&nbsp; 2e specifically pointed this out and bards filled those roles in some of the cultures from 3.e's Ebberon campaign system to show that bards in this capacity isn't a new concept, and to reinforce that it's not unconventional.I didn't say the sorcerer doesn't work for this.&nbsp; I said the bard already works better.&nbsp; Not the same thing.&nbsp; ;-)When you say the sorcerer is using primal magic and giving a history you're already doing the refluff work.&nbsp; Doing that plus mechanical design is more work than saying &quot;my bard is based on this concept&quot; easily.&nbsp; You'll have to prove that there's more work involved in mechanical design and adding the fluff to go with it versus just claiming different fluff.As far as that fluff goes, I'll point this out too:&nbsp; bards echo the power of creation.&nbsp; If we're defining what's primal and what's not that existing fluff is more primal than redefining sorcerer bloodlines as somehow primal.&nbsp; Bards, druids, and rangers already fall into more of a primal category.&nbsp; If you want to make more sorcerer subclasses to fit your concepts that's up to you, obviously.&nbsp; It looks like more work to me than using what already exists, however. ;-)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ashrym, post: 8708224, member: 6750235"] "Just... no" comes across as condescending to me. I hope that wasn't the intent. You seem to be begging the question on whether bards are less broad or that this is an unconventional theme. You are mistaken. Celtic and Nordic comparisons to Indigenous shamanism has already been a real world topic of discussion for some time. It's unconventional to you because of your preconceptions. [I]Bards are preservers of ancient history, their songs and tales perpetuating the memory of great events down through time -- knowledge so important that it is memorized and passed along as oral tradition, to survive even when no written record remains. [/I] XGtE page 12 Why do you think there's a difference between memorizing oral tradition being passed down by a bard versus being passed down by another class? Why do you think a bard singing and performing rituals is different from another concept singing and performing rituals? I don't agree that shamans, witches, prophets etc don't already fall under the bard category because the term "bard" refers to a specific group but the game term "bard" refers to that group and similar roles from other cultures that use different names. Players use the class to cover those concepts from history or mythology and folklore. 2e specifically pointed this out and bards filled those roles in some of the cultures from 3.e's Ebberon campaign system to show that bards in this capacity isn't a new concept, and to reinforce that it's not unconventional. I didn't say the sorcerer doesn't work for this. I said the bard already works better. Not the same thing. ;-) When you say the sorcerer is using primal magic and giving a history you're already doing the refluff work. Doing that plus mechanical design is more work than saying "my bard is based on this concept" easily. You'll have to prove that there's more work involved in mechanical design and adding the fluff to go with it versus just claiming different fluff. As far as that fluff goes, I'll point this out too: bards echo the power of creation. If we're defining what's primal and what's not that existing fluff is more primal than redefining sorcerer bloodlines as somehow primal. Bards, druids, and rangers already fall into more of a primal category. If you want to make more sorcerer subclasses to fit your concepts that's up to you, obviously. It looks like more work to me than using what already exists, however. ;-) [/QUOTE]

Verification