The Bard and Bard Colleges

[Dormain1]

The bard idea I have always liked is they can do it all but are masters of none, they pick up bits and pieces as they travel telling stories

4E eg would be
they can mark like a fighter but only one target
they can cast a like mage as encounter power
they can cast like a cleric as an encounter power
they get sneak attack against flanked foes as an encounter power

think of it as a balanced fighter/mage/thief/cleric

i never really liked their song ability they remind me of a Skald (book of dwarves 2ed)
i like bardic knowledge

bards are the modern day journalist

i think the music aspect is something they can take as an option but they can be storytellers (think Par and Coll in the Shanarra series), poets, motivational speakers , sages, charming rogues

 

[Rechan]

The bard idea I have always liked is they can do it all but are masters of none, they pick up bits and pieces as they travel telling stories

Due to 4e's niche protection and roles, I highly doubt this will happen.

Although making the bard a class that CAN multiclass more effectively would be real nice for people that want to play a jack of all trades, but the 4e philosophy is "What does this guy bring to the table that NO ONE ELSE can do?" I don't think the answer "What everyone else does, but poorly" will really be an effective sell.

 

[Dormain1]

Originally Posted by Rechan
Due to 4e's niche protection and roles, I highly doubt this will happen.

In a campaign were certain roles are not needed or are restricted for what ever reason ie limited spellcasting due to a spell plague they can add spellcasting of a lower caliber

And if they have bardic knowledge then thats pretty unique to that class

also they are backup for a variety of roles when the four key are used

I do see you point, I was just hoping they don't go the singing canary style as the only option

I was hoping for the jack of all trades controller or striker or leader or protector depending on which powers you took

 

[beej]

I think I'm in the minority here... But I... love... the bard.
Kruzko the Half-Orc Bard, set in Eberron, with his drow mistress. I rolled an 18 and put it into charisma, making him the sexiest half-orc around those parts. I gave him the Song of the Heart feat, increasing the bonuses from his music, plus Chaos Music (from a Dragon Mag) that allowed me to continue advancing my song potency even as I multiclassed to Seeker of the Song:

Round1: Standard Action to Inspire Courage (+3 attack and damage), using combine songs to inspire greatness to myself and my fighter buddy (+3 attacks, +3HD, +2 Fortitude Saves).

Round2: My whole party can hit better, my fighter will almost definitely hit, and I can attack with my axe myself.

Did I mention that playing drums is totally appropriate in combat? And the Social skills! Kruzko actually seduced the Drow recurring villain!

And he's just my first bard.

What I'm saying is, bards should get love in 4e.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I disagree, this is a fallacy, just because it is easy, does not make it right. Sure it might be easy to make the class but that will make not played much at all. Like the poll suggests most would prefer an option where the bard was not tied to singing or playing a lute to activate their abilities. Lorekeepers and Jacks of all Trades are both very valid and interesting directions.

You have condensed together a few different points in here, so I think I may need to break them down into separate responses...

First off, I don't think there is anything wrong with the "easy" way. Honestly, I think it is the right way. A class should be simple and focused. You can try to make a single "Fighter" that is simultaneously an archer class, a heavy armor-wearer, a master of two-handed weapons, and a light swashbuckler who uses a rapier and a main-gauche, but as 3E proved that kind of attempt usually leads to a poor class that doesn't have any internal coherence or mechanics that reflect flavor. On the other hand, you can make a simple and focused fighter class that focuses on heavy armor, protecting allies, and using either a two-handed weapon or a weapon and shield. 4E's approach is the latter, and I think any class for 4E should be just as focused and basic as the new Fighter.

Your second point, regarding the popularity of the "musician" archetype, is flawed. The poll says that more than 40% of the people here would like to see a "musician" class. Appealing to more than that is unnecessary, since you won't find a class more popular than that in the first place. People simply vary in tastes so much that making a single class that will appeal to even a majority of people is nearly impossible. That is why D&D evolved past a three class system in the first place.

Anyways, as I said earlier, what is a "musician" class going to be called if not the Bard? Why do Loremasters and especially Jack-of-all-Trades have to be called Bards? The connection between the name Bard and the idea of a musician is much stronger than the idea that a Bard is a Jack-of-all-Trades. You can call a Jack-of-all-Trades class anything you want, but the word Bard has certain connotations that make it a better match for a musician. After all, just because the Bard is a musician class does not mean that a separate Jack-of-all-Trades class can't exist.

Finally, I don't think "Loremaster" is a valid concept for a character class in 4E. If you want to be a master of lore in 4E, you just need a high intelligence score and training in the History skill. Whether you are a Bard, a Wizard, a Rogue, or even a Fighter doesn't matter, and it shouldn't. Classes are built around combat abilities, not out-of-combat abilities like knowing a lot of facts.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

3.x bard wasn't tied to music, nor should it be.

That said, I have a special place in my heart for my dwarven bard who chanted out the epic poems of his ancestors, keeping beat by hitting his shield with his warhammer.

 

[fuindordm]

In that case I'm taking Preform (heroic Pose). My body will inspire my allies just as well as a cleric can channel faith from the divine.

Flex Mentallo!

 

[Sadrik]

You have condensed together a few different points in here, so I think I may need to break them down into separate responses...

First off, I don't think there is anything wrong with the "easy" way. Honestly, I think it is the right way. A class should be simple and focused. You can try to make a single "Fighter" that is simultaneously an archer class, a heavy armor-wearer, a master of two-handed weapons, and a light swashbuckler who uses a rapier and a main-gauche, but as 3E proved that kind of attempt usually leads to a poor class that doesn't have any internal coherence or mechanics that reflect flavor. On the other hand, you can make a simple and focused fighter class that focuses on heavy armor, protecting allies, and using either a two-handed weapon or a weapon and shield. 4E's approach is the latter, and I think any class for 4E should be just as focused and basic as the new Fighter.

Your second point, regarding the popularity of the "musician" archetype, is flawed. The poll says that more than 40% of the people here would like to see a "musician" class. Appealing to more than that is unnecessary, since you won't find a class more popular than that in the first place. People simply vary in tastes so much that making a single class that will appeal to even a majority of people is nearly impossible. That is why D&D evolved past a three class system in the first place.

Anyways, as I said earlier, what is a "musician" class going to be called if not the Bard? Why do Loremasters and especially Jack-of-all-Trades have to be called Bards? The connection between the name Bard and the idea of a musician is much stronger than the idea that a Bard is a Jack-of-all-Trades. You can call a Jack-of-all-Trades class anything you want, but the word Bard has certain connotations that make it a better match for a musician. After all, just because the Bard is a musician class does not mean that a separate Jack-of-all-Trades class can't exist.

Finally, I don't think "Loremaster" is a valid concept for a character class in 4E. If you want to be a master of lore in 4E, you just need a high intelligence score and training in the History skill. Whether you are a Bard, a Wizard, a Rogue, or even a Fighter doesn't matter, and it shouldn't. Classes are built around combat abilities, not out-of-combat abilities like knowing a lot of facts.

Excellent points. However I am still of the opinion, if they want the class to get played they need to have a non-musical avenue. It seems, players are always trying to "get creative" when developing a bard character and trying to "explain away" the musical portions of the class. From the various groups I have played over the course of 3e (from gencon when I first got the PHB) there has been exactly one bard. Interestingly, he was a straight up bard with a flute and not a debater, shield pounder, or some other shoe horned bard concept. The character died and the player made a new character (monk) that was more effective in the party.

Jack-of-all-Trades is a concept that if anyone can or should pull off it is the bard. Even the 1e bard was a bit of everything. I had one of those way back then too. He called himself a storm bard and had a magic trident and was mostly a fighter. Neat character, did a little bit of everything, but didn't sing for sure.

As far as "Lorekeeper" the bard is a natural choice for historian role of a fantasy world. Who else to keep the histories than the bardic colleges? Organizations that pride themselves on oral and written histories. Like in my original post, what better way to actually make them a little more arcane and mysterious than to have the college be an arcane representation of that knowledge rather than a physical location they convene to. Tie that with the "bardic knowledge" class feature and wala you have a bard who now has a mystical reason why he can access knowledge that no one should know about. You also have a way to tap into neat combat powers they could use. For instance, in the story of Jack the giant killer, Jack utilized a tactic that allowed him to do more damage to the giant or dodge the giant. This is story could be a secret bardic knowledge that the college has and bard's of that college can have access to. Before the fight the bard tells the party the tactic and during the fight they get some bonus. And during the fight the bard could yell at the fighter and say, "Remember how Jack did it, slash at the ankles" giving the fighter a bonus to damage or whatever. Lorekeeper, can be just as easily adapted as a musician (I stand in the back strumming my lute to give a combat bonus, I yell at you and do sonic damage), it just hasn't been done before.

Also, I am not saying that a bard shouldn't have a musical option. They should. What better way to capture knowledge than through song and prose. Those should be captured in the bardic colleges just as other knowledge is captured. But those should be bardic colleges that specialize in performing the knowledge that they have captured. Not every bardic college should have to perform their knowledge. Others should have, secrets they must keep, mysteries they must uncover, oaths they must abide and histories they must chronicle. All the while they utilize the knowledge they have gained to activate their abilities to gain advantage in and out of battle.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I want a musical bard. I am fine if he uses also oratory, dancing or just posturing to make his "performance", but for me Bard is definitely strongly tied to artistical performances.

My only worry is that we'll see a Bard that will shoot lightning from his lute.

No, I don't believe that will really happen, but I am really eager to find out what kind of "implement" Bards will use - will they use weapons (3E made archery bard a not-so-bad idea, at least at lower levels...) or instruments?

 

[TwinBahamut]

Excellent points. However I am still of the opinion, if they want the class to get played they need to have a non-musical avenue. It seems, players are always trying to "get creative" when developing a bard character and trying to "explain away" the musical portions of the class. From the various groups I have played over the course of 3e (from gencon when I first got the PHB) there has been exactly one bard. Interestingly, he was a straight up bard with a flute and not a debater, shield pounder, or some other shoe horned bard concept. The character died and the player made a new character (monk) that was more effective in the party.

Well, keep in mind that all of your experience with bards is just that: your experience. It is not universal.

In my relatively short time playing D&D, I have seen two Bards, both in the (approximately) the same campaign. The first was a truly dedicated Bard who took the Seeker of the Song PrC (the PrC that should be partially the basis for the 4E Bard, really), and occasioanlly was used as a vessel for Deus ex Machina in the campaign (she tended to attract supernatural evens while playing songs in front of royalty, a major symptom of the DM writing characters and plots based on songs he liked). The other Bard pretty much took the Bard class as a way of getting the "Loremaster" stuff he needed to do what he actually wanted: be a Master Inquisitive. There was also a character who was a (in)famous pop idol in an Alternity campaign, but that is getting off topic...

The main point is that, for the most part, the two players I have seen actually play Bards did so for completely opposing reasons, and got two very different things out of the game. The former character wanted to be a Musician-type Bard, and thus ended up emphasizing that role and getting a lot out of it because of a PrC that stripped away the unnecessary elements (the Jack-of-all-Trades and Loremaster stuff). The other player took Bard because he didn't have any other way of fulfilling Loremaster requirements in order to unlock some PrCs, and two things resulted: he was useless in battle and he treated what few real combat abilities he had from his Bard levels, mostly the Inspire Courage ability, as if they were a joke (because they were out of character and ineffective).

The problem with fusing together ideas like "Loremaster" and "Musician" together into a single class is that it forces people who only want one side of the class into using the other aspect. The second Bard I mentioned would have been a lot better off with a Master Inquisitive base class or some kind of base "Scholar" or "Diplomat" class, so he never had to bother with music or magic. The first Bard never even cared about anything but magical music and occasionally swordfighting, so the other aspects of the class were pointless.

Anyways, to get back to your examples... I think most cases of people "getting creative" with the bard to "explain away" aspects of it results from people trying to turn the Bard into something that it is not. People wanted the charismatic, diplomatic ability of the Bard, but didn't want to be a musician. This really is more of a symptom of 3E lacking a proper class to fill that niche, rather than a problem with the Bard class itself. With the addition of the Warlord and possibly other kinds of Leader classes in 4E, this is no longer the case, so Bards are free to be musicians without problem.

Finally, keep in mind that people may not want to have played the Bard in 3E simply because it was a poorly built class that was both boring to play and ineffective. I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting to play such a class. That will not necessarily be true in 4E, so direct comparison is not valid quite yet.

Jack-of-all-Trades is a concept that if anyone can or should pull off it is the bard. Even the 1e bard was a bit of everything. I had one of those way back then too. He called himself a storm bard and had a magic trident and was mostly a fighter. Neat character, did a little bit of everything, but didn't sing for sure.

Well, if you want a Jack-of-all-trades who doesn't necessarily sing, I don't see why you need to call it the Bard... I guess I just don't think the "it has always been so in D&D" argument is a good one. Historical precedent has some value, but a history of bad implementations is not something that should be continued for its own sake.

As far as "Lorekeeper" the bard is a natural choice for historian role of a fantasy world. Who else to keep the histories than the bardic colleges? Organizations that pride themselves on oral and written histories. Like in my original post, what better way to actually make them a little more arcane and mysterious than to have the college be an arcane representation of that knowledge rather than a physical location they convene to. Tie that with the "bardic knowledge" class feature and wala you have a bard who now has a mystical reason why he can access knowledge that no one should know about. You also have a way to tap into neat combat powers they could use. For instance, in the story of Jack the giant killer, Jack utilized a tactic that allowed him to do more damage to the giant or dodge the giant. This is story could be a secret bardic knowledge that the college has and bard's of that college can have access to. Before the fight the bard tells the party the tactic and during the fight they get some bonus. And during the fight the bard could yell at the fighter and say, "Remember how Jack did it, slash at the ankles" giving the fighter a bonus to damage or whatever. Lorekeeper, can be just as easily adapted as a musician (I stand in the back strumming my lute to give a combat bonus, I yell at you and do sonic damage), it just hasn't been done before.

Also, I am not saying that a bard shouldn't have a musical option. They should. What better way to capture knowledge than through song and prose. Those should be captured in the bardic colleges just as other knowledge is captured. But those should be bardic colleges that specialize in performing the knowledge that they have captured. Not every bardic college should have to perform their knowledge. Others should have, secrets they must keep, mysteries they must uncover, oaths they must abide and histories they must chronicle. All the while they utilize the knowledge they have gained to activate their abilities to gain advantage in and out of battle.

Alright, I suppose I didn't mention this before, so I will be upfront with you now. I don't like the idea of "Bardic Colleges" in the least. I don't like any implementation of a class that forces a particular "origin story" upon a PC or creates a necessary connection to any particular type of organization. In other words, any mechanic or flavor that restricts the ability of a player to say "I learned how from a wandering master" or "I picked it up by watching this traveler and copying him" is flawed, in my opinion.

Besides, as I said before, I really don't think "loremaster" is a valid basis for a class. I never liked the idea of "Bardic Knowledge", and your idea in which it somehow surpasses any other form of knowledge and is given a role in combat that other kinds of knowledge don't have is severely problematic. If such a class ability existed, it would pretty much make every "Knowledge" type skill meaningless and worthless. Why should a Bard be able to know things that a Wizard who specializes in the Arcana and History skills can't know? Why should a Bard be able to use this knowledge in ways that the Wizard can't? Why should Bards even have knowledge acquired from supernatural sources?

I'm sorry, but I really don't think your idea works.