The Bard and Bard Colleges

[Incenjucar]

I'm hoping that Loremaster Bard and Inspiring Bard are the starter builds.

I never paid any attention to colleges in any edition.

 

[PeterWeller]

bards are the modern day journalist

This! You nailed it on the head with this statement. Bards should be the investigative journalists of D&D (first 4E character concept: Anderson Cooper with a rapier). They should be knowledgeable and entertaining adventurers. Their combat abilities as a Leader should revolve around (mystical) inspiration and enthrallment, but that doesn't have to involve music. Their inspiration can come from performance or sheer presence. One of my favorite more subtle jokes in OotS is that Elan only annoys the party with his songs, but his constant chipper attitude inspires and motivates them at every turn.

Now, I think there should be room for music in the bard, but it should definitely not be a required component. I also think that bards shouldn't require any sort of performance per se. Being dashing or dastardly or both should be enough "performance" for the bard who so chooses.

TwinBahamut, it's funny you bring up Shakespeare in defense of the musical bard when the man isn't regarded for his talents with song but for his talents with a pen.

 

[TwinBahamut]

TwinBahamut, it's funny you bring up Shakespeare in defense of the musical bard when the man isn't regarded for his talents with song but for his talents with a pen.

I was wondering when someone was going to try calling me on that.

Shakespeare is known for writing, sure, but keep in mind that he is known for writing plays and poems, not books or magazine articles. What is more, he himself was an actor, and pretty much always had some acting role in his own plays. His plays were themselves poetry, with almost every line delivered in Iambic Pentameter, and the majority of his plays feature songs and dances. In fact, it is also important to remember that we did not inherit Shakespeare's works through written manuscripts he left behind. All modern texts of Shakespeare's plays exist solely based on various text written down based on actors who memorized their lines and rote them down after the fact. Shakespeare's works were, in a sense, created purely for performance, and should always be thought of as the works of a performer on the stage.

I see nothing wrong with a Bard who is a skilled writer, actor, poet, and singer all in one...

On the rest of the points you make in your post, I completely disagree. A musician is worthy of a class in its own right. If you want something else (such as an insightful Master Inquisitive or a charismatic roguish fellow), then you should create a class for those particular roles. Trying to mash too many things together by claiming they are all the same leads to a confused identity for a class.

 

[Sadrik]

On the rest of the points you make in your post, I completely disagree. A musician is worthy of a class in its own right. If you want something else (such as an insightful Master Inquisitive or a charismatic roguish fellow), then you should create a class for those particular roles. Trying to mash too many things together by claiming they are all the same leads to a confused identity for a class.

To each his own. However, I don't think you quite grasp what several people including myself have said about what they want with the bard. The musical portion of the bard should be an option but not a requirement. It will actually get played by people then. I think these two build options: Loremaster and Minstrel are fine by me so long as the Loremaster is not forced to strum a lute or play the pan pipes to activate his abilities.

As far as classes go, I completely do not agree with your assessment of how 4e should be. Classes should maintain niche protection and you should not have 5 classes that step on each others toes. So no, one class for this. The only other arcane leader I would like to see would be an artificer which is extremely different concept from a bard. Feats, powers and paragon paths are there to allow players to spice up their characters not Arcane Leader #4.

How much "air time" PC organizations get in D&D is up to the DM and the campaign. In most campaigns they don't get all that much in others they are a major focus. Here are some examples of some major ones of which the PCs could be involved: churches, thieves guilds, druid groves, warlock pacts, king's soldiers, paladin orders, nobility, merchant houses. Please D&D is a huge group of interlocking organizations- some of which are integrally linked to the player characters. So to say, "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." Sorry, I feel that is ridiculous.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

The musical portion of the bard should be an option but not a requirement. It will actually get played by people then.

I disagree here. The Bard is a supporting role class in a game of heroes. The stories told after a game revolve around the brash ranger ringing the bells in Castle Ravenloft because he is bored, or the Mage who saves the party with just the right spell. The stories are almost never about the Bard whose actions allowed another character to succeed....

The people who play the Bard are, like me, more interested in playing a supporting role character and will play it regardless of whether they have to lug around a lute.

Personally, I like the tie to music and the Scottish Skald, the drummers of the Roman Legionnaires, and the thousands of other examples real history shows us of musical efforts on the battle field. Trumpets have been used for ages to marshal forces and give commands for the furthement of a battle.
Also, normal music has the capability to stir emotions...just go watch a 'tear-jerker' movie and listen to the sound-track. Having a character that uses arcane magic to enhance this quality is perfect.

In my 'perfect Bard' world, the instrument of choice would be similar to the Mages 4e implements. You don't need them to do the job, but they enhance particular aspects. Harps are better at soft manipulation, drums are better for inspiring courage, etc.. but all the magical effects created by the bard would be either illusions or emotional shifts based on music/cadence/words.

No 'Heroic Pose' performances allowed!


So what would my 'perfect Bard' look like in 4e? Until I see the full rules, I cannot be sure...
but it would include these things:
Trained in Insight and Bluff
fights with light weapons and is as good as a Rogue in combat.
Very good at bluffing into combat advantage
capable of boosting, or lowering, the morale of one side or the other
able to cast minor illusions
acts primarily in support of the team

YMMV

 

[mrrodgers]

Just my two cents on the bard in combat issue:
Playing the harp in the midst of battle? Lame, not to mention life-threatening.
My solution: Singing. Back in ye olden times, warriors would sing songs and chant as they entered battle. Now, imagine the bard is the one leading these chants/songs, pumping throbbing, empowering arcane magic into every syllable, invigorating the efforts of his comrades, and seizing the hearts of his enemies with fear.

This is how I have always imagined the bard, and I believe it is a pretty practical take on it. Thoughts, getlemen? (and ladies)

Oh, and for those of you who insist, he can do the storytelling/performing with instruments stuff out side of combat.

 

[TwinBahamut]

To each his own. However, I don't think you quite grasp what several people including myself have said about what they want with the bard. The musical portion of the bard should be an option but not a requirement. It will actually get played by people then. I think these two build options: Loremaster and Minstrel are fine by me so long as the Loremaster is not forced to strum a lute or play the pan pipes to activate his abilities.

I grasp your point just fine. You want to have the option to either be a classic musician bard with loremaster abilities or a non-musician bard with loremaster abilities. You want the "musician" class and the "loremaster" class to be fused together as the same thing, as the same class. I understand your point, and I have been disagreeing with it from the start.

As far as classes go, I completely do not agree with your assessment of how 4e should be. Classes should maintain niche protection and you should not have 5 classes that step on each others toes. So no, one class for this. The only other arcane leader I would like to see would be an artificer which is extremely different concept from a bard. Feats, powers and paragon paths are there to allow players to spice up their characters not Arcane Leader #4.

I don't see what niche protection has to do with this. So far, I have only argued for the existence of a single class: an Arcane Leader called the Bard who uses music to buff and support his allies, while possibly being able to do arcane debuffs, charms, illusions, and magical attacks with his songs. This class I am arguing for would have no 'Loremaster" aspects at all (since I have already claimed that I don't think such a thing has any place being the basis of a class).

Other possibilities I briefly mentioned, like a Master Inqusitive Paragon Path, would probably not even be Arcane, and certainly not a Leader. If anything, it might take the form of the Negotiator from D20 Modern, which I would easily call a Martial Controller... It would have nothing to do with the Bard's niche in the slightest.

How much "air time" PC organizations get in D&D is up to the DM and the campaign. In most campaigns they don't get all that much in others they are a major focus. Here are some examples of some major ones of which the PCs could be involved: churches, thieves guilds, druid groves, warlock pacts, king's soldiers, paladin orders, nobility, merchant houses. Please D&D is a huge group of interlocking organizations- some of which are integrally linked to the player characters. So to say, "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." Sorry, I feel that is ridiculous.

I am sorry, but I don't accept your logic at all. My desire is not ridiculous in the slightest.

There is no organization that the Fighter must have a connection to in order to be a Fighter. A fighter can be trained by a single lone swordsman, can be self-taught, or may have been trained in the army. The fluff and class features of a fighter won't even be changed in the slightest based on such a distinction. Being a fighter also doesn't mean that the Fighter has any kind of automatic membership in some global order of Fighters, either.

The same is true for almost every other class. A Rogue does not need to be part of a thieves' guild for any reason. A Wizard can just as easily be an orphan trained by a lone wizard out in the forest as he can be part of a great order of mages who secretly control the world from behind the scenes. A Paladin can be a humble farmboy chosen by the gods themselves as easily as he could be born into an ancient order of holy knights who serve the church. Even the warlock, which comes far and away the closest to the idea you are arguing for because they must have a pact with some supernatural entity, has no forced connection to anything but that one generic supernatural entity.

Really, this has nothing to do with "how much air time the DM gives to PC organizations" and everything to do with "how free is the PC to choose his place in the world" and "what is the absolute minimum number of elements the DM is forced to put into a campaign". So far, every class announced so far for 4E matches my criteria. But, because your proposal is founded upon the idea that every Bard must be a part of one of these Bardic Colleges in order to even use their class features, it does not.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

But, because your proposal is founded upon the idea that every Bard must be a part of one of these Bardic Colleges in order to even use their class features, it does not.

I didn't get that out of the suggestion, rather I got it similar to the clerical domains.. each Bard follows a muse, whether mystical, spiritual or planar, that grants powers that fit that muse... not neccesarily tied by a physical organization {altho that could exist as well}.

This approach allows for a structured difference between individual bards while not completely splitting into completely different classes.

of course, I could be completely off with this interpretation....

 

[Sadrik]

...

I think we have come to that magical moment of understanding where we will just have to agree to disagree. I have no idea how the bard will be implemented in 4e but my expressed wish would be to have a non-musical option that utilizes the bard's bardic knowledge ability as a spring board. It would be an interesting character which would be vastly more plausible/playable/usable <imho> than a yodeling, strumming, poet reading yahoo <ymmv>.

Primitive Screwhead, you got it right. No need for a physical location. Not even a need to have a others within the bardic college itself. It would be an arcane reservoir of knowledge (not infinite knowledge) that the bard could access, add too, update and use to activate his powers.

 

[quixoteles]

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

Now your going to get back to a character class that sucks compared to another set of characters, they have no role, so you can make accidental poor power build choices. With no music in combat, you have a character that has some, only slightly so, outside combat rituals and is generally a poor substitute for picking another class. 5 characters/wheels never sat well for me. And I imagine the bard as a psionic controller. Bringing confusion & dread to his enemies and hope & resolve to his allies with magic that primarily involves the mind.

Ar Tonelico was da S**T