D&D General This Makes No Sense: Re-Examining the 1e Bard

[Nikosandros]

Ill leave it at that before we go full dragonsfoot on this!

Yeah, when I active on DF this one was a recurring discussion...

 

[Zil]

I think if youre able to roll the ridiculous stats for it (~4% chance using Method 3, the highest chance) then youre allowed to have a silly class as a treat

What about the 1E bard players who also happened to end up with psionics and a high percentile roll on their 18 strength. Just lucky... ;-)

 

[Voadam]

It's a helmet of opposite alignment! What happens in the following two scenarios (it you're Neutral, it forces you to an extreme alignment)?

1. It turns them LE.
2. It turns them LG.

In scenario 1, they are still a thief, but they can no longer be a pre-bard, because they aren't eligible to be a bard.
In scenario 2, they can no longer continue as a thief at all.

The bard’s problem here is the same as the CE thief or assassin who puts on the helmet and turns into a prohibited LG for their class.

I forget if that turns them into a zero level character.

 

[mixmastashizz]

The bard’s problem here is the same as the CE thief or assassin who puts on the helmet and turns into a prohibited LG for their class.

I forget if that turns them into a zero level character.

You follow the rules in the DMG for changing alignment. It even defines what to do if it's involuntary!

Typically level loss, and restoration after atonement and a gold sacrifice if it is involuntary (curse, magic item, etc).
Characters who voluntarily change alignment permanently lose a level and lose their alignment language but cannot speak their new one.

For clerics, it could mean abandonment of their deity meaning they cannot prepare spells greater than 2nd level. (3rd - 5th level spells are granted by the deities minions/angels, and 6th-7th level spells are granted directly by the deity)

For druids they cease being druids, for paladins and rangers they become fighters, and for monks they lose all experience and start over at level 1.

For every other class, nothing else happens! They maintain their class and abilities just at a lower level. Since it is not explicitly mentioned what happens beyond the classes that have this defined, then the logical conclusion is that no other penalty is dealt.

Therefore, all that matters is that you are the alignment that is required by the class at the start of adventuring unless otherwise specified.

[Source: DMG pg 25 (Changing Alignment), DMG pg 38 (Acquisition of Cleric Spells)]

Edit: In the bard case, I would personally require that a player who no longer met the alignment requirements prior to becoming a bard must atone and/or shift their alignment prior to making that final transition.

 

[Seramus]

I have long considered Snarf to be a bard, so I'm reading this thread in the context that it is an autobiography.

 

[Umbran]

Disclaimer- What if I want to play a 1e Bard?
Then you're a bad person. Just sit with that for a while. But if you're still okay with the void where your soul would be, I will recommend playing either the original single-class Bard (Strategic Review #6 by Schwegman) or the revised single-class Bard (Dragon #56 by Goelz).

I get it. All the bard shade is shtick. Fine.

But, the most fun I had with 1e was playing a bard, as best as we could interpret it from what was written.

Because, and this is the really important bit, running it strictly as written is not a value ever attached to 1e, by pretty much anyone. Including Gygax.

What we did was good enough, and fun for us.

 

[Umbran]

Hmm. I cast counter. Either- specific beats general. Or Gary needed a word editor, and rules editor.

gasp!
The very thought! It beggars the imagination!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Your prejudices are showing.

Clearly, the bard is not a joke, because a shedload of work was put into it. What it is is a simulationist's attempt to recreate the legend of Taliesin within the game. Half elves? The thing you need to realise about Gygax is he considered rules to be suggestions, not absolutes that needed to be followed to the letter at all times. If a half elf wanted to favour their human side and dual class then they can do that - it doesn't need to be spelled out in the rules. The same goes for the other so called "issues". The all stem from an over-literal legalistic interpretation of the rules. If the rules get in the way of the fiction, then the fiction overrules them. If there isn't rules for something, the DM makes them up as required.

The most significant thing about the 1st edition bard in the long run is it was a prototype of a 3rd edition prestige class.

Personally, I find the Celtic themed bard much more aesthetically pleasing than the sorcerer-with-a-lute that we have nowadays.

 

[see]

3. What Level Thief Can You Be, Anyway

As Sage Advice on page 10 in Dragon #56 says, "the bard-to-be must stop at the 6th, 7th or 8th level of thieving ability — between, but not including, 5th and 9th"

The bard gains druidic powers as a druid of the same level, with the exception of druidic spells as explained below.

Wait, wut? What does this even mean? Most people (since, again, no one played the 1e bard as written) forgot about that little sentence. ALL UR DRUIDIC POWERS R BELONG TO BARDZ! Not just druidic languages and plant and animal identification and talkin', but shapshiftin' and immunity to charm and the rest of it to. ALL OF IT.

Yep, as Sage Advice on page 75 in Dragon #56 pointed out. (Yes, the Sage even mentions the druid's languages.)

5. Magic Chainmail

Bards can wear magic chainmail. Druid can't wear metal armor. Why? Because "metallic armor spoils their magical powers" PHB 21. Just sayin'.

In addition, this is kind just thrown in there. But rule for TC characters has always been that you can't use class features when you don't abide by weapon and armor restrictions of the class whose abilities you are using. Thieves can't wear magic chainmail armor in the 1e PHB. So if a bard did, they couldn't use their thief abilities, which is strangely unmentioned.

Sure they can use their thief abilities! Back to Sage Advice in Dragon #56, now on p.9:

One of the significant benefits of becoming a bard is the ability to use armor and weapons not normally usable by a thief, and still be able to perform the various thieving abilities. All that’s necessary to properly play a bard with respect to this is to interpret the Players Handbook literally: A bard is able to use any of the armor and weapon types listed as permitted to the class, and a bard is able to function as a thief of the level which the character attained while pursuing that profession. Nothing in the description given in the Players Handbook puts any limitations or restrictions on either of these characteristics.

 

[Zardnaar]

Your prejudices are showing.

Clearly, the bard is not a joke, because a shedload of work was put into it. What it is is a simulationist's attempt to recreate the legend of Taliesin within the game. Half elves? The thing you need to realise about Gygax is he considered rules to be suggestions, not absolutes that needed to be followed to the letter at all times. If a half elf wanted to favour their human side and dual class then they can do that - it doesn't need to be spelled out in the rules. The same goes for the other so called "issues". The all stem from an over-literal legalistic interpretation of the rules. If the rules get in the way of the fiction, then the fiction overrules them. If there isn't rules for something, the DM makes them up as required.

The most significant thing about the 1st edition bard in the long run is it was a prototype of a 3rd edition prestige class.

Personally, I find the Celtic themed bard much more aesthetically pleasing than the sorcerer-with-a-lute that we have nowadays.

New bards a great class. Poor bard.

3.5 bard was kinda good just in wrong edition.