Paul Farquhar
Legend
It’s a powerful class. But it doesn’t have any soul.
D&D General This Makes No Sense: Re-Examining the 1e Bard
- Thread starter Snarf Zagyg
- Start date
Zardnaar
Legend
Yeah.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
The 3rd edition Bard is what all classes should have been designed to match: solid, benefits from optimization but isn't ridiculously OP from it.
Unfortunately, because it was in the edition that made being a full caster objectively the best choice, the 3rd edition Bard is simply left in the dust. It's a great platform for a game that--by 3e charop standards--only includes tier 3 or 4 classes.
Zardnaar
Legend
We optimized one in late 3.5.
Switched on very early 0ne if the more OP builds.
Think we used 4 or 5 splits to do it. It was Uber powerful level 8 and good before that.
No one new anout the build. I think I posted it but it flew under the radar.
It was comparable to the 3.0 cleric archer but switched on a lot quicker.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
All I read here is just jealousy because someone couldn't qualify for Bard Camp.
Zardnaar
Legend
Bard is just a fancy word for Gnome.
Remathilis
Legend
Clearly you never heard of the famous bard James Brown? That bard had soul, brother...
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Yeah, but he was First edition, man.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
None of your tinkers, smurfs, or Keebler elves around here, sir. This is a serious place.
Players who want to play short characters will be assigned Kender.
Remathilis
Legend
On a related to the OP note, considering how perfectly playable the The Strategic Review bard was, the fact the PHB bard was turned into a disaster of mechanics is a travesty. Most of the other classes in the PHB work fine inside the confines of rest of the game, but bard and monk aren't just exception-based design, they are playing a whole different game that is vaguely compatible with the AD&D rules. That would be a trend for Gary especially in Unearthed Arcana (the cavalier has negative levels?!?) as more and more of his classes actively declared war on the base game rules.
The biggest reason I find 2nd edition superior to 1e is that it forced classes to actually obey the rules. Maybe it's something in my hardwiring, but things like bard being a class you get by breaking the multi class rules, monk getting no benefits from it's ability score modifiers, cavaliers starting with negative XP and can raise their physical scores, and thief acrobat being the original prestige class, upsets my brain. (To be honest, 2e didn't go far enough in the streamlining. Looking at you, druid XP chart).
The biggest reason I find 2nd edition superior to 1e is that it forced classes to actually obey the rules. Maybe it's something in my hardwiring, but things like bard being a class you get by breaking the multi class rules, monk getting no benefits from it's ability score modifiers, cavaliers starting with negative XP and can raise their physical scores, and thief acrobat being the original prestige class, upsets my brain. (To be honest, 2e didn't go far enough in the streamlining. Looking at you, druid XP chart).
