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

[Remathilis]

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.

Ac fate worse than death

 

[Umbran]

...they are playing a whole different game that is vaguely compatible with the AD&D rules.

The secret is in realizing that the AD&D rules are themselves only vaguely compatible with the AD&D rules.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

The secret is in realizing that the AD&D rules are themselves only vaguely compatible with the AD&D rules.

Basic D&D is more compatible with AD&D than AD&D is with itself.

 

[Remathilis]

The secret is in realizing that the AD&D rules are themselves only vaguely compatible with the AD&D rules.

This was less of a problem in both Basic and 2e, (at least at first) as the PHB or red box was at least internally consistent with itself. The 1e PHB doesn't make it out the gate without telling you to forget things you just read 5 pages ago...

 

[Staffan]

Yeah, but he was First edition, man.

I thought that was Kenny Rogers?

 

[Rabulias]

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.

In both cases, you now have a problem- you've allowed a 2C character without requiring the minimum requirements for a 2C character. I could provide additional bits, but it should be clear. There is no "pre-bard." There is a fighter. And then there are the 2C rules that let you become a thief. And as the bard rules put it (badly) you need to get to at least one level above your fighter level (and can accumulate hit points only for that additional amount, JUST LIKE A 2C character, which you are) before you finally can choose to become a bard.

One does not need to introduce such a magic item to have a problem. Say the player of a Fighter 5/Thief 8 "pre-bard" gets enough XP for 9th level Thief and decides they like being a Thief? Or can't find the hidden sect of Druids to train them?

 

[MGibster]

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

I don't think I ever saw anyone play a Bard in 1st or 2nd edition AD&D. The first time I ever played a Bard was in 5th edition, and I had a grand old time right up until he was killed by a Giff after my character told him he was so fat his butt provided allies with cover. It was the very first scenario of the campaign.

 

[TwoSix]

The secret is in realizing that the AD&D rules are themselves only vaguely compatible with the AD&D rules.

"I am large, I contain multitudes."

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I was a big fan of Bard 7/Mindbender 1/Ur-Priest 2/Sublime Chord 2/Mystic Theurge 8. Gets to level 9 arcane and divine casting, and has the solid gameplay of Bard for the early levels.

There were also some feats in late 3.5 that turned some of the bardic bonuses into straight damage buffs that were pretty powerful.

 

[Willie the Duck]

The character is neutral. After all, they are a pre-bard! Now, they find a strange helmet. They put it on...
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.
In both cases, you now have a problem- you've allowed a 2C character without requiring the minimum requirements for a 2C character. I could provide additional bits, but it should be clear. There is no "pre-bard." There is a fighter. And then there are the 2C rules that let you become a thief. And as the bard rules put it (badly) you need to get to at least one level above your fighter level (and can accumulate hit points only for that additional amount, JUST LIKE A 2C character, which you are) before you finally can choose to become a bard.

You have identified a problem that could occur with the presupposed interpretation, and I agree with it. I do not agree with the argument that the problem suggests that the interpretation cannot be right. This is because the rules (strictly enforced) absolutely can result in nonsensical scenarios. Therefore an interpretation of the rules resulting in a nonsensical scenario does not disprove the interpretation. The rules could (through confluence of clauses or factors) result in an outcome that has to be both even and three at the same time. That would mean that the rules were poorly thought out (something I think we've established we all agree is true for bards), but not that that couldn't be what the rules are.

More to the point, one of the scenario outcomes isn't even nonsensical, it's just highly unplayable. Scenario 2 results in a thief that can no longer advance as a thief and a 2C character that no longer qualifies for being a 2C character. That's a thing that's always been acceptable within the rules (outside the specifics of being a bard or pre-bard). Characters can lose attributes necessary to qualify for a class. Likewise, characters can become creatures (such as being reincarnated as an animal) that can't be or advance as the class they have. It puts them in the unfortunate position of not being able to advance (or possibly use their class abilities) until the situation is rectified, but that also is par for the course for the game (and highly common for the consequences of a cursed item).

As to the pre-bard -- I think you are right. In a pure RAW discussion, there is not enough to infer the presence of special rules governing a character intending to become a bard. I do favor it in RAI arguments -- mostly for half-elves, but also for characters who qualify for the bard attribute spread but not 2C fighter to thief. The scenario of 'character once had a dex of 17-18, so they could qualify to become a thief, but their dex drops to the 15-16 range right at a time convenient for this class changeover' is too specific to be intentional. But again, this is a the contrapositive results in nonsensical results argument, so not applicable to RAW.