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

[Willie the Duck]

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.

In 1e I think I only saw them in NPC or 'make your character at high level' situations, where the difficult entry point was circumvented.

I definitely saw them in 2e. Doubly so if we include characters that got rolled up rather than saw a lot of actual play. The reddish-brown splatbook ("complete" series) era of 2e for my group was rife with people making up bards and swashbucklers and pirates and priests of increasingly specific mythos that would rarely if ever see play -- and when they did it suddenly become apparent that a lot of these options don't work great when the game still has dungeons full of wights and orcs and dragons.

The 2e bard had a lot of promise as a generalist -- until the rubber hit the road.

1. Even though they could wear armor, they couldn't cast spells unless it was the rare-as-hens-teeth elven chain; so they were either 'caster-until-the-spells-are-gone (then armor up),' or 'caster if you give me 5 minutes').
2. They could wear chain mail and use any weapon; but they still had thief-like ThAC0, d6 hp, stat requirements that statistically precluded also having a stellar Str and Con, and just not being a warrior (with access to the extra attacks and better stat leverage that implies).
3. Perhaps most importantly, the would be taken instead of taking a thief character (as the were listed in the rogue subsection, and had some thief abilities), but lacked the rather-important open locks and find/remove traps abilities.

 

[Remathilis]

The 2e bard had a lot of promise as a generalist -- until the rubber hit the road.

1. Even though they could wear armor, they couldn't cast spells unless it was the rare-as-hens-teeth elven chain; so they were either 'caster-until-the-spells-are-gone (then armor up),' or 'caster if you give me 5 minutes').
2. They could wear chain mail and use any weapon; but they still had thief-like ThAC0, d6 hp, stat requirements that statistically precluded also having a stellar Str and Con, and just not being a warrior (with access to the extra attacks and better stat leverage that implies).
3. Perhaps most importantly, the would be taken instead of taking a thief character (as the were listed in the rogue subsection, and had some thief abilities), but lacked the rather-important open locks and find/remove traps abilities.

Add to the fact that their actual bard abilities took 1 minute of prep to use and came with enough caveats and provisos that you would think it was an Act of Congress, you has a class that was far better on paper than in practice. The best trick was to treat them as a slightly beefier magic user* rather than as a generalist fighter/mage/thief.

* That is probably why I was so in favor of bards being level 9 casters in 5e. They basically played like them for years anyway, might as well sink their power into actual magic.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Out of curiosity, how many languages could a Bard learn?

If you read the OP (you did, right?), you saw that I was ... somewhat shocked at the sheer number of languages that a typical bard would acquire. But I woke up today wondering ...

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a wo.... Sorry. How many languages could a Bard actually learn? If someone was like, "IMA LEARN THEM ALL! LANGUAGES ARE THE POKEMON OF AD&D!!!!!"

Work with me here.

The main variable is intelligence. Bards have a required minimum intelligence of 12. That provides 3 additional languages. But we are trying to OPTIMIZE FOR LANGUAGE! That means an 18 intelligence, and .... 7 additional languages. (If you're keeping track at home, that means that there is only a delta of four in the final result, which sounds like a lot until you get to the final number).

So we start with seven languages of your own choosing.

Then you decide to be a half-elven bard. How does this work? I don't know! But you do.

Add common, alignment language, elvish, gnome, halfling, goblin, hobgoblin, orcish, and gnoll. That's nine more languages.
But wait, half-elves with an 18 intelligence get to add two additional languages of their own choosing! That's two more languages.
(If you're human, you only get two, total)

Start as a fighter. No languages.
Change to thief. You learn thieves' cant. That's one more language. If you go to 8th level thief, you also have a 40% chance to read any language, but who cares when you're duolingo'ing AD&D!

So as a Bard, you zoom to 23rd level. You get fifteen additional languages of your own choosing. Not too shabby! But wait, there's more!
By the time you hit 14th level as a Bard, you've picked up the following from your Druidic College studies:
Druidic, Centaur, Dryad, Elvish, Faun, Gnome, Green Dragon, Hill Giant, Lizardman, Manticore, Nixie, Pixie, Sprite, Treantish. That would be fourteen. EXCEPT ...
Elvish, Gnome? You already got that from half-elf. So twelve additional languages.

If you're a language optimizer in AD&D, how many languages can you possibly learn without being a cheating Magic User using some type of spell shortcut?

46 LANGUAGES!
Common
(Alignment Language)
Thieves' Cant
Druidic
Elvish
Gnome
Halfling
Goblin
Hobgoblin
Orcish
Gnoll
Centaur
Dryad
Faun
Green Dragon
Hill Giant
Lizardman
Manticore
Nixie
Pixie
Sprite
Treantish
+24 languages you choose.

Now, you might ask your self.... why did I do this? Почему нет?

 

[Voadam]

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

You know that since this is 1e those are not the only applicable rules, you also have to look under the helm, the specific class descriptions in the PH, and places like the DMG sections on clerics. Perhaps others.

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.

The DMG changing alignment section.

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)

The separate DMG cleric section.

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.

DMG changing alignment for the druid, PH class descriptions for the others.

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.

The nothing else happens theory is one interpretation. Another is similar to the magic user weapon limitations. "Assassins are evil in alignment." So if you are an assassin you are evil, if you are not evil, you are not an assassin. Does this mean assassins are immune to helms of alignment change? Does it mean they are not immune but cease to be assassins (so similar to monks)? Does it mean they keep their abilities and continue on no problem? Does it mean they keep their abilities but cannot advance further?

It seems to be undefined and up to the DM.

 

[Umbran]

...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.

"I am large, I contain multitudes."

The jokes write themselves, folks.

And, of course the Giff killed you. 'cuz that was rude.

 

[mixmastashizz]

The nothing else happens theory is one interpretation. Another is similar to the magic user weapon limitations. "Assassins are evil in alignment." So if you are an assassin you are evil, if you are not evil, you are not an assassin. Does this mean assassins are immune to helms of alignment change? Does it mean they are not immune but cease to be assassins (so similar to monks)? Does it mean they keep their abilities and continue on no problem? Does it mean they keep their abilities but cannot advance further?

It seems to be undefined and up to the DM.

Im inclined to rule that since there are specific penalties listed for other classes changing alignment that do not exist for some classes, then there is no reason for a DM to impose their own extra penalties on characters for changing alignment.

The Monk, the Druid, the Paladin, and the Ranger all have specific rules on what happens if you change your alignment.

The other classes dont, therefore there are no specific penalties other than what's listed in the section about changing alignments. If the intent that an assassin that becomes good ceases to be an assassin, it would say that in the rules since it clearly explains it for other classes. Such a statement does not exist so there is no need to read between lines that aren't there.

Anything extra is on that DM (and well within their right because it's their table!)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Im inclined to rule that since there are specific penalties listed for other classes changing alignment that do not exist for some classes, then there is no reason for a DM to impose their own extra penalties on characters for changing alignment.

The Monk, the Druid, the Paladin, and the Ranger all have specific rules on what happens if you change your alignment.

The other classes dont, therefore there are no specific penalties other than what's listed in the section about changing alignments. If the intent that an assassin that becomes good ceases to be an assassin, it would say that in the rules since it clearly explains it for other classes. Such a statement does not exist so there is no need to read between lines that aren't there.

Anything extra is on that DM (and well within their right because it's their table!)

I think @Voadam did a good job covering this in another thread-

D&D General Post in thread 'Rulings, not Rules: How Will You Solve the Bard / Half Elf Dilemma?'

May 8, 2021

Clerics Page 20:

"The cleric can be of any alignment (q.v.) save (true) neutral (see Druid hereafter) alignment, depending upon that of the deity the cleric serves."

Druid Page 20:

"They are the only absolute neutrals (see ALIGNMENT), viewing good and evil, law and chaos, as balancing forces of nature which are necessary for the continuation of all things."

Paladins Page 22:

"A paladin character is a fighter sub-class, but unlike normal fighters, all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment (q.v.) and always remain lawful good or absolutely lose all...

• Voadam

Here's his final sentence about the consequences, above and beyond the "regular consequences," for changing your alignment:
So Paladins and Rangers become fighters. Monks become new first level characters. Druids become not druids at all (but what do they become? clerics, 1st level characters, or other) and not specified for thieves, assassins, or bards.

Let's reverse this and put this the other way. Examining the base AD&D PHB classes, you have the regular penalty that applies for a change in alignment. This will always apply (loss of level, etc.).
This applies to the following classes:
Fighter, MU, Illusionist

You have special and specific rules that apply to the following classes:
Paladins, Rangers, Monks, Druids

You do not have a special rule, but a special concern, that applies to the following class:
Cleric (due to deity issues)

You do not have a special rule, but a class requirement that means that certain alignment changes may be of special concern:
Thief, Assassin, Bard


How I interpret the rule- if you are, for example, an Assassin that moves to a Good alignment, you take the alignment penalty and can no longer advance in the Assassin class unless and until your alignment allows you to continue as an assassin (you are evil again). Since this is almost always involuntary, you'd follow the rules for the involuntary shift, but do not advance until your alignment is restored.

The Cleric is more interesting, as it also intersects with the spellcasting rules - you can still cast 1st and 2nd level spells, but the shift away from your deity prevents you from casting higher level spells until you are, um, aligned with your deity again.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

Our one gave everyone something like +8 to hit and damage. Early on +4.

She missed something and it was gonna be +16. Party full of archers with rapid shot for two or 3 of them.

Just straight bard.

 

[mixmastashizz]

I think @Voadam did a good job covering this in another thread-

D&D General Post in thread 'Rulings, not Rules: How Will You Solve the Bard / Half Elf Dilemma?'

May 8, 2021

Clerics Page 20:

"The cleric can be of any alignment (q.v.) save (true) neutral (see Druid hereafter) alignment, depending upon that of the deity the cleric serves."

Druid Page 20:

"They are the only absolute neutrals (see ALIGNMENT), viewing good and evil, law and chaos, as balancing forces of nature which are necessary for the continuation of all things."

Paladins Page 22:

"A paladin character is a fighter sub-class, but unlike normal fighters, all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment (q.v.) and always remain lawful good or absolutely lose all...

• Voadam

Here's his final sentence about the consequences, above and beyond the "regular consequences," for changing your alignment:
So Paladins and Rangers become fighters. Monks become new first level characters. Druids become not druids at all (but what do they become? clerics, 1st level characters, or other) and not specified for thieves, assassins, or bards.

Let's reverse this and put this the other way. Examining the base AD&D PHB classes, you have the regular penalty that applies for a change in alignment. This will always apply (loss of level, etc.).
This applies to the following classes:
Fighter, MU, Illusionist

You have special and specific rules that apply to the following classes:
Paladins, Rangers, Monks, Druids

You do not have a special rule, but a special concern, that applies to the following class:
Cleric (due to deity issues)

You do not have a special rule, but a class requirement that means that certain alignment changes may be of special concern:
Thief, Assassin, Bard


How I interpret the rule- if you are, for example, an Assassin that moves to a Good alignment, you take the alignment penalty and can no longer advance in the Assassin class unless and until your alignment allows you to continue as an assassin (you are evil again). Since this is almost always involuntary, you'd follow the rules for the involuntary shift, but do not advance until your alignment is restored.

The Cleric is more interesting, as it also intersects with the spellcasting rules - you can still cast 1st and 2nd level spells, but the shift away from your deity prevents you from casting higher level spells until you are, um, aligned with your deity again.

I think its a fair and logical interpretation, but one i personally do not believe is prescribed.

 

[Zardnaar]

Add to the fact that their actual bard abilities took 1 minute of prep to use and came with enough caveats and provisos that you would think it was an Act of Congress, you has a class that was far better on paper than in practice. The best trick was to treat them as a slightly beefier magic user* rather than as a generalist fighter/mage/thief.

* That is probably why I was so in favor of bards being level 9 casters in 5e. They basically played like them for years anyway, might as well sink their power into actual magic.

We figured out they're a better mage at levels that matter.
They usually ended up draped in bracers, cloaks etc and using whatever left over.

Then as now few people played wizards so wizard type loot usually ended up on fighters, thieves and bards or druid.