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

[Laurefindel]

Well, Gygax did the exact same thing with the 1e PHB. He realized that lesser people with lesser verbiage would edit him on occasion. So Gygax deliberately put in a "joke class," the Bard, in the appendix. I mean, c'mon! You know it's a joke!

I am OFFENDED! The Bard is not a joke! It’s a smokescreen!

Editor: « Mr. Gygax, players sometimes find your rules incoherent and inapplicable…

EGG: « Oh yeah?!? I’ll show them incoherent and inapplicable! »

 

[Joshua Randall]

I will add another thing that doesn’t make sense:

Suppose Ms. Bard-to-be began her fighter-ing at age 16, the absolute youngest age a 1st level human fighter could be according to the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide (page 12). She's a prodigy when it comes to fighter-ing and reaches level 5 in just 1 year.

She goes off to be a thief. She's also a prodigy at thief-ing and reaches level 5 in that class in just 1 more year. She's now 18, one year YOUNGER than the minimum 1st level human thief age according to the DMG, which is 19.

Druid also has a minimum starting age of 19.

But! The table on p. 12 of the DMG has this line:

Bards begin at the age of the class in which they first began.

Lousy grammar notwithstanding, what does that even mean?!

 

[Nikosandros]

I will add another thing that doesn’t make sense:

Suppose Ms. Bard-to-be began her fighter-ing at age 16, the absolute youngest age a 1st level human fighter could be according to the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide (page 12). She's a prodigy when it comes to fighter-ing and reaches level 5 in just 1 year.

She goes off to be a thief. She's also a prodigy at thief-ing and reaches level 5 in that class in just 1 more year. She's now 18, one year YOUNGER than the minimum 1st level human thief age according to the DMG, which is 19.

It doesn't matter, because the character is a bard, not a thief.

But! The table on p. 12 of the DMG has this line:

Bards begin at the age of the class in which they first began.

Lousy grammar notwithstanding, what does that even mean?!

It means that you roll starting age using the same formula for fighters.

 

[Joshua Randall]

It doesn't matter, because the character is a bard, not a thief.

Not until later. Maybe the player of bard-to-be hasn’t actually decided to be a bard yet. Maybe she just really like the idea of fighter+thief.

It means that you roll starting age using the same formula for fighters.

Then why doesn’t it say that?

 

[Nikosandros]

Not until later. Maybe the player of bard-to-be hasn’t actually decided to be a bard yet. Maybe she just really like the idea of fighter+thief.

As I've argued already in the thread, you have to decide at character creation to be a bard. It's not something you decide later on and this is why you don't follow all the rules for dual-classing; for example a half-elf, can't dual-class but may become a bard.

Then why doesn’t it say that?

I don't know, but my interpretation is coherent with the phrasing of the rules and it makes sense, since you certainly can't roll a different starting age later on.

 

[Willie the Duck]

...since you certainly can't roll a different starting age later on.

At this point in the discussion, I'm not sure even that is a given.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Not until later. Maybe the player of bard-to-be hasn’t actually decided to be a bard yet. Maybe she just really like the idea of fighter+thief.

And the same situation applies for any dual classed character. The starting age is simply for whatever class you chose first. It doesn't matter if you are outside the suggested starting age for any classes you take subsequently, because you are not starting as that class - clearly starting age does not apply.

 

[Clint_L]

As I've argued already in the thread, you have to decide at character creation to be a bard.

I don't recall anyone ever interpreting it that way at the time, though sometimes players made characters with the intention of eventually being a bard, and occasionally they even followed through. Certainly no one was ever bothered if a player made a fighter intending to be a bard, and then just decided, "nah, gonna stay a fighter."

 

[RhaezDaevan]

Has anyone ever made an attempt to re-write the 1E Bard to make sense? Not the alternate classes, but a real attempt at making the "proto-prestige" class work?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Has anyone ever made an attempt to re-write the 1E Bard to make sense? Not the alternate classes, but a real attempt at making the "proto-prestige" class work?

It does work, so long as you remember that 1st edition rules are just guidelines. Which is how you should be playing anyway, otherwise you will be bogged down by weapon speeds, weapon v armour type mods and other silly rules.