Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kennew142" data-source="post: 3972858" data-attributes="member: 18490">I played a bard in 1e. I found it to be a very difficult class to get into (1e prestige class). And once you were there, you did a lot of things really poorly - and nothing well. Nevertheless, I did enjoy playing Aidan MacStorn.This is where we differ. I thought the 2e bard was the best version. He did a little bit of a lot of things, and had access to the whole arcane spell list (up to 6th level, was it?). I played an elven bard named Rassilor. He was one of my favorite 2e characters.I found the 3e bard to be inferior in just about every way to the 2e bard. The character couldn't stand up in a fight, and his spell casting was weak. If they could have given the bard some more roguish skills that would have been great. Even better would have been a prestige class (like 1e) that combined rogue and sorcerer.This point has kind of been done to death. Warlord is the preferred (by a very slim plurality) name for this class. I don't like it either; I just like it better than any of the alternatives. Where you see a drill sergeant, I see a natural leader and skilled tactician who is able to inspire his fellows to greatness. If someone in our group played a warlord and started shouting out orders, we'd ask them to leave our gaming group. No joke.This last scenario should be defused by the actual text from the PHB 4e (released earlier on another thread) wherein it was made clear that the Leader role does not mean that the character is the leader of the group.I am very intrigued by the warlord class and intend to play one early on in the new edition, perhaps in my brother-in-law's Waterdeep game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kennew142, post: 3972858, member: 18490"] I played a bard in 1e. I found it to be a very difficult class to get into (1e prestige class). And once you were there, you did a lot of things really poorly - and nothing well. Nevertheless, I did enjoy playing Aidan MacStorn. This is where we differ. I thought the 2e bard was the best version. He did a little bit of a lot of things, and had access to the whole arcane spell list (up to 6th level, was it?). I played an elven bard named Rassilor. He was one of my favorite 2e characters. I found the 3e bard to be inferior in just about every way to the 2e bard. The character couldn't stand up in a fight, and his spell casting was weak. If they could have given the bard some more roguish skills that would have been great. Even better would have been a prestige class (like 1e) that combined rogue and sorcerer. This point has kind of been done to death. Warlord is the preferred (by a very slim plurality) name for this class. I don't like it either; I just like it better than any of the alternatives. Where you see a drill sergeant, I see a natural leader and skilled tactician who is able to inspire his fellows to greatness. If someone in our group played a warlord and started shouting out orders, we'd ask them to leave our gaming group. No joke. This last scenario should be defused by the actual text from the PHB 4e (released earlier on another thread) wherein it was made clear that the Leader role does not mean that the character is the leader of the group. I am very intrigued by the warlord class and intend to play one early on in the new edition, perhaps in my brother-in-law's Waterdeep game. [/QUOTE]

Verification