Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ThoughtBubble" data-source="post: 2123166" data-attributes="member: 9723">I think I'd have a tough time playing another non-house ruled bard with my current group. 3.5 did some good things and some bad things to them. There seems to be this perfect tenuous balance of things that irque me about the class, and if any one or two were addressed, I'd find it much easier to play one again.Of course, the stereotype of the bard as a 'wimpy musician' doesn't help much. I wouldn't mind it so much, but having to listen to 'spoony bard' or 'gay bard' comments for two weeks really ground on me. Especially since that provokes another round of comments about appearance and bearing no matter how I angle it. I'd like to walk around with a Halbard, tell inspiring stories, wear light armor, and have the magic of my forefathers pouring through my blood. I'm a fully fledged member of a combat oriented party. And I'm not going to flinch or hide because we're fighting a dragon. Instead I'm shouting words of encouragement, and orginizing our offensive. Now... if only the rest of my group saw it that way. And if my HP rolls saw it that way too...Though the bard does become an absolutely lovely class as soon as it becomes an evil game. I don't think I'd like to play a 'normal' monk anytime soon. While it might be fun to try and make a brawler in 3.5, I'm having enough of the 'guy trained in esoteric arts seeking to expand his knowledge and abilities' in playing a wizard. Fortunately, my DM seems to be up to house-ruling the monk a little so I can angle it as a swashbuckler type. I think that trying to do the whole &quot;eastern kung-fu desciple&quot; angle would kill any hope of enjoying the class.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ThoughtBubble, post: 2123166, member: 9723"] I think I'd have a tough time playing another non-house ruled bard with my current group. 3.5 did some good things and some bad things to them. There seems to be this perfect tenuous balance of things that irque me about the class, and if any one or two were addressed, I'd find it much easier to play one again. Of course, the stereotype of the bard as a 'wimpy musician' doesn't help much. I wouldn't mind it so much, but having to listen to 'spoony bard' or 'gay bard' comments for two weeks really ground on me. Especially since that provokes another round of comments about appearance and bearing no matter how I angle it. I'd like to walk around with a Halbard, tell inspiring stories, wear light armor, and have the magic of my forefathers pouring through my blood. I'm a fully fledged member of a combat oriented party. And I'm not going to flinch or hide because we're fighting a dragon. Instead I'm shouting words of encouragement, and orginizing our offensive. Now... if only the rest of my group saw it that way. And if my HP rolls saw it that way too... Though the bard does become an absolutely lovely class as soon as it becomes an evil game. I don't think I'd like to play a 'normal' monk anytime soon. While it might be fun to try and make a brawler in 3.5, I'm having enough of the 'guy trained in esoteric arts seeking to expand his knowledge and abilities' in playing a wizard. Fortunately, my DM seems to be up to house-ruling the monk a little so I can angle it as a swashbuckler type. I think that trying to do the whole "eastern kung-fu desciple" angle would kill any hope of enjoying the class. [/QUOTE]

Verification