Where's the Bard?

[FourthBear]

Well, I like the idea of having a bard class in the game. Who knows, maybe they'll get it right this time. The way I see it, performance, enchantment, and loremastery are the three aspects of the class that really need to be played up. Oh, and diplomacy. Bards should be the ultimate courtiers, diplomats, and negotiators.

I like the idea of characters that can play a role in social arenas easily. I'm not so sure about how I feel about mechanics for social interactions in the game. However, it sounds as though 4e will be having 3e style social skills and a social encounter system to organize and encourage "social team play" where the entire party gets involved.

The reason I bring this up is that I'm a bit worried about a class that is the ultimate in social encounters at a given level. Much as I would be about a class that is touted as the ultimate in combat. If the game is going to have a game mechanical component to social encounters, then I hope that it is balanced across classes and character concepts such that no single character will be dominating things. The infamous 3e bard with a +45 in all social skills, whose presence in a social encounter renders all other characters mechanically redundant, comes to mind.

 

[Rechan]

In all honesty, I thought the Rogue, Beguiler, Paladin, and Warlock* had on par if not better ability to move through social situations as the Bard.

I just finished running an Investigation game with a Social rogue and social Warlock, and am now running a Gypsy/con artist game with a Swashbuckler and multi-classed rogues. So my mileage may vary.

*Warlock with the Beguiling Voice Invocation, at least.

 

[Vayden]

The idea that every character archetype needs to be able to kick ass and take names is a function of the idea that D&D is about kicking ass and taking names. It isn't, unless you -- the individual group -- say it is. But if the PHB is full of classes that focus primarily on that aspect of play, to the detriment of other aspects of play (ex: blaster wizard overtaking versatile wizard as the core archetype), the game ceases to be as variable and dynamic and a whole lot less fun.

Since the bard isn't going to make it into the PHB anyway, maybe they should go through the effort of making it a different kind of class, something that matters far more outside of combat than in it.

NO. Just NO. That's a bad idea that 4E has finally fixed. Balance combat effectiveness vs combat effectiveness, balance out of combat vs out of combat. I agree that the bard doesn't need to be a swashbuckling fighter or kick huge amounts of ass, but that doesn't mean that you design it to suck at combat. You design any class so that it's effective and fun to play in combat - a bard could be very effective in combat without "kicking ass" by supporting his teammates (in fun and interesting ways, not just "I sing, you get +X") and hampering his opponents (taunts, illusions, etc).

 

[Reynard]

NO. Just NO. That's a bad idea that 4E has finally fixed. Balance combat effectiveness vs combat effectiveness, balance out of combat vs out of combat.

I reject the premise that characters need to be "balanced" with one another in all potential situations.

 

[Minicol]

Bards are one of the traditional roles that come to mind when people envision the middle ages.

 

[FourthBear]

Bards are one of the traditional roles that come to mind when people envision the middle ages.

I always think of the reeve when I envision the middle ages. Or a new red Camaro.

 

[Voss]

I reject the premise that characters need to be "balanced" with one another in all potential situations.

Balanced in all? No. Able to contribute meaningfully in the game's most common situation by the default assumptions? Absolutely.
But dragging the party down in a fight while the party drags the bard down in social situations isn't wonderful game design.

I had the unfortunate experience of playing in a party with 2 bards. Luckily it was a six person party (well, 7 when we still had the drow druid who couldn't do anything), but it meant that in combat, we were a 4 person party with some floating bonuses and some out of combat healing.

Unfortunately, in the D&D idiom, the bard is someone who doesn't go on adventures. He just can't keep up. (Of course, in 3e, this was true of a lot of core classes. But at least some of them had a function, even if it was meatshield) This wouldn't bother me, since historically and culturally, this is also largely true, but they keep sticking the bloody class in the PH. So, personally, I don't mind seeing the... 'bard' gone.


@Stereofm- sadly, that is true. Its one of the little things that make historians grit their teeth and take antacids.

 

[Rechan]

I reject the premise that characters need to be "balanced" with one another in all potential situations.

In all potential situations? That's a bit much.

Let's take combat. Everyone is "balanced", but it's balanced by having something to contribute to the situation. Everyone has something to do.

Yet, the rogue isn't equal to the fighter when you stand toe to toe with a monster. The fighter isn't equal with the wizard when effecting lots of enemies. The wizard isn't equal to the cleric when helping allies.

Out of combat, I don't see why this same paradime cannot exist.

A rogue isn't equal with a fighter when it comes to intimidate. A wizard isn't equal to a paladin when it comes to diplomacy. A fighter isn't equal to a paladin or cleric when it comes to discerning a liar.

All Possible situations implies that everyone can do anything equally good. No. I think that we can facilitate social roles just like we have combat roles. This way everyone is balanced, but they're balanced by being good at Something in combat and Out of combat, without stepping on someone else's toes.

 

[grimslade]

4E Bards

I have a sneaking suspicion that 4E bards will be linked to the Shadowfell more than the Feywild. Illusion is strongly linked with the Shadowfell in the PoL generi-setting of 4E. I think the spirits of the dead or the Raven Queen would be good patrons for all the quaint and curious lore. Or a Binder-like ability to warp our fragile minds.

I suppose like warlocks have different pacts, there could be different kinds of bards that link to the eladrin lords of the Feywild, perhaps, as a nature powered leader. It would fit in well with the re-release of the druid and barbarian.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I have a sneaking suspicion that 4E bards will be linked to the Shadowfell more than the Feywild. Illusion is strongly linked with the Shadowfell in the PoL generi-setting of 4E. I think the spirits of the dead or the Raven Queen would be good patrons for all the quaint and curious lore. Or a Binder-like ability to warp our fragile minds.

Good points.